web analytics
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 26

Worse still than the old European imperialism of western powers, according to Hitler, was the Jewish aspiration to world domination, of which the Germans were the principal victims. Drawing on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he claimed to see a grand plan to control the world. The ultimate aim of policy towards Germany and other independent states, Hitler stated at the beginning 1921, was the creation of a ‘Jewish world state’. He came back to this theme repeatedly over the next two years, when he spoke of the ‘Jewish-imperialist plans for world domination’, the ‘Jewish world dictatorship’ and the ‘final aim [of the Jews]: world domination [and] the destruction of the national states’. In his notes for one speech, Hitler made the connections absolutely clear in point form: ‘World domination with a Jewish capital—Zion—that means world enslavement: world stock exchange—world press—world culture. World language. All for slaves under one master.’ In this way, Hitler closed the circle of western imperialist, Jewish and capitalist enemies of the Reich…

Left, Zion (1903), Ephraim Moses Lilien. ‘Zion’ (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן Ṣīyyōn, Septuagint, Σιών, is a placename in the Hebrew Bible, often used as a synonym for Jerusalem as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole. —Ed.

It is in this context that Hitler’s evolving attitude to communism and the Soviet Union should be seen. At times, he suggested that Bolshevism and international capitalism were working together. He spoke of the way in which Jewish capitalism allegedly used Chinese ‘cultural guardians’ in Moscow, and black ‘hangmen’s assistants’ on the Rhine, while the Soviets in Genoa ‘walked arm in arm with big bankers’. The Jews, Hitler claimed, ‘had their apostles in both camps’ and thus agents on both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’. From time to time, Hitler claimed that communism was the main threat. It is also true that after the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War, the threat of international communism loomed larger in his mind than it had in 1919. Hitler now called for ‘the overcoming and extermination of the Marxist worldview’. ‘Developments in Russia must be watched closely,’ he warned, because once the communists had ‘consolidated their power’ they would ‘probably turn it against us’…

Despite all this, Hitler still did not regard capitalism and communism simply as two equal sides of the same Jewish coin… More generally, his rhetoric and attention were still overwhelmingly directed towards the threat posed by the western powers and international finance capitalism.

For this reason, Hitler was bitterly opposed to any form of internationalism, not just because he despised it in principle, but because he considered it humbug. In part, this hostility was directed towards the German left, whose blind faith in universal principles, Hitler argued, had left Germany defenceless during the world war and its aftermath. For this reason, he argued, ‘[we should] free ourselves of the illusion of the [Socialist] International and [the idea of ] the Fraternity of Peoples’. Hitler’s main objection to internationalism, however, was that it simply served the interests of the western imperial powers.

Where was international law, he asked, when Louis XIV had plundered Germany in the late seventeenth century, when the British had bombarded neutral Copenhagen in 1807 and starved and oppressed the Irish, or when the Americans had displaced the native Indians. It had not escaped Hitler’s attention that ‘in the home of the inventor of the League of Nations [Wilson’s America] one rejects the League as a utopia, a madness’. There was not even a racial solidarity among whites, Hitler lamented, because France had sent ‘comrades from Africa in solidarity to enserf and muzzle the population on the Rhine’. For this reason, Hitler rejected the whole notion of international governance, claiming that ‘The League of Nations is only a holding company of the Entente which wants to secure its ill-gotten gains.’

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 23

What linked all these explanations in Hitler’s mind was the power and the malevolence of the Jews, the main controllers of an ‘international capitalism’ that needed ‘ever more objects of exploitation’. It was they who under their Jewish ringleader Lord Northcliffe (who was in fact not only not Jewish but a fervent anti­-Semite) had whipped up the British press into a frenzy against Germany before 1914. It was the ‘international Jewish newspaper corporations’, Hitler claimed, who had prevented a Russo-German rapprochement. It was they who owned the large American companies supplying the Allied war effort and who tricked the ‘peaceful’ American people into war with Germany against their better natures and best interests. It was the Jews who tried to manipulate Germany’s food supply and who ‘precipitated the revolution through hunger’. All this happened because the ‘New York Stock Exchange’—the ‘Headquarters of World Jewry’—was determined to crush Germany, the last remaining Nationalstaat which was ‘not yet completely ruled by stock exchanges’. In short, Hitler remained firmly wedded to the idea of a deadly synthesis between world Jewry, international capitalism and Anglo-America as Germany’s nemesis.

In the last sentence, you can see three enemies of Germany from Hitler’s POV, which contrasts with what we sometimes see in the discussion threads of white nationalist forums, where they basically talk about a single enemy: Jewry. And we are still talking about exoteric Hitlerism, aimed at the masses.

In the case of the esoteric Hitlerism led especially by Himmler, a mere ten-page pamphlet aimed at the SS, which by the way can be read on pages 501-510 of The Fair Race, already puts the Christian churches, too, in the dock.

What I like about Simms’ book is that the profile he portrays of the German chancellor is more complex than the simplistic view we see in some racialist forums in vogue today.

Bible Holocaust New Testament

The Bible

by Gaedhal

Marcus Eli Ravage, a Jew himself, points this out in A Real Case Against the Jews. Why, he asks, do you Antisemitic Christians accuse us, the Jews, of writing The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion—most likely written by an Orthodox monk in collaboration with the Russian Secret police, the Okhrana—when it is provably true that we wrote the Bible!

And what sort of world does the Bible envisage? Well Yeshangyahu—or Anglicised to “Isaiah”—tells us. The goyim shall bow down to the Jew and lick the dust off the soles of his feet. The leaders of the Goyim shall keep the feast of Booths in Jerusalem. Incidentally, when we see our leaders cringing at Yad Vashem and Auschwitz, and when we see our leaders visiting the Wailing Wall, this, in my view, is the beginning of the self-fulfilment of Isaiah’s “prophecy”. In my view, the Holocaust is simply another holiday, like Purim or Channukah, that was added to the religious calendar. The leaders of the Goyim are already keeping Jewish holidays by observing “Holocaust Remembrance Day” and visiting the Wailing Wall. Indeed, the term Holocaust comes from the Greek Old Testament, and means: ‘A whole burnt offering to Yahweh’.

As the Psalms say: ‘Why do the Goyim rage and imagine a vain thing?’ The ‘vain thing’ referred to here is the temerity to imagine a life free from Jewish domination. As the acolytes of Karl Marx would put it: Revolution is inevitable. Or as Star Trek puts it: “Resistance is futile: you will be assimilated”.

The New Testament is no better. Rabbi Jesus shall be the “Messiah” or anointed king ruling a worldwide empire from Jerusalem. Any resistance to His rule shall be met with lethal force. Jesus treads the winepresses—filled to the brim with goyim blood. The Protestants in Northern Ireland, sing of being knee-deep in Fenian—i.e. Catholic—blood. Well, the Jewish soldiers and Jewish horses in Revelation shall be bridle-deep in Goyim’s blood. Jesus wears a tunic dipped in Goyim blood. Jesus kills the children of Heretical sects of Judaism, after first subjecting their founders to a gangbang.

‘Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.’ (Revelation 2:20-23)

The Bukkake being concluded, Jesus will strike the children spawned by such a coupling with death. Revilo P. Oliver called Revelation ‘a hymn of hate’, whereas Steve Wells, of The Skeptics’ Annotated Bible calls it the worst book in the Bible. John, in his fever dream, dreams up more and more inventive ways to murder his religious and ethnic enemies.

Ravage was amazed that Christians would accuse Jews of writing the Protocols, when it is provably true that they wrote the Bible, and that the Bible has much the same ends. I never read the Protocols, myself, so I don’t know.

However, accusing Jews of writing the Protocols requires no epistemic humility. However, admitting that you and all of your ancestors for more than a thousand years have been duped by the Jewish long-con of Christianity does require epistemic humility.

Some people are congenital atheists. Aron Ra, Alex, and Christopher Hitchens never bought the Christian swindle, even though they were brought up Christian. With me, it was not so. I was well and thoroughly duped and gulled by Christianity for about 30 years. However, I have the epistemic humility to admit this.

As Mark Twain put it: it is far easier to dupe people than to get them to admit that they have been duped.

Israel / Palestine Videos

Not that smart

Judge Napolitano’s interviews of Col. Douglas Macgregor (e.g., this one) prove that Jews, in this case, Israelis, are not that smart, as many in the American racial right claim.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 7

The previous post, ‘Hitler 6’, will be the longest in this series. But it was essential to illustrate how I will be commenting on the book by Brendan Simms, who, as a normie academic, failed to make it clear from the very first pages of his book that the Jewish problem isn’t a hallucination of the patriotic Aryan, but something real. So real that, as we saw in ‘Hitler 6’, the Jewish academic Albert Lindemann acknowledges it.

Keep in mind that once this series on Simms’ book is finished, the resulting PDF will be linked in ‘On the Need to Undemonize Hitler’ page, which appears in red letters at the top of this site. Given that those pages are aimed at the honest normie searcher, I find it astute that I have quoted the Jew Lindemann so extensively in my attempts to show that the System’s narrative about Hitler is a myth, especially since his book Esau’s Tears received the imprimatur of a prestigious university.

Having clarified that the so-called Jewish problem is not a hallucination, but something real, the next step is to point out that the System brainwashes us with words that anaesthetise our understanding. Among all these words, statistically speaking, the one that has been used the most is precisely ‘anti-Semitism’ (even more than ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’!), as clearly illustrated this month by Jared Taylor through some graphs. It is precisely because the media have assigned a pejorative valuation to ‘anti-Semite’ that I prefer to use ‘Jew-wise’, in the sense of a sage Gentile in matters of Jewry.

Having understood this, throughout his book Simms uses the old expression ‘anti-Semite’, and doesn’t properly clarify what we have clarified thanks to Lindemann’s book in ‘Hitler, 6’. Since I will be quoting Simms, based on what Martin Kerr said (that valuable material can be gleaned from the books of anti-Nazi biographers or historians), we should always keep in mind that in its origins the word anti-Semitism had no negative, only descriptive, connotation. The same can be said of words like ‘racialism’, ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’: it was only when universities, Hollywood and the media used these words to designate opprobrium that the Aryan internalised the supposed negativity of what should be considered a great virtue (as it was for the Aryans of India, the Dorians who conquered the ancient Hellas and the Iberian Goths before they were Christianised).

That said, let’s continue to comment on the biographical material in Simms’ book. Before the huge interpolation I put in from Lindemann’s book, we were talking about the letter to Gemlich: Hitler’s earliest surviving political text. That very first text, in which Hitler calls the Jews the racial tuberculosis of peoples, is virtually indistinguishable from the ideology of the typical white nationalist today. Matt Koehl, the heir to the National Socialist organisation after George Lincoln Rockwell was assassinated, had it translated into English and it can be read on the internet because that organisation still exists.

But what I find fascinating about Hitler’s life is that he didn’t get stuck with that idea but saw the big picture: something that with honourable exceptions, such as Francis Parker Yockey and Michael O’Meara, the American racial right has been very reluctant to do. After mentioning the letter to Gemlich, in the third chapter of his book, Simms wrote:

But Hitler’s primary emphasis was another aspect of the ‘problem’ entirely. His initial anti-Semitism was profoundly anti-capitalistic, rather than anti-communist in origin.

This is what Rockwell, whose POV seemed at times to coincide with the anti-commies of his day, failed to see. Despite the great nobility of his soul, Rockwell lacked the meta-perspective we now have.

He [Hitler] spoke of the ‘dance around the golden calf’, the privileging of ‘money’, the ‘majesty of money’, the ‘power of money’ and so on… As yet, two years after the Russian Revolution, he seems to have nothing to say about communism, Bolshevism and the Soviet Union. Hitler, in other words, became an enemy of the Jews before he avowedly became an enemy of Russian Bolshevism.

Simms then observes that none of this is surprising because both what he calls ‘anti-Semitism’, and what we call a wise stance on questions of Jewry, was a political constant along with anti-capitalism in the political thought of 19th-century Germans. Then Simms mentions some of the 19th-century’s Jew-wise organisations but, unlike the long quote we put from Lindemann’s book, he sums it up in a single paragraph (which is why I felt obliged in ‘Hitler, 6’ to fill the gap with my excerpts from Esau’s Tears). Simms continues:

One way or the other, in Germany, and perhaps in Europe more generally, anti-Semitism and anti-(international) capitalism have historically been joined at the hip. With Hitler there is little point in talking about the one without the other.

Above I mentioned Yockey and O’Meara. It is impossible to understand The West’s Darkest Hour without them and, now, by adding a more comprehensive biography of Hitler than the non-revisionist biographies we are used to.

New visitors who know nothing of Yockey should read our paraphrase of some of Yockey’s passages on what he called ‘the enemy of Europe’, the United States. And as for Michael O’Meara, he withdrew from racialist forums not long after a heated debate in Counter-Currents with the Judeo-reductionists of white nationalism, whom I used to call ‘monocausalists’ in the sense that they were incapable—and still are incapable—of seeing the causes of white decline beyond Jewry (e.g., Christian ethics and rampant capitalism that the Anglo-American world has always suffered). The image above is taken from O’Meara’s short article in Counter-Currents.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Esau's Tears (book) Red terror

Hitler, 6

Before continuing with Simms’ book, there is something I would like to clarify about the Gemlich letter which, as Brendan Simms said in the previous installment of this series, is Hitler’s first surviving political text.

Why did Hitler suddenly mention the Jews in September 1919? In Mein Kampf he confesses that he transvalued his values concerning the Jewish Question. Starting on page 52 in Ralph Manheim’s translation, he wrote:

For the Jew was still characterised for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle Ages [pogroms], which I should not have liked to see repeated.

On page 55, however, after realising how Jewry was behaving in Vienna, Hitler tells us:

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. It cost me the greatest inner soul struggles, and only after months of battle between my reason and my sentiments did my reason begin to emerge victorious. Two years later, my sentiment had followed my reason, and from then on became its most loyal guardian and sentinel.

Below I reproduce excerpts from the chapters of Esau’s Tears that describe the conflict between the Jews and Austria and Germany. These excerpts will contextualise the information Simms mentions in his third Hitler chapter.

I apologise for the typos as I captured the text directly from Albert Lindemann’s book (published by Cambridge University Press, first edition: 1997). Although Lindemann is Jewish, his book shows that even before Hitler came to power, many patriots believed that Jews were taking over Germany and Austria. The quotes below from Lindemann’s book are so long (about 9,000 words) that I won’t indent them. Also, in the following excerpts I won’t put ellipses between uncited paragraphs. If the visitor doesn’t have time to read all of it, at least pay attention to what, way below, I highlighted in red:


Chapter 3. The appearance of modern anti-Semitism (1870-1890)

Germans and Jews

The nature of German-Jewish interplay is still bitterly debated—in particular the extent to which one can properly speak of mutual benefit and respect—but there is little doubt that nowhere else have Jacob and Esau [Lindemann’s metaphor for Jew and gentile—Ed.] had a more intricate, fecund, and yet finally tragic relationship. Nowhere was the rise of the Jews more notable, and nowhere was it more searchingly debated whether the nature of Jews was unchangeably foreign, undermining those among whom they resided, or adaptable and beneficial to the host people. Similarly, the possible ramifications of the notion of closeness are nowhere more clearly revealed than in the history of modern Germany, for growing numbers of Germans came to believe that they were somehow chosen by history for a special destiny.

Real issues were involved, issues that emerged from the concentration of Jews in certain occupations, from their related extraordinary economic and social success, and from a range of cultural traits that distinguished them from non-Jewish Germans.

German-speaking Jews were the largest and economically most successful population of assimilated Jews in Europe, and because of their important positions in the German economy, they were almost unavoidably identified with the Depression. Germany’s economy, or the economies of the various German states before unification, had been growing with remarkable, even breakneck speed in the 1860s, and it grew even faster in the early 1870s. Jews seemed to benefit disproportionately from that growth, and they were widely and plausibly (which is not to say justifiably) blamed for its sudden collapse.

For much of the 1880s and 1890s the first modern anti-Semitic movement found its most impressive and influential form in Germany. As noted, many Germans were inclined to see world-historical significance in the establishment of the German Reich; it represented a turning point in modern history. Even more grandiosely, some German nationalists believed the new Reich was the expression of divine purpose, an affirmation of the mission of the German spirit in the modern world. How unique or ‘special’ such beliefs were is debatable. We will see that the Jews in many countries, not only Germany, were inclined to see the rise of the Jews in modern times as expressing a divine purpose or a Jewish mission. Citizens of the United States, too, with their notions of Manifest Destiny, expressed a belief that they and the new American nation were agents of God’s will.

For such reasons, the wave of anti-Semitic indignation and rage that passed over Germany, and the efforts to give to that wave the form of a modern mass movement, caught the attention of the civilised western world.

German liberalism and the new German State

The liberal middle years of the century had seen the final steps in granting civil emancipation to Jews in most German-speaking lands, not without mean-tempered dissent from various quarters. Being counted among the most modern, most highly civilised nations was important to Germany’s elites; discriminatory laws against the Jews characterized the backward nations, such as Russia and Romania.

By the late 1860s liberal principles were given fuller application in many arenas besides those touching the condition of the Jews. Indeed, those general principles were the primary consideration; the emancipation of the Jews was seen as a necessary of them, much as was the case in the debates of the French National Assembly from 1798 to 1791.

In 1871 a number of important liberal principles were incorporated into the constitution of the new German Empire, such as the free trade, the rule of law, representative institutions, and guarantees of free speech. Religious freedom and Jewish equality under the law were also a part of the constitution.

The rise of the Jews in Germany

With the unification of Germany, Jewish wealth began to expand even more rapidly than before, and Jews began to move into a number of prominent positions in politics. However, until 1914 they remained almost completely excluded from the very highest and most prestigious positions of the state, as did most non-Jews without the proper pedigrees. Nonetheless, throughout the nineteenth century Jews continued to nurse hopes for an eventual change in such exclusionary practices; they persuaded themselves that much steady progress had been made and that the future was bright.

Banks, although less exclusively Jewish in Germany than elsewhere in central and eastern Europe, were still owned and operated by Jews (estimates range from forty to fifty percent, whereas Jews were one percent of the total population). The man reputed to be the richest in Germany was the Jewish banker Gerson Bleichröder.

Jews in Germany moved rapidly into the professions. Upwardly mobile Gentiles, or those who hoped for upward mobility in their children, encountered a most unwelcome competition to get into medical school or law school; Jews in those schools became overrepresented, often by ten, twenty, even thirty times their numbers on German society.

The liberal press was overwhelmingly in the hands of the Jews. It was an arena ‘in which Jewish intellectuals could be active in an unhampered way’.

The Mittelstand and modernism in Germany

In literature and many other arts Jews were prominent in modernist trends, not only in Germany but in most other countries. Modernism was characterized by a contempt for traditional aesthetic norms; modern art became ever more divorced from what ordinary people could appreciate, ever more disdainful of popular tastes, ever more ‘difficult’. Those arguing for an ‘organic’ Aryan art, one that had roots in the traditional peasant communities of Germany, could see modern art as inorganic, market-driven, cosmopolitan—and Semitic.

The image of modernist Jews as ‘culture destroyers’ reflected an undeniable reality; however much exaggerated by anti-Semites. The disproportionate numbers, visibility, and volubility of Jews in modern art roughly corresponded to the disproportionate numbers of Jews in journalism, medicine, law, banking and revolutionary politics.

The ‘Founding Years’ and the Crash of 1873

Nouveaux riches of whatever origin have rarely been known for gracious manners. Those Jewish newly rich in Germany who had recent origins in the eastern European shtetlekh, where standards of civility or public manners were markedly different from those of Germany, were widely regarded as especially offensive.

In Germany during the early seventies, the contrasts between rich and poor, successful and unsuccessful, were perhaps even more striking than in the opening stages of England’s industrialization. In the summer of 1873 the stock markets collapsed. Certain anti-Semitic themes took on particularly sharp expression by the late 1870s. Now it was declared that Jews, constituting a mere one percent of the population, were more than ‘too influential’; they were talking over the new German nation, its economy, its political institutions, its art and music.

The press campaign against the Jews

The popular (circulation ca. 350,000) and generally liberal magazine Die Gartenlaube published a series of articles in December 1874 by Otto Glagau exposing the role of various shady entrepreneurs in the stock market crash. He maintained that ninety percent of brokers and stock promoters in the capital were Jews.

A century later, when it became clear that the stock market scandals of the mid-to-late 1980s in the United States saw an overwhelming preponderance of Jews—at least ninety percent was a widely accepted figure—that clear correlation seemed to interest the broad American public scarcely at all, and overwhelmingly non-Jewish journalists and politicians skirted the issue. But in Germany in the 1870s popular interest and indignation were intense. By no means all Germans agreed with Glagau. He responded that ‘No longer can we suffer to see the Jews push themselves everywhere to the front… everywhere seize leadership and dominate public opinion’.

Chapter 4. Anti-Semitic ideology and movement in Germany (1879 to the 1890s)

Wilhelm Marr

Wilhelm Marr has been given credit for coining the term ‘anti-Semitism’. His pamphlet The Victory of Jewry over the Germans has been described as the first anti-Semitic bestseller. He was married four times, the first three to Jewish women. He had intimate Jewish friends and was attacked for his supposed philo-Semitism.

Wagner, too, lamented as early as 1850 that Jews were taking over Germany. Both Wagner and Marr emphasized inherent and tenacious Jewish racial traits, ones that were destructive to Germans.

Marr [said that] wherever they go, Jews try to dominate and jewify the surrounding society. To do so is in their racial nature. It was a matter of victory or defeat—Jacob and Esau must fight to the finish, not work out ways in which they could live together. He noted that other peoples had indeed blended, had become German: the French Huguenots, the Wends, various Slavic peoples. But not the Jews. Marr concluded that the Jews are ‘stronger and tougher’ than non-Jews.

His biographer believes that his pessimism was genuine, that it reflected his belief that the Germany he loved was doomed. Without weapons, he noted, Jews had become the masters of Germany.

Heinrich von Treitschke

The complaints and laments of Glagau and Marr did not immediately alarm most Jewish observers, since the two could be easily dismissed as lowbrow, demagogic, and lacking respectability. Many influential Jewish observers considered Marr and his following not only beneath contempt but laughable. However, late in the same year and early in the next (1879-1880), Heinrich von Treitschke, the celebrated historian of Germany and popular university professor, published a series of articles critical of the role of Jews in Germany.

Treitschke expressed dismay over the persecution of Jews in history. He wrote that ‘there is no German commercial city that does not count many honourable and respectable Jewish firms’. Treitschke was a political liberal. How then, Treitschke earned such an evil reputation in many influential accounts of the origins of Nazism?

That the presence of newly-emancipated Jews in Germany could present a genuine problem, not a fantasy, was freely recognized by a number of thoughtful Jewish observers at this time, as in years past; Jews did indeed have significantly different cultural traditions from the rest of the population.

[Franz] Mehring complained that Jewish opponents of Treitschke engaged in ‘intellectual terrorism’, attempting as they did to smear as anti-Semitic anyone who expressed whatever critical reservations about the actions of the Jews. Treitschke’s consternation about Jewish influence also reflected his rising distaste for modern mass culture. He, like most educated Germans, felt an abhorrence for what he perceived as the Mishckultur (mongrel-culture) that was coming to characterize the United States in these years. They did not believe that the German spirit, in its barely achieved unity, could survive cultural pluralism—a chaotic and debilitating mongrelisation in their eyes—that seemed to be growing up in the New World.

Treitschke remarked: ‘Ours is a young country. Our country still lacks national style’. But the young German nation, divided and still unsure of itself, was being flooded ‘from the inexhaustible cradle of Poland’. Treitschke argued further that the materialism of the early 1870s, so threatening again to the moral tone of the young German nation, was significantly reinforced by Jews.

Treitschke complained that Jewish journalists had introduced an element of petty quarrelsomeness and intolerance, of a wholly one-sided sort: ‘About the shortcomings of the Germans or French, everybody could freely say the worst things, but if somebody dared to speak in just and moderate terms about some undeniable weakness of the Jewish character, he was immediately branded as a barbarian and religious persecutor by nearly all of the newspapers’.

Mehring also recognized a new temper, ‘a gifted, shrewd, tough-fibred race’ intoxicated with its new freedoms. Jews in Berlin had developed into ‘an expansive and explosive force which is hard to imagine for anyone who has not seen it with his own eyes’. On this point, Mehring found much agreement from German Jews themselves.

Treitschke and Graetz

Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891). His History of the Jews is still lauded by twentieth-century Jewish historians as one of the great nineteenth-century histories of the Jews. Graetz harboured a deep contempt for the ancient Greeks and considered contemporary European civilisation to be ‘morally and physically sick’. There was some substance in Treitschke’s charges: Graetz had written that Boerne and Heine had ‘renounced Judaism, but only like combatants who, putting on the uniform of the enemy, can all the more strike and annihilate him’.

In private correspondence, Graetz expressed his destructive contempt for German values and Christianity even more forthrightly. Treitschke was not far off base when he angrily noted that ‘the man shakes with glee every time he can say something downright nasty against the Germans’.

Anti-Semitic movement and countermovement

Agitators circulated the Anti-Semites’ Petition, which by October 1880 had gathered some 265,000 signatures. It charged that an ‘alien tribe’ in Germany had gained domination over the ‘Aryan race’. In order to combat the incursions of that tribe a number of measures were needed: (1) the limitation of Jewish immigration into Germany, (2) the exclusion of Jews from positions of high governmental authority, (3) a special census to keep track of Jews, and (4) the prohibition of Jews as teachers in elementary schools. This minimal program was moderate in that it looked to orderly action through the Reichstag, not to popular violence, not to chasing Jews out of Germany. Right-wing revolutionaries comparable to the Nazis were not common at this time and found only sporadic support among the masses.

In the elections of 1881, the left-liberals in Berlin, led to an important degree by Jews, totally overwhelmed Stoecker’s party. The Progressive Party gained thirty-three new seats. Bismarck evidently concluded that not much political mileage was to be had from even covert identification with the anti-Semites, and he let it be known that ‘I most decidedly disapprove of this fight against the Jews’. At the height of its popularity in the 1880s political anti-Semitism in Germany won scarcely five percent of the popular vote.

None of the various bills proposed by the anti-Semites came anywhere near passage in the Reichstag, Jewish rights were in no tangible way limited by political measures in these years, and anti-Semites seeking to foment violence were arrested and thrown into jail. The various economic boycotts proposed by German anti-Semites had little or no effect; Jews continued to prosper and were increasingly among the very richest of Germany’s citizens.

The peasants and Otto Böckel

Anti-Semitism mitigated by traditional constraints existed among the peasantry, a large class that cannot be ignored, since it was among elements of peasantry that the most dramatically successful anti-Semitic movement in late nineteenth-century Germany developed. And among the peasants one of the more colourful and charismatic anti-Semitic leaders appeared: Otto Böckel.

As he recorded in his pamphlet The Jews, Kings of our Time, ‘the image of the peasant robbed by the Jews drives me onward’. The pamphlet went through a hundred editions by the end of the century.

Böckel used pomp and fanfare, mass meetings, torchlight rallies, songfests, and sloganeering with great creativity. He established a newspaper that reached thousands of peasants who had never before read newspapers, and advertised ‘Jew-free’ markets. Some called him a ‘second Luther’.

The situation, while in some ways unique, was also familiar: Jews under progressive rule prospered, while non-Jews believed themselves threatened with ruin, especially during an economic downturn. Böckel offered the same warnings, that a ‘stubborn, old, and thoroughly alien race’ was taking over; that modern capitalism was weakening the very backbone of Germany.

Böckel avoided using such terms as ‘Aryan’ and ‘Semite’. Nevertheless, his movement finally disintegrated. He simply did not have a long-range or realistic program; his was a movement of slogans and pyrotechnics, emotional catharsis for his followers, not long-range political realism.

Chapter 6. Austria-Hungary

Liberalism and the rise of the Jews

These Jewish successes were less widely shared by members of the Gentile lower and lower-middle classes. Similarly, Jews did not become, or long remain, artisans, factory proletarians, or other kinds of manual labourers. Urban Jews were in general upwardly mobile; non-Jews were more often proletarianized—overwhelmed by the forces of modern urban civilisation. Tens of thousands of small shops in Vienna went bankrupt in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and thousands of peasants’ plots in the surrounding countryside were put up for auction. The benefactors of these Gentile misfortunes were frequently Jews.

By the turn of the century, a German-Jewish writer who had moved to Vienna from the German Reich was struck by how much

all public life was dominated by Jews. The banks, the press, the theatre, literature, social organizations, all lay in the hands of the Jews… The aristocracy would have nothing to do with such things… The small number of untitled patrician families imitated the aristocracy; the original upper-middle class had disappeared… The court, the lower-middle class and the Jews gave the city its stamp. And that the Jews, as the most mobile group, kept all the other in continuous motion is, on the whole, not surprising.

Henry Wickham Steed, correspondent for The Times of London in Berlin, Rome, and Vienna from 1896 to 1914, and widely recognized as one of the best informed, most pertaining observers of the day, wrote that ‘among the peoples of the Austria-Hungary the Jewish people stands first in importance… Economics, politically, and in point of general influence they are… the most significant element in the Monarchy’. Moreover, embracing German language and culture by no means meant merging into German-Gentile society. Time and again assimilated Jews themselves referred to the Jews’ ‘stubborn emphasis on racial solidarity’.

It seems reasonable to conclude that any group, even one enjoying wide esteem, that rose as fast as the Jews in Austria-Hungary would have encountered some resentment and hostility.

The Jewish press and the crash of 1873

No area of Jewish influence in Austria-Hungary was more important than journalism in terms of spreading German language and culture—with a Jewish nuance. Jewish-owned and -operated newspapers in the empire were even more important than in Germany. ‘After Moritz Benedikt [the owner of Neue Freie Presse], the most popular man in the realm is Franz Joseph [the emperor of Austria]’ was a popular witticism. He and his paper were admired by some, feared or detested by others. Nearly all observers regarded him as a man of fierce ambition and easy morals.

The complaint that Jewish journalists were vituperatively critical while remaining hypersensitive to criticism themselves was often expressed in Austria. Wickham Steed described the Neue Freie Presse as ‘a journal that embodies in concentrated form and, at times, with demonic force, the least laudable characteristics of Austro-German Jewry’.

The stock market crash in 1873, which catalysed political anti-Semitism in Germany, affected Austria in similar ways. Jews were the obvious culprits, even more so in Vienna than in Berlin, since Jews in the stock market in Vienna were even more prominent than in Berlin. In Austria the capitalist robber barons, to borrow a phrase from the American scene, the railroad-building and factory-owning plunderers of the countryside, the noveaux riches, those ostensibly responsible for the bankruptcies of artisans and small retailers, the deceivers of the small investor were overwhelmingly made up of Jews, if only because Jews constituted a heavy majority of those involved in such modern economic activities.

Anti-Semitic ideology

Friedrich Austerlitz asserted that the Jewish-owned liberal press was concerned to serve Jewish interests, to cover up misdeeds by Jewish capitalists, and to shower with abuse anyone who criticized Jews. Jewish press supremacy, he later observed, ‘was a conspiracy in favour of the Jews; the legend of the solidarity of all members of the people of Israel was at that time a reality’. Austerlitz granted that in the earlier part of the century, when Jews had been oppressed, criticism of their ‘eccentricities’ was inappropriate, but by the latter half of the nineteenth century, when they dominated so much of public life in Austria and when their activities were so often corrupt, criticism was not only appropriate but the duty of all honest observers, Jews and non-Jews.

The notion of racial purity, of Aryan superiority, gained an even stronger hold on parts of the Austrian German-speaking Gentile population than it did in Germany itself. Similarly, in Austria fears about the ‘destructive mission’ of Jews, their alleged tendencies to take over, dominate, and jewify, were even more pervasive.

Any synthesis of German and Jewish culture implied a distinctly larger Jewish component, an unacceptable result to many völkish Germans, who seem to have been driven, ostensibly because of the elusiveness of what it meant to be a German in the Austrian context, to an almost panicked assertion of the need to preserve the mystical ‘purity’ of their race. They dreaded a loss of identity, a so-major dilution of what it meant to be a German that the world would lose its appeal for them. Feelings of German nationalism in Austria came increasingly to include a call for liberation from Jewish influence, a freeing of the Aryan-German spirit from the destructive inroads of ‘Semitism’.

Above all in Vienna and Budapest, assimilated, secular Jews were for traditional Catholics a formidable and alarming enemy. Jews were very rapidly increasing in numbers, and some were becoming spectacularly rich. They were articulate in ways that made many of their opponents feel the rage of impotence. As far as many Catholics were concerned, Jews were not only taking over modern economic life; they were also talking over the cultural life of the empire.

Catholic anti-modernism and anti-Semitism

For large numbers of Austrian Catholics, Jews became ‘the enemy’ to be vigorously combated, and large numbers of Jews felt similarly about the church. The sophisticated, cosmopolitan, atomistic, and materialistic life of the modern city symbolized a world of evil and moral anarchy—prostitution, corruption, drunkenness, social and economic irresponsibility—for the Church, whereas for secular Jews the church was a repository of bigotry and unreasoning fear of the modern world.

In 1870 the doctrine of papal infallibility was proclaimed. One of the most penetrating Catholic social theorist of the time, Baron Karl von Vogelsang, hoped for a return to an idealized past, whereas Marx confidently predicated a transformed, if no less idealized, future. In their descriptions of liberal capitalism, however, they were in agreement: It was a system of unbridled egotism, and they were both inclined to derive anti-Semitic conclusions from that judgment.

Vogelsang further concluded that liberal rules favoured Jews, allowing them to prosper extraordinarily and unjustly. Jewish prosperity, he observed, was paralleled by growing misery for the Christian lower orders. And that could hardly be accepted by a Christian as natural to the proper order of things.

Vogelsang lamented that Austria had lost its Christian bearing, had lost sight of the basis on Christian morality for social harmony. The country’s indigenous Christian population was being ‘robbed, dominated, and reduced to pariahs by the Jews’. The problem was not only exploitative Jewish capitalists; the ‘incredible insolent Jewish press’ worked constantly to undermine the moral fabric of a society, as did the atheistic Jews at the head of the revolutionary parties.

Vogelsang was not a racist; he welcomed Jewish converts. He believed, however, that unconverted Jews could inflict and undermine an entire society if they were allowed to get out of control. And he was persuaded that just such an infected society had come into existence: ‘If by some miracle’, he wrote, ‘all our 1,400,000 Jews were to be taken from us, it would help us very little, for we ourselves have been infected with the Jewish spirit’. The taste for pushing and shoving, the mocking of sacred tradition, the sardonic wit and intellectual arrogance, the sensuality and sexual immorality—these many ‘Jewish’ traits had infected Catholics in Austria and were fatally undermining Christian society.

Vogelsang was willing to grant that capitalism and its associated modern industrial techniques could increase material wealth, but the price paid in moral terms, he believed, was too high. It meant the breakdown of the family, alcoholism, and urban crime; the replacement of quality production by the cheap and shoddy; swelling ranks of the chronically unemployed; and the bars, cabarets, and prostitutes. Capitalism and liberalism atomized society, destroyed valuable social and economic ties.

Modern secular Jews could be credited with bringing progress, new industrial techniques, scientific discoveries, cultural sophistication, and a new intensity and richness to life in cities like Vienna. They could also be credited with exploitation, corruption, crime, prostitution, alcoholism, social disintegration, and cultural nihilism. Both views had some basis in reality: ‘Progress’ and ‘corruption’ went hand-in-hand in nearly every country, whether or not Jews were present.

In the early 1880s, particularly in the year 1882, the Austro-Hungarian Empire experienced an upsurge of popular hostility to Jews, much exceeding that in Germany, although not as physically violent as in pogrom-afflicted Russia.

Georg Ritter von Schönerer, in what might be interpreted as a rebellion against the world of his father, began to use language attacking the Jews that went much beyond anything so far heard in respectable circles. He spoke in coarse and brutal tones, with violent threats and violent actions.

Chapter 10. The Belle Époque: Germany and Austria

‘Morality aside, the enmity against the Jews is nonsense, because it is simply impractical. Everybody I know here in Berlin, especially the military and nobility, are eminently dependent upon the Jews and are daily becoming more so. There is no other way but to hold one’s tongue’.

—Theodor Fontane

Enough has been said about Germany and Austria to make clear how they might be considered, already in the 1880s, failures as models of harmonious Jewish-Gentile relationships. On the other hand, millions of German-speaking Jews and Gentiles continued to live beside one another in reasonable harmony, Jewish material success continued at an impressive rate, and Jewish-Gentile interplay counted many impressive aspects. Many of those in the German-speaking world who spoke out in criticism of the Jews were not willing to go beyond mere exhortation, urging the Jew to improve manners and economic morality or encouraging them to become more whole-hearted in their national feelings. Antiliberal trends become stronger everywhere after 1890, and highlighted tensions between Jews and non-Jews could be noted in nearly all countries. But those tensions often took on curiously unfathomable forms.

The appearance of Zionism

Gentiles earnestly believed that they and their values had been rejected by Jews, that Jews were not living up to the concessions they implicitly accepted when they gained civil emancipation.

The familiar distinction that religion was a private matter, one that was compatible with various nationalities, which satisfied many Jews in earlier years, began to appear unworkable or at least very awkward in practice. The dialogue of the deaf between Jew and non-Jew ultimately went back to the flawed assumptions, on both sides, of civil emancipation in the first place. The honeymoon was over; divorce was being contemplated. But its costs promised to be terribly high, and the decision was being avoided—perhaps something could still be worked out.

Theodore Herzl [1860-1904] wrote to a friend that his book had earned him the ‘greatest of hatreds [from fellow Jews] while the anti-Semites treat me fairly’. That ‘fair treatment’ constituted one of the earliest examples of what would later become fairly common, that is, open agreement, even an occasional, opportunistic kind of cooperation, between Zionists and some anti-Semites, since they both agreed that Jews should get out of Europe.

The impact of Zionism on non-Jews was also mixed: While anti-Semites pointed to it as evidence that they had been right all along, other non-Jews saw Zionism as a potentially acceptable solution to the Jewish problem.

Anti-Semitism and German tradition

As historian Steven Beller has commented, ‘Jews began to see themselves as the real bearers of the Enlightenment’ in Austria and Germany. The matter was stated quite openly in a speech by Solomon Ehrmann to the B’nai B’rith in Vienna in 1902. His vision of the future was not simply one in which Jews were to be an honoured part; it was to be in fundamental ways a Jewish future, one in which ‘not only the B’nai B’rith but all Judaism will have fulfilled its task. All mankind will have been jewified [verjudet, the same term used by the anti-Semites] and joined in union with the B’nai B’rith’. In short, Verjudung meant Aufklaerung, jewfication equalled enlightenment. It was in truth a broad and humane vision, but it cannot come as a surprise that many non-Jews were wary of it.

Racism and anti-Semitism were, in the eyes of many German-speaking Jews, more accurately seen as products of reactionaries and of the mob. Hatred of Jews, they believed, was most typically to be found in eastern Europe, or in the less developed parts of the German-speaking world.

There had been a wave of anti-Semitic agitation in Germany from the mid-1870s to the early 1880s, which then receded in the mid-1880s. Another wave gathered force in the late 1880s through the first years of the 1890s, with a high point in the elections of 1893, but it, too, receded, leaving the anti-Semitic parties more discredited and weaker than ever. The next twenty years were similarly indecisive.

The dormant period of anti-Semitism in Germany

The Wilhelmine period (1890-1914) has gone down in most histories as a relatively dormant period insofar as political anti-Semitism is concerned. [But] the decline of the anti-Semitic parties by no means necessarily indicated a decline in anti-Semitic sentiment.

Anti-Semitism of the Tivoli Program was not radical. (In it the party denounced ‘the multifarious and obtrusive Jewish influence that decomposes our people’s life’; a clause was voted down that said ‘we repudiate the excesses of anti-Semitism’.) That the latter clause was even proposed suggested that many leaders of the Conservative Party were not anti-Semitic in the radical-racial sense. A number of the party’s leading figures had Jewish wives.

The fact remains that the Conservative Party, the anti-Semitic pressure groups, and the anti-Semitic parties themselves were either unwilling or unable to pass a single piece of significant legislation against the Jews in Germany. The material welfare of the Jews in Germany, at the same time, continued its remarkable, seeming inexorable force. The so-called ‘dormant’ period after 1900 was only the lull before the storm.

Anti-Semitic agitation in Austria: Karl Lueger

As we have seen, anti-Semitism in Austria had a significantly broader, more ‘progressive’ appeal in the 1870s and 1880s than it did in the German Reich. In the generation before World War I anti-Semitism in Austria, especially Vienna, was far from politically dormant.

It will be recalled that von Schönerer’s movement suffered a sharp and humiliating decline after its initial success of the 1880s. He was arrested, thrown into jail, and stripped of his title of nobility. Within a short time, however, political anti-Semitism found a more adept practitioner in the person of Karl Lueger, far and away the most successful anti-Semitic politician of pre-war Europe.

Like von Schönerer, Karl Lueger began his political career as a liberal but then turned against key liberal tenets. Mention has been made of Treitschke’s aversion to the ‘jewified’ German culture of Austria, of Gratez’s desire to ‘destroy’ Christianity, of Hess’s opinion that Christianity was ‘religion of death’, and Ehrmann’s conclusion that ‘jewification equals enlightenment’. Many other Enlightened Jews saw themselves as upholders of justice, as a ‘light unto the nations’ in a modern way. The theme was endlessly manipulated, and it found expression in nearly every country, but the relevant point is that ‘jewification’ was actually more than an absurd fantasy of the anti-Semites. Leading German Jews in Vienna did look to a jewification of the non-Jewish world. On the other hand, it does not take much imagination to understand how alien and hypocritical such an ideal may have seemed to the average citizen in Vienna at the turn of the century, especially when, in its immediately perceptible form, jewification seemed to mean financial scandals, unfair competition, and the revolver press, social exclusiveness, and capitalist exploitation.

Even while Lueger was mayor, Jews continued to move into the city at a rapid rate, Jewish upward mobility continued unabated, and Jewish wealth remained impressive. The period considered the ‘Golden Age of Viennese Jewry’ (1897-1910) coincided with the years that Lueger was mayor. One needs to ask what the ‘success’ of Lueger’s movement actually entailed. In truth, his anti-Semitism was mostly noise. The period of his ascendency marked an end to the honeymoon of Jewish-Gentile relations, but Lueger did not hate all Jews. He never looked forward to a Vienna that would be judenrein (free of Jews).

Langbehn, Lagrade, Chamberlain

Houston Steward Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Twentieth Century (first published in 1900 but many editions followed, including an inexpensive one in 1906 that was distributed in Germany’s schools) became a hugely popular book by the standards of the day. Its success was all the more remarkable because, by the standards of any day, it was a lengthy tome that made large intellectual demands on its readers. And whatever may be said about the defects of the book, it grappled with many substantial issues. Emperor Wilhelm II read it avidly; he quoted it constantly and sent copies to friends and acquaintances. To be sure, Wilhelm was not an intellectually distinguished or discriminating man, but among the many others who openly and effusively admired the book were Albert Schweitzer, Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, D.H. Lawrence, and Carl Becker. In his book Chamberlain tried to show, with richly arrayed historical examples, how racial determinism had operated from the distant past to the present. The racial element explained the rise and fall of civilisations, the particular genius of cultures throughout history. Like Gobineau, he was much concerned with racial mixing and the degeneration that he believed came from it.

Chamberlain’s biographer has persuasively argued that in spite of repeated denials, he harboured a tenacious if fluctuating animus against Jews, one that found clearest expression in private communications, especially after 1914, as his health and fortunes declined. The point made earlier about Treitschke (that he had no real program and did not support political action against Jews) holds even more for Chamberlain. He spoke of an inner, spiritual struggle against Jewish influence, not a physical battle against Jewish individuals or groups.

Nationalists in many areas feared that their identity was being overwhelmed and all urged against the forces that were undermining the true identity of their people.

Chapter 12: World War I

One cannot help but be impressed with the far-ranging ways in which fears and resentments were finding focus in anti-Semitism: Jews as shirkers at the front; Jews as weak-kneed parliamentarians and pacifist press lords; Jews as capitalists making money from the war; Jews as all-powerful and self-serving bureaucrats in the government; Jews as treacherous revolutionaries; even Jews as rank-and-file workers who were especially prone to destructive radicalism. The old anti-Semitic refrain—‘the Jew is everywhere’—gained unparalleled plausibility in Germany and began to attract a larger part of the population than even before.

The Peace Settlement

Civilian control of the military prevailed in both France and Great Britain, and in neither country was the tendency to point an accusing finger at Jews as in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.

In Great Britain the Jewish World commented, in response to an anti-Semitic exchange in the columns of the London Times, that Jews faced ‘the beginning of a new and evil era. We cannot say any more that there is no anti-Semitism in the country that loved the Bible above everything’.

The entry of the United States [into World War I] in the spring of 1917, gradually tipped the balance in favour of France and Great Britain. That victory was finally achieved in the autumn of 1918 after internal upheavals in Germany brought to the fore those who were willing to negotiate a peace.

For the anti-Semitic right in German-speaking central Europe, America’s alliance with the French and the English meshed into a by now well-established image of Jewish-controlled powers that were conspiring to destroy Germany. The pre-war assertion by men like Treitschke, Langbehn, and Chamberlain that the English and the Americans were shallow, commercial minded and materialistic—Jewish in spirit—was now made even more adamantly. Chamberlain, in a letter to Wilhelm II, wrote that ‘England has fallen totally into the hands of the Jews and the Americans. This war is in the deepest sense the war of Jewry [Judentum] and its near relative, Americanism, for the control of the world’.

When the Germans agreed to an armistice, they thought that it could be in accordance with Wilson’s Fourteen Points. They were tragically mistaken.

The Paris Peace conference that gathered in early 1919 oversaw the redrawing of the map of most Europe and large parts of the rest of the world. The Jewish Question was on the agenda at Paris, one of a large number of nettlesome issues, seemingly impossible to resolve in a way that would be just to all concerned. The German quickly labelled it a ‘Jewish peace’, not only because they believed it vindictive, which it unquestionably was, but because they were persuaded that it meant even greater Jewish power in the post-war world.

Again, their fantasy world found much in the real world to nourish it. Even many of those who were not notably anti-Semitic viewed the peace settlement as part of a titanic struggle between German and Anglo-American values. Germans saw themselves as an idealist, disciplined, self-sacrificing people facing peoples devoted to shallow liberalism and egotism. Those Germans who had put faith in Wilson’s points believed themselves cynically betrayed. In their eyes, the final ‘dictated peace’ (Diktat) was an act of unspeakable perfidy. A number of smaller adjustments favouring Germany’s neighbours only added to the sense of impotent outrage in Germany. The worst outrage in the eyes of many Germans was the huge reparation payments with which they were saddled.

Most Germans concluded that these measures were designed not only to punish but to ultimately destroy their country. Enormous debate emerged at the time and for many years afterward about the wisdom and justice of these draconian arrangements. Those Germans leaders who eventually agreed to work within the terms of the treaty did so not because they accepted them as reasonable but because they finally saw no realistic alternative.

The Balfour Declaration and the Palestinian Mandate

Churchill and others argued that Jewish financial clout and the control of the news media by Jews were compelling reasons to have them on Great Britain’s side. Churchill was particularly concerned to rally American Jews. Other British leaders worried about the reaction of the indigenous Arab population in Palestine, and those who knew something about the population warned that British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine risked permanently alienating the Arab world, with disturbing long-term implications for British national interest.

In a letter published in the London Times on May 24, 1917, the presidents predicted that a Jewish homeland in Palestine would be a ‘calamity’. It would be a dangerous violation of the principle of equal rights if Jews in Palestine were to get special political privileges and economic preferences. Prophetically, the letter warned that the result would be endless, bitter warfare with the Arabs of the region. Churchill’s comments in 1919: ‘We are pledged to introduce the Jews into Palestine, and they take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience’.

As suggested in the Preface, it would be grotesque to argue that the hostility of the Arabs, this ‘anti-Semitism’ by Semites, was mysterious, having to do only with their own psychic problems and not at all with Jewish actions. At the same time, another bold experiment, which might be described as an utterly contrasting attempt to resolve the Jewish Question, had begun in Russia.

Chapter 13: Jews and [the Russian] Revolution

The horrors of the revolution from 1917 to 1921 were in some areas even more devastating than those of the war; the connections of Jews and socialist revolutionaries were more visible than ever before and the anti-Semitic potential greater. The perception that revolutionaries were predominantly Jewish and that Jews were particularly vicious as revolutionaries spread now from minds like those of Nicholas II—limited, paranoiac, almost pitiful—to those of a different cut, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill. It was no longer only scandal sheets like La Libre Parole or the Bessarebetz that identified radical revolution with Jews; now that identification was made by newspapers like the London Times, the Chicago Tribune, or the Christian Science Monitor, all of which enjoyed a reputation for sobriety on Jewish issues and at least relative fairness.

Many of those who had been inclined to a hesitant or inconsistent anti-Semitism before the war, such as Wilhelm II, now embraced more extreme opinions. Wilhelm’s attitude to ‘the threat of international Jewry’ was influenced by reports like those of Walther von Kaiserlingk, the German admiralty’s chief of operations, who had visited Petrograd in the winter of 1917-18: He described the new government as run by Jews in the interest of Jews; it was ‘insanity in power’, and it presented a moral threat not only to Germany but to the civilised world. Wilhelm agreed that the Russian people had been ‘turned over to the vengeance of the Jews, who are connected with all the Jews of the world’.

We have seen how, in western countries where Jews experienced less oppression, an active and highly visible minority of them, especially young, secularized Jewish intellectuals in the generation before the war, were powerfully attracted to socialist ideas. Jews such as Hess, Marx, Lassalle, Bernstein, Otto Bauer, Luxemburg, Martov, Trotsky, and León Blum played a major role in formulating, refining, and propagating those ideas. Non-Jews (Engels, Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov, Lenin, Guesde, Jaurès) were also important, in many regards more important than Jews, but considering that the Jewish population of Europe was approximately 2 percent of the total, the Jewish participation in socialism, revolutionary and democratic, was remarkably large.

Both Jewish and non-Jewish socialists in the late nineteenth century saw great merit in the idealism and radicalism of a moral elite of Jews. Just as the non-Jew, Friedrich Engels, had praised Jews for their contribution to the socialist movement, so V.I. Lenin, in a speech in Zurich in 1905, observed that ‘the Jews furnished a particularly high percentage of leaders of the revolutionary movement. It should be noted to the credit of the Jews, they furnish a relatively high percentage of internationalists’. On another occasion Lenin, in lamenting the low moral and intellectual level of his compatriots, remarked to Maxim Gorky that ‘an intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or somewhere with Jewish blood in his veins’. León Blum, who after his participation of the Dreyfus Affair went on to become a prominent figure in the French socialist movement, ‘glorified the messianic role of the Jews as social revolutionaries’. Although he was one of the most perceptive critics of Bolshevik theory in the debates within his own party in 1919 and 1920 concerning whether it should join the new Communist International, he had earlier written that ‘the collective impulse’ of the Jews ‘leads them toward revolution; their critical powers… drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason’. Revolutionary socialism, he asserted, was a modern form of ‘the ancient spirit of the Jewish race’.

Most Russian Jews were pulled unwillingly, even uncomprehendingly into the vortex of revolution and ensuing civil war from 1917 to 1921, observers rather than actors. But others, especially many who had felt blocked in their dreams of a career or who had suffered daily under the irrationality and inefficiency of the tsarist regime, were only too understandably moved by a desire for violent revenge. Some of those revolutionaries, especially when driven into the moral anarchy of civil war, proved themselves capable of breath-taking ruthlessness.

Recognizing that there were fewer Jews in the Bolshevik faction than in the Menshevik, or even that Bolshevism was not a typically Jewish ideology, does not mean that the issue of the role of Jews in Bolshevism is settled, for there were still many Jewish Bolsheviks, especially at the very top of the party. And there were even more in the dreaded Cheka, or secret police, where the Jewish revolutionary became visible in a terrifying form. Any effort to compose a list of the most important Bolsheviks must be unavoidable subjective, but it seems beyond serious debate that in the first twenty years of the Bolshevik Party the top ten to twenty leaders included close to a majority of Jews.

At a notch down in visibility was Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov. Described as ‘very Jewish looking’, he became secretary and main organizer of the Bolshevik Party in 1917. There was at any rate no little symbolism in the fact that a Jew was both the head of the state and the secretary of the ruling party. Percentages of Jews in state positions or in the party do not capture that adequately.

In approximately the same second-level category was Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky, notorious as the chief of the Cheka in Petrograd where Red Terror raged with special brutality. For anti-Semites he became the personification of ‘Jewish terror against the Russian people’. He was certainly less fanatical than Zinoviev [another Jew], whose pervasive cruelty and vindictiveness toward alleged counterrevolutionaries prompted Uritsky at one point to lodge an official complaint.

A list of prominent non-Jews in the party would begin with Lenin, whose name outweighs the others, although in the first year or so of the revolution, Trotsky’s name rivalled his. Yet his status as a non-Jew and ‘real Russian’ is not as clear as subsequent Soviet propaganda tried to make it. His grandfather on his mother side was Jewish, though a convert to Christianity and married to a woman of German origin. On Lenin’s father side were Kalmyk and Swedish forebears. Lenin the non-Jew, in other words, was Jewish enough to have fallen under the shadow of doubt in Nazi Germany or to have been accepted in the state of Israel.

Lenin was of course considered jewified, if not exactly Jewish, by anti-Semites. As noted, he openly and repeatedly praised the role of the Jews in the revolutionary movement; he was one of the most adamant and consistent in the party in his denunciation of pogroms and anti-Semitism more generally. After the revolution, he backed away from his earlier resistance to Jewish nationalism, accepting that under Soviet rule Jewish nationality might be legitimate. On his death bed, Lenin spoke fondly of the Jewish Menshevik Julius Martov, for whom he had always retained a special personal affection in spite of their fierce ideological differences.

An even more remarkable case was Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, a ‘non-Jewish Jew’ in a different sense. (The destruction of his statue in front of the KBG building in Moscow in August 1991, after the ill-fated putsch by party conservatives, was widely seen as symbolic of the destruction of a hated past of secret police domination.) In origin a member of the Polish gentry, he had learned Yiddish as a young man in Vienna and had established close friendships with many Jews in the revolutionary circles of the town. He had several romances with Jews and finally married one.

The backgrounds and personal contacts of non-Jews such as Lenin, Kalinin, and Dzerzhinsky help explain how it was that so many observers believed the Bolsheviks were mostly Jews or were in some way under Jewish tutelage. The various refinements of Jewishness—traditional Jew, reform Jew, cultural Jew, half-Jew, non-Jewish Jew, self-hating Jew, Karaite, jewified Gentile—did not have much meaning to most of those who were in a life-and-death struggle with the Bolsheviks and who of course were not used to seeing Jews in any position of authority in Russia; to see them in such numbers spoke for some radical undermining of a previously accepted order. The leaders of the anti-Bolshevik White armies were convinced that they were fighting Jews and other foreigners (Georgians, Armenians, Lithuanians, Poles)—but most importantly Jews—who had somehow seized control of Mother Russia. To most of the Whites the differences between the various revolutionary factions were of little importance; they all appeared alien, foreign in inspiration, jewified, and destructive. Indeed, for many on the right even the liberal Kadets were viewed as westernized and jewified.

Such exaggeration was hardly limited to the White armies. One book published in the West, The Causes of World Unrest, presented a list of fifty members of the Bolshevik government and declared that 95 percent of them were Jews, a common conclusion, as was the notion that the Bolsheviks were murderously destructive.

Destruction of the Jews by the Nazis was from this perspective to be considered a preventive measure, ultimately one of self-defence [emphasis by Ed.]. As early as 1917, Belloc’s friend and intellectual colleague, C.K. Chesterton, had sternly warned the Jews in Great Britain who were sympathetic to the revolution that ‘if they continue to incite people against the soldiers and their wives and widows, they will learn for the first time what anti-Semitism really means’.

Anti-Semitism, well entrenched on the right, revived in the rest of the political spectrum, undermining what had been achieved through the patriotic unity of August 1914. The older charges that Jews were unpatriotic or part of the capitalist conspiracy now refocused on the Jew as a social subversive, ‘taking orders from Moscow’.

A revolutionary unrest spread to central Europe in late 1918 and 1919. The party’s first two leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and, after her murder in January 1919 at the hands of a right-wing paramilitary organization, Paul Levi, were of Jewish origin. Even in France and Italy, with their small and overwhelmingly bourgeois populations, the emerging Communist parties counted a number of Jews in hardship positions. ‘Foreign Jews, taking orders from Moscow’ became an issue.

A Communist coup was attempted in Berlin in January 1919 (the Spartacus Uprising, when Rosa Luxemburg was killed), and in the course of that tumultuous year in Germany pro-Bolshevik revolutionaries took over, however briefly and confusedly, in Munich. In France a general strike was launched in the spring of 1920, and in the autumn of that year there were massive factory occupations in the industrial north of Italy. Perhaps most worrisome to the western powers, the Red Army, headed by Trotsky, launched an offensive against Poland in the summer of 1920 that was touted as the beginning of a triumphant advance of the Red Army into western Europe.

Russian Jews in revolution: from March to November

One of the first measures taken by the Provisional Government was a decree conferring complete civil equality upon Russia’s Jews. That action was hailed as long overdue by the Russian press; even Novoe Vremia, which, as a semi-official organ before 1917, had often published anti-Semitic material, applauded the move.

Many of Russia’s Jews were jubilant at the news. In some Jewish homes, Passover was celebrated that year with the reading of the decree instead of the traditional Haggada. Plans were quickly made by Jewish activists for an all-Russian Jewish congress. The excited appeal that went out for it proclaimed that whereas elsewhere Jews had received civil equality, only now in revolutionary Russia were they also going to receive recognition of their separate nationality within another nation. Nothing finally came of this congress, since the Bolshevik Revolution, and then civil war, got in the way.

In Russia, perhaps even more than elsewhere, civil equality for Jews, to say nothing of an official recognition of Jewish nationality, opened up Pandora’s box. Jews who had faced pervasive discrimination and persecution suddenly found government positions opened to them while closed to the older privileged classes, who were overwhelmingly of Great Russian background. Still, after 1917, especially after November 1917, there was in Europe a most remarkable change in the status quo: Large numbers of individual Jews assumed, for the first time in modern history, a major role in the government of non-Jewish peoples. Such was the case not only in Russia but in other areas, most notably Hungary and Germany.

The Red Terror—a Jewish terror?

In some areas, for example, the Ukraine, the Cheka leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish. By early 1919 Cheka organizations in Kiev were 75 percent Jewish, in a city where less than a decade earlier Jews had been officially forbidden to reside, except under special dispensation, and constituted about 1 percent of the total population.

The pattern of employing non-Slavic ethnic minorities in the Cheka was duplicated in many other areas of Russia. George Leggett, the most recent and authoritative historian of the Russian secret police, speculates that the use of outsiders may have been a conscious policy, since such ‘detached elements could be better trusted not to sympathize with the repressed local population’.

It is instructive that the high percentage of Jews in the secret police continued well in the 1930s, when the population of Jews gradually diminished in most other areas of the Soviet and party cadres. The number of Jews involved in the terror and counterterror of this period is striking. These many Jewish terrorists helped to nurture, even when they killed Jewish Chekists, the belief that Jews, especially once they had broken from the confines of their traditional faith, turned naturally to fanaticism and anarchistic destructiveness.

An even more important institution than the Cheka in defending the revolution was the Red Army, and, again, Jews played a key role in its leadership. Trotsky fascinated a broad public inside and outside Russia. In Hungary, a Jewish observer who was in fact hostile to the Bolsheviks nonetheless write: ‘The evolutionary flame which has burned beneath the surface of world history is now blazing up for the first time in a Jewish genius: Leo Trotsky!’ According to Paul Johnson,

It was Trotsky who personally organized and led the armed uprising which actually overthrew the Provisional Government and placed the Bolsheviks in power. It was Trotsky who created the Red Army, and who ensured the physical survival of the new Communist regime during the Civil War.

Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied; Johnson’s views even if exaggerated, underline how powerful and durable has been the mystique around Trotsky’s name. He was second to Lenin, but a strong second. There was no Jew in modern times, at least until the creation of the state of Israel, to rival him.

It has been claimed that the actual proportion of Jews in top party and state positions in the 1930s did not notably drop from the 1920s. However, ‘visible’ Jewish leaders, comparable to Trotsky, Zinoviev, or Uritsky, diminished in numbers and would continue to do so in subsequent years, so that by the mid-twentieth century there were almost no Jews among the highest officials in the Soviet Union. To state the obvious, Jews were never purged explicitly as Jews in the Soviet Union, and millions survived the worst years of Stalin’s terror.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) French Revolution Racial right

Hitler, 5

The normie biographer Simms writes:

The ‘Gemlich’ letter, which is the first surviving longer political text by Hitler, defined the Jewish ‘problem’ partly as a medical issue. Hitler dubbed the Jews the ‘racial tuberculosis of the peoples’. Partly, the ‘problem’ was defined in political terms, with the Jews cast as the ‘driving forces of the revolution’, which had laid Germany low. Here he was referring not to the events of 1917 in Petrograd but to the workers’ and soldiers’ councils of 1918 in Germany.

The above quote seems to suggest that this young Hitler’s view of the Jews is identical to that of contemporary white nationalism. Since my approach is different, what can I reply? Let’s summarise my view.

Christianity fried the Aryan’s brains with the doctrine that ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’ (the New Testament message of the rabbis who wrote it for us Gentiles). Yesterday, when talking about some films and the subject of the French Revolution came up (and I suggest you watch Danton instead of the crap that Ridley Scott filmed), it reminded me that the secularisation of that Christian doctrine aggravated the matter. I mean that after the French Revolution, the psyche of the Aryan went from all are equal in the eyes of God to all are equal before the law (for new visitors, see what Tom Holland says in this featured PDF to understand the process of how it went from ‘in the eyes of God’ to ‘before the law’).

Following this secularised principle originally inspired by Christianity, France was the first European country to grant civil equality to Jews. Indeed, the legal position of Jews in France was widely envied by Jews in other countries. As a result of the so-called Jewish emancipation, and because of the high IQ of the Jew compared to the common Gentile, the first thing Jewry did, courtesy of Napoleon, was to take over the media in the 19th century. Otto Glagau, who led a journal, Der Kulturkämpfer, complained: ‘No longer can we suffer to see the Jews push themselves everywhere to the front, everywhere seize leadership and dominate public opinion’.

An 1806 French print of Napoleon empowering the Jews.

The secularisation of the Christian principle was catastrophic. Kevin MacDonald makes a point in the second book of his trilogy on Jewry when he says that Christendom defended itself against Jewish subversion based on the Christian myth. But that went into crisis, as the new God of the French Revolution still rules the scale of values in the West today. While it is true, as American southern nationalist Hunter Wallace has seen, that modernity uncovered Pandora’s box, neither Wallace nor MacDonald has the meta-perspective of Tom Holland (cf. the PDF linked above).

The Christian Question (CQ) is not to be underestimated. Before modernity, when the Inquisition ruled and 16th-century Spain was wiser about the Jewish Question (JQ) than 19th-century Europe, Iberian whites committed ethno-suicide in the Americas by intermarrying with Amerinds. This historical fact is nothing less than a ‘checkmate’ to the Judeo-reductionism of the typical white nationalist. And even forgetting the miscegenation perpetrated by the Spanish and Portuguese and focusing on the history of Austria and Germany, it’s clear that Christianity is responsible for the empowerment of Jewry.

For example, many pan-Germanists were imprisoned in the late 1880s and early 1890s, and the League Against Anti-Semitism was founded in 1891 by a pacifist who was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize, Bertha von Suttner.

This wanker attracted a wide membership, mostly members of the educated and Gentile bourgeoisie and even aristocrats who were so scandalised by pan-Germanism that they denounced it as ‘the narrow beer-hall politics of the unshaven’. Quite a few Protestant clergymen and Catholic intellectuals subscribed to the League Against Anti-Semitism. As devout Christians, Bertha von Suttner and her husband Arthur founded the League in response to the growing ‘anti-Semitism’ across Europe (cf. Otto Glagau’s quote above). So this cancellation of the healthy mind represented by 19th-century pan-Germanism also came from Christians and their Christian principles of equality. That’s why, addressing today’s nationalists, Robert Morgan recently said: ‘These ignorant imbeciles complain endlessly about Jews, but who let the Jews into white society?’

In the next entry we will see that even this very young Hitler, before he became aware of the CQ, was much more mature than the white nationalists of today in that he saw that the JQ was interwoven with the most bestial of Anglo-American capitalism.

Tom Sunic


On Monday I said that William Pierce, the year of his departure, uploaded a lucid podcast in which he said that we could see the JQ in a novel way: that we, because of our failings, were enabling the empowerment of Jewry.

The accepted wisdom on the racial right is diametrically opposed: the Jews empowered themselves without our help, to the point of dominating our societies. This claim is sometimes heard on the non-racial right as well. For example, on this day the respected Colonel Douglas Macgregor said a couple of times in this interview that Bibi dominates the American Congress!

Obviously, it is the other way around: it is the traitorous whites, the worst scum of whites that have existed since prehistoric times, who have empowered Jewry to delusional levels. Although Pierce died two decades ago, it is refreshing to know that on the other side of the Atlantic an intellectual, Tom Sunic, holds a POV analogous to mine. In The Occidental Observer this week Tom wrote in his article ‘Homo judaicus: The Political Theology of US Foreign Policy’:

America’s unconditional support of Israel resembles a belated form of White House Christian-inspired medieval neurosis. Fear of being called an anti-Semite prevents American politicians and a great number of American academics from openly criticizing Israel.

When some sparse critical voices are heard, they usually leave out the founding myths of the Biblical narrative, and focus, instead, on dry facts relating to the influence of Jewish lobbies in America.

In the typical fashion of American “expertise,” American academics who happen to be critical of Israel use one set of arguments while neglecting other scholarly approaches. In their analysis of the holy alliance between postmodern Israel and America, American scholars tend to forget that the Old Testament ties between these two countries had already predestined America to nurture a special and privileged rapport with the state of Israel.

My emphasis!

One does not have to agree with everything Sunic says in that article, or in the book on which the article is based. But what I quote above superbly portrays the POV of The West’s Darkest Hour as far as the JQ and the CQ are concerned.

William Pierce

Xtian cons

I would like to add a postscript to my Friday post, ‘The new subordinationists’.

It is amusing that the first comment on the most recent post on Occidental Dissent, a forum where many racialist Christians argue, vindicates what I said in my Friday post. The commenter said: ‘Not “bloodthirsty Boomer cons”, Hunter, but “bloodthirsty Christian Fundamentalist cons”—the types who say “He who blesses Israel is blessed, he who curses Israel is cursed!”’

One might think that The West’s Darkest Hour is in a fight to the death with the racial right forums because most of them believe that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline, whereas I believe it is the Aryan traitors who empower them. But on closer inspection, we are not that much at odds with the most lucid voices in that American movement.

Several years ago for example I linked a YouTube audio in which William Pierce expressed precisely the idea that we could see the JQ in novel ways, and he said that one of those ways is that our societies have been allowing Jewish subversion. It is a pity that YouTube has cancelled all the channels that uploaded Pierce’s old podcasts. However, it shouldn’t be too difficult to find that specific podcast as it was originally aired in 2002, the year Pierce died.

It is good to know that the most lucid mind that American white nationalism has ever produced, at least once in his life, expressed a view identical to the one on this site. (Too bad he died that same year…!)

Deranged altruism Israel / Palestine

The new subordinationists

This 13th-century fresco in a church in Perugia, Italy, depicts the Trinity
as a being with three faces representing Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

One of the apparent mysteries of the anti-white religion today is Subordinationism.

Influenced by Stoic philosophy, the subordinationists held a Trinitarian doctrine according to which the Son, and sometimes also the Holy Spirit, were subordinate to the Father not only in submission and role but with actual ontological subordination in varying degrees. Many early Christian theologians postulated a hierarchical classification of the persons of the Trinity, although their position was later considered heretic at the Second Council of Constantinople.

Years before I discovered white nationalism, something funny happened to me with a beautiful, fully Aryan woman with whom I had a coffee in Mexico City together with her brother, a chess-playing friend. I told them that I had just seen a film shot in one of the Muslim countries, which ends with a pubescent girl being deflowered by her elderly husband. I intended to defend the girl.

The liberal woman jumped up in anger. She railed against the film and the message of the director of the Muslim country. I didn’t understand why, if she was more or less a feminist and I was defending a pubescent girl, this liberal woman was so furious. Once I discovered the white nationalist forums, I found the answer.

The point is that, for the new subordinationists, there is a hierarchy in their new Trinity: equality of race, gender and sexual identity. So if two persons of the trinity come into conflict (Muslims are sandniggers and at the same time they live under a patriarchy), the second or third persons of the trinity are subordinates to the father god, i.e. race (liberals see Muslims living in Europe as a noble race just because they aren’t white).

Unlike the Council of Constantinople which declared subordinationism heretical, the new religion of the West is subordinationist: first and foremost is the non-white race (God the Father) and gender equality and sexual identity are subordinated to this Father. This explains my confussion with that liberal woman many years ago. (Incidentally, her brother, a certain Demetrio, who sided with his sister during our argument, later committed suicide.)

With this in mind, let us now think of the grotesque phenomenon of the elites supporting Israel to such an extent that they are even beating and jailing non-whites who dare to support Palestine in some European cities! Why do they do that? Didn’t race—non-whites in Europe—take priority, and even more so if some Israelis are phenotypically whiter than Palestinians? True, but the fact is that, in the new subordinationist theology, there is hierarchy even among non-whites.

The anti-white religion that was created after the Second World War is an exact reverse of Hitlerism. So if Hitler and the Third Reich considered the Jews a subversive tribe, in the new religion they have literally become the chosen people. But the most sinister thing of all is that it is the Aryans themselves who have chosen kikes as the chosen ones, so much so that not even the brown migrants who support a people subjugated for decades by Israelis are now tolerated.

For these new heretics the slogan seems to be: Subordinationist hierarchy above all! In the new Aryan Trinity, the Jew has become the sacrificial Lamb whom we are all supposed to love including his new state, Israel. In his comment today, Gaedhal wrote:

I would rather not write about politics on this thread. There are much more profitable and productive things to write about, like programming. However, yet again, the world—thanks to the US and Israel—stands on the brink of another conflagration.

Megyn Kelly should have an entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. She is willing to waste America’s blood and treasure, defending Israel, of all places. She speaks about Israel’s right to exist. What about Irish Catholics’ right to exist? Do Jews and Israelis concede to us ethnically Irish people the exclusive right to the Island of Ireland, something clearly spelt out in the 1916 proclamation? Of course, Irish Protestants have the right to their own state, north of the border. I tend to lean Unionist, these days. Does Megyn Kelly’s Jewish friends concede this right to us?

Charity begins at home. If bad guys need to be killed, then there are plenty of bad guys to be killed on the North American continent. There are plenty of things that lethal martial force could accomplish on the North American Continent that would actually be in the interest of US citizens. I recently saw a video where an Army Vet encouraged white men not to join the US Army because, of course, none of these wars prosecuted by the US government and military is actually in our interest.

[Zionists] go so far as even wanting a war with Iran if that keeps Israel safe. How in the name of a metaphorical God is any of this in America’s interest? America has been at war, almost non-stop since Pearl Harbour. Is the world any safer, any more prosperous, any more secure from 80 years of war? Why is America full of insane pundits like Megyn Kelly?

The answer is simple. The country was founded by Christian fanatics who had to perceive themselves as the new Israelis to establish a city upon a hill. The American project has now become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Kelly is just an aberration among millions of philo-Semitic Zionists: the basis of Jewish power. (Remember the POV of this site: the Jews didn’t take over the West by force: the Aryan traitors handed it over to the Jew, their new ‘God the Father’ after WW2. That’s why we focus on the CQ instead of the JQ.)