1983 Book by Jewish Historians Celebrates Jewish Role in Mass Murder of Russians Under Bolshevism

Source

Brenton Sanderson

“Trotsky was feted by Jews worldwide as “an avenger of Jewish humiliations under Tsarism, bringing fire and slaughter to their worst enemies.”[A16]

Alain Brossat and Sylvie Klingberg’s Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism was first published in France in 1983. A revised edition appeared in 2009 and an English translation in 2016. Intended for a mainly Jewish readership, the book is essentially an apologia for Jewish communist militants in Eastern Europe in the early to mid-twentieth century.

Brossat, a Jewish lecturer in philosophy at the University of Paris, and Klingberg, an Israeli sociologist, interviewed dozens of former revolutionaries living in Israel in the early 1980s. In their testimony they recalled “the great scenes” of their lives such as “the Russian Civil War, the building of the USSR, resistance in the camps, the war in Spain, the armed struggle against Nazism, and the formation of socialist states in Eastern Europe.”[A1]

Leon Trotsky, the most famous butcher of then all

While each followed different paths, “the constancy of these militants’ commitment was remarkable, as was the firmness of the ideas and aspirations that underlay it.” Between the two world wars, communist militancy was “the center of gravity of their lives.”[A2]

While communism in Europe in the early- to mid-twentieth century was characterized by economic dysfunction, systematic oppression, summary executions, and the elimination of entire ethnic groups, Brossat and Klingberg wistfully recall it as a time when European Jewry “failed to achieve its hopes, its utopias, its political programs and strategies.”

Instead, the messianic dreams of radical Jews were “broken on the rocks of twentieth-century European history.” A product of their ethnocentric infatuation with the “romance” of Jewish involvement in radical political movements, Revolutionary Yiddishland is Brossat and Klingberg’s hagiographic attempt to resurrect a history that is today “more than lost, being actually denied, even unpronounceable.”

The unstated reason for this omission lies in the determination of Jews to absolve their co-ethnics of any responsibility for the crimes of communism, and to ensure the advent of German National Socialism is always framed in a way that conduces to a simplified narrative of saintly Jewish victimhood and German (and by extension White European) malevolence.

A famous civil war poster which showed what the Tsarist forces believed about Trotsky

Maintaining this narrative is supremely important for the legions of Jewish “diversity” activists and propagandists throughout the West, given the status of “the Holocaust” as the moral and rhetorical foundation of today’s White displacement agenda. Invocation of this narrative is reflexively used to stifle opposition to the Jewish diaspora strategies of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism.

By contrast, 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. This polarity accounts for the fact that, since 1945, over 150 feature films have been made about “the Holocaust” while the number of films that have been made about the genocide of millions of Eastern Europeans can be counted on one hand — and none have been produced by Hollywood.

The critical importance of suppressing discussion of this unsavory aspect of Jewish history was underscored by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in his 2013 screed The Devil That Never Dies: The Rise of Global Antisemitism (reviewed here). For Goldhagen, any claim Jews were responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution and its predations is a “calumny,” and morally reprehensible because “If you associate Jews with communism, or worse, hold communism to be a Jewish invention and weapon, every time the theme, let alone the threat, of communism, Marxism, revolution, or the Soviet Union comes up, it also conjures, reinforces, even deepens thinking prejudicially about Jews and the animus against Jews in one’s country.”[A3]

It is therefore imperative the topic remain taboo and discussion of it suppressed — regardless of how many historians (Jewish and non-Jewish) confirm the decisive role Jews played in providing the ideological basis for, and the establishment, governance and administration of, the former communist dictatorships of Central and Eastern Europe.

In a recent article for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, journalist Cnaan Liphshiz, while noting that the Goldhagen approach of absolute denial constitutes “a logical strategy” for Jews, admits the facts do “reaffirm in essence” the assessment of those like “promoter of Holocaust denial” Mark Weber who observed that: “Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime.”

Liphshiz notes how Russia’s main Jewish museum has, since 2012, “tackled head on the subject of revolutionary Jews” in an exhibition that “underlines unapologetically how and why Jews became central to the revolution.” Knowing that outright denial of the pivotal Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and the murderous regimes it spawned is intellectually untenable, a growing number of Jewish historians concede the point, but insist this leading role was morally justified because it was essentially “defensive” in nature.

Thus, while freely admitting Jews had “an outsized role in the revolution,” Boruch Gorin, chairman of Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center, insists that “there were very good reasons for this,” with “anti-Semitism” being foremost among them. For Gorin, the revolution, while offering “Russia’s Jews many opportunities, equal rights and education and a chance to fill the vacuum left by the elite that was forced into exile,” most importantly offered a haven from a “wave of pogroms” in the Ukraine and elsewhere that “some historians call a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust.” According to this conception, a Jew in 1917 “had two choices: revolution or exile.”

Andrew Joyce has explored how Jewish historians and activists have distorted and weaponized the history of “pogroms” in the former Russian Empire. The mythos forged around these events, crystallized in the Russo-Jewish Committee’s propaganda pamphlet The Persecution of the Jews in Russia (1881) and reporting in Jewish-controlled newspapers throughout the West, was pivotal in accelerating the development of modern, international Jewish politics.

This narrative revolves around certain claims: that Jews were oppressed for centuries in Russia; that the Pale of Settlement was a virtual prison; that tsarist authorities actively organized and directed pogroms; that pogroms were genocidal and extremely violent in nature; and that Russians were uncivilized and barbaric savages. Contemporary Jewish historians like Simon Sebag Montefiore continue to credit lurid tales of pogroms where Jews were “massacred in such gleefully ingenious atrocities — disemboweled, dismembered, decapitated; children were cutleted, roasted and eaten in front of raped mothers.”[A4] Joyce notes how the dissemination of such pornographic accounts were key to ensuring “that mass Jewish chain migration to the West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists. After all, wasn’t the bigoted nativist just a step removed from the rampaging Cossack?”

Uncritically drawing on this bogus narrative, establishment historians typically ascribe the pogroms to irrational manifestations of hate against Jews, tsarist malevolence, the pathological jealousy and primitive barbarity of the Russian mob, and the “blood libel.” The real underlying causes of peasant uprisings against Jews, such as the Jewish monopolization of entire industries (including the sale of liquor to peasants on credit), predatory moneylending, and radical political agitation, are completely ignored, despite tsarist authorities having repeatedly expressed alarm over how “Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish serfdom.”[A5] 

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 basic pattern. With this in mind, 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.”[A6]

In Revolutionary Yiddishland, Brossat and Klingberg posit the “Jewish Bolshevism as morally justified ethnic self-defense” thesis, insisting that “anti-Semitism” was “an insidious poison hovering in the air of the time” that comprised “the sinister background music to the action of the Yiddishland revolutionaries.”[A7] The real causes of anti-Jewish sentiment among the native peasantry are, once again, comprehensively ignored.

Rather than seeing Jewish communist militants as willing agents of ethnically-motivated oppression and mass murder, the authors depict them as noble victims who tragically “linked their fate to the grand narrative of working-class emancipation, fraternity between peoples, socialist egalitarianism” rather than to “a Jewish state solidly established on its ethnic foundations, territorial conquests and realpolitik alliances.”[A8] In other words, they mistakenly held communism rather than Zionism to be best for the Jews.

Determined to absolve their co-ethnics of any culpability for communist crimes, Brossat and Klingberg assure us that the militancy of their informants “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.”[A9] In other words, tens of millions may have died because of the actions of Jewish communist militants, but their hearts were pure.

Regarding such arguments, Kevin MacDonald observed how 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.”[A10]

Jewish participation in Bolshevism as ethnic revenge

That their motivations were far from pure, and that ethnic animosity and desire for revenge were key factors driving the large-scale Jewish support of, and participation in, communist movements was obvious to the Jewish historian Norman Cantor who made the following observation:

The Bolshevik Revolution and some of its aftermath represented, from one perspective, Jewish revenge. During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that — as 1930s anti-Semites claimed — Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. In time Jews will learn to take pride in the record of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back.[A11]

This corresponds with Kevin MacDonald’s assessment in Culture of Critique that the disproportionate participation of Jews in Bolshevik crimes was, in large part, “motivated by revenge against peoples that had historically been anti-Jewish.” One of the (non-Jewish) pioneers of the Dada movement, Hugo Ball, immediately recognized the obvious agenda behind the lopsided Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and resulting Soviet administration.

Observing the make-up of the first Bolshevik Executive Committee (four out of six of whom were Jewish), he noted that “it would be strange if these men, who make decisions about expropriation and terror, did not feel old racial resentments against the Orthodox and pogrommatic Russia.”[A12]

Leading Jewish communists, like founder of the Mensheviks Yuli Martov, who became a close associate of Lenin and Trotsky, made a point of recalling his childhood experiences of Russian and Ukrainian anti-Semitism. The 1881 Odessa pogrom was his “first taste of primitive Russian anti-Semitism,” and Martov was “shaken to the depths of his being by the pogromist barbarity of Tsarist Russia.”

The event left a “permanent mark on his impressionable mind,” and he later underlined the connection between this experience and his subsequent revolutionary career, posing the question: “Would I have become what I became if the Russian reality had not imprinted her coarse fingers on my plastic, youthful soul in that memorable night and carefully planted under the cover of that burning pity which she aroused in my childlike heart, the seeds of a redeeming hatred?”[A13]

While Trotsky, the architect of the Bolshevik insurrection and creator of the Red Army, claimed his Jewish origins and Jewish interests did not guide his attraction to Bolshevism, his biographer Joshua Rubenstein disagrees, noting that he “was a Jew in spite of himself,” who “gravitated to Jews wherever he lived,” and “never abided physical attacks on Jews, and often intervened to denounce such violence and organize a defense.”[A14] 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.”[A15]

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.”[A16]

Ethnic revenge was also a motivation for Lazar Kaganovich, the Jewish member of the Politburo who presided over the forced famine that took the lives of millions of Ukrainian peasants and the mass deportation of “anti-Semitic” Cossacks to Siberia in the 1930s. Kaganovich had “battled the chauvinistic and anti-Semitic Black Hundreds, especially strong in Kyiv, both before and after the 1911 Beilis affair, the Russian version of the Dreyfus affair.”[A17]

The assassination of the Russian Prime Minister Stolypin in the same year resulted in the Black Hundreds attempting “to whip up a pogrom.” In response, the “Bolsheviks took measures to protect themselves and to rebuff this threat,” and “Kaganovich only joined the party after these momentous events.” He studied Lenin’s works at this time, and the Bolshevik leader’s article “Stolypin and Revolution” which depicted Stolypin as “an organizer of Black Hundred gangs and anti-Semitic pogroms” made a “big impression” on him.[A18]

Kaganovich later became known as the “butcher of the Ukrainians.” As Soviet leader in the Ukraine he received reports documenting “widespread dissatisfaction among workers fuelled by high unemployment, with widespread anti-Semitism, with workers and peasants denouncing the ‘dominance of red nobility of Yids.’” Kaganovich played a “highly visible” role in suppressing this “nationalist deviation” in 1925–28, and later oversaw 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.”[A19] The secret police, led by Genrikh Yagoda (also Jewish) exterminated all “anti-party elements.” Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovich set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot. During the winter of 1932–33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or left to die of starvation.[A20]

The Bolsheviks mounted murderous campaigns against entire ethnic groups. The Soviet government killed at least 30 million people, most in the first 25 years of the regime’s existence during the height of Jewish power. The Jewish intellectual, G.A. Landau, writing in 1923, was stunned by the “cruelty, sadism, and violence” of Jewish functionaries in the Red Army and secret police “who yesterday did not know how to use a gun” but who “are now found among the executioners and cutthroats.”[A21]

I.M. Bikerman was similarly shocked at the “disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.”[A22] In response to attempts by Jews to disassociate their ethnicity from such figures, the Jewish intellectual I.A. Bromberg noted the cognitive dissonance in the Jewish “passion for seeking out and extolling the Jews famous in various fields of cultural life,” and especially “the shameless circus around the name of Einstein,” while simultaneously distancing themselves from Jewish communist criminals. D.S. Pasmanik agreed, noting how “Ethnic Jews not only do not denounce an Einstein or an Ehrlich; they do not even reject the baptized Heine and Boerne. And this means they have no right to disavow Trotsky and Zinoviev.”[A23]


Source: The Unz Review

Advertisements

Insightfulness and Palestine

October 14, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

insig pala_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Insight refers to the sudden ability to see something in a way that profoundly clarifies our understanding. It allows us to revise our views from a totally new perspective. Insightfulness is an innovative mode. It offers an alternative, out of the box, vision of the world around us. Insightfulness is a key factor in any dynamic and vibrant discourse.

While the so-called revolution is occasionally fueled by ideological or social ‘insight,’ the ‘revolutionaries’ are more often anti insightful by nature.  They spend their energy reducing an ‘insight’ into a fixed regime: a doctrine, a dogma, a strategy, a pile of commandments, a kosher jargon or a list of ‘deplorables.’ While Marx, for instance, offered an insightful materialist vision of our past as well as our human future, Marxists are generally an anti-insightful bunch. Their doctrine reduces Marx’s insights into Torah and Mizvoth, restricting and suppressing creative thinking. So-called ‘revolutionaries’ are too often a collective of  ‘counter-revolutionaries;’ people who do little but kill insightfulness. They identify symbolically with the ‘revolution,’ while they sustain a reality of stagnation. This analysis may assist us in understanding the last 150 years of Left paralysis in the West. It may also explain why it is often fascists who take over precisely when conditions are ripe for a ‘text book’ Marxist revolution.

Observing the evolution of the Palestinian solidarity movement and the growing influence of Jewish bodies within this movement has provided me with the opportunity to monitor a spectacular anti-insightful operation.

For many years I have wondered why the Palestinian solidarity discourse is uniquely anti-intellectual. It basically jettisons critical thinking and acts instead from a rigid activism manual. Instead of advancing our understanding of the essence and the nature of what is responsible for the oppression of the Palestinian people, namely The Jewish State, the movement clings to models that drive us as far as possible from the conflict or a working understanding of its roots. Instead of asking how the Israelis interpret the meaning of their state as the ‘Jewish state’ or trying to understand how the Jewishness of that ‘Jewish state’ influences Israeli politics or its supportive lobby around the world, we cling to moldy 19th century theoretical models (e.g., colonialism) that apply to super power conduct in an industrial era. Instead of comparing the Jewish State to other political models that adhered to expansionism, nationalism, race and ethnic cleansing (Nazi Germany, for instance), we equate Israel with apartheid South Africa.

In truth, Israel is far more vile than apartheid South Africa. Apartheid is a racist system of exploitation, the Jewish state doesn’t want to ‘exploit’ the Palestinians, it wants them gone. Israel is a racially driven, expansionist ethnic cleanser but we are not allowed to study the true nature of its philosophy.

I should feel a bit sorry to point out that the Palestinian solidarity movement is not just ideologically and politically misleading, it is actually misleading by design.

In 2010 I asked Olivia Zemor,  an enthusiastic French Jewish pro Palestinian BDS activist, why she disseminates populist slogans that work to stifle her followers’ ability to understand the roots of the conflict and its possible resolution. Zemor’s answer was shockingly simple: “we have a lot of people who support Palestine, we better keep them busy with simple tasks.”  Perhaps the Palestinian solidarity movement is an intense engagement, but, as we know, it has yet to facilitate the return of a single Palestinian refugee to Jaffa, Lod, Haifa or anywhere else in that unpromising land.  In fact, it is doing the opposite. It keeps people busy with ‘simple tasks’ that divert their attention from the root cause of the conflict. Instead of looking at the exceptionalist and racist orientation that is intrinsic to pretty much every Jewish political discourse, we equate a post modernist  21st century entity  with the modernist politics of the 19th century British empire.  Instead of unconditionally supporting the Right of Return, the movement is basically an endless internal Jewish debate about Jews’ right to BDS.

In the 1990s the Palestinian solidarity movement  engaged in a vibrant innovative discourse that was the basis of an evolutionary mechanism where the most profound thoughts prevailed.  But this changed in the early 2000s when a crude and relentless effort emerged aimed at eradicating any attempt at deep, essentialist, innovative thinking. Insightfulness was replaced by a rigid regime of correctness. The solidarity movement rapidly became an intellectual desert.

Instead of caring for the refugees in Lebanon or Syria, the Palestinian solidarity movement primarily engaged in the  ‘fight against antisemitsm.’  Bizarrely, it was the Palestinian solidarity movement that acted, well in advance of Hasbara pressure groups, to purge those ‘problematic voices’ who were brave enough to call a spade a spade.  This was predictable since it was in the early 2000s that  the Palestinian solidarity movement morphed into a Jewish identitarian discourse. From that point on, the solidarity agenda was defined by Jewish sensitivities.  The solidarity movement didn’t liberate Palestine because it wasn’t meant to. Its real goal was to vindicate the Jews as a collective from the crimes committed  on ‘their behalf’ by the Jewish State.

Throughout this time the so-called ‘Jews in the movement’ (JIM) viciously and ferociously attacked the greatest  minds and most enthusiastic activists who expressed support for Palestine (People like Israel Shamir, Greta Berlin, Richard Falk, Norman Finkelstein, Paul Eisen and Alison Weir).  None of these attacks led to discussion or debate within solidarity institutions, for these institutions have been reduced into authoritarian kangaroo courts.  The attacks were often followed by Talmudic Herem procedures – calls for disavowals and excommunication.

Back in the day, Paul Eisen taught me the iron rule of Jewish politics. “Self identified political Jews,” he said, “always kick to the left.” As long as they do so, they sustain their membership in the fold. Often we learn that a West Bank messianic settler has kicked to Netanyahu’s left. Netanyahu, on his part, kicks the Israeli political centre. The Israel’s Labour Party does the same to the Israeli Left that itself often harshly criticizes Jewish diaspora ‘anti’ Zionist groups. Unfortunately, this dynamic doesn’t stop at the Israeli border. Diaspora self-identified progressive ‘anti’ Zionist Jews follow the same procedure. They smear, denounce and purge those whom they are desperate to silence.

The pattern is clear, to be a (political) Jew is to define the boundaries of kosher conduct. Jews do not agree amongst themselves on what constitutes kosher political conduct, but they do agree on the necessity of boundaries. To be a Jew is to insist that someone else is ‘beyond the pale.’

This  dynamic  manifests itself daily within the Jewish pro  Palestinian movement. The British Jewish group that calls itself “Free Speech on Israel” doesn’t actually support true freedom of speech. It just insists upon redefining the boundaries of such ‘freedom.’ JVP and Mondoweiss often tell us what and who we shouldn’t listen to. When my book The Wandering Who was published in 2012 it rapidly gained popularity amongst Palestinian supporters. Mondoweiss were very quick to react. They changed their comment policy . “From here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy.” The Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist site practically banned its followers from talking about the Jewishness of a state that calls itself ‘The Jewish State.’

The same applies to Richard Silverstein and others who are often denounced by Zionists and even anti Zionists  yet still insist upon defining what is right and who is wrong for Palestine.

In light of this Jewish kick boxing apparatus, Goyim are easy to describe. Goyim do not kick to the left nor do they kick to the right.  The most dedicated American journalist on Palestine,  Alison Weir, has never told us what the boundaries of the political discussion are. The Washington Report on  Middle East Affairs has not told us whom we should ignore or disavow. Stephen Mearsheimer also failed to tell us who to delete. And these Goyim are not alone. I have never seen Richard Falk’s repudiation list. Norman Finkelstein is not a fan of my work, but he does not interfere with my or anyone else’s work. The same applies to Chomsky.  Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir who suffered more than most the vile and brutal smear campaigns, have never participated in the Jewish left kicking.

Shamir, Eisen, Finkelstein, Chomsky and Falk may disagree on many things but they share a crucial quality.  Like Uri Avnery R.I.P. and Gideon Levy they do not present a template of kosher boundaries. It is not surprising that these people are amongst the most insightful. They operate as intellectuals. They do not operate politically as Jews. They offer their take on reality and refrain from defining what issues we shouldn’t tackle. They let others be.

In my latest book, Being in Time, I reinstate the discussion about ‘Athens and Jerusalem.’ Athens, as I define it, is the birth place of philosophy, science and beauty. Athens is where ‘we think things through.’ Jerusalem, on the other hand, is the city of revelation, the realm of obedience governed by a strict regime  of correctness. Unfortunately, the Palestinian solidarity movement has been reduced into a ghettoized Jerusalemite sect. But despite this, solidarity with the Palestinians hasn’t died out. It has grown into a universal global awareness. By now, we are all Palestinians, Like the Palestinians we can’t even utter the name of our oppressor.

It was not the so called ‘solidarity movement’ that made us Palestinians. It is the IHRA definition of antisemitsm that makes us Palestinians. It is the global campaign against Corbyn and the Labour party that has made us feel like refugees in our own country. It is Trump making Israel great again that made us Gazans. It is the realization that Zionist abuse is a multi layered  global  disaster. It is the understanding that if we won’t wake up and soon, we may be next to bear the consequences.

cover bit small.jpg

To learn how we have become our own worst enemy read Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto…

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

%d bloggers like this: