The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Brenton Sanderson Archive
Jews and the Left by Philip Mendes: A Review
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Melbourne, Victoria: Palgrave MacMillian, 2014

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Introduction

In 2018 I reviewed Alain Brossat and Sylvie Klingberg’s Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism, a shameless apologia for (and indeed glorification of) Jewish involvement in radical political movements in the early- to mid-twentieth century. Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance by the Jewish Australian academic Philip Mendes covers much of the same ground, rehashing many of the same apologetic tropes.

Mendes, an Associate Professor at Monash University in Melbourne, describes his book, published in 2014, as “the first publication to provide a systematic historical and political overview of the relationship between Jews and the left.”[1]Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), viii;1.Largely ignoring scholarly literature on the subject emanating from non-Jewish and non-philo-Semitic sources, Mendes insists that “With the exception of Arthur Liebman’s outstanding 1979 text, Jews and the Left, there has been little systematic analysis of the Jewish—Left relationship.”[2]Ibid.,1.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), viii;1.)
Such an ideologically-selective survey of the literature leads him to conclude that “the phenomenon of Jewish radicalism seems to have been seriously under-researched by both general students of sociology and history, and Jewish studies specialists.”[3]Ibid., 2.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), viii;1.)

Unlike some of the more egregious Jewish propagandists and apologists who have contributed to the topic, Mendes makes no attempt to deny disproportionate Jewish involvement in political radicalism, stating:

The disproportionate historical contribution of Jews to the political Left has been well documented. Both as individual theorists and activists of the stature of Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Léon Blum and Emma Goldman, and as organized mass labor movements in, for example, revolutionary Russia and early—mid 20th century Warsaw, Amsterdam, Paris, Toronto, Buenos Aires, New York and London, Jews have been conspicuous for their socialist and communist affiliations.[4]Ibid., viii.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), viii;1.)

Indeed, Mendes points out that from around 1830 until 1970, an “informal political alliance existed between Jews and the political Left.”[5]Ibid.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), viii;1.)

Many Jewish historians and intellectuals are, however, reluctant to offer any discussion, let alone objective assessment, of the dynamics of the Jewish-Left alliance, its scale, causes, and the extent to which radical Jews were motivated by explicitly Jewish concerns. Discussion of these issues being inhibited, he contends, “by concerns regarding the use of the alleged Jewish—Bolshevik conspiracy by the Nazis and other anti-Semitic groups,” which is reflected in “the associated concern by many Jewish writers to minimize the role of Jews in radical movements.”[6]Ibid.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), viii;1.)

Philip Mendes
Philip Mendes

Another factor contributing to the Jewish reluctance to discuss the relationship between Jews and the Left is the determination to absolve Jews of any responsibility for the horrific crimes of communist regimes. In their book Revolutionary Yiddishland, Brossat and Klingberg assure us, for example, that the militancy of Jewish communists “was always messianic, optimistic, oriented to the Good — a fundamental and irreducible difference from that of the fascists with which some people have been tempted to compare it, on the pretext that one ‘militant ideal’ is equivalent to any other.”[7]Alain Brossat & Sylvie Klingberg, Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism (London; Verso, 2016), 56. So while tens of millions may have died because of the actions of Jewish communist militants, at least they, unlike the fascists, meant well. Kevin MacDonald notes that Jewish involvement with Bolshevism “is perhaps the most egregious example of Jewish moral particularism in all of history. The horrific consequences of Bolshevism for millions of non-Jewish Soviet citizens do not seem to have been an issue for Jewish leftists — a pattern that continues into the present.”[8]Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), xl.

Maintaining a narrative of universal, trans-historical, and unparalleled Jewish victimhood is, of course, supremely important for the cadres of Jewish “diversity” activists and propagandists throughout the West, given the status of “the Holocaust” as the moral foundation of today’s White displacement agenda. Free discussion of the Jewish role in communist crimes undermines Jewish pretentions to moral authority grounded in their self-designated status as history’s preeminent victims. In contemporary academia there are, in addition, strong personal and professional disincentives for highlighting the Jewish role in communist crimes, and it is therefore not surprising that non-Jewish historians and intellectuals are equally reluctant to recognize the Jewish backgrounds of many revolutionaries and to explore how their Jewish identity influenced their beliefs and actions. Ron Unz recently observed how successfully the Jewish-controlled media organs in the U.S. have “conditioned most Americans to suffer a sort of mental allergic reaction to topics sensitive to Jews.” The Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the governance and administration of the Soviet Union and its satellite states is one such topic.

Causes of the Jewish-Left alliance

Mendes attributes disproportionate Jewish involvement with the Left to four, frequently overlapping factors: class and ethnic oppression, Jewish cultural values, Leftist support for Jewish equality, and the urbanization and intellectualism of Jews. The Jewish population explosion in Eastern Europe during the nineteenth century contributed to the growth of an uncharacteristically large number of the poorer Jews who would inevitably be attracted to economic egalitarianism of Marxist political movements. This was particularly the case in the Pale of Settlement where, while some Jewish families became very wealthy through moneylending, railway building, sugar production and exporting, most Jews were petty traders or artisans who worked long hours for relatively low wages. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century “close to one-third of the Russian Jewish population of five million relied on charity. Chronic unemployment, limited education, overcrowding, poor hygiene, disease and high mortality rates were prominent.”[9]Mendes, Jews and the Left, 6-7.

ORDER IT NOW

By contrast, most Jews in Germany and Austria were middle class, and the poorer Jews were frequently Ostjuden, immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe who mostly worked in petty trade or as manual laborers. Anglo-Jewry was also a comparatively affluent community consisting of bankers, stockbrokers, craftsmen and shopkeepers with only a small working class. As with Germany, the mass immigration of poor Eastern European Jews, who mostly settled in the East End of London from the 1880s, substantially increased the number of poorer Jews. The French and Dutch Jewish communities were likewise characterized by a group of ultra-wealthy Jews, a comfortable middle class, and a poorer, newly arrived population of immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe who operated as street traders, or workers in the cigar, garment and diamond industries.

A high percentage of Jewish migrants from the Pale of Settlement to North America and South Africa were poorer Jews with radical political sympathies. Many Jewish immigrants in the U.S. worked for low wages in the clothing industry, with associated poor living conditions and ill-health. Poverty alone does not, however, explain the overwhelming draw of the Left for Jews, and Mendes acknowledges that many of the most prominent Jewish radicals came from middleclass and even wealthy backgrounds. The case of Hungary stands as a refutation of the thesis that Jews embraced communism most enthusiastically where their economic circumstances were poorest. Nowhere was the economic and social ascent of Jews as rapid as in Hungary in the half-century before World War I. The prominence of Jews in the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 is “all the more striking when one considers that the Jews of Hungary were richer than their coreligionists in eastern Europe and remarkably successfully in attaining positions of status.” Though only five percent of the population, on the eve of World War I, Jews made up almost half the doctors, lawyers, and journalists in Hungary.[10]Jerry Z. Muller, J.Z. (2010) Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 154.Despite this, of the forty-nine commissars who governed Bela Kun’s short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, thirty-one were Jewish.[11]Ibid., 153.
(Jerry Z. Muller, J.Z. (2010) Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 154.)

According to Mendes, another part of the allure of Marxism for Jews was its intellectualism and replication of Judaic traditions of book-learning, exegesis and prediction although one wonders if this intellectualism was more a product of Jewish involvement with Marxism than a previously existing phenomenon. Many radical Jews noted similarities between their Marxist education and traditional Jewish religious classes, and “the term ‘Talmudic’ was often used to describe the complex interpretation and analysis of Marxist texts.” One Jewish communist recalled that “we behaved like yeshiva bokhers and they like rabbis in relation to this training.”[12]Mendes, Jews and the Left, 15. Mendes notes how the European Left of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries included “vast numbers of left-wing Jews who rejected the Jewish religious faith, but nevertheless identified as Jews in an ethnic and cultural sense.”[13]Ibid., 3.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 15.)
It is only through classifying a Jew in this ethnic and cultural sense that one can “illuminate why so many Jews were drawn to left-wing movements, and equally why the association between Jews and the Left provoked such controversy during the late 19th and early to mid-20th century.”[14]Ibid., 4.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 15.)
Such a definition encompasses key socialist and communist leaders like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky, though Mendes excludes Lenin “whose part-Jewish background via his maternal grandfather, was only publicly revealed many years later.”[15]Ibid., 4.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 15.)

A Yiddish newspaper cartoon depicting a noted intellectual as praying to Karl Marx
A Yiddish newspaper cartoon depicting a noted intellectual as praying to Karl Marx

While poverty in the Pale of Settlement and cultural affinities between the Marxist and Jewish milieus undoubtedly added to the allure of communism for Jews, according to Mendes, its chief attraction lay in the fact it rejected “anti-Semitism.” For Mendes, the extensive Jewish involvement in communism was a defensive and morally-justified response to the European persecution of Jews, noting that “many if not most of these Jewish activists were almost certainly influenced towards their radicalism by their Jewish origins and upbringing, and particularly by their personal experiences of anti-Semitism.”[16]Ibid., 16.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 15.)
Such prominent Jewish revolutionaries are said to include Rosa Luxemburg, Julius Martov, and Pavel Axelrod. While this influence was “downplayed later on in response to the assimilationist atmosphere of the movement,” a “surprising” number of radical Jews expressed

concern about specifically Jewish issues, and solidarity with Jewish victims of anti-Semitism at particular points of their career. They included Anna Kulichev, Rosalie Bograd, Charles Rappoport, Julius Martov, Pavel Axelrod and Henri Polak. Even committed internationalists such as Leon Trotsky and Emma Goldman still demonstrated considerable sensitivity to, and interest in, the question of anti-Semitism. Other radicals such as the German revolutionaries Kurt Eisner, Erich Musham, Gustav Landauer and Ernst Toller also demonstrated considerable Jewish consciousness.[17]Ibid., 15.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 15.)

While Trotsky claimed his Jewish origins did not influence his attraction to Bolshevism, his biographer Joshua Rubenstein notes that he “was a Jew in spite of himself”; heo “gravitated to Jews wherever he lived,” “never abided physical attacks on Jews, and often intervened to denounce such violence and organize a defense.”[18]Joshua Rubenstein, Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary’s Life (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 67; 78; 52. As leader of the Red Army during the Civil War, Trotsky “had to deal with the anti-Semitic attitudes among the population,” and “successfully recruited Jews for the Red Army because they were eager to avenge pogrom attacks”[19]Ibid., 113.
(Joshua Rubenstein, Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary’s Life (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 67; 78; 52.)
At the same time, he “voiced his concern over the high number of Jews in the Cheka, knowing that their presence could only provoke hatred towards Jews as a group.” Trotsky was feted by Jews worldwide as “an avenger of Jewish humiliations under Tsarism, bringing fire and slaughter to their worst enemies.”[20]Robert Wistrich, Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky (London: George G. Harrap & Co Ltd, 1976), 199.

Leon Trotsky
Leon Trotsky

Mendes falsely claims that the butcher of the Ukrainians, Lazar Kaganovich, “rejected any link with the Jewish people,” and was “actively hostile to Jewish concerns.” Kaganovich began his political career battling the “anti-Semitic Black Hundreds, especially strong in Kyiv, both before and after the 1911 Beilis affair, the Russian version of the Dreyfus affair.”[21]Hiroaki Kuromiya, Russia’s People of Empire: Life Stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the Present (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012), 276. In response to attempts of the Black Hundreds “to whip up a pogrom” the “Bolsheviks took measures to protect themselves and to rebuff this threat,” and “Kaganovich only joined the party after these momentous events.” He was strongly influenced by Lenin’s article “Stolypin and Revolution” which depicted the assassinated Russian Prime Minister Stolypin as “an organizer of Black Hundred gangs and anti-Semitic pogroms.”[22]E. A. Rees, Iron Lazar: A Political Biography of Lazar Kaganovich (Anthem Press, 2013), 6.

Evading and excusing the causes of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Pale of Settlement

The actual causes of the hostility of the native population toward Jews in the Pale, such as the Jewish monopolization of entire industries, including the sale of liquor, and centuries of predatory moneylending are evaded or excused by Mendes. Tsarist authorities repeatedly expressed alarm over how “Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish serfdom.”[23]John Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–2 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 5. Initiatives to move Jews into less socially damaging economic niches, through extending educational opportunities and drafting Jews into the army, were ineffective in altering this exploitative pattern. Noting this, even the revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin concluded that Jews were “an exploiting sect, a blood-sucking people, a unique, devouring parasite tightly and intimately organized … cutting across all the differences in political opinion.”[24]Robert Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: the Left, the Jews and Israel (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012), 186.

According to Mendes, to the extent Jews engaged in exploitative practices against non-Jews, the latter only had themselves to blame, with Jewish “cultural characteristics such as the practice of usury” having been only “developed as a result of oppression.”[25] Thus we are encouraged to believe that Jews were compelled by “ethnic oppression” to lend money at extremely high rates of interest when they would rather have earned a living through agriculture. Moreover, Mendes (a putative Marxist) is not even sure that usury is necessarily exploitative, with the anti-Jewish hostility of the native peasantry merely reflecting their primitive susceptibility to “stereotypes concerning allegedly exploitative Jewish trade and financial practices.”[26] [my emphasis]

In seeking to ignore or excuse the reasons Jews were hated in the Pale of Settlement and beyond, Mendes leads us inexorably into that last redoubt of Jewish apologetic historiography: the psychological inadequacies and moral failings of the European mind. According to this conception, Jewish behavior is irrelevant for understanding the hostility to Jews that has existed across nations and cultures for over two millennia. The ultimate source of anti-Jewish sentiment is said to reside in the fundamental incapacity of non-Jews to exercise reason and moral discernment. Andrew Joyce has noted the tendency of Jewish historians to ascribe “to Christian/Western society a deep-seated psychological malfunction shot through with fantasy, repression, and sadism.” Reflecting on this longstanding tendency of Jewish scholarship, sociologist John Murray Cuddihy called our attention to “the deeply apologetic structure of Diaspora intellectuality,” whereby the Jewish “intelligentsia ‘explains,’ ‘excuses,’ and ‘accounts’ for the otherwise offensive behavior of its people.”[27]

Mendes’ critique of “the myth of Judeo-Communism”

Mendes devotes a chapter of Jews and the Left to debunking of what he calls “the myth of Judeo-Communism.” Having chronicled the incredible scale of Jewish involvement in radical political movements, including Soviet communism (while assiduously avoiding reference to specific examples of oppression and mass-murder committed by individual Jewish communist leaders and functionaries), he cannot, and indeed does not, attempt to deny the enormity of the Jewish contribution to socialism and communism. Nevertheless, he contends that “the statistical reality of Jewish prominence in left-wing movements is distorted and exaggerated to falsely equate all Jews everywhere and at any time with communism.”[28] According to Mendes:

These theories are based on an anti-Jewish construct that assumes the collective guilt of all Jews for the actions of some Jews who were or are communists. They stereotype all Jews as holding the same opinions even though Jewish political attitudes are highly diverse. Equally, they represent an attempt to delegitimize Jewish involvement in politics by suggesting that any political movements that include Jews are automatically contaminated by that connection. Most contentiously, they suggest that anti-Semitism can be justified as a form of self-defense against Jewish subversion.[29]Mendes, Jews and the Left, 26.

Such analyses are facile unless accompanied by a serious attempt to gauge the actual prevalence of pro-communist and far left attitudes within the Jewish community at any given time. Were most Jews sympathetic? Were such beliefs mainstream or fringe elements? While it’s obviously true that there is diversity of opinion within the Jewish community, such a perspective fails to adequately deal with the fact that support for communism and the far left was entirely mainstream within diaspora Jewish communities in the West. For example, during the McCarthy era in the United States,

Communists were … hounded out of mainstream Jewish organizations where they had previously been welcome. Particularly salient was the 50,000-member Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order, an affiliate of the AJCongress listed as a subversive organization by the U. S. Attorney General. The JPFO was the financial and organizational “bulwark” of the CPUSA after World War II and also funded the Daily Worker and the Morning Freiheit (Svonkin 1997, 166). Although the AJCongress severed its ties with the JPFO and stated that communism was a threat, it was “at best a reluctant and unenthusiastic participant” (Svonkin 1997, 132) in the Jewish effort to develop a public image of anti-communism—a position reflecting the sympathies of many among its predominantly second- and third-generation Eastern European immigrant membership.[29a]Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_C...mitism

Further, it may be true that most Jews were not sympathetic to communism but also true that communism could not have succeeded to the extent that it did in various countries (including the USSR) without Jewish involvement — that Jewish involvement was a necessary condition for its success. Similarly, during the early twentieth century, most Jews were not Zionists. However, it would be silly to say that Zionism was not a Jewish movement or that the ultimate success of Zionism in establishing the state of Israel was not fundamentally due to Jewish activism.

Moreover, the assertion that non-Jews unfairly stereotype Jews by generalizing about their political allegiances prompts an obvious response: Jewish activists and community leaders are notorious for generalizing about groups they regard as potentially threatening. Europeans exhibiting any racial feeling (no matter how tepid) are always “white supremacists” and “Nazis.” Likewise, political movements involving White people who explicitly identify as White, and who seek to advance White interests are always “automatically contaminated by that connection.” For Mendes, this ubiquitous Jewish stereotyping of non-Jews is uncontroversial, while any generalization made about Jews, regardless of how empirically grounded, is deemed illegitimate due to its epistemological inexactitude.

Mendes proposes that “anti-Semitic allegations of Jewish political power and repression constructed a reversal of cause and effect, in that Jewish leftism was almost always a response to, and consequence of, rather than objective cause of right-wing anti-Semitism.”[30]Ibid.9
(Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_C...mitism)
Mendes here engages in what Andrew Joyce has dubbed the “cropped timeline version of Jewish history” where the historical chain of cause and effect invariably begins with non-Jewish malevolence; this despite the fact that Jews have elicited a strongly negative reaction from their hosts virtually everywhere they have dwelt over the two thousand years of the Diaspora.

For Mendes, it is natural and laudable that Jews would mobilize politically in defense of their common interests, claiming that “Jews have as much right to lobby and seek power as any other ethnic or religious groups.”[31]Ibid., 288.
(Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_C...mitism)
However, in responding to Jewish economic predation and political subversion, rather than following this example by mobilizing politically in their collective interests, Europeans should instead have introduced “social and political reforms which ended discrimination against Jews.”[32]Ibid., 225.
(Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_C...mitism)
Mendes takes it for granted that all policies limiting Jewish economic and political activity were totally unnecessary and motivated by irrational hatred, and claims that “the anti-Semitic persecution of Jews included government-organized pogroms in late 19th and early 20th century Tsarist Russia.”[33]Ibid., 9.
(Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_C...mitism)
As the late John Klier established, the history of “pogroms” in the former Russian empire has been systematically distorted for propaganda purposes.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Title page of the original Russian edition of the Protocols
Title page of the original Russian edition of the Protocols

Mendes traces the origins of “Judeo-Communist theory” to far-right individuals and groups in Tsarist Russia who “regularly accused Jews of provoking revolution, and consequently of being responsible for provoking anti-Jewish outbreaks including pogroms.”[34]Ibid., 220.
(Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_C...mitism)
The most powerful manifestation of this theory emanated from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, first published in Russia in 1903, which announced a Jewish plan to establish a world government. Copies of the Protocols were distributed worldwide, and Mendes ascribes their huge impact to the fact that contemporary events lent support to the basic narrative of the Protocols, especially “the prominence of Jewish participation in the wave of revolutions (Russia, Hungary and Bavaria) that followed World War One.”[35]Ibid.
(Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_C...mitism)

After the Bolshevik revolution, Jews quickly moved into important and especially sensitive positions in the bureaucracy and administration of the new regime, and, as a result, the first encounter with the new regime for many Russians was likely to be with a commissar, tax officer, or secret police official of Jewish origin. Following the dramatic reversal of fortune for Russian Jewry under the Bolsheviks, some Jews who had fled Tsarist Russia returned to witness the unbelievable. It was “a topsy-turvy world,” said one Jewish onlooker, “The despised had come to sit on the throne and those who had been the least were now the mightiest.” That individual, A.S. Sachs, noted with exultation:

The Jewish Bolsheviks demonstrate before the entire world that the Jewish people are not yet degenerate, and that this ancient people is still alive and full of vigor. If a people can produce men who can undermine the foundations of the world and strike terror into the hearts of countries and governments, then it is a good omen for itself, a clear sign of its youthfulness, its vitality and stamina.[36]Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 171-72.

Even Winston Churchill and the American President Woodrow Wilson “accepted the argument that Jews were responsible for the Bolshevik revolution,”[37]Ibid., 221.
(Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 171-72.)
and such perceptions were common on the right throughout Europe. The strong Jewish presence within the new Soviet regime, Mendes contends, only “reinforced popular belief in the Judeo-Communist theory, and seems to have contributed to an intensification of pogroms.” The result of this was that “many non-socialist Jews were forced to turn to the lesser evil of the Bolsheviks and Red Army as their only chance for self-protection, and significant numbers of Jews joined the Soviet secret police (the Cheka). Some joined to revenge themselves upon the pogromists, but others were committed communists who regarded their Jewishness as irrelevant.”[38]Ibid., 226.
(Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 171-72.)

Mendes catalogues the figures who, he maintains, “promoted the Judeo-Communist myth” in the United States, including the Southern Methodist University English Professor John Beaty, industrialist Henry Ford, and Father Charles Coughlin. Significantly, Mendes makes no attempt to refute a single assertion by any of these figures. Instead he declares that “we have noted in earlier chapters that the equation of Jews with socialism contains some element of truth. But as with other racist frameworks, the Judeo-Communist myth is based on an anti-Semitic construction that exists independently of any objective reality.”[39]Ibid., 225.
(Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 171-72.)
Based on this a priori assumption, Mendes sees no need to engage in actual argumentation. He also conveniently makes no mention in his book of the very prominent and documented role of Jews in financing the Bolshevik Revolution.

Another important source of the “Judeo-Communist myth” identified by Mendes is the Catholic Church, which from the 1871 Paris Commune onward closely associated Jews with revolution. The Polish Primate, Cardinal August Hlond and other leading Church officials defended the political exclusion of Jews, which they associated with atheism and Bolshevism. Hlond stated plainly that “Jewish Communists are running this country. Why does World Jewry allow them to take over the government and oppress the Christian people? … As long as the Jews continue to rule, there will be trouble, and the people will retaliate.”[40]Ibid., 224.
(Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 171-72.)
Pope Pius XII himself was present in Bavaria during the 1919 Soviet Republic, and publicly declared that all the leading communists were Jews.

Denying the Jewish role in the Ukrainian famine

Mendes sees a revival of “the Judeo-Communist theory” in Australian author Helen Darville’s 1994 novel, The Hand That Signed the Paper, which posited that the collaboration of some Ukrainians with the Germans in World War II could be attributed to the role played by Jewish Bolsheviks in imposing the genocidal Ukrainian famine of the 1930s. For Darville’s central characters, anti-Jewish massacres were understandable revenge for earlier Jewish actions. For Mendes, Darville’s book provides a “classic example of the way in which the Judeo-Communist theory both reverses the cause and effect of anti-Semitism and communism, and acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. … In short, it provides no explanation of the factors that drove many Jews to join the socialist movement. The historical context of anti-Semitism creating Jewish sympathy for Bolshevism is simply omitted.”[41]Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 227. This is a disingenuous analysis given Mendes’ own gross misrepresentation of the context for Ukrainian anti-Jewish sentiment (i.e., casually dismissing centuries of economic predation).

In Jews and the Left, Mendes even asserts that “the argument that Jews as an ethnic group or even Jews as individual Bolsheviks played a significant role in the Ukrainian famine lacks any concrete evidence.”[42]Ibid., 227.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 227.)
He evades discussion of the role of the Jewish Soviet leader in the Ukraine, Lazar Kaganovich, in overseeing the forced collectivization of 1932–33, conceived as part of an “assault on the Ukrainian nationalist intelligentsia.” The country was sealed off and all food supplies and livestock were confiscated, with Kaganovich leading “expeditions into the countryside with brigades of OGPU troopers” who used “the gun, the lynch mob and the Gulag system to break the villages.”[43]Myroslav Shkandriij, Jews in Ukrainian Literature: Representation and Identity (Yale University Press, 2009), 137.

Genrikh Yagoda
Genrikh Yagoda

Similarly omitted is any mention of the role of the Jewish-dominated secret police in the Ukraine led by Genrikh Yagoda (also Jewish) in exterminating all “anti-party elements.” In his book The Jewish Century, Yuri Slezkine notes how “the Soviet Secret Police – the regime’s sacred center, known after 1934 as the NKVD – was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet Institutions.”[44]Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 254. Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovich set quota of 10,000 executions a week for his secret police in Ukraine. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot—the familiar pattern in which communist governments murdered the previously influential intelligentsia and other elites (see Tom Sunic’s “The Dysgenics of a Killing Field”; also a theme of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, see here, p. 69). During the winter of 1932–33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or left to die of starvation.[45]Lesa Melnyczuk, Silent Memories, Traumatic Lives (RHYW, 2013), 25.

Even non-Jewish representatives of the Communist Party in the Ukraine recognized the unmistakable Jewish role in the unfolding catastrophe:

After some moments of hesitation, he [the Party representative] went on explaining that the Jews, generation after generation, had been brought up in the belief that the Ukrainians were anti-Semites, and responsible for the terrible and violent atrocities against them. This the Jews could not forgive nor forget. They know how to take revenge. It is a well-known fact, he continued, that the Jews, using the Communist Party as a springboard for their ambitions, have penetrated all branches of central and local governments, especially such branches as security and justice. Our local GPU, he pointed out, was entirely in their hands. They have been using these official positions for their own benefit. The Communist Party, announcing the policy of total collectivization and liquidation of kurkuls, had entrusted the local governments and special party representatives such as Thousanders almost unlimited power. The Jews took advantage of this power to take revenge against Ukrainians. They became overzealous in expropriating the grain from farmers, and causing starvation in Ukrainian villages. More than that, they pinned the labels “kurkul” and “enemy of the people” on the majority of the farmers without any justification and had them exiled to concentration camps and locked up in prisons.[46]Miron Dolot, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust (W.W Norton & Company, 2011), 83.

This Party member’s initial hesitation to discuss the above is attributed to the laws in the Soviet Union which strictly prohibiting “anti-Semitism” where even “the slightest derogatory remark or even a joke that might have been construed as such could have brought severe punishment.”[47]Ibid.
(Miron Dolot, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust (W.W Norton & Company, 2011), 83.)
The famous dissident writer (and Jordan Peterson’s hero), Alexander Solzhenitsyn, devoted three chapters of his book Two Hundred Years Together to the Jewish role in Bolshevism and its mass purges of Soviet citizens. Solzhenitsyn urged Jews to accept “moral responsibility” for their ethnic kinsmen who “took part in the iron Bolshevik leadership, and, even more so, in the ideological guidance of a huge country down a false path.” He called on Jews to repent for their role in “the Cheka executions, the drowning of the barges with the condemned in the White and Caspian Seas, collectivization, Ukrainian famine – in all the vile acts of the Soviet regime.”[48]Slezkine, The Jewish Century, 360. While no authorized English translation of Two Hundred Years Together has ever appeared, the field of Soviet history, including of the Ukrainian famine, has lately been dominated by the work of Anne Applebaum, a Jewish-American journalist, who inevitably exculpates her own ethnic group from any prominent role in Soviet atrocities. Her work has been showered with awards and praise by our hostile elite.

Poland

Alongside the Ukraine, Mendes claims the “Jew-equals-communist stereotype (Zydokomuna) was particularly virulent in Poland.”[49]Ibid., 227.
(Slezkine, The Jewish Century, 360.)
In the early years of the independent Polish state, including the unsuccessful invasion by Trotsky’s Red Army (1918–20), Polish anti-Jewish sentiment was activated by the large number of Jews who collaborated with the Soviet Army. Jewish membership of the Polish Communist Party fluctuated between 22 and 35 percent of the total. Jews were even more heavily represented in the party leadership: in 1935 they constituted 54 percent of the “field leadership” and 75 percent of the technika (responsible for propaganda).[50]Bernhard Wasserman, On The Eve: The Jews of Europe Before The Second World War (London; Profile Books, 2012), 63.

Matters came to a head during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Eastern Poland in 1939–41. Jews welcomed the Soviet presence, enjoyed a close relationship with the Soviet occupiers, and played a disproportionate role in the short-lived Soviet administration and police, including those responsible for the mass deportations of Poles to exile or death in the Gulag. According to Mendes, the enthusiastic collaboration of Jews with the Red Army “was driven by anxiety and fear and a feeling of relief rather than pro-communist sentiments, and may have also been influenced by their negative experiences under Polish rule.” He insists that Polish memories of the “alleged collaboration” of Jews with the Soviet Union were “influenced by pre-existing stereotypes of Jewish-communism” rather than their actual experiences. Most of the evidence of substantial collaboration appears “to be impressionistic and exaggerated, rather than based on formal documentation. … What cannot be doubted is that Poles deeply resented the positions of authority that some Jews (regardless of number) enjoyed under Soviet rule.”[51]Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.

The Muscovites

Jews enjoyed unparalleled power and prestige within the Soviet establishment of the 1920s and 1930s. They were equally prominent as party leaders and functionaries, and particularly as members of the security police, in the immediate post-war communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe. Mendes notes how the “early prominence of Jews in these communist governments mirrored the rise of many Jews to powerful positions in the early Soviet Union.”[52]Ibid., 247.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)
These Jews were commonly known as Muscovites because they had spent the war in Moscow, were known for their loyalty to Stalin, and returned to their countries of origin in the wake of the conquering Red Army. These Jewish communist cadres were systematically entrusted with the most senior positions in the army, the diplomatic corps, economic management, and especially the security police.

In Hungary the five leading figures of the communist government—Mátyás Rákosi, Ernest Gero, Mihaly Farkas, Zoltan Vas and Jozsef Revai—were Jewish. Jews were also prominent in other Communist Party and government institutions, and constituted at least a quarter of the security police.[53]Ibid., 244.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)
The conspicuous role played by Jews in the brutal Sovietization of Hungary led to anti-Jewish riots in 1946. The oppressive nature of the new regime can be gauged by the fact that between 1952 and 1955 “the police opened files on over a million Hungarians, 45 percent of whom were penalized,” and “Jews were very salient in the apparatus of repression.”[54]Ibid. 178-9.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)

Mátyás Rákosi
Mátyás Rákosi

In Czechoslovakia, Jews Rudolf Slánský was Secretary-General of the Communist Party, Josef Frank deputy Secretary-General, and Stefan Rais Minister for Justice. Other Jews held powerful positions in the Ministries of foreign affairs, foreign trade, planning and propaganda.[55]Ibid., 244-45.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)
Ana Pauker was the Foreign Minister of Romania, Secretary of the Communist Party, and arguably the most powerful person in the communist government there. Other Jews, including Iosif Chisinevski, Leonte R˘autu, Simion Bughici, Ana Toma, and Mihail Roller, also held prominent roles in the Romanian Communist Party. A significant number of Jews held positions in the leadership of the secret police. Jews were likewise prominent in the East German Party leadership, among them Albert Norden, Hermann Axen, Alexander Abusch and Gerhard Eisler.

In Poland, thousands of Jews “subsequently attained government positions in the new communist government, and many appear to have held leading roles in the Ministry of Public Security.” Two Jews, Jakub Berman (responsible for secret police and propaganda) and Hilary Minc (economic planning), held the second and third leading positions respectively in the government. Other significant Jewish figures included the Secretary of the Central Committee, Roman Zambrowski, the head of Public Security, Anatol Fejgin, and his deputy, Józef ´Swiatło, the head of the Department of Investigations, Jacek Ró˙za´nski, and his deputy, Adam Humer, and Julia Brystiger, who controlled the secret police department investigating the Catholic Church.[56]Ibid. 245.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)

Jews were deliberately placed in key positions because the Soviet authorities feared a resurgence of nationalism in the countries they now occupied. Jews were seen as least likely to form an alliance with the local populace against the hegemony of the Soviets, as Tito had done in Yugoslavia. Mendes notes how “these Jews were loyal communists who could be relied on to introduce unpopular policies and defend Soviet interests amidst hostility from the nationalist intelligentsia. They were often highly educated and able to speak foreign languages, which made them valuable assets in areas such as propaganda, education, and foreign affairs and trade.”[57]Ibid., 247.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)

In the newly conquered nations of Eastern and Central Europe, the Soviets had few reliable supporters, and because they were familiar with local conditions and “fanatically antifascist,” Jews were often chosen for the security police.[58]Ibid. 171.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)
Desire for ethnic revenge was an unmistakable motivation for the many Jews who flooded into the ranks of the security police, who viewed “the new political regimes as an opportunity to take revenge on those who had killed their family and friends, and/or prevent a repeat of pre-war anti-Semitism.”[59]Ibid., 245.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)
The Soviet authorities knew that the population of these countries was strongly anti-Jewish, so they tried to conceal the fact that there were Jews in leading positions, and Mendes observes that:

concerns about the conspicuousness of Jewish communists were aired from time to time both by the Soviet Union and by the Jews themselves. For example, Ana Pauker refused to take the leadership of the Romanian Party on the grounds that the people would not accept a Jewish woman as leader. Both Rákosi and Gero actively discouraged the prevalence of Jews in Hungarian communist groups due to their fear that it would alienate other potential sources of support, such as the peasants. Władysław Gomułka, the prominent Polish communist, wrote to Stalin in 1948 complaining that too many Jews had been appointed to leading positions in the Communist Party, and that they lacked an allegiance to the Polish nation. Both the Bulgarian communist leader, Georgii Dimitrov, and the leading Russian Communist, Molotov, advised the new Hungarian communist government to limit the number of Jews in public positions.[60]Ibid., 247-48.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)

Both the Soviet Union and the local communists were aware of the risk of elevating Jews to power in countries with strong anti-Jewish traditions, and the potentially negative implications for the party. In 1953, Mátyás Rákosi was removed from the Hungarian Party leadership in favor of the non-Jewish Imre Nagy. Later, Khrushchev vetoed the proposed appointment of Zambrowski as Polish Party leader in 1956, commenting that “You have too many Abramoviches in your leading cadres.”[61]Ibid., 248.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)
The reign of the Muscovites was short, and concluded once Stalin identified sufficiently reliable indigenous communists to take their place. The purges of the early 1950s eroded significant Jewish influence in most Eastern European communist parties. By the mid-1950s a generation of Jewish communists had fallen from power. It would not be until after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 that a country in Eastern Europe would once again fell under the domination of a group of Jewish oligarchs, and a decade of misery and impoverishment for most of the Russian population followed.

Redefining the ‘Left’

Since the 1960s, and particularly in the post-Cold War era, the Left has progressively abandoned the tenets of orthodox Marxism for a (now corporate-capitalist-backed) Cultural Marxism based on the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, which Mendes describes as having “introduced a much more fluid and broad range of ideas that seek to liberate numerous groups beyond those principally disadvantaged by social class.”[62]Ibid., 5.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)
After World War II the Frankfurt School abandoned attempts to appeal to the White working class because they had succumbed to fascism in Germany and Italy. This prompted a rejection of the orthodox Marxist emphasis on class struggle and a new emphasis on non-White identity politics and advocacy of non-White immigration and multiculturalism, as well as recruiting Whites who had complaints against the traditional culture, particularly feminists and sexual minorities, into a new coalition of the Left. Mendes notes that:

the lesson that most Jews worldwide (even radical Jews) drew from the Holocaust was that the great working-class movements of Europe had failed to defend the Jews from genocide, and that any future defense strategy would have to be based primarily on the Jews’ own resources. This disillusionment was encapsulated in the Marxist intellectual Isaac Deutscher’s famous statement that his “confidence in the European labor movement, or more broadly, in European society and civilization … had not (been) justified.” Both Deutscher and the former leader of pre-war Polish Trotskyism, Hersh Mendel, abandoned their earlier opposition to Zionism. Mendel even migrated to Palestine, and became a “proletarian Zionist.”

Jewish despondency concerning the value of internationalist solutions was matched by the failure of postwar Marxists to provide a serious explanation of the Nazi genocide (and the earlier failure of the Left to take Nazi threats against Jews seriously) that might have provided a new political signpost for left-wing Jews. The few that tried (for example the leading Jewish Trotskyist Ernest Mandel) seemed unable to comprehend the singular and unique nature of the Holocaust, the centrality of ideological racism, and the relative absence of economic or other rational grounds such as capitalism or imperialism. The concern to highlight the universalistic implications of the Holocaust precluded an understanding of the particular consequences of anti-Semitism. In short, the specific and ongoing victimization of Jews by far-Right groups and its implications for Marxist theory on Jews as a collective group was never adequately conceptualized.[63]Ibid., 235-36.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)

While the support of working-class Europeans for fascism in the 1920s and 1930s was the most traumatizing of the “sharp disappointments” for Jews wedded to international communism, there were several others. Mendes catalogues some of the other events that prompted Jews to progressively abandon orthodox Marxism, including the communist support for the 1929 anti-Jewish riots in Palestine, the 1936-38 show trials which targeted many Soviet Jews, the 1939 Soviet–Nazi Pact, and Stalin’s anti-Jewish campaign of 1948–53, which adversely affected Jews throughout the Eastern Bloc. Mendes notes that:

Sadly, many Jewish identifying communists were among the leading apologists for a number of these actions by the Soviet Union, which proved to be an enemy rather than a friend of the Jews. Those left-wing Jews not already disillusioned were later confronted by the Soviet Union’s support for the Arab states during the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1968 anti-Jewish campaign in communist Poland. And many younger Jews drawn to left-wing ideas by the Vietnam War were alienated by the pro-Palestinian position adopted by much of the New Left. For some progressive Jews, the final betrayal came as recently as 2000–2003 when sections of the Left celebrated the suicide bombings of the second Palestinian Intifada.[64]Ibid., 286.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.)

ORDER IT NOW

In the pre-World War II period, Jewish intellectuals (not exclusively Marxist) were deeply impressed by the Soviet Union’s outlawing of anti-Semitism, and its creation of a putative Jewish homeland in Birobidzhan. For many, this presented a practical and potentially more viable alternative to Zionism and Palestine. In the first two decades after the Bolshevik Revolution, Jewish communists held an overwhelming faith and trust in the Soviet Union as a protector and ally of Jews. This unqualified support for the Soviet Union was not dissimilar to the uncritical pro-Israel views held by many Jews today. Radical Jews could cite Soviet initiatives and actions which appeared to justify their loyalty, including the fact that the Soviet Union had taken strong measures to eliminate “anti-Semitism,” a crime under the Soviet constitution, and Lenin’s declaration that “anti-Semitism is counterrevolution.”[65]Martin Amis, Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million (Vintage Digital, 2013), 217. They lauded the Soviet Union as “a powerful ally in the world-wide struggle against anti-Semitism.” Leftwing Jews more generally believed that “the international working class could be relied on to defend the civil and political rights of Jews.”[66]Mendes, Jews and the Left, 285-86.

Jewish organizations during the May Day Parade in Petrograd in 1919

A common refrain of Jewish communists in the first two decades after the Bolshevik Revolution was that a successful revolution based on the Soviet model would ensure the protection of Jews all over the world, and Mendes notes how many Jews joined left-wing groups precisely because they were convinced that a socialist victory would bring about a complete end to “anti-Semitism.” For example, Julius Braunthal, a prominent Jewish socialist in Austria, commented:

I think that the structure and spirit of a Socialist society precludes the emergence of anti-Semitism. I believe that in fact Socialism is the only solution of the Jewish problem, in the sense of the emancipation of the Jewish people (as every oppressed people) from any moral or social discrimination or disability.[67]Ibid., 14.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 285-86.)

Given this, Jews were “amongst the strongest initiators and defenders of the Left’s internationalism” and were “arguably the group who stood most to gain from the victory of an international movement which transcended national boundaries, and promoted the universal brotherhood of man.”[68]Ibid., 18.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 285-86.)

Keen to uphold such a narrative, American Jewish radicals were prominent among those who eagerly swallowed the false reports of New York Times’ Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, disputing reports of widespread famine in the Ukraine resulting from the forced collectivization of agriculture. Also, despite their avowed “internationalism” most Jewish communists, despite their ostensible ideological anti-Zionism, were strong supporters of the Soviet decision to support the establishment of Israel.[69]Ibid., 271.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 285-86.)
It was only Stalin’s anti-Jewish campaign of 1948–1953 that finally and permanently disillusioned most Jewish-identifying Marxists, prompting the realization that “they had actually supported a regime which was murderously anti-Semitic rather than philo-Semitic. The nexus between Jews and communism had come to an end.”[70]Ibid., 237-38.
(Mendes, Jews and the Left, 285-86.)
The result was a political mass-migration of Jews from orthodox Marxism into the New Left and Neoconservatism.

Jewish involvement in the New Left

Herbert Marcuse addressing American students in 1968
Herbert Marcuse addressing American students in 1968

In Jews and the Left, Mendes recounts the disproportionate Jewish involvement in the New Left—a political movement that began in the early 1960s when students travelled to the southern states to support the emerging “civil rights” movement. In the mid-1960s, the movement switched to northern campuses to advocate student rights, free speech and opposition to the Vietnam War. This was the time when the ideas of Frankfurt School intellectuals like Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse began to displace orthodox Marxism in leftist movements throughout the West. Mendes notes that:

Jews contributed significantly to the theoretical underpinning of the New Left. From 30 to 50 per cent of the founders and editorial boards of such New Left journals as Studies on the Left, New University Thought, and Root and Branch (later Ramparts) were of Jewish origin. Radical academic bodies and think tanks such as the Caucus for a New Politics, the Union of Radical Political Economists and the Institute for Policy Studies were overwhelmingly Jewish. A number of the key intellectual gurus of the New Left such as Paul Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Herbert Marcuse were also Jewish.[71]Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.

The Jews who flooded the ranks of the New Left in the early-to-mid 1960s “appear to have been largely assimilated third-generation Jews from Old Left backgrounds [i.e., “red diaper babies”], although some had participated in Labor Zionist Groups.” Studies of American Jewish New Left activists reveal many had grown up in highly politicized left-wing family environments. Jews made up around two-thirds of the White Freedom Riders who went south in 1961, and about one-third to one-half of committed New Left activists in the USA, including key leaders such as Abbie Hoffmann and Jerry Rubin. In 1964 they represented from one-half to two-thirds of the volunteers who flooded Mississippi to help register black voters. At Berkeley in 1964, around one-third of the leaders of the Free Speech Movement (FSM) demonstrators were Jewish, as were over half of the movement’s steering committee, including Bettina Aptheker, Suzanne Goldberg, Steve Weisman, and Jack Weinberg who coined the famous phrase “You can’t trust anyone over thirty.[72]Ibid., 249.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
Moreover:

In 1965 at the University of Chicago, 45 per cent of the protestors against the university’s collaboration with the Selective Service System were Jews. At Columbia University in 1968 one-third of the protestors were of Jewish origin, and three of the four student demonstrators killed at Kent State in 1970 were Jewish. Jews comprised a large proportion of the leaders and activists within Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Some of the key leaders included the founder Al Haber, Todd Gitlin and Mark Rudd. Approximately 30 to 50 per cent of the SDS membership in the early–mid 1960s were Jewish.[73]Ibid., 250.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
At one point in the late 1960s, SDS presidents on the campuses of Columbia University, University of California at Berkeley, University of Wisconsin (Madison), North Western University, and Michigan University were all Jews. Jewish participation in SDS was particularly high at Pennsylvania University and the State University of New York. There was also a number of Jews in the violent Weathermen group.[74]Ibid.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

In accounting for the Jewish domination of the leadership and prominent activist ranks of the New Left, Mendes proposes a range of contributing factors, chief among them “the impact of the Holocaust (and, sometimes, personal experiences of anti-Semitism).” Mendes quotes the former SDS leader Mark Rudd who observed that: “World War II and the Holocaust were our fixed reference points. We often talked about the moral imperative not to be good Germans. We saw American racism as akin to German racism towards the Jews.”[75]Ibid., 254.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
Many Jewish SDS activists had a strong Jewish identity and this significantly influenced their politics through informing the struggle against “the institutions of racist, imperialist, capitalist America.”[76]Ibid., 255.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

SDS leader Mark Rudd
SDS leader Mark Rudd

Many Jewish feminists were likewise strongly influenced by their Jewish identity, including their perceptions of Jews’ “history of oppression and sometimes direct personal exposure to anti-Semitism.” Betty Friedan specifically linked her experience of “anti-Semitic” discrimination at high school to the development of her feminist views, recalling that:

I think my passion against injustice came from my experience of being a Jew in Peoria. I wouldn’t be the first of our people to have taken the experience of injustice, the passion against injustice, which, if it’s not in our genes, is certainly a product of centuries of experience, and applied it to the largest human category of which one is a part. Jews have been very, very present in centuries of revolutions against one form of injustice or another, one form of oppression or another.[77]Ibid. 259.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

Many of the prominent early leaders of the feminist movement in the United States were Jewish, such as Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique and first President of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Co-founders of NOW included Susan Brownmiller, Shulamith Firestone and Naomi Weisstein, whilst Muriel Fox and Karen Lipschutz DeCrow held executive roles. Other prominent Jewish feminists included Andrea Dworkin, Phyllis Chesler, Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Gerda Lerner. A large number of the founders of the feminist movement in the UK, such as Eva Figes, the author of the influential 1970 text Patriarchal Attitudes, were also Jewish.

Jews comprised between a third and a half of the leaders of the French New Left, including prominent individuals like Alain Krivine, Alain Geismar, Andre Glucksmann and Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Eleven of the twelve members of the political bureau of the Trotskyist Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire were Jewish. Mendes notes that “about three-quarters of the members of Trotskyist groups in the Paris area were identifiably Jewish. Jews were also very well represented among those students who occupied the universities and engaged in other radical activities, such as confrontation with the authorities and the police.[78]Ibid., 251.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
Many Jewish participants in the French New Left came from relatively affluent backgrounds and had communist or anarchist parents who “had spent the war in Nazi or Soviet camps.” Like their American counterparts, they recognized “the specific influence of the Holocaust” on their political commitments.[79]Ibid., 256.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

Daniel Cohn-Bendit in 1968
Daniel Cohn-Bendit in 1968

A key difference between Jewish involvement in the Old Left and the New Left was the fact the latter barely provoked any anti-Jewish backlash. While there were isolated incidents (the best known being a reference in the French media to the prominent New Left radical Danny Cohn-Bendit as a “German Jew”), no organized campaign targeting Jews for their New Left radicalism emerged. Some Jewish leaders nevertheless feared the prominence of Jews in the New Left would provoke an anti-Jewish backlash or discredit the New Left by stereotyping it as Jewish.

Despite the Jewish domination of the American Left in the post-War period, Mendes notes that “most Americans do not appear to have adhered to the same anti-Semitic assumptions about Jewish links with communism that dominated public opinion in parts of Europe.”[80]Ibid., 229.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
As evidence of this, Mendes cites the decidedly muted public response to the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for selling atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Despite the recognizably Jewish identity of the couple (given their name) and of all of their co-conspirators (David Greenglass, Ruth Greenglass, and Morton Sobell), and the fact the Rosenberg spy network consisted almost exclusively of Jews from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the case “provoked remarkably little overt anti-Semitism.”[81]Ibid., 230.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
Nor, he observes, did the “significant number of Jews—including teachers and Hollywood actors—who were victims of anti-communist purges” and the prominence of Jews amongst those subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, lead to a significant reaction. All public opinion polls conducted during this period showed a consistent decline in “anti-Semitism,” and only a small minority of those surveyed (about 5 percent) identified Jews with communism.[82]Ibid.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

The lack of any real backlash to Jewish prominence in the New Left is ascribed to various factors: that many members of the public were not aware of the Jewish background of many of the radical leaders; that these Jewish radicals were ostensibly “not campaigning about any specifically Jewish issues that would have focused attention on Jews per se;” and to the “general decline in anti-Semitism since World War Two.”[83]Ibid., 257.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
This latter shift in public opinion (unsurprisingly) coincided with the Jewish seizure of the commanding heights of American (and Western) culture in the 1960s, and the growing emergence of the culture of “the Holocaust.” The combined effect was to banish overt critical discussion of Jewish power to the margins of public discourse. While Americans rejected communist activities during the Cold War, unlike in Europe, they did not widely equate communism with Jews (at least publicly), or view Jewish participation in leftist politics with particular concern.

Neoconservatism

Neoconservative leaders were among those who feared that the Jewish prominence in the New Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s would fuel a conservative backlash against Jewish radicalism. For example, Norman Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine, attacked leading Jewish leftists as alleged self-hating Jews and completely unrepresentative of the Jewish community.[84]Ibid., 22.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

Mendes ascribes the defection of many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism in the 1970s to a growing misalignment between modern Leftist politics and Jewish ethnic interests: the key factor being “the creation of the State of Israel which transformed Jewish dependence from international to national forces.”[85]Ibid., viii.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
With the advent of the state of Israel, Jewish interests were no longer exclusively represented by the universalistic agendas of the Left. According to Mendes: “Most Jews have lost their faith in universalistic causes because they do not perceive the Left as supportive of Jewish interests, and have turned instead to nationalist solutions.”[86]Ibid., 235.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
The creation of a Jewish national entity featuring (thanks to US taxpayers) a strong and powerful army meant that Jews all over the world could look to the Zionist state to safeguard their interests, rather than depending on internationalist movements and ideologies (i.e. communism and the Soviet Union) which had often proven to be unreliable allies. Even many left-wing Jews, who might have been anti-Zionist prior to World War Two, shifted their position after the birth of Israel. For example, the long-time Austrian Jewish leftist Jean Amery commented in 1976:

There is a very deep tie and existential bond between every Jew and the State of Israel… Jews feel bound to the fortunes and misfortunes of Israel, whether they are religious Jews or not, whether they adhere to Zionism or reject it, whether they are newly arrived in their host countries or deeply rooted there… The Jewish State has taught all the Jews of the world to walk with their head high once more… Israel is the virtual shelter for all of the insulted and injured Jews of the earth.[87]Ibid., 236-37
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

The perceived anti-Zionism of the New Left from the 1967 onwards served to alienate many Jews and confirm their commitment to nationalist, rather than internationalist solutions. An additional factor was the 1967 Six Day War in the Middle East, which provoked fears of “another Holocaust,” and galvanized even non-Zionist Jews in support of Israel. There were rallies in support of Israel throughout the Western world accompanied by large donations. American Jews held massive fundraising campaigns and reportedly raised 180 million dollars. Numerous volunteers travelled to Israel to support the Jewish State. In Australia, more than 20 per cent of a total Jewish population of 34,000 in Melbourne—attended a public rally to express their support for Israel, and 2500 attended a youth rally. 750 young Jews volunteered to go to Israel. According to Taft,

there was a widespread, almost universal, absorption in the Middle East Crisis of June among the Jews of Melbourne. This absorption took the form of extreme concern about the safety of Israel, emotional upsets, obsessive seeking of news, constant discussion of events and taking spontaneous actions to support Israel’s cause.[88]Ibid., 238.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

The rise of left-wing anti-Zionism after the Six Day War furthered alienated sections of Western Jewry from the social democratic Left. Another factor that pushed American Jews in a neoconservative direction, identified by Mendes, was the decline in Black–Jewish relations. The emergence of the Black Power movement in the mid-1960s led to the removal of Jews from the leadership of organizations like the NAACP. Black hostility was viewed by some Jews as evidence of the failure of the strategy of courting non-White groups to advance Jewish interests. This ostensible failure prompted many Jews to concentrate on a narrower ethnic self-interest in the future.[89]Ibid., 243.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

This, in turn, contributed to the creation of “pragmatic alliances” with conservative political parties such as the Republicans and evangelical groups such as Christians United for Israel which “have been consistent supporters of Israel in the USA.” An associated factor was that pro-Israel perspectives within Western countries increasingly emanated from mainstream conservatives, rather than from the moderate or radical Left. This occurred despite “many in these groups hold socially conservative views on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, the environment, multiculturalism, state support for the poor and disadvantaged, and refugees, which are anathema to many Jews.”[90]Ibid., 287.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
Mendes makes the point that “These alliances were based solely on the latter’s position of support for Israel, irrespective of their conservative views on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and the welfare state, which were often sharply at odds with the more liberal opinions of most Jews.”[91]Ibid., 239.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

Despite the defection on many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism, the great majority of American Jews still see their ethnic interests as basically aligning with the Democratic Party. Their willingness to prioritize their ethnic interests over their personal economic interests is reflected in the fact that “high numbers of affluent Jews compared to others of the same socioeconomic status still vote for moderate left parties that do not seem to favor their economic interests.” Today, the structural factors which historically drew many Jews to the Left no longer exist. Most Jews sit comfortably in middle- or even higher-income categories. This “middle-classing” of Jews throughout the West has meant that the “Jewish proletariat that motivated Jewish identification with left-wing beliefs no longer exists.”[92]Ibid., 239.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
Consequently, “the specific link between Jewish experience of class oppression and adherence to left-wing ideology has ended.”[93]Ibid., 241.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

Most Western Jews still support parties on the Left

Despite the widespread break with the radical Left over support for Israel, Jews nevertheless remain a “massively significant presence” in the Left in terms of their numbers and fundraising, their organizational capacity, and their impact on popular culture.[94]Ibid., 287.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)
It was estimated that about a quarter of the world’s leading Marxist and radical intellectuals in the 1980s were still Jews, including Ernest Mandel, Nathan Weinstock, Maxime Rodinson, Noam Chomsky, Marcel Liebman, Ralph Miliband, and the founder of deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida. Despite continuing to comprise much of the intellectual and financial backbone of the Left, today’s Jews, “an influential and sometimes powerful group, with substantial access to politics, academia and the media,” no longer must “rely on the Left to defend their interests and wellbeing.”[95]Ibid., 286.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

The primary reason most Western Jews still vote overwhelmingly for parties on the left is the perceived threat posed by the “social conservatism” of parties further to the right of the political spectrum in nations whose majorities are European-derived and nominally at least Christian:

With the possible exception of ultra-orthodox groups, Jews seem to prefer social liberal positions on issues such as religious pluralism, abortion, feminism, illicit drugs, same-sex marriage, the science of climate change and euthanasia. Another significant factor is the long history of Christian anti-Semitism has led Jews to remain suspicious of any attempts by Christian religious groups to undermine the separation of church and state. This fear of organized religion [and of the White people who practice it] seems to explain the continued strong support of American Jews for the Democratic Party in presidential elections. A further complicating factor is the growing universalization of Jewish teachings and values, including the lessons of the Holocaust, in support of social liberal perspectives. … For example, Berman (2006) presents evidence that the younger Jewish generation in Australia have been influenced by the experience of the Holocaust into taking a strong stand against any forms of racial or religious discrimination. Many are active in campaigns for indigenous rights, and to support refugees from Afghanistan, Sudan, and Middle Eastern countries seeking asylum in Australia.[96]Ibid., 288-89.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.)

This advocacy is, of course, entirely hypocritical and cynical. While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena.

The ideological preoccupations of organized Jewry today are reflected in comments by Boston Globe writer, S.I. Rosenbaum, who insisted the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insists, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

Jewish writer David Cole recently questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism. He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters:

For decades, leftist Jews have been flooding the West with Third World immigrants, “Hey here’s a plan—lets dump a hundred thousand Somalis in the whitest parts of the U.S. That’ll save us from Fargo Hitler!” Inundating the West with non-White immigrants is seen by Jews as an insurance policy against “white supremacy.” The idea is that these immigrants will act as a wedge, diluting “white power” while remaining small enough to be manageable.

Jews have done this everywhere—playing two groups against each other as a way of assuring Jewish security. Let’s play Hamas against the Palestinian authority. Let’s play ISIS against Assad. … But today we live in a world in which even the lowliest bark-eater in the Kalahari can have internet access. It’s not as easy to fool entire groups anymore (individuals, sure, but not an entire race, ethnicity or faction). …

And now we Jews, so worried that Minnesota might become the Frozen Fourth Reich if left in the hands of evil whites, have created for ourselves a good old-fashioned golem in Ilhan Omar (and a bunch of the other Third World freshman congressthingies). Yeah, Omar hates whites. Yeah, she thinks white supremacy lurks behind every glass of milk and “OK” finger sign. But she hates Jews a hell of a lot more…

In a perfect world, the Rabbinical Rain Men would finally get the fuck over the Holocaust and end their war of hostility against the West. They’d see that whites are no longer the enemy, but indeed the opposite. They’d see that importing foreign mud to mold golem in traditionally white regions of the U.S is bad strategy.

Here Cole vividly restates Kevin MacDonald’s point in Culture of Critique that: “Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.”[97]Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 313. The creation of this “monster” is ostensibly regarded by Jewish leaders and activists as a risk worth taking to demographically, politically and culturally weaken threatening White populations. In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations.

Conclusion

While Jews and the Left offers a useful catalogue of Jewish involvement in radical political movements throughout the world over the last two centuries, it recycles many of the same apologetic tropes that permeate the work of other Jewish historians and intellectuals. Mendes mischaracterizes the Jewish identity and affiliations of important Jewish communist leaders (like Lazar Kaganovich), and offers no examination of their often-murderous actions. He provides feeble apologies for the Jewish practices that engendered hostility among the native peasantry in the Pale of Settlement. The inherent weakness of his position necessitates specious argumentation and desperate resort to that evergreen of Jewish apologetic historiography: the innate irrationality and malevolence of the European mind and character. This is the invariable fallback position in any quest to exculpate Jews from responsibility for the crimes of communism in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe. Though less inclined than Brossat and Klingberg in Revolutionary Yiddishland to glorify Jewish communist militants, Mendes is equally keen to evade, whitewash and excuse disproportionate Jewish involvement in some of the worst crimes of the twentieth century.

Notes

[1] Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), viii;1.

[2] Ibid.,1.

[3] Ibid., 2.

[4] Ibid., viii.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Alain Brossat & Sylvie Klingberg, Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism (London; Verso, 2016), 56.

[8] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), xl.

[9] Mendes, Jews and the Left, 6-7.

[10] Jerry Z. Muller, J.Z. (2010) Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 154.

[11] Ibid., 153.

[12] Mendes, Jews and the Left, 15.

[13] Ibid., 3.

[14] Ibid., 4.

[15] Ibid., 4.

[16] Ibid., 16.

[17] Ibid., 15.

[18] Joshua Rubenstein, Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary’s Life (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 67; 78; 52.

[19] Ibid., 113.

[20] Robert Wistrich, Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky (London: George G. Harrap & Co Ltd, 1976), 199.

[21] Hiroaki Kuromiya, Russia’s People of Empire: Life Stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the Present (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012), 276.

[22] E. A. Rees, Iron Lazar: A Political Biography of Lazar Kaganovich (Anthem Press, 2013), 6.

[23] John Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–2 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 5.

[24] Robert Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: the Left, the Jews and Israel (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012), 186.

[29] Mendes, Jews and the Left, 26.

[29a] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; first published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), 200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805997_Chapter_6_of_Separation_and_Its_Discontents_Jewish_Strategies_for_Combatting_Anti-Semitism

[30] Ibid.9

[31] Ibid., 288.

[32] Ibid., 225.

[33] Ibid., 9.

[34] Ibid., 220.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 171-72.

[37] Ibid., 221.

[38] Ibid., 226.

[39] Ibid., 225.

[40] Ibid., 224.

[41] Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 227.

[42] Ibid., 227.

[43] Myroslav Shkandriij, Jews in Ukrainian Literature: Representation and Identity (Yale University Press, 2009), 137.

[44] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 254.

[45] Lesa Melnyczuk, Silent Memories, Traumatic Lives (RHYW, 2013), 25.

[46] Miron Dolot, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust (W.W Norton & Company, 2011), 83.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Slezkine, The Jewish Century, 360.

[49] Ibid., 227.

[50] Bernhard Wasserman, On The Eve: The Jews of Europe Before The Second World War (London; Profile Books, 2012), 63.

[51] Mendes, Jews and the Left, 229.

[52] Ibid., 247.

[53] Ibid., 244.

[54] Ibid. 178-9.

[55] Ibid., 244-45.

[56] Ibid. 245.

[57] Ibid., 247.

[58] Ibid. 171.

[59] Ibid., 245.

[60] Ibid., 247-48.

[61] Ibid., 248.

[62] Ibid., 5.

[63] Ibid., 235-36.

[64] Ibid., 286.

[65] Martin Amis, Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million (Vintage Digital, 2013), 217.

[66] Mendes, Jews and the Left, 285-86.

[67] Ibid., 14.

[68] Ibid., 18.

[69] Ibid., 271.

[70] Ibid., 237-38.

[71] Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014), 250.

[72] Ibid., 249.

[73] Ibid., 250.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid., 254.

[76] Ibid., 255.

[77] Ibid. 259.

[78] Ibid., 251.

[79] Ibid., 256.

[80] Ibid., 229.

[81] Ibid., 230.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Ibid., 257.

[84] Ibid., 22.

[85] Ibid., viii.

[86] Ibid., 235.

[87] Ibid., 236-37

[88] Ibid., 238.

[89] Ibid., 243.

[90] Ibid., 287.

[91] Ibid., 239.

[92] Ibid., 239.

[93] Ibid., 241.

[94] Ibid., 287.

[95] Ibid., 286.

[96] Ibid., 288-89.

[97] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 313.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:

    The crimes of Judeo-Bolshevism(a minor part of the left) does not justify capitalism, which if anything is more Jewish and certainly more Zionist friendly.

    It is also ridiculous that believes the idea that there is a Jew-Leftist alliance, such as Andrew Joyce can read a book debunking such notions, but ignore the main thrust of the book and cite one sentence as evidence of their theory. The book I am talking about is From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, The Jews and Israel.

    If the wealthy elite bankers are the enemy of the people, how does some who believes that leftism is inherently Jewish plan to take the bankers down? Lowering taxes, removing consumer protections, removing tort protections for consumers, stacking courts with justices who defend the surveillance state and are corporation friendly?

    There is category mistake in the minds of the believers of Jew-Leftist alliance. The mistakenly put Modern Western political theatre in the category of Left politics. Previous generations of Leftist would disown and oppose all the identity politics and stupidity that currently happens.

    Personally I am tired of Judeo-Rightism, the rightist that cheer when Congress legally recognized Jewish law at the behest of Chabad. The rightist that cheer when a surveillance security state apparatus such as the Department of Homeland Security is brought into force by false-flag attacks and then promptly staffed by Israel connected individuals. The rightist that cheer the U.S treasury department bringing sanctions on Venezuelans, Russians, North Korean and many others for the mere act of opposing U.S influence. Quicknote the head of the treasury department’s anti-terrorism has always been Jewish. I am tired of the Judeo-rightist voting for Zionist parties. I am tired of the right-wing antisemites who think Hitler was brave and noble despite him having captured some Rothschilds and then letting them go.

    Why is it always that those who want to protect the propertied classes always want to protect Israel?

    It is obvious that the idea of a Jew-Leftist alliance is meant to bias people against Left politics and prevent them from realizing their power. The same can also be said for modern political theatre that is Jew Dominated and masquerades as leftism.

    To be a right-wing anti-semite is to be a category mistake, and even worse, a category mistake made by your supposed enemy.

    • Disagree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Anon
  2. Liberalism is a cover for the naked self interest of the jews.

    Political correctness is the collective will of the jewish people.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  3. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    I am not a liberal I am a leftist. I challenge you to name one conservative policy that will reduce the material power of Jews. The only reply you can muster and remain conservative is that you wish to censor pornography or put Christmas trees and nativity scenes and make it more acceptable to say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays. the problem with that, apart from the points in Laurent Guyenot’s excellent article on how Christianity is very Jewish, is the permanence of the Jewish market mentality. Doing all the above won’t stop the commercialization of Christmas and it won’t stop the commercialization of life.
    But I don’t want to assume your answer, what is the conservative policy that will reduce the material power of Jews?

    Leftist policies that will reduce the material power of Jews are: the abolition of usury, a social structure that removes people need to rely on landlords and bankers in order to the basic necessity of space to live, democratic empowerment of the people so they learn that elites and wealthy are not higher beings and learn to appreciate the work the common man does, to abandon the system that bases social status on wealth instead of virtue and community values. There are many others, such as protection of free speech, and local community building and democratization. But the big one that no conservative will ever propose is a limit on the amount of property one can own, the idea that society can declare a limit on how much property one can have. For people who call themselves conservatives they seem eager to remove the limit on human greed and absolutely want to do away with self-restraint and moderation. If pornography is bad because it is a vulgar display of uncontrolled human desire, that according to some lowers human dignity, then hyperwealth must be worse. At least the chronic masturbator can view the same material over and over again, but the chronic usurer demands interest and more and more of the existing society, sucking it dry to the detriment of all else, fellow men become chattel for use and fleecing, that truly lowers man’s dignity, to have your worth determined by a system that demands ever more to please the irredeemably covetous. One is assessed on their ability to be a good fat sheep to provide blood and wool or on one’s proficiency in parasitic arts.

    My message to conservatives who feel something has gone wrong is that, small producer capitalism is dead, gone are the days of mass self-employment and dignity at work. Dignity has to be restored somehow, and so-called “conservative” politics are not the way forward.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Cleburne
    , @anon
    , @Leon Haller
  4. The nose owns both “sides.”

    I hate the shabbos goy sellouts on the right almost as much as I hate the loony leftists.

    But at least the cucks on the right are less likely to force me to give my kid hormones for a sex change.

    The right is a crew of spineless sissies, but the left is full on CRAZY.

    Look at the antics of AOC, Booker, Nadler, Swalwell, Harris, Blumenthal, Hirono, Biden………….
    these people are not simply degenerate and slimy……they’re NUTS.

  5. Anon[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    LOL. So basic bitch. This doesn’t deserve a more complex response. The poster can research the response on his own. There has to be hundreds of thousands of pages written on this topic at this point. That’s before you would make an effort to gain more knowledge of the Jewish religion that would, in full, give you your most direct rebuttal.

    The post to which I am responding attempts to reset the conversation so far back that it has to be taken for a type of discussion interference effort, whether or not it is intentional.

    What’s next, the Nazis made a categorical error or, better yet, the Nazis were the real Leftists?

    Don’t bother with a long winded response to the above rhetorical questions.

  6. I think this piece ignores one rather obvious element in the Left’s appeal for Jews.

    The right tends to be religious, or at least not anti-religious, and in Europe until recently, that meant Christian religion. Hence conservatism tended to imply the continued exclusion of Jews from what to continue to be a Christian society.

    Under Leftist regimes, Jews at least potentially could be both Jews and full participants in the wider — now secular rather than religious — society.

    None of this is to deny the links the author discusses between Jewry and Marxism. It is merely to point out that’s not the whole story.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  7. Anon[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    For the love of god: don’t superficially rant about many political policies in a text wall.

    Beyond the lack of clarity that inevitably deters responses, its bad form.

    Leftist policies that will reduce the material power of Jews are: the abolition of usury,

    Usury is a business that increases credits in the Jew account. Its a means to an end. That end was reached a long time ago. Cutting usury will not lessen the power of people who control the physical movement of goods in the West, have political leverage and power facilitating networks developed over several millenia, have nuclear weapons directed by a genocidal plan and book, etc.

    democratic empowerment of the people

    You are basically a communist,. Democracy is not a communist value. Its a Leftist (moderate communist) value that is meant to deliver communism and then be cast aside.

    Second, the ideal of your democracy only works in homogeneous societies that are looking to vote on the best method to achieve a primary group goal that is ethnically understood to be shared.

    In heterogeneous societies democracy is a vote on the goal itself, which means that it is a vote as to which people will dominate another (and leave the second group without self determination). This is a perversion of the ideal and it represents its fracture.

    The entire point of leftism / communism is to destroy the political power of an enemy people. It was invented as a destructive weapon and that’s how it operates. As evidenced by the continuing haplessness and poverty of most Leftist adherents, no matter their ostensible political success in any single generation. True political power is not built for them, by their methods.

    Instead, in each new generation, they are entirely propped up and supported by the vast resources and efforts of the Jewish nationalist group.

    The broader Jewish group has actual power and resources from its effective Right Wing efforts to build such power and resources. The Jews are internally Right Wing to build power, and externally Left Wing to take it away from their enemies (the mechanism by which this occurs is explained later below).

    Like most ostensible non-Jews, you are their unwitting soldier who uses their Left Wing mechanism to strip their enemy groups of political power.

    True political power is inter-generational. It is wholly incubated by the following processes. Any other process is de facto fake and pales in comparison:

    [MORE]

    the passing of the culture that perpetuates the entire group-community’s cooperation toward common goals that are the purpose of political power,

    the passing of wealth,

    the passing of invaluable contacts,

    the passing of highly specialized knowledge (ie: on how to run businesses, how to trade and with whom, and how to grow and keep keep political power in general), and all of the other actual elements that are inherent in building and maintaining political power. This effort accumulates in its power building effect over generations.

    The will, discipline, and commitment to do this continuously over an unbroken chain of generations can only stem from an intense ethnic cooperation value that can not be duplicated through any Leftist system. No other shared bond facilitates such effective and intense cooperation over generations. Not homosexuality, not civic nationalism, and especially not the laughable economic bonds that the Jews suggest for foreign enemy groups whose community political power base they wish to destroy. It only comes from ethnic love and commitment. Nothing else compares in long term effectiveness, and this is why Left Wing politics are not a real political movement. Their goal is not to incubate political power. Their goal is to prevent it in order to prevent competition against the politically strong ethnic group that promotes the Leftism (like the Jew authors and the Jews in charge of Soviet communism, or the Jews that were the primary promoters of libertarianism in the United States).

    This is both why and how Right Wing politics are the politics of building group political power. Full stop. This is why they are forbidden to all but favored groups.

    These are the same groups that are either in charge, like the Jews, or who are not threatening to the Jews but who assist them in attacking their primary enemy’s culture (like Social Marxists) and those that attack their enemy’s broader politics directly (like minority nationalist groups).

    Jewish Leftism attempts to substitute the false politics of economic policy and supposed shared political interest in these policies for actually powerful cultural bonds.

    These are the bonds that build real political power that challenges the Jews who themselves primarily use culture to build power.

    The substitution process is the primary political oppression method of communism. Those without political power are cultural and de facto slaves.

    Communist removal of cultural bonds is the process of creating a politically disempowered slave class, which is exactly what the USSR created and exactly the type of citizenry that the “democratic multicultural” United States shapes. Cultural and therefore political recovery is not guaranteed. Culture is always a long-built and earned treasure. Therefore the same can be said of community self determination.

    Any more culturally unified people under a King or fascist had more political power and thus was more free than the multicultural “vote for ostensible temporary control” masses in the United States today. The communist proletariat has so little real political power that they are de facto slaves. That is how they are treated and that is the result of expedited Leftism.

    If usury or other economic methods was the foundation of Jewish power, they would have never gained much power. The economic means would have long ago been stymied. These are not the source of their real power nor any group’s power of any real note. Their power, like all real political power, comes from their shared ethnic culture and its values. This is why they have not been defeated over thousands of years living as hostile others. Not usury nor any other purely economic method.

    With all due respect, its time for you to grow up and leave your childish, Jew imparted notions of the world behind. You need to educate yourself better in regard to the Jewish religion. You need to think deeper in regard to politics and political power before you present yourself on this board and presume to lecture others using basic rehashed arguments in regard to applied Leftism and simple strategies that you somehow assume no historic European King or other Jewish enemy thought of in the past: many times over.

    so they learn that elites and wealthy are not higher beings and learn to appreciate the work the common man does,

    Meaningless. Sure, you teach ’em.

    to abandon the system that bases social status on wealth instead of virtue and community values.

    Virtue and community values, at least the type that engender community and political power instead of working to fracture it, can only come from Right Wing style social values that emphasizes ethnic loyalty.

    Political power starts with the building block of the nuclear family, which is why the family is the primary target of the historic and modern Far Left. They see it as the fascist starting point and they are correct. Because their intelligence is usually limited in general or by drugs, when they simply aren’t an ethnically interested and hostile Jewish propagandist, they fail to recognize that it is also the only starting point for any real political power.

    The functional loyalty and cooperation values and habits learned within the family unit are then applied to their neighbors (note that “neighbor” in the Old testament, as in “love thy neighbor”, only referred to fellow Jews. The Christian interpretation is new).

    These are neighbors who share the same ethnic-racial qualities and thus the same cultural and behavioral habits that engender the type of deep cooperation that can not be duplicated by any other means. Which is why no other attempted method of building competitive political power is sufficient. This is repeated until the community is deeply and widely linked.

    The type of deep cooperation that results is the only definition of real political power. This can not be duplicated by any other means.

    Leftism seeks to remove these power building mechanisms. It is a weapon used by powerful ethnic groups against other groups. It is not a legitimate political movement in itself because it can not and never does build real power. It only culturally and ethnically fractures groups and therefore it is only a weapon, not a real political movement. This was always its true purpose and result.

    There are many others, such as protection of free speech, and local community building and democratization.

    Superficial nonsense not backed by substance. Words that are fit for your local town hall for an ineffectual cheerleading session. Not for this comments section nor anywhere people are having a serious discussion.

    But the big one that no conservative will ever propose is a limit on the amount of property one can own, the idea that society can declare a limit on how much property one can have.

    Conservatives aren’t in the habit of proposing Jewish-communist core tenets that were designed to destroy their ability to build nationalist communities and therefore any real political power.

    The only way that the communist no-property rule is not politically oppressive is in the context of a completely homogeneous ethnic community.

    In every other situation, it is merely a means to prevent small community coherence (their property can be given to or used by differing groups with differing values, behaviors, etc, leading to no effective community building – see Putnam for a modern study on the effect of multiculturalism on community coherence).

    Even in the context of homogeneity, it would leave the community vulnerable should a hostile leader sneak in.

    For people who call themselves conservatives they seem eager to remove the limit on human greed

    Do you always talk in eighth grade hyperbole? Is this how Leftists talk to each other on their discussion boards? Rhetorical question.

    Right Wing politics are about political power and thus about culture.

    The true Right correctly holds economic policy to be what it actually is: a malleable tool to be used situationally and strategically to advance the survival and build the power of the group.

    Only Jewish poison-pill pseudo-theory and those who are taken in by it see economic policy as holy grail dogma. The notion is historically and logically laughable.

    and absolutely want to do away with self-restraint and moderation.

    Oh, yes, absolutely.

    Your idea was to post on what is essentially a National Socialist comments section regurgitating 1950’s Jewish Neoliberal re-phrasings of political policy and group political re-definition, presented as that of your debate partners? Brilliant.

    If pornography is bad because it is a vulgar display of uncontrolled human desire, that according to some lowers human dignity, then hyperwealth must be worse.

    Your syllogism doesn’t remotely follow. Pornography is bad because it undermines the family unit, which is the building block of group political power. Hyperwealth also contributes to that power (but an individual’s hyperwealth will always pale in comparison to long term group cooperation, speaking in terms of real political power).

    At least the chronic masturbator can view the same material over and over again, but the chronic usurer demands interest and more and more of the existing society, sucking it dry to the detriment of all else, fellow men become chattel for use and fleecing, that truly lowers man’s dignity, to have your worth determined by a system that demands ever more to please the irredeemably covetous. One is assessed on their ability to be a good fat sheep to provide blood and wool or on one’s proficiency in parasitic arts.

    Oh Lawdy, Lawdy… !!! Sistah Rebecca, get the water basin, our congregant has been blessed with the tongue of the Lawd!

    My message to conservatives who feel something has gone wrong

    You are as far from being able to deliver an effective message as it gets. You are speaking in the logic and rhetoric of 1917, not 2019. There has been 102 years of discussion and observation since that time.

    You lack foundational understanding of the modern world and its politics. Though, I hope that, through all of my late night sarcasm and spite, I’ve helped a bit. That’s why I took the time to write.

    is that, small producer capitalism is dead,

    I wasn’t aware that we were engaged in an argument that presumed its necessity. We weren’t.

    gone are the days of mass self-employment and dignity at work.

    Really? My work is dignified and rewarding. Again, hyperbole isn’t for the adults whom you wish to take you seriously.

    Dignity has to be restored somehow, and so-called “conservative” politics are not the way forward

    .

    That’s quite the conclusion, considering I can’t for the life of me find its foundation in the rest of your writing.

    I believe that I’ve well countered your conclusion in my response. If you do not believe this to be the case, then my hope is that I gave you enough material for a considerable period of thought.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  8. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Cutting usury will not lessen the power of people who control the physical movement of goods in the West, have political leverage and power facilitating networks developed over several millenia, have nuclear weapons directed by a genocidal plan and book, etc.

    Trivialization of the power is usury is indefensible, you are either a fool or shill.

    True political power is not built for them, by their methods.

    What is true political power, you insert the qualifier true, without ever defining it. Your theory of true political power existing solely through intergenerational transmission of wealth and knowledge fails to be seen in the historical record that shows many instances of revolutions against a long-standing and wealthy classes at home or abroad.

    This is both why and how Right Wing politics are the politics of building group political power. Full stop. This is why they are forbidden to all but favored groups.

    Right-wing politics subjects the family and people to an impersonal and exploitative usurer’s market. That, limits the creation of any ties or relations or even sentiment that is not money-dominated. To perpetuate family ties in the usurer’s market is a task most fail. Thew destruction of the family is a result of the commercialization of life, and cheered on by the actors of the Western political theatre.

    you quote this

    so they learn that elites and wealthy are not higher beings and learn to appreciate the work the common man does,

    from me and reply

    Meaningless. Sure, you teach ’em.

    It seems you don’t care for the common man and yet you expect him to have a strong ethnic loyalty and home life. Lets suppose the common man leads 70% of the total households, how is he supposed to achieve strong ethnic identity and home life if he has no political power and has a market trying to exploit him and his family?
    There is a second problem with your politics it implicitly accepts the usurer’s playing field of the market, and holds up the winners on this field as the elite. It comes off that your criticism of gentiles and their lack of power is that they are not Jewish enough! What is the solution to that? To become more Jewish than Jew? My solution is to abandon the playing field and pursue a mode of life where their power could not be achieved. Your solution is to try to outjew them, and if you theory of true political power being solely the result of generations of transmission of wealth and knowledge is correct, than the poor gentiles of the world have no hope of achieving more true political power than the Rothschilds. Perhaps those are the reasons you trivialize the power of usury.

    To wrap up. Some of your points are valid, there is a history of anti-family, leftist, but there is also a long history of pro-family leftist, but their history is hidden because of who dominates politics and culture currently. One can oppose the market and protect the family, doing one implicitly for closed borders, but again they are hidden from history.

    Really? My work is dignified and rewarding. Again, hyperbole isn’t for the adults whom you wish to take you seriously.

    You are probably a boomer, or some other individual who had the luck to avoid the privations of the market. A popular theory is that all the lead in the paint and gasoline impaired the ability of boomers to empathize with people, that seems credible. The market also selects against and suppresses empathy. If you are doing well in the market it is probably because you are fooled or you are in a position that requires lack of empathy.

    I said

    For people who call themselves conservatives they seem eager to remove the limit on human greed

    and you replied

    Do you always talk in eighth grade hyperbole?

    It is no hyperbole, has a conservative ever proposed a limit on the amount of property anyone can own? that is what I meant.

  9. Leftism, communism, globalism, jewish internationalism, is simply a means to tear down western civilization. The nose is all about wrecking nations, not building them. This is obvious stuff.

    The left is an attack dog for the nose. Attack Trump, attack white people, attack Christianity, attack traditions, attack heroes, attack the family, etc.etc.etc.

    The left offers nothing in terms of building community, because leftist ideology is engineered by jewish minds that are filled with atavistic hatred for their gentile hosts.

    Marxism isn’t an economic system at all, but simply a method to end “anti-semitism” by instituting the jewish domination of all mankind.

  10. Muggles says:

    My discussions with educated exile Poles from Communist Poland, as well as with a good friend who was a highly educated Jewish (secular) American intellectual, about the subject of Jews and Communism is that Jews were perceived by non communist Poles to be very influential in running communist countries. In general Jews were considered pro Communist.

    Due to their segregation and persecution in pre Soviet Russia, many Jews joined the CP to better themselves and to avoid the pogrom mentality of many Russians and other eastern Europeans.

    As a result, among other reasons, being seen as a Communist toady or functionary was highly resented by average people weren’t Jewish. Generally (other than during WWII) most average people disliked the government for many reasons. Communists got perks.

    Stalin in particular, though other communist leaders in the USSR and elsewhere also did this, was a regular sponsor of anti Jewish purges of fellow communists and intelligentsia, scientists, doctors and others. These weren’t Holocaust level purges, mainly selectively targeted. There were always high ranking successful Jews to purge and blame. It was popular with the masses. These lasted a year or two until this died down and others were purged. But Stalin liked to purge “his” Jews.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  11. Fake news..

    All the tards still blaming Americas trip down the commode on communism! Oh how wonderful America would be if we had super rich capitalists who owned stocks and bonds and real estate and made lots of money, not by working, but off of capitalist profits, usury and rents. How wonderful this capitalist America would be if rich capitalists ruled over us all, if every leading politician was a rich capitalist, often times funded into power by even richer capitalists and always doing the bidding of super-rich capitalists. How wonderful this capitalist paradise would be if we also had a Federal Reserve, also run by rich capitalists, sitting at the ready to come to the rescue of rich capitalists anytime capitalism hit the skids.The Federal Reserve is a capitalist institution, created by capitalists, consisting of rich capitalists, and tasked with bailing out rich capitalists and the capitalist system. You might not like the Federal Reserve, but it’s 100% capitalism. But how could we ever achieve such a capitalist paradise in poor ol communist America!

    The one thing we don’t want is for the working-class to hold state power (i.e., socialism). Capitalism would die an ugly and immediate death if rich people who don’t work could no longer exploit the masses who labor every day.

    It is capitalist America that has slaughtered nearly the entire Christian population of Iraq and Syria, not communists. Supporting ISIS, who cut Christians heads off for the fun of it. Our allies are Wahabbi Saudi Arabia and Zionist Israel, quite literally the two most anti-Christ nations on Earth. The Saudi Wahabbis are good peoples according to America! They still crucify Christians! The Israelis regularly terrorize and murder Christians, destroy their homes, spit on them, vandalize and destroy churches, but communists are bad! Watch out!

    https://ifamericaknew.org/history/rel-christians.html

    Research Operation Condor or Operation Gladio if you really think its the left causing all the violence. Operation Condor’s victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students and teachers, intellectuals, entire families, pregnant women, the elderly and children were all ruthlessly slaughtered.

    This isn’t decades old history, this is still ongoing today, social leaders, activists, dissidents, citizens, journalists are murdered on a daily basis in Latin America by capitalist US/Israel supported far-right wing military dictatorships in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Ecuador, Columbia etc…. this is why there is so much immigration from there. Countries with left leaning govts. such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia have minimal refugees heading north. Look for the problem to get worse with the news that Israel is sending 1000 troops to Honduras to help “control” immigration and drug trafficking.

    Research what Soviet Union (communists) was trying to do in Afghanistan before America decided to start arming and funding terrorists there. They were improving the lives of the Afghanis, modernizing the country, building infrastructure, building schools, educational reforms, campaign to end illiteracy, elementary education was decreed free and compulsory for all people, women included. Creating professional training schools and secondary schools for children to continue their studies. Instruction in these schools in foreign languages to prepare the children to continue their tertiary education abroad. Land reforms, the emancipation of women from being sold, made it illegal to marry children. What does capitalist America do? Blow everything up, murder folks with drones, empower religious nutjobs, basically terrorize them daily.

    Hypocrites, think Zionists are left?

    Look at how terrible Socialists are! Helping poor Americans that capitalist America, wealthiest nation on Earth, couldn’t give a shit about.

  12. @Muggles

    ‘Due to their segregation and persecution in pre Soviet Russia, many Jews joined the CP to better themselves and to avoid the pogrom mentality of many Russians and other eastern Europeans.’

    I think if you’ll look up the actual numbers, you’ll find this ‘pogrom mentality’ to be either absent entirely or grossly exaggerated before the arrival of Communism and the association of Jews with it.

    For example, Lithuania was the scene of some of the bloodiest anti-Jewish violence in 1941. Prior to that, though, it had no history of pogroms.

    Obviously, in this instance at least, it would be grossly inaccurate to claim Jews joined the Communists in response to pogroms. Rather, the pogroms came in response to the Jews joining the Communists.

    I doubt if the relationship was as clear-cut elsewhere, but it would certainly be worth investigating the sequence of events in Latvia, Eastern Poland, Galicia, the Ukraine, Moldovia, et al.

  13. @redmudhooch

    ‘…Research what Soviet Union (communists) was trying to do in Afghanistan before America decided to start arming and funding terrorists there. They were improving the lives of the Afghanis, modernizing the country, building infrastructure, building schools…’

    That’s vicious nonsense.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  14. @redmudhooch

    Idiot.
    Your loyalty to the left is stupid.
    “Capitalism”……”communism”…….

    what difference does it make if the nose runs all of it?

    jews do what is good for the jews.
    If capitalism is good for the jews (and funds the Bolsheviks) then capitalism is good for the jews!
    And if 60 million Orthodox Christians are mass murdered by (((communists)))
    that’s good for the jews!

    The nose runs domestic policy through the left, and foreign policy through the right.

    White people lose no matter who they vote for.

    Our leaders are all shabbos goy sellouts.

    Sorry for the black pill.

    Only God can sort this out.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  15. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    what difference does it make if the nose runs all of it?

    That is what they want you to believe. You believe their anti-communist lies. Boomers are the most gullible and dumb fucking generation ever, a weight on humanity and the cause for its demise.

    Fuck Boomers

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  16. @Anonymous

    Low IQ dimwit SJW NPC filth.

    Communism is responsible for ONE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE MASS MURDERED IN THE 20TH CENTURY.

    Go back to your glory hole and STFU.

    • Replies: @druid
  17. I d᧐ trust all the concepts you have offered foor yߋur post.

    Theyy are rеally convіncing and can certainlʏ work.

    Nonetheless, the posts are too quicck for beginners. May you please prolong them a bit
    from next time? Τhank you for tһe post.

  18. What is left of the left?

  19. Paul says:

    Israel and its interests caused many Jews to abandon the far left and anti-imperialism. Jews, being a highly ethnocentric group, saw opposition to such things as the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian (Canaanite) people and to Israeli land grabs as being against their ethnic interests.

  20. wayfarer says:

    “Who Made the Useful Idiots of the Left?”

  21. Mike-SMO says:

    The Jews are so “last year”, like those who buy fancy European cars when there are “Oriental” cars with equivalent handling and probably greater reliability.

    The Empire always uses “foreign” troops to keep order. The troops know just enough Chinese, Russian or English to follow orders, but never enough to loose their outsider identity. The Soviets didn’t use European or even Russians to crush the unrest in Germeny, Humgary, etc.

    The Polish/Lithuanian landowners used Jews to manage their property while they enjoyed the good life in the cities, knowing full well that some Jews would be “assholes” (a technical term). The hostility among the locals would lead to pograms that would usually only effect the exposed Jewish peasants but anger the “bossman”. The Bolsheviks recruited Jews to rob and murderr the local peasants, and then the core Bolshevikskilled the Jews or sent them to camps.

    In the New World, we have POC (People of Conquest) since the class structure has collapsed and “The Jew” is probably a co-worker or brother-in-law (Still an ass hole, but not “foreign”). Cultural Marxism chooses a type rather than a class. Niggers instead of Kikes.

    “My Great Grand Father, the Slave Trader’” [link not handy] from 2017 (As I remember) notes that in 19th Century Nigeria people were made into “slaves” due to debt (financial or of honor), i.e. lazy, dim, antisocial or outright criminal. There were an unknown proportion who were “kidnapped” in raids by nearby tribes but the slave population sold to Europeans was enriched in mis-fits.

    It is not surprising that the descendents of that population have social problems and a high crime rate. And a lot of resentment. The recent episode in the news about the Metro employee who responded with overt hostility to a “normie” passenger who complained about eating on the train. The “normie” knew that the eating employee’s brother or sister employee would not clean up the mess. The employee’s arrogant response builds resentment in the “normies” which is denounced as “racism”. Affirmative Action and Diversity hires create the North American neo-Jew.

    Intentionally enhancing resentment (relabeled racism) creates the new Bolshevik weapon to use against the American kulak. Throw in a Maxi-Pad for theatrical effect and you have the Leftist/Socialist/Progressive program, this time controlled by the corruption from Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles, etc. The corruption and Bolsheviks are natural partners. The arrogant mis-fits take jobs that they can not do because they can not do them. The harvest is resentment and power.

    The corrupt and the power hungry socialist are only differentiated by the style of the prattle. Hype the resentment in a dependent population. What can go wrong?

    The mis-fits are going to be killed eventually, either by their victims or by those who are ready to rule. ‘Murica don’t need no Jews, we’ll fill our ghettos with cheap imports.

    The kink in the grand plan may be that most imports, who have risked life and limb to get access to the oppoirtunity to build a life and career despise the Afro-American who has thrown that opportunity into the ghetto gutter.

    Compton (Calif) went from a crime-infested Black “community” to ~60% Hispanic after the Black gang-related residents were killed or driven away. Every “sanctuary” jurisdiction is a future battleground. I think that the next Holocaust will be played out in the streets and the Jews (and other “Whites”) will be on the same team. Probably even the POC like the “Roof Koreans”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @annamaria
  22. Jews have always considered the goyim to be little more than cattle who can’t walk and chew cud at the same time. Historically, their grand strategy is to play both ends against the middle, with a cunning arrogance that assumes the goyim will never figure it out.

    When it was in their best interests to do so, the Rothschilds bet on both sides of the Napoleonic Wars. When it came to usury, the Jews lent at low interest rates to various governments, and at high interest rates to their respective subjects. When it was in their best interests to do so, the Jews instigated and perpetuated Communism, becoming the greatest mass murderers of goyim in history. When it was in their best interests to do so, the Jews created the Frankfurt School along with the modern left in the process. They substituted support of the working class man (communism) for an alliance with the (((corporatocracy))) to finance each and every radical egalitarian social program to destroy white western families. They used mass psychological conditioning techniques that started with Freud to entice the goy cattle into participating in their own destruction. Now with the advent of Israel, the (((neocons))) have pushed the US into fighting Israel’s wars for it. This vile list goes on and on.

    Much of this is presented in ‘The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’ by E. Michael Jones. That book explains why Jews have always been at war with Christianity. Along with Jewish contempt for the goyim, both secular and religious Jews have maintained their self-righteous insistence that they have a God-given right to meddle in everyone else’s affairs. Once again, it’s the old two-pronged approach. The secular Jews don’t believe in God, but it’s to their advantage to push their chosen-people agenda down the throats of gullible Christian Zionists.

    All the while the Jews have played their victim card with consummate skill. It allows them to evade any iota of responsibility for the chaos they’ve instigated across the centuries.

    It’s long past time to make every Jew in the world make aliyah to Israel. They and the Arabs can duke it out to their hearts’ content. At that point, the best approach by the West is benign neglect, as long as the Jews are prevented from meddling in everyone else’s lives ever again.

  23. @Colin Wright

    I believe you’re getting to the core of the matter with this comment and revealing the root cause as to why we are all propagandized and tempted into antagonism and hostility towards Syria and Russia and Christianity in general: an anti-Christ must foment an anti-Christian attitude in preparation for rule, no?

  24. Sean says:

    Brenton. Yikes.

  25. The majority of the cultural changes in America and the radical changes in American life that have shifted America so far to the left that todays demonrats are bolsheviks and the republicons are wantabe demonrats and all this can be laid at the feet of the zionists who control every facet of the zio/US!

    Read The Protocols of Zion and another one is The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed.

  26. Mulegino1 says:

    In the west, Jewry maintains a kosher right-left paradigm, as is evinced in the US with our two kosher political forces, namely Tweedle-Dem and Tweedle-GOP. Tweedle-Dem is held in thrall by the worst of the psychotic social revolutionaries (mostly Jews or their pets) and Tweedle-GOP by the right wing Zionists and the international financial predators and their acolytes in the corporate world. Interestingly, any candidate from either party who wishes to maintain a viable political career must express unconditional loyalty to Jewry and to Israel.

    Leftism is a perfect fit for the Talmudic worldview, which is at war with nature and culture. A Talmudic worldview is the essence of the Jewish identity, not because the Talmud is primarily a collection of spiritual or religious works but represents the sacralization of the ethnocentric psychopathy that is the core of world Jewry. The Talmudic worldview (where the Christian world is concerned) is anti-hierarchy, anti-tradition, anti-family, and above all, anti-Christian. This fits in well with both liberalism and radical social revolution, which are both heirs of the materialist so called “Enlightenment.”

  27. @Mulegino1

    The Talmudic worldview (where the Christian world is concerned) is anti-hierarchy, anti-tradition, anti-family, and above all, anti-Christian. This fits in well with both liberalism and radical social revolution, which are both heirs of the materialist so called “Enlightenment.”

    A fine comment of yours, I agree.

    The conflict between these two camps of Jews is among other reasons precisely because the leftist nutcases destroy the very fundament life requires. The zionist camp realize, that this destructive leftist policies effectively destroy also the jewish power, Jews are not immune to this degenerate policy, Tel Aviv is the gay capital of this planet. A mafia is a family, and if some nutcases destroy the fundaments of family, they gonna draw attention of the mafia papas, who created them.

    The same s***show with the useless UN, a marxist/masonic criminal organization, a war alliance, which clashes with the aims of Zionism. Or put differently, the Zionists broke contracts they signed with their marxist UN goons.

  28. The nose runs domestic policy through the left, and foreign policy through the right.

    Nose money fuels both sides…..70% of Democratic funding and 50% of GOP funding.

    However, when you add nose influence in media and academia, you soon realize that the nose
    has almost total control of the political narrative.

    The only breach was the internet, and the nose is now feverishly censoring all vestiges of the truth.

  29. I think that Islam will be an answer to the Jewish Supremacists. Unfortunately, the Christian Evangelicals will fail the Darwinian test of “the smarties survive, the dummies perish. “

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Anon
  30. onebornfree says: • Website

    As far as I can see, both orthodox Zionist and Muslim belief systems are ideally suited to the fundamental propositions of communism/collectivism/socialism/fascism etc. and their enforcement by “big governments”.

    Both, like governments themselves, are “top down” systems where the privileged few at the top get to dictate by force/coercion the values of the masses below via their own, never to be questioned, “correct” interpretations of their own particular religious dogma.

    So its really no surprise to me that many, maybe even most, Jews are rabid, foaming at the mouth, full on endorsers of communism/collectivism/socialism/fascism/statism to be implemented via their beloved big government “solutions”.

    All very sad, but like I said, its pretty much inevitable, given the fundamental false assumptions of their never seriously questioned pre-existing religious belief system.

    See: “The “My Religion Is The Best One” Scam” : http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2019/05/onebornfrees-special-scam-alerts-no-96.html [roughly a third of the way down the page]

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  31. I am beginning to question Ron Unz’s Jewish credentials. Jews have a knack for biz, they know how to make things appealing, they’re sometimes charming, then they’re sleazy, then they spin things …..

    But, my God- this entire stuff is boooooring. It’s always the same.

    • Disagree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. Republic says:
    @utu

    Re: E Michael Jones and The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History;
    he says that the Jews have been involved in every revolutionary movement since the time of Christ

    • Replies: @Cleburne
    , @Anon
  33. druid says:
    @Robert Dolan

    80% of the very top brass of the communists was jewish! So Jews did it under the banner of communism? No?

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  34. Anon[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Prof Watson

    How can a branch be an answer to the root?

    Judaism holds that the modern world will end in a world war that begins between Islam and the West. The only national survivor is supposed to be Israel. This is all stated in no uncertain terms in the Jewish texts. Israel / Jews support Islam enough so that Islam isn’t suppressed / excommunicated from the West until that happens, and they play a large part in helping to keep the tension high until that happens.

    Islam is a tool of Judaism and is a theological mirror of Judaism. Nothing more. To not be aware of the latter truth is to be theologically unlearned.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  35. Anon[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You believe their anti-communist lies

    Anti communist lies? I’ve never heard such rubbish in my life. Communism is as openly discredited as any sociopolitical movement ever has been, merely by its own wretched mass homicidal history. No serious person who isn’t a drug addled antifa drone or a nasty anti-Western Jew uses the phrase “anti communist” unironically.

    Communism is a tool of homicidal Jewish Supremacy. Full stop. That is more than well established. We don’t entertain homicidal Jewish tools here. Communism doesn’t deserve consideration for a discussion at this point in history, let alone an actual discussion. Its proponents live in an evil past either as Jews or as massively ignorant (of both how political power works and the Jewish religion that will have them all eventually genocided) golems.

  36. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Fantastic answer. Particularly the part about being right towards the ingroup and left towards the enemy. Also the part about intergenetational power.

    We do not however have to limit ourselves to left or right. National socialism mopped up Jewish wiemar decadence pretty quickly at least in core Germany.

    Ending usury is also a good idea as it will allow people to build intergenerational wealth something which in the over taxed and underclass burdened west only middleman minority groups that do not pay tax are able to do currently.

  37. Cleburne says:
    @Anonymous

    Anon, I’m not a leftist — not a Republican either, or a “conservative” by the contemporary definition -/ but I agree with about everything you wrote here.

    Have you read Lasch’s The True and Only Heaven or any of Eugene Genovese or Mel Bradford’s books on Southern conservatism? Similarly against the financialization of everything. You might like them.

    Thanks for the thoughtful post.

  38. Cleburne says:
    @Republic

    If I can insert a comment, having just read the book. It’s most excellent but in my opinion (bit of an expert on 17thC England) he overstates the Jewish influence on the Puritans. I assume that may be a bit of his Catholicism speaking. At any rate. Great book. Also recommend Reed’s Controversy of Zion.

  39. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You really are in the wrong comment section. Jews can be both hyper capitalists and communists. They can control (and pervert to thier ends) both. It is not a contradiction.

  40. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike-SMO

    ‘The Bolsheviks recruited Jews to rob and murderr the local peasants, and then the core Bolshevikskilled the Jews or sent them to camps.’

    The bolsheviks were the Jews.

  41. ahml says:

    Alex Jones is banned by Jews, but he calls for war with Iran and says China owns Hollywood.
    He blames China for globo-homo.

    I’m totally through with this shit.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/IVA025bLwbnB/

    • Replies: @Republic
  42. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Well somone is triggered.

    Lol how pathetic

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  43. annamaria says:
    @Colin Wright

    Changes in education, for starter. Under the Soviets, Afghanistan had the first ever female graduates with European-quality medical degree: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/uncategorized/women-in-afghanistan-education/2200/

    The rise of the Soviet-backed People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1978 brought large-scale literacy programs for men and women, alongside the abolition of bride price and other reforms beneficial to women. … women were able to experience expanded access to education and also the opportunity to actively participate as university faculty staff.

    This CIA report (sanitized copy) about Soviet influence on education in Afghanistan had been classified until 2011: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00096R000200190003-8.pdf

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  44. annamaria says:
    @Mike-SMO

    “The Bolsheviks recruited Jews to rob and murder the local peasants, and then the core Bolsheviks killed the Jews or sent them to camps.”
    — You missed the section in the article, which explained in clear terms (and provided references) that the core Bolsheviks were mostly Jewish. Yagoda, Trotsky, Frankel, Kaganovich, Zalkind, Zinoviev and multitude of others on the top positions were not Slavs. The secret police (Yagoda, Berman), the First Secretary of CP of Ukraine (Lazar Kaganovich, see Holodomor), the GULAG administration (Frankel) were not ethnic Russians or Ukrainians — they were Jewish.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  45. @annamaria

    Agree, see Solzhenitsyns Gulad Archapelago and Anothy Suttons Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.

  46. Art says:

    Chiefs and witchdoctors.

    Tribes are controlled by chiefs and witchdoctors. Free societies are controlled by a volitional public ethos.

    Left wing Jews are self-haters. They hate the tribal chiefs. And they hate the ungodly greed of their Big Jew brothers who control the tribal chiefs. No one has any inkling of the total extent of Jew greed for money and power, like another Jew.

    The left-wing Jew is the tribal witch doctor – he controls with words, while the chiefs do so with swords.

    Jew communism (socialism) is the witchdoctor revolting. The left-wing Jew wants to wield the sword.

    Jews intellectually think of themselves as the law givers. They think that they can fix things just by creating and enforcing laws.

    Of course, this does not work without a public ethos shared by all. Big Jews share nothing with anybody.

    America today has the worst of both – a Jew led tribal chief and a Jew led budding socialism. (Trump & Bernie)

    Think Peace — Art

  47. Republic says:
    @ahml

    Alex Jones exposed as Zionist shill

    This video should clear up any doubts as to Jones’ true allegiance

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  48. @annamaria

    ‘Changes in education, for starter. Under the Soviets, Afghanistan had the first ever female graduates with European-quality medical degree…’

    Oh yeah…and ten percent of the population killed and a quarter rendered homeless (something like Serbia under the Nazis) but hey…

    gotta score those female doctors pretty high.

  49. @Anon

    I think he means something much more mundane, and modern, than your speculations. Maybe just a case of demographics being destiny.

  50. Anon[296] • Disclaimer says:
    @Republic

    E Michael Jones does not say a previous truth: Jews have persecuted Christians since the beginning, and after Theodosius, whenever in or near power. That is the beginning of the story, and explains their ultimate goal: dismantling the faith.

    Dr Jones surely knows this, but doesn’t want to deviate the attention from his smarter way of framing the issue: subversion of the whole to favor the few. But really it is City of God vs City of Man.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  51. @Anon

    ANON

    Here’s a question.

    If Jews do these things than why have Irish-Catholics and Italian-Americans and even the significant German (Including Trump) and Arab populations of “Jew York City” held their own against Jews?
    How then are Jews responsible for a Christian genocide? Usury? Gee, you mean Japanese and Chinese don’t live on credit?

    Pornography? Japan has no porn industry, huh?

    MSM? What?

    Jews are not known for being tough fighters. Are they even capable of a genocide?

  52. @Anonymous

    Well someone thinks Judeomaniacs are pain in the @ss…. although, sometimes funny….

    [MORE]

  53. @Mulegino1

    In the west, Jewry maintains a kosher right-left paradigm, as is evinced in the US with our two kosher political forces, namely Tweedle-Dem and Tweedle-GOP. Tweedle-Dem is held in thrall by the worst of the psychotic social revolutionaries (mostly Jews or their pets) and Tweedle-GOP by the right wing Zionists and the international financial predators and their acolytes in the corporate world. Interestingly, any candidate from either party who wishes to maintain a viable political career must express unconditional loyalty to Jewry and to Israel.

    Leftism is a perfect fit for the Talmudic worldview, which is at war with nature and culture. A Talmudic worldview is the essence of the Jewish identity, not because the Talmud is primarily a collection of spiritual or religious works but represents the sacralization of the ethnocentric psychopathy that is the core of world Jewry. The Talmudic worldview (where the Christian world is concerned) is anti-hierarchy, anti-tradition, anti-family, and above all, anti-Christian. This fits in well with both liberalism and radical social revolution, which are both heirs of the materialist so called “Enlightenment.”

    You explain our upside down reality thoroughly in two paragraphs, answering the first part of this question in your second paragraph, the second part in your first:

    https://awwmemes.com/i/why-is-it-that-the-only-two-issues-that-receive-eb4396b0ddfa4fe8add108ace87346fd

    Your mention of the “Enlightenment” matches opinions expressed extensively here by your fellow credible commenter Jake who has expounded extensively here on how prodding and financing by Talmudists generated both the Reformation an the Enlightenment (if they are not one in the same) and how Jew genocidal hatred of whites is because Jews see whites as the embodiment of Christianity’s future even if it’s present appears fragile.

  54. It’s not a mystery that Jews were behind the Bolsheviks along with other so called leftist causes. The question to be asked and answered is, what was/is their motive? Unfortunately those who do ask, as well as those who offer logical answers are smashed with the anti-semitism hammer. But the truth is gaining on them. Strip from the Jews control of the central bank’s like the Fed, and their powers will wane.

    • Replies: @Art
  55. Art says:
    @the grand wazoo

    Strip from the Jews control of the central bank’s like the Fed, and their powers will wane.

    For 20 years, by providing Fed easy debt and liquidity, the Jew – Allen Greenspan – transferred America’s wealth into Jew hands. It started with junk bonds, then the internet bubble, and then the home price bubble. Jews got exponentially richer with each bubble.

    If one has the courage to believe what they see – then no other conclusion can manifest itself.

    Do No Harm — Art

  56. @Anonymous

    How about stopping importing diversity (aka immigration)? The Jewish purpose behind supporting mass immigration is to break down the ethnonational cohesion of White/Aryan societies. This was proven by the hysterical reaction by the 95% (or more) Jewish “NeverTrump” movement among (neo)conservatives against Donald Trump, surely among the most pro-Israel presidents ever. You’d think these Zio-pseudo-cons would be delighted at everything Trump’s done for the Likudist agenda. Yet they relentlessly and unfairly keep denouncing him. Why? Because, by calling into question the absolute value of immigration, he has dared to associate American conservatism and the GOP with some aspect (however miniscule) of the traditional conservative hostility to “diversity” (support for which is what is in back of Ziocon lies about the alleged benefits of mass 98% nonwhite immigration).

    OTOH, capitalism is integral to both American liberty and prosperity (the latter PROVEN repeatedly, both deductively-analytically, and empirically-historically: capitalism is the best path to national prosperity). It also is among the last civilizational protections normal White Americans still possess in the nation which used to be ours.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Brenton Sanderson Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?