Communism, an ideology that killed 94 million people in the 20th century, is still far from dead. Despite the ghastly and bloody history of communism, many young people still hold to a white-washed, romanticized view of it. To them, communism was a morally commendable cause with noble intentions that just happened to go awry at the hands of unsuitable dictators. Recent headlines from the New York Times over the past year have served to legitimize this view. A common view among “moderates” and “normie” conservatives is that communism was “good in theory but failed in practice.” Despite the economic collapse of communism in the late 20th century and the accompanying mass bloodshed, both communist ideas and sympathies are alive and well. As such, it behooves one to understand the true roots of communism so that principled libertarians and other right-wing folk may combat it more effectively.
An inconvenient “hate-fact” expressed by paleoconservatives and alt-righters is that communism is an ideology with distinctly Jewish historical and ideological origins/overtones. That is not to say that all or even the majority of Jews are communists, but that Jews have been disproportionately represented in the leadership and funding of communist movements throughout history (for example in Russia, Hungary, Germany, and Austria between 1918 to 1923) (1), and that the communist ideology itself comports strongly with certain behavioral and ideological tendencies which have manifested themselves throughout Jewish history.
The Talmudic Nature of Marxism
To understand the Jewish connection to communism, it may be helpful to start at the beginning – with Karl Marx and his lesser known mentor, Moses Hess. Both were of Jewish ethnicity, although only Hess identified openly as a Jew while Marx attempted to distance himself from his Jewish identity and embraced atheism. From the work of these two men, one may trace a multitude of communist aspects that can be tied directly to Jewish philosophies, particularly those expressed in the Talmud – a collection of Rabbinic writings that constitute the authoritative text on Jewish theology and philosophy. While the Talmud covers a wide array of different topics, contempt for gentiles (particularly Christians) and a belief in Jewish supremacy are pervasive themes. This spirit of Jewish supremacy is decidedly materialistic and utopian, and it was precisely this attitude that characterized Marx’s thinking, even while Marx rejected the Zionism of his mentor. Nonetheless, as E. Michael Jones explains in his book “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit,” Marx certainly inherited Hess’ Talmudic mindset and worldview (2):
The Talmud has led to revolution. You don’t have to be religious to be talmudic. Karl Marx was an atheist, but according to Bernard Lazare, he was also “a clear and lucid Talmudist,” and, therefore, “full of that old Hebrew materialism which ever dreams of a paradise on earth and always rejects the far-distant and problematical hope of a garden of Eden after death.” (p. 99). Marx was the quintessential Talmudist and the quintessential Jewish revolutionary, and as such he proposed one of the most influential false Messiahs in Jewish history: world communism. Baruch Levy, one of Marx’s correspondents, proposed another equally potent false Messiah, namely, the Jewish Race. According to Levy, the Jewish people taken collectively shall be its own Messiahs… In this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe… shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition…. The governments of the nations forming the Universal or World -Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands thanks to the victory of the proletariat…. Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the Jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth.
So, it turns out that there was basis in Jewish history for what Mahathir Mohammed said, as well as ample evidence—the creation of the state of Israel, for instance—that world Jewry had advanced considerably toward its goal of world domination in the century and a half since Levy wrote to Karl Marx. The Jews, quite simply, could not shake themselves loose from the notion that they were God’s chosen people, not even after they stopped believing in God. By rejecting Christ, they condemned themselves to worship one false Messiah after another—most recently Communism and Zionism. In their book La Question du Messie, the Lemann brothers, both of whom converted from Judaism to Catholicism, and both of whom became priests, compared present day Jews to the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai: “having grown weary of waiting for the return of Moses… they feasted and danced around the golden calf.” Zionism and Communism are two of the most recent false Messiahs which the Jews have fallen down to worship. Having rejected the supernatural Messiah who died on the cross, the Jews condemned themselves to worship one false natural Messiah after another and repeat the cycle of enthusiasm leading to disillusionment over and over again throughout their history. Those illusions both found fulfillment in and lent themselves to the creation of the birth of the Jewish state. On January 6, 1948, the chief rabbi of Palestine announced that “Eventually it [Israel] will lead to the inauguration of the true union of the nations, through which will be fulfilled the eternal message to mankind of our immortal prophets.” In the history of Jewish messianism, fantasies of racial superiority alternate with contradictory fantasies of universal brotherhood. “The great ideal of Judaism,” The Jewish World announced on February 9,1883 “is that… the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teaching and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations—a greater Judaism in fact— all the separate races and religions shall disappear.”
It was from this Talmudic materialism that Marxism (along with other Jewish revolutionary/globalist ideologies like Zionism) came about. The fact that the Bolshevik movement featured so many Jews in its leadership cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence – for the global communist revolution it promised is exactly what the Jewish elite have always wanted, and still continue to fight for to this very day. The ultimate failure of communism in the Soviet Union takes nothing away from this point – as Jones points out, the Jews “condemned themselves to worship one false Messiah after another – most recently Communism and Zionism.” In other words, the Jewish pursual of communism was irrational, but nevertheless pursued out of their ethnic interest – out of a desire for ethnic liberation from the “oppression” they have historically suffered in European countries. Ethnic liberation via human effort and historical “progress” leading up to revolution (as seen in Marxist theory) is a theme in Jewish thought that predates even Marx.
Jones explains how the Kabbalah – an ancient Jewish mystical/esoteric school of thought – gave rise to this sort of utopian revolutionary spirit. Without getting into all the specific details of Kabbalahic doctrine (which you can find in Jones’ book), it can be summarized by the idea that the purpose of Jews on earth was to bring “tiqqun,” or healing into the world by re-igniting the “holy sparks” of divine understanding which had been scattered throughout the world and suppressed. The suppression of the sparks had political implications as well, being represented by social/political oppression. This was how the Jewish Diaspora was explained – to facilitate the discovery of these “holy sparks” by the Jews. The long-foretold Messiah, rather than bringing about “tiqqun” himself, was instead the result of “tiqqun” being achieved by the Jewish people. Cosmic redemption via “tiqqun” was also tied to the national redemption of Israel, and from this one can see the roots of the Zionist ideology that Hess embraced, as well as his communism which Marx would later inherit. Jones has this to say about the Kabbalahic connection (3):
The political implications of the Lurianic Kaballah seem clear enough. The Messiah must now wait upon man’s efforts. He can only come once the process of tiqqun or purification and healing has been accomplished by man, i.e., by the Jews here on earth, who act as the vanguard of redemption much as the communist party at a later date would function as the vanguard of the proletariat. Without tiqqun, “it is impossible that the messianic king come.” From here it is but a short leap of thought to the conclusion that Israel had become its own Messiah, or as Scholem says, “By transferring to Israel, the historical nation, much of the redemptive task formerly considered as the messiah’s, many of his distinctive personal traits, as drawn in apocalyptic literature, were now obliterated.”
As mentioned before, this aspect of Kabbalah was used as a means of explaining the Jewish diaspora. Jones also explains in the preceding paragraph how it emerged specifically as a result of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, as a means of explaining how catastrophes like these fit into the grand scheme of Jewish redemption. Again we see the “Jewish revolutionary spirit” emerging in response to their expulsion from European societies. And again we see how Judaism operates as a “group evolutionary strategy,” adapting its philosophy and worldview in response to obstacles that stand in the way of the “redemption of Israel,” such as alleged “oppression” at the hands of European populations. The great Russian novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s historical account “Two Hundred Years Together” (which will be looked at in more detail later) reveals that the Bolshevik Revolution was indeed perceived by Russian Jews as a means of ending the oppression they suffered under ethnic Russians and establishing Jewish hegemony in Russia, and eventually the world. The revolution was eagerly supported by many Jews, particularly Zionists. A Russian Jew named D.S. Pasmanik cited by Solzhenitsyn bemoaned the fact that many of his fellow Jews were so openly boasting about their role in the revolution, fearing that such a blatant display would forever ingrain anti-Semitism into the hearts of ethnic Russians (4).
D. S. Pasmanik evokes in 1924 “those Jews who proclaimed loudly and clearly the genetic link between Bolshevism and Judaism, who openly boasted about the sentiments of sympathy which the mass of the Jewish people nourished towards the power of the Commissioners.” At the same time, Pasmanik himself pointed out “the points which may at first be the foundation of a rapprochement between Bolshevism and Judaism… These are: the concern for happiness on earth and that of social justice… Judaism was the first to put forward these two great principles.”
As Pasmanik’s testimony indicates, the Marxist vision for global revolution to establish a classless egalitarian society would have had a natural appeal to the Talmudic, Kabbalahic Jew who wished to bring about “happiness on earth” and “social justice” for the ultimate goal of achieving “tiqqun.” Communism was both globalist and utopian, and as we shall see later, actually allowed Jews in practice to retain their Jewish ethnic identity while relegating the gentiles to a generic, deracinated, decultured mass. While Marx may have formally disavowed his Jewish religious traditions in favor of atheism, it was clear that the Talmudic influence of his mentor Hess likewise had a great impact on his own philosophy.
Moses Hess, the Communist Rabbi
Moses Hess served as the inspiration for many of Marx’s communist ideas, despite Marx himself later disagreeing with Hess on certain points of socialist ideology, namely in their evaluation of Zionism and Jewish identitarianism. In fact, Hess was sometimes referred to as the “communist rabbi” due to his connection with and influence on Marx. An article written in 1959 by British historian James Joll attests to this:
Although he can claim to have originated two of the major movements of our time, Communism and Zionism, and in spite of having streets named after him in Jerusalem and Tel- Aviv, Moses Hess is a disregarded figure, remembered mainly as a butt for Karl Marx’s attacks (The donkey, Moses Hess’), a comparatively unimportant member of the Young Hegelian circle from which the master sprang. Hess married a prostitute in order, as Professor Berlin tells us, ‘to redress the injustice perpetrated by society.’ The action was typical of his nature and beliefs; (it was typical too that the marriage should have turned out to be a happy one). Hess’s saintliness, his passionate belief in love and equality together with his belief in men’s capacity for co-operation and planned economic action made him a Communist before he met Marx in 1841. He differed from Marx in his belief that the end of the class struggle would not come about through violence, but as a result of a moral change, a spontaneous growth of solidarity and justice among men. What prevented him from becoming a Marxist was his belief, to quote Professor Berlin again, in ‘benevolence and love towards individual human beings and not just humanity at large’; but he also differed from Marx in his understanding of the ideals of nationality as expressed, for example, by Mazzini. It was this sense of the significance of nationality, and his own Jewish upbringing and experiences in Prussia and France, that turned him to the second great enthusiasm of his life— the advocacy of a national state for the Jews in Palestine and the undermining of the moral and intellectual position of those Jews who, as he himself had done when young, placed their hopes on assimilation into a liberal secular society.
With Hess’ thinking, we see a slightly different approach than Marx, but even despite their differing views on how a communist social order would be achieved and how they viewed their own Jewish identities, the overarching themes are the same. For all his disagreement with Marx’s vision of violent class struggle, his desire for a centrally planned communist economy was every bit as violent as Marx’s was (which should be obvious to libertarians who recognize that socialism in any form is institutionalized trespass and aggression). Hess, despite being a Jewish nationalist (i.e. Zionist), was decidedly a globalist in his thinking regarding the rest of the world, believing that communism could be achieved through feelings of “solidarity and justice” among “humanity at large.” Even more revealing is what Michael Hoffman explains in his book “Judaism Discovered” (5):
For Hess, the cardinal sin of the Judaic people was to abandon their heritage, while the cardinal objective of his Communism was to persuade all other people to abandon theirs…
Communism was the means for achieving Judaic supremacy over the gentiles. The gentiles were fated to be reduced to a faceless, deracinated mass. Capitalism was also capable of producing this effect, through free trade and the unfettered financialization of society, in which the management of money becomes a vast business in itself, and where the highest virtue, after obeisance to Judaism, is profit.
While Hoffman’s attribution of globalism to capitalism is misguided (as I have explained before in an earlier article) the salient point is that Communism was intended by Hess as a means to exert Jewish supremacy over the gentiles. In fact, Hess even viewed the French Revolution (in many ways a foreshadowing of the Bolshevik Revolution) as “Jewish revenge” upon their gentile “oppressors” (6):
The French Revolution was the beginning of the violent stage of the Judaic revenge. Hess set Communism in motion partly as ritual revenge on the goyim: ‘…you modern nations have denied these indefatigable workers and industrious merchants civil rights. What persecutions! What tears! What blood you children of Israel have shed in the last 1800 years! But you sons of Judea, in spite of all suffering are still here!…You have escaped destruction in your long dispersion, in spite of the terrible tax you have paid during eighteen centuries of persecution. But what is left of your nation is mighty enough to rebuild the gates of Jerusalem. This is your mission.
And unlike Marx his successor, Hess was far more open about the Talmudic influences on his thinking (which was likely the inspiration for his extreme hatred for the “goyim”) (7):
[Hess] was an unabashed, fanatical proponent of the Talmud…[ he] did not personally practice Judaism. Neither does Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz or Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in our time. Observance of ritual is beside the point. Over the centuries, allegiance to the Oral Traditions is credited with having preserved the purity of the Judaic race and that’s what counts:
‘You who declare the teachings and ordinances of our sages to be foolish inventions, pray tell us what would have become of Judaism and the Jews if they had not, through the institutions of the Talmudic sages, thrown a protecting fence around their religion, so as to safeguard it for the coming days? Would they have continued to exist for 1800 years and have resisted the influence of the Christian and Mohammedan civilization? Would they not long ago have disappeared as a nation from the face of the earth…?’
Aside from the Talmudic nature of Marxist ideology, what else motivates this “Jewish revolutionary spirit” that we see in both Hess and Marx? The answer can be found in the investigative work of Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist who has studied the political and intellectual activity of 20th century Jews in detail. As the main thesis in his work “Culture of Critique” argues, Judaism is ultimately a group evolutionary strategy. As such, the behavior of Jews in society and politics tends to be geared toward the advancement of their ethnic group interests. One might wonder, then, why Jews (who tend to be economically well-off in Western countries today) might be drawn to radical leftism, which would seem to be contrary to their economic interests. And indeed, while Eastern European Jews during the 19th and early 20th centuries (both in Europe and in America) were generally of low socioeconomic status (thus making their affinity for leftist politics more understandable), economics alone is insufficient to explain Jewish leftism in general. MacDonald argues instead that cultural and ethnic factors are the bigger issues here (8).
The suggestion is that in general Jewish political motivation is influenced by non-economic issues related to perceived Jewish group interests., the latter influenced by social identity processes. Similarly in the politically charged area of cultural attitudes, Silberman notes “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social” issues.” A perceived Jewish group interest in cultural pluralism transcends negative personal attitudes regarding the behavior in question.
Silberman’s comment that Jewish attitudes are “firmly rooted in history” is particularly relevant: A consistent tendency has been for Jews to be persecuted as a minority group within a culturally or ethnically homogeneous society…. The point here is that the perceived Jewish group interest in developing a pluralistic society is of far more importance than mere economic self-interest in determining Jewish political behavior.
One can immediately see, therefore, why communism, a universalistic, internationalist, egalitarian ideology would be perceived by many Jews as serving their ethnic interests. The destruction of gentile nations and cultures (which inevitably must occur under communism) would have given Jews protection from the anti-Semitism which, as MacDonald has pointed out in a passage that will be quoted later, has historically taken hold mostly in societies which are culturally and ethnically homogeneous and stable.
A complication here is the common claim that many Jewish leftists do not self-identify as Jews (a claim which is strongly contested elsewhere in MacDonald’s book as well as by Solzhenitsyn). MacDonald addresses this objection by pointing out that even supposedly “de-ethnicized Jews” (i.e. those who do not openly display their Jewish identities) are still over-represented in radical leftist movements and underrepresented in right-wing movements. (Neo-“conservatism” doesn’t count as right-wing, by the way – sorry Ben Shapiro!) Even if some of these right-wing movements are “anti-Semitic,” it should be irrelevant to such “de-ethnicized Jews” – if indeed they are completely de-ethnicized as is implied by the objection. MacDonald argues that Jewish group interests are formed by what he calls “social identity processes” – to which not even supposedly “de-ethnicized” Jews are immune.
In summary, he holds that radical Jewish political activism is the result of strong identification with a Jewish in-group, paired with “very negative and exaggerated conceptions of the wider gentile society, and particularly the most powerful elements of that society, as an out-group. As an example he cites the “New Left” movement of the 1960’s which was marked by “radical social criticism in which all elements that contributed to the cohesive social fabric of mid-century America were regarded as oppressive and in need of radical alteration” (9). One can see, therefore, how “social identity processes” would give a globalist and utopian ideology like Marxism a strong appeal to Jews, as it granted them a positive self identification with a supposedly moral cause (thus enhancing their sense of in-group identity) while simultaneously reinforcing their “negative evaluation of gentile power structures.” In addition, he points out (p. 87):
Psychologists have found that a sense of moral rectitude is an important component of self-esteem, and self-esteem has been proposed as a motivating factor in social identity.
The Jewish revolutionary spirit makes more sense in light of MacDonald’s analysis of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. In summary, Jewish affinity for radical leftism is motivated primarily by a survivalist instinct that developed over the course of their history of being reviled and persecuted by their host European societies. The development of Jewish affinity for radical leftism was in turn reinforced by social identity processes which strengthened their positive in-group identity as well as their negative perception of the gentile out-group. As radical leftist – especially communist – social revolutions are extremely destabilizing to the majority culture and society, Jews see such social fragmentation as beneficial to their prospects for survival within Western society. When in-group preference within the majority population is strong and its social/civic institutions intact and stable, so-called “anti-Semitism” becomes a bigger threat. But when in-group preference has been eroded by multiculturalism and white guilt, and social/civic institutions (like the nuclear family) have been uprooted, then the host population can no longer offer meaningful resistance to the social/political agenda of Jews.
When one looks at the history of Jews in European countries, a common theme emerges. Jews have been expelled from a total of 109 different countries in the past. Did all 109 of these countries suffer from irrational bouts of anti-Semitism? Or was there a basis for all these expulsions? The clannish behavior of Jews combined with their economically and politically subversive behaviors eventually compelled the host populations of these countries to kick them out. This in turn led Jews to re-adjust their behaviors and seek out ways to gain economic and political dominance in their host countries without generating resistance from the host populations. The pursual of this strategy is the basis for Jewish support of multiculturalism, open borders, and cultural degeneracy in Western countries. Interestingly enough, many of these same Jews support precisely the oppositeconcepts and policies when it comes to Israel, or even in their own communities formed within Western countries.
The motive here is indisputable. Jews attempt to undermine the social and cultural cohesiveness of the host populations of Western countries to prevent “anti-Semitism” from becoming a threat to Jewish existence in these Western countries, and to eliminate any real resistance to Jewish economic and political hegemony. 20th century communism was part and parcel of this agenda, and modern-day communism/radical leftism is no different.
Jewish Bolshevism and Trotskyism
The great Russian novelist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (who experienced the horrors of the Soviet gulags himself) recalls the nature of the violent Bolshevik Revolution that plunged Russia into totalitarian communist rule for nearly a century in an interview with David Duke in 2002:
You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.
The last line is revealing – just who are the people in control of the global media? It is undeniable that most of the mainstream media networks and publications are owned by Jews. Who, of course, have a strong motive to deny any connection between their ethnic group/interests and infamous historical atrocities like the Bolshevik Revolution. Solzhenitsyn’s historical account of the Revolution and the events leading up to it, titled “Two Hundred Years Together,” details the history of Jews and ethnic Russians in the Russian Empire. The first part, “Russian Jewish History,” is fairly innocuous – he describes the life of Jewish communities from the late 18th century up to the early 20th century just before the Russian Revolution. Those who are hypersensitive to “anti-Semitism” might take issue with Solzhenitsyn’s implication that Jews were no less oppressed in Tsarist Russia than average Russian peasants, but that’s about it. The second part, “Jews in the Soviet Union,” is the reason why the book has been blacklisted in most English-speaking countries. For it is in this section that the uncomfortable (and politically incorrect) truth is exposed: Bolshevism, the ideology that led to the deaths of over 40,000,000 (forty million) Russians, was indeed a Jewish-led movement. Solzhenitsyn continues (11):
Bolshevik Jews often had, in addition to their surname as underground revolutionaries, pseudonyms, or modified surnames. Example: in an obituary of 1928, the death of a Bolshevik of the first hour, Lev Mikhailovich Mikhailov, who was known to the Party as Politikus, in other words by a nickname; his real name, Elinson, he carried it to the grave. What prompted an Aron Rupelevich to take the Ukrainian surname of Taratut? Was Aronovitch Tarchis ashamed of his name or did he want to gain more weight by taking the name of Piatnitsky? And what about the Gontcharovs, Vassilenko, and others…? Were they considered in their own families as traitors or simply as cowards?
Observations made on the spot have remained. I. F. Najivin records the impressions he received at the very beginning of Soviet power: in the Kremlin, in the administration of the Sovnarkom, “reigns disorder and chaos. We see only Latvians and even more Latvians, Jews and even more Jews. I have never been an anti‐Semite, but there were so many it could not escape your attention, and each one was younger than the last.” Korolenko himself, as liberal and extremely tolerant as he was, he who was deeply sympathetic to the Jews who had been victims of the pogroms, noted in his Notebooks in the spring of 1919: “Among the Bolsheviks there are a great number of Jews, men and women. Their lack of tact, their assurance are striking and irritating,” “Bolshevism has already exhausted itself in Ukraine, the ‘Commune’ encounters only hatred on its way. One sees constantly emerge among the Bolsheviks—and especially the Cheka—Jewish physiognomies, and this exacerbates the traditional feelings, still very virulent, of Judæophobia.”
From the early years of Soviet rule, the Jews were not only superior in number in the upper echelons of the Party, but also, more remarkably and more sensitively for the population, to local administrations, provinces and townships, to inferior spheres, where the anonymous mass of the Streitbrecher had come to the rescue of the new and still fragile power which had consolidated it, saved it. The author of the Book of the Jews of Russia writes: “One cannot fail to evoke the action of the many Jewish Bolsheviks who worked in the localities as subordinate agents of the dictatorship and who caused innumerable ills to the population of the country”—and he adds: “including the Jewish population.”
The omnipresence of the Jews alongside the Bolsheviks had, during these terrible days and months, the most atrocious consequences. Among them is the assassination of the Imperial family, of which, today, everybody speaks, and where the Russians now exaggerate the share of the Jews, who find in this heart-wrenching thought an evil enjoyment. As it should, the most dynamic Jews (and they are many) were at the height of events and often at the command posts. Thus, for the assassination of the Tsar’s family: the guards (the assassins) were Latvians, Russians, and Magyars, but two [Jewish] characters played a decisive role: Philip Goloshchekin and Yakov Yurovsky (who had received baptism).
Thus, as Solzhenitsyn notes, Jews often took measures to conceal their Jewish identities as Bolshevik revolutionaries. This is because ethnic Russians were well aware of the relevance of the Jewish Question in their society even before the Revolution, as Solzhenitsyn describes in detail in the first part of the book. Yakov Yurovsky, as the last sentence in the above quote describes, even underwent a Christian baptism.
It is also worth noting the conflict which later arose between the Leninist-Trotskyist faction of the Communists, and the Stalinist faction. Lenin and Trotsky, both Jews, along with other Jews, enjoyed a very strong influence among the party leadership in the early years of the Soviet Union. Both were infected with the same kind of Talmudic idealism and globalism that characterized Marx’s thinking. Trotsky in particular advocated strongly for “permanent global revolution” to overthrow the bourgeoisie everywhere in the world and ultimately to establish a one-world state (which he denied would be a state, much like the “anarcho”-communists of today). One can see how if the comparatively more conservative and nationalistic Stalin had not purged the Trotskyites from the party, and Trotsky had gotten his way, the Soviet death toll would have far exceeded the 58 million that were killed historically. Countless more overseas would have been killed as well in Trotsky’s desired “global revolution.” Dan Michaels of the Occidental Observer explains, drawing from Andrei Burovsky’s book “Myths and the Truth about 1937: Stalin’s Counter-Revolution“:
The author refers to the war between the two devils as Stalin’s counter-revolution because, until Stalin undertook the great purge, the revolution and the Communist state had been overwhelmingly a Jewish enterprise with Lenin and Trotsky the leading lights. The goal of the Trotskyites, as demonstrated by the Comintern [Communist International], was to establish a permanent worldwide revolution “to fight by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet Republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state.”
By this definition, it was quite obvious that Trotsky and his cohorts were embarking upon a reckless and bloody adventure to establish a utopia based on nothing except their own fanciful dreams. To accomplish this, agents in every important country, usually citizens of those countries, either volunteered or were recruited to undermine the bourgeois government under which they currently lived and agitate for world revolution.
According to Burovsky, Stalin’s purge of the Trotskyites from the party leadership therefore represented the lesser of two evils. This is interesting because, as Michaels observes, Western historians tend to focus primarily on the crimes of Stalin while glossing over the atrocities committed by Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin, as Burovsky explains, was not necessarily less bloodthirsty or less committed to communist ideals than Lenin or Trotsky, but was decidedly less idealistic and much more calculating, preferring to establish and secure socialism in Russia first before embarking on “world revolution” as the Trotskyites were so eager to do. This relatively more conservative attitude with Stalin, therefore, is what made him the lesser evil compared to Lenin and Trotsky. Michaels goes on:
Burovsky notes that the end goal of both devils, Stalin and Trotsky, was the same — world communism, but the means chosen by Trotsky to achieve it would have caused worldwide mayhem and countless millions more deaths.
In addition, Michaels points out that although “Jews were prominent in both factions… Stalin insisted their loyalty be directed exclusively to his concept of a ‘socialist’ Soviet Union while their own interests and unrealistic goals be set aside. When, in his eyes, they did not comply, he had them killed.” Thus, we see that Stalin in some sense “de-Talmudized” the Soviet communists by partially forsaking the globalism and utopianism that had previously characterized its outlook under the more Jewish Leninist-Trotskyite leadership. This makes it all the more interesting, then, the fact that the crimes of Stalin are focused on to a much greater degree than those of Lenin and Trotsky. A coincidence? I think not.
Answering Some Objections
As the Jewish-Bolshevik connection is a politically incorrect “hate-fact,” much effort has been spent trying to deny its truth as an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.” While calling people anti-Semitic is not an argument, it may still be helpful to go through a few of the common objections to the “hate-facts” presented above.
First, the obvious one. Yes, we are all aware that communism was practiced in China, Vietnam, South America, Cuba, and various other mono-ethnic countries without significant Jewish populations. But the fact that some non-Jews have used communism as a means to achieve non-ethnospecific goals says nothing about the propensity for Jews to use the same means for their own ethnic interests in a different setting. As the subjective theory of value tells us, different actors can use the same means for varied ends. But nonetheless, the fact remains that communism has distinctly Jewish ideological roots, and was developed with Jewish ethnic interests in mind, as has already been shown. It is also a historical fact that the first real implementation of communism was by the actions of Jews during the Bolshevik Revolution. In light of these observations, the objection based on the existence of communism in settings that did not involve ethnic conflict is hardly an argument. Rather, it is a red herring meant to distract attention from the Jewish-Bolshevik connection.
Some will argue that the Jews suffered equally as much (if not more so) under Soviet communism as gentiles did – and therefore it cannot be said that Bolshevism was a Jewish movement. But neither the premise nor the conclusion drawn from it holds up under scrutiny. Solzhenitsyn recounts from his time in the gulag how many Jews actually had it much easier than their gentile gulag-mates. They were often assigned as “Idiots” (“an inmate slang term to denote other inmates who didn’t do common labor but managed to obtain positions with easy duties, usually pretending to be incapable of doing hard work because of poor health”) in a much higher proportion than ethnic Russians and also were shielded from disciplinary action by Jewish officers (who were also represented in higher proportion than ethnic Russian officers). These “free employees,” as Solzhenitsyn observes, demonstrated a much stronger degree of in-group preference toward the Jewish prisoners than Russian officers did toward Russian prisoners (p. 470-471). This testimony from Solzhenitsyn, corroborated by many of his personal sources who also suffered in the gulags, calls into question the popular narrative that it was the Jews who suffered the most. The reality was that because of the strong ethnic bonds between Jews that still existed even between boss and prisoner, and the fact that Jews were overrepresented among the “free bosses,” Jewish inmates ended up receiving better treatment from their overlords than did Russian inmates. Solzhenitsyn explains (12).
This particular Jewish national contract between free bosses and inmates is impossible to overlook. A free Jew was not so stupid to actually see an “Enemy of the People” or an evil character preying on “the people’s property” in an imprisoned Jew (unlike what a dumb-headed Russian saw in another Russian). He in the first place saw a suffering tribesman – and I praise them for this sobriety! Those who know about terrific Jewish mutual supportiveness (especially exacerbated by mass deaths of Jews under Hitler) would understand that a free Jewish boss simply could not indifferently watch Jewish prisoners flounder in starvation and die, and not help. But I am unable to imagine a free Russian employee who would save and promote his fellow Russian prisoners to the privileged positions only because of their nationality. Though we have lost 15 millions during collectivization, we are still numerous. You can’t care about everyone, and nobody would even think about it.
Is the in-group preference demonstrated by Jewish prisoners and the “free” guards by itself proof that Bolshevism was motivated by Jewish group interest? No, but it does cast doubt on the objection that Jewish suffering under communism disproves the existence of any connection between communism and Jewish group interest. Solzhenitsyn does not go into much detailed analysis regarding the ideological or sociological connections between Judaism and communism (he in fact denies that Judaism in general was responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution and argues that Jewish Bolsheviks were apostates from Jewish tradition rather than representatives of it), but the facts he presents in his historical work raise questions about these connections that other writers have since investigated with a more critical eye.
Kevin MacDonald has pointed out in a paper in The Occidental Quarterly that Jewish Bolshevism, in many ways, was actually a continuation of a common theme observed throughout the history of Jewish economic and political relations with their European neighbors in Western countries, with a slight twist.
This is the overarching generalization which one can make about Jewish economic behavior over the ages. Their role went far beyond performing tasks deemed inappropriate for the natives for religious reasons; rather they were often tasks at which natives would be relatively less ruthless in exploiting their fellows. This was especially the case in Eastern Europe, where economic arrangements such as tax farming, estate management, and monopolies on retail liquor distribution lasted far longer than in the West:
“In this way, the Jewish arendator became the master of life and death over the population of entire districts, and having nothing but a short-term and purely financial interest in the relationship, was faced with the irresistible temptation to pare his temporary subjects to the bone. On the noble estates he tended to put his relatives and co-religionists in charge of the flour-mill, the brewery, and in particular of the lord’s taverns where by custom the peasants were obliged to drink. On the church estates, he became the collector of all ecclesiastical dues, standing by the church door for his payment from tithe-payers, baptized infants, newly-weds, and mourners. On the [royal] estates…, he became in effect the Crown Agent, farming out the tolls, taxes, and courts, and adorning his oppressions with all the dignity of royal authority.”
Jewish involvement in the Communist elite of the USSR can be seen as a variation on an ancient theme in Jewish culture rather than a new one sprung from the special circumstances of the Bolshevik Revolution. Rather than being the willing agents of exploitative non-Jewish elites who were clearly separated from both the Jews and the people they ruled, Jews became an entrenched part of an exploitative and oppressive elite in which group boundaries were blurred. This blurring of boundaries was aided by four processes, all covered by Slezkine: shedding overt Jewish identities in favor of a veneer of international socialism in which Jewish identity and ethnic networking were relatively invisible; seeking lower-profile positions in order to de-emphasize Jewish preeminence (e.g., Trotsky); adopting Slavic names; and engaging in a limited amount of intermarriage with non-Jewish elites. Indeed, the “plethora of Jewish wives” among non-Jewish leaders doubtless heightened the Jewish atmosphere of the top levels of the Soviet government, given that everyone, especially Stalin, appears to have been quite conscious of ethnicity. For their part, anti-Semites have accused Jews of having “implanted those of their own category as wives and husbands for influential figures and officials.”
From MacDonald’s analysis, we see that the Bolshevik Revolution provided Jewish elites with an opportunity to expand their economic and political power over Russian society even further by abandoning their traditional “middleman” role and moving directly to the top of the hierarchy. All this was done while cleverly concealing their Jewish identities. Thus, contrary to Solzhenitsyn’s misguided claim, the revolution was in fact a continuation, not an abandonment, of the “Jewish revolutionary spirit” that has characterized Jewish activity in European societies even before the advent of communism.
Furthermore, MacDonald also points out that the advancement of Jewish group interests under Russian socialism as a whole was disguised by the claim that Marxism is a “universalist” or “internationalist” ideology that supposedly transcends ethnic and cultural boundaries (13). The apparently universalist nature of Marxism may be another reason why some have trouble seeing the connection between it and Jewish identity. Indeed, as MacDonald observes, Jews in Western societies both yesterday and today tend to campaign aggressively against nationalism for their host countries and populations in the name of universalist-sounding ideologies (ranging from individualism/liberalism to “tolerance and inclusivity” and appeals to the “universal brotherhood of man,” etc.) while at the same time embracing strong ethnic identitarianism for themselves. The Jew-dominated communist government that reigned in Soviet-era Poland is cited as a prominent example of this (14). Such a double standard, of course, cannot be pointed out in polite company for fear of being smeared as an “anti-Semite” (i.e. Literally Hitler™), which is precisely why so few have observed it.
Thus, far from being evidence against the presence of Jewish group interest in Bolshevism/communist revolutions, the universal nature of Marxism comports quite well with Jewish group interests. It simultaneously allows Jews to retain their own group identity while avoiding the scrutiny of gentiles, and subverts the national ties of gentile peoples for the universal cause of communist revolution.
Another objection to the Jewish-Bolshevik connection is that Bolshevism would have been antithetical to the economic interests of Jewish elites, especially those in the West who tended to be wealthy capitalists. However, MacDonald has demonstrated that Jewish political activity is driven more by sociological incentives rather than strictly economic ones (15). MacDonald also discusses how wealthy Jewish capitalists in Western countries supported the Bolshevik Revolution despite the apparent fact that communism was opposed to their economic interests (16).
The emphasis here on social identity processes is compatible with Jewish radicalism serving particular perceived Jewish group interests. Anti-Semitism and Jewish economic interests were undoubtedly important motivating factors for Jewish leftism in czarist Russia. Jewish leaders in Western societies, many for whom were wealthy capitalists, proudly acknowledged Jewish over-representation in the Russian revolutionary movement; they also provided financial and political support for these movements by, for example, attempting to influence US foreign policy. Representative of this attitude is financier Jacob Schiff’s statement that “the claim that among the ranks of those who in Russia are seeking to undermine governmental authority there are a considerable number of Jews may perhaps be true. In fact, it would be rather surprising if some of those terribly afflicted by persecution and exceptional laws should not at last have turned against their merciless oppressors.
In summary, the testimony of Solzhenitsyn, the social analysis of MacDonald, and the evidence of the open boasting of many Jews about their role in the Bolshevik revolution all serve to demonstrate that Bolshevism was indeed a Jewish movement. This truth, unfortunately, has often been obscured by political correctness. And as Solzhenitsyn said, the fact that the perpetrators of such a massive atrocity have not been unmasked and identified only goes to show that the global media is under their control. As it is sometimes said: to determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question – who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?
Even to this day, the perpetrators of the Bolshevik Revolution continue to exercise an insidious influence on world politics, but in a different form.
Internationalism, Zionism, and Neoconservatism
There is an interesting parallel between the radical leftism/communism that has characterized Jewish political activism in the past, and the Zionism/neoconservatism that many Jews embrace now. While neoconservatism is commonly associated with “right wing” politics, it is in fact only a variation of the globalist, internationalist ideology of communism. The fact that many of the founding neoconservative thinkers like Irving Kristol held Trotsky in very high regard (and in fact were influenced by his worldview) is a telling sign of this. Like Trotsky, neoconservatives support the idea of “global revolution,” albeit in slightly different form. They support military intervention by the US in countries all around the world to (in the words of Woodrow Wilson) “make the world safe for democracy.” That is, the neocon vision involves reconstructing the whole world into the “liberal democratic” image of the modern West – albeit inconsistently. This kind of global Messianism bears a striking resemblance to the globalist vision of Marxism – the only difference is that the false “Messiah” of the neocons is the American military carrying the torch of liberal democracy to the world, rather than working-class revolutionaries carrying the torch of communism.
Interestingly enough, while neoconservatives often make a show of condemning foreign dictators like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Bashar al-Assad, and Vladimir Putin who supposedly are “serial violators of human rights,” they turn a conspicuous blind eye to other countries who are arguably even worse violators of human rights. Two prominent examples are Israel and Saudi Arabia – the former which has recently been in the news for its massacring of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and has been displacing many more Palestinians from their homelands over the past few decades, and the latter (also a close military ally of Israel, interestingly enough, despite the fact that the Saudis are Sunni Muslims who historically have hated Jews) which enforces an extremely strict regime of Sharia Law and has also been bombing and starving the country of Yemen to death over the past few years (with the help of American weapons and airplane fuel). Why does the US not bomb Israel or Saudi Arabia for these atrocities? Why does the US not push for regime change in these countries? Perhaps to answer this question we ought to wonder which countries actually benefit from the endless US military intervention in the Middle East (hint: not America).
I have written an article in the past exposing the pernicious Zionist influence over American foreign policy. I will not attempt to rehash all of the same points here. There is another article, however, titled “Whose War?”, written by Pat Buchanan at the start of the Iraq War in 2003 which goes into much more detail regarding the Jewish interest in American warmongering.
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentarymagazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. … Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London … one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”
Of course, this piece was received with howls of “anti-Semitism” from the neoconservatives in addition to all the “reasonable moderates” and pro-war leftists who were all beating the war drums in unison at the time. Quite telling, isn’t it? The neocons seem to be fully aware of their own ideology’s Jewish connection (as is especially apparent in Max Boot’s comments cited above) and yet were foaming at the mouth at the very suggestion from Buchanan and co. that the Iraq War for which they had vigorously campaigned had anything to do with Jewish interests! Buchanan goes on:
They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.
What Buchanan and the rest of the paleoconservatives correctly recognized was that these neoconservatives (whom he observes in addition to being Jewish, were composed mostly of “ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution”) were actively promoting an Israel First foreign policy for the Americangovernment. And we see here that the same Zionist-Bolshevik theme recurs: nationalism for the “chosen ones” and internationalism (this time in the form of perpetual war in the Middle East) for the goyim (read: Americans). Just as communism was meant to destroy the culture, tradition, and identity of gentile nations for the purpose of furthering Jewish hegemony, neoconservatism entails the destruction of the Middle East (making the Middle East “safe for Israel”) and the subordination of the American military to Zionist interests, all at the expense of American taxpayers. Communism and neoconservatism are two sides of the same globalist coin.
In addition, MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” also discusses neoconservative views on immigration, in fact dedicating an entire lengthy chapter to the issue (which I would highly recommend reading in full). Many neoconservatives, in contrast to the more nationalistic paleoconservatives and alt-right, tend to voice (nominal) opposition to illegal immigration while supporting a theoretically unlimited amount of legal immigration. They also tend to vigorously counter-signal those “dissident” conservatives who take more principled anti-immigrationstances, treating them essentially the same as the left treats them (i.e. calling them “racist,” “fascist,” etc. etc.). MacDonald gives some specific examples (17):
Because liberal immigration policies are vital Jewish interest, it is not surprising that support for liberal immigration policies spans the Jewish political spectrum. We have seen that Sidney Hook, who along with the other New York intellectuals may be viewed as an intellectual precursor of neoconservatism, identified democracy with the equality of differences and with the maximization of cultural diversity. Neoconservatives have been strong advocates of liberal immigration policies, and there has been a conflict between predominantly Jewish neoconservatives and predominantly gentile paleoconservatives over the issue of Third World immigration into the United States. Neoconservatives Norman Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted very negatively to an article by a paleoconservative concerned that such immigration would eventually lead to the United States being dominated by such immigrants. Other examples are neoconservatives Julian Simon and Ben Wattenberg, both of whom advocate very high levels of immigration from all parts of the world, so that the United States will become what Wattenberg describes as the world’s first “Universal Nation.” Based on recent data, Fetzer reports that Jews remain far more favorable to immigration to the United States than any other ethnic group or religion.
MacDonald also explains the general history of Jewish involvement in US immigration policy here, reiterating a point made previously regarding Jewish Bolshevism. Like the Bolsheviks, modern Jewish open-borders advocates wish to dilute Gentile culture so as to create a more pluralistic society. The thinking goes that since Jewish persecution has historically taken place in more culturally and ethnically homogeneous societies (i.e. European countries) as opposed to more heterogeneous societies (i.e. America), the dilution of the native-born and predominantly white populations of Western countries will make them safer for Jews (although one might question the accuracy of this kind of thinking given the results of the Islamization of Europe taking place currently). Here is what MacDonald has to say (18):
The Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy in the United States is especially noteworthy as an aspect of ethnic conflict. Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy has had certain unique qualities that have distinguished Jewish interests from the interests of other groups favoring liberal immigration policies. Throughout much of the period from 1881 to 1965, one Jewish interest in liberal immigration policies stemmed from a desire to provide a sanctuary for Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic persecutions in Europe and elsewhere. Anti-Semitic persecutions have been a recurrent phenomenon in the modern world beginning with the Russian pogroms of 1881 and continuing into the post-World War II era in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. As a result, liberal immigration has been a Jewish interest because “survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other lands.” For a similar reason, Jews have consistently advocated an internationalist foreign policy because “an internationally-minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries.”
There is also evidence that Jews, much more than any other European-derived ethnic group in the United States, have viewed liberal immigration policies as a mechanism of ensuring that the United States would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous society. Pluralism serves both internal (within-group) and external (between-group) Jewish interests. Pluralism serves internal Jewish interests because it legitimates the internal Jewish interest in rationalizing and openly advocating an interest in overt rather than semi-cryptic Jewish group commitment and nonassimilation, what Howard Sachar terms its function in “legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society”…
Ethnic and religious pluralism also serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously or ethnically homogeneous (see SAID). Conversely, one reason for the relative lack of anti-Semitism in the United States compared to Europe was that “Jews did not stand out as a solitary group of [religious] non-conformists.” Although ethnic and cultural pluralism are certainly not guaranteed to satisfy Jewish interest, it is nonetheless the case that ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies have been perceived by Jews as more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles.
Indeed, Jews have a vested interest in promoting the “invade the world, invite the world” agenda that has largely characterized American foreign policy and immigration policy over the past few decades. The Jewish neoconservative lobby has successfully co-opted the American military for the pursual of Zionist interests, while Jewish radical leftists (along with neoconservatives) have shaped an American immigration policy geared toward ensuring a pluralistic society safe for Jews. Neither of the items on this agenda are advantageous for the American majority host population (i.e. White people), and neither have ever been considered traditionally conservative positions (at least by the standards of the American Old Right).
Neoconservatism is not conservatism at all, but rather a Jewish ideology that has hijacked true conservatism. It has led to the co-opting of the American military for the purpose of advancing Israeli rather than American interests. And like communism, it has led to the mass killings of many innocent people. Neoconservatism, like the Zionist ideology with which it is often coupled, means supporting ethno-nationalism for the Jews of Israel while simultaneously pushing internationalism for everyone else. This is yet another parallel with the Jewish Bolshevism of the twentieth century – an ideology meant to deracinate and denationalize the gentiles while allowing Jews to retain a strong sense of their ethnic identity.
Eastern Europe may have survived the horrors of Jewish Bolshevism, but Jewish political subversion is alive and well in the West. Whether in the form of communism or neoconservatism, this subversion must be stopped before private property norms are completely subverted in the West, and before the entire Middle East is plunged into irreversible chaos.
 MacDonald, Kevin. Culture of Critique. Bloomington: 1st Books Library, 2002. p. 80, 99.
 E. Michael Jones. The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008. p. 1066.
 Ibid. p. 443.
 Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. Two Hundred Years Together. Moscow: Vagrius, 2008. p. 297.
 Hoffman, Michael. Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit. Coeur d’Alene: Independent History and Research, 2008. p. 865-866.
 Ibid. p. 864-865.
 Ibid. p. 863-864.
 Culture of Critique. p. 84-85.
 Ibid. p. 81.
 Ibid. p. 87.
 Two Hundred Years Together. p. 286-287.
 Ibid. p. 471.
 Culture of Critique. p. 89.
 Ibid. p. 63-65, 89
 Ibid. p. 84-85
 Ibid. p. 81.
 Ibid. p. 245.
 Ibid. p. 241-242.