Jewish Influence

Champions of Judea: On the supplanting of British foreign policy

From Horus on Substack. Please subscribe. Excellent research.

Our last article discussed the pursuit of Jewish interests by Winston Churchill and the British ruling class. Recall that Churchill considered Jews (at least as compared to Arabs) to be racially superior and strove energetically to enable Jewish colonisation of Manchester and London as well as of Palestine. He was born in the ambit of Rothschild, de Hirsch and Cassel, and was unfailingly loyal to Zionists throughout his life, serving them with outstanding fervour. He helped bring about the Balfour Declaration. He repeated Disraeli’s dictum “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews”, claiming the sanction of the Christian deity for Jewish supremacism. Churchill described his devotion to Zionism bluntly as “a question of which civilisation you prefer.”

Churchill’s anti-German beliefs were as old as his adoration of what he called the “higher grade race”. He helped cause the Great War and was thrilled by it. After Versailles, he traduced Weimar governments less frequently than he had those of the German Empire, but on occasions in the 1920s still spoke of Germany as a threat.1 On March 23rd 1933, two months after Adolf Hitler became chancellor, Churchill castigated the new Germany in Parliament for its “ferocity and war spirit, the pitiless ill-treatment of minorities [and] the denial of the normal protections of civilised society to large numbers of individuals solely on the ground of race”.2 He asserted that “The Nazis inculcate a form of blood lust in their children … without parallel … since barbarian and pagan times.”3

Portraying Germany as a military threat was, at that time, partly just a way for an unprincipled politician to attack Ramsay MacDonald, the prime minister who, though sympathetic to the Soviets, was for disarmament to facilitate peace.4 Churchill, though, was unprincipled in a consistently anti-German direction. Had he ‘warned’ about Stalin the way he did about Hitler, Churchill’s post-war reputation as the politician who ‘saw the danger’ could have been twice as great. He had been staunchly anti-communist since 1917, and until 1930 or later, “His posture toward the Soviet Union was one of consistent abhorrence.”5 Yet as the Soviet Union proceeded to amass the largest armed forces in history, Churchill does not appear to have investigated the red threat at all.6 By 1935 he was scheming with the Soviet ambassador against the British government. By the summer of 1940 he had condoned the Soviet annexation of several countries. The Soviet regime, without war as extenuation, had by 1935 already caused civilian ruin and death on a scale Hitler’s regime would never match, with immense horrors still to be inflicted. Evidently neither Churchill nor anyone else lauded for their prescience in regard to Germany had any sincere objection to dictatorships that callously maltreated civilians and used vast forces to menace their neighbours, and any historical work implying that they did must be false and exculpatory.

Jewish foreign policy

As though at the same prompting, Churchill began to campaign against Germany simultaneously with an international alliance of Jewish interests organised and led publicly by Samuel Untermyer, a wealthy Jewish lawyer from the U.S. who has also instrumental in  developing and promoting Christian Zionism, a strongly pro-Israel movement. Untermyer launched a boycott which the Daily Express referred to on March 24th 1933 as a ‘Judean declaration of war against Germany’.7 ‘War’ was scarcely an exaggeration, as Zbyněk Vydra describes: “The main goal was terminating Jewish persecution by overthrowing Hitler and the boycott was meant to be one of the means of bringing Germany down on its knees.”8 In Untermyer’s words, the aim of his “purely defensive economic boycott” was to “undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.”9 Tolerance of their “very existence” might be resumed once they clearly signalled their compliance. At least as early as May 1933, while Soviet collectivisation killed millions, Untermyer declared that Hitler’s government was carrying out a “cruel campaign of extermination”. His accusations were repeated in private correspondence as well as in speeches, newspaper articles and open letters. He specified in 1934 that not mere expulsion from Germany but the death of all Jews “by murder, suicide or starvation” was Hitler’s “openly avowed official policy and boasted purpose”. To the suggestion of verifying whereof he spoke, Untermyer replied “I have no intention of going to see Hitler, although asked by his friends to do so.”10 Churchill similarly spoke only about Hitler, never to him. Untermyer happily visited the Soviet Union during the Great Terror; Churchill did so in secret during the war.

In Britain, a boycott of trade with German firms was begun in the East End of London by Jews descended of immigrants from the Russian Empire. Though intimidation was employed to some effect, this effort alone could not force the hand of the whole British population. Regime change could more likely be achieved by compelling nation-states to act against Germany regardless of popular wishes—the typical top-down strategy of Jewish activism aimed at recruiting non-Jewish elites—and of that aim Untermyer’s international campaign stood a better chance. He first launched the American League for the Defense of Jewish Rights, but was persuaded later in 1933 to change the name to the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to Champion Human Rights in order to attract non-Jewish support. According to Richard Hawkins, “In early November 1934, the NALCHR announced that a world conference would begin on November 25 in London. Its aim was to intensify and coordinate the boycott of Germany.” As Hawkins describes, the World Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council to Champion Human Rights (WNSANCHR) was established as a result.

“The conference also resulted in the establishment of a British Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council (BNSANC) with Sir Walter Citrine, the general secretary of the British Trades Union Congress, as president. … The activities of the BNSANC appear to have gone largely unreported apart from a successful demonstration of as many as twenty thousand and a meeting in London’s Hyde Park joined by many thousands more on October 27, 1935. It was addressed by prominent British politicians and academics from across the political spectrum including Eleanor Rathbone MP, Clement Attlee MP … Citrine, Professor JBS Haldane and Sylvia Pankhurst.”

Hawkins must imagine the political spectrum to run only from socialists to communists, but regardless, the Council would soon become remarkably non-sectarian in that regard. Though he says they went largely unreported, Hawkins himself mentions that the state-controlled BBC broadcast the Council’s addresses.11

The burgeoning influence, assisted by the BBC, of socialists like Attlee and Haldane caused dread to British conservatives including Harold Harmsworth, the first Viscount Rothermere, who owned newspapers including the popular Daily Mail and who had opposed universal suffrage and the growth of the Labour Party.12 Rothermere supported revision of the treaties imposed on Germany and the other defeated states after the Great War. He was also sympathetic to Benito Mussolini’s fascists and Hitler’s National Socialists for their fierce opposition to the many attempts at communist revolution in Italy and Germany. In January 1934, he began supporting the British Union of Fascists (BUF) in Mail editorials. Rothermere was particularly alarmed at Stafford Cripps’ communist-friendly Socialist League, which campaigned for Labour’s next government to grant itself the power to rule by decree and prohibit all opposition.13 With the Socialist League intact and growing, Rothermere nevertheless ceased to support the BUF in July 1934. According to Paul Briscoe, “Jewish directors of Unilever … decided to present … Lord Rothermere, with an ultimatum: if he did not stop backing Mosley, they and their friends would stop placing advertisements in his papers. Rothermere gave in.”14 In November 1933, Untermyer had written that “A properly carried out boycott will cause Germany´s economic collapse within a year.” Shortly after, Pinchas Horowitz, a prominent member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, wrote that “Once the sixteen million Jews inhabiting the world stop buying German goods, they will represent a power which no country will be able to ignore.”15 Presumably, as Jews were relatively small in number and spread across many countries, neither Untermyer nor Horowitz seriously estimated their power as consumers so highly; the power which no country would be able to ignore more likely referred to the ability to coerce pezzonovantes like Rothermere to help ensure that Britain and other powerful states would prioritise international Jewish interests over those of their own people. Mosley, who strove to prevent war, would never have been anything other than a hindrance to “causing Germany’s economic collapse”.

Pinchas Horowitz was also a leading member of the Jewish Representative Council for the Boycott of German Goods and Services (JRC), founded in November 1933. The JRC was separate from the BoD though they had much commonality in membership. Neville Laski, the Board’s president, refused the JRC’s demands to involve his organisation officially in the Jewish boycott, arguing that such a move would likely provoke Hitler’s government to take repressive measures against Jews in Germany.16 This was consistent with the cautious stance taken by the German equivalent of the Board, the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith.17 Whatever Untermyer said about “terminating Jewish persecution”, he and associates like Rabbi Stephen Wise led the faction prepared to aggravate such persecution in pursuit of “overthrowing Hitler”. As Zionists, they likely found provocations of Hitler desirable. Certainly Untermyer seemed to regard his Jewish opponents in America with contempt, saying in December 1937:

“The wave of world-wide anti-Semitism, led and encouraged by Germany, that is inundating our country should serve only to make us more race conscious, tie us closer together and confirm us in our determination to combat and overcome by every means in our power the vast propaganda of this world-bully and braggart and the forces of evil that inspire it. There are still too many turn-coats, hyphenated Jews and apostates in our ranks. The sooner we expose them and rout them out, the better it will be for our welfare and self-respect. They are an undiluted liability.”18

Neville Laski’s reticence toward the overt participation of the Board of Deputies in Untermyer’s boycott also derived from the value he placed on the Board’s close relations with the British government and civil service. The historians who have written on the boycott mostly treat as a failure or a mistake the Board’s declining to join officially (though individual members were free to participate), but good relations with the likes of Robert Vansittart, the acutely anti-German head of the Foreign Office, were arguably more valuable. According to Laski, at a meeting in October 1934, Vansittart, referring to Untermyer and the American Jewish Congress (AJC), said that

“the aggressively Jewish, flamboyant and narrow character of the anti-German propaganda carried on by certain Jewish quarters in America was having results which were very nearly provocation of anti-semitism on a large scale. … He said that he approved of the use of an economic weapon against Germany, but he did not approve of a flamboyant user of such a weapon.”19

Vansittart thus advised his allies on public relations, the better to achieve their shared aims. In 1936, as the World Jewish Congress was being founded (mainly by AJC members at first) with aims including “to coordinate the global economic boycott of Germany”, Laski, “who had originally been just cautious, changed his opinion within a single month towards a complete refusal and did his best to prevent participation in the WJC.” According to Vydra, the prevailing view among the Board of Deputies was that “the Congress would strengthen the boycott movement, but the BoD´s participation would lead to the loss of influence on the British government.”20 Most historians are militantly incurious about how the Board, representing less than half a percent of the British population, came to have such influence.

Jewish domestic policy

Vydra remarks that “[t]he Jewish boycott of Germany was an international activity and can be understood as a type of Jewish foreign policy.”21 Gentile foreign policy was found wanting. Intercession (stadlanut) had been enacted by the Russo-Jewish Committee and Lord Rothschild since the 1880s. The Jewish elite in Britain had also founded the Conjoint Committee for such work. While men like Vansittart and Churchill worked to align British foreign policy with “Jewish foreign policy”, their colleagues did likewise in domestic matters, virtually without resistance. The British Union of Fascists, however unsuited to the role, appears to have been the only vehicle of any size for opposing the usurpation, and thus was targeted for violent suppression. On 4th October 1936, the BUF staged a lawful, police-escorted demonstration through several sites in East London, an area in which Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe had concentrated, in which the unofficial, militant boycott of Germany had begun and in which British people were confronted by immigrant hostility exemplified by the violent crime operation led by Jacob Comacho (alias Jack Comer or Spot). As the police escort attempted to clear illegal blockades in Aldgate, they were assaulted by masses of armed Jews, Irish and communists. Comacho and his associates were leading figures in the assault. Jews organised under the Jewish People’s Council Against Fascism and Anti-Semitism. The communists were mainly from the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), which took orders from the Soviet Union via the Comintern. The ‘Battle of Cable Street’ was the largest of many such assaults on the BUF in the 1930s. The aggressors were rewarded with legislation within two months: a new Public Order Act which impaired the BUF’s ability to demonstrate.22

The Board of Deputies did not at first openly encourage anti-fascist aggression. As Daniel Tilles says, “much of the Board’s anti-fascist activity, for … good reason, took place privately and remained unpublicised.”23 In July 1936, a deputation from the Board, including Neville Laski and vice-president Robert Waley Cohen, expressed sympathy for Jewish violence against the BUF and prevailed on Simon to punish “those preaching hatred”.24 John Simon’s Act, passed in December that year, was “influenced by the personal intervention of Harold Laski” (Neville’s pro-Soviet brother) and “made the police act with even greater intensity” against the BUF.25 Let us assume that the hatred preached was so abominable as to justify bricks flung at British bobbies by gangsters, else we risk the conclusion that the deputies sought special treatment and power for the higher grade race.

The Board had begun to co-opt anti-fascist militancy before the assault in Aldgate, “establishing a body to direct defence policy in mid-1936, the Co-ordinating Committee (CoC—known from late 1938 as the Jewish Defence Committee).”26 Late in that year, “Sidney Salomon, the secretary of the CoC, in an interview with the Evening Standard, absolved his thugs of blame for their aggression, arguing that it was ‘not human nature … to stand calmly by while Blackshirts shout insults.’”27 Herbert Morrison, leader of the London County Council and a senior figure in the Labour Party, which affected to exist for the benefit of British workers, met in secret with Neville Laski and Harry Pollitt, leader of the CPGB, in October 1936 to co-ordinate the terrorism they mutually supported.28 By March 1937, Neville Laski was satisfied that condoning violence would not lose him politicians’ support: “in contact with the Home Office to discuss anti-Jewish meetings, [Laski warned] that ‘any self-respecting Jew in the crowd would have the greatest difficulty in restraining himself, not only vocally, but even physically.’” He also urged police to collaborate with Jewish and communist infiltrators or invaders starting fights at BUF meetings.29 Newsreel producers already routinely used misleadingly-edited footage of such fights to portray the BUF to the nation as the instigators.

Spreading dread

With the most avid opponents of hostility to Germany corralled by state suppression and terrorism, successive British governments, notwithstanding their Home Secretaries, remained an obstacle to the full adoption of “Jewish foreign policy”. Under MacDonald and Stanley Baldwin, peace with Germany continued, and Neville Chamberlain intended the same. Winston Churchill followed his aspersions about “war spirit” and “blood lust” with a fear campaign about Germany’s military strength. “As 1934 progressed Churchill developed an important subsidiary theme to disarmament: the growth of German air power”, according to David Irving, who continues:

“‘I dread the day,’ he told the House on March 8, ‘when the means of threatening the heart of the British empire should pass into the hands of the present rulers of Germany.’ Such melodramatic statements were typical of the debating stance that Churchill would adopt over the next five years. Sir John Simon predicted in cabinet on March 19 that Hitler would move east or into territories of German affinity like Austria, Danzig and Memel. His colleagues were unconvinced that Hitler harboured evil designs on the empire, and rightly so. We now know from the German archives that even his most secret plans were laid solely against the east. In August 1936 he would formulate his Four Year Plan to gird Germany for war against Bolshevist Russia; and not until early 1938 did he order that Germany must consider after all the contingency of war with Britain—a contingency which, it must be said, Mr Churchill had himself largely created by his speeches.”30

Churchill “found that Britain’s weakness in the air was a popular theme, particularly among leading London businessmen. Their doyen Sir Stanley Machin invited him to address the City Carlton Club on it. He developed his campaign on the floor of the House, in newspaper and magazine articles, and in BBC broadcasts too.”31

Churchill used Parliamentary privilege and his high security clearance to publicise statistics, and alarming interpretations of them, on behalf of a network of anti-German civil servants and intelligence agents led by Robert Vansittart, head of the Foreign Office. On 9th November 1933, the Committee of Imperial Defence had “decided that a body should be set up to determine Britain’s worst defence deficiencies. That body, which became the DRC, was approved by the Cabinet on 15 November” but “held its first meeting on 14 November, the day before it was formally constituted by the Cabinet.”32 The Defence Requirements Committee was “the body whose decisions largely determined the path that British strategic defence policy took in the years until 1939.”33 It was a vehicle for Vansittart and Warren Fisher, his equivalent at the Treasury, to wage institutional war against the Air Ministry which was “[i]n theory… the sole body responsible for the co-ordination and analysis of information on the German air force” and which insisted on reporting what it found.34 As Wesley Wark describes,

“Despite the fact that no concrete intelligence had reached the air ministry during the DRC’s term, the committee nevertheless found itself preoccupied by the question of the future rearmament of Germany, especially in the air. Pushed by Vansittart, the DRC accepted, without conviction, the estimate of five years as the time it would take Germany to rearm, and adopted this as their deadline for British defence planning. Germany was fixed, using Warren Fisher’s terminology, as the ‘ultimate potential enemy’. When the chief of the air staff presented a very modest programme for the RAF to the committee, both Vansittart and Fisher threatened that they would not sign the report.”35

The moderation of the air staff provoked Vansittart to bypass them. “The clash of political and military intelligence in the DRC had encouraged the central department of the Foreign Office to begin drawing up their own appreciations of the German air force.”36 Ralph Wigram, the head of that department, supplied Churchill figures until his death in 1936.37 Another supplier was Desmond Morton, formerly of the Secret Intelligence Service and in 1934 the head of the Industrial Intelligence Centre of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Morton brought to Churchill’s home “secret files which the Prof. [Frederick Lindemann] illicitly photocopied for Churchill.” Morton’s figures only spoke of numbers of planes and “omitted any consideration of quality or range”.38 Churchill’s rhetoric aimed at maximising alarm: “‘Germany has already, in violation of the Treaty, created a military airforce which is now nearly two-thirds as strong as our present home defence airforce.’ By the end of 1935, he warned, Hitler would match Britain’s airforce; by 1936 he would overtake it—such was Churchill’s claim.” Irving paraphrases Churchill: “[I]f both countries continued to rearm at their present rate, in 1937 Germany would have twice the airforce Britain had.” He continues:

“It is plain from the record of November 25th that the cabinet was concerned about the effect of Mr Churchill’s brash campaign on their delicate relations with Germany. Hoare felt they must make clear to the world that his ‘charges were exaggerated.’ Chamberlain expressed puzzlement that they themselves had no information backing Churchill’s claims. … [T]he captured files of the German air ministry reveal both his statistics and his strategic predictions to have been wild, irresponsible, exaggerated scaremongering, delivered without regard for the possible consequences on international relations.”39

Vansittart was aided by Reginald Leeper who became head of the Foreign Office news department in 1935. According to Richard Cockett, “Leeper shared the views of Sir Robert Vansittart on foreign policy and in particular his attitude to Germany.”40 Leeper sought “willing collaborator[s]” among journalists

“to further the aims and policies of the Foreign Office. He realized that with a certain degree of openness and flattery diplomatic correspondents could be welded into a cohesive body who could be relied upon always to put the Foreign Office point of view in the press. [He] built up a set of diplomatic correspondents … loyal to him.”41

The main enticement for correspondents was being shown confidential Foreign Office documents. “[T]he more correspondents were let into the News Department’s confidence, the more willing they would be to adopt the Foreign Office view.” Leeper’s “tame pets” repeated the Foreign Office’s views under their own names.42 At least one of the “most privileged diplomatic correspondents”, Norman Ewer of the Daily Herald, was a spy for the Soviet Union.43

In March 1935, Vansittart leaked the fact that Hitler had privately claimed to John Simon that his Luftwaffe, forbidden under Versailles, had already reached parity with the Royal Air Force.44 Leeper then fed out a more alarming story in April, and Churchill spoke of it as “official” in Parliament.45

Leeper’s team overlapped with Vansittart’s. According to Cockett,

“they used the News Department to give out news of conditions in Germany, statistics of German rearmament, reports of German concentration camps to enhance this pessimistic view of Germany—the leak to the Daily Telegraph in 1935 was supposed to contribute to this general picture. Vansittart was particularly free with his confidences and encouraged Leeper to take the same attitude in the pursuance of their campaign against appeasement. Ian Colvin relates how ‘Rex Leeper sometimes came upon Vansittart in his room at the FO in full conversation with Winston Churchill.’ The excuse Vansittart gave to Leeper for communicating confidential information to a mere MP was that ‘it is so important that a man of Churchill’s influence should be properly informed’ and so he was quite content to ‘tell him whatever I know’.”46

Intelligence sources

As Wark says, “The best intelligence which the [Secret Intelligence Service] gained on German air force developments was obtained through contacts with foreign secret services and through the exploitation of dissident German sources.”47 On the basis of such sources, some of whom approached him directly, from February 1936, Vansittart formed his own intelligence network, “separate from the SIS and the Foreign Office”.48 According to Cockett,

“Vansittart was… particularly open in his communications with FA Voigt of the Manchester Guardian. Indeed, Voigt was a key member of Vansittart’s shadowy ‘Z Organization’, an intelligence service run principally for his own benefit to keep him informed of developments inside Nazi Germany. It was run with the co-operation of the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), but otherwise was run clandestinely – unknown to the rest of the staff at SIS headquarters in London.”49

According to Gill Bennett, the Z Organisation was set up by Hugh Sinclair, head of SIS, and assigned to Claude Dansey, who “ran his own small staff, including Jewish émigrés and other exiles, and supposedly communicated with SIS only through [Hugh] Sinclair, although the evidence suggests that Morton too received information directly from Dansey.”50

Churchill’s intelligence network also included Jewish émigrés like Jurgen Kuczynski, a spy for the Soviet GRU, and Leopold Schwarzschild, a journalist and publisher, whom Churchill called “two German refugees of high ability and inflexible purpose”.51 Using information from Kuczynski was especially absurd:

“After publishing an anonymous article in Brendan Bracken’s The Banker in February 1937 with tongue-in-cheek ‘calculations’ of Hitler’s annual arms budget, he had been contacted by ‘certain circles, and these he had ruthlessly milked of both funds for the party coffers and secret information for the Soviet Union. These circles, he said by way of identification, were those that came to power in 1940 ‘with the overthrow of Chamberlain.’

… Kuczynski also drafted a blimpish brochure on Hitler and the Empire, to which an R.A.F. air commodore wrote the foreword. ‘I chose the pen name James Turner,’ he wrote. ‘The whole thing was a rather improbable romp.’ Turner’s line was, he chuckled, to deny any personal dislike of fascism—that was a matter for the Germans alone — ‘If only it were not such a danger for the British empire.’”52

Kuczynski and Swarzschild may have already been sources for the Z Organisation or Morton’s Industrial Intelligence Centre at the CID (or both). As Wark describes,

“The IIC was created as a secret unit in 1931 to collect and evaluate information on industrial war planning in foreign countries. … Their sources included material from industrial publications, statistics from the board of trade and department of overseas trade, Foreign Office reports, information volunteered by British industrialists and whatever covert material was supplied by the Secret Service.”

For reasons unexplained, “At first the IIC concentrated on Russia but soon turned its attention to the German aircraft industry.”53

One “British industrialist” who volunteered information was Sir Henry Strakosch, a Jewish financier from Austria who, according to David Lough, was another of “the small group of experts who had been feeding Churchill confidential information about Germany’s armaments expenditure.” Of Strakosch’s expertise, Lough says that “As chairman of Union Corporation, the South African mining business, Strakosch passed on confidential details of the raw materials which his company was supplying to the German armaments industry.”54 The German armaments industry must have been awful enough to alarm Strakosh but not quite so terrible that he stopped contributing to it. As Irving describes,

“When the air staff issued a secret memorandum on November 5, 1935 — based, we now know, on its authentic codebreaking sources — stating firmly that the German front line consisted of only 594 planes, Churchill sent an exasperated letter to the Committee of Imperial Defence: ‘It is to be hoped,’ he wrote, ‘that this figure will not be made public, as it would certainly give rise to misunderstanding and challenge.’”55

Friendship with Strakosch became highly beneficial to Churchill and the anti-German front. In severe financial difficulty in 1938, Churchill told friends he would leave politics and put his mansion Chartwell up for sale. Strakosch agreed to pay off the debts (about £18,000 according to Irving and Lough). “Chartwell was withdrawn from the market, and Churchill campaigned on.”56 Lough stresses that there was no quid pro quo with Strakosch (other than membership of Churchill’s dining club). I find no evidence contradicting Lough here. Strakosch’s motive appears to have been to keep Churchill, perhaps the most well-placed activist for the cause, in politics to “campaign on” against “misunderstanding and challenge”. As Lough says of their collaboration, “Sir Henry … regarded Churchill as the one politician in Europe with the vision, energy and courage required to resist the Nazi threat.”57 Strakosch loaned another £5,000 to Churchill in 1940 and left Churchill £20,000 when he died in 1943.58

The Focus

Cockett describes how “Leeper and Vansittart enlisted [Churchill] in their campaign against Germany” as he “could be thoroughly relied upon to use their information in the way that they wanted”. Leeper

“visited Churchill at his home at Chartwell on 24 April 1936 to encourage him to try and bring together all the various groups who were already concerned about the German danger. This meeting was the genesis of the anti-Nazi council which became known as the Focus Group. This duly tried to rectify what Vansittart had identified as the crucial flaw in Britain’s state of readiness: ‘the people of this country are receiving no adequate education — indeed practically no concerted education at all — against the impending tests’ … ”59

Other than this “genesis” at Chartwell, the Anti-Nazi Council was already the British branch of Untermyer’s World Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council for Human Rights. As Richard Hawkins describes,

“In April 1936, Winston Churchill joined the WNSANCHR. … In July, the Board of Deputies of British Jews created a secret fund to support anti-Nazi groups including the WNSANCHR. At a meeting on October 15, the WNSANCHR, at the suggestion of Churchill, decided to establish a Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace movement. The Focus helped revive Churchill’s political career. As Eugen Spier later observed, ‘Later on it was easy to forget the part [the Focus] played in creating a platform for Winston Churchill at a time he was in the political wilderness.’”60 

The Focus served as an information exchange, a network of support and a fountain of money for the anti-German campaign of which Churchill was the most valuable figure. Yet despite including prominent politicians, civil servants, businessmen and journalists, few of whom were abashed about their stance on Germany, Churchill was no more keen for the Focus to be a matter of public discussion than he was the real size of the German air force. To enable individuals with contrasting affiliations to join discreetly, the group had a loose structure, avoided formal membership and only staged events under other names.61 Eugen Spier, a Jewish immigrant from Germany and one of the founders and main funders, wrote a book on the career of the organisation, but did not have it published until 1963. Irving says that “Churchill pleaded with him not to publish it during his lifetime.”62 Court historians still frown at our disrespect for the great man’s privacy.

Churchill “wryly recognised who was behind this body. ‘The basis of the Anti-Nazi League,’ he would write later in 1936 to [his son] Randolph, misquoting its proper title, ‘is of course Jewish resentment at their abominable persecution.”63 Jewish resentment may have been a motivation, but the wealthy, well-connected Jews in the “League” were not under persecution and, as noted, the international effort of which they were part intruded upon the cautious practices of the Jewish organisations in Germany. The Focus’s aims were the same as those of Untermyer and the World Jewish Congress: Germany must overthrow Hitler or be destroyed. In Spier’s words, “we had to prove to Britain and the world that for us there could be no peace with the Nazi regime.”64 Whether the struggle was really for survival or supremacy, no cost was too great.


Another “basis of the League” was Czech bribery. The recipients tended to be unapologetic. As Irving says,

“Europe was awash with secret embassy funds. … The Czechs were most prolific. … When Robert Boothby, once Churchill’s private secretary and now a member of his Focus, was later obliged to resign ministerial office over irregularities involving Czech funds and a certain Mr [Richard] Weininger, he advised the House, as an MP of sixteen years’ standing, not to set impossible standards ‘in view of what we all know does go on and has gone on for years.’”65

Weininger, a wealthy Jewish immigrant, was working mainly for his own benefit.66 Jan Masaryk was the main conduit for Czech government bribery and a friend of Churchill. Reginald Leeper and Henry Wickham Steed, the Focus’s most committed journalist, were two payees.67 Sir Louis Spears MP was given regular cash and a lucrative directorship of a major Rothschild-controlled Czech industrial firm at the behest of Edvard Benes.68

Communist sympathisers

The Czech government was headed by Benes and had formed an alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. The Soviets were permitted to use Czech airbases against Germany and Benes wholly trusted that they would provide sizeable forces in case of war; the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, encouraged his trust.69 The Focus’s aims dovetailed with Litvinov’s foreign policy and the aims of the Comintern. The above-mentioned Robert Boothby was a co-founder of the Popular Front which lobbied for pro-Soviet policies from 1936 until being assumed into Churchill’s wartime government. The Focus also included former Labour minister Hugh Dalton MP, an apologist for the Soviet dictatorship since its founding.70 Focus members Clement Attlee, leader of the Labour Party, leftist Tory MP Harold Macmillan, ‘peace’ activist Norman Angell and Liberal Party politician Violet Bonham-Carter, an old friend of Churchill, wrote for The Future, a magazine published by Willi Münzenberg, a German communist who specialised in creating pseudo-independent organisations to enable celebrity intellectuals like Angell to deniably support the Soviet Union.71 The launch of The Future was funded by Munzenberg’s comrade Olof Aschberg, a Jewish banker from Sweden who had helped launder money for the Bolshevik regime after its repudiation of foreign loans and seizure of private assets. The editor was Arthur Koestler, also of Jewish ancestry, who had recently resigned as a Comintern agent when The Future launched.72 


Alongside servants of the Comintern, the Focus was populated by Zionists, Jewish or otherwise. A leader of Anglo-Jewry and member of the Focus along with his brother Robert was Henry Mond, the 2nd Baron Melchett, who had helped finance Pinhas Rutenberg’s plan for irrigation and electricity generation in Palestine (Rutenberg’s company was granted a monopoly on generation over most of Palestine in 1921).73 In this effort Mond joined Edmond de Rothschild, the primary financier of Jewish settlement in Palestine (and Rutenberg’s scheme), and Edmond’s son James de Rothschild, a family friend of Churchill and a member of the Focus with his cousin and wife Dorothy. Churchill supported Rutenberg’s project while he was Colonial Secretary from 1921-22 just as he consistently supported the greatest possible Jewish immigration into Palestine throughout the 1920s and 30s (expressly to make Jews the majority there). Rutenberg was a leading Zionist activist closely associated with Churchill’s friend Chaim Weizmann as well as David Ben-Gurion and Vladimir Jabotinsky. Weizmann and Ben-Gurion became Israel’s first president and prime minister in 1948. Jabotinsky was a Zionist militant and anti-British agitator who founded Irgun, members of which murdered British officials and servicemen in Palestine after the war.

Secret funding

Copious funding was available to the Focus. The “secret fund” Hawkins mentions was administered by Robert Waley Cohen, vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. As Robert Henriques describes, “Bob” was one of the leaders of Anglo-Jewry, for whom there was a need “to find a platform which would enlist the whole-hearted support of the greatest possible number of Gentile friends.” He continues:

“Every week Bob and a few other leaders of Anglo-Jewry met at New Court to plan a form of defence against anti-Semitic propaganda. In June, Bob, and several others had an interview with the Home Secretary and returned with the assurance that the Government would do everything in its power to arrest what it acknowledged to be “a growing evil”.74

The other leaders go unnamed. Henriques continues:

Churchill “enlisted many eminent men in his ‘Defence of Freedom and Peace’ movement, and this formed a nucleus of sympathetic, liberal, non-Jewish opinion with which the Anglo-Jewish leaders could co-operate. While Jewish Defence was continued by the Board of Deputies with direct propaganda which probably did more to reassure British Jews than to combat the infiltration of Nazi doctrine, it was decided at New Court to raise a secret fund, initially of £50,000, which would work with the sympathetic non-Jewish organisations as well as with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the latter providing the hard facts of Nazi atrocities which were so seldom reported in the press. Bob agreed to raise, control and administer this fund. It was started with a dinner party at Caen Wood Towers on 22nd July, from which over £25,000 was immediately subscribed, and the balance promised. Bob insisted from the start that the Jewish defence movement must concentrate on attacking Nazi philosophy and its denial of human rights, rather than on the direct refutation of anti-Semitic propaganda. … [H]e insisted that propaganda should be directed against ‘pursuing peace without caring for freedom and justice’ — a summary of the British policy of appeasement.”75

Cohen, like Spier, took as read that “Jewish defence” entailed using one gentile nation-state to impose Jewish values and interests on another.

As David Irving says, £50,000 “was a colossal sum for such an organisation to butter around in 1936 — five times the annual budget of the British Council”, and it was only “initially” £50,000.76 Cohen, thanks in part to his means, took charge of the Focus, as Henriques describes:

“[T]he ‘Defence of Freedom and Peace’ movement was publishing a series of pamphlets explaining what Nazi-ism meant and refuting the belief in the country that it had its legitimate aspects. Each pamphlet was read in manuscript by Bob and usually edited and amended profusely. Even Winston Churchill was not exempt; and one of his articles entitled ‘The Better Way’, which he sent to Bob in draft, was returned to its author with copious alterations, all of which were accepted. Soon the ‘Defence of Freedom and Peace’ movement, whose secretary was AH Richards, began publication of a journal known as Focus on which Wickham Steed and Bob — the latter described as ‘the veritable dynamic force of Focus’ — were Churchill’s main lieutenants.”77

News media

Under the pretext of securing “human rights” and combatting “anti-Semitic propaganda”, the Focus strove to pressure the news media into a belligerent stance toward Germany:

“To administer the ‘secret’ defence fund, Bob employed HT Montague Bell, recently retired from the editorial chair of The Near East, who was very largely engaged in drafting letters to the press and providing the necessary facts, for eminent people to compose their own letters in refutation of the very considerable correspondence published by most of the national newspapers excusing Fascism and even advocating it, including sometimes its anti-Semitic aspects.”78

The Focus also worked to co-ordinate ostensibly separate media organisations toward a single aim:

“While Montague Bell was arranging the publication of a series of so-called ‘Vigilance’ pamphlets, written by Colin R Coote, then a leader-writer of The Times, and other well-known journalists, Bob was personally interviewing various Tory Members of Parliament, including Harold Macmillan, Douglas Hacking, and Sir Waldron Smithers. Negotiations which had begun in 1937 between Bob, Professor Gilbert Murray and Sir Norman Angell led to the formation in 1938 of the Focus Publishing Company which took over Headway, the publication of the League of Nations Union. Meanwhile, Bob’s fund was being used to sponsor a large number of small, independent enterprises whose operations were co-ordinated by Montague Bell, now reinforced with an assistant and a secretariat.”79

With Churchill, Macmillan, Boothby and others being sitting Conservative MPs, the Focus’s secretiveness was prudent as, according to Eugen Spier, “the policy of the new Headway would be to turn out the Conservative government.”80

Both the Focus and the Board of Deputies appear to have been subsidiary, at least financially, to the unnamed leaders of Anglo-Jewry who met at New Court and initiated the “secret fund”:

“By tremendous efforts … Bob raised further gifts to the Fund to keep pace with its expenditure. It was found that the work of the Fund inevitably overlapped the official defence work of the Board of Deputies. Accordingly a very substantial annual sum was paid by the Fund to the President of the Board (Neville Laski, KC) so that he could temporarily sacrifice his legal practice and devote himself wholly to the co-ordination of Jewish defence.”81

Under the threat of an advertising boycott, potential adversaries of the Focus like Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, had already been rendered compliant. Lord Beaverbrook, main owner of the Daily Express (in which Rothermere had a large stake too) was susceptible to the same menaces, and, though at times privately sympathetic to Germany, he printed what he thought good for business. His Express headline from March 1933, ‘Judea Declares War On Germany’, preceded an article lauding Judea for doing so. Beaverbrook was also a friend of Churchill, Vansittart and Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador.

Perhaps the most consequential of the Focus’s activities was described by Eugen Spier to Churchill privately in June 1937:

“It is one of the objects of the Focus to provide its members, and you most of all, with just those facilities which a party machine provides, publicity by public meetings, through the press and our publications. The Focus is steadily growing; its audiences daily become larger, its backing ever more forceful, with the support of some of the most important people in the country.”82

With its forceful backing, the Focus did attract the support of important people. It could also make mediocre people seem important. By late 1936, “The editors of the influential weekly journals The SpectatorNew StatesmanThe Economist and Time & Tide were wooed and won: Wilson Harris, Basil Kingsley Martin, Lady Rhonda, Harcourt Johnstone.” They were joined by “Sir Walter Layton and AJ Cummings, chairman and chief commentator of the News Chronicle, as well as Lady Violet [Bonham-Carter] and two BBC executives.”83 The BBC, as noted, had already helped publicise the Focus’ precursory demonstrations. They also gave Churchill respectable amplification for his ‘warnings’ about Germany as early as 1934.84 Henry Strakosch and Churchill’s friend Brendan Bracken jointly owned half of The Economist anyway.85 Walter Citrine was already a director of the Labour-aligned Daily Herald. The Daily Mirror was vehemently anti-Hitler without prompting from the Focus. There were others whom the Focus left alone as they were already model citizens: the Express’ cartoonist David Low, who specialised in ridiculing his enemies, or his counterpart at the Mirror, Philip Zec, who specialised in dehumanising them. Low was a supporter of the Soviets (except when they allied with Germany) and Zec was a director of the Jewish Chronicle, the grandson of a rabbi and son of an immigrant from Odessa.

According to Irving,

“At Waley-Cohen’s request Brendan Bracken released German-born Werner Knop, who had been foreign news editor of his Financial News and Banker since 1935. The Focus set him up in an office in the fountain yard of one of the ancient Inns of Court near Fleet-street. Knop’s ‘front,’ Union Time Ltd, disguised as a press agency, was funded ‘by a group of British businessmen and newspaper editors’.”86

Marcus Bennett describes Union Time as “a front for various German emigres working across various professional fields to encourage anti-Nazi opinion in Britain and combat Nazi propaganda in general.” He continues: “It was Union Time Ltd which had camouflaged, among many others, the activities of [Hilde] Meisel, who approached … [Labour MP George] Strauss asking for money to murder Hitler. Strauss sent her to the City of London to meet Werner Knop. … Knop granted her the necessary financial support.”87

The Focus also benefited from partnership with a real press agency, Cooperation Press Service. According to Lough, Cooperation Press Service, “founded by Dr Imre Revesz, a Hungarian Jew … specialized in distributing articles written by European politicians across a network of 400 newspapers in seventy countries on the Continent. Cooperation had started in Berlin before Hitler’s rise to power, then moved to Paris just before a raid on its offices by the Gestapo.”88 Revesz (alias Emery Reves) offered Churchill a much wider readership and larger fees for his newspaper articles by syndication. He did the same for Clement Attlee, Tory ministers Anthony Eden and Alfred Duff Cooper, and anti-German politicians across Europe including Leon Blum, a central figure in the Popular Front.89


The Focus bound several forces into one fascio: journalists, Foreign Office men, the Popular Front, industrialists, Czech hirelings, Disraelite Tories, Zionists and mainstream Anglo-Jewry, all drawing upon Cohen’s secret fund and serving the same purposes as the international alliance headed by Samuel Untermyer and his colleagues at the World Jewish Congress. It also complemented the work of leading civil servants. The Foreign Office, as we have seen, had been committed to anti-German policies long before Hitler became Chancellor, and before Germany had done anything more threatening than condemn the Treaty of Versailles, Vansittart collaborated with the Soviet government against his own. The diaries of Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador, were edited by Gabriel Gorodetsky, who says that

“In going about his ambassadorial duties in London, Maisky studiously followed the lead of [Maxim] Litvinov, who had spotted the Nazi threat as early as 1931. However, it took Litvinov almost a year to convince Stalin that Hitler’s rise to power meant that ‘ultimately war in Europe was inevitable’. The formal shift in Soviet foreign policy … towards a system of collective security in Europe and the Far East … occurred in December 1933…

Vansittart, the permanent undersecretary of state, was the advocate of such ideas in Britain. … Britain could preserve a local balance of power in both Europe and the Far East by allying with the Soviet Union, which could place a check on both Japanese and German expansion. … He … gravitated towards European security based on the pre-1914 entente of Britain, France and Russia.”90

The balance of power policy was established as Foreign Office doctrine by Eyre Crowe, Arthur Nicolson, Charles Hardinge and other favourites of King Edward VII.91 Maurice Cowling says that Vansittart “advocated a Russian alliance with France, British co-operation with Litvinoff and tripartite firmness towards Germany.”92 He “treated the Franco-Soviet alliance as non-negotiable.”93

Russia had ceased to be a state in 1917. The Russian monarchy had been usurped, the monarch murdered, the alliance with Britain repudiated in bello [in war] and the empire refounded as a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but these were, apparently, not too much of an interruption for the entente of 1907 to be considered obsolete. Nor were the Bolsheviks’ brazen hostility toward and attempts to undermine the British Empire, which continued under the Comintern until 1943 (and in other forms afterward), nor that the crimes of Stalin’s regime exceeded even those of Lenin’s. Stalin himself was leader the Soviet attempt to impose “collective security” on Poland in 1920. Regardless, the school of Eyre Crowe merged happily into that of Meir Henoch Wallach-Finkelstein (‘Litvinov’ was an alias). Gorodetsky says plainly (and approvingly) that Vansittart was an “ally” of Maisky.94

Thus the Focus did not recruit men like Vansittart but rather teamed with them. As mentioned, Rex Leeper introduced Churchill to the Anti-Nazi Council in April 1936. In the previous year, as Gabriel Gorodetsky describes,

“Vansittart assisted Maisky in setting up a powerful lobby within Conservative circles. … Maisky was further invited to a dinner en famille at Vansittart’s home [in June 1935], where he met Churchill. ‘I send you a very strong recommendation of that gentleman,’ wrote Beaverbrook to Maisky. … Churchill indeed told Maisky that, in view of the rise of Nazism, which threatened to reduce England to ‘a toy in the hands of German imperialism’, he was abandoning his protracted struggle against the Soviet Union, which he no longer believed posed any threat to England for at least the next ten years. He fully subscribed to the idea of collective security as the sole strategy able to thwart Nazi Germany.”95

Churchill frequently referred to his desire to ‘encircle’ Germany again. At a royal reception in November 1937, he had made a show of spurning Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German ambassador, and telling Maisky “I’m wholly for Stalin.”96 In March 1938 he told Maisky that “I am definitely in favour of Stalin’s policy. Stalin is creating a strong Russia. We need a strong Russia and I wish Stalin every success.”97 By May 1938, during the first Czech crisis, he had sunk as far as apologising to Maisky for including in a recent speech some perfunctory mentions of Soviet maltreatment of civilians. He regretfully explained that his constituents would not yet accept unconditional support for the Soviet regime.98 Vansittart told Maisky in August 1937 that Britain approved of the pact the Czechs made with the Soviets in 1935.99 Had the pact been activated by war with Germany, the question of whether Soviet forces could have been evicted after being granted passage and bases was a grave concern for the Poles and Romanians at the time. When, in April 1939, Churchill asked Maisky on behalf of the Poles whether they need worry, Maisky avoided answering to avoid lying; Churchill was undeterred.100

War party

The Focus helped ensure that Chamberlain was assailed persistently from many angles. Irving mentioned that the initial secret fund was five times greater than the annual budget of the British Council, but in any case the Council was overseen by Reginald Leeper before Lord Lloyd became its chairman in July 1937; both men were supporters of the Focus.101 The Council began as a propaganda body under Leeper’s Foreign Office news department. Philip Taylor says that it was “created as a response to the malignant propaganda of the totalitarian regimes which had come into being following the Treaty of Versailles.”102 Taylor’s wording tidily excludes the most malignant “totalitarian regime” of all, but whatever the Council’s purview, Lloyd acted beyond it. John Charmley describes him as “an unofficial ambassador with the entrée to chancelleries from Paris to Ankara” and “a useful sounding-board whose words could, should it prove convenient, be denied.” He was intended as “an element of steel” in Chamberlain’s policy.103 However, Lloyd, like Churchill, had been of the Crowe school since long before the Great War, and demanded nothing but steel vis-a-vis Germany.104

Baldwin and Chamberlain allowed diplomatic sabotage to continue under them. Had they only been as merciless to warmongering subordinates as the latter demanded of them toward Germany, civilisation might still stand. Cohen, the Board of Deputies, the Foreign Office and the Soviet Embassy had already co-created a secret war party cutting across existing alignments and through departments of state. It was complacent of Chamberlain to merely remove Vansittart from his post in 1938 and narrow Leeper’s remit and not extirpate their practices. He inflicted a loss Lloyd and others could negate.

Chamberlain would have been remiss not to have Churchill surveilled, but he went no further.105 Churchill was free to conduct “his own foreign policy” and established “his own direct links with foreign governments… [H]e called upon foreign statesmen, sent out personal envoys… and encouraged the diplomatic corps to look upon Morpeth Mansions as a second Court of St. James.”106 His “own” foreign policy was that of Litvinov: aggravating Anglo-German relations to the greatest possible extent. “For us, there could be no peace with the Nazi regime,” as Spier said. Opportunities to subvert the peace arose in 1938 and the Focus became more a force than a presence.


Horus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Churchill’s War, David Irving, 2003, p18, 23


Irving, p36


Irving, p37


According to David Irving, Churchill’s opponents “regarded the relentless assault on Ramsay MacDonald and his quest for disarmament as prompted by selfish political motives. But it was easy to contrast Macdonald’s tireless efforts with Hitler’s stealthy rearmament. It made good copy.” Irving, p37.


Irving, p23


Stalin’s War of Extermination, Joachim Hoffman, 2001, p30, 32


Daily Express, March 24th 1933, reproduced at The Daily Express was the largest-circulation newspaper in the world at the time. Max Aitken (Lord Beaverbrook), the proprietor and an old friend of Churchill, became a minister in Churchill’s wartime government.


British Jewry and the Attempted Boycott of Nazi Germany, 1933–1939, Zbyněk Vydra, Theatrum historiae 21 (2017), p206


“Hitler’s Bitterest Foe”: Samuel Untermyer and the Boycott of Nazi Germany, 1933–1938, Richard Hawkins, American Jewish History, Volume 93, Number 1, March 2007, p31


Hawkins, p25, 26, 29, 30. Given Untermyer’s wild accusations, it is rational to wonder how often similar statements from others are uttered regardless of evidence.


Hawkins, p45. Irving says that “Citrine was angered by Hitler’s brutal closure of the trade unions.” Irving, p59. Stalin must have closed his unions less brutally.


See Labour and the Gulag – Russia and the Seduction of the British Left by Giles Udy, 2017. Much of the Labour Party, including Ramsey MacDonald, was pro-Soviet from 1917 to 1945. During the Cold War this became a fringe position in the party.


The Impact of Hitler, Maurice Cowling, 1975, p46


My Friend the Enemy : an English Boy in Nazi Germany, Paul Briscoe, 2008, p28. According to James Pool, Rothermere confirmed this to Mosley and Hitler. See Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power, 1919-1933, James Pool, 1997, p315-6


Vydra, p206


Vydra, p200


Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933–1949, David Cesarani, 2016, part one, section ‘Protest and Boycott’. Cesarani notes that the American Jewish Committee originally took the same position as Laski’s Board of Deputies while the American Jewish Congress sided with Untermyer and helped form the World Jewish Congress.


Hawkins, p49. Vilification was used in support of the boycott from the start.


Anglo-Jewish Responses to Nazi Germany 1933-39: The Anti-Nazi Boycott and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Sharon Gewirtz, Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 26, Number 2, April 1991, p267


Vydra, p211


Vydra, p212

22 – note the approval of the authors. The Act was the creation of John Simon, who as Home Secretary had ultimate authority over all British police, including those wounded trying to uphold the law in Aldgate.


“Some lesser known aspects” – The Anti-Fascist Campaign of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, 1936-40, Daniel Tilles, p138


Tilles, p139


Vydra, p212


Tilles, p136. “Over 1937 the CoC established the London Area Council (LAC), a subsidiary body in the East End that took over the anti-fascist campaigning of the Association of Jewish Friendly Societies (AJFS), which had already been working in harmony with the Board.” Tilles, p143


Tilles, p140


Tilles, p151. Morrison and the Board of Deputies were already linked by their collaboration on the Anti-Nazi Council, of which Pinchas Horowitz was a member and Morrison was a vice-president. Irving, Churchill’s War, volume 1, chapter 6, note 4


Tilles, p140


Irving, p40


Irving, p40


The Defence Requirements Sub-Committee, British Strategic Foreign Policy, Neville Chamberlain and the Path to Appeasement, Keith Neilson, The English Historical Review, Volume 118, Number 477, June 2003, p662, 665


Neilson, p653


British Intelligence on the German Air Force and Aircraft Industry, 1933–1939, Wesley Wark, The Historical Journal, Volume 25, Issue 03, September 1982, p628


Wark, p630. The reasons for fixing Germany as the enemy are unmentioned; Wark simply calls it “obvious”.


Wark, p631


Irving, p48


Irving, p40-1. “There is no evidence to support the latter’s postwar claim that Morton did so with prime ministerial approval; other papers were just filched by Morton and never returned.”


Irving, p41-2. Simon, Hoare and Chamberlain were among those termed the Guilty Men in 1940 in a book published by the Jewish communist Victor Gollancz.


Twilight of Truth – Chamberlain, Appeasement and the Manipulation of the Press, Richard Cockett, 1989, p21


Cockett, p16-7


Cockett, p21


Cockett, p17-8


Cockett, p20


Cockett, p21


Cockett, p22


Wark, p629


Wark, p636


Cockett, p22


Churchill’s Man of Mystery – Desmond Morton and the World of Intelligence, Gill Bennett, 2007, chapter 9. Dansey was of some assistance to Leon Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) in 1917 –


Irving, p81. Jurgen Kuczyinski later recruited Klaus Fuchs as a spy for the Soviet Union. Fuchs was handled by Jurgen’s sister Ursula (alias Ruth Werner) while he betrayed the British and American nuclear weapons research programmes.


Irving, p82. The origins of ‘bulldog and Spitfire’ nationalism become clearer.


Wark, p635


No More Champagne – Churchill and his Money, David Lough, 2015,ch18. Also see Irving, p52


Irving, p52


Irving, p111-2, 116, and Lough, notes for chapter 18


Lough, chapter 18


Lough, chapters 18, 20 and 21


Cockett, p24


Hawkins, p46. According to Irving, “The reason for the ANC approach to Churchill in April 1936 was this: in London, authoritative Jewish bodies including the powerful Board of Deputies had come out against the more strident boycott activities, lest these provoke the Nazis to more extreme measures; in New York, the firebrand Zionist leader Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, an associate of Untermeyer’s, disagreed and founded a militant World Jewish Congress based in Geneva. As the Board of Deputies was the principle source of its British finance, the A.N.C. shifted to a political approach in 1936, and began hiring helpers on the political scene.” Irving, p59


Focus – a Footnote to the History of the Thirties, Eugen Spier, 1963, p13. See also Irving, p67


Irving, p58


Irving, p58, 67


Spier, p99


Irving, P99-100


Irving, p170-1. Richard Weininger was brother of the famous Otto – see Robert Boothby – a Portrait of Churchill’s Ally, Robert Rhodes James, 1991, p198


Irving, p59-60


Irving, p100, 117. The Wittkowitz Mines and Iron Works “manufactured armourplate, partly for British navy contracts. The Austrian Rothschilds held a 53 per cent controlling share. In 1938 the well-informed Rothschilds transferred the company to the Alliance Assurance Company, a London Rothschild firm. Blackmailing the family to sell off their controlling interest to Germany, the Nazis imprisoned Louis Rothschild in Vienna. Even after they physically seized Vitkovice in March 1939, the haggling went on until the bargain was struck for £3.5Million. Irving, p118


Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler – The Diplomacy of Edvard Benes in the 1930s, Igor Lukes, 1996, p192-3


See Labour and the Gulag by Giles Udy, 2017


The Red Millionaire – A Political Biography of Willy Münzenberg, Moscow`s Secret Propaganda Tsar in the West, Sean McMeekin, 2003, p194. Angell wrote in the Daily Herald that ‘patriotism was a menace to civilisation’. See Cowling, p242-3. “Münzenberg had not forgotten the visceral appeal the antifascist campaign [in Germany in 1923] had had for celebrity intellectuals…” McMeekin, p194. “Thomas Mann did contribute a short article, as promised, in late November, and his piece was flanked by another impressive celebrity coup, an essay by Sigmund Freud on anti-Semitism.” McMeekin, p298


Red Millionaire, McMeekin, p296-7. Münzenberg, when expelled from the German Communist Party in 1936, denounced Stalin as a traitor to anti-fascism. Koestler previously used his job with the Focus-aligned News Chronicle as cover for his Comintern work.


“In so far as possible the engineering staff is kept 100% Hebrew, but Arabs are used for pick and shovel work.” The Seventh Dominion? – Time Magazine


Sir Robert Waley Cohen, 1877-1952: A Biography, Robert Henriques, 1966, p361. Cohen was a director of Royal Dutch Shell, a company created with Rothschild finance; New Court was the business premises of N M Rothschild. Natty Cohen, Robert’s father, was on the Russo-Jewish Committee. See Henriques, p42-3. In the tradition of the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Cohen’s and his wife Alice were first cousins.


Henriques, p362-3. The Focus’s longer name was the Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace. See also Hawkins, p46 and Spier, p9


Irving, p64. About the British Council’s budget, see Cultural Diplomacy and the British Council: 1934-1939, Philip Taylor, British Journal of International Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, October 1978, p244-265


Henriques, p363


Henriques, p363


Henriques, p364


Spier, p141


Henriques, p364


Spier, p108


Irving, p73



Lough, notes for chapter 11


Irving, p119


The Tribunite Who Tried to Kill Hitler, Marcus Bennett, 2021 – Knop is the source for his own role. Meisel, also known as Hilda Monte, appears to have been part of a terrorist network: “Monte had given notice to Knop that on 18 July her group would conduct a ‘demonstration attack’ – on that day, nine people on the Nazi-chartered Strength Through Joy were killed in a boiler room explosion.”


Lough, chapter 18


Irving, p87. “Soon every major Hitler speech was countered by a well-paid Churchill riposte published in most of Europe’s capitals. – ‘The new encirclement of Germany!’ he quipped to the Standard’s editor.”


The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James’s, 1932-1943, edited by Gabriel Gorodetsky, 2015, chapter on 1934




Cowling, p156


Cowling, p157. Cowling is speaking of 1936, but Gorodetsky shows it was already the case by 1934 or earlier


Gorodetsky chapters on 1934 and 1940. Advocates of alliance with the Soviet Union find it expedient to call it ‘Russia’, falsely connoting continuity.


Gorodetsky, chapter on 1935


Gorodetsky, chapter on 1937


Gorodetsky, chapter on 1938


Irving, p121


Gorodetsky, chapter on 1937


Irving, p173


Lord Lloyd and the decline of the British Empire, John Charmley, 1987, p208, p211. See also Taylor


Taylor, p264


Charmley, p222


Charmley, p14


Irving, p100. See also Cockett p9


Irving, P99


Jewish–Hungarian Conflicts and Strategies in the Béla Kun Regime, a Review-Essay of “When Israel is King” (Part 5 of 5)

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.
Go to Part 3.
Go to Part 4.

5118 words.

The casualty figures of dictatorships, political systems, or simply certain policies and views, play a significant role in historiography and mainstream political activism. There is a reason the mere lowering of the number of victims of what we know as the “Jewish Holocaust” is a crime in Hungary and many other countries. While the number of alleged or real victims of the Holocaust is protected by law, the questioning of Jewish responsibility is also “incitement against a community”—according to the Jewish Tett és Védelem Foundation (TEV), as already mentioned. While revisionism of any tragedy is academically legitimate, if the results of research give it foundation, we will see below that in the case of the victims and perpetrators of Bolshevism, a philosemitic slant dominates mainstream historiography.

Returning to the leitmotif of our study, in When Israel is King, the Tharaud brothers inevitably discuss the activities of the Lenin Boys. They mention that Bela Kun “sent [József Cserny] to Moscow to study terrorist organization. Cserny returned in a very short time, having been initiated in the right methods, and bringing with him eighty professional executioners for the further instruction of the Hungarians. A Russian Jew, Boris Grunblatt, and a Serbian burglar, Azeriovitch by name, were told off [sic] to recruit men for him in Budapest” (Tharauds, 2024, 123–124).

Regarding the number of victims of the red terror, publishing in the newspaper Népszava, Péter Csunderlik (2022) cites the official 1923 number of 590, which he claims is “relatively low compared to other countries” (note that we are talking about “only” 133 days), while also claiming that some of the victims were “killed in firefights or [were] common-law criminals executed for committing a crime,” revising the number to “380–365” (he adds that this might still seem high today, but “[i]n 1918–1920, the World War in Central and Eastern Europe was not essentially over yet”).

If they come for you and you let them kill you, this historian will generously consider you a victim—if you fight back, you are not even worth having your death be part of a list of martyrs. You are just a dead militant, apparently. Reasonably, dying while protecting yourself, your family and community, from illegally formed terror groups, would render one a victim—and a hero—but Csunderlik shrugs and lowers the number. That he accepts the claims of executions for crimes, made by a regime that sent terror groups to travel around the country, executing people based merely on suspicions, extrajudicially, might also raise concerns here about the author’s historiographical standards. We might wonder if Csunderlik would apply this kind of rigor to the number of victims of the so-called Jewish Holocaust’s official narrative (which, unlike our topic at hand, is actually protected from critique by law), and whether he would exclude large numbers of Jews from the list of those shot by, for instance, the Einsatzgruppen for partisan activities—or perhaps because they “did not have a Jewish identity” — as partisans, they were likely “internationalists,” after all.

It is worth noting here that, although no longer published by Communists, Népszava back then was the newspaper that published, perhaps with the greatest delight, the writings of Bolshevik leaders of the Kun regime during their reign, along with other propaganda pieces.

A Népszava article glorifies the “heroic” Kun regime (July 18, 1919)

Csunderlik (2023) does not only lower the “relatively low” number of victims—aside from denying the Jewish role—but is also in the habit of dismissing eyewitness reports with a mere wave of his hand—unlikely in the case of Jews claiming to be eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. In yet another piece regurgitating the exact same points we have already familiarized ourselves with earlier (sometimes for extended segments, word-for-word, with only minor additions), he accuses Cécile Tormay of spreading “lots of fake news, scare stories and untrue rumors” (ibid., 22, 23), and claims that her work is “full of verifiably fictional stories” (ibid.), without illustrating his claim with a single example, calling the book a “horror novel.”

As a Holocaust fact-checking revisionist myself, I am acutely aware of the tendency of emotionally involved—and perhaps traumatized—witnesses to be unreliable, and thus I apply that principle to Tormay’s work (or that of the Tharauds), as any reasonable person would. It is possible that some of the stories and details are inaccurate or untrue, and Tormay goes out of her way to underline that some of these things are things that she was told.

Csunderlik then mocks Tormay for thinking that the Galileo Circle was able to influence the war effort, leading to defeat, because of a segment of her book related to the Circle spreading anti-military flyers, calling it “laughable” that this could have had any influence (ignoring the fact that members of the movement were at the forefront of both the Aster Revolution and the Kun regime: their influence was significant). Csunderlik even fabricates a quote from her when he says that for Tormay “the domestic agents of the imagined ’Judeo-Bolshevik world-conspiracy’ were the atheist-materialist student association, the Galileo Circle, which produced anti-war pamphlets” (ibid.). Putting aside that the group did way more than just spreading flyers, nowhere in her work does the quoted text appear; it is presented as a direct quote in the Hungarian. But it is Csunderlik’s fixa idea to debunk this “world-conspiracy” theme by emphasizing how non-religious these Jews were, making anything “Judeo” self-evidently absurd in his presentation, attempting to keep Jewishness within a religious framework, conveniently—something we have already addressed. (That some members of the Circle, incidentally, literally worked with Soviet Bolshevik agents, making themselves “agents,” has also been shown earlier from Russian archival material.)

In Hungary “[p]ublic denial of the crimes of the National Socialist and Communist regimes” is a crime: according to the 1978. IV. law (modified in 2010): “Anyone who denies, doubts or trivializes the fact of genocide and other acts against humanity” in public, committed by these regimes, “commits a crime and is liable to up to three years’ imprisonment” (269/C. §). Note that this crime relates only to “the Holocaust”: if one publicly “violates the dignity of a Holocaust victim in public by denying, casting doubt on, or trivializing” the official story. Applying the extremely low standard for what counts as “Holocaust denial” in the country, Csunderlik might just be “trivializ[ing]” the Kun regime’s “acts against humanity” while violating the dignity of victims he doesn’t even consider victims. Of course, it is well-known that nobody actually gets in trouble in Hungary for trivializing or denying Communist crimes, nor for displaying their symbols publicly (NJSZ, 2023) — another supposedly illegal act (269/B. §). (On the anniversary of the Kun regime’s proclamation, a small group of Bolsheviks publicly commemorated the event, protected by police when a group of Nationalists showed up.)

Of course, the criminalization of research does not advance the truthful analysis of the past; the above is only to illustrate why the mainstream discourse still maintains that the Jewish role is taboo in such a biased system, since—if such regulation exists at all—instead of the author facing legal problems, Csunderlik’s article was funded with a grant from the state-funded Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Given that the young historian does not believe “that ’the truth’ of history can be known” because of the inherent biases of researchers (noting also that “if there is a ’truth’ at all, since postmodern historical theory denies it”), he has no reason to worry within a neoliberal, postmodernist establishment. With this attitude, his career will most likely continue to develop—something he surely knows already.

Péter Csunderlik (source:

It can be added to the above, that according to Csunderlik, for example, we cannot even speak of a Hungarian nation from the period before the French Revolution (including the Árpád era), because modern nations were created only after the Revolution—which, in the light of the above, I believe, is a typical act of logical manipulation, and again, deriving from a predictable worldview. Of course, our ancestors are our ancestors, and how much we have to do with them is not changed by the French Revolution in any way. The understanding of nationhood does change somewhat over a thousand years, but our ancient codex-type gesta books, both the twelfth-century Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, emphasize the importance of common ancestry, which is the basis of the natio; i.e., the same stock of blood. These works are, in fact, national epics. (Hungarians are genetically related to their ancestors, see my earlier study introducing some of the genetic research on this topic: Csonthegyi, 2023). Gyula Kristó (1990, 430–431), a researcher of the Árpád-era Hungarians, states that “from the turn of the 11th–12th centuries onwards, the Hungarian [national] consciousness was—we can conclude with great certainty—established, based on the common (Hungarian) language and the tradition of common origin,” and then he mentions measures aimed at the protection of the “Hungarian” ethnic group, separate from others.

So we have learned from the above that the Jewish group is not a Jewish group because it is atheistic, and the history of Hungarians is not Hungarian because the modern concept of nation was developed at a later point in time. And if another interpretation becomes dominant next year, we may also learn that Hungarians were not Hungarians this year, either. Whether the historian will also explain to the Jews that they have nothing to do with their own past is unlikely—such semantic misrepresentation is presumably used for other purposes. According to Pew Research (2013, 54–55), for the vast majority of Jews today, “remembering the Holocaust is an essential part of what being Jewish means”—that is, modern Jewish identity is a post-Holocaust identity that Jews before the Holocaust could not have had: can we even talk about “Jewish” victims if the Jewish self-image today is somewhat different from that back then, following strictly Csunderlik’s logic? In any case, if this historian is in the habit of reducing victim numbers, and if atheism and internationalism, or the lack of professed Jewish identity, mean that a Jew is not a Jew, his task could be to subtract those from the magical “six million” number—based on the principles of ethics and logical consistency.

Victims and Perpetrators

In a desperate attempt to downplay the role of the Jews, Géza Komoróczy also manipulates the data in the usual, infantile way (e.g., Jewish Communists were not Jews because they were Communists, etc.); for example, he emphatically notes that the “not (!) Jewish” József Cserny was the commander of the Lenin Boys (Komoróczy, 2012, 361), presumably because of his Hungarian origin, so apparently no sealed and notarized proof stating ethnic identity is required, and mere origin is sufficient to classify persons as part of ethnic groups—unless the Jewishness of Jews is to be obfuscated.

As for commanders: it is well known that—while he may have had some autonomy—it was Béla Kun, Béla Vágó, Ernő Seidler, Ottó Korvin, and Tibor Szamuely, who were in command of the Cserny squad, as well as Ede Chlepkó; see for example: “Ede Chlepkó Hantos called József Cserny on the same day and ordered him to arrest and execute those named”—we read in the work of Péter Donáth (2012, 153), where we find several similar statements, including Cserny himself and others claiming that they received orders mostly from Chlepkó (ibid., 166ff). Péter Konok (2010, 77) also states that the forces led by Korvin and Szamuely “also used the Cserny group against the counter-revolutionary forces in the interior”—indicating that they were in command. The commanders named here are all Jews (Korvin was later executed for this reason).
And did the non-Jew Cserny hate Hungary and its culture? Was he a psychopath? Note that the original Cheka was made up largely of non-Russians, and the Russians in the Cheka tended to be sadistic psychopaths and criminals (Werth, 1999, 62; Wolin & Slusser, 1957, 6)—people who are unlikely to have any allegiance to or identification with their people. Indeed, that is the picture the thorough study from Donáth (2012) on the Cserny group paints of them, quoting extensively from their trials. Vilmos Böhm (1923, 382) himself commented: “Cserny’s character is illustrated by the fact that after the fall of the revolution he betrayed his comrades in prison with sadistic lust, and even led innumerable innocent people to the gallows by denouncing them.”

Komoróczy (2012, 363) then attempts to emphasize Jewish victimhood, by presenting two sets of data: the first set is the more well-known 590 number, of which 44 are considered Jewish; the second set is the number 626, of which 32 were supposedly Jewish. Additionally, he mentions a monument, erected in 1936 on Kossuth Square (Budapest), and the 497 names featured on it, of which 32 are Jewish. If we take the data presented by this philosemitic, Hebraist author as our foundation, then the Jewish victims of the Bolsheviks can be concluded as being 7.4 percent, 5.1 percent, and 6.4 percent, respectively. This is proportionate to their share in society at the time; as is known, in 1910, Jews constituted 5 percent of the total population. However, since Jews had a heavy overrepresentation among the bourgeoisie, the researcher would expect that a dictatorship of the proletariat would produce more victims from this demographic. But according to this, that was not the case (instead, the regime primarily targeted poor rural Hungarians). In contrast to this, for the dictatorship itself, Jews were overwhelmingly responsible, thus, downplaying their role by pointing the finger at their victims, is a rather shameful tactic.

In his thorough study on Jews in Hungary—their numbers, influence, and prospects—Zoltán Bosnyák (1905–1952), one of the most prominent scholars of the Jewish question at the time, presented demographic data in general, but also of only “Torn-Hungary” (Csonka-Magyarország, i.e., present-day Hungary, after territorial losses) where Jews consisted 6.2 percent of the population in 1910 (Bosnyák, 1937, 10). The Kun regime mainly focused on this territory, making this number the most relevant for us. His data on the “upper ten thousand,” which is to say, in contemporary language, “the 1%” of society (supposedly the main enemy of the “proletarian” dictatorship) is heavily Jewish. In Bosnyák’s estimation “[o]ne third of the top ten thousand are Jews (plutocracy), the second third are related to Jews by blood (aristocracy), and the last third are pro-Jewish because they are dependent on and indebted to Jews (intellectual aristocracy)” (ibid., 80). According to this, we see again, that Jews were proportionately represented among the victims—until we take their share in the upper classes into account, which will render this proportion actually underrepresented. Bosnyák concluded that “one of the most important prerequisites for the final solution of the Jewish Question is the formation of a new, self-confident, racially conscious, Jew-free, leadership-oriented Hungarian middle and upper class” (ibid.). It is deeply tragic that the same Jewry, whose acquisition of power Bosnyák so passionately warned about, returned to power after 1945—and this Jewry sentenced him to death for that very warning. He was executed on October 4, 1952, by the newer Jewish dictatorship of Rákosi-Rosenfeld Mátyás, Farkas-Lőwy Mihály, Gerő-Singer Ernő, Révai-Lederer József, and their associates…

Zoltán Bosnyák

If we look at data about the Lenin Boys, we find what we could predict at this point: according to the research of historian Gergely Bödők (2018, 134): “Catholics, approaching 58 percent, are close to the national average (67 percent) for the whole population, making them the largest religious group. In ’second place,’ the Jewish denomination accounted for 21 percent, while 5–6 percent of the total population, and among the ’Lenin Boys’ they were nearly four times as much, making them the most over-represented. However, this is still far below the proportion of People’s Commissars of Jewish origin, which is estimated at 60–70%.” This tells us that Catholics were underrepresented (his Table 1 actually says 57 percent, not 58), but compared to victims, Jews were at least four times as likely to be the murderers, and 12–14 times as likely to be Commissars who were running the regime (not to mention that the Lenin Boys were commanded exclusively by Jews, as noted above). There were also 13 percent Reformed, 4 percent Evangelicals, 3 percent Greek Catholics, and 1 percent Orthodox and Unitarians, respectively, while 129 had no religion registered. This is only based on religious data, however, which is not the best, considering how, generally speaking, these young men tended to be atheists, and we must also remember that many Jews officially converted to Christianity in those decades, which helped them with social mobility. In other words, the ratio is likely higher still.

A well-known symbol of the so-called Jewish Holocaust in Hungary is the monument “Shoes on the Danube Bank,” and the story of the “Danube shootings.” It is less well-known that the method of execution using the Danube was first used by the Lenin Boys. The Tharaud brothers also describe the story of Sándor Hollán (1846–1919) and his son, Sándor Hollán, Jr. (1873–1919):

1. Hollan and his son, the one a former undersecretary for state, the other a railway director, were denounced by their concierge as being suspected of anti-Bolshevist tendencies, and their names appeared on the list of hostages drawn up by the sinister Otto Klein-Corvin. One night a motor lorry, driven by Red Guards, drew up at their door. “I am going to make it hot for these two,” declared a certain Andre Lazar, who was directing the expedition, and for whom the elder Hollan had once refused to sign a request asking that he should be dispensed from military service. The terrorists went into the Hollans’ house, arrested them, and forced them into the motor. (Tharauds, 2024, 126).

Then they were taken to the Széchenyi Chain Bridge, where they were shot from the back, into the Danube, or at least shot and then their bodies were thrown into it by the red terrorists. (There is no information on whether they resisted, so even Csunderlik-types are forced to count them among the victims.)

The sentencing and execution of József Papp by the Lenin Boys in Sátoraljaújhely (a city in the North-East of Hungary), April 22, 1919 (Hungarian National Museum)

Blinkens, Böhm, and the Bolsheviks

The narratives outlined earlier are, of course, propagated by the Open Society Archive (OSA), part of the Jewish George Soros-affiliated Central European University, which has been renamed the Vera and Donald Blinken Open Society Archive after a major donation—the donors here being the father (and his wife, both Jewish), of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. According to the OSA, the over-representation of Jews can also be explained by the fact that at the time there was a “rigid political system that effectively excluded them from the political sphere,” so Jews were attracted to a new system (which is itself a Jewish motivation, but this may not be obvious to the OSA). The concept of Judeo-Bolshevism is sought to be debunked by claiming that the system had Jewish victims (just as German National Socialists had German victims, yet no one disputes that they were driven by German interests and identity), and by arguing that there were patriots among the Jews who, for example, opposed the loss of territories. They mention Vilmos Böhm, the Berinkey government’s Minister of War, as an example of this, but fail to add that Böhm, among others, was one of the facilitators of the Bolshevik takeover by collaborating with them, and he later became commander-in-chief of the Red Army. In this role, to portray him as patriotic, while part of the Bolshevik transformation of the country, is disgraceful.

As far as Böhm’s seemingly patriotic statements are concerned, it is worth recalling that in his 1923 book Két forradalom tüzében (In the Fire of Two Revolutions) he clearly states how the new regime feared the thousands of Szekler (Transylvanian Hungarian) troops, and therefore, instead of accepting losses of territory, they wanted to push the Hungarians closer to the Soviets, by agitating against the Western powers. After realizing that “the adoption of the [Vix] Note will create a storm in the country which will destroy any government which complies with the demands of the Note,” they decided that “the whole country must be called to armed defense, the Western orientation must be replaced by an Eastern orientation towards Russia,” and the Social Democrats “must agree with the Communist Party to establish an alliance with the Russian Soviet troops on the northern border of old Austria” (Böhm, 1923, 240–241, emphasis in the original).

As the reports made it clear that “the Szekler troops and officers would not leave their positions without a fight under any circumstances, would not retreat” (ibid.), Böhm says: “We had to take into consideration the mood and determination of these troops. If the government, without consulting them, simply orders them back from the frontier, thus sealing their fate and foregoing the possibility of liberating their country, in that case, this desperate armed force, under the influence of nationalist agitation, will undoubtedly turn against the government and the revolution, and its victory will lead to the victory of a bloody counter-revolution.” (Ibid.) Böhm’s Hungarian Wikipedia article even quotes from his patriotic speech to the Szeklers, but the above motivation is not explained there either. It is also noted in the article that “from the excessive pacifism of the Aster Revolution, by March 1919, he had come to the idea of armed defense of the homeland”—in words, at least, but then he handed the levers of power over to the Bolsheviks only days later, and instead of protecting the borders of the homeland, he turned the armed forces—under the red flag this time—against Hungarians themselves. Nevertheless, he is the positive example of Jewish patriotism in the Jewish Blinken OSA Archive.

As for the so-called northern campaign, it was also aimed at spreading Bolshevism, rather than regaining territory, which soon became clear indeed. As a result, the soldiers’ enthusiasm waned, and the forces collapsed—the Slovak Soviet Republic did not even last a month. The Jewish Zoltán Szántó, regimental commander of the Red Army, in his article The Role of the 1st International Red Army Regiment in the Northern Campaign, describes the titular event as “the sacrifice made by internationalists for the survival of Hungarian Soviet power…”—so not for territorial defense (quoted in Chishova & Józsa, 1973, 274).

Counter-Revolution and Red Collapse

While we are on the subject of victims, it is worth pointing out that the Hungarians did not just passively tolerate the Bolshevik terror but resisted it time and again. Relevant literature is the book of Lénárd Endre Magyar (2020) on the history of the counter-revolutionary events in Szentendre and the collection of notes by Pál Prónay’s (1963)—perhaps the most prominent counter-revolutionary. When Bolshevik power collapsed with the advance of the Romanian troops, this counter-revolutionary momentum was no longer contained by the hordes of Lenin Boys. This is how Lajos Marschalkó recalled the mobilization of the Hungarian resistance:

By the time the train of the People’s Commissars, loaded with treasures, left Hungary, the nucleus of the Hungarian National Army, which had been formed in Szeged under French occupation, mainly through the organizational work of Captain General Gyula Gömbös, was ready three months earlier to call Rear Admiral Miklós Horthy to lead it. When he arrives in Szeged at the end of April 1919, Gyula Gömbös prophesies of a new world. (Marschalkó, 1975, 193)

According to the Tharauds (2024, 154), Béla Kun “also firmly believed that a general revolution would break out simultaneously on the same day, July 20th, in Germany, England, Italy, and France. So he chose that date to launch his offensive. But that catastrophic day, July 20th, 1919, was a most peaceable one throughout Europe. The world revolution in which Bela Kun believed as naively as Karolyi had done a short time before did not take place. And to crown his humiliation he was very soon made to realize that his soldiers were useless.” Some of the leaders then fled to Russia, others, like Ottó Korvin, were captured and executed, while Tibor Szamuely did not wait his turn: he committed suicide at the Austrian border. As Dávid Ligeti (2019, 35) reminds us, “[t]he majority of politicians who then lived in the Soviet Union in the 1930s were victims of Stalinist purges, i.e. they were executed on the orders of the Bolshevik dictator—besides Béla Kun, we can also mention the cases of József Pogány and Béla Vágó.”

“Our worker brothers, you are being deceived again!! Watch out, brother!! Don’t let them!!”—poster of the Awakening Hungarians (Ébredő Magyarok) group warning after the fall of the Kun regime that Jewish influence did not disappear

Towards the end of their work as chroniclers, the Tharaud brothers sum up the depressing mood after the storm, with poignant sympathy:

These brutal scenes no longer take place today, but the Jewish question remains. All Hungary has risen up to suppress the Jews. They wish to expel the five hundred thousand Galician Jews who arrived in the country during the war. The number of Jews admitted to the university has been limited so as to diminish their position in the liberal professions; the Masonic lodges, which had become almost completely Jewish, have been closed; everywhere Christian banks and cooperative societies are being established to replace the Hebrew middleman. Publishing houses and newspapers are being created whose mission it is to defend the national intellectuality. A violent struggle has been entered upon between two spirits and two races. (Tharauds, 2024, 160)

It was treachery, or—if we insist on being polite—a mistake on the part of those who were responsible for the Hungarian nation in the decades, or rather, centuries, preceding all this, to allow this group conflict to reach this point. The new Hungarian State of 1849, which had already planned the emancipation of the Jews, and the disastrous emancipation of 1867—the law, which was introduced by Prime Minister Gyula Andrássy (1823–1890) and was widely accepted by both the House of Representatives and the House of Lords—had already set the stage. There could be no excuse for not foreseeing where all this would lead—Győző Istóczy saw it clearly, as did those who helped him into Parliament, to represent this growing concern. The evisceration of rural Hungarians, the cultural and intellectual corrosion, and then the bloody mass murders, were all attributable to this—but only after a lost war, to be followed by yet another Jewish regime, from which Hungarians rebelled against again in 1956, for a few days at least. And the cycle continues to this day, with taxpayer-funded sectarian Jews filing criminal reports on Hungarians, for daring to ask for self-reflection over their past sins, or forcing Hungarians into hiding under pseudonyms in their own homeland, if they dare to question their mythical role as victims—since only Jews can be victims in this dynamic, and the perpetrators are Hungarians whose “identity” no philosemite sets extreme standards for by saying thay they don’t know whether Hungarians are Hungarians just because they were born one. If these ancestors had no excuse a century and a half ago, we really have none at all today. Istóczy tried to spur his compatriots to action just a decade before the Jewish terror:

And let those who can, do something for the cause, if for no other reason, then because we, the present generation, will somehow manage to get along with the issue as long as we live; but what fate awaits our children and grandchildren if things continue to go on as they have been going on, is another matter. (Istóczy, 1906, 20.)

It would, therefore, be worth listening to those, who foresaw where things were going: the Istóczys, the Bosnyáks, the Tormays, the Marschalkós, and many other truth-telling Hungarians who feared for their nation—or Frenchmen, like the Tharaud brothers, in this case. It’s been going on for thousands of years, time to draw the obvious conclusion, pleasant or not. The work of the French brothers is an old-new addition to this process.


Bosnyák Zoltán. Magyarország elzsidósodása. Budapest, 1937.

Bödők Gergely. Vörös- és fehérterror Magyarországon (1919–1921). Doktori értekezés, Eszterházy Károly Egyetem. Eger, 2018.

Böhm Vilmos. Két forradalom tüzében: Októberi forradalom, proletárdiktatúra, ellenforradalom. Munich: Verlag für Kulturpolitik, 1923.

Chishova, Lyudmila; Józsa Antal (eds.). Orosz internacionalisták a magyar Tanácsköztársaságért. Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1973.

Csonthegyi Szilárd. Konzervatív nemzetárulás a „vendégmunkás” migránsbetelepítés fényében (III. rész): genetikai érdekeink számokban. [Conservative Treason of the Nation in the Light of “Guestworker” Resettlement (Part 3): Our Genetic Interests in Numbers.], August 26, 2023. (Accessed April 10, 2024)

Csunderlik Péter. A 133 napos „vörös farsang” – Mi volt a Tanácsköztársaság? Népszava, 2022. március 27.

Csunderlik Péter. “A Tanácsköztársaság és a »judeobolsevik összeesküvés« mítosza.” BBC History: A Világtörténelmi Magazin 2023.10 (2023): 19–23.

Donáth Péter. A Cserny-különítmény rémtettei „Mozdony-utcai laktanyájukban” 1919 júliusában. Fery Oszkár és tiszttársai halálának körülményei, következményei, utóélete. Donáth Péter szerk.: Sorsfordító mozzanatok a magyarországi kisgyermekkori nevelőképzés, a Budapesti Tanítóképző Főiskola, az ELTE TÓK és épülete történetéből. Budapest, Trezor Kiadó (2012): 144–254.

Istóczy Győző. A magyar antiszemitapárt megsemmisitése s ennek következményei. 2. bőv. kiad. Budapest, 1906.

Jérôme Tharaud, Jean Tharaud. When Israel is King. Antelope Hill Publishing, 2024.

Komoróczy Géza. A zsidók története Magyarországon. II1849-től a jelenkorig. Pozsony: Kalligram, 2012.

Konok Péter. “Az erőszak kérdései 1919–1920-ban. Vörösterror–fehérterror.” Múltunk – Politikatörténeti Folyóirat 55.3 (2010): 72–91.

Kristó Gyula. “Magyar öntudat és idegenellenesség az Árpád-kori Magyarországon. L’idée de la Pureté et de L’antagonisme Ethniques dans la Mentalité Hongroise Médiévale.” Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények. A magyar tudományos akadémia irodalomtudományi intézetének folyóirata 94.4 (1990): 425–443.

Ligeti Dávid. “Hazánk első totális diktatúrája: a Tanácsköztársaság a centenárium fényében.” Somogy 47.2 (2019): 30–35.

Magyar Endre Lénárd. „A rémuralom készséges szolgája kívánt lenni”? Perjessy Sándor és a Tanácsköztársaság elleni felkelés Szentendrén (1919. június 24–25.). Budapest, Clio Intézet, 2020.

Marschalkó Lajos. Országhódítók. Munich: Mikes Kelemen Kör, 1975.

NJSZ: Határozott, kettős mércétől mentes és törvényes rendőri fellépést az 1945-ös budavári kitörésre megemlékezőkre támadó vörös csillagos, egyre agresszívabb antifák ellen! Nemzeti Jogvédő Szolgálat közleménye, 2023. február 11.,

Pew Research Center. “A portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center (2013).

Prónay Pál;  Szabó Ágnes, Pamlényi Ervin (eds.). “A határban a halál kaszál: fejezetek Prónay Pál feljegyzéseiből.” Budapest: Kossuth, 1963.

Werth, N. (1999). “A State against Its People: Violence, Repression, and Terror in the Soviet Union.” In Courtois, S., Werth, N., Panné, J., Paczkowski, A., Bartosek K., & Margolin, J. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, trans. J. Murphy & M. Kramer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wolin, S., & Slusser, R. M. (1957). The Soviet Secret Police. New York: Praeger.


Jewish–Hungarian Conflicts and Strategies in the Béla Kun Regime: Review-Essay of ”When Israel is King” (Part 3 of 5)

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

7600 words

After the Jewish activism and strategies to gain power that we have seen so far, it is worth critically analyzing in more detail the persistent and unremitting misrepresentations, distortions and, shall we say, manipulations of a certain aspect of mainstream historiography.  The mainstream narrative is that the blatant Jewish presence among the Bolsheviks does not matter, on the one hand, because they “were not Jews,” and on the other hand, if it is strange that Jews were so prominent in the upper echelons of Communist power, it is only because of discrimination by Hungarians (or Russians, etc.), and it is not the Jews who are to blame for all this—so goes the obvious conclusion of this logic. How much does ethnic identity play a role, and how much does ethnic character matter? Or both at the same time? In the following, these and related elements, are presented and, if necessary, refuted.

Jews and philosemites who deny the Jewishness of the Bolsheviks almost always make sure to quote a half-sentence of Béla Kun, who said at a meeting in 1919: “My father was a Jew, but I did not remain a Jew, because I became a Socialist, I became a Communist.” We will touch on the concept of identity-by-proxy later, but for now, let us look at this quote in its context. Below is the full, relevant part of his speech from the National Assembly of the Councils, delivered on June 21, 1919:

Here in this room, my comrades — I say it openly — there are those who are waiting for the dictatorship of the proletariat to fall, to betray it. (Great noise and shouts: “Shame!”) Here sits a slave judge. How, then, is the Red Army to fight, how is the Red Army to be in the mood, when here at the Council Congress and the Party Congress anti-Semitic agitation, pogrom agitation is taking place? (That’s right! That’s right!) I, comrades, will not be ashamed that, as a Jew, I’ll deal with this issue. My father was a Jew, but I did not remain a Jew, because I became a Socialist, I became a Communist, (True! True!), but it seems that many people who were born in other religions, in Christian religions, remained Christian Socialists. (Minutes, 1919, 204–205)

Kun not only does not deny his Jewishness, but literally refers to himself as a Jew, and then it becomes clear that he is talking about the Jewish religion (contrasting it to those born in “other religions”), which he left behind as a paternal legacy, and chose secular Bolshevism instead, as so many Jews who rejected religion did in the past—while still identifing as Jews and being seen by others as Jews. Moreover, Kun is not abandoning his Jewishness here, but on the contrary: he is fretting, from a Jewish point of view, about the fact that anti-Semitism lurks even in their circles because of the common perception of the overwhelming prominence of Jews, and promises to put an end to it. Moreover, he tells the audience that it is the comrades born into the Christian religion (i.e., not Jewish, Hungarians) who are suspect, as if they were not capable of fully embracing Bolshevism, and thus attacks the typically Hungarian Christian Socialists who are attracted to Socialism. What emerges from all this is rather the image of a Jewish Bolshevik, since it is not anti-Christianity, or anti-Hungarianism, that he is targeting (there were plenty of those at the time), but the mere assumption of anti-Jewishness, which he considers all the more important as a Jew, and which encourages him to take a committed stand (with the approval of others), and is, moreover, suspicious and hostile towards Hungarians and Christians, but not religious Jews. It is revealing that we keep hearing only that one snippet of all this, without critical analysis.

Béla Kun (front) with Tibor Szamuely (back, left)

In any case, Kun’s suspicions were reflected in the statement of Béla Vágó (Weisz), a Commissar, who expressed similar views that day:

When that rural farmer, that priest, or that count, makes anti-Semitic jokes, incites a pogrom, and agitates out there in the Hinterland, then, my dear comrades, the decidedly anti-Semitic spirit which was expressed here at the Congress by some of the delegates contributes very excellently to this agitation. Dear comrades! If an old organized worker has the courage or the folly to say that there are people running around in the country who have not even had their sidelocks properly cut off, then, my comrades, we should not be surprised if they agitate throughout the country that Jews are in power, that Jews want to destroy the whole country and that Jewish rule is destroying this poor Christian Hungary. When such a statement is made, when this spirit prevails among some of the comrades, do not be surprised if this spirit, this agitation and this poison are felt throughout the country in this way.

I have just been in a few places, my comrades, where the wildest counter-revolutionary agitation was going on among the peasants. And do the comrades want to know what the material of this agitation was? The material of the agitation was that while the poor man is starving and miserable, the Commissars are always driving around in their cars here in Budapest, while the working class cannot live, the People’s Commissars are living in splendor and prosperity, and those rascally Jewish kids with sideburns who are sent out into the countryside, who are traveling the country, want to take away the wealth and happiness of the poor man. (Ibid., 210)

Later, Vágó-Weisz shared a thought-provoking speech with the audience. It reveals that, borne out of his frustration about anti-Semitism, he had come up with a strategy. The solution to anti-Jewish sentiment was to force the peasants to serve the Soviet Republic:

The land of the peasant should not be taken away, but his hands and feet should be tied in fetters, and he should be forced to serve the Soviet Republic by the force of dictatorship. (Ibid., 211)

And not in just any way, but by making him see the rich peasant as his enemy, and not the Jew—while it is the Jewish regimes who oppress him with dictatorship. Note the train of thought:

Today the rebellion, today the discontent, is against the Jews. The Jew is the cause of everything, the Jew has taken everything from the poor man, the Jew is the cause of the terrible conditions of subsistence of the landless peasantry working in the countryside. On the contrary, I recommend that there should be no room for much criticism, but that one should go straight out into the village and make the poor peasantry aware that their interests are contrary to those of the rich peasantry, because the whole pogrom agitation, the whole counter-revolutionary fire was started by the landowning peasantry.

A voice: And the clergy! (Ibid.)

Vágó-Weisz then adds: “we must go out into the villages and make the peasantry aware that the class struggle between the rich and the poor must break out there too. The rich peasantry is full of food, its larder is overflowing with fat, ham, wine, bacon (True! True!) and the situation of the poor peasantry can be solved no more by the beating and plundering of the Jews than that of the industrial worker” (ibid.). The Commissar, who personifies the Jewish question in an almost caricature-like manner, would thus solve this anti-Jewish “peasant question” by “placing it only on the basis of the class struggle to be waged in the village” (ibid., 212). He notes that the anti-Jewish sentiment is “outrageous and worrisome” and that the Jew-critical voices at the meeting could be made known to the country, thus “contributing greatly to the incitement against the Jews, instead of the capitalists, instead of the rich peasants, against the dictatorship” (ibid.).

On the same day, the apparently non-Jewish György Nyisztor, Commissar for Agriculture, in his speech, said: “I am convinced that if anti-Semitism gets a foothold here, the proletarian dictatorship is dead” (ibid., 216). He also explains that anti-Christianity from their circles generates very considerable anti-Semitism and counter-revolutionary fervor and that it must be communicated “strictly outwards” that such things will not be tolerated by the authorities, with an emphasis on equality:

It’s not enough to say that there should be no anti-Semitism here, but every snot-nosed kid — and I say the same thing — who is not careful and reckless, must be punched in the mouth. (Loud agreement.) Because then, to say that anti-Semitism is spreading, and one snot-nosed kid insults the religious beliefs of thousands and thousands of people (True! True!) we must fight against this if we want there to be no anti-Semitism (True! That’s right!) not only must they be punished, but it must be written in bold letters that in this country there are no Jews or Hungarians, no one in the proletarian dictatorship because there are no Jews, Christians or Reformed, but only Socialists and Communists. (Agreement!) This, my comrades, must be done, strictly outwardly, not only to punish someone but also to write it in big, bold letters so that they can read that we can act against this. Indeed, in the countryside, even today, it is the evils of carelessness, and the insults against religion, that are the cause of the counter-revolutionaries and counter-revolutionary movements in so many places. (Ibid.)

Note the choice of words: the problem with the anti-Christian person is that he is “not careful and reckless,” and that they have to communicate this principle of equality “strictly outwardly”—the aim of which is “to avoid anti-Semitism.” Anti-Christianity is a mere logistical issue, while anti-Semitism is a real problem, the elimination of which is a concrete goal. After all this, another non-Jew, János Horvát, spoke out in response to the complaints of anti-Jewishness indirectly addressed to him above. Ironically, he says of himself that “anyone who has been in prison for sedition and incitement against the Church, who has trashed the Church itself, cannot be an anti-Semite” (ibid., 218), again showing that the above concern about anti-Christianity was entirely a matter of communication strategy.

In the documents, we find numerous instances of concern about anti-Semitism and proposals for solutions to eradicate it, contradicting the mainstream narrative that these Judeo-Bolsheviks were unconcerned with anti-Semitism (and suggesting that they were unconcerned with their own Jewishness). For example, still on June 21, a member reported that a telegram message was intercepted, in which someone was trying to influence a person delivering food, to stop giving it to Jews. As we learn “When the gentleman arrived, the revolutionary tribunal arrested him” for this (ibid., 222). At their meeting two days later, we learn that the “immediate investigation” into the matter concluded that the message sent had called for the exclusion of “provincials,” not Jews, and that someone somewhere may have transcribed it “probably with a counter-revolutionary purpose” (ibid., 257). This shows that even during the time when they had to deal with serious problems, their paranoia about anti-Semitism persisted.

Manifestations of Not Belonging: the Case of József Pogány-Schwartz

One of Hungary’s most prominent rationalizers of the Jewish involvement in the bloody regime of terror in the last few years has probably been the historian Péter Csunderlik (whose ethnic background is unclear). His few supposedly convincing arguments have been published in almost the same form in several places over several years, albeit as a result of separate grants. According to him:

Despite the fact that the members of the Revolutionary Governing Council of Jewish origin who led the proletarian dictatorship for only 133 days (in an atheist and internationalist political movement) had no “Jewish” identity, the (far-right) discourse tradition that consolidated after 1919 was that the proletarian dictatorship was nothing but a “Jewish dictatorship.” However, the high proportion of Jews in the labor movement is not explained by the conspiracy theory of “Judeo-Bolshevism,” but by the fact that, despite the legal emancipation achieved – the Israelite religion became a recognized denomination in 1895 – Jews continued to suffer discrimination in everyday life. For them, joining the internationalist movement gave them the opportunity to leave behind the disadvantage of being “Jewish,” which, in the eyes of many, was an obstacle to their full integration into society. (Csunderlik, 2020)

Csunderlik makes two mistakes here: one is that he still tries to give the impression that Jewry is only a religious community, thus emphasizing atheism in an attempt to obscure the Jewish character of the Bolshevik system, whereas by now presumably everyone understands that Jews are an ethnicity, first and foremost, and only after that possibly a religion (for genetic research, see among many: Hammer et al., 2000; Ostrer, 2001; Nebel et al., 2001; Need et al., 2009; Hammer et al., 2009; Atzmon et al., 2010; Ostrer & Skorecki, 2013; Carmi et al., 2014, etc.). This particular obfuscation was already obvious a hundred years ago. That an “atheist and internationalist” Jew should not have a Jewish identity is fundamentally ridiculous (see MacDonald 2002/1998, Ch. 3), and presumably many atheist Jews would take offense to such a claim. (In line with both adjectives: on the clear Jewish identity of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi, see my earlier analysis in Csonthegyi, 2024, just to give an example, but we will also look at the question of identity in more detail later.)

The other mistake he makes is one he is not even noticing perhaps; refuting himself with the same breath. If these Jews were hoping to end their discomfort with “discrimination” by their dictatorship, it takes on the character of a kind of ethnic revenge or at least a Jewish-rooted motivation. If the aim of their dictatorship—or at least its significant motivation—is to “leave the disadvantage of being ’Jewish’,” then surely the aim is to free their Jewishness from constraints: to transform the host country and nation, so that it is not anti-Semitic. This is a distinctly Jewish motivation. The argument is that these Jews somehow wanted to leave their Jewishness behind in all this, but why, in this case, they did not attempt to become Hungarian, rather than transform Hungarians into a nation tolerant of their Jewishness, is the narrative of a confused logic. The explanation is presumably that the Hungarians would not have accepted the Jews as Hungarians either way, so there was no alternative, but to force Hungarians to change, at any cost—even that of a militant dictatorship (which, coincidentally, was ruled by Jews). Whichever way we look at this explanation, the Jewish motivation is clear.

Csunderlik, however, sees this explanation as sufficient: the frustration and alienation caused by the intolerance of Hungarians, is the explanation for the staggering Jewish predominance—as for the rest of his article, he fills it with his horror at the opinions of “anti-Semites,” and we can not but scratch our heads, and wonder; what does it say about these Jews, that discrimination and other potential inconveniences, are driving them to unleash a subversive, mass-murdering dictatorship? “Be nicer to them, or they will slaughter you” is, to the sober observer, a not very confidence-inspiring basis for coexistence. We should be lucky that gypsies, people with sexual aberrations, or perhaps the deaf, and the disabled (because of experiences with similar discrimination) are not building terror squads and taking over our country.

It is also worth mentioning in a few words, that to mention this discrimination in the context of the extremely influential Jewish population, which had an extremely high presence in the elite strata, is perhaps a particularly bold undertaking. Csunderlik’s evidence to this is a 1912 Népszava article entitled “No Housing for Jews.” That this kind of thing was the cause of the Soviet Republic is, according to this historian, a sound theory, but to consider the authoritarianism of the Jews as “Jewish” is, according to the same historian, either unbelievable, or a “conspiracy theory”… Indeed, in his earlier book on the Galileo Circle, Csunderlik (2017, 28) put it this way: “by the early 1900s, the leaders of the Hungarian labour movement were already over-represented among those of Jewish origin, for whom joining the internationalist movement provided an opportunity to leave behind the disadvantage of their ’Jewishness,’ which, in the eyes of many, was an obstacle to their full integration into society.” His reference here is to “the case of György Lukács, who went from bourgeois intellectual to Marxist ideologue.” This is, again, a self-contradiction, since what kind of desire for “integration” made the “bourgeois” Lukács, who lived much better than many Hungarians, decide to participate in a bloody dictatorship that massacred Hungarians? How can we make sense of this? Are not only the Jews discriminated against in the housing advertisements. Are even the well-off intellectuals becoming bloodthirsty, out of some kind of desire to fit in? It is also hard to reconcile this theory with the reality that many of the Jews involved in the events in Hungary have tried to start revolutions internationally. Thus, for example, in March 1921, József Pogány-Schwartz and Béla Kun-Kohn himself were sent from Moscow to Germany—not motivated by a desire to assimilate, but to help the Jewish communists there (Klara Zetkin, Paul Levi, Rosa Luxemburg, Leo Jogiches, etc.) to spark off a revolution. Pogány also worked with the Communist Party USA under the name of John Pepper with his fellow Jewish Communist Party members Maksymilian Horwitz (Valetski) and Boris Reinstein (Draper, 1957, 364).

It is this kind of mental contortionism that results when we refuse to accept the diversity of ethnic characters, and the reality of the group conflicts that have been a feature of human history and in particular the history of the Jews, of which the Judeo-Bolshevik–anti-Bolshevik confrontation is but one example.

However, according to Csunderlik’s article, “the post-1919 policy of legitimizing the redistribution of social wealth through anti-Semitic ideology” invoked Judeo-Bolshevism as a pretext, and “not because of the involvement of Jews in 1918–1919.” He draws this conclusion from the fact that disabled soldiers who sympathized with the Communists were not punished under Miklós Horthy, but it is not clear what the party sympathies of non-Jews have to do with the Jewish question—it’s obvious that the Jews had the power in the Kun regime. It also remains obscure why the author pretends that it is not logical that a dictatorship by Jews is called a Jewish dictatorship by some people, and that they might even be serious, not just out to make money.

Be that as it may, according to Thomas L. Sakmyster (2012, 2) “Hungarian Jews,

who represented 5% of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary, were at the time enjoying a degree of civil equality, tolerance, and access to education that was nearly unprecedented in Europe. By the turn of the century, Jews were graduating from Hungarian high schools (the gimnázium) and universities in numbers that greatly exceeded their percentage in the population as a whole.” This, again, does not fit Csunderlik’s thesis. Indeed, in relation to Pogány, Sakmyster writes: “It was no doubt that their son would take advantage of these opportunities and rise high up from his humble family origins that prompted Vilmos and Hermina in 1896, to enroll József in one of Budapest’s most prestigious schools, the Barcsay Gimnázium. Given the meager financial resources of the family, it is probable that József received at least a partial scholarship.” (Ibid.) All this, it should be noted, occurred at a time when a large part of the Hungarian population was struggling with a shortage of work, and were emigrating to America on a huge scale. “Between 1871 and 1913, nearly 2 million Hungarian citizens emigrated overseas, mainly for economic and existential reasons. Most of them left the country in the first decade of the twentieth century,” points out Dániel Gazsó (2019, 17). It is also worth recalling here the observation of Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881) in his 1877 essay on the Jewish question. After noting that “in the whole world there is certainly no other people who would be complaining as much about their lot, incessantly” as Jews do, he concludes that “I am unable fully to believe in the screams of the Jews that they are so downtrodden, oppressed and humiliated. In my opinion, the Russian peasant, and generally, the Russian commoner, virtually bears heavier burdens than the Jew” (Dostoievsky, 1949, 640, 641). Indeed, none other than Ottó Korvin, who played an important role in the Kun regime, confirmed that his attraction to Bolshevism was motivated by something other than material benefits, or career prospects: “’I was not motivated by any material interest or desire for attention, because under the capitalist system I was able to find jobs much easier than in any Communist world order,’ he will confess later to the puzzled police chief, who, like others, sees him as a fanatic young man” (quoted in Simor, 1976, 13).

József Pogány-Schwartz, People’s Commissar, speaks at a recruitment meeting in Heroes’ Square, April 6, 1919.

Further inconveniencing Csunderlik’s argument, Sakmyster points out the following:

As a young man of considerable intellectual ability and educational attainment, József Pogány had many careers open to him in the first decade of the twentieth century. With the exception of government administration and the officer corps, Hungarians of Jewish backgrounds were free to enter any of the professions, and did so in remarkable numbers. Although Jews represented only 5 percent of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary, in this period they constituted 42 percent of all journalists, 49 percent of all medical doctors, 49 percent of all lawyers, and 85 percent of all bankers. During his student days at the University of Budapest, Pogány seems to have determined that the best way to use his talents in the service of the Socialist movement, to which he had given a fervent commitment, was to become a writer. It did not take long for him to forge a successful career as a journalist with a left-wing orientation. (Sakmyster, 2012, 217)

We can conclude here, therefore, that while surely experiencing varying degrees of hostility from the general population, these highly upwardly mobile people did not, in any way, need—or have to—become pillars of a murderous regime due to “discrimination.” The alienation was certainly there, but the root of that should be explored within the realms of ethnic character and group conflict: difficulties in relating to the host nation and its culture, character, and thus passionately attempting to modify that culture, that nation, to suit their own preferences—the behavior that generated the hostility to begin with.

Despite all of this, however, Sakmyster believes that Pogány was initially fond of Hungarian culture, and it was only the hostility toward Jews during World War I (receiving some of the blame for Hungary’s losses) that alienated him from his “homeland.” This is difficult to take seriously, as anti-Jewish sentiment certainly existed before the war, but the more serious issue we face here is that, by that time, Pogány was already on the trajectory toward revolutionary—nation-transforming—Bolshevism. Worse still: Sakmyster claims that “[i]n leaving Hungary for the last time in the summer of 1919 [when the Kun regime fell] he seems to have decided that if his homeland did not want him, he would sever all ties with it” (ibid., 226). That, according to this claim, it was Pogány of all peoples, who felt betrayed and hurt by the widespread hostility of Hungarians after he just fronted a mass-murdering dictatorship, is fascinating, if true. But this again complicates the applicability of mainstream narratives about Jewish Bolsheviks seeking a kind of assimilation by removing barriers standing in the way of that process. This was, in reality, aimed at removing traditional culture and national character that were perceived as standing in the way of a renewed country, that is safer, and more comfortable, for these individuals (as Jews)—an explanation that actually is consistent with their behavior.

As we can see from all this, mainstream historians struggle to explain—or make sense of—certain aspects of Judeo-Bolshevism, resulting in self-contradictions and generally weak arguments. Refusing to accept the reality of ethnic character and its natural conflicts with differing ethnicities (on the national level, even), leads one to awkward claims like the ones above. We are also once again back to where we were with Csunderlik: if Jews like Pogány create bloody dictatorships against the out-group because the host nation partially blames their in-group for something, perhaps they never actually belonged to the nation, to begin with, and leaving is certainly a good idea. But just like with Csunderlik, Sakmyster also contradicts himself, for he claims that “[i]t was the rise of virulent anti-Semitism during and after World War I that ultimately alienated Pogány and many other Hungarian Jews of his generation. Over the years Pogány had learned to ignore the attacks that his political enemies made on him, but he could not be oblivious to the vicious campaign to blame the Jews for Hungary’s loss of the war and the humiliating peace settlement” (ibid., 225). Contrast that with “[n]or did Pogány, who would write prolifically on all of the negative aspects of bourgeois society, ever take any special interest in the problem of anti-Semitism” (ibid., 3). Perhaps he did not write about it (apart from one known instance the author cites), but seemingly did take “interest” in it if it supposedly motivated him as much as the author claims it did.

Indeed, Pogány clearly advocated for a racially mixed society: “All national, racial, and religious barriers between the proletarians must come down. Wherever there is proletarian rule, the proletarian will find a homeland, even if he speaks another language, even if he is the son of another race.” (Quoted in Chishova & Józsa, 1973, 211). The Constitution of the Kun regime stated in §14: “ The Republic of Councils does not recognize racial or national distinctions. It does not tolerate any oppression of national minorities and any restriction on the use of their language.” This is state-enforced pluralism, where even explicitly Jewish groups are protected. In the Minutes of the National Assembly of the Councils (Minutes, 1919, 258) we read that “not a shadow of doubt can be cast on the text which states that all nations [ethnic groups] living in an allied Soviet republic shall be free to use their languages and to cultivate and develop their national culture.” So the internationalist Jews who had no ethnic identity enacted legislation that would protect Jewish language and culture.

Interestingly, although there were many conflicts between Bolsheviks and Bundists, this policy is very similar to what the Jewish Bund—which has always been considered a nationalistic, Jewish type of Socialism—laid out:

[T]he Bund’s founders concluded that true internationalism must be based not on the erasure or denial of cultural and national differences but on recognition of these differences and the demand for individual and collective rights for all national minorities. Their experience as Jewish revolutionaries and trade unionists showed them that they could not depend on the goodwill of the dominant nationality, including the organized workers of this nationality, whether to defend the interests of minority workers in the present or in the democratic and socialist future. (Gechtman, 2008, 35)

As the author points out, “[t]he Bund’s national program proposed that the Russian Empire, after the democratic and socialist revolutions, must not be partitioned into a number of nation states […] but rather maintained as a multinational state where the members of every national minority (including the Jews) would enjoy equal rights as citizens as well as a limited, non-territorial form of self-government or autonomy” (ibid., 32). Bezarov (2021, 132) describes this fundamental feature of the Bund as “the self-liberation of the Jewish proletariat.”

Celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Bund in Warsaw, 1927 (source:

Jewish Strategies Under the Red Flag

Although Jews were highly influential and disproportionately present in positions of power, open hostility still existed, as well as some resistance to their increase in such influence. Both the “nationalist” Jewish Bund and the Jewish Bolsheviks in Hungary (or Russia), aimed to destroy the dominance of the host nation’s traditional ethnic group over their own country, leading to easier access for them to more power within its institutions—which is precisely what happened, at least temporarily. Noteworthy here is the aim of creating, not nation-states to achieve this “autonomy,” but “multinational state[s].” Indeed, Gechtman (2008, 66) concludes that “[t]he Austro-Marxist and Bundist theories and programs developed in the early twentieth century represented a form of ‘multiculturalism avant la lettre.’ A century earlier than present-day multiculturalists, and at a time when virtually all liberals and socialists opposed the idea of collective rights for minorities within the state.” Regarding this, David Slucki (2009, 114) summarizes that the Bund “espoused a universalist understanding of Jewish life and identity that lay outside the traditional conception of the nation-state. In fact, these two ideas together served to undermine the nation-state in their call for federations of nations, which gave political and cultural power to minorities alongside the majority nations,” which would result in a “federative state that would empower all national minorities, including Jews.” This “fight for Jewish emancipation was tightly bound up with the struggle for socialism” within the Bund (ibid.). Internationalism, transnationalism, or various forms of Marx-inspired socialism effectively functioned as strategies to undermine the power of traditional nations within which Jews lived, and as such, maintaining Jewish identities, and pursuing perceived interests, is consistent with advocating internationalism.

The importance of ethnic character cannot be ignored if one is to draw accurate conclusions about instances of group conflict. It tells us something important that in Hungary it was not, say, the Germanic Danube Swabians (the Donauschwaben, who are also intelligent, urban, and upwardly mobile), or gypsies, who were so drawn to specific types of abstract expressions (through psychology and literature by psychoanalysts, or visual arts by dadaists and avant-gardists, such as the Nyolcak group, etc.), that it was not other demographics—for instance, homosexuals—who ended up forming rather cohesive revolutionary groups. Instead, it was the Jews—and so it was the Jews in many other countries in very similar ways. At the heart of the issue is, therefore, not merely minority status, urban dwelling, alienation, or discrimination, but a very specific Jewish manifestation of those, with specific aspirations. If Jews possess significantly different ethnic characteristics than, say, gypsies, then we can safely assume—indeed, observe—that their individual, as well as group-level, responses and strategies will also differ, leading to a specifically Jewish manifestation of their reaction to certain situations.

For instance, gypsies traditionally pursued a strategy of wandering around the country, and at times exploiting Hungarians, living as nomads and preferring to be left alone. Complaints about the gypsies were widespread, as Francis Wagner (1987, 35) recalled, quoting comments of publicist Kálmán Porzsolt, from the August 6, 1907 issue of the prominent newspaper, Pesti Hírlap, saying: “[A] civilized state has to exterminate this [Gypsy] race. Yes, exterminate! This is the only method.” Wagner also cites Dr. Antal Hermann, Jr., “the son of a liberal-minded, internationally famed ethnographer,” when he emphasized in a public lecture in 1913 that “[t]he nomadic life of Gypsies is full of mysticism, romanticism, stealing, burglary, kidnaping of children, animal poisoning, and murder.” These are centuries-old complaints about this group (e.g., the 1613 work La gitanilla by Miguel de Cervantes [1547–1616] contains similar complaints), and persist to this day. But these are also very different complaints than those directed at Jews (coincidentally, these millennia-old complaints have also persisted to this day, throughout ages, continents, cultures—see: Dalton, 2020; MacDonald, 2004/1998, Ch. 2). While gypsies tended to engage in that type of group-behavior, Jews were more likely drawn toward the domination and transformation of the host society through various means: whether it’s arts, psychology, politics, or sexuality… (For an examination of different diaspora peoples and their group-strategies, see: MacDonald, 2002.) Because of this tendency, early critics of psychoanalysis, for instance, noted the specifically Jewish nature that characterized their subversive activism. The words of István Apáthy, famous zoologist (and also a prominent figure of the eugenic movement) are fitting here. Sándor Ferenczi wrote to Sigmund Freud on January 29, 1914: “[Apáthy] has put himself at the head of the ’eugenic movement’ and from this position has let loose against psychoanalysis—as a panerotic aberration of the Jewish spirit.” (Freud & Ferenczi, 1993, 535) Apáthy’s complaint about the Freudian line was as follows:

Our organization, which must be shaped to serve the cause of racial health, must therefore fight with all its might against the panerotic world-conception. It must do everything in its power to persecute the race-defiling manifestations of the panerotic world-conception in literature, society, legislation and administration—for they are there—and to seek out its nests even in the scientific workshops, from which some of our doctors draw their race-corrupting moral principles, or their lack of principles. (Apáthy, 1914)

Indeed, one can observe a far-reaching fascination among young Jews for subversive, society-transforming movements, be they psychoanalysis, dadaism, avant-garde art, civic radicalism, liberalism, or any other—even Communism. Ferenczi, for example, noted in an October 30, 1919 letter to Freud, that his audience, which was extremely interested in psychoanalysis, was largely Jewish. Referring to the Galileo Circle, he wrote: “The audience was naturally composed of nine tenths Jews!” (Freud & Ferenczi, 1993, 92). This overrepresentation is a condensation of a blatant affection, so the pretense that the Bolsheviks were an atypical little group does not seem justified, as if subversive movements were not popular to any significant degree among Jews. But popular or not, if something has a certain character, it is that character that defines it.

The philosemitic discourse of mainstream “experts” therefore takes on a certain postmodern character when these historians present a Jewish Communist group, not as a Communist Jewish group, but as a Communist group of Communists, since these Jews often posed not as Jews but as the “New Soviet Man”—a globalized entity that their policies were designed to create. According to this view, when Jews were alienated by the intolerance of the host society, their Jewishness was significant, but when they formed movements, or grouped under the same umbrella because of the same alienation, their Jewishness became insignificant and they were now just “socialists” or “psychoanalysts.” This desperate avoidance of the aspect of ethnicity (both as an innate character and social identity, with all its consequences) probably stems from a desire to counter and refute “anti-Semites,” who see ethnicity as significant, and with whom these individuals would therefore find agreement repugnant. Fortunately, not everyone in the mainstream expects us to ignore the obvious.

Jaff Schatz (1991, 33) comments in his classic work on Communism in Poland:

Outside the Zionist camp, the Socialist Bund, most conspicuous in the struggle against anti-Semitism, dramatically increased its influence, despite its radical program, becoming in the second half of the 1930s the single strongest Jewish political party. The radical ideals of the Communist movement attracted a growing number of young Jews. Thus, especially among the young generation, the dark social predicament and lack of feasible perspectives produced political extremism and execeptionally [sic] high political mobilization.

Writing about “The Jewish Support for the Left in the United States,” and demonstrating the enormous Jewish involvement in it, Arthur Liebman (1976, 285) notes that “[t]he left in the United States from the pre-World War I years through the post-World War II period was in large part dependent for its survival on the support it received from persons and institutions embedded in an ethnic sub-culture—that of the Jews.” Later he adds: “The more astute and sensitive Jewish Socialists in the pre-World War I years were also careful not to place themselves and their cause at odds with all of the Jewish religion. They sought opportunities to demonstrate that Judaism, as they defined and interpreted it, was quite compatible if not supportive of socialism. Socialism was presented to the Jewish masses as a secular version of Judaism” (ibid., 291–292). Liebman also points out that “[t]he Jewish relationship to the Communist Party extended beyond that of a political organization seeking a constituency in an ethnic group. Upon examination, it becomes quite clear that in the late 1940’s the Communist Party rested upon a Jewish base. A large proportion of the membership and even more of its officials were of Jewish background,” and thus “[g]iven the majority of Jews in this group, they could not but help set a particular ethnic tone to the CP” (ibid., 306–307).

Indeed, writing about the Jewish involvement in Communism in Great Britain, Stephen Cullen (2012, 15) paints a similar picture: “It was also the case that being part of the communist movement enabled many Jews to look outside of their ghettoised existence, but not at the expense of their Jewish identity or life. Instead, key Jewish organisations, such as Jewish sports clubs and the Jewish Lads’ Brigade were essential institutions in the building of Jewish support [f]or the CPGB. In consequence, this evidence supports the contention of Srebrnik and Smith, that these communists were „Jewish Communists,” as opposed to „Communist Jews.” Henry Srebrnik proposed that “Communism thrived for a time as a specifically ethnic means of political expression, to the point where it might legitimately have been regarded as a variety of left-wing Jewish nationalism.” (Srebrnik, 1995, 136, emphasis in original)

In fact, the heavy presence of Jews in socially influential positions, and their attraction to subversive trends, generates a specifically “Jewish” problem, so even if one were to present statistics showing that the support for such in the whole of Jewry was below 50% (i.e., not the majority), this problem would still remain, especially since many of this “whole of Jewry” are not active Jews—but what proportion of active, intensive Jewry contributed directly, or indirectly, to the success of subversive movements? This is the more important question. As always, one must look at where the power of the movement derives from, and, as in all the cases described here, the power derives from activist Jews. Philosemitic and Jewish historians of the mainstream acknowledge that Jews were, indeed, heavily involved in all this. That they blame the host society for making Jews feel alienated, is beside the point.

This Jewish predominance is not only interesting from a sociological point of view, but can sometimes be of decisive importance, as it was, for example, in Russia also, as maintained by none other than the partly Jewish Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, i.e., Lenin: “Of great importance for the revolution was the fact that there were many Jewish intellectuals in the Russian cities. They liquidated the general sabotage which we had encountered after the October Revolution. … The Jewish elements were mobilized … and thus saved the revolution at a difficult moment. We were able to take over the state apparatus exclusively [исключительно] thanks to this reserve of intelligent and competent labor force — as quoted by Russian scholar of Soviet history, Gennady Kostyrchenko (2003, 58; see also: Slezkine, 2004, 225). Kostyrchenko points out that the Bolsheviks “tried to make full use of the potential for self-assertion and self-expression of Jewry, which had been so long restrained by the tsarist regime, and which contained a tremendous creative as well as destructive energy,” also adding that “the largest was the ’representation’ of Jews in the leading party bodies” (ibid., 57, 58).”

Nevertheless, some say that the Jewish element is “nonsense,” because “it is easy to show that the presence of Jews was politically unessential, be it in Poland, Hungary, or in other countries,” says Stanisław Krajewski (2000), although he does admit the “fact” that “Jews holding high official positions” were “relatively speaking, very numerous” in several countries. Krajewski admits that “I am not a historian but I am a committed Jew and I have ancestors who were communist leaders.” In light of this, it is not surprising that he also blames the host nations for the Jews’ attraction to Communism as due to alienation, discrimination, etc., and that, in his view, these Jews were guided by “noble and selfless intentions.” It is difficult to take such anxious tropes seriously when even in the context of the almost entirely Jewish Republic in Hungary, the role of the Jews is portrayed by some as irrelevant.


Apáthy I. (1914) A fajegészségügyi (eugenikai) szakosztály megalakulása. Magyar Társadalomtudományi Szemle 7. 2, 165–172.

Atzmon G, Hao L, Pe’er I, Velez C, Pearlman A, Palamara PF, Morrow B, Friedman E, Oddoux C, Burns E, Ostrer H. Abraham’s children in the genome era: major Jewish diaspora populations comprise distinct genetic clusters with shared Middle Eastern Ancestry. Am J Hum Genet. 2010 Jun 11;86(6):850–9.

Bezarov, O. (2021). Participation of Jews in the processes of Russian social-democratic movement. History Journal of Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, (53), 131–142.

Carmi, S., Hui, K., Kochav, E. et al. Sequencing an Ashkenazi reference panel supports population-targeted personal genomics and illuminates Jewish and European origins. Nat Commun 5, 4835 (2014).

Cullen, Stephen Michael. “‘Jewish Communists’ or ‘Communist Jews’?: the Communist Party of Great Britain and British Jews in the 1930s.” Socialist History 12.41 (2012): 22–42.

Chishova, Lyudmila; Józsa Antal (eds.). Orosz internacionalisták a magyar Tanácsköztársaságért. Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1973.

Csonthegyi Szilárd. A liberalizmus elfajzásának zsidó alapjai (I–V. részek). [The Jewish Foundations of the Degeneration of Liberalism (Parts 1–5)], February, 2024, (Accessed: April 12, 2024)

Csunderlik Péter. Radikálisok, szabadgondolkodók, ateisták – A Galilei Kör (1908–1919) története. Napvilág Kiadó, 2017.

Csunderlik Péter: A „judeobolsevizmus vörös tengere”. Mozgó Világ, 2020. július 2.

Dalton, Thomas. Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism. Uckfield, East Sussex: Castle Hill Publishers, 2020.

Dostoievsky, Feodor M.; Boris Brasol (trans.). The Diary of a Writer. Volume Two. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1949.

Draper, Theodore. The Roots of American Communism. New York: The Viking Press, 1957.

Freud, Sigmund, Sándor Ferenczi, Eva Brabant, Ernst Falzeder, and Patrizia Giampieri-Deutsch (eds.). The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi. Harvard University Press, 1993.

Gazsó Dániel. A magyar diaszpóra intézményesülésének és anyaországi viszonyainak története. In: Ambrus László, Rakita Eszter (eds.). Amerikai magyarok – magyar amerikaiak: Új irányok a közös történelem kutatásában. Eger: Líceum, 2019. 15–33.

Gechtman, Roni. “A “Museum of Bad Taste”?: The Jewish Labour Bund and the Bolshevik Position Regarding the National Question, 1903–14.” Canadian Journal of History 43.1 (2008): 31–67.

Hammer MF, Behar DM, Karafet TM, Mendez FL, Hallmark B, Erez T, Zhivotovsky LA, Rosset S, Skorecki K. Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood. Hum Genet. 2009 Nov;126(5):707-17. doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5. Epub 2009 Aug 8. PMID: 19669163; PMCID: PMC2771134.

Hammer MF, Redd AJ, Wood ET, Bonner MR, Jarjanazi H, Karafet T, Santachiara-Benerecetti S, Oppenheim A, Jobling MA, Jenkins T, Ostrer H, Bonne-Tamir B. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6769-74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.100115997. PMID: 10801975; PMCID: PMC18733.

Kostyrchenko, Gennady Vasilyevich. Тайная политика Сталина. Власть и антисемитизм. [Stalin’s Secret Policy. Power and anti-Semitism.] Moscow: Международные отношения, 2003.

Krajewski, Stanislaw. “Jews, Communism, and the Jewish Communists.” Jewish Studies at the Central European University I. Yearbook (Public Lectures 1996–1999). ed. by Andras Kovacs, co-editor Eszter Andor, Budapest: CEU (2000): 119–133.

Liebman, Arthur. “The Ties That Bind: The Jewish Support for the Left in the United States.” American Jewish Historical Quarterly 66.2 (1976): 285–321.

MacDonald, Kevin. A People That Shall Dwell Alone Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples. Writers Club Press, iUniverse, Inc. ISBN 978-1-4697-9061-9. 2002.

MacDonald, Kevin. The Culture of Critique (AuthorHouse, 2002; orig. Pub. Praeger, 1998).

MacDonald, Kevin. Separation and Its Discontents (AuthorHouse, 2004; orig. Pub. Praeger, 1998)

Minutes: A Tanácsok Országos Gyűlésének naplója (1919. június 14. – 1919. június 23.). A Munkás- és Katonatanácsok gyorsirodájának feljegyzései alapján. Budapest: Athenaeum, 1919.

Nebel A, Filon D, Brinkmann B, Majumder PP, Faerman M, Oppenheim A. The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East. Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Nov;69(5):1095-112. doi: 10.1086/324070. Epub 2001 Sep 25. PMID: 11573163; PMCID: PMC1274378.

Need, A.C., Kasperavičiūtė, D., Cirulli, E.T. et al. A genome-wide genetic signature of Jewish ancestry perfectly separates individuals with and without full Jewish ancestry in a large random sample of European Americans. Genome Biol 10, R7 (2009).

Ostrer H. A genetic profile of contemporary Jewish populations. Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Nov;2(11):891–8.

Ostrer H, Skorecki K. The population genetics of the Jewish people. Hum Genet. 2013 Feb;132(2):119–27. doi: 10.1007/s00439-012-1235-6. Epub 2012 Oct 10. PMID: 23052947; PMCID: PMC3543766.

Sakmyster, Thomas L. A Communist Odyssey: The Life of József Pogány/John Pepper. Budapest. Budapest–New York: Central European University Press, 2012.

Schatz, Jaff. The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. University of California Press, 1991.

Simor András. Korvin Ottó: „…a Gondolat él…”. Budapest: Magvető, 1976.

Slezkine, Yuri. The Jewish Century. Princeton University Press, 2004.

Slucki, David. “The Bund Abroad in the Postwar Jewish World.” Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, Society 16.1 (2009): 111–144.

Srebrnik, Henry. Sidestepping the Contradictions: the Communist Party, Jewish Communists and Zionism 1935–48. In: Geoff Andrews, Nina Fishman, Kevin Morgan (eds.), Opening the Books. London: Plato Press, 1995. 124–141.

Wagner, Francis S. “The Gypsy Problem in Postwar Hungary.” Hungarian Studies Review 14.1 (1987): 33–43.


The Jewish Security Shakedown

“Chase after money and security, and your heart will never unclench.”
Tao Te Ching

“The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union), the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, applauded Senator Chuck Schumer’s ambitious proposal to allocate $1 billion to Jewish community security through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP).”
Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, November 6 2023

Jewish activism throughout the West follows very similar broad patterns, including a noticeable over-representation in pro-immigration and pro-diversity movements, and in other areas which can be classed as demographically and culturally aggressive and harmful to the interests of the native population. An ancillary pattern to this activism is a strident defensiveness that borders on paranoia, resulting in Jews taking leading roles in the restriction of free speech, the introduction of “hate” laws and, finally, a strident and insatiable demand that the host population, the very subject of Jewish aggression, provide funds for the physical security of Jews.

The Security Shakedown in Historical Context

The Jewish demand for special protection is witnessed throughout the history of their settlement among Europeans. In the Middle Ages, European elites were aware of the hostility aroused by Jewish exploitation of the peasantry but, because they also benefited from this exploitation via special taxes on Jews, numerous measures were taken to increase security for Jewish usurers and their families. The now infamous “identifying badge,” normally a yellow star, originates from the thirteenth century, when it was first introduced to better facilitate the recognition of Jews by their official bodyguards.[1] Writing in The Jews in 1922, Hilaire Belloc pointed out that after the Enlightenment and the decline of absolute monarchies, Jews seized upon ‘citizenship’ as a replacement for the security and protection offered by the now redundant symbiotic relationship with the older, weakened elites of yesterday. ‘Equality under the law,’ or rather the unequal application of this principle, was the path to the security and special treatment which, as Belloc argued, ‘the Jew’ feels “to be his due.” Belloc wrote:

Without it [the Jew] feels handicapped. He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship of his own nation. … What the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was completely indifferent. What the Jew wanted was not the feeling that he was just like the others — that would have been odious to him — what he wanted was security. (The Jews, p. 26).

Andrew Joyce, reviewing Belloc’s work, comments:

Belloc raises an interesting point: the incessant search of Jews for security remains a stark but often overlooked reality in the present. The rise of the National Socialists, and the wave of pent-up exasperation which swept through Europe during World War II, revealed to Jews the weakness of citizenship, in and of itself, to maintain the fiction of equality and to offer the deep level of security they crave. Confronted with a mass expression of European ethnocentrism, the Jew could find no appropriate mask. Not one of religion, for the guise of ‘Christian’ no longer offered protection and the opportunity of crypsis. The state now comprised a citizenry of racial brothers rather than ‘fellow citizens’ of the Jews. For the first time in the long game of musical chairs they had played since arriving in Europe, the music had stopped playing — and the Jews were left without a chair. From the rubble of World War II, a new world was to be fashioned. No longer was citizenship for the Jews enough — now Jewish security was to be sought by regulating non-Jews and imposing limits on the exercise of their citizenship. Since World War II this has taken the form of everything from engineering the demographic profile of Western nations, to ‘hate speech’ laws and lobbying for gun control.

A New Protection Racket

Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) is currently one of the most significant legal methods for wealth and resource transfer from non-Jews to Jews in the United States. Originally proposed by the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) in December 2001, the NSGP has given over $1.1 billion in taxpayers’ money to Jewish groups, with the stated goal of protecting synagogues and schools.

The almost exclusively Jewish destination of NSGP funds is only very lightly disguised. FEMA state that “the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) provides funding support for target hardening and other physical security enhancements and activities to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of terrorist attack. The intent is to integrate nonprofit preparedness activities with broader state and local preparedness efforts. It is also designed to promote coordination and collaboration in emergency preparedness activities among public and private community representatives, as well as state and local government agencies. [emphasis added]” Publicly available financial disclosures have shown that the Jewish share of distributed funds is so large as to surely demand special mention. In 2009, Jewish groups received 60% of funds, in 2007 73%, by 2011 this had increased to 81%, 97% in 2012, 90% in 2013, and Jews received $11 million of the $13.8 million distributed in 2014. NSGP is a program devised by Jews to benefit Jews.

Realizing that they’d hit a rich vein of lucrative funds, in 2020 Jewish groups began to corral other minority religious groups, especially Muslims, along with a few token churches in an effort to lobby for vastly increased funds under a more superficially diverse umbrella.  But the involvement of other groups was purely tactical. According to Jewish Currents,

the security grant program had never been designed with the particular needs of Muslim communities in mind. The program was created in 2005, largely as a result of lobbying by Jewish groups, including the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA)—then known as the United Jewish Communities—and the Orthodox Union. Thanks to consistent Jewish lobbying efforts and a robust Jewish infrastructure for coaching organizations on applying for grants, the majority of funds have always been funneled toward synagogues and Jewish community organizations.

A Wikipedia entry on the NSGP contains the warning that “the program has become a popular topic among antisemitic and conspiracy-oriented bloggers, who point to information on award sizes to argue that Jewish interests have undue effect upon the American government.” This seems redundant given that Jews themselves have celebrated the NSGP as a product of their outsized power and influence in America. In 2010, the Forward published an op-ed specifically on how “the grants program provides a window into Jewish organizational and political power. It is this power that allowed a small community to create and maintain a government program tailored specifically for its needs and catering almost exclusively to its members.” At a time when the number of White victims of multiculturalism is spiraling, the Forward describes

The Akiba-Schechter Jewish Day School, in Chicago, put in new lights around its building and parking lot and now has a state-of-the-art video surveillance system with 12 cameras. Congregation Brith Shalom, in Bellaire, Texas, now has blast-proof doors and windows. In Baltimore, the Bais Hamedrash & Mesivta school installed a new gate to the parking lot and placed cameras throughout the building. Earlier this month, Congregation B’nai Israel of Staten Island put new shatterproof windows into its 40-year-old building. All thanks to the United States taxpayer.

Analysis of fund recipients revealed that the stronger the Jewish identification, the more money they consumed. For example, “Lubavitch Jews received more grants than the entire Reform movement, the largest denomination in the country. Overall, Orthodox institutions were dramatically overrepresented, receiving about 45% of the grants that went to all Jewish institutions from 2007 to 2010. … A grant was even awarded to the American Israel Education Fund, which is an offshoot of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee and holds net assets, according to its latest tax filings, of $38 million.”

The Magic Formula

The Forward points out the disproportionate benefit given to Jews “is no accident,” and that Jewish groups were involved in designing the formula for awards — a formula that will always inevitably benefit them over other groups:

The legislation and the rules defining eligibility make no mention of preferring Jewish institutions, but in practice the program could easily be viewed as a Jewish earmark. First, religious institutions are preferred over other not-for-profits. This policy is tucked into DHS’s official rules for evaluating grant applications. Each organization applying receives a score based on the merits of its request. Then the score of a “non-profit organization with religious affiliation” is multiplied by three, giving it a significant advantage over other applicants. Second, high-risk metropolitan areas are given top priority in the grant process, and those “tier 1” cities — New York, Washington, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles — have a heavy concentration of Jews. A second tier consists of cities that face less of a risk of terror attacks, including Miami, Boston and Dallas. Philadelphia had been in that second group, but was moved to tier 1 in 2010. Lobbyists are now working for the inclusion of Rockland County, N.Y., because it is home to a dense ultra-Orthodox population. Third, an ambiguous definition of what constitutes a terror threat has enabled many Jewish institutions to make a stronger case than non-Jewish counterparts. The criteria established by Congress and DHS requires not-for-profits to demonstrate that they “or closely related organizations (within or outside the U.S.)” have been subjected to prior threats or attacks by a terrorist network. Taking into account incidents overseas allows Jewish groups to describe their threat level regardless of what is happening in their own communities. Several Chabad synagogues contacted by the Forward mentioned the November 2008 attack against the Chabad house in Mumbai, India, as proof of their vulnerability. Other applicants pointed to terror attacks against Jewish targets in Israel as justification for the government funding. … Since September 11, 2001, the United States has foiled nearly three dozen credible terror plots, and more than 170 terror suspects have been arrested. The Jewish community was targeted directly in only a handful of these attempts. … Jewish groups, however, have a different count. They include the July 2006 shooting rampage at the Jewish federation building in Seattle, which left one person dead, and the July 2010 attack on Washington’s United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which took the life of a security guard. Both of these incidents were described by law enforcement authorities as hate crimes, not terror attacks. The perpetrators — one a Muslim, the other a white Christian — were not affiliated with a terror network and did not carry out the attacks as part of a broader agenda. … Yet, Beth Jacob Congregation, in Beverly Hills, cited the Seattle incident as the reason that it needed federal funding for security.

You read that correctly. An attack on Jews anywhere in the world, like India or Israel (!), will result in them getting more funds in the U.S. And these funds are being used simply to make Jewish lives more comfortable, like insulating them from multicultural crime or improving their properties. The Forward article explains:

In conversations with leaders of dozens of synagogues and other Jewish organizations around the country, the Forward found that combating crime, not preventing terrorism, was the prime motivation to apply for the federal money. “We had been thinking for a long time about upgrading our security, not really because of any particular issue,” said Rabbi Adam Zeff of the Germantown Jewish Centre, in Philadelphia. “There were some incidents that we found that we were unable to deal with — people getting into the building, vandalism on our playground. The homeland security grant was important to us because it expanded our vision of what we could do.” A similar view was expressed by Hanna Belsky, administrator of Chicago’s Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov High School. “There have been incidents like a broken window, somebody getting in the school,” she said. “Our parking lot is open to the street, and now with the money, it’s a private parking lot. … This was our dream.”

In 2021 the drive to add a superficial diversity to the grant program profile was successful in prompting gullible lawmakers to double the annual funding to the program. In 2023 it ballooned to $305 million (when the program opened, the annual budget was $15 million). Jewish groups were thrown into a panic in March of this year, however, when the Biden administration revised the funding down by 10% to $274.5 million. Although the final amount is still extravagant, Jewish groups are probably most disturbed that there was any reduction at all. The ambition is clearly to keep expanding this lucrative gravy train, with Chuck Schumer demanding that it be increased to $1 billion annually. After all, a world in which Jewish car parks are open to the street would be simply intolerable.

Jewish groups are apparently not consoled by the fact Biden’s FY2025 budget, released on March 11, proposes a record $385 million for the NSGP. Even a temporary drop is unacceptable. In a joint statement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Orthodox Union said “these funds are not just grants; they are lifelines that have fortified vital institutions against hate and violence. The security measures these funds have supported at Jewish facilities across the country have saved lives and prevented tragedy. Together, we urge Congress to prioritize additional funding to make the NSGP program whole. Any national security supplemental must include funding for NSGP and there must be increased funding for NSGP in the FY2025 appropriations bill.” Jonathan Greenblatt was keen to maintain the ruse that the NSGP isn’t a Jewish earmark, stating that “these grants are critical to the safety and security of not only the Jewish community, but nonprofits and religious institutions around the country.”

The Security Shakedown Goes International

The tremendous success of the NSGP scam has led to its replication elsewhere. In Britain, they don’t even bother with the ruse that it’s a generalized grant for nonprofits. Just a few months ago, the UK government announced that the Jewish Community Security Trust would be allocated “more than £70 million over the next 4 years, as part of the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant.”  While crime has increased 15% across Britain’s multicultural schools, Jewish schools will benefit from more security guards, improved fencing, and other measures designed to make Jews more protected and comfortable. In France, 80% of the Jewish community’s “security” needs are financially supported by taxpayers through the Délégation aux Coopérations de Sécurité. Last year, the German government increased its funding for the largest national Jewish umbrella body, Central Council of Jews in Germany, by 70%, to include “creating a nationwide training program for security personnel at Jewish institutions.”


The overall picture, therefore, is that Jews will continue to disproportionately lobby for the demographic marginalization of Whites while obtaining funds from the governments of these same nations that make their lives easier, safer, and shield them from the worst effects of multiculturalism. Jews can lobby for mass migration, safe in the knowledge that even in the big cities they can live, study, and worship behind electric fencing, dozens of cameras, and 24/7 security guards — at no cost to themselves. They can park their cars in private car parks, and get more money to do so every year because someone might bump into a Jew in Mumbai, or a Palestinian might throw a rock at an IDF soldier. There is surely no greater indicator that Jews are an elite than the fact that, just as in medieval times, an assault on a Jew is viewed as something symbolic, something more than the sum of its parts. In the Middle Ages, to compromise the security of a Jew was to attack the monarchy itself. Today, to compromise the security of the Jews is to attack democracy, to abuse human rights, or some other useful abstraction. In the quote from the Tao Te Ching opening this essay, Lao Tse comments on the total lack of peace found within the soul of the person who chases money. In other translations, it is expressed as “He who hoards gold and jade will never find peace.” Jewish outsized influence brings with it an abundance of insecurity, but it’s you who picks up the tab.

[1] “The Jews of England in the Thirteenth Century,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 15:1 (1902), 5-22 (p.14).

Tucker Interviews VDARE’s Lydia Brimelow

In what I hope is a breakthrough for our side, Tucker Carlson interviewed VDARE’s Lydia Brimelow on the very expensive lawfare (~$500,000) initiated by left-activist Letitia James, New York Attorney General. James is attempting to destroy VDARE not only with the lawsuit, but also with such tactics as demanding the real names of their writers, many of whom use pen names to shield themselves from the the fallout they would endure—fallout that all too often has resulted in loss of job (some work in government) and other penalties. Another important topic here is the disgusting harassment that she and her family have gotten from the SPLC since buying their castle-meeting venue in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia.

The reason I think this may well be a breakthrough is that Tucker Carlson has huge reach. A ~nine-minute clip of the video of the interview has been watched 19.8M times on X as I write this; it was re-Xed 32K times, and got 78K likes. Further Elon Musk then commented it was “alarming” in a post that was viewed by 16M times, received 119K likes and was re-Xed 32K times.


This is reach that immigration patriots and the dissident right in general have been denied as long as I can remember. In fact, the entire media, including social media, has been set up to exclude voices like VDARE. We have been de-platformed, banned from from social media or had our reach and followers restricted, and we have been refused service from financial companies. Indeed, as Lydia notes, it’s at the point where it’s quite difficult for VDARE to obtain legal representation. And we all know how corrupt the courts are. Just ask Donald Trump, another of James’s victims.

Here’s one terrifying example:

[Lydia]: When you have the media so focused on turning you into a monster, on conveying to people that you are a subhuman who has evil, evil, you know, [with] patriotic ideas, there are a lot of people on the left, a lot of people generally probably, who are just there on the edge. And when they hear somebody being described as this person, they will believe them and they are unhinged. So one of the other challenges that we have faced is, there’s actually a group of trannies who have decided to stalk my family, and by that I mean follow us around, town, at the farmers market that we attend [and] again at my church, showing up at my church, wearing lots of guns on the outside of their clothes, in an attempt to intimidate us. … It’s terrifying. And the main leader is male to female, but one of his sidekicks is male to goblin identifying. Do goblins even have a gender? I mean, these people actually are telling you that they are demons. You have to believe them.

Imagine being stalked like that. Absolute evil. And of course, I have been a victim of their evil too in a campaign led by the disgusting Heidi Beirich (joined by the ADL) at my university starting in 2006 and resulting in a very difficult eight years, until I finally retired. Happiness is seeing Long Beach in the rear view mirror.

Beirich has apparently been replaced by the equally disgusting Michael Hayden. Like Hayden, Beirich tried to stir up the faculty against me, but with a much more receptive target at the university. (At least, Beirich’s actions did not result in stalking me or my family.) She was quite successful in stirring up the university. Pretty much the entire faculty turned against me, with public statements from various departments (e.g., see here, under the heading “My Replies to the “My replies to the History Department statement of April 4, 2008). One of my VDARE articles described what happened: “Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom,” dated November 14, 2006.

. And I was inundated with hostile emails for quite a long time after, many proudly posted on the faculty listserv.

One of the good things about the Brimelows’ situation is that they reside in a small town in a red state that, apart from a few nutcases, is apparently on their side. It’s a town where character and behavior count more than the mendacious propaganda used against them—unlike your typical American university.

Tucker asks if Lydia has any information on who funds the SPLC. It will come as no surprise to readers of TOO that the money comes from Jews, noted by Jerry Kammer (“The SPLC Depends on Jewish Donors“):

Because the Jewish donor base is so critical, the SPLC appeals to “hate” rather than trying to make life better for poor people:

Ripping the SPLC as “puffed up crusaders,” [JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in The Nation]: “Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the SPLC’s website will find only a handful of cases on such non-lucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety, or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and 1980s. Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt.”

Jews fund the left in America, and that certainly includes the SPLC. Jews who contribute to leftist causes do so for typically Jewish motives — fear and loathing of the White majority, not compassion for poor people. The rhetoric of  helping poor people may be used if it aids in the larger anti-White agenda but is completely ignored when, as in the case of immigration policy, it does not. What’s good for the Jews and all that.

I am personally very proud to be associated with VDARE, with 29 articles posted there, dating from 2003. Their list of writers includes many who have written for TOO, and topics include race realism, Jewish influence, and of course our disastrous immigration policy.

The video is at behind a paywall. This is the machine-produced transcript, lightly edited for readability.

Targeted by Letitia James
Stalked by the SPLC

Tucker [00:00:00] Illegal immigration into the United States is at its highest levels ever. Tens of millions of people have come here illegally over the past 15 years, and none of them will ever leave. Mostly they come from the poorest countries on the planet. We don’t know anything about them, really. We don’t know if they’re pro America. We don’t know if they’re hostile to the people who already live here. We don’t know, in the case of the recent arrivals, what they’re going to do for a living as robotics eliminate low skilled jobs. So what’s happening right now at the border that what’s often mentioned on TV is really undersold as a story. This is changing America forever, and almost certainly for the worse as we’re watching it. And no one is doing anything about it. The governor of Texas occasionally makes noises about it – it’s over his border that this human wave is flowing, and yet he’s taken no real steps to stop it. There are some media outlets that let you know that it’s happening in general terms, but they don’t seem particularly outraged by it. We’re sitting here as our country is destroyed and no one’s responding, and at some point you have to ask why? Are the majority of Americans in favor of this? Of course not. In fact, no one’s in favor of this. No one will defend this in public. No one will explain why we need it. Why it’s a good idea. How it’s going to help this country. How your grandchildren will live in a better place because of it. People are just silent, like it’s not even happening. And again, you have to ask why. And the answer, of course, is really simple because they’re afraid they know they’ll be punished if they say anything about it.

The story of Peter and Lydia Brimelow explains why they’re afraid. Peter Brimelow has been a journalist for 50 years. Worked at a whole bunch of what are now called mainstream publications. Was an editor – Barron’s, Forbes, National Review, Dow Jones, a legitimate old school journalist. And in the late 90s, he began to ask questions about our immigration scheme. Is this really good idea, is it helping America? And of course, no one could answer those questions because the answer is obvious. No, it’s destroying America as it destroyed California, so it will destroy your state. That’s certain. But for asking that question, he was fired from his jobs and shunted off into what we call the fringes. But he didn’t stop. He started a website called VDARE. He runs it now with his wife, Lydia. And for the crime in the supposedly free country of opposing the immigration system currently in place — not the official system, but the actual system — where anyone from the poorest parts of America [I think he meant ‘the world’] with no skills whatsoever can come here and immediately go on welfare. That’s our current system. For saying that that’s a bad idea, powerful forces have just tried, to destroy their lives, not just their lives, the lives of their family using the justice system to do it. And needless to say, you probably guessed, using something called the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is nothing to the South or poverty. It has to do with shutting down free speech in this country. They have descended on the Brimelows and have really kind of tried to destroy them. That’s not an overstatement, but you judge for yourself because Lydia Brimelow, who helps run VDARE, joins us now to explain what’s happened to her. Lydia, thanks so much for coming on.

Lydia Brimelow [00:03:13] Thank you so much, Tucker. It’ll be very nice to have our story told.

Tucker [00:03:18] So I have known your husband, sort of, since he was not a controversial figure at all. And he became a controversial figure when he began to say things like, hey, why are we doing this? And he was immediately called a White nationalist, a White supremacist. And I remember very well his response, which is, no, I’m not. And if I was, I’d say so. But that kept up and he wound up publishing with you, VDARE online. That would seem not a particularly controversial thing to do in a free country. But for your family, it’s been, a very risky thing to do. So I hope that you would explain to us what the government, we’ll start with the government, is trying to do to you for daring to oppose the immigration system.

Lydia Brimelow [00:04:03] Yeah, absolutely. So it’s it’s hard to believe everybody who hears the story says it’s completely incredible. Peter founded VDARE Foundation, which has its main project of back in the late 90s. As you said, we’re in our 25th year now, and I joined about ten years ago. I do the fundraising and the back office work, and he handles everything that goes up on the website We’re a nonprofit journalism enterprise. So everything that we do, all of our people are paid through generous donations from individuals. I can tell you we don’t get any government grants or big foundation grants either. It’s all just grassroots. And we’re veterans of cancel culture at this point. So we’ve been kicked off a lot of mainstream services that most people use to distribute the media that they produce. And that is nothing compared to what we’re facing right now, which started about two years ago, originating out of the hate crimes division in the state of New York. A series of subpoenas were issued by Letitia James first, to Facebook, which I can explain a little bit in a minute. And then to us and our board members, at VDARE Foundation, with no clear trigger, they have refused to tell us what they’re investigating. It’s been two years of us just being crushed under this burden of investigation. The subpoenas were, like, 47 points each. They want us to turn over essentially every document that we have interacted with, since 2016. And for a small organization, you know, at our peak, we had four full time employees. Right now, we have two. That’s Peter and myself. This has just been an absolutely crushing burden. And I will say the Facebook subpoena was interesting because we had actually been kicked off of Facebook, years previous. So we had not even been on Facebook to interact with Facebook in many years, and they were asking for all of the data that VDARE had ever accumulated, created, while we were on Facebook, which we had incidentally, also requested. VDARE was kicked off of Facebook the same day that every one of the people involved in our organization was kicked off, including myself. I had never posted anything political online, at all, but they took all my baby pictures. The video of my daughter’s first steps, which was not saved anywhere else. Facebook still has that. They have, in fact, told my lawyers that we are too dangerous to get our data back, including my daughter taking her first steps. So that was the first subpoena that, Letitia James’s hate crimes division issues.

Tucker [00:06:43] May I ask you to pause for one moment and just clarify something. So Facebook is calling you too dangerous to possess your own baby pictures? Has VDARE ever committed violence? Is there something we’re missing? Terrorism? Insurrection. Killing people?

Lydia Brimelow [00:06:59] Never.

Tucker [00:07:00] Okay, okay. Sorry. I just want to clarify that.

Lydia Brimelow [00:09:18] That’s what my lawyers have been asking. That’s what my lawyers have been asking. So there have have been no accusations. We have been desperately requesting that they tell us what it is they’re wondering about so that we can provide them with tailored, you know, rather than dumping them with this huge amount of data. Can we just provide you what it is that you’re worried about in terms of regulation? And they refused to do it. At first, they insinuated that it has to do with what we call the Castle transaction. So the backstory on that is that, around the time Trump was campaigning and electing, we were attempting as the VDARE Foundation to host conferences around the country. We tried it in Tucson, in California, multiple places in California, New York, Boston, all over the country. We would get bookings and hotels and, you know, set up normal conference activities. And as soon as we would announce that we were going to have a conference and that people could buy tickets, the contracts would be canceled by the venues. So we had, depending on how you count it, between 8 and 12 contracts canceled out from under us. We were unable to successfully host an event at all over the course of those several years, and the hotels were so adamant that they cancel us because they were afraid of protesters, not because they were afraid of my group. I was told this over and over again. We know that your group is just going to be a bunch of people, you know, wearing ties, standing in line to ask questions on a microphone. But we can’t protect our venue from the protesters that might come, or from the bad press that we might get for hosting you. They were so anxious to cancel us that they would pay out significant liquidated damages. I mean, we had one hotel in New York. They preferred to write us a check for $80,000 rather than host our conference of 50 people. And at a certain point, we have to have in-person meetings.

The whole thrust of isolating people and calling them names is to prevent them from getting to know each other, to develop communities, to come up with good ideas and to be able to organize them. Yes. And so we decided to take matters into our own hands. And we went shopping for a venue somewhere in America. And I landed in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, which is in the Eastern Panhandle. It’s an absolutely beautiful place in the mountains of Appalachia. It is. And there’s this hysterical, charismatic property. It’s a stone, historic stone mountain built in the 18th. It’s historic stone castle on a mountain built in the 1880s that happened to be for sale when we were looking for a venue. And it has a what they call a great hall. It has a ballroom, it has a conference space. And so we bought it and we moved our offices there. And we have been hosting events there ever since. They’ve all been sold out. They’re all a lot of fun. Most of our speakers, all of our speakers who are not off the record, you can find their videos of their presentations publicly posted on our website, And it has really irritated the people that want to shut us down. It has really irritated them. The fact that we were able to acquire our own venue, and it’s not just some fluorescent lit, you know, rundown VFW hall where, you know, everybody goes in and it feels like some kind of depressing AA meeting. No, like it represents the beauty and history of America and the truth that we speak for in the future that our children deserve. And so it’s really fun to come to events at the castle, and that is killing them.

And so at first, the attorney general insinuated that there might be something wrong with the way we had gone about buying the castle so they, you know, they threw around concepts like abuse of donor funds, when in fact we had two significant donors step forward in 2019, who conveyed to me very clearly that they wanted to donate enough, that it would make a material difference to the work that we do, and there was no more material difference to be made than allowing us to meet in peace and safety, to develop what you might call a safe space for patriots to meet. And, once we heard that through the grapevine, that that was something that had alarmed the New York Attorney General, we immediately turned over all the paperwork that had to do with it. You know, I mean, it was it was very heavily lawyered. We know that we’re vulnerable to lawfare. And so we watch our papers very carefully and have everything look over. We turned out all over, at which point the attorney general’s office continued to lie and say that they had not received it, that we were still under suspicion of not going through the right, you know, regulatory process protocols to buy this building with donor funds. So, we then pressed them, you know, what is it that you’re still looking for? What is it that that you’re still looking for? And they have now sort of moved into the zone of we think perhaps you have engaged in related party transactions. So for people who don’t know what that means, it’s like if we were giving money, we were paying money to people who were on the inside. You know, if I had family or board members that got special deals, because, you know, of their relationship, to me, this is laughable on its face because nobody is getting rich being an immigration patriot, I can tell you that.

Tucker [00:14:47] Well, it’s a little confusing.

Lydia Brimelow [00:14:48] Also, we have already turned over all that information. Who do they think we are, Black Lives Matter?

Lydia Brimelow [00:15:20] Right. So VDARE is actually incorporated in New York. This is an interesting thing. 25 years ago, our pro-bono lawyer who worked for Covington and Burling and was later banned from being able to do pro bono work for VDARE, even though he was allowed to do pro bono work for the defendants in Guantanamo Bay, set up our nonprofit in the state of New York, and our papers were signed by no other than Lois Lerner. Who you may know, went on to target the Tea Party. But, back then it was a different era politically. We were not under the kind of harsh polarization and, pressure and persecution that we are now. That was a whole different era in immigration, patriotism, where we couldn’t even get the message out. You know, there were no, peter and I would watch political campaign speeches or debates. We would watch the news and just pray just hope that somebody would mention immigration, that they would just mention it. And they didn’t. Well, people mention it now it’s on everybody’s lips now. But we also, that came at a cost. And the cost is this persecution. We’ve never operated in the state of New York. That was a convenience that our lawyer, you know, leaned on at the time. But helpful people at this point usually say, why don’t you just exit New York and you can’t. It’s like Hotel California. You cannot, if you’re a charity that’s incorporated in the state of New York, and everyone should take this as a warning, you cannot reincorporate into another state without the permission of the Attorney General’s office. You cannot sell or transfer all or significantly all of your assets without permission from the Attorney General’s office, and you cannot close up shop without permission from the Attorney General’s office. So once you are under the, jurisdiction of Letitia James, there is no getting out until she decides you’re dead enough.

Tucker [00:17:14] So at some point, and again, this is all so North Korean it’s hard to believe that it’s happening here, but that, a state prosecutor can threaten you without telling you over a period of years what crime you may have committed, and then try and bankrupt you just through threats. Like, where does this go from here? And I assume no one’s defending you, right? Of course.

Lydia Brimelow [00:17:42] Very few. You know, we have a few friends, in alternative media that have spoken up. This is the first time anybody who has any kind of significant platform has allowed us to, to share our story. So I thank you for that, Tucker. Really from the bottom of my heart, as you said, Peter was in mainstream journalism for his entire career. And, you know, that was a long career and none of his friends have been able to help him. So, or I say been able to, some of them are willing to and they’re too scared to. Others have tried and been been, you know, thwarted. The same is true with donors. We know a lot of people that can step forward and make a big difference. And the thing is, what Letitia James and cancel culture in general has done, it works. It scares people and makes them think that they they have too much to lose. They really don’t want, patriotic immigration reform to lose. They really don’t want the Brimelow’s children to be stalked by the SPLC, but they also don’t want that to happen to them. And so, despite the fact that there are many ways that people can donate anonymously, I’ve become an expert on that. And you can still even get your tax deduction in some cases. And despite the fact that if we don’t speak up, then, nobody will know that this is happening and it will continue happening to other people. We have just had a very hard time being defended, but it doesn’t stop there. It is actually very difficult for us to find lawyers who will defend us. Lawyers are too afraid to take up, our cause. And so the first thing that we have to do is to find legal representation. You know, gone are the days with the Boston Massacre, where you have an honorable lawyer who thinks everybody needs defending. Now you have to rely on whoever will help you. And sometimes those people are honest and patriotic and also really good at their trade, and sometimes they’re not. When you don’t have, the whole market available to you because they’re afraid of political persecution. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Tucker [00:19:43] It’s beyond belief. But it doesn’t end there. You’ve also been hounded and slandered by the media, and you have furthermore, and you just alluded to this, been stalked and your children have been harassed by the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is, a hate group posing as an anti-hate group. Tell us what your interactions with them have been like.

Lydia Brimelow [00:20:11] Well, I would start by saying they’ve been extensive and unpleasant. They, the Southern Poverty Law Center was tracking VDARE for years. Well, before we got the castle, the Southern Poverty Law Center I say, between them and, you know, some other smaller groups are mostly responsible for pushing cancel culture. And were really the cause, I would say, of our cancellations of all those events that I was talking about before that encouraged us to buy our own venue. And when we did buy the venue, then suddenly the fact that we had done this was so enraging to them. So we live now in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Like I said, it’s a very small town. It’s a beautiful historic town. There are natural mineral springs that bubble up out of the side of the mountain, all year round it’s 73 degrees. It was originally surveyed by George Washington. And the people there are just incredible. But there are very few of them. Only 700 people, populate the main town. Morgan County is much bigger. Berkeley Springs is much bigger. But the reason I say that is because once you live there for a little while and I think you’ve lived in some small towns, you know everybody. It doesn’t take that long. And at first when VDARE bought the castle, which is this icon of the county, you know, when you live in a rural area and you have something as much of a folly, as a stone castle looming over a tiny little resort town. Everybody wants to know what’s happening to it. So when we first bought it, people were nervous. Because of that the media said, oh my gosh, are these going to be, you know, is this the Klu Klux Klan which has now descended on our precious, you know, landmark? And, over time it became evident that no, we our main goal in Berkeley Springs is to be good, quiet neighbors. I’m raising my children there. My daughter went to the public school. We belong to the church. And so the overwhelming number of people in the town are actually good friends of ours. But there are a few bad apples, and the SPLC has really fixated on them. And starting from the first few months that we were in operations there, the SPLC would fly out journalists to embed themselves in Berkeley, little old Berkeley Springs to try to talk the locals into being quoted in the paper about how awful we are, and host secret meetings and, you know, after hours back rooms of local leftists—there’s like one leftist organization and one leftist company in our town. It’s really easy to see because they’ve got lots of colorful flags [presumably LGBT+ flags] and Black Lives Matter signs. They self-identify. It’s very like tropical fish, you know, the more colorful they are, the more poisonous they are. Destroyers. Yes. And so they their whole goal, Michael Hayden and the others who came in there to talk was to turn them against us. I mean, I think I’m certain that they would not have been happier than to organize a literal torch [parade], you know, [a] mob to come up to the castle and pull my family out of it. I mean, when I hear some patriots attend these meetings, some locals are really not having it. And I’ve heard recordings from it. I heard Tanya Gersh, [a Jewish activist] who was flown in from Whitefish, Montana, who thinks that she has endured persecution. But it is nothing like what my family has endured. And she sat here and told these West Virginia people that my family are maggots who should never see the light of day. And, you know, here I am sending my daughter to to first grade in the public school and I’m thinking, wow, this is what you’re sowing in my community. And then on top of that, when that didn’t scare us off, Michael Hayden has now decided to write a book about our family, and in support of this supposed book that he’s supposedly writing, he is spending a lot of time in town. He hangs around my church and pesters my priest about what my faith habits are. He inquires with the town council who are my neighbors. You know what are you actually friends with, Lydia? What’s your relationship with her? Have you seen their children in town? He actually bought tickets to a local Christmas, fundraiser. So there’s a nonprofit in my town. It’s all volunteer operated people who decorate the whole town for Christmas just for the benefit of the town. Our municipality is too impoverished to decorate the town for Christmas, you know, sponsored by any kind of town thing. And so some of the local townspeople decided they wanted some Christmas cheer. And they all get together and they decorate the town every year. And what we do is we, offer the castle space to nonpolitical groups, non-VDARE groups who want to have events there. And they had rented the castle for the night. We had actually donated the space to them, and they sold tickets to have a little champagne reception with our, 13 foot live Christmas tree. And they get to, you know, the guests get to wander around and see the Christmas decorations. And Michael Hayden and Hannah Geist drove from New York City to the mountains of Appalachia, bought a ticket under a fake name, and then came in there so that they could spy on VDARE’s headquarters and approach my eight year old daughter to ask her questions about the off-limits areas of the building, and then wrote about it, and the piece was run in The Daily Beast. Now, he didn’t mention my daughter, but he has lots of pictures of himself, you know, prowling around the public spaces of the Berkeley Springs Castle. And, is surprised when the security guy at the party tells him on the way out that he’s not welcome there. When you have the media so focused on turning you into a monster, on conveying to people that you are a subhuman who has evil, evil, you know, [with] patriotic ideas, there are a lot of people on the left, a lot of people generally probably, who are just there on the edge. And when they hear somebody being described as this person, they will believe them and they are unhinged. So one of the other challenges that we have faced is, there’s actually a group of trannies who have decided to stalk my family, and by that I mean follow us around, town, at the farmers market that we attend [and] again at my church, showing up at my church, wearing lots of guns on the outside of their clothes, in an attempt to intimidate us.

Tucker [00:26:54] Wait, wearing guns?

Lydia Brimelow [00:26:58] Yeah. So you know they have their their regular clothes on and then maybe a trench coat or something. And then they just have all their open-carry guns, just like, you know, multiple guns on the outside of their bodies.

Tucker [00:27:09] Well, they’re, I mean.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:11] In my church who don’t even … .

Tucker [00:27:13] I mean, they’re violent. There’s, I mean, there been a lot of shootings by people like that recently. I mean.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:19] Absolutely.

Tucker [00:27:20] Really threatening. Absolutely. I interrupted you. I’m sorry.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:23] It’s very threatening.

Tucker [00:27:25] People in your church. How do they respond?

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:27] [They] don’t even know why they’re there. You know, they don’t think, who this person is trying to intimidate Lydia from attending mass. They think, who is this horrific, violent person who’s in our church? It’s terrifying. And the main leader is male to female, but one of his sidekicks is male to goblin identifying. Do goblins even have a gender? I mean, these people actually are telling you that they are demons. You have to believe them.

Tucker [00:27:52] Yes.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:52] And I’m very blessed to have moved from a more liberal area to Berkeley Springs, because I can actually trust the law enforcement, and I can trust my friends, and I can trust my neighbors. But, you know, I don’t want it to get to the point where I need to be calling law enforcement. One of the beautiful things about living in a coherent community where people care about each other and value things like neighborliness, is that as soon as one of these hostile people comes in, I’m getting text messages. I’m getting phone calls. Hey, you don’t want to stop by Sheetz today? There’s somebody weird up there. Hey, I took a picture of this guy because he’s been snooping around. Do you know who he is? You know, that’s actually the first line of defense. And it actually reinforces what Peter and I and VDARE have been saying from the beginning, which is that your community matters. And when you flood it with huge numbers of people who are alien to you in their in their manners, in their culture, and you don’t know them, they don’t know you, you don’t know their history, you don’t know their family. They they have different values and they have different skills and abilities. You actually don’t know what’s going to happen. And it’s to everyone’s detriment. When you no longer have relationships and an understanding of your neighbors and of your community and of your town, of your state, of your country. You have lost it. There’s nothing.

Tucker [00:29:15] That’s right. That’s exactly right.

Lydia Brimelow [00:29:17] And that’s the goal. You know, of course [what] they’re trying to [do]. I mean, our issues have won every argument that we’ve made. Their immigration exacerbates all issues. It’s the queen of all issues. When you have mass immigration, unvetted even vetted when you’re talking about legal immigration, you’re bringing in huge numbers of doctors or CEOs or whatever. I mean, it still has the same effects on the social fabric of a community. And when you have a situation with ours where it’s like we have won on every issue, but we have certainly not rewarded from it. In fact, our lives are being used as an example to others. How dare you say what you can see with your own eyes? Or you know you must lie or we will hurt you and we will hurt your children. That tells you how dedicated they are to make sure that the damage to the social fabric continues. That is what they are dedicated to.

Tucker [00:30:16] It’s been received.

Lydia Brimelow [00:30:16] And the situation right now Elon Musk is just tweeting about immigration all the time. Yes and yet, you know, the small mom-and-pop operations that have been doing this work slow and steady for 25 years. I mean, there’s a strong chance that while we win the day with the arguments our organization, it’s hard to see how we’re going to survive. You know, we’re praying for a miracle. Peter and I are both natural optimists. I don’t think you can do this kind of work if you aren’t. But and we love working together, and we actually truly believe in our cause. And so I think that there’s a strong chance that something will change. But something does need to change. Because, if we are never going to get relief in the courts from Letitia James, you know, who is taking the same tactics and using them against Donald Trump. But Donald Trump has way more resources than we do. I feel like I don’t even need to say that out loud. It’s so obvious. He also has a much bigger microphone than we do. You know, I remember when, General Flynn was treated so horrifically, you know, when he was removed from the White House because of these false accusations, I think he had to sell his family home to handle the investigation.

Tucker [00:31:26] He did.

Lydia Brimelow [00:31:27] You know, and this weaponized, the process is the punishment type can you call it, justice system? Injustice system.

Tucker [00:31:41] It’s a political-

Lydia Brimelow [00:31:41] Anarcho-tyranny is what it is. And the courts have become political tribunals. So all we need is one good judge to tell Letitia James that she can’t do this anymore. Or we need, you know, a big media campaign to pressure Letitia James, against forcing us. What she’s trying to do right now is to force us to turn over all of the names of our writers, contributors and vendors, many of whom operate, under a pen name because they’re afraid of being outed. We have whistleblowers. We have whistleblowers in the government. I mean, there’s a reason they don’t want their names to be known to Letitia James, even aside from the fact that the Charities Bureau and the attorney General’s office, which is what Letitia James, operates, has already even leaked Nikki Haley’s donors. Look, if they’re going to leak Nikki Haley’s donors and hope that those people get harassed, how do you think they’re going to treat the names of the whistleblowers who write for So a judge needs to step forward and say enough is enough. If you’re concerned about, their financial propriety, examine the financial documents that have already been turned over. But you do not need the names of their anonymous writers.

Tucker [00:32:58] Well, because.

Lydia Brimelow [00:32:58] They don’t need, you know, gigabytes of all the emails that they have written since 2016.

Tucker [00:33:06] I think they haven’t even articulated what you’ve done wrong.

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:08] No. The other thing.

Tucker [00:33:10] You haven’t been charged with anything.

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:11] No. No, there have been no charges.

Tucker [00:33:16] So can I take you back just a couple paragraphs to the SPLC. What they’ve done to you is so monstrous and so obviously evil. I mean, it’s not activism. It’s a moral crime. What they’re doing to your family. I think the obvious question is, who’s paying for this? Who are who are the Southern Poverty Law Center’s donors? Who is directing this? Do you know?

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:42] I don’t know. VDARE, a few years ago, I mean, gosh, before Covid. So that seems like 20 years ago was, we had a series [in which] we wrote about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s financial situation. And what’s really interesting is that a huge amount of it is held in funds, you know, like it’s operated like a hedge fund and a lot of it’s offshore. I don’t know who their donors are. I know that to the extent that they have individual, you know, American donors, it is people who have been frightened by the rhetoric who think, you know, White supremacy is coming for my children, which, they’re very good at spreading that lie and, propping up what they think are examples of that which are actually just people being normal. So, you know, they have this, I would say bifurcated approach. One is, to scare vulnerable people into handing over lots of money , and the other is to operate it in a corrupt way. And so what I wonder is, why hasn’t the Attorney General of Alabama [where the SPLC is located] done anything about it? We have the Attorney General of New York giving us an example. And, you know, there are other attorney generals out there. West Virginia, could could step in at this point. Texas, I think has done some, where’s Alabama? Where are the other patriot states out there?

Tucker [00:35:03] Because they’re I mean, the Republican Party is utterly fraudulent, as you know. And that’s the core problem. There’s no one to defend you. Which leads me to my last question, you said, a couple of moments ago that you’re in charge of fundraising for the group. And people can assess it because it’s you still have a website and assess whether they agree with your views or not. And want to support you or not. But there is a way to donate anonymously. That is, you think, secure. Can you explain what that is?

Lydia Brimelow [00:35:33] Oh, well, there is more than one way to donate anonymously. If you have a small donation that you would like to contribute, what people often do is send in a money order and they sign it to VDARE. And that’s, you know, very well established, you’re not going to get a tax deduction for that. But usually when you’re talking about $25, that’s not an issue anyway. For more significant donations you can still go through donor-advised funds. So Fidelity Charitable, which is the world’s biggest giving vehicle for for charitable money these days, will not honor a donor advisor’s direction to donate to VDARE. But there are lots of other donor advised funds that will. So, I’m happy to mention some of those, although I don’t have official relationships with any of them. That’s the main way that people donate anonymously is through donor-advised funds that are still, allowing their donor advisors to direct the money. You can also do it through a lawyer on an individual basis. And, if you’re concerned about, the tax deduction, that’s really the best way to go. If you’re not concerned about the tax deduction, then there are other ways that can help VDARE financially. They get a little bit more esoteric. But, you know, in an environment where we are having to diversify, in order to make sure that our, business is able to survive, there are a lot of opportunities for investment and patriotic type businesses.

Tucker [00:37:07] Man, it’s just it’s unbelievable that we’re having this conversation. Lydia Brimelow, thank you very much. And Godspeed.

Britain’s “Hate Speech” Trap

In one of the more famous Zen Buddhist riddles, or koans, an army officer meets with a monk and attempts to frustrate the contemplative monastic. “A man has been raising a goose in a bottle since it was a tiny gosling,” the officer explains. “Now it is fully grown and has no space left in the bottle. Without hurting the goose, and without breaking the bottle, how can the man get it out?” The monk doesn’t answer the question and instead moves the conversation to the weather. A little while later, the meeting coming to an end, the officer stands up to leave and approaches the door. As he reaches for the handle, the monk cries out “Oh officer!” As the officer turns, the monk smiles and continues, “There. It’s out!”

This particular koan is a good example of koans in general, in that the reader or student is presented with an impossible riddle, an intellectual trap that is totally unsolvable by logic. The goal is to sublimate the thinking mind to the instinctual mind that takes precedent in living “in the moment,” or “being present.” The koan came to mind recently while I read the horrifying news from Britain that a man has been found guilty of incitement to hatred merely for producing stickers bearing such non-aggressive slogans as “Reject White Guilt”, “Nationalism is Nurture”, and “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066.”

How has British speech legislation been used to secure this criminal conviction and, to return to the idea of the koan, how can pro-White advocates advocate for anything when even the more passive elements of their argument have been criminalized? The riddle is straightforward: What can be said when saying anything runs the risk of imprisonment?

The Public Order Act 1986: A Jewish Contrivance

Samuel Melia, a long-serving activist and a figure apparently well-known and liked in British nationalist circles, has been convicted under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to publish or distribute “written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” In the wording of the legislation, someone is guilty of an offence if “(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.” Melia was also convicted of “encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence of racially aggravated criminal damage,” presumably because, in an act of race terrorism, the stickers may have left tiny residues of glue upon removal.

As far as legal texts go, there is much left to interpretation in the Public Order Act 1986. It’s a highly subjective piece of work. Consider, for example, the necessary but inevitably tendentious speculation on a defendant’s intentions. This is to say nothing about “regard to all the circumstances” or how exactly the likelihood of “stirring up hatred” is to be measured. The document has always been vague, and because it has remained unaltered for almost 40 years, we might assume that this was by design.

Britain’s speech law is demonstrably Jewish in origin and design. The impetus behind the Public Order Act 1986 can be traced back to the 1910s with early murmurings among Britain’s Jewish elite about the potential criminalization of anti-Semitism. Following the Jewish bombing of the King David Hotel, then British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference.[1] However, the bombing cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2]

Further attempts to achieve speech laws were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed anti-discrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”[3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.[4]

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.[5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952, when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.[6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.

In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Sociologist Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”[8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986).

The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”[9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and has led to the criminal conviction of Samuel Melia for “stickering.”

Legislative Evolution

In the early years of the Act, sentencing on conviction was a maximum of two years in prison and this was normally reserved for blunt expressions of animosity towards non-White groups. John Tyndall for example, founder of the British National Party, was one of the earliest victims of the Public Order Act and was sentenced in 1986 to 12 months in prison, serving four. In 1998, Tyndall’s successor Nick Griffin was given a nine-month suspended sentence for publishing his Who Are The Mindbenders? pamphlet in the course of which he pointed out Jewish influence in the British mass media and how this had flooded the nation with “anti-British trash.”

The Act was problematic, and had a gagging effect on British nationalism, but its reach was sufficiently blunt, and sentences relatively short, for Jonathan Bowden to remark during one of his speeches in the late 2000s that one could still discuss many controversial topics in public so long as this was done in an abstract or slightly indirect way. This seemed partially proven in 2004 when Nick Griffin was arrested and charged again, this time for remarks he made in a pub about Muslims and Islam. Although subjected to a trial, both Griffin and his co-accused Tyndall were found not guilty. Today, however, we can have no doubt that Bowden’s analysis no longer applies.

The vague wording of the Act has allowed the transformations in British culture to carry it to greater extremes without the need for an entirely new law. And there can be little doubt that culture has shifted radically further to the Left in the last 20 years. An amendment led to the extension of the maximum sentence from 2 to 7 years, with the result that sentences are now averaging 3–4 years rather than 10–12 months.

More important, the law has been gradually reinterpreted in light of new cultural ‘understandings’ of hate. ‘Hate’ used to mean that you had extreme and quasi-violent feelings of animosity towards a particular individual or group, but we now live in an age where hatred can be something as simple as insisting on the biological basis of gender, or conducting a survey of intelligence or crime alongside racial taxonomies. Hate has moved from being understood as an active and aggressive position against a given entity, to being something as banal as adopting a neutral or non-radical position on a sensitive cultural question treasured by the Left. Crucially for Mr. Melia, ‘hate’ now also encompasses the position that Whites as an ethnic group have interests and should defend them. Stickers with slogans like “No White Guilt” are seen as hateful, and part of an extreme and dangerous ideology. In such a context, we can assert that Britain has criminalized White self-defense.

Hate Crime Entrepeneurs

The increasingly extreme reach of British hate speech law has led Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, to call for the government to “hold an inquiry to determine, review and potentially repeal all elements of the law that conflict with freedom of speech, for example: Section 127 of the Communications Act, offences of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, and the offence of ‘indecent or racialist chanting’ under the Football (Offences) Act 1991.” Of particular concern to Civitas are what it calls “hate crime entrepreneurs,” or “groups with a vested interest in presenting their members as victims of hate crime” and are thus able to “influence hate crime legislation.”

Civitas point out that the very concept of hate speech has led to a loss of freedom orchestrated by an unelected elite of lawyers and intellectuals.

Each new Act of Parliament and clarification of police guidance introduces a more subjective element into the law. The state, either through the Crown Prosecution Service or the police, comes to define what is offensive, threatening or abusive. Such understandings are grounded in a perception of the ‘lived experiences’ of ‘victims’ as members of historically oppressed groups and a belief that words can have an impact as harmful as an act of physical violence. … Every aspect of people’s lives will come under legal scrutiny in order to promote a set of state sanctioned values that have been determined by lawyers rather than voted on by the electorate.

Civitas explain that “identity groups are represented by ‘hate crime entrepreneurs’ who are incentivized to report ever increasing harms experienced by members of their community. The law comes to play a role in affirming the identity of victim groups, recognising suffering, re-educating offenders about the ‘correct’ way to think and sending a message to the rest of society about the values deemed ‘appropriate’.” In other words, society is undergoing an incentivised brainwashing and the reduction of freedom across the board. All minority identity groups have a vested interest in expanding definitions of hate crime to encompass the groups they represent, and obviously they have a vested interest in seeing increased reporting of hate crimes committed as a basis for their own future fundraising.

The groups insinuate themselves, in undemocratic fashion, into the police and legal structure, with one group noted by Civitas as boasting “we have also established joint training between the police and Crown Prosecution staff to improve the way the police identify and investigate hate crime.” So the very manner in which the police see crime and speech is being determined by non-elected minority agents. Civitas also make some comments which match up well with the historical and contemporary record of Jews ensuring their place as a privileged and protected elite within Western societies.

Such organizations lobby for better protections for their members. In order to secure these protections, they are incentivized to increase the reporting of hate crimes committed against members of their particular identity group. This lends itself to ever looser definitions of hate crime and ever more expansive cohorts of victims. Furthermore, many groups that lobby on behalf of particular communities receive government funding for their work. For example, Challenge It, Report It, Stop It reports on plans to support a range of groups such as the Jewish Museum, Show Racism the Red Card, Searchlight Educational Trust [founded by a Jewish communist] and Faith Matters’ Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks (MAMA) project.

Jewish, Muslim, and other groups hold almost constant “meetings with legal and academic experts, police and the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), charities and civil society groups, and numerous individuals with an interest in hate crime laws.” The hate crime entrepreneurs thus “play a significant role in determining the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings for the Law Commission’s analysis.”

In other words, it is the activities of these groups, as well as the problematic Jewish-led Public Order Act 1986 itself, that have led to the current predicament of Samuel Melia for mere stickering. Mr Melia is the victim of a vast and corrupt “hate crime” industry that is fuelled both by material greed and by a seething and entirely genuine hatred of the native peoples of the British Isles. To that extent we can say that the nation is in fact host to a hate crime of gargantuan nature and scope, but that it is totally forbidden, and now illegal, to speak its name.

[1] P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108.

[2] E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.

[3] Ibid, 41.

[4] C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.

[5] D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617.

[6] C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234.

[7] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95.

[8] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71.

[9] T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104.

Why Are Jews So Influential?

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and likely have been under genetic selection in Ashkenazi Jewish groups: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness, and finally mention the Jewish guru phenomenon.

The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, along with strong charismatic leadership result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the post-Enlightenment world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, even before the Enlightenment Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers.

It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.[1] Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”[2]

Nineteenth-century critics of Jews typically complained about Jewish influence in the media and Jewish wealth that often made traditional Western aristocratic elites subservient to them, and, like Richard Wagner, they complained about Jewish influence on culture.[3] Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union and willing participants of horrendous mass murders of its early decades, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until well after World War II.[4] They were a central focus of National Socialism in Germany, in part because of the Jewish role in Bolshevism, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and multicultural/multiethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-White immigration to countries of European origin.[5] In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed neoconservative Jews in the Bush administration and the media had a critical role in fomenting wars that benefit Israel, and now neocon Jews in the Biden administration have established the all-out support for Ukraine against Russia and  Israel against Hamas. Right now the ADL is leading the campaign to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, particularly on X (Twitter), and Jewish billionaires are blacklisting students and withholding funds from universities if they don’t express enthusiastic support for Israel.[6] Indeed, I would say that we are once again witnessing an incredible display of Jewish power in the U.S.

How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? I will not discuss the role of Western individualism in facilitating Jewish influence.[7] We tend to see people as individuals, as in the ideology of colorblind meritocracy so common among mainstream conservatives.

Jews are Ethnocentric

Elsewhere I have argued that Jewish ethnocentrism can be traced back to their Middle Eastern origins.[8] Traditional Jewish culture has a number of features identifying Jews with the ancestral cultures of the area. The most important of these is that Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under circumstances that favored large groups dominated by males.[9] These groups were basically extended families with high levels of endogamy (i.e., marriage within the kinship group) and consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage to blood relatives), including the uncle-niece marriage sanctioned in the Old Testament. These features are exactly the opposite of Western European tendencies.

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries, and moral particularism represented by the phrase “Is it good for the Jews.” In Jewish religious writings, non-Jews had no moral standing and could be exploited at will as long as doing so didn’t harm the entire group. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups.[10] Group boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as hair style or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history. Different groups settle in different areas where they retain their homogeneity alongside other homogeneous groups, as illustrated by the following account from Carleton Coon:

There the ideal was to emphasize not the uniformity of the citizens of a country as a whole but a uniformity within each special segment, and the greatest possible contrast between segments. The members of each ethnic unit feel the need to identify themselves by some configuration of symbols. If by virtue of their history they possess some racial peculiarity, this they will enhance by special haircuts and the like; in any case they will wear distinctive garments and behave in a distinctive fashion.[11]

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward collectivism and ethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish ethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism—perhaps most notably ethnic networking that was so important to The Culture of Critique—and have argued in several places that Jewish ethnocentrism is biologically based.[12]

A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.[13] Present-day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in the Kabbala—the Jewish mystical tradition. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Kabbalistic literature by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Kabbala has a universalist message. The actual texts say salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls.”[14]

The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in traditional Jewish society, but remains a powerful current of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:

We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of…a totally different species…. The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world…. The difference of the inner quality [of the body]…is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain”…. An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.[15]

These people and secular ethono-nationalists who have basically the same ideas are firmly in charge in Israel, leading to a long series of protests by liberal Jews in Israel and the US. There are a million more examples but in the interests of brevity I’ll leave it at that. Even a prominent Israel apologist like Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes recently wrote that the present government as a “far-right coalition of Jewish supremacists and ultra-Orthodox Jews.” But AIPAC still dominates Congress and the Executive branch, so there won’t be any changes soon.

From Mondoweiss:

When Rep. Jayapal called Israel a racist state in July, Democrats and Republicans leaped on her in a political feeding frenzy. They fell over each other to cash in on the defense of Israel, a state whose racism is not just obvious but a point of pride for many in its government. They immediately and overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating that “the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state.” Jayapal, of course, voted with the majority. The nine who voted against were all progressives who are atop the list of AIPAC’s most hated. It breezed through the Senate by unanimous consent.  Jayapal, of course, voted with the majority. The nine who voted against were all progressives who are atop the list of AIPAC’s most hated. It breezed through the Senate by unanimous consent.

Similar overwhelming support for Israel in the Gaza war passed the House of Representatives and it was unanimous in the Senate. Republicans and conservatives generally are especially supportive of Israel.

Same with conservative media. I am not sure why this is. Part of it is probably because a significant portion of their audiences are evangelicals who think Israel’s success will inaugurate the Second Coming of Jesus and the end times. It may also be their desire to gain legitimacy in a cultural environment that is completely dominated by the left which accuses anyone to the right of Mitt Romney of being a raving Nazi.

Ethnocentrism is responsive to particular environmental triggers, what evolutionists term “facultative mechanisms,” that is, mechanisms that can be triggered by external circumstances such as perceived threat. The phenomenon of a siege mentality has been mentality noted by many authors as typical of Jewish culture throughout history (see A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7, pp. 218–219).

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982)[17] note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage–with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153)[18] note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.” 

A good example is how American Jews reacted to the 1967 war. Silberman notes that around the time of the 1967 Arab/Israeli war, many Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that “I had not known how Jewish I was.[19] Silberman comments that “This was the response, not of some newcomer to Judaism or casual devotee but of the man whom many, myself included, consider the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of our time.” Many others made the same surprising discovery about themselves: Arthur Hertzberg wrote that “the immediate reaction of American Jewry to the crisis was far more intense and widespread than anyone could have foreseen. Many Jews would never have believed that grave danger to Israel could dominate their thoughts and emotions to the exclusion of everything else.”[20]

The current war in Gaza is no exception. Haredim, who usually avoid military service in order to devote their lives to study, are enlisting in the IDF and J Street, the liberal Zionist lobby is issuing context-free condemnations of Hamas. It’s the same with the Jewish faculty at my former university — liberals all and oblivious to the role of Israeli behavior in producing Palestinian hatred, but horrified that someone would tear down a poster of a Jewish hostage posted in a university building and trumpeting calls for free speech. (Where have they been in condemning the ADL’s pivotal role in censoring free speech on social media? Somehow I don’t think it’s an accident that I and a couple of my brothers-in-arms have been banned from X after Musk took over and is doing his best to avoid the wrath of the powers that be.)  There are still voices like Jewish Voice of Peace and Mondoweiss that have long condemned Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, but they are definitely do not represent the vast majority of the power and money of the Jewish community in America.

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification—for example, the messages of ever-increasing threat of anti-Semitism promulgated by the ADL — accompanied by pleas for donations.

Bar-Tal et al. (1992) note that 

not surprisingly, Siege Mentality is related to Ethnocentrism. The belief that the world has negative intentions towards the group indicates its evil, malice, and aggressiveness. In this context, the group not only feels victimized and self-righteous, but also superior to the out-group.[21]

Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy)

The vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. This is a very intelligent group, with an average IQ of approximately 111 with a particular strength in verbal IQ. Since verbal IQ is the best predictor of occupational success and upward mobility in contemporary societies, it is not surprising that Jews are an elite group in the United States. Intelligence, as well as the other traits discussed here, were likely under genetic selection in traditional Ashkenazi societies because scholars were given marriages to the daughters of wealthy Jews and good business opportunities. Wealth and reproductive success were strongly linked at least prior to the nineteenth century.

Nevertheless, because of the demographic differences between Jews and White Americans, there are many more White Americans at any level of IQ required for upward mobility and leadership positions in American society. For example, at IQ of 140, there are five times as many White Americans as Jews. IQ is thus an insufficient explanation for Jewish influence.

Intelligence and ethnic networking are important for academic success, and in Chapters two and five of The Culture of Critique I showed that Jews and Jewish organizations led the intellectual effort to deny the importance of racial and ethnic differences in human affairs and to pathologize any sense of White identity or White interests. The Jewish role in creating the intellectual context of the 1965 immigration law relied on the success of the Boasian movement in anthropology in shaping academic views on race by dominating the American Anthropological Association since the 1920s. For example, historian of anthropology Gelya Frank noted “in message and purpose, [Boas’s anthropology] was an explicitly antiracist science.” This subverted the strong sense of race and racial interests that were prominent trends in academia and the mainstream media. Science is that lingua franca of the West, so the prestige of the Boasians was critical for their success.

Intelligence is also linked to wealth. Based on past results, Jews are probably around 35% of the wealthiest Americans, and that translates into a well-funded infrastructure of Jewish causes, from neocon think tanks to AIPAC to the ADL and political campaigns where the Democrat Party is basically funded by wealthy Jews and the Republican Jewish Coalition probably provides 40% of GOP donations aimed at supporting Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues. ADL Assets in 2021 were listed at $238,000,000; $62,000,000 in contributions. The national ADL, like the ACLU, the SPLC, the NAACP, and other so-called civil rights groups, is now merely a tax-exempt cadre of the Democratic Party and has gone all in on anti-White critical race theory, gender insanity, and opposition to any talk about the Great Replacement, claiming that the very idea is racist and anti-Semitic (while stating that Israel must retain its Jewish majority by controlling immigration and preventing Palestinians on the West Bank from voting). The ADL is a very prominent player in the censorship regime that pervades the left in the West. Right now the ADL is leading an aggressive campaign to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, most famously on X (Twitter) so that Elon Musk is routinely labeled an anti-Semite in Jewish media and any mention of George Soros’s influence or calling out globalism is anti-Semitic. Because of their elite connections they have been able to pressure advertisers on Twitter, so that ad revenue is down 40% from pre-Musk days.

Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jews and Jewish organizations organized, led, funded, and performed most of the work of the most important anti-restrictionist organizations active from 1945–1965 and are still prominently involved. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well-funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. Intelligence and organization are also apparent in Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel. Over thirty years ago US Defense Department official, noted that, “On all kinds of foreign policy issues the American people just don’t make their voices heard. Jewish groups are the exceptions. They are prepared, superbly briefed. They have their act together. It is hard for bureaucrats not to respond.”[22] At the time there was concern that the State Department remained a bastion of old school WASPs. Not a problem any longer, with neocons Anthony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, and Wendy Sherman firmly in charge of State.

Conscientiousness and Emotional Intensity

In Chapter 7 of my 1994 book on Judaism, I highlighted two personality traits of Jews, conscientiousness and emotional intensity. Both are heritable and quite likely under selection in traditional Jewish communities. Conscientiousness, which involves attention to detail, neatness, orderliness, striving for achievement, persistence toward goals in the face of difficulty, and the ability to focus attention and delay gratification is, along with IQ, linked to upward mobility. Social conscientiousness appears to be a sort of “don’t let down the group” trait, originally proposed by Darwin (1871) as the basis of group allegiance. Individuals high on this trait would be expected to feel intense guilt for having failed to fulfill their obligations to the group. Moreover, given the importance of conformity to group norms for Judaism, it would be expected that individuals who were low on this trait would be disproportionately inclined to abandon Judaism, while successful Jews who were the pillars of the community and thus epitomized the group ethic of Judaism would be disproportionately likely to be high on group conformity—and also likely to be reproductively successful in traditional societies. The result is that there would be strong selection pressures toward high levels of social conscientiousness within the Jewish community.

Conscientiousness was strongly emphasized in Jewish socialization. Thus, a child reared in a traditional Jewish home would have been socialized to continually monitor his/her behavior to ensure compliance with a vast number of restrictions—the vast number of commandments of the Ashkenazi religious writing. These are exactly the sorts of environmental influences expected to strengthen the conscientiousness system, what I call “system-specific environmental influences.”

Jews also tend to be high on the personality trait of affect intensity; i.e., they are prone to intense emotional experience of both positive and negative emotions.[23] Individuals high on affect intensity have more complex social networks and more complex lives, including multiple and even conflicting goals. They are prone to fast and frequent mood changes and lead varied and variable emotional lives. Clinically, affect intensity is related to cyclothymia (i. e., alternate periods of elation and depression), bipolar affective disorder (i.e., manic‑depressive psychosis), neurotic symptoms, and somatic complaints (nervousness, feeling uneasy, shortness of breath).

The common perception of Jewish and gentile psychiatric workers from the late nineteenth century until at least the end of the 1920s was that compared to gentiles, Ashkenazi Jews (and especially male Jews), had relatively sensitive, highly reactive nervous systems, thus making them more prone to the diagnoses of hysteria, manic‑depression, and neurasthenia (Gershon & Liebowitz 1975; Gilman 1993 92ff) and depression (men only). Gershon and Liebowitz note that 45 percent of 22 patients had bipolar affective disorder—about the same as in an Iraqi population—compared to 19 percent in a study of northern European populations. Within Israel, they cite an Israeli study (in Hebrew) that found that affective disorders were “much more prevalent” among Ashkenazi Jews than Sephardic Jews.[24] And a “preliminary” study found significantly more patients with affective psychoses and fewer with schizophrenia than among the non-Jews.[25] A study from 2000 found that in a sample of Israelis with bipolar disorder, the manic phase was “much more common in Israeli bipolar patients” than European and American populations (55 percent of the patients have illnesses characterized primarily by manias, 28 percent have approximately equal numbers of manias and depressions, and 17% suffer predominantly from depressions, but with no difference between Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations).[26]

I emphasize here that affect intensity is also linked to creativity and the manic phase of bipolar affective disorder which seems to be more common among Jews.[27] During episodes of mania the person has a grandiose self-image (“I am brilliant and can save the world if only people would listen to me”), goal-directed activity like obsessively working on a project all night, excessive involvement in pleasurable activity like buying sprees and sexual gratification, and racing thoughts which of course the manic person thinks are brilliant. The depressive part is just the opposite. But a lot of people may be high on emotionality but not meet the criteria for psychopathology. It’s easy to see that people moderately high on positive emotionality—hypomanic or normal but close to the manic range—would be high achievers; they would work persistently toward goals, and they would be very self-confident and with high self-esteem. Such people gravitate to leadership positions in whatever organization they are in. And it’s easy to see that they would become gurus, establishing a devoted following, like charismatic rabbis in traditional Jewish communities—Jewish gurus like Freud, Boas, Trotsky, etc. discussed in Culture of Critique.

For example, Albert Lindemann notes that many of Trotsky’s personality traits are stereotypically Jewish:

 If one accepts that anti-Semitism was most potently driven by anxiety and fear, as distinguished from contempt, then the extent to which Trotsky became a source of preoccupation for anti-Semites is significant. Here, too, Johnson’s [i.e., Paul John, author of A History of the Jews] words are suggestive: He writes of Trotsky’s “demonic power”—the same term, revealingly, used repeatedly by others in referring to Zinoviev’s oratory or Uritsky’s ruthlessness [Zinoviev and Uritsky were two other prominent early Bolsheviks]. Trotsky’s boundless self-confidence, his notorious arrogance, and sense of superiority were other traits often associated with Jews. Fantasies there were about Trotsky and other Bolsheviks, but there were also realities around which the fantasies grew. (Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge University Press, 1997, 448)

The Trotskyist movement was a heavily Jewish milieu and much loved by my radical Jewish acquaintances in college. A prominent Trotskyist Max Shachtman

attracted young Jewish disciples—the familiar rabbi-disciple model of Jewish intellectual movements (here, p. 17–18): “Youngsters around Shachtman made little effort to hide their New York background or intellectual skills and tastes. Years later they could still hear Shachtman’s voice in one another’s speeches.”[28] To a much greater extent than the Communist Party U.S.A, which was much larger and was committed to following the Soviet line, the Trotskyists survived as a small group centered around charismatic leaders like Shachtman, who paid homage to the famous Trotsky. In the Jewish milieu of the movement, Shachtman was much admired as a speaker because of his ability in debate and in polemics. He became the quintessential Hasidic guru—the leader of a close, psychologically intense group: “He would hug and kiss [his followers]. He would pinch both their cheeks, hard, in a habit that some felt blended sadism and affection.”[29]

Another example is Leo Strauss, a cult figure for neocons and the quintessential rabbinical guru, with devoted disciples such as Allan Bloom. Gertrude Himmelfarb (1974, 61) noted: “There are many excellent teachers. They have students. Strauss had disciples.”[30] And Levine: “This group has the trappings of a cult. After all, there is a secret teaching and the extreme seriousness of those who are ‘initiates.’”[31] Strauss relished his role as a guru to worshiping disciples, once writing of “the love of the mature philosopher for the puppies of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in turn.”[32]

The psychoanalyst Fritz Wittels noted long ago: “The faithful disciples [of Freud] regard one another’s books as of no account. They recognize no authority but Freud’s; they rarely read or quote one another. When they quote it is from the Master, that they may give the pure milk of the word.”[33]

Affect intensity influences the tone and intensity of Jewish activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: Jewish activism is an intense response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue.

In my 1994 book I noted the historical pattern of a paranoid, siege mentality and desire for revenge that pervaded traditional Jewish communities. Interviews with New Left Jewish radicals revealed that many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors”[34] combined with the belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a non-oppressive social order—clearly indicating high self-confidence and self-esteem. The trend is towards low self-criticism and what amounts to psychopathic levels of high self-esteem.

Jews Are Aggressive

Much of the previous is also about Jewish aggressiveness. Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived among, and they have been perceived as aggressive by their critics. Being aggressive and “pushy” is part of the stereotype of Jews in Western societies. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of scientific studies on this aspect of Jewish personality, but Hans Eysenck, renowned for his research on personality and Phil Rushton’s inspiration on race differences, claims that Jews are indeed rated more aggressive by people who know them well.

In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades poor Jews attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.”

The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way…. The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other [Jewish lightening]. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”

Albert Lindemann in his Esau’s Tears noted the same about Jewish perjury in Czarist Russia.

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”[1]

[1] Yaffe 1968, 73. Yaffe embeds this comment in a discussion of self-hating Jews—implying that Jews are simply accepting stereotypes that are the fantasies of bigoted non-Jews.

Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture. From the perspective of Henry Ford’s The International Jew, the United States had imported around 3.5 million mainly Yiddish-speaking, intensely ethnocentric Jewish immigrants over the previous forty years. In that very short period and long prior to achieving anything like the power they obtained after World War II and the 1960s counter-cultural revolution, Jews had had enormous effect on American society, particularly in their attempts to remove expressions of Christianity from public life beginning with an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights. Ford’s outlet, the Dearborn Independent stated “The Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the US is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today.”

A prototypical example of Jewish aggressiveness toward American culture has been Jewish advocacy of liberal immigration policies which have had a transformative effect on the US. As noted in Culture of Critique:

In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokespersons and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years, their spokespersons had assiduously attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such non-sectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.

The epitome of Jewish aggression is their long crusade as a tiny minority to alter the ethnic balance of the U.S. in order to prevent the sort of mass movement that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. There are many such statements by Jewish activists, but the most recent one I have found is from  Boston Globe writer S. I. Rosenbaum who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

In their 2023 book Anglophobia Harry Richardson and Frank Salter note that Jewish organizations have taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration in Australia, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.

Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only instruments of Jewish aggressiveness. Jewish groups intimidate their enemies by a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel advocated by Jewish activist organizations have been fired and blacklisted from their jobs, harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive surveillance, and threatened with death. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in the media on Israel as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of the media, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. Paul Findley noted over 30 years ago that there are “threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas”[35]—a phenomenon that, as noted above, is ongoing.


The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel since the 1967 war despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories—an apartheid occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation and degradation of the Palestinians. During this same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the US, and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust. All this is done without a whisper of double standards in the aboveground media.

The American Jewish community is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests. One of the great myths often promulgated by Jewish apologists is that Jews have no consensus and therefore cannot wield any real power. Yet there is in fact a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties. Massive changes in public policy on these issues, beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any significant area where public policy conflicts with the attitudes of mainstream Jewish organizations.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 3.

[2] Ibid, Ch. 4.

[3] Kevin MacDonald, “Historical Writing on Judaism and Anti-Semitism; Review of Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, 1850–1945, edited by Thomas Dalton,” The Occidental Quarterly 23, no, 2 (Spring, 2023): 85–112.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR. Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century.  Princeton University Press. The Occidental Quarterly, 5(3), 65-100.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.


[7] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.

[8] A People that Shall Dwell Alone, ch. 8; The Culture of Critique, Preface.

[9] Burton et al. 1996.

[10] E.g., Coon 1958, 153; Eickelman 1981, 157–74.

[11] Coon 1958, 153.

[12] A People That Shall Dwell Alone, ch. 8; Separation and its Discontents, ch. 1.

[13] Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999.

[14] Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 58.

[15] In Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 59–60.


[17] Herz, F. M., & E. J. Rosen (1982). Jewish families. In Ethnicity and Family Therapy, ed. M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, & J. Giordano. New York: The Guilford Press.

[18] Zborowski, M., & E. Herzog (1952). Life Is with People: The Jewish Little-Town of Eastern Europe. New York: International Universities Press.

[19] In Charles Silberman (1985). A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit Books, 184; emphasis in original.

[20] Hertzberg, A. (1979). Being Jewish in America. New York: Schocken Books, 210.

[21] Daniel Bar-Tal, Dikla Antebi, “Beliefs about Negative Intentions of the World: A Study of the Israeli Siege Mentality,” Political Psychology, 13, no. 4 (December, 1992), 633–645, 643.

[22] Kevin MacDonald, “Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” The Occidental Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Summer 2003(, 5–38.

[23] Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59.

[24] Kalman, G., Maoz, B., & Yaffe, R. (1970). Demographic survey of an open psychiatric hospital. Briut Ziburi (Public Health), Jerusalem 13, 67, 1970 (in Hebrew).

[25] Cooklin, R., Ravindran, A., & Carney, M. (1983). The patterns of mental disorder in Jewish and non-Jewish admissions to a district general hospital psychiatric unit: Is manic-depressive illness a typically Jewish disorder? Psychological Medicine, 13(1), 209-212. doi:10.1017/S0033291700050236

[26] Y. Osher, Y. Yaroslavsky, R. El-Rom, & R. H. Belmaker, (2000). Predominant Polarity of Bipolar Patients in Israel. Biological Psychiatry 1, 187–189, 187.

[27] Tucker, D. M., K. Vanatta, & J. Rothlind (1990). Arousal and activation systems and primitive adaptive controls on cognitive priming. In Psychological and Biological Approaches to Emotion, ed. S. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[28] Drucker, P. (1994). Max Shachtman and His Left: A Socialist’s Odyssey through the “American Century” (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International), 43.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Himmelfarb, M. (1974). On Leo Strauss, Commentary 58 (August), 60–66.

[31] Levine, D. L. (1994). “Without malice but with forethought,” in Kenneth L. Deutsch & Walter Nicgorski (eds.), Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 354.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Wittels, F. (1924). Sigmund Freud: His Personality, His Teaching, & His School, trans. E. and C. Paul. (London: George Allen & Unwin), 143.

[34] Cohen, P. S. (1980). Jewish Radicals and Radical Jews. London: Academic Press, 1980, 208).

[35] Findley, P. 1989. They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, 2nd ed. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 296.