…by Jonas E. Alexis
A correspondent who goes by the moniker “Gennadiy Gessen” emailed me on November 17th and wanted to ask a litany of questions. What follows is the interaction, which is quite lengthy.
Gessen: I read with interest your article on Veterans Today on Putin and the “New World Order”. While you make some halfway sound points when you discuss objective morality and the transvaluation of values in the West, your reverence for Putin as the imagined vanguard against the “New World Order” seems to me to be incoherent, and flatly ignorant of many of Putin’s own positions. Your worldview is a strangely Manichaean fantasy permeated with an attitude towards Putin which approximates an unholy mix between idolatry and fascist servility. You would be wise to consider how this worldview squares with the facts.
First, consider that a great deal of your conspiracy theory rests on the assumption that the Russian Revolution was somehow a Jewish creation—an assertion denied by every historian of the Russian Revolution from the anti-Putin (e.g. Orlando Figes) to the pro-Putin (e.g. Solzhenitsyn). Even if it were true that the first Soviet government was 85% Jewish, the point is moot unless you present primary evidence to support any relationship between their Jewish heritage/religion and their actions. The point is no more relevant that the fact that Stalin was a Georgian or that Lavrentiy Beria was a Mingrelian. It is also no more relevant than the fact that two of Putin’s closest friends and political confidants are Jewish oligarchs—Arkady Rotenberg and Roman Abramovich. Putin’s relationship with Abramovich—described by Chris Hutchins, a noted biographer of Putin, as akin to that of a “father and son”—should be all the more of interest to you since Abramovich is also a Zionist with Israeli citizenship. If Zionism and Jewish money are a part of the “New World Order”, as you imagine it, you have a bit of explaining to do, my friend.
Second, consider the close political relationship between Putin and Netanyahu, and the increasingly close relationship between Russia and Israel. Much of Russian foreign policy towards Israel is a reversal of Soviet policy, which was, as is documented everywhere from the mainstream to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, vociferously anti-Zionist. This in itself is an inconsistency you will have to explain at some point in time, if Soviet Russia was controlled by Jews. Moreover, some disagreements over Syria aside, Putin has been an important regional ally of Israel in many respects. Putin himself has described Israel as a “special state [to Russia]” (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/18/israel-is-a-russian-speaking-country-putin-says-a67337), tied to Russia by “family and friendship” (ibid.), and enjoys the support of most Russian citizens living in Israel (http://9tv.co.il/news/2018/03/19/255435.html). The Kremlin has also supported Israel as an “unconditional ally against [international terrorism]” (https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Putin-to-Netanyahu-Were-unconditional-allies-in-the-war-against-terror-456193), and supported Israel in Operation Protective Edge, meeting and expressing his support for the operation with none other than Yisrael Meir Lau, and Yitzhak Yosef, son of the infamous racist rabbi Ovadia Yosef: https://fjc-fsu.org/president-putin-support-israel/. You have more explaining to do, my friend.
Third, you should acknowledge that Putin’s renunciation of his country’s Soviet past is not wholesale. Putin is deeply proud of the Red Army’s fight against Nazi tyranny—still memorialized in Russia as among the proudest moments in Russian history. Taking your conspiracy theories about World War II into account, this should strike you as quite a bit more than a strange coincidence, my friend. Here is a photograph of Putin and Netanyahu together in Moscow on Victory Day, celebrating the victory of the Red Army over Nazi Germany: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/2018_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade_07.jpg. Here he is meeting with Jewish veterans of the Red Army in Israel: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Vladimir_Putin_in_Israel_27-29_April_2005-17.jpg.
Putin is many things—a supporter of autocrats, the only man since Saddam Hussein to have annexed another country’s territory, a closet billionaire who lives at the expense of a largely poor populace, a jailer of opposition leaders, journalists, and political dissidents, and the oligarch-propped leader of an oil-dependent country with some of the highest poverty rates and lowest life expectancies in the developed world—but he is, unfortunately for you, not quite the man you thought he was. So yes, I’d say you have some explaining to do, my friend. Maybe you can start with me?
Alexis: With all due respect, I believe you are living in a fantasy world, and I cannot take time to answer all the historically risible points you have raised here. I can only address just a few.
No serious historian or scholar with an ounce of common sense will deny the fact that the Russian Revolution was a largely Jewish movement. For example, read Erich E. Haberer’s Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Jonathan Frankel’s Crisis, Revolution, and Russian Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006); Jerry Z. Muller’s Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). The scholarly literature on this very issue is just an embarrassment of riches.
It is all the most disingenuous that you would even bring in Solzhenitsyn in order to buttress the silly claim that the Russian Revolution was not really a Jewish enterprise! Have you really read Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together? If so, have you read it to the end? If so, did you read the chapters on the conflict between Jews and Russia? If so, then you are absolutely a disingenuous person and that further exchange with you will not change anything because your mind is made up.
Moreover, do you know why Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together hasn’t been published by any major publisher in the English speaking world? Do you know why Jewish historians like Richard Pipes have labeled Solzhenitsyn an anti-Semite? It’s just plain silly that you would mention Solzhenitsyn in order to buttress a laughable claim.
The fact is that some historians do not want to point out that the Russian Revolution was largely Jewish because that would put their lucrative career into jeopardy. Or if a historian is brave enough to make some historically reasonable comments about Russia and even Nazi Germany, then the Holocaust establishment will kick him out of academia. Read what happened to Stanford historian Norman Davies.
Gessen: If my claims about Putin (his connection to Jewish oligarchs, the strong relationship between Israel and Russia, and Putin’s memorialization of the Red Army) are “historically risible”, I would be grateful if you could tell me why, my friend. The unavoidable impression is that the “Putin vs. NWO” dualism you have propagated needs revision. If you tell someone that their statements are “risible”, it’s customary to proceed by telling them why you’re laughing!
In response to what you do say, however, no historian or scholar has claimed that the Russian Revolution was a “largely Jewish movement”. There were Jews who participated in the Revolution; many of them quite prominently. Many of the wonderful books you mention discuss such Jews eloquently, and with great care and rigour. But I’m afraid that does not make it a “largely Jewish movement”. Simply listing books with “Jews” and “Russia” in their titles is not evidence of any scholarly basis for the allegation. You do actually need to cite responsibly. In particular, you need to cite any passage which describes the Russian Revolution as a “largely Jewish movement”. You would be hard-pressed to find one, and I’d be very impressed indeed if you managed to do so.
I have read Two Hundred Years Together. In Russian. Can you say the same? You seem to be unfamiliar with it. Two Hundred Years Together was critically panned, not just because of its antisemitism, but because of its unscrupulous scholarship, with claims which are frequently not buttressed by any primary data. The most famous of those claims is the one that the first Soviet government was 85% Jewish (which Putin, as you noted, repeats). He never cited any data to support this claim. You can open your copy of Two Hundred Years Together, and true to my word, you will find no in-text citation, footnote, or bibliographic mention of the source which gives him this impression. The reason he does not, simply stated, is that the claim is false. Solzhenitsyn, though a man of great literary talent and moral integrity, knew it too. A book which makes such errors is not likely to be received warmly by other academics, and true to expectation, it was not. The Norman Davies case is a little different, my friend. Davies was not “kicked out of academia”; he was denied tenure, by a very close vote of 11-10, if memory serves. This is not unusual in academia dealing with any subject; I regret it is unfortunately just the way of the world.
You should read Two Hundred Years Together carefully again, if you did in fact read it in the first place. Its extensive shortcomings and biases aside, Two Hundred Years Together emphatically denies that the Russian Revolution was a largely Jewish movement, and is quite careful to caution readers not to draw these conclusions, frequently condemning them as conspiracies popular in far-right Russian circles. He devoted much of his writing in his last days (and his last book too) to excoriating these beliefs and similar conspiracies. But in Two Hundred Years Together alone, at the end of Chapter 9, for example, he has quite strong words against people like yourself that have used his book to draw the conclusions you do. I quote,
“[some] have yielded to the temptation of simplistic explanation: Russia is fundamentally sound, and the whole revolution, from beginning to end, is a dark plot hatched by Jews, an episode of the Judeo-Masonic plot. Explain everything by one and the same cause: the Jews!…The superstitious belief in the historical force of conspiracies…leaves completely aside the main cause of failures suffered by individuals as well as states: human weaknesses…No, it cannot be said IN ANY CASE that it was the Jews who organized the revolutions of 1905 or 1917…”
It sounds an awful lot like he’s talking to you, my friend. So no, not even Solzhenitsyn made the claim that the revolution was a largely Jewish movement. I have cited all the claims I have made. It wasn’t very difficult, because they’re all true. You, conversely, have not dealt with anything I have said about Putin, and have cited nothing to support your own conclusions. So is it really my fantasy? I would like to add that my thesis was on the relationship between Jewish members of the NKD and the Bund. So I’m well aware (and deeply cognizant, on a personal as well as an academic level) of Jewish participation, of all kinds, in the Russian Revolution and in early Soviet governments. But the claim that the Revolution was a “largely Jewish movement” is not a claim made in mainstream historiography; it is the claim of conspiracy theorists like those even Solzhenitsyn condemned in his last years, like people like David Duke have made frequently, and so forth. If you can find a mainstream scholar who has said it is, it would be of great personal interest to me. So feel free to reply if you can find any, or if you are prepared to deal with anything of what was said about Putin in my first message.
Alexis: In the last response, I never said anything about Putin or that your claim about him was risible. If you were paying close attention, I was talking about your claim on the Bolshevik Revolution. I didn’t even feel to talk about Putin because if we cannot agree even on the Bolshevik Revolution, then it is no use to even discuss Putin. It’s just that simple.
The way I see it, Mr. Gennadiy, is simply this: You are either an intellectually dishonest person or you are not familiar with the scholarly literature or you simply do not want to know at all. If you were interested in scholarly pursuit, you would have checked the books that I cited in my earlier response and found out about what those scholars themselves have said about the Bolshevik Revolution. I cited you no less than 4 scholarly studies on the Jews and the Bolshevik Revolution, and your quick response is that “I’m afraid that does not make it a ‘largely Jewish movement…” For example, listen to Muller: “Jews were highly visible in the revolutions in Russia and Germany, in Hungary they seemed omnipresent…Of the government’s forty-nine commissars, thirty-one were of Jewish origin.”
Muller goes out of his way to cite the names of many of those revolutionaries: Bela Kun, Tibor Szamuely, Otto Korvin (Klein), Georg Lukacs, and Matyas Rakosi (Roth). Sandor Garbai, a Gentile, was chosen because the Jews needed “someone who could sign the death sentences on Saturday.” The same pattern continues in places like Czechoslovakia, where the general secretary of the Communist party was Rudolf Slansky; in Poland, it was Jakub Berman who was in charge of the secret police, and Jacek Rozanski, trained by the NKVD, “became head of the investigative department of the ministry of public security.”
Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine notes in his widely read study The Jewish Century that a number of Russian Jewish intellectuals wrote a collection of essays in 1923 entitled Russia and the Jews, in which they argued throughout that Jews committed a “bitter sin” in the Revolution. I. M. Berkerman, one of the contributors, lamented that “it goes without saying that not all Jews are Bolsheviks and not all Bolsheviks are Jews, but what is equally obvious is that disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.”
The books that I cited again extensively go over these issues! The fact that you are not even interested in checking them out gives the impression that you are not interested in scholarly pursuit. This is why this conversation is going nowhere. It is so ridiculous that even Winston Churchill, a flaming and thorough Zionist, wrote an entire article way back in 1920 entitled, “Zionism Vs. Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” I would encourage you to read the whole article.
Second, as I pointed out in my first response, some historians do not want to say anything about the connection between Jews and Bolshevism because they would lose their financial or academic status. Paul Johnson is a classic example. If you read his History of the Jews, he cites one document after another saying that Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Revolution was an embarrassment of riches. But, says Johnson, these people were “Non-Jewish Jews”!
I brought up Davies again because he was denied tenured. Why? Because one Jewish professor by the name of Lucy Dawidowicz ridiculously started calling him an anti-Semite. It is the same thing with Norman Finkelstein.
The last point I want to make would be about Solzhenitsyn. In your first response, you wrote: “Much of Russian foreign policy towards Israel is a reversal of Soviet policy, which was, as is documented everywhere from the mainstream to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, vociferously anti-Zionist.” Now you are saying that “Two Hundred Years Together was critically panned, not just because of its antisemitism, but because of its unscrupulous scholarship, with claims which are frequently not buttressed by any primary data. The most famous of those claims is the one that the first Soviet government was 85% Jewish (which Putin, as you noted, repeats). He never cited any data to support this claim.” So is Solzhenitsyn an anti-Semite or not? And if he is close to being one, then how can he be an anti-Zionist at the same time and in the same respect? Your argument doesn’t seems to make sense at all.
Did you read Richard Pipes’ statements on Solzhenitsyn? And why didn’t you mention the long discussion that Solzhenitsyn had on the conflict between Jews and Russians in your first response? Yes, I’ve read Solzhenitsyn’s book—the English version that is available online. I also know people who have read it in Russian and verify that the English version is close enough. Keep in mind that Solzhenitsyn had to constantly face this “Jewish question” in the media, and that somehow he had to adjust according to the time. I am not going to fight the good man. But polite people of this world are saying that he is an anti-Semite for writing Two Hundred Years Together, not because he probably made a mistake. We all know that historians make mistakes all the time.
Even if you want to say that the Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Revolution was less than 85%, the fact is that the scholarly literature shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was essentially Jewish. And if you attempt to wriggle out of this, then let me cite to you just a few sentences by Churchill himself: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.” Churchill didn’t even know that Lenin was also Jewish. Finally, if you insist on arguing otherwise, then I would encourage you to read “Stalin’s Jews” by Jewish writer Sever Plocker of the Brookings Institute. Here is the link to the article:
Gessen: I do wonder, my friend: what would have been your diversionary tactic had I not mentioned Solzhenitsyn? It seems this one mention was enough for you to wholly disregard the content of the first message, and get you off on something else you are prepared to deal with. But I will play your game nonetheless.
You have avoided providing any cited evidence for the claim that the Russian Revolution was largely Jewish. I quoted you Solzhenitsyn emphatically denying this; you have not addressed this. You do actually need primary data, my friend; without it the claim is unverifiable (Churchill saying so, which he does without evidence, is not primary data). Instead, you continue to request that I read books about the participation of Jews in the Revolution, a fact of which I, and all scholars of the Revolution, are aware. But come now: let us discuss some of these scholars, not with suspicions that the other has not read them (I think we each have our suspicions, and it is no good to continue to make such imputations of ignorance), but on the basis of what they actually say.
Muller says that the Jews were “highly visible” in the Hungarian socialist parties. Does it follow that the Russian Revolution was largely Jewish? No one doubts that Jews were highly visible in socialist movements across the continent. Jews were (and are) highly educated relative to the people they live among; thus they are disproportionately prominent in virtually every political and intellectual movement in Western history. The question at the heart of the matter is whether the Russian Revolution was “largely Jewish”; or merely had Jewish participants. You have not cited evidence from these books to support the claim that the Revolution was largely Jewish. Slezkine’s wonderful book, too, discusses in great detail the reception of the Russian Revolution among Jews, but denies that the Revolution was largely Jewish.
I have already read these books, my friend. It is your place now to cite these books, if they do in fact claim that the Revolution was largely Jewish. I have read them, and they do not. You need explicit, primary evidence supporting the claim that the Revolution was largely Jewish. You are stuck here because you will not find scholarly support for what is widely considered to be a claim of “Jewish Bolshevism”; a discredited belief known to most as an antisemitic canard and a conspiracy theory. This is a canard that you propagate, without recourse to primary data.
Here is the primary data I am familiar with, my friend. These figures are widely available, and cited in much of the literature you ignore. In 1922, the Bolshevik party took a census of its own ethnic composition. At this time, Jewish participation in Soviet affairs was at its highest; this was years before the Soviets turned anti-Jewish and Stalin got rid of most remaining Soviet Jews in the Great Purge. The census found 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks; 5.21% of the total. It also found that of the 417 members of the highest Soviet political bodies (the Party’s Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive, and the People’s Commissars), 6% were Jews. The total proportion of Jews in Russia at that time was approximately 2.5 million, out of a total population of around 145 million (so 1.7%). So, my friend, disproportionately represented and prominent? Of course. But largely Jewish? No. Now it is your turn. You need primary data supporting the view that the Revolution was “largely Jewish”. You have a right to your own opinion; you do not have a right to your own facts.
Let us proceed to the matter of the connection between Jewishness and Jewish participation in the Revolution. Paul Johnson is largely correct on the matter of them being “non-Jewish Jews”. Jewish Bolsheviks were not Jewish by faith, were largely atheistic, and held views in diametric opposition to those of most Jews in the Empire. Unless you can delineate a relationship between their Jewishness and the fact that they were also Bolsheviks, the point is moot. Why is it important, for example, that Lenin had some Jewish ethnic background? How is that relevant; any more relevant than the fact that Stalin was of Georgian ethnic background? If they are mass murderers, it doesn’t matter what their ethnic background is. They’re just mass murderers. The ynet article you cite makes the same point, my friend. You go on to misread my argument about Solzhenitsyn. Here, once again, is what I originally wrote:
“Much of Russian foreign policy towards Israel is a reversal of Soviet policy, which was, as is documented everywhere from the mainstream to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, vociferously anti-Zionist.”
Yes, as Solzhenitsyn documented, Soviet policy for most of the century was anti-Zionist and pro-Arab. I had originally asked you what you make of this fact, given your belief that Bolshevism was a largely Jewish creation. You have not answered, just as you have not answered anything else I originally asked. Current Russian policy is largely a reversal of Soviet policy; it is generally supportive of Israel, and Israel has a strong alliance with Putin’s Russia; some disagreements about Syria notwithstanding. Solzhenitsyn was not an anti-Zionist, but he made statements in Two Hundred Years Together which were irresponsible and latently antisemitic. I cited as an example his claim of the first Soviet government being 85% Jewish; a claim which, as everyone now knows, he made up, with no reference to primary data.
When you allege a terrible group of people to be 85% Jewish with no evidence, it reeks of prejudice. Just imagine if someone in academe purported the lie that 85% of mass shooters are black. Some mass shooters have been black. Just as much as with Jewishness, the point is irrelevant. But if someone said so, they would very rightly be suspected of prejudice against blacks. So things like this are not just “historians’ mistakes”. They are egregious, prejudicial errors, which have resulted very directly in the negative reception that Solzhenitsyn’s work has been accorded in academia.
So I do happen to agree with Pipes on that matter. As for “why [I] didn’t mention the long discussion that Solzhenitsyn had on the conflict between Jews and Russians in [my] first response”, the answer is exceedingly simple. Solzhenitsyn does not describe a “conflict” between Russians and Jews. Russian Jews were Russians as much as Stalin was. This misconstrues Two Hundred Years Together, for all its shortcomings. Solzhenitsyn describes the participation of Russian Jews in the Revolution, and suggests that they be held accountable alongside with the much more numerous non-Jewish Russians who participated in it. This is a very reasonable demand. But he categorically denies that the Revolution was a Jewish creation, and he does so in the passage I cited, and you blithely ignored. To his credit, Solzhenitsyn describes your view as a “superstitious belief” and a “conspiracy”. And that, my friend, it most certainly is. And until you can cite primary data which says that the Revolution was “largely Jewish”, that it will stubbornly remain.
Alexis: You honestly have got to be kidding. The content of the first message? The message about Putin? Have I not made myself clear enough?
You continue to say that I have “avoided providing any cited evidence for the claim that the Russian Revolution was largely Jewish.” Are you really serious? What does the term “largely Jewish” mean to you? You said you read Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, and yet you completely ignore what he actually says in the book. Do you want me to repeat what I said in the previous email? “I. M. Berkerman, one of the contributors, lamented that “it goes without saying that not all Jews are Bolsheviks and not all Bolsheviks are Jews, but what is equally obvious is that disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.”
I also cited Winston Churchill, but your only defense is that the claim is unverified, which is another way of saying that it is some kind of conspiracy theory again. Or, as you put it, it is “a discredited belief known to most as an anti-Semitic canard and a conspiracy theory. This is a canard that you propagate, without recourse to primary data.”
I honestly don’t believe you have read any of the books that I actually propose, and if you have, then I am definitely going to call you a dishonest person. Plain and simple. Slezkine again details how Jews “were particularly well represented at the top, among theoreticians, journalists, and leaders.” Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California makes similar claims in his study Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Slezkine himself cites one historian Mikhail Beizer, who declared that “Jewish names were constantly popping up in newspapers. Jews spoke relatively more often than others at rallies, conferences, and meetings of all kinds.” Keep also in mind that the Jewish population was never more than 4 percent!
Since you continue to bring in Solzhenitsyn, here is what the Guardian wrote back in 2003:
“In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims. Two Hundred Years Together – a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly increased the Russian Jewish population – contains three chapters discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia.
“But Jewish leaders and some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned Solzhenitsyn’s motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and of fanning the flames of anti-Semitism in Russia. Solzhenitsyn argues that some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period ‘consciously or unconsciously descends on the Russians’ as being behind the genocide. But he states that all the nation’s ethnic groups must share the blame, and that people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience.
“In one remark which infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote: ‘If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw – their life was softer than that of others… The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.’”
Do you think that lines up with what you have been saying? And if not, why are you picking and choosing about what you want to say on Solzhenitsyn? Do you think this is a really scholarly pursuit? Whenever Solzhenitsyn appears to be saying positive things about Israel, you applaud him, but whenever he seems to be saying uncomfortable things about the Russian Revolution, he is an anti-Semite! How can you hold these positions and still maintain that you are engaging in a serious historical discussion?
My final point to you is this: since you have professed to be a scholar, why don’t you tell me your published work? Where you teach and so on? I will do my best to peruse whatever you have written next month. You certainly know who I am. But I don’t like to go on a litany of correspondence with a person who seems to be a ghost. Reveal yourself, and we’ll continue the discussion.
Gessen: You will have made yourself clear when you respond to the questions I originally asked you. You have invited interested readers to e-mail you with their questions, and I am an interested reader. I’m afraid it’s rather disingenuous to do so while refusing to answer the questions that were originally asked of you. I e-mailed you with regards to Putin; not with regards to Jewish participation in the Russian Revolution.
I take “the Revolution was largely Jewish” to mean that a majority (or even plurality, if you prefer a liberal definition) of the revolutionaries were Jewish. I cited primary data (i.e. Soviet statistics!) showing that this is not the case. You have not provided evidence to the contrary. You cite Churchill’s well-known statement to that effect, but not the primary data which led him to this conclusion (as it happens, there was none; it just so happens that Churchill, a deeply contradictory figure, happened to have certain prejudices; against Jews as much as Indians, the Irish, and others).
You cite Berkerman and Slezkine’s work about disproportionate Jewish participation in the Russian Revolution, and this disproportionate participation is something neither I nor most scholars have denied. But this does not make the Revolution largely Jewish. If you have a definition of “largely” which differs from the common one, I would encourage you to make your private definition clear, my friend.
Slezkine’s Jewish Century seems to be a particular favourite of yours. It is indeed a wonderful book; and I find his thesis about the Jewish role in European history and on modern history to be an Apollonian influence (Slezkine’s terminology) to be particularly compelling. But read carefully the very quotes you have aped. They say that Jews “were particularly well represented at the top” and spoke “relatively [emphasis added] more often than others at rallies, conferences, and meetings of all kinds”. What does this mean, friend?
It means they were disproportionately represented. I have already granted this point. But this does not make the Revolution “largely Jewish”. Jews participate disproportionately in all intellectual and political movements to which they are allowed to participate; not because of any religious perspective (indeed, participants are almost always secular), but because they are well-educated relative to the general population. This has been the case in the West since the Church’s prohibition of Jewish land ownership relegated them to what Slezkine calls “Apollonian” labour. If you actually read Slezkine’s work instead of exploiting it to bolster your conspiracies, you will find that their disproportionate participation in the Revolution is well-explained in light of this thesis. But this does not make the Revolution “largely Jewish”.
I pointed out evidence showing that the representation of Jews in the Bolshevik Party and leadership was disproprtionate relative to their small population, but never even close to a majority or plurality. I have also pointed out to you how even those scholars (i.e. Solzhenitsyn) charged with antisemitism deny that the Revolution was a Jewish creation, and referred to that view as a “conspiracy”. This is the second consecutive e-mail in which you have blithely ignored this point, my friend.
You go on to cite the Guardian on Solzhenitsyn, which summarizes cogently the basis for charges of antisemitism in Solzhenitsyn’s work. I take them to be valid, my respect for Solzhenitsyn notwithstanding. Solzhenitsyn was not an anti-Zionist, however, and much of Two Hundred Years Together condemns Soviet anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism. There is nothing “unscholarly” about noting a divergence of opinion in someone’s work. Solzhenitsyn’s work has very mixed merit, with his literary works being outstanding and celebrated, while his histories are generally not taken seriously (no academic press has published them in English precisely because they are sloppy with the primary data).
Agreeing with aspects of a scholar’s work while disagreeing with others is not “unscholarly”; it is the launching point for all scholarly discussion. I invite you to participate in it. I have not professed to be a scholar. Like many urban Russians, I have much more education than I need (haha), and I completed a doctorate in Ukraine on the relationship of Jewish members of the NKVD to the Bund, before entering medical school and becoming a doctor. I lived in Israel for a while before moving to the States, and I maintain a serious interest in Russian history and particularly in the history of Russian Jews. Is there anything else you’d like to know about me? The point is hardly relevant, though I’d be happy to answer. You are not a scholar.
You have never been published in an academic press, and unless your writing (characterized by weirdly placed faux-philosophical adverbs and adjectives) and general scholarship seriously improves, it’s unlikely you ever will be. So I’d say that makes me slightly more of a scholar than you are, my friend. But if you believe that there are scholars who agree with you on the Revolution being ‘largely Jewish’ (there aren’t really), then I would invite you to e-mail them. Here’s Slezkine’s e-mail: [email protected]. Why don’t you ask him what he makes of your work?
I will repeat, for your convenience, some of the questions you have ignored. I don’t expect you to answer them, but just to see your record of dodged points:
1) What do you make of Putin’s close political relationship to Jewish oligarchs (and to the wealthiest man in Israel)?
2) What do you make of the strong and improving relationship between Israel and Putin’s Russia, and of Putin’s statements on Israel?
3) What do make of Putin’s memorialization of the Red Army and its victory against Nazism?
4) What is the relevance of Lenin’s Jewish ancestry? What is the relevance of the Jewish ancestry of other Jewish Bolsheviks? Why is Yagoda’s Jewish background any more relevant than Stalins’ Georgian background, for example? Mass murderers come in all colours and ethnicities.
5) What do you make of the primary statistical data I presented? Does it support your view of the Bolsheviks being largely Jewish?
6) What do you make of Solzhenitsyn’s condemnation of your statement as “superstititious” and as a conspiracy?
These are all the points you have refused to address. Arguing with you is a bit like trying to whack a groundhog. Every time I ask you a question, you pop up somewhere else. Time to come back up to the surface, my friend.
Alexis: I think we are going in circles. Your insistence that you cited “primary data (i.e. Soviet statistics!)” made me laugh a bit. Did you provide the actual source of the data? Was the source verified? Who did verify the sources? You?
Furthermore, I don’t think you read what I said about Putin carefully. If we cannot even make a dent on the Bolshevism issue, then I said again and again that answering questions about Putin isn’t going to be productive at all. After all, you have already propounded that I am somehow a “conspiracy theorist.” Why do you really want to hear what “conspiracy theorists” like me have to say?
I really love the way you toe-dance around the anti-Semitic game. Slezkine declares on the very first page of his book that “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century…Modernization is about everyone becoming Jewish.” Slezkine, of course, is highly praised by you for saying things like that. In fact, Slezkine’s study “is indeed a wonderful book.”
But if person happens to take Slezkine thesis and expand it on the Bolshevik Revolution, that person would ipso facto be an anti-Semite. Perhaps you should pick up a copy of Norman Finkelstein’s study, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).
Churchill wasn’t the only person who happened to make those types of remarks on the Bolshevik Revolution. Almost every serious leader in Europe was scared to death about the burgeoning movement. Jews just happened to participate disproportionately in political movements? And there was no ideological motive at all? Did you actually read Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews? Did you read his assessment on why German intellectuals began to revolt against Jewish historians like Heinrich Graetz?
I am not ignoring any point that you have attempted to make, but it seems that we are going in circles. You just don’t make any sense at all when you say things like Solzhenitsyn was an anti-Semite for saying things that you or Jewish historians like Richard Pipes don’t like and then use Solzhenitsyn to say that I am propounding “conspiracy” theories. And when the Guardian points out something that seems to be standard reference, you then move on to say that “There is nothing ‘unscholarly’ about noting a divergence of opinion in someone’s work.” If a person—say, Jonas E. Alexis—attempts to do the same thing, then you would condemn him for “blithely” ignoring your comment. Brilliant!
“Agreeing with aspects of a scholar’s work while disagreeing with others is not ‘unscholarly’; it is the launching point for all scholarly discussion. I invite you to participate in it.” Well, let me use this premise for a moment. For the sake of argument, let me grant you the thesis that Solzhenitsyn did say pretty nice things about Israel. If he did say those things, then I would respectfully disagree with the noble man, precisely because Israel, as my dear friend and colleague Mark Dankof aptly put it, was built on “the philosophical underpinning for land thievery, terrorism, and genocide in Palestine.”
If you think this is some kind of “conspiracy” theory again, then I would encourage you to pick up some of these scholarly studies: Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World Publication, 2006); The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013); The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories (Oxford: One World, 2019); Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Jewish Terrorism in Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Norman Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018); The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000); Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (New York: Verso, 2003);
Once again, I find your questions to be really comical precisely because you are trying to get some answers from someone whom you have explicitly labeled a conspiracy theorist, a person who is not a serious scholar, and someone who has no future in the academic world. Isn’t that ironic? Why are we going back and forth on these issues? In any event, I am running out of time.
Gessen: We are going in circles because you are refusing to deal with the points that have been raised. I have added to the running tally below the points which you have still refused to answer.
You begin by stating that statistics make you laugh. Again, if something is “[insert nonsensical adverb here] risible”, you do need to say why you find the primary data risible or otherwise unreliable, my friend. I am not sure what sort of criteria you require to ascertain that primary data are reliable (it seems that primary data you like you will accept, and primary data you do not like you will not accept), but the 1922 Soviet census is government statistics from the archives of the very bodies you are so interested in. It is extensively cited in the academic literature, and a simple search on JSTOR will lead to over one thousand journal articles and books which have made use of these extensive Soviet archives made available. If you have better primary data, I have asked you to present it.
You have not presented any primary data to support your claim that the Revolution was ‘largely Jewish’ nor have you shared your private definition of ‘largely’. Until that happens, I’m afraid there is little point in arguing about the reliability of Russian sources with a man who doesn’t speak Russian. You proceed by itacilizing your third consecutive diversion of the initial questions raised.
Once again, the gist of your argument is that ‘we disagree on this, so we’ll probably disagree on that too, and I don’t think I have to say anything about it before we finish talking about the thing I wanted to talk about’. There is nothing I need to respond to this childishness apart from my continued documentation of the points you have ignored.
You go on to talk about an “anti-Semitic game”, and argue that if Slezkine’s thesis was extended to the Bolshevik Revolution, this would be called anti-Semitic. I invite you to actually read the book, and consider what Slezkine’s thesis is. Slezkine’s thesis is that the Jews are a largely “Mercurian people”; a people whose primary economic and social activity consists of the provision of intellectual, economic, and diplomatic services to the food-producing, “Apollonian” societies around them, and that the modern century is a “Jewish one” in the sense that the dominant source of human capital of all kinds in modern times are the Mercurian activities that used to be restricted to particular groups (like Jews), but are now universal.
It is a brilliant and unique thesis, and is extended to the Bolshevik Revolution as a means of explaining the disproportionate representation of Jews in that Revolution and in other political and intellectual movements. There is nothing antisemitic about this. Making up facts that demonize Jews (like the “fact” that the Bolshevik movement was a Jewish one, or that the Revolution was ‘largely Jewish’; for which you have still not provided any primary data; of whatever reliability!) is antisemitic, and would be recognized as antisemitism by Norman Finkelstein just the same. If you think that Finkelstein’s work on antisemitism is a vindication of people like you, I would advise you to read him more closely, my friend. Finkelstein is well-aware of real antisemitism when it exists.
You proceed to talk about Churchill’s non-uniqueness in this regard and ask if there was an ideological motive for the Jews’ disproportionate representation in revolutions and movements. Let us begin with Churchill. Of course, he was not unique. Many other people said the same thing. In each case, unless they present evidence, there is no reason to take their beliefs on faith.
Political leaders have prejudices, and their statements are reflections of those prejudices. As for ideological motives, of course any individual who participates in a revolution/intellectual movement has a motive for doing so. But these motives are individual. They are not Jewish. If you believe they are Jewish, point out those places in which they use their Judaism as a motivation for participation in Bolshevism. In the vast majority of cases, ethnically Jewish Bolsheviks had little connection to Judaism. Their motivations were their own, and as unique to themselves as the motivations of individual Georgians, Tatars, Russians, etc. who participated in the Revolution.
A Jew who participates in the Revolution does not have a Jewish motivation for doing so any more than a Georgian who participates in the Revolution has a Georgian motivation for doing so, unless of course they tell you they do, my friend. This is essentialist racism which needs no answer.
Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, in the matter of opposition to Heinrich Graetz, talks about the intellectual conflict between German idealism and philosophy preferred by Jewish writers. I am not sure what the relevance is, but if you have a point, please make it.
I have told you why I believe Solzhenitsyn’s work is tainted by antisemitism. I have not appealed to the authority of Richard Pipes; though I said I agreed with him on the matter. I made the case for why inventing demonising figures about a particular group’s participation in a crime is prejudicial, and you have not responded to it. If someone told you that 85% of mass shooters are black, it would be a deeply prejudicial statement about blacks. If you disagree, tell me why. You move on with this comment: “If a person—say, Jonas E. Alexis—attempts to [note the divergence of opinion in a scholar’s work], then you would condemn him for “blithely” ignoring your comment. Brilliant!”
If you would like to note a divergence of opinion in a scholar’s work, then please do so. This has nothing to do with you ignoring the comments. You do that anyway. A running list of ignored points is included below. You go on to dodge the argument by introducing a new one; this time about Israel. If you disagree with Solzhenitsyn, that is perfectly in order. Tell me why you do, my friend. None of these books says anything about genocide; some make the argument for ethnic cleansing. You are welcome to do so too.
Perhaps it was a waste of time speaking with a conspiracy theorist. Some conspiracy theorists are more capable than others, and it’s becoming clear to me which camp you fall into. But it’s not my label, my friend. There are few people in the academic world who would not describe you as a conspiracy theorist.
I can only imagine what comfort it must be for you—if I had to guess, a creepy, unmarried middle-aged man, living out in Korea somewhere with no family, having been rejected by the establishment all his life; no published papers—to believe that everyone else is wrong about you, and that someday you will be vindicated when the establishment fades and Christ comes down to take you off the cross, but spare me your dreams, my friend. Just e-mail Slezkine, or Finkelstein, or any of the other people whose work you exploit and misconstrue, and ask them for their opinions of your piece.
You are an unsalaried, unproductive tenth-rate writer for a site whose own editor has openly admitted to making up false headlines. Why would you believe that you are anything else, my friend?
Here is an updated list of all the points you have ignored:
1) What do you make of Putin’s close political relationship to Jewish oligarchs (and to the wealthiest man in Israel)?
2) What do you make of the strong and improving relationship between Israel and Putin’s Russia, and of Putin’s statements on Israel?
3) What do make of Putin’s memorialization of the Red Army and its victory against Nazism?
4) What is the relevance of Lenin’s Jewish ancestry? What is the relevance of the Jewish ancestry of other Jewish Bolsheviks? Why is Yagoda’s Jewish background any more relevant than Stalins’ Georgian background, for example? Mass murderers come in all colours and ethnicities.
5) Do you have any primary data to suggest that the Bolsheviks were largely Jewish? What is your private definition of ‘largely Jewish’?
6) What do you make of Solzhenitsyn’s condemnation of your statement as “superstititious” and as a conspiracy?
7) Why was the Soviet government anti-Zionist if it was the result of a Jewish movement?
Alexis: You are getting more ridiculous, and it sounds like you don’t want to read carefully at all. I said very plainly that I am not going to get into an endless debate about Putin with you when we cannot even get around the issue that the Bolshevik Revolution was largely Jewish. If you cannot understand this simple statement and continue to bring in Putin, then I can’t help you.
You make this silly statement: “You begin by stating that statistics make you [me] laugh.” Is that what I said? Why did you have to build this straw man? Was that necessary? And you really wanted to know what I believe about Putin? Here’s what I said in plain English: “Your insistence that you cited ‘primary data (i.e. Soviet statistics!)’ made me laugh a bit.” Do you mean to tell me that this very sentence has the same meaning as “statistics makes me laugh”? How absurd can it get?
And your citation of academic sources is really embarrassing: “Soviet census is government statistics from the archives of the very bodies you are so interested in. It is extensively cited in the academic literature, and a simple search on JSTOR will lead to over one thousand journal articles and books which have made use of these extensive Soviet archives made available”? This is how scholarly sources are cited? It is just plain silly. So JSTOR is now “primary source”? This is not to denigrate JSTOR, but your statement is just beyond comprehension.
The interesting thing of all this is that you move on to propound one ad hominem attack after another by saying: “I can only imagine what comfort it must be for you—if I had to guess, a creepy, unmarried middle-aged man, living out in Korea somewhere with no family, having been rejected by the establishment all his life.” That’s not insulting or crazy or even “conspiracy theory,” but you feel insulted if someone happens to say that the Russian Revolution was largely Jewish. Are you serious?
You need some help. Really. Now I see why you were incestuously asking about Putin. Our conversation is over.
Gessen: I wrote to you about Putin; you have not addressed the issues that were raised to you. This is obvious diversion. Nobody is going to “get around” the issue that the Bolshevik Revolution was ‘largely Jewish’ if you don’t tell them why it was. I have repeatedly asked you for primary data suggesting that it was. You have obstinately refused. You wrote to me that the primary source I provided was “risible”, without providing any primary sources of your own. JSTOR is not a primary source, but it gives over one thousand examples of where the 1922 Bolshevik census has been cited as a primary source.
The 1922 Bolshevik census is primary data; Soviet government archives which have been extensively cited in the academic literature. JSTOR is a directory of that literature. What do you find risible or unreliable about it, my friend? You haven’t told me. Analyze the data critically, and express your suspicions. You do not seem to be getting the point that telling someone that something is “[insert nonsensical adverb here] risible” is not an argument in itself; you do need to explain why it is that it makes you laugh. You also need to cite sources that don’t make you laugh. You have not yet done either.
I don’t feel insulted by claims that the Russian Revolution was ‘largely Jewish’. Much greater men than you have said it, so it isn’t something I haven’t heard before. But I asked you for evidence that it was. If you believe that the majority of revolutionaries were Jewish, tell me why it is that you believe that. You have not even attempted to do so. You, on the other hand, are evidently insulted.
It’s a sad state to spend your life in, and I pity you, my friend, I really do. Marginalized, ridiculed, alone; obsessed with sex, Jews, and conspiracy theories. I’m sorry for whatever happened in your life that got you to where you are; it can’t have been easy. But at this point in your life, it’s no one’s fault but your own. You are welcome to publish our interactions; I look forward to reading. The best litmus test for your personal integrity (and cowardice) will be how much of the exchange appears in its original, unedited form.
Incidentally, what does it mean to ask “incestuously” about Putin? It’s quite a strange word to use, my friend. It’s a bit like “historically risible”. Out of place and deeply weird. Something can be “historically risible” if it’s historically made you laugh (maybe). But that would be strange given that you just read it. Maybe “risible in the light of history” or something. But as it is, you just write like a bloody moron. So your status isn’t really any mystery.
Alexis (Appendix): I am certainly not going to lower my standard and follow this ad hominem attack, which is like a rotten fish. As the old saying goes, there are none so blind than those who refuse to see. Even the Jerusalem Post didn’t hesitate to report in 2017:
“The role of Jews in the Russian Revolution, and by extension Communism writ large, has always been a sensitive subject because antisemitic voices often painted Soviet Communism as a Jewish plot, or “Jewish Bolshevism.” When Alexander Solzhenitsyn began work on a book called 200 Years Together, he was criticized for what touching this taboo issue. His own comments to the press didn’t help the matter, claiming two-thirds of the Cheka (secret police) in Ukraine were Jewish….
“The large number of Jews in leading parts of the party was not lost on those non-Jews around them. V.M. Molotov, the powerful foreign minister of the Soviet Union under Stalin, made many remarks about Jews to Felix Chuev in a series of conversations between 1969 to 1986 that became the basis for the 1991 book Molotov Remembers. He recalled that as Lenin lay dying ‘at the time Jews occupied many leading positions, though they made up only a small percentage of the country’s population.’ Of Zinoviev, he recalled, “He didn’t even look like a Jew.
“‘Almost all the Mensheviks were Jews. Even among the Bolsheviks, among the leaders there were many Jews. Generally, Jews are the most oppositional nation. But they were inclined to support the Mensheviks.’ Molotov also claimed that many of the men around Stalin had Jewish wives. ‘There is an explanation. Oppositionist and revolutionary elements formed a higher percentage among Jews than among Russians. Insulted, injured and oppressed, they were more versatile. They penetrated everywhere, so to speak.’ He claimed that Jews were more ‘active’ than average Russians. ‘Biding their time, they sniff around, stir things up, but are always prepared…’ According to Leonard Schapiro, who authored The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in 1961, [Theodore] Herzl found that ‘50% of the membership of the revolutionary parties was Jewish.’ Herzl asked Witte why.”
 Seth J. Frantzman, “Was the Russian Revolution Jewish?,” Jerusalem Post, November 15, 2017.
Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin—step back from that gangrenous edge!”—Alexander Solzhenitsyn
In his 1920 essay “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: The Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Winston Churchill made the statement that Bolshevism both ideologically and politically “gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads” and slowly led them to the slaughter house, where more than ten million innocent peasants eventually lost their precious lives in less than five years.
Zionism ideologically and politically seeks to complete the work that Bolshevism had started. Bolshevism quickly spread like wildfire in places like China and other major Asian countries such as Vietnam.
Even Victor Serge, the revolutionary anarchist who was convicted of terrorism in 1912, declared at the time that “The influence of Bolshevism over Asia is very great.”
As a communist revolutionary, Serge thought that “International Communism — dialectical materialism and the theory of action of the proletariat — opens up today the highest possibilities of the European civilisation compromised and threatened by the capitalist regime.”
The “highest possibilities of the European civilization” ended up being the highest crime probably in human history: Bolshevism in both its metaphysical and ideological form carried out the greatest mass murder, with more than ninety million deaths to its credit.
By the time that Bolshevism was done wiping out people by the millions, Western nations suddenly had an epiphany in the 1980s. By 1983 in Orlando, Florida, Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as “an evil empire” that repeatedly preached “the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth. They are the focus of evil in the modern world…”
Ronald Reagan could never have been a good cop. What do police officers do when they are investigating a crime? They find out all that can be found about the crime itself and the people behind it. They also get deeper into the suspect’s origin, their background, and sometimes even their ethnicity and religion.
Reagan was right in saying that the Soviet Union was “the focus of evil in the modern world,” that it sought to dominate all peoples of the Earth, and that it was “an evil empire.”
Yet in his entire speech, Reagan never told his audience that the Soviet Union at the time was ideologically governed by Bolshevism, which is another Jewish revolutionary movement, and which ultimately sought to destroy Western civilization. Reagan should have consulted Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who emphatically declared:
“There are many Jewish authors who to this very day either deny the support of Jews for Bolshevism, or even reject it angrily, or else—the most common case—only speak defensively about it. The matter is well-attested, however: these Jewish renegades were for several years leaders at the center of the Bolshevik Party, at the head of the Red Army (Trotsky), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Sverdlov), of the two capitals (Zinoviev and Kamenev), of the Comintern (Zinoviev), of the Profintern (Dridzo-Lozovsky), and of the Komsomol (Oskar Ryvkin, then Lazar Shatskin).
“In 1918 Trotsky, with the aid of Sklianski and Yakov Sverdlov, created the Red Army. Jewish soldiers were numerous in its ranks. Several units of the Red Army were composed entirely of Jews, as, e.g., the brigade commanded by Joseph Forman. Among the officers of the Red Army, the share of Jews grew in number and importance for many years after the Civil War.”
Solzhenitsyn, as a sober and seasoned scholar, made the point that
“I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”
Yet in his book Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, neoconservative hawk Daniel Pipes insinuates without a shred of evidence that those who believed that the Bolshevik Revolution was largely Jewish got their sources mainly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
It got even more hilarious when Pipes accused Henry Hamilton of anti-Semitism for saying that “Bolshevism was Judaism.” But Pipes does not tell his readers that The Jewish Encyclopedia, Jewish revolutionaries and newspapers and magazines made similar assertions.
In a nutshell, Reagan, a politician, got a wake-up call, and the Soviet Union eventually collapsed.
But Bolshevism in its ideological form did not die out then. It has been reincarnated in two identical and Jewish revolutionary movements: Zionism and neoconservatism. Both are almost politically indistinguishable and, like Bolshevism, both seek to implicitly destroy Western civilization in all of its manifestations.
Bolshevism was evil but the mass hysteria did not fully grasp the extent of its evilness until it was almost too late. Zionism’s evilness, on the other hand, is being displayed right in front of us, but no politician is brave enough to break its political power. For example, Joel Greenberg of the New York Times wrote way back in 1993 that
“Amnesty International, in a human rights report in July, said Palestinian detainees under interrogation are ‘systematically tortured or ill-treated’ by Israel. The International Committee of the Red Cross, whose representatives regularly visit Palestinian prisoners, has accused Israel of using interrogation methods that violate the Fourth Geneva Convention on treatment of civilians in occupied areas…
“Human rights monitors estimate that 500 Palestinian detainees are subjected to such treatment each month and that at least 30,000 have been interrogated since the beginning of the anti-Israel uprising in December 1987”
This massive brutality has been going on for decades and in many different forms. Just last year, nine Israeli teenagers were convicted of brutally attacking a Palestinian teenager by the name of Jamal Julani. When one of the convicted teenagers was asked how he would respond if Julani had died from the incident, he said,
“Great. Let him die. He’s an Arab son of a bitch. What did he think, that he would curse my mother? When I attacked him I was going to stab him in the ribs to let him realize my mom is no child’s play. He knows exactly why he is in the hospital.” The other teenagers responded with a similar voice:
“We went to look for Arabs, to hit them and beat the crap out of them, and I went ahead of everyone and I met the Arab who was swearing. I got upset and yelled, ‘Here’s an Arab,’ and some more guys came with me and then R. [the 15-year-old girl perceived as the instigator] got there and gave him a slap in the back. He tried to get up but I hit him with my foot in his pelvic area, and then all the guys beat him up. He had a face that required a beating.”
He also declared, “You can’t go by Damascus Gate without getting stabbed. So why do they come here? I beat him and I’d beat him again.” A year later, Jamal was still undergoing medical care.
How many Americans do you think know about what happened to Jamal? Get a microphone and start asking the average American even at your neighborhood. The answer will surprise you.
In March 2012, a gunman by the name of Mohamed Merah went into a Jewish day school in Toulouse, France, and killed three Jewish children and one rabbi. My heart went out to the families of those killed. Everyone should sympathize in tragic situations like these, and these acts of evil should not be tolerated.
The story was covered by almost every major news outlet in the Western world and in Israel. Report after report followed the incident, almost nonstop, and some of those newspapers ran four or five stories of the same incident. One rabbi declared that the incident happened because of “jealousy” on the part of Gentiles about “God’s chosen people.”
Yet around the same time, hundreds of Beitar Jerusalem fans beat up Arab workers at the capital’s Malha shopping center in what was called “a mass lynching attempt,” but not one person was arrested.
The fans were even chanting “Death to Arabs,” but one of the Arab workers declared that the police arrived more than one hour late. The police justified their decision not to arrest anyone by saying that there were no complaints, and therefore no arrests were necessary.
None of the major news outlets reported the story, except the Jerusalem Post, the Independent, and Haaretz. The Jerusalem Post only ran the story after some 150 protesters flooded the scene.
When Mohamed Merah gunned down the three children and the rabbi, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post declared without any substantial evidence that Western elites were accomplices, claiming that these acts of evil formed “the physical and moral landscape of our time.”
Where was Glick, then, when those Palestinians were beaten? Isn’t this the “moral landscape” of Zionist ideology? (French officials said after investigation that there was “no evidence” linking Merah to Al-Qaida.)
Another incident—that even shocked former CIA operative Philip Giraldi—was the May 2012 riots in Tel Aviv, where African immigrants were targeted. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times all stayed silent.
On May 28, five young Israelis smashed the door of an internet café owned by Yorusalem Mestun, a 22 year-old. They “pulled a knife on her, while her Jewish neighbours looked on. The police came, checked her visa and left, without, she said, offering help or sympathy.”
Also in May, some Israeli settlers set fire to a West Bank village and shot some unarmed Palestinians. It was later discovered that during the incident, Israeli youth tied up and beat one Palestinian who was already wounded.
On May 24, 2012, Amnesty International released a report, declaring that Israel “frequently uses excessive, sometimes lethal, force against demonstrators in the West Bank and civilians in Gaza…Israel has engaged in the demolition of Palestinian homes and other facilities in the West Bank, as well is inside Israel itself, where homes of Palestinian citizens are destroyed in ‘unrecognized’ villages in the Negev desert.”
None of those reports made it on the air on popular news networks in America. The only reason some of the reports saw the light of day was because they were making a stir throughout the Middle East. There were dozens of incidents in the spring of 2012 where Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians and the Israeli Defense Forces just stood there and watched.
What, then, are the Zionists telling us here? Simple: when Palestinians are killed, attacked and brutally maimed, life goes on and the West does not really need to know. And if the West does know, nothing is to be done.
But when even one Israeli is killed, this must be reported throughout the Western world. Meetings must be conducted, and the Zionist media must beat the Western world over the head about the news.
Do the Zionists Really Care About the American People?
Now here is one of the most disgusting things ever. The Zionist machine spends billions of dollars spying on Americans for years. They said over and over that their covert enterprise has actually saved lives.
Yet recently, “Al Qaeda claimed responsibility on Tuesday for simultaneous raids on two Iraqi prisons and said more than 500 inmates had been set free in the operation”
As a result of the incident, “20 members of the security forces were killed 40 wounded in the attacks.” The incident also created a fear that a civil war could break out.
The NSA, the Israeli-run organization that can locate your cell phone even when it is off, could not locate actual terrorism. Again, what does that tell us about the NSA’s covert activity? As Mac Slavo rightly puts it, the NSA
“spent hundreds of billions of dollars to monitor the activities of every single American by turning their listening networks on purported domestic terrorists operating in the United States.
“They know your underwear size. They know where you drove your car today. They know what you put up on Facebook, texted to your wife and emailed to your friends. And they’ve done it all in the supposed interest of ‘national security.’
“If, however, you were an Al Qaeda terrorist coordinating a large-scale prison break to free senior members of your mid-east terror organization, you would have been able to operate with impunity.
“While our government is supposedly preventing terrorism by searching grandma at airports, , arresting kids for making jokes on the internet, deploying thousands of drones over America’s skies, and looking for lone wolves, they have failed at their absolute top priority: stopping actual terrorists from doing what terrorists do”
Last May, the Assyrian International News Agency reported that the Syrian rebels/terrorists/jihadists
“attacked a village in Syria’s Western province and slaughtered all its Christian residents on Monday. The armed rebels affiliated to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) raided the Christian-populated al-Duvair village in Reef (outskirts of) Homs near the border with Lebanon today and massacred all its civilian residents, including women and children.”
The only agency that intervened and killed those terrorists at the time was the Assad government.
Where was the NSA then? Where was Obama? Where was the Zionist regime? They were nowhere to be found. They were too busy supporting the Syrian terrorists and tracking down Edward Snowden.
After all, Congress has already signed off on army the Syrian terrorists, despite the fact that Assad has been willing to engage in peace talk. The only country that has loudly voiced his concerns about the United States arming Syrian terrorists is Russia.
Once again, Zionism supports terrorism and pretends that it is fighting terrorism. Anyone who supports terrorist organizations or terrorist cells ought to go to jail. But in the Jewish Century, supporting the Syrian rebels/terrorists is not a crime because those terrorists are friends of Israel.
Moreover, in the Jewish Century, if the Zionist gangsters perceive that you are a neo-Nazi and have children, more than likely they will try to take your children away from you. Listen to this report by the Daily Mail:
“The children of German neo-Nazis could soon be removed from their families and taken into care – in a bid to beat a rise in the glorification of Hitler and the Third Reich.
“German authorities are becoming increasingly concerned with the number of summer camps and special schools brainwashing youngsters into worshipping a movement that killed six million Jews in the Holocaust.
“A recent raid on one camp turned up jigsaw puzzles showing Germany’s pre-World War 2 borders and colouring books where children were encouraged to crayon in the moustache of Hitler.”
In a nutshell, Zionism does not care about the West’s future. It only cares about dominating the world and taking good care of Israel. If 2,114 precious American soldiers die in Afghanistan, that is a small price to pay if you are protecting Zionism.
If military intervention in Syria could cost the U.S. one billion dollars every month, that again is a very small price to pay. If poverty has risen at an astronomical rate in nations like Greece and Italy because of the economic collapse, we still need to move on with perpetual wars in the Middle East.
Chuck Hagel recently said that “Our people are strong and resilient after 12 years of war, but they are under stress — and so are the institutions that support them.”
Yes, perpetual wars are getting boring, and both the American people and our precious soldiers who are getting killed for Israel are exhausted. It is time for serious politicians to reexamine our unconditional support for Israel, America’s greatest enemy.
I have been saying for months that Iran is not an enemy of the United States—our “allies” are. Just a few days ago, John Glaser of the Washington Times had this to say:
“Contrary to dominant thinking in Washington, Iran poses no immediate threat to the U.S. In fact, our Middle Eastern allies, eager to have America do their fighting for them, wildly inflate the supposed threat from Iran.
“The U.S. has built up various alliances in the Middle East since WWII in order to fulfill a larger strategy of controlling the flow of oil and preventing the emergence of another power in the region that would threaten U.S. dominance.
“In the course of building these alliances, Washington has signed security agreements with these countries, promising to subsidize their militaries and come to their defense. In essence, this makes their problems our problems.
“Our closest allies in the region, Israel and the Arab Gulf states, hate Iran for a variety of strategic, cultural, religious, and ideological reasons. As a result, they have hyped the threat of Iran and frightened Americans into thinking the Islamic Republic poses an existential threat to America.
“In an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned us that Iran is ‘building ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) to reach the American mainland in a few years,’ adding that, ‘they’re getting closer and closer to the bomb,” and “they have to be stopped.’
The problem here is that Netanyahu is exactly wrong. In reality, the current consensus in the U.S. intelligence community is that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program and has made no decision as to whether to pursue the bomb.
‘Recent assessments by American spy agencies,’ the New York Times reported last year, ‘are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier’ and this ‘remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.’
“Nevertheless, Netanyahu and other Israeli officials continue to go on national television and contradict U.S. intelligence findings in order to scare Americans into seeing Iran as more of a threat than it is.”
Hopefully the American people will unanimously come to the same conclusion before it is too late.
Prior Atttacks,” ABC News, March 19, 2012; Scott Sayare, “Gunman May Have Filmed Attack at French School,” NY Times, March 20, 2012; Diana Magnay and Saskya Vandoorne, “French Killing Suspect Dies Shooting at Police,” CNN, March 22, 2012; “Sarkozy Compares Shooting Trauma to 9/11,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 30, 2012; Angelique Chrisafis, “Toulouse Shootings: Mohamed Merah Killed as Siege Ends,” Guardian, March 22, 2012; D. G. Myers, “The Toulouse Shooting and the Jewish State,” Commentary, March 19, 2012; “Toulouse Gunman Mohamed Merah,” BBC News, March 22, 2012; Robert
Zaretsky, “Toulouse Tragedy Shows Rhetoric’s Danger,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 21, 2012; “Anger and Sadness after Shooting at Jewish Day School in France,” ADL.com; Anshel Pfeffer, “Preventing Next Attack on Jewish Community,” Haaretz, March 23, 2012; Melanie McDonagh, “A Man Surrounded—and
Some Assumptions Exposed,” Spectator, March 21, 2012.
Against Racism at Malha Mall,” Jerusalem Post, March 28, 2012.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.