Jews and the Left

Ted Gold and the Jews of Weatherman, Part 2

/42 Comments/in , /by

Ted Kaptchuk and Ted Gold from the Columbia Spectator, Volume CXIV, Number 76, 10 March 1970

Go to Part 1

Weather Terror: the New York Cell

After the Flint War Council, the Weathermen organized quasi-underground cells or “collectives” in various major cities, and began planning a terror campaign. They renamed the group “Weather Underground.” The leadership assigned Gold to one of the several Weather groups based in New York. John Jacobs, always militant, led one group. Terry Robbins, a shrimpy New York Jew who was one of the strongest advocates of the terror policy, headed the main cell, which was tasked by the leadership with finding targets to bomb. At least two gentile females were members of Robbins’ cell: Cathy Wilkerson, Robbin’s girlfriend, and Diana Oughton, Bill Ayers’ girlfriend. Also present was Kathy Boudin, member of the prominent leftist Jewish Boudin legal family. Robbins, Gold, and the women based themselves in Wilkerson’s family townhouse on 11th Street in Manhattan while her parents were on vacation.15

Gold matched the others in adopting the idea of “bringing the war home,” the Weather motto for making America’s “White power structure” feel the violence that they were inflicting on the Vietnamese. Jonathan Lerner, fellow Weatherman, recalls that he and Gold had discussed planting a bomb on a Chicago railroad to kill workers returning home at night.16 Rudd remembers that Robbins and Jacobs “would rant, “White people are pigs. This whole society has to be brought down. We have got to defeat White-skin privilege.”17 In the last days before the fatal explosion, the once mild-mannered democrat Ted Gold issued a warning that anyone defecting from the group would be subject to death, with the strong implication that he himself would kill them.18

Robbins’ cell began building a nail-studded shrapnel bomb to plant at an Army dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. There was just one snag in their planning. None of them knew how to make a bomb.

Just before noon on March 6, 1970, the day of the planned bombing, Terry Robbins was putting the finishing touches on the crude dynamite bomb in the basement of the townhouse. He mistakenly detonated what proved to be a tremendously powerful device. The bomb instantly ripped Robbins and Diana Oughton apart. Robbins was a bit more than ripped, actually. He was shredded. The collapsing townhouse crushed Ted Gold.

I have to confess that it brings me some pleasure to relate this exquisite misadventure. Three communist terrorists destroyed with their own infernal device. Cathy Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin, occupied upstairs, were stunned but unfortunately escaped. Boudin later descended into a front “revolutionary” organization (the May 19 Communist Organization) for a sordid group of coked-up Black faux revolutionaries and helped get three gentlemen killed in the Brink’s armored car robbery in 1981. (Gold’s old buddy, the Jew David Gilbert, another “mild-mannered idealist,” is still in prison for that one. So is Judy Clark. Can you guess her ethnic background? Gilbert, described as “luminously brilliant” by a former professor, and Clark resorted to the hilarious stratagem of denying the legitimacy of the court—because they were revolutionaries you know—and refused to mount a defense. The court consequently and logically sentenced them to forever in the slammer. Boudin, however, accepted good legal advice from her father and got out after twenty years. Last time I checked she was working as—what else!—a professor at Columbia University.) Read more

Ted Gold and the Jews of Weatherman, Part 1

/69 Comments/in , /by

 

Townhouse explosion in Greenwich Village, 1970

Ted Gold was a Jewish member of Weatherman, the Communist terror group of the late 1960s and 70s, which was a radical spin-off from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Gold is best known for perishing in the dramatic explosion in the New York townhouse caused by Weatherman’s ignorance of how to build a powerful bomb that explodes when desired and not before. His real importance, however, lies not in his spectacular demise, but rather in his frank public call for a communist dictatorship in this country, run by a revolutionary committee from the Third World. Consistent with the thesis that Jews place a high value on group interests, Gold worked unwaveringly within a mainstream Jewish subculture against Whites and White power, the enemy whose destruction many Jews thought would advance their own influence and power.

Gold’s Early Years

Gold was born in New York City in December 1947. His father was a doctor and his mother a professor at Columbia University. His parents were classic liberals of the era; his father worked for civil rights in the South and volunteered his medical services on behalf of the poor on the East Side. The family lived on the Upper West Side, and were generally considered as upper middle class.1

As a child, Ted played stickball with his father and became an avid sports fan. He earned his way into a top high school, Stuyvesant, where he graduated 212 in a class of 699, with an 89% average. (The Weathermen are fond of describing each other as “brilliant,” but 89% is a bit removed from brilliant.) He joined the track team, the Stamp Club, and the History and Folklore Society and was also “politically active” in the civil rights movement, helping to set up a chapter of “Friends of SNCC” (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), which provided material support for civil rights workers. (Have you ever heard of a gentile who was so politically active in high school?) Gold’s parents also sent him to summer “camp,” Camp Webatuck, whose clientele was basically red diaper babies. I send my son to camp, where he exerts himself physically and comes home enthralled with the joys of athletic competition and boyish camaraderie. Camp Webatuck was for socialization in Leftist ideology, complete with Woody Guthrie music: “labor songs, unstructured hours, muted Marxist rhetoric.”2

By 1963, Gold was very pro-Castro. He was sixteen. He loved the Yankees, the Knicks, and a Communist dictatorship. Read more

Dunkirk Backstory: Jewish Traitors, Communist Spies, and the Internment of Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts

/56 Comments/in , /by

The success of Christopher Nolan’s powerful film Dunkirk shows there is still an insatiable appetite amongst the British public for stories about World War II.  This is partly fueled by the gradual opening of wartime archives which has led to a seemingly never-ending stream of titles about wartime espionage. But there are some fascinating stories which mysteriously no-one wants to pursue.

One such was revealed by Christopher Andrew, the official historian of Britain’s security service MI5, in 2009, when he said in his magisterial history, that at the end of the war there was a ban on the service recruiting any more Jews to its ranks because of fears they would be disloyal. This informal ban stood for thirty years. It was a startling revelation, but produced little further comment.

That Jews have a special talent for international espionage is hardly news. Their role as a diaspora population coupled with their insistence that they be recognized as full citizens of whatever territory they happen to be occupying gives them unique advantage. But it is a quality that can be a two-edged sword for the host population.

For a good example we need to travel back in time to 1942 to a sprawling Regency house in Oxford’s Woodstock Road where a puzzled policeman is staring high up at a radio transmitter cable that has been slung between the big house and an adjacent former coachman’s cottage. It strikes the policeman as unusual in wartime when there was a strict ban on private radio transmitters. He reported this to MI5 and added that ‘you might think this worthy of further inquiry.’ The file shows that someone in MI5 has marked the paragraph of special interest. Yet no further action was taken.

It’s understandable why the police would want to tread carefully, as that Regency house was occupied by a very important person in British public life. For the previous six years Neville Laski QC had been President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. In this role he had been much concerned with gaining admission to Britain for thousands of German Jewish refugees and was enthusiastically assisted by his wife Sissie, the daughter of a rabbi and the sister of a prominent member of the Communist Party. It was probably at a temporary refugee shelter in London that Sissie met Ursula and Len Beurton and it might have been out of sympathy for this intelligent young family’s predicament that the Laskis’ offered them the cottage at a low rent.

But Ursula Beurton was very far from being just another poor refugee. Her real name was Ursula Ruth Kuczynski and she had been born in Berlin into a well-off Jewish family of academics of pronounced left-wing sympathies. She had joined the Communist Party in the early thirties, been trained as a radio wireless operator in Moscow and then criss-crossed Europe for the party under the codename of ‘Sonya’. In 1938 she returned to Moscow to be secretly awarded the Order of the Red Banner, promoted to colonel and then sent to Britain to pose as a refugee. Read more

Differences between the Eastern European immigrant community in the US and the older German-Jewish establishment — and their commonalities

/69 Comments/in , , , /by

Eastern European Shtetl Jews; photos from “Rare Photographs and Images of Shtetl Life“

In his VDARE article of April 22, “Eastern European Jews And The Case Of the Marginalized Elite,” Paul Gottfried claims that I fail to make important distinctions among Jewish groups:

Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. …We are clearly dealing with a group that embraces all kinds of Leftist causes, most of which have a destabilizing effect on what remains of a traditional Christian society. Let me repeat: I don’t find anything about this behavior that has characterized all Jews at all times (unlike MacDonald).

This article summarizes some of my comments on different groups of Jews, some of which may have gotten a bit lost in the shuffle. In fact, beginning with my first two books on Judaism, I have repeatedly discussed differences among Jewish groups (e.g., IQ differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic groups in chapter 7 of A People That Shall Dwell Alone). This includes the important distinction between Eastern European Jews and Western European Jews, beginning with Chapter 6 of Separation and Its Discontents (1994) on Jewish strategies to minimize anti-Semitism.

It has often been critically important for Jews to be able to present a divided front to the gentile society, especially in situations where one segment of the Jewish community has adopted policies or attitudes that provoke anti-Semitism. This has happened repeatedly in the modern world. A particularly common pattern during the period from 1880 to 1940 was for Jewish organizations representing older, more established communities in Western Europe and the United States to oppose the activities and attitudes of more recent immigrants from Eastern Europe (see note 20). The Eastern European immigrants tended to be religiously orthodox, politically radical, and sympathetic to Zionism, and they tended to conceptualize themselves in racial and national terms—all qualities that provoked anti-Semitism. In the United States and England, Jewish organizations (such as the American Jewish Committee [AJCommittee]) attempted to minimize Jewish radicalism and gentile perceptions of the radicalism and Zionism of these immigrants (e.g., Cohen 1972; Alderman 1992, 237ff). Highly publicized opposition to these activities dilutes gentile perceptions of Jewish behavior, even in situations where, as occurred in both England and America, the recent immigrants far outnumbered the established Jewish community.

This difference between the Eastern European immigrant community and the German-Jewish establishment in the US is a central theme of “Jews, Blacks, and Race” (in Samuel Francis (Ed.), Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of Our Nation and Our Time [The Occidental Press, 2006]):

Anti-Jewish attitudes that had been common before [World War II) declined precipitously, and Jewish organizations assumed a much higher profile in influencing ethnic relations in the U.S., not only in the area of civil rights but also in immigration policy. Significantly this high Jewish profile was spearheaded by the American Jewish Congress and the ADL, both dominated by Jews who had immigrated from Eastern Europe between 1880 and 1920 and their descendants. As indicated below, an understanding of the special character of this Jewish population is critical to understanding Jewish influence in the United States from 1945 to the present. The German-Jewish elite that had dominated Jewish community affairs via the American Jewish Committee earlier in the century, gave way to a new leadership made up of Eastern European immigrants and their descendants. Even the AJCommittee, the bastion of the German-Jewish elite, came to be headed by John Slawson [in 1943], who had immigrated at the age of 7 from the Ukraine.

The AJCongress, a creation of the Jewish immigrant community, was headed by Will Maslow, a socialist and a Zionist. Zionism and political radicalism typified the Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. As an indication of the radicalism of the immigrant Jewish community, the 50,000- member Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order was an affiliate of the AJCongress and was listed as a subversive organization by the U.S. Attorney General. The JPFO was the financial and organizational “bulwark” of the Communist Party USA after World War II and also funded the Daily Worker, an organ of the [Communist Party USA], and the Morning Freiheit, a Yiddish communist newspaper. Although the AJCongress severed its ties with the JPFO and stated that communism was a threat, it was “at best a reluctant and unenthusiastic participant” in the Jewish effort to develop a public image of anti-communism—a position reflecting the sympathies of many among its predominantly second- and third-generation Eastern European immigrant membership. Concern that Jewish communists were involved in the civil rights movement centered around the activities of Stanley Levison, a key advisor to Martin Luther King, who had very close ties to the Communist Party (as well as the AJCongress) and may have been acting under communist discipline in his activities with King.

Read more

Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 2

/17 Comments/in , , /by

Part 1.

Moral Indictments of the West as Characteristic of Jewish Intellectual Movements

Here I want to stress one aspect of my book The Culture of Critique. It’s no accident then that all of the intellectual and political movements discussed in the Culture of Critique were moral indictments if the West. These Jewish intellectuals understood how to appeal to Westerners. They knew what buttons to push. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and political left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism. From Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique (p. 213–214).

Collectively, these movements have called into question the fundamental moral, political, and economic foundations of Western society. A critical feature of these movements is that they have been, at least in the United States, top-down movements in the sense that they were originated and dominated by members of a highly intelligent and highly educated group. These movements have been advocated with great intellectual passion and moral fervor and with a very high level of theoretical sophistication. Each movement promised its own often overlapping and complementary version of utopia: a society composed of people with the same biological potential for accomplishment and able to be easily molded by culture into ideal citizens as imagined by a morally and intellectually superior elite [Boas and the war on IQ and behavior genetics]; a classless society in which there would be no conflicts of interest and people would altruistically work for the good of the group [communism, socialism]; a society in which people would be free of neuroses and aggression toward outgroups and in tune with their biological urges [psychoanalysis]; a multicultural paradise in which different racial and ethnic groups would live in harmony and cooperation [the Frankfurt School]—a utopian dream that also occupies center stage in the discussion of Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy in Chapter 7. Each of these utopias is profoundly problematic from an evolutionary perspective, a theme that will be returned to in Chapter 8.

The originators of these movements were all vitally concerned with anti-Semitism, and all of the utopias envisioned by these intellectual and political movements would end anti-Semitism while allowing for Jewish group continuity. A generation of Jewish radicals looked to the Soviet Union as an idyllic place where Jews could rise to positions of preeminence and where anti-Semitism was officially outlawed while Jewish national life flourished. The psychoanalytic movement and the Frankfurt School looked forward to the day when gentiles would be inoculated against anti-Semitism by a clinical priesthood that could heal the personal inadequacies and the frustrations at loss of status that gentiles murderously projected onto the Jews. And the Boasians and the Frankfurt School and their descendants would prevent the development of anti-Semitic ideologies of majoritarian ethnocentrism.

A palpable sense of intellectual and moral superiority of those participating in these movements is another characteristic feature. This sense of intellectual superiority and hostility to gentiles and their culture was a recurrent theme of the leftist movements discussed in Chapter 3. I have also documented a profound sense of intellectual superiority and estrangement from gentile culture that characterized not only Freud but also the entire psychoanalytic movement. The sense of superiority on the part of a “self-constituted cultural vanguard” (Lasch 1991, 453–455) of Jewish intellectuals toward lower-middle-class mores and attitudes was a theme of Chapter 5. [This was a prominent theme really of the Trump victory.]

Regarding moral superiority, the central pose of post-Enlightenment Jewish intellectuals is a sense that Judaism represents a moral beacon to the rest of humanity (SAID, Ch. 7). These movements thus constitute concrete examples of the ancient and recurrent Jewish self-conceptualization as a “a light of the nations,” reviewed extensively in SAID (Ch. 7). Moral indictments of their opponents are a prominent theme in the writings of political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and we have seen that the Frankfurt School developed a moral perspective in which the existence of Judaism was viewed as an a priori moral absolute and in which social science was to be judged by moral criteria.

The “Holier than Thou” Phenomenon and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Anonymity

I think part of the dynamic pushing things right now is that there is a “holier than thou” phenomenon that often characterizes political and religious movements of all stripes. Strongly religious people compete with each other to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served — even family members. I am sure there is a dynamic within antifa groups where people who are do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.

This is also true on the Alt Right. People often vilify me for not coming down squarely on the side of Holocaust revisionism. And I don’t have swastikas on my page, nor do I tweet pictures of Jews going to ovens, or advocate National Socialism.

I think quite a bit of this, on both the left and on the right, has to do with anonymity made possible by the internet, but is especially true on the right given the moral opprobrium we are subjected to. I have found that as editor of TOO it is not unusual for me to have to tone down articles from people who use pen names. And there are some who may well have felt that there will be no consequences for them personally if they engage in Roman salutes or joke about the Holocaust while at the same time it marks them as on the cutting edge, as more authentic and more “in your face.” Ironically, people taking these positions are often plugged into this moral dynamic of being holier than thou. They see themselves as more honest — no matter what the consequences for the movement as a whole.

There is definitely a place for such things. There are different audiences out there, and different things work better with some people than with others. We should never get caught in a “one size fits all” approach. For some people, this brash sensibility may turn them on to a whole new way of thinking and make them read more about Jewish power and influence. It may appeal to them as a young person just because it is cutting edge and definitely not your parents’ attitudes. My approach is doubtless too boring and academic for quite a few people — I suspect the demographic for TOO readers and certainly TOQ readers is a bit older than some. But then, people who resonate to approaches like mine quite often are repelled by any hint of advocating National Socialism.

The problem comes when people do Roman salutes in a mixed situation where some people stand to lose a lot by being associated with such things and where the media is sure to be all over it — and make sure that their readers never forget. In that situation, the moral opprobrium that a large majority of the public feels about such things gets attached to everyone present. It is unfair of course, to suggest or imply that everyone present approves of such things, but who ever said life was fair? The media is indeed the opposition party to the Trump administration, and that goes double for us. They care nothing for fairness.

Of course, anonymity is indispensable for many of us. We are all aware that the left is only too eager to make us lose jobs and family ties. We see the disastrous results that can occur to people like Mike Enoch and the TRS crew when they are doxxed. But the anonymity has to always be tempered with responsibility and understanding of other people’s interests and concerns, especially when one is in a mixed group where not everyone is on the same page and where people are likely to be compromised (albeit unfairly) by media exposure. Losing livelihood and family connections are difficult indeed.

So an obvious message is that we have to have a clear understanding of our particular audience and act accordingly.

Go to Part 3.

 

On The Left and the Myth of the ‘Jewish Proletariat’

/76 Comments/in , , /by

‘The weight of the Jews’ exploitation is great and their harmfulness unlimited. … If we find it possible to preach revolution, and only revolution against the nobles, how can we defend the Jews?’
Ukrainian Communist Revolutionary, 1876.[1]

In the months immediately before his coronation in 1189, Richard the Lionheart became aware of rising anti-Jewish sentiment among the people of England. This ill-feeling was the result of decades of rampant usury, property seizures, social disparities, and what historian Robert Chazan described as the “effective royal protection” of Henry II.[2] Eager to ally himself with the mood of the nation, particularly in the tenuous early days of his reign, Richard appealed to the sentiments of the masses by banning Jews from attending the coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey. News of the ban was welcomed by the people, but the move was deeply unsettling to England’s Jews. The prohibition was nervously perceived by the nation’s Hebrews as a weakening of the vital Jewish relationship with the elite. This relationship, particularly the protection it provided to Jewish loan merchants, had been absolutely essential to the untroubled continuation of the Jews’ highly antagonistic financial practices among the lower orders. Without this protection, the position of the Jews in England would no longer be viable. Therefore, in a desperate attempt to resist a decline in Jewish influence, on the day of the coronation a party of senior Jews arrived at the doors of Westminster Abbey bearing lavish gifts and sycophantic tongues. The effort was in vain.

The Jewish party were refused entry by nobles and officials, and the group was then stripped and flogged for their flagrant defiance of royal orders. Since this punishment was a public display, a story soon circulated among the peasantry that the new king consented to general action against the Jews, and that the royal elite was now siding with the people. In the ensuing days, luxurious Jewish homes were burned, and castles containing Jewish debt rolls were stormed and their contents destroyed. These actions, however, were built on an assumption of elite backing that was in reality non-existent. The expectations of the masses were soon rudely crushed. The Lionheart’s banning of the Jews had been a mere measure of propaganda intended to endear him to his subjects, and the flogging of the intruding party was carried out without his consent. In truth, the King remained as beholden to the sway of mammon as his predecessors. When push came to shove, the peasantry, unlike ‘his’ Jews, were expendable. Richard wasted little time in rounding up and executing the ringleaders of the anti-Jewish action, even including those who had damaged Jewish property by accident. He then issued orders to “the sheriffs of England to prevent all such incidents in the future.”[3] In the aftermath of this crushing of the people, the Jews of England would once again remain under high levels of royal protection until ‘the Lionheart’ left the country for the Third Crusade — a venture, ironically, to relieve people in foreign nations of the tyranny of ‘infidels.’ The entire affair remains a perfect illustration of the centuries-old symbiotic relationship between Jews and our native elites, and the thread of parasitic capitalism that binds them. Read more

Noam Chomsky: The Cleverest Zionist

/94 Comments/in , /by

Noam_Chomsky_WSF_-_2003

Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential intellectuals in the world and is indeed probably the single most influential Left-wing intellectual around today. His university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, once boasted that Chomsky was the most-cited living person in the Arts and Humanities citation index between 1980 and 1992. Indeed, he was the only living author in the top ten, being quoted beside Shakespeare, Plato, and the Bible. Chomsky has largely maintained his academic influence, being heavily quoted in books in the humanities.

The elderly Chomsky is something of a saint for the far-Left. Thus they have been alarmed at a strange, under-reported reality: Chomsky the anti-nationalist and anti-imperialist voice is, when all is said and done, a Zionist supporter of the ethnically-Jewish state of Israel. Read more