From Communist to Neoconservative: The Ethnic Blindness of David Aaronovitch

Francis Carr Begbie

aaronovitch1A sepia-tinted picture of life in the Communist Party in post-war London is painted in Party Animals, a memoir by neoconservative journalist David Aaronovitch whose father was a full-time communist organiser and whose non-Jewish mother was equally staunch.

Today Aaronovitch is a fashionable neoconservative who backed Britain’s involvement in George W Bush’s wars and now rails against a variety of predictable targets from boycotts of Israel to Vladimir Putin. He flits easily from perch to perch in the establishment media and is currently a feature writer with The Times.

It is a fairly predictable progression for this modern day establishment figure.  His family lived in the well-to-do, leafy Hampstead in a neighbourhood filled with like-minded Jewish families. The Communist Party life was a world within a world with its own travel agencies, daily newspapers, and bookshops. There were party doctors, dentists, plumbers — all overwhelmingly Jewish. It was a Jewish subculture of the sort that sprang up throughout the Jewish diaspora in the West: The comrades were born into it, married within it, and died within it.  And yet the strangest thing is that no-one ever seems to have asked — “Hang on? Why is everyone Jewish? Isn’t this all a bit like a Polish shtetl?”

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Indeed, even the Jews involved seemed unaware that they were entirely immersed in a Jewish sub-culture. Paul Lyons describes a similar situation among Jewish communists in Philadelphia, 1936–1956:

Most Jewish Communists wear their Jewishness very casually but experience it deeply. It is not a religious or even an institutional Jewishness for most; nevertheless, it is rooted in a subculture of identity, style, language, and social network. . . . In fact, this second-generation Jewishness was antiethnic and yet the height of ethnicity. The emperor believed that he was clothed in transethnic, American garb, but Gentiles saw the nuances and details of his naked ethnicity. …

Evidence of the importance of ethnicity in general and Jewishness in particular permeates the available record. Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted. The alternative was never really considered, particularly among Jewish men. (Paul Lyons, Philadelphia Communists, 1936–1956. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982, 73, 74)

That’s the weirdest thing about this book. For while communists were notorious for their moral blindness, it is the ethnic blindness that stands out. While not all Jews were communists, the proportion of communists who were Jewish, can only be described as ‘beyond parody. Yet Aaronovitch sees none of that. He is determinedly ethnically blind. His only remark on the matter that I could find was: “The British Communist Party had a significant Jewish membership, partly as a result of its record in the fight against fascism.”

David Aaronovitch

David Aaronovitch

Far from it being a world of persecution and adversity, he recalls a jolly and event-filled life with weekend schools, protest marches, meetings and concerts. Communist circles ranged from the entertainment world to the bohemian circles of Bloomsbury and Chelsea. There were lots of opportunities for travel, especially behind the Iron Curtain. Life was good.

The family social circle included aristocratic members of the House of Lords, fellow-travelling Labour MPs, and figures from the entertainment world such as the singer Paul Robeson, Ewan MacColl, and novelist Doris Lessing. It seems to have been an enjoyable social whirlwind where they never seem to have wanted for anything. There was always a tight network to fall back upon and decades before the sixties, they created a sexually free-wheeling atmosphere, where casual infidelity was the norm.

The outside world looked on them with amused tolerance as romantic outsiders with a misplaced sense of conscience, but there is no indication that they suffered social ostracism or political persecution. Nationalists who cannot even gather in a pub without the windows being broken or having the premises lose its alcohol licence will be amazed how risk-free it was being a communist at a time when the world was waking to the horrors of Stalinism.

They reproduced one pattern that is almost an identifying characteristic of Jewish subversive organisations, from the NAACP to the communist parties of Eastern Europe — the non-Jewish figurehead, the public face of the organisation (see here, p. 92). And so it was, almost comically, that an organisation that was overwhelmingly controlled by Jewish intellectuals from the leafy shires was “led” by such as Edinburgh painter John Gollan or London boilermaker Harry Pollitt.

The decidedly educated, elite and rather aloof atmosphere probably helped when it came to career networking. The civil service and BBC were nominally barred to Communist Party membership but this was easily circumvented as the case of notorious spy Guy Burgess and many others show. In fact party membership might have been an asset, as David Aaronovitch admits. Before being appointed to a BBC executive position in the 1980s, he was asked by the corporation to drop his formal party membership for fear of the attendant publicity.

His father enjoyed the same privileged treatment. After having only ever worked as a full-time communist party organiser for decades, 47-year-old Sam Aaronovitch was admitted to Balliol College (one of the constituent colleges of Oxford University) to do a doctorate in three years! Courtesy of strings pulled by the Marxist historian Christopher Hill, he was able to leap over better qualified but less well-connected candidates to study for a DPhil in economics. As a result, Aaronovitch senior was eventually able to wangle himself a comfy berth in the academic world as a professor of business studies at a polytechnic. Not bad for a man who left school at 14 without a certificate to his name!

The political evolution of David Aaronovitch seems to match that of the revolutionary left in Britain through the last century. His parents were loyal Soviet communists to the end.  But he himself was kicked out of Balliol after one term but went on to Manchester University where he was able to leave the ghosts of 1930’s Stalinism behind and throw himself into the new identity politics of anti-racism and feminism. It is while discussing the White opposition to mass immigration that led to the street riots in the 1970s that he betrays his feelings of contempt for the ordinary people of the society that nurtured him. The oppressed masses in abstract he does not mind, but the White working class — supposedly the main beneficiary of communist efforts in Marxist theory — he cannot stand.

His political evolution followed the typical neoconservative arc, and he welcomed both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to the outrage of former family friends, but to the benefit of his career. Today, as the voice of neoconservative foreign interventionism he has a guaranteed berth across the establishment media from the Guardian to the BBC and beyond. From communist to neoconservative, with the only constant being a strong Jewish identification and dedication to perceived Jewish interests.

While his memoir, written in a style drenched in irony, confronts some toe-curling family secrets, there are some puzzling omissions, including one obvious question: Why are so many communist traitors Jewish?

For it is a pattern that is thrown up again and again during his own research. A huge proportion of the communists who turned traitor were the Jewish offspring of equally fanatically left-wing parents.

Not everyone was looking at them as harmless eccentrics or failing to notice that communism, Jewishness, and spying seemed synonymous. The lower rank MI5 or police Special Branch gumshoes who carried out the observations certainly noticed the pattern.

Aaronovitch is indignant when he discovers in one archive, a file mentioning his family babysitter, saying that at one Communist Party meeting “about 50% were Jews.”  This reflected a pattern that could be found across the party in London, yet Aaronovitch opines only that it was “snide” and “almost entirely pointless and remarkably intrusive snooping of a woman who clearly was nothing more than an activist.”

Unfortunately, as he discovers, MI5 archives told a different story. For 25 years the babysitter’s sister had worked for the GRU (the Red Army intelligence outfit) and had been awarded the Order of the Red Banner. She had been a courier to whom atom bomb spy Klaus Fuchs had passed his secrets to the Russians. Fuchs sat on crucial British American scientific committees, and it was partly because of him and other spies, that the US stopped sharing atomic research with the British in 1946. Fuchs was jailed for 14 years. Despite the suspicions of the security service, both sisters and their brother — all spies — were allowed to escape to East Germany.

Another close family friend was also a traitor.  James Klugmann had been in British special operations in the Balkans during the war and had played a crucial role in persuading the British to switch their backing from Serbian nationalists to Tito’s communists. Like Aaronovitch he was a full time communist party organiser who lived in Hampstead, and as with Sam Aaronovitch, MI5 surveillance revealed nothing untoward.

But that all changed when the Mitrokhin KGB files were published in the nineties. They showed that  Klugman was a KGB officer who was instrumental in recruiting the entire Cambridge spy ring while a student at Trinity College.

The same applies to another Hampstead neighbour and fellow party member Andrew Rothstein who is recalled affectionately.  Somehow Aaronovitch omits to mention Rothstein’s other role. He was also a recruiter for the forerunner of the KGB.

For British communists stayed true to the faith throughout some of the most horrific episodes in human history. Untold millions were swallowed up in mass executions, purges, civil wars, artificially induced famines and forced population transfer.

There was no secret about any of this, but it was relatively smaller episodes targeting Jews beginning in the late forties that forced a change of mind. And that is when the purges in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and what became known as the Doctor’s Plot began to target Jewish party members.

It is here that we get closest to seeing the ethnic contours and can see the party for what it is — an instrument of ethnic warfare which, under Stalin, had turned on its creators.

Fat chance of Aaronovitch admitting any of this.  There are several memoirs of the British communist party, and, while some bemoan a life wasted in a futile cause, others still cling to the idea that they helped world peace.  What none of them seem willing to do is own British communism’s main achievement — and that is because of their efforts, the Soviet Union possessed the atomic bomb within years of the end of World War II.

Print Friendly
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

47 Comments to "From Communist to Neoconservative: The Ethnic Blindness of David Aaronovitch"

  1. February 27, 2016 - 5:06 am | Permalink


    The Ban Black Socks Movement jugganaught strolls on and releases an update that finally solves the black sock dilemma!!

    See here:

  2. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    February 27, 2016 - 3:57 am | Permalink

    Correction for the record: I didn’t dub Ryskind a “hero” any more than (say) Adolphe Menjou. Of course, to anyone who thinks that all Jews are by nature a wholly evil criminal “tribe”, any attempt to mention a few contrary facts will cause annoyance.

    Incidentally, during the Berlin-Moscow honeymoon Earl Browder’s CPUSA named and attacked Jewish groups for promoting US intervention against the Nazis, as well as attacking the British Empire; not only Lindbergh &c at that time.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      February 27, 2016 - 5:03 pm | Permalink

      No, you didn’t dub Ryskind a hero, Mr. Ashton; I willingly acknowledge that your virtue on that score is untarnished. Writers past and present chez LRC have been doing so for nigh on twenty years, however, and it was to that site and to them that I was referring, though I am certainly guilty of failing to make quite plain that that was what I meant.

  3. Kenneth's Gravatar Kenneth
    February 27, 2016 - 2:50 am | Permalink

    Aaronovitch did a BBC radio 4 programme a few years ago bascially saying that McCarthy was right about the extent of Communist infiltration in the US:

    Not sure what his motivations were with this programme, but needless to say the Jewish factor is not dwelt on.

  4. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    February 26, 2016 - 4:57 pm | Permalink

    “… British communists stayed true to the faith throughout some of the most horrific episodes in human history. Untold millions were swallowed up in mass executions, purges, civil wars, artificially induced famines and forced population transfer.

    “There was no secret about any of this, but it was relatively smaller episodes targeting Jews beginning in the late forties that forced a change of mind. And that is when the purges in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and what became known as the Doctor’s Plot began to target Jewish party members.

    “It is here that we get closest to seeing the ethnic contours and can see the party for what it is — an instrument of ethnic warfare which, under Stalin, had turned on its creators.”

    Yes, but in case you did not make it explicit, STALIN DID NOT begin to target Jews specifically – which orthodox histories often claim. The Jewish authored policies of anti-nationalism, previously imposed only against the ‘gentile’ ethnies of the Soviet Union, simply began to be extended also to Jewish communities. Shock horror … Jews eventually getting equal treatment!

    • Tom Rogers's Gravatar Tom Rogers
      February 27, 2016 - 4:42 am | Permalink

      Yes, this is true. It was a mixture of Jewish communists and Zionists attacking communitarian and religious Jews. However, there was also an element of anti-Semitism in Stalin’s worldview, which came to the fore after Israel’s decision to strategically align with the United States. The picture is complex.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        February 27, 2016 - 4:48 pm | Permalink

        Mr. Rogers: I think you’re jumping the historical gun just a bit. That is, Stalin (d. 1953) was, I believe, long in his grave before Israel’s “strategic alignment” (with a rather more wry twist to the word “strategic” than you may have intended) shifted from the USSR to the USA. (I speak of actualities here, not aspirations.)

        Far from being seen as a friend or ally, Israel was widely regarded as lying within the Soviet sphere all through the Eisenhower administration, and its attack on Egypt in the 1956/57 Suez War, in conjunction with Britain and France, made it no non-Jewish friends over here. Granted, Israel was not hit with the same punitive trade sanctions that Eisenhower asked for against the other two attackers, but neither did it then gain any ground in its progress toward the occupation of Capitol Hill (in Pat Buchanan’s famous phrase) that it achieved in the early seventies—if not indeed during the Johnson administration.

        • rosa's Gravatar rosa
          February 28, 2016 - 9:41 am | Permalink

          You’re right, as always Pierre. Israel was a creature of USSR, from Yalta on. Stalin became each day more paranoid about true and false enemies, and Trotsky, as you know, was a Jew. Simply, as it always happens, the Revolution ate his children, and “Russian” Jews were the first and most revolutionaries of them all.

        • March 2, 2016 - 7:11 am | Permalink

          Is it not the case that Pierre and rosa are each accepting the official, Jewish, narrative?
          Jews (and their associates) ruled the USSR, with accompanying deaths of tens of millions of whites. That’s a measure of Jewish power. But Jews (and their associates) also started the Second World War, with the deaths of tens of millions of whites, and others. And that’s a measure of Jewish power, too. Whatever was thought in 1948, about Israel, was no doubt pushed by Jews in their junk media. Stalin? Trade sanctions? England and France? ‘Revolution’? — the accurate way to view the world surely is with Israel considered as another interest-group, but with an unusual topography, spread across world cities.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          March 2, 2016 - 12:37 pm | Permalink

          Is it not the case that Pierre and rosa are each accepting the official, Jewish, narrative?

          No, it’s not.

          … the accurate way to view the world surely is with Israel considered as another interest-group, but with an unusual topography, spread across world cities.

          No again. International Jewry is the interest group. Israel is a DBA operation—i.e., a storefront, albeit a storefront with nukes—that exists largely if not solely for the benefit of those among the goyim who insist on buying retail. Herzl, Jabotinsky, and suchlike may or may not have had a different plan or intent for Israel, but the storefront model has won out.

  5. T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
    February 26, 2016 - 4:14 pm | Permalink

    How was copper wire invented? [Answer tomorrow]

    • AnotherAmalekite's Gravatar AnotherAmalekite
      February 26, 2016 - 10:58 pm | Permalink

      I hope it’s not that lame joke about two jews fighting over a penny.
      If you’re going to tell jew jokes, at least tell some that didn’t originate in grade school 100 years ago.

  6. bigots and progots's Gravatar bigots and progots
    February 26, 2016 - 2:48 pm | Permalink

    I don’t like bigotry but I also don’t like progotry, aka ‘progressive bigotry’.

    A bigot is someone who is so hostile to outsiders that he fails to see the positive side of other nations, races, cultures, religions, ideologies, and etc. A bigot is so sure that his own kind/side is so true and right that he refuses to see that other groups/peoples may have virtues of their own(and may even be better in some respects). Sadly, bigots are blind to the virtues of others.

    Now, what about the progots? Progot is someone who is so deluded with the cult of ‘inclusion’ and ‘tolerance’ — as well as possibily being filled with self-loathing, e.g. ‘white guilt’ or ‘white privilege’ — that he only sees the good sides of other races/peoples, especially those favored by the Globalist Elites. The favored groups are Jews, homosexuals, and blacks. Off and on, they include Muslims, Mexicans, Asians, etc. but on a contextual or rotating than permanent basis(that is only reserved for Jews, homos, and blacks). A progot is so enraptured by the eternal nobility of Jews, homos, and blacks that he never sees anything wrong or bad about them.
    A progot is as blind to the vices of other groups like a bigot is blind to the virtues of other groups.
    A progot is as blind to the virtues of his own group like a bigot is blind to the vices of his own group.

    There is a sane rational way between bigotry and progrotry.

    One thing for sure, progotry has a way of leading to bigotry. If Political Correctness forces young people to swallow the Baloney that Jews, blacks, homos, and certain other groups are ALWAY WONDERFUL AND NEVER WRONG, many young people will eventually become disillusioned when confronted with realitu. If the only choices are bigotry and progotry, young people might swing from PC progotry to ‘racist’ bigotry.

    But there is a sane way, the middle way. The sane ways acknowledges the good sides of other peoples while also noticing their bad/dark/negative sides. If there is both the bright and dark side to white race, culture, and history, the same goes for all other groups.

    But PC demands that we ONLY notice the good sides of certain favored ‘victim’ or ‘outsider’ groups.

  7. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    February 26, 2016 - 11:10 am | Permalink

    So many Jews act badly. So many blacks act badly. So many Homos act badly.

    So, why do they get away with it and keep acting worse and worse?

    Because the hog the Moral Narrative. As long as they get to play ‘sacralized victim groups’ and as long as whites are seen as ‘sick villain groups’, the Jews, blacks, and homos will get away with everything.

    Even though Liberalism is associated with intellectualism and rationalism, it is a quasi-religious movement with sacred cows.

    So, the main goal of the Right must be to reclaim Moral Righteousness.
    The Right can do this by adopting National Humanism and reaching out to lower class whites hurt by globalism, Jewish financial robbery, Jewish-homo-negro cultural pollution, and black crime.

    Negroes have Emmett Till. Jews have Anne Frank. Homos have Matt Shepherd(even though he was killed by drug dealers).

    The Right needs to create its own Sacred Hall of Victimhood. The Eurocaust Memorial.

    White folks need their own Anne Franks and Emmet Tills. There are so many white victims.

    Via victim politics, whites can gain dominance of Moral Narrative.

    Liberalism would be OVER without the Moral Narrative. Feeling holier-than-thou about ‘racism’ is the only thing that gives Liberalism, Jews, and blacks an advantage. Take out that narrative, and the people would realize Jews are thieves, blacks are thugs, and homos are decadents.

    The so-called Lib side is especially vulnerable since it has no innate unity or cohesion. As it’s made up of so many groups — rich Jews, poor blacks, decadent homos, devout Muslims, feminists, pornographers, silly trannies, Mexican dishwashers, Wall Street financiers, vegans, etc — , the ONLY way it can stay together is by focusing their hatred and animus against the THEM group of white conservatives. Without a common enemy to hate, the Liberal side just falls apart.

    In contrast, a white conservative community doesn’t need an enemy to hate to have a sense of unity and togetherness. It has internal cohesion because white conservatives have much in common with one another.
    In contrast, there is no internal cohesion on the Liberal side. It needs an external threat — constant crying of WOLF — to keep the various groups united in fear, rage, and hatred. It’s like the community in THE VILLAGE by Shyamalan. To keep young people in the community, the elders constantly cry ‘wolf’ about some MONSTER out in the woods.

    The great thing about Black Lives Matter is that it’s messing up this cohesion. Blacks got tired of White Liberals crying WOLF too many times and are disrupting white college campuses and white liberal gentrified areas. Of course, blacks themselves cry WOLF about how white ‘racists’ are killing blacks, but when we look at the ACTIONS(than the rhetoric) of BLM, the targets are usually centers of white Liberalism. BLM are not attacking Mormons or raiding Evangelical southern churches. They are clashing with homo paraders, hipster Apple consumers, Proggy college administrators, etc.

    • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
      February 26, 2016 - 5:07 pm | Permalink

      If you want Whites to adopt ‘liberal’ tactics, and because you say Whites have best claim to ‘liberal’ stances, why not accept you’re the liberal.

      You’re the type of person who says live and let live. You’re the guy who pleads for equal rights to live freely of outside compulsion. You are the type who just wants freedom for people like yourself to live by your own lights, and is happy to leave alone every other group that wants the same.

      You are the archetypal liberal. SO STOP WHINING ABOUT LIBERALS.

      Your real and only enemies are the anti-Whites, who won’t let Whites – and only Whites – enjoy freedom and long-term survival.

      ‘Liberal’ anti-Whites don’t exist – by definition. They are a fictional enemy given to you by real people, pursuing real biological interests. Jews.

      • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
        February 28, 2016 - 1:17 pm | Permalink

        Nick Dean

        All European peoples have the right to pursue their genetic interests.

    • Bill Montague's Gravatar Bill Montague
      February 26, 2016 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

      A White MLK could be George Lincoln Rockwell who was assassinated in 1967 by a George Patler who was an expelled member of the party that Rockwell was the leader of.

  8. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    February 26, 2016 - 10:12 am | Permalink

    Cuckservative Establishment.

    The term ‘establishment’ is too long.

    How about ‘Estab’?

    Or just ‘Stab’?

    Like ‘stab in the back’.

    GOP has a lot of ‘stabs’, aka ‘establishment conservatives’.

    Stabs are the privileged Scabs of the Right.

    • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
      February 26, 2016 - 5:30 pm | Permalink

      The Democrats screw roughly half of Whites also.


      The right-left shell game has been in play for 250 years dividing White groups equally against themselves.


      Thinking Whites do not think in terms of left vs. -right because – if for no other reason – neither option proposed for 3 centuries had widespread social-national appeal. Left is wrong AND right is wrong. Who cares?

      The answer is known to be beyond that framework, therefore all schemes to pull us back into that 300yo gluey mesh need to be stamped upon violently: alt-right!!!!

  9. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    February 26, 2016 - 10:07 am | Permalink

    50 yrs from now, when people remember the world today, what will be missing in the historical narrative?

    They will talk about Russian interests, Chinese interests, Iranian interests, Venezuelan interests, Ukrainian interests, Saudi interests, Japanese interests, German interests, French interests, Turkish interests, and etc.

    But what will be missing from the picture? No talk of Jewish Interests.
    Jewish Interests are hidden behind ‘American’ interests and ‘British’ interests and ‘German’ interests and ‘Japanese’ interests ‘Canadian’ interests and ‘Korean’ interests and ‘Saudi’ interests and ‘Swedish’ interests.

    Jews directly control the US and much of EU. Even though Jewish power is at loggerheads with Russia, there are powerful Jewish fifth column interests in Russia as well. Because Jews control the media and academia, they also control the unwitting minds of elites and masses of many nations.
    As for nations like Japan, Germany, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and etc, they are ruled by their own people, but they are so dependent and so under the thumb of Jewish-controlled US that they are little more than proxy states of Jewish-American power.

    If we don’t name the Jewish Power, we won’t understand history and what is really happening.

    Suppose we discuss the British Empire without mentioning the British. Suppose we pretend that Brits ruling over India are ‘Indians’. Brits ruling over Kenya are ‘Kenyans’. Brits ruling over Malaysia are ‘Malaysians’. Brits ruling over Hong Kong are ‘Chinese’. Brits ruling over Egypt are ‘Egyptians’. And etc.
    Now, any honest observer would notice that all these regions seem to be working as a group and in mutual cooperation. Why would Kenya, India, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Egypt, and etc, nations that are so different, be working toward the same goal and serve the same agenda?
    But suppose it is deemed ‘Anti-Anglite’ to mention Anglo power. We are supposed to believe, for example, that Anglos in India have no ‘dual loyalty’ and serve Indian interests. So, even though India is ruled by British minority, we are supposed to regard that ruling minority as just ‘Indian’ and ignore their Anglo identity or interests.
    What kind of a fool would fall for this?
    Well, the British Empire was honest about its imperial power and ambitions. It hid nothing. It proudly declared itself as a global power.

    But Jews are different. Even though Jews have their own identity and interests, they would have Americans believe that Jewish-American interests are just plain good ole ‘American Interests’ no different from those of white gentiles, black gentiles, brown gentiles, etc. Really? It was in the interest of white gentiles, black gentiles, and brown gentiles to mess up relations with Russia and mess up the Middle East? Really?
    Jews would have Europeans believe that Jewish interests and European interests are one and the same. So, if Jews say ‘European values’ are all about opening borders and letting in tons of migrants from the Third World who have no respect for Rule of Law, Europeans are supposed to believe that those are indeed what being ‘European’ is all about. Jews parasitically and zelig-ishly mimic the host and pretend to represent the host’s best interests all the while working to subvert and destroy it.

    We have to talk about Jewish Power as a separate and the most important player in World Politics. Unless we identify the Jewish Element and the Jewish Empire that is linked from nation to nation — US, Canada, Australia, EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc — , we will never understand the world or discuss world affairs honestly.

    Without the global reach of Jewish power, all those European nations would not be working with US to destroy Russia. The massive anti-Russian coordination owes to Jewish interests and networks. It is because Jews want to destroy Russia for not putting out to Jewish Supremacist Power. Since Jews control the US and have links with Jews all over EU(and even Russia), Jews can do stuff like this. Also, Jews have the financial power to destroy anyone. They also have the dirt on everyone and blackmail anyone who won’t go along.
    Also, homo agenda as the New Western Imperialism is the doing of Jews. (Jews cleverly promoted the homo agenda as ‘leftist’ and anti-American in the EU and Latin America. Since the cause was identified with the anti-American Left — esp. as America was depicted by World Jewry as far-right ultra-Christian nation — , many Europeans and Latinos fell for it. But in the US, the homo agenda was promoted as a part of American Exceptionalism and New Civil Rights Movement, and dumb Americans fell for it.)

    It makes more sense to see US and the entire Anglo world, along with EU and Japan, as part of the Empire of Zion than as independent sovereign powers.

    So, it is no longer sensible to just talk about the power of nations. Globalism is a form of globo-elite imperialism, and its rulers are Jews. Jewish agents are stationed all over the world, and Jewish-controlled finance, media, academia, and entertainment permeate into every part of the world.
    It must be identified as Jewish power, not just ‘American power’ or ‘British power’.
    We need a term for this Jewish globalist power.
    Zionica rules much of the world.
    Much of American foreign policy serve Jews than most Americans.
    And it’s not good enough to use terms like ‘neocons’. The Jewish element must be mentioned without all these smoke-and-mirrors terms.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 26, 2016 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

      Strike Saudi Arabia from the list of nations ruled by their own.

      • USAUSAUSA's Gravatar USAUSAUSA
        February 26, 2016 - 9:54 pm | Permalink

        That thing with Lebanon, Hezbollah and the rest of the region and K.S.A. ( Kingdom Saudi Arabia) is getting very ugly on all sides. If you aren’t in it- it’s good to stay out of it.
        There aren’t any good guys. Stunning treachery and taunting. and screw you if you cheer to kill americans…
        You want a Jihad? how about a covert crusade? I love non-state actors anymore. Nerves of Steel.

        • secret agent x9's Gravatar secret agent x9
          February 26, 2016 - 10:40 pm | Permalink

          i think the region and Dar- Al- Islam in it’s entirety and also Jews globally have invited an uncalulated change that is coming. They have decided, for whatever reasons and internal logic, to cultivate a new enemy. An unprecedented one. This is going to hurt a great deal. It’s the saddest thing ever.

  10. Dr. Doom's Gravatar Dr. Doom
    February 26, 2016 - 7:14 am | Permalink

    Anti-semitism like racism is the high crime of noticing, and you’d have to be high now to think anyone cares anymore. Existential threats have a way of crushing bad narratives and fake politeness. Mein Kampf sells quite briskly all over the West now. The jewish annotation pages seem quite unwrinkled and unread however.

  11. David W's Gravatar David W
    February 26, 2016 - 5:48 am | Permalink

    Very good article, and beautifully written, which is saying something given the blood boiling subject matter.

    Thank you.

  12. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    February 26, 2016 - 5:17 am | Permalink

    Thanks again, Mr. Begbie, for another great, well researched article. Jews really do live in their own demented fantasy world, a ghetto of duplicity.
    This is why they can be honestly called “the ‘people’ of the double standard”, who normalize the abnormal.
    Their schizophrenic and paranoid behavior is clearly reflected in the contamination of any “host” nation that they have embedded themselves in. Yet, the Anglo world seems to love themselves to death, with these subversive, inveterate book cookers. A truly warped situation.

  13. Commie Hunter's Gravatar Commie Hunter
    February 25, 2016 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

    The way in which BBC staff and civil servants circumvented was simple : the party operated a private “supporters” list, who though not members were generous donors of money – and were of course then blackmailable if needed. The money was collected by third parties and laundrerd through legitimate businesses. In a time when a blue collar worker earned £10 a week at the peak of the private supporters £5000 a week was collected. Much of this ended with Hungary, when the Party lost a large number of members.

  14. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    February 25, 2016 - 4:04 pm | Permalink

    It is worth looking through Aaronovitch’s articles over time, especially in “The Times” which has a detectable slant and prominent contributors of a related nature. He has swapped the red diaper of infancy for the blue-and-white hasbara hoyzn of seniority, e.g. over Iraq, but still shares with the marxoids a great enthusiasm for mass immigration into Britain. His book attacking conspiracy theories is a curate’s egg (or a rabbi’s beigel), outdated on e.g. research about the Kennedy assassination and the “texts” of the Protocols, but interesting on Pearl Harbor and much else – yet his motives in writing it won’t leave us guessing.

    Aaronovitch may be at home in North London, but you get the feeling that he doesn’t like England very much.

    • February 28, 2016 - 3:01 pm | Permalink

      On Pearl Harbor – there’s a theory, new to me, which may well prove to be true, that Roosevelt himself, or his handlers, carried out the bombing, having prepared the ground by moving aircraft carriers out, ensuring anti-aircraft ammunition was locked away, etc. The idea explains why no Japanese aircraft were seen by spotters.

  15. glb's Gravatar glb
    February 25, 2016 - 3:20 pm | Permalink

    I’m far from being a Hollywood buff, but here are some Hollywood Reds who fled from US to the UK during the so-called McCarthy era I was able to find during a few minutes of Googling: Ring Lardner Jr., Edward Dmytryk, Robert Adrian Scott, Sam Wanamaker and Joseph Losey. An expert on the Hollywood of that era could probably come up with many more. Who knows how many more from other fields of endeavor?

  16. Aitch's Gravatar Aitch
    February 25, 2016 - 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Foreign correspondent Douglas Reed, in his third book, ‘A Prophet At Home’ (published in March 1941 – I have the ninth impression, published in February 1945), has an interesting chapter on the Jews which is well worth reading.

    Reed had fought as both an infantry officer and an airman in the Great War, which he thought of as ‘the 1914-18 section of the war which has now been resumed,’ and had been wounded twice. By the time he wrote this book he’d become concerned about both the number of Jews who’d been entering Britain since Hitler came to power in 1933, and the ability they’d acquired, in the inter-war years, to stifle criticism of themselves.

    After quoting a bit of poetry by Rupert Brooke, ‘the singer of the generation of 1914,’ in which Brooke had expressed ‘a thought unsympathetic (to the Jews) and none took it amiss of him,’ he remarked that ‘if Rupert Brooke had written twenty-five years later he would have known that those two lines must come out . . . for by the time the World War in which he died was resumed no Englishman of his class and kind would have thought of writing anything which would set the critics yelping the dread name “anti-Semite”.

    ‘By the time the World War was resumed, indeed, the general understanding had come to be that the Jews of Berlin were the most valuable citizens of that town and that we were very lucky indeed to have them, because they were so much cleverer than ourselves.’

    He goes on to explain in detail, in a chapter entitled ‘And There the Jews,’ the reason for his misgivings. As I say, the book is well worth reading, as are the two he wrote previously, which covered the invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and those he wrote subsequently. Though I believe they’re all available online, I was able to obtain the original hardbacks quite cheaply.

  17. Mr Curious's Gravatar Mr Curious
    February 25, 2016 - 12:23 pm | Permalink

    “The British Communists had a significant jew membership because of its record in the fight against fascism.”

    Replace the word ‘fascism’ with ‘White people’ and the Truth becomes clearer.

    Saw the pig in Green Park once. Had the same gut reaction I get when that bulldog-faced, monstrous frumpy yenta who presents BBC politics with her Scottish poodle: THIS is a race that has selected purely for intelligence!!!

    • Vincent Johnson's Gravatar Vincent Johnson
      February 26, 2016 - 12:24 am | Permalink

      Do not be so cryptic not everybody have been living in England ,have courage with your comments name and shame the traitors

  18. February 25, 2016 - 11:32 am | Permalink

    The writer makes an extraordinary claim:

    ‘The outside world looked on them with amused tolerance as romantic outsiders with a misplaced sense of conscience, but there is no indication that they suffered social ostracism or political persecution. Nationalists who cannot even gather in a pub without the windows being broken or having the premises lose its alcohol licence will be amazed how risk-free it was being a communist at a time when the world was waking to the horrors of Stalinism.’

    Has he never heard of McCarthyism? That period in the United States lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents?

    • February 25, 2016 - 12:46 pm | Permalink

      The UK was apparently quite different than the US during that period.

      • FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
        February 25, 2016 - 4:13 pm | Permalink

        I think a possible explanation for this is that McCarthyism was a predominately Catholic movement, and since the percentage of Catholics in the UK (around 10%) is much lower than in the U.S. (around 23%), it therefore had much less popular and political support and backing in the UK:

        One of the strongest bases of anti-Communist sentiment in the United States was the Catholic community, which constituted over 20% of the national vote. McCarthy identified himself as Catholic, and although the great majority of Catholics were Democrats, as his fame as a leading anti-Communist grew, he became popular in Catholic communities across the country, with strong support from many leading Catholics, diocesan newspapers, and Catholic journals.[65] At the same time, some Catholics did oppose McCarthy, notably the anti-Communist author Father John Francis Cronin and the influential journal Commonweal.[66]

        McCarthy established a bond with the powerful Kennedy family, which had high visibility among Catholics. McCarthy became a close friend of Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., himself a fervent anti-Communist, and was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. He dated two of Kennedy’s daughters, Patricia and Eunice,[67][68] and was godfather to Robert F. Kennedy’s first child, Kathleen Kennedy.

        Another most excellent article by Mr. Begbie. Thank you very much!

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          February 25, 2016 - 9:00 pm | Permalink

          Max’s reflexive anti-Catholicism and reliance on Wikipedia for “information” are as predictable as sunrise and sunset.

      • secret agent X9's Gravatar secret agent X9
        February 26, 2016 - 10:50 pm | Permalink

        We still are very different especially at the top. Average Americans are at a psychological disadvantage and indeed are in grave danger dealing with British, Aussies and Canucks at the higher levels. It’s not on purpose. There are just some things they are at ease with that average Americans have no natural ability to process or defend against. Not only with British- but with Europeans too.

        • February 28, 2016 - 3:07 pm | Permalink

          — There’s a serious possibility there’s a genetic difference, in perception, or instinctive gut feeling, or predisposition to dislike/like, or some combination of things. Google for a combination of this sort: evolution genetics cities parasitism jews. Cities have now existed for thousands of years, long enough for subgroups to evolve.

    • Sarge's Gravatar Sarge
      February 25, 2016 - 3:08 pm | Permalink

      The focus seems to be on Britain

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      February 25, 2016 - 3:19 pm | Permalink

      “That period in the United States lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against communists …”? Please!

      McCarthyism was far more fantasy than fact. Joseph McCarthy became a celebrity of sorts after his famous Wheeling, WV, speech in 1950. Yet his approval numbers in polls never reached far beyond 50 percent, if that, and his polling negatives were consistently high even as late as early 1954, the time of his peak popularity. Any influence he had was gone for good by August 1954, and his access to public microphones effectively ceased with his condemnation by a Senate in the control of his fellow Republicans in December of that year.

      In short, his true influence was highly circumscribed and highly populist (i.e., no elite impact whatsoever) and was worth reckoning for closer to three years than six.

      The so-called Hollywood blacklist, be it noted, had nothing to do with McCarthy. It came in response to the anticommunist activism of the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee, activism that started in 1947 under Parnell Thomas (during the two brief years of Republican control of the Congress under a Democratic president) and continued through 1950 or so under John S. Wood. Incidentally, Wood, a Democrat from Georgia long hated by Jews, was the guy who succeeded in scaring the Hollywood moguls into firing a handful of their most prominent communist Jewish writers and directors. Nevertheless, the firings were successful (for a few years anyway) largely because the vipers’ tangle of ethnic and homosexual networking that had made dozens of untalented hacks multimillionaires had also alienated hundreds of other talented and untalented hacks (many of whom were also Jewish and queer). This latter group, whose members had long wanted to be multimillionaires, too, were delighted to see any and all means employed to upend their rivals and to assume their privileged positions.

      Whatever his virtues or failings, the evidence is overwhelming that McCarthy, who lost almost every major battle and skirmish he waged. became the object of focused media and political scorn and hatred, not because he was a truly effective foe of the Establishment, but because he was neither a Democrat nor a Jew. It shouldn’t take more than an hour or so for any interested party to verify that the only influential media outlets that ever had a good word to say for him were those owned by Colonel Robert McCormick. When McCormick’s publishing domain (centered on the Tribune and station WGN in Chicago and on the Daily News in New York) passed into Jewish hands, the last major anti-Jewish media outlets in this country were silenced.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        February 26, 2016 - 5:43 am | Permalink

        M. Stanton Evans, “Blacklisted by History” (2009) defending Tailgunner Joe is worth reading – you can see how its very few liberal-left reviewers reacted and continued their distortions. (About $4 s/h pb.)

        As for the Hollywood Reds, again the heroes of Hollywood, give John T. Flynn AND (in fairness) Morrie Ryskind, if not Ronald Radosh, their due. McCarthy used a blunderbuss instead of a scalpel, but it has turned out that he was mostly on target. The unsavory lovebirds Cohn and Schine were no real help to his cause. But his enemies were not all members of the Hebrew persuasion, and he had some backers from that quarter, hardly surprising when the worst witch-hunts of the post-war era were taking place under another Joe.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          February 26, 2016 - 2:14 pm | Permalink

          I have been familiar with Stan Evans’s book since its publication—indeed before. Many others hereabouts are, too.

          Anent Hollywood, I repeat what I wrote above: the entire affair came to its climax before McCarthy’s appearance on the radar. Nor should it ever be forgotten that the big studio heads unsurprisingly had few if any qualms about employing a tactic—housecleaning, or at least the appearance of such—whose end product enhanced the corporate bottom line in several major ways, most of them pretty obvious.

          Ryskind, the assertion of whose importance (?) has been a pet concern of the crowd that underwrites Lew Rockwell’s site, was actually little more than one of the semitalented writers who was screwed because he was part of the wrong Hollywood mob. I think that dubbing him a hero is over the top.

          Flynn’s name was a household word when I was growing up sixty years ago and more. He was on the money about a great many things, FDR especially. Yet I still recall that my father never entirely forgave Flynn—quite right old Dad was, too, I think—for dropping Lindbergh like a hot potato after the latter named Jewish influence as a prime contributor to FDR’s saber-rattling.

          And of course McCarthy had some Jewish backers. (Heaven knows that Joe was anything but shy in trying to endear himself with Jewish movers and shakers. He was not a complete fool, no matter how quixotic his conduct frequently was.) Managing debate and competition has been a hallmark Jewish tactic in every society where the Tribe’s influence has been strong since the dawn of the Christian era. Indeed, KM has documented this in extenso.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      February 25, 2016 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Which were all TRUE ! As we can well see now, 60 and more years later.

    • Vincent Johnson's Gravatar Vincent Johnson
      February 25, 2016 - 7:17 pm | Permalink

      The writer is talking about Britain , a totally different country to the USA especially then , as a youth i could not understand the communist traitors that seemed to abound in our country I do now. I saw documentaries were the natzi leadership spoke of the Jewish Bolshevik menace and i thought they must be mad as we only thought of Jews as being part of the business and commerce world but they were Western Jews those Eastern Jews were from a different more toxic branch

      • Stogumber's Gravatar Stogumber
        February 26, 2016 - 2:12 am | Permalink

        There had been a lot of differences between the U.S. and Britain. The United States had had the “America First” coalition; Roosevelt had only got his European war by detour (via Pearl Harbour and Japan), and the Rooseveltists (all leftists) needed a lot of intimidation and suppression in order to keep the opposition quiet. So a lot of the “Red Scare” and “McCarthyism” after the war was the reaction of the people intimidated during the war.
        On the other hand, Britain had an All-Party-Coalition under Conservative leading, and the English People reacted mostly positive to a war propaganda which played well to their natural rival hostility against the German neighbour. The Churchill government needed much less intimidation and suppression than Roosevelt und needed much less support from the left – so leftists weren’t as much feared and despised as in the U.S.

        • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
          February 26, 2016 - 5:19 pm | Permalink

          “The Churchill government needed much less intimidation and suppression …”
          I suspect Arnold Leese, Lord Selkirk, and others who were interned by Churchill might disagree.

Comments are closed.