Monday, April 4, 2016

It’s the Jooz

My thoughts on recent comments to this post:

UnhappyConservative April 1, 2016 at 8:51 PM

…the point remains valid that there is such a thing as group interests…

Please show where I have written otherwise.  Actually, don’t bother; I know what you will point to.

Individuals act. 

Why do you infer from this that I do not believe that two or more people – even possibly (or due to) sharing some national or religious commonality – will get together to plan some deed (whether for good or evil)? 

…whether or not you would like to admit that into your ultra-liberal framework.

I have been called many things, never ultra-liberal.  What do you mean, precisely, by this term?  Once you have precisely defined the term, please point to specifically what I have written that would cause you to apply this label to me.

No Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were not Jews, but Marx was…

Hitler, Stalin, Mao:  100 million or more dead.  Marx: from what I can tell, zero.  But unless you can show me at least ten million for Marx as leader of an army (the minimum to get a seat at the table with these high rollers), I think the score is quite settled on this point.  Anyway, Engels – a non-Jewish German from all evidence – seems to be at least equal to if not the motive force behind Marx.

Regarding Marx’s essay, On the Jewish Question:

The second part of Marx's essay is frequently cited as proof of Marx' antisemitism:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."

This sure doesn’t sound like a full-on advocacy for Jews taking over and controlling the world.  Actually, those who scream “it’s the Jews” at every turn sound a lot like Marx (although some apparently disagree that this writing should be interpreted as anti-Semitic).

Back to Unhappy:

…and the majority of socialist revolutionaries in Germany were [Jews], which is one of the main reasons Hitler saw the Jews as an enemy people.

Those all-powerful Jews – every single Jew in the world – making sure Hitler got in power in order to destroy the Jews of Central Europe.  Imagine, six-million (or whatever number you care to insert) Jews deciding that self-sacrifice was the right thing to do for the global Jewish conspiracy – the conspiracy that included every single Jew in Europe and the rest of the world.

In fact, it was the communists of Germany that pushed Hitler over the top in the elections.  Think about this: communists (all the fault of the Jews) empowering Hitler (all the fault of the Jews) to murder millions of Jews (all the fault of the Jews).  My head is spinning.

And those all-powerful Jews – because, as you know, the Jews controlled the White House and 10 Downing Street – made sure that neither Roosevelt or Churchill would allow mass immigration to save themselves from disaster.  An example of omnipotent Jews sacrificing themselves for the sake of…what?

Also Jews played a major role in Soviet communism in which some estimates put the NKVD at 80% Jewish…

No doubt.  Yet Stalin took care of that problem pretty early on.  Those all-powerful Jews, one more example of self-sacrifice even in the face of having some mystical, evil spell over the rest of humanity.

As for naming names…The Frankfurt School.

Yes, the Frankfurt School; founded in 1923.  Many Jews.  The west already committed suicide by then via the Great War without their help.  The west already created the conditions for World War Two by then without their help.  To my knowledge (and I didn’t check every single name that you offered), not one death is directly attributed to any of the names you have listed. 

Their ideas?  Rather unsavory.  Yet did Hitler – fighting to death against communism (and certainly so-called cultural Marxism) – ascribe to such notions?  Members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany when Hitler came to power – do we blame all Jews for Hitler?  Mao?  To my knowledge was not a subscriber to their daily email list.  Stalin was already pretty bad before 1923; anyway, he subsequently got rid of his Jews.

The point is…what is your position on organized Jewish power (Zionism and Jewish Marxist Intellectual Cabals)?

Regarding the two examples of organized Jewish power that you offer, overall a negative contribution to the peace of the world.  Miserable to the Palestinians both during the Mandate and since.  Terribly bad ideology. 

But not the worst bunch on earth.  And certainly not the worst trigger-pullers.  Those who would pull the trigger will latch on any excuse to do so.  Without Marx or the Frankfurt School they would have found another excuse in order to do their evil – in fact, they did. April 1, 2016 at 10:26 PM

Israel gets the bulk of the direct money and loans that are later written off so that doesn't show up as direct assistance. Egypt gets the next largest grant of money entirely to keep Egypt and Israel on good terms, so you can chalk that up for Israel. Next largest after that is the Kingdom of Jordan and the occupied West Bank/Gaza. Chalk them up as a subsidy for Israel too.

I am aware of the overly-large subsidies to Israel.  I am bombarded with this daily in the presidential campaigns.

When you include various wars that don't really make sense unless you view them as also taking place on behalf of Israel, then the costs both financial and human are incalculable.

I hold to a different theory about the wars that don’t make sense.  Perhaps you might consider the state of Israel a pawn instead of king.  After all, Israel doesn’t explain Vietnam, Korea, the pivot to Asia, NATO moving into Eastern Europe and the Baltics, etc. – you know, the various wars that have nothing to do with the state of Israel.  Israel does make a convenient excuse for the United States to involves itself in wars of the Middle East…again I ask, who is using whom?

…there seems to be a few common themes shared by the thousands of Jewish organizations. Open borders. Anti-white activism. Taxpayer support for Israel.

I don’t know about “the thousands.”  Whatever the number, it is not terribly important.  There are other Jewish organizations that support different agendas.  But these “common themes” are shared by even more non-Jewish organizations.  What shall we make of this?

Who are the Jewish organizations lobbying?  WASPs.  Who passes the legislation?  WASPs.  Who pulls the trigger?  WASPs.  What Sunday churchgoers vociferously call for all-things Israel?  WASPs.  Is it that old black magic that has cast its spell?  Now go do... that voodoo... that YOU do... SO WELL...!  Is this the argument?

Children often ask their parents to do stupid things.  They question is…who is deciding?  Who is doing the doing?  It is, for the most part, WASPS (broadly speaking).

Joe Sobran…made a great point about Jewish power in the media…

Individuals who are Jewish hold power in the media.  I have no reason to disagree. 

I think that the Jewish influence on US politics on open borders, anti-white activism, and taxpayer support for Israel is real…

Just as it is for “thousands” of non-Jewish organizations. 

…and enduring.

Nothing lasts forever.  The internet is breaking down the power of the gatekeepers.


There are infinitely more peaceful and societally beneficial Jews than there are the opposite.  There are many harmful and evil individuals and organizations that are not Jewish.  For these reasons (among others) I insist on dealing with specific individuals and specific organizations. 

I do not discount the power and influence of individual Jews and Jewish organizations.  But I also do not discount the power and influence of non-Jews and non-Jewish organizations.  And I suggest the latter are and have been more powerful and devastating to the global scene.

I further suggest that the pawns and kings are exactly opposite of those suggested by those who suggest that the State of Israel somehow rules the Anglo power.

Humans act; of course, almost daily humans act in concert with other humans.  This can be for good or for evil. 

This also cannot be used as a crutch to be lazy regarding the identification of the criminals.


  1. BM said: "Hitler, Stalin, Mao: 100 million or more dead. Marx: from what I can tell, zero. "

    Not that it makes any difference, but Hitler is known to have claimed that his political philosophy was derived/adapted more or less directly from that of Marx- he just claimed to have tweaked it a little, that's all.

    Also, were not Stalin's and Mao's "ideas" directly taken from Marx's "ideas"?

    Although collectivism predates Marx, it was mostly his "ideas" [i.e. fantasies] that resulted in Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, [etc. etc. ad infinitum] and, ta da!, the modern US state, from, [at the very least] Lincoln to Obama and beyond [i.e. Clinton, Trump Sanders or whomever].

    So Marx is no innocent, as far as I can see.

    regards, onebornfree

    1. OBF

      Who should properly be held accountable?

      There might be many who believe I should be put in shackles for what I write - after all, I often write to expose the fallacy of the state deserving our loyalty. What if someone acts violently against the state based on what I have written?

      I have written about managed immigration and borders. What if someone decides that what I mean is to kill all Muslims in the West?

      Did I write Marx was innocent? Of course not. Why do you introduce this irrelevant statement?

      Evil people will always find some justification somewhere for their actions.

  2. bm,

    I believe Unhappy's view probably finds its root in the work of the previously mentioned Kevin McDonald.

    1. Is this by chance Dr. David Gordon?

      I didn't think much of it at first but upon second glance this comment bears the hallmarks of the infamous intellectual assassin himself.

      If this is Dr. Gordon, or if you are reading this, please consider doing a review of Dr. MacDonald's book. I am confident that you would give it a fair treatment unlike the garbage review from Ilana Mercer.

      If I am wrong, please forgive me Anon, but you should take it as compliment that I mistook you for Dr. Gordon.

    2. No, I am not Dr. Gordon.

  3. Interesting post. I had a guy call my show 3 weeks ago and he was making this argument about the "jews" almost word for word. Seriously, it's like you took a script from his call. While I am sure he is not, unhappy could have been the caller.

    Good on you for being called a Liberal though! At least he didn't call you a commie. haha

  4. "Evil people will always find some justification somewhere for their actions."
    So will people who act with good intentions. I am thinking of the C.S. Lewis quote about the do-gooder busybody.

    "Why do you infer from this that I do not believe that two or more people – even possibly (or due to) sharing some national or religious commonality – will get together to plan some deed (whether for good or evil)? "

    Even if 2 or more people act together, it does not negate the fact that each one (individual) is acting on his own.
    No one can be forced to do anything. They may be tortured or threatened to the point where they give in to something, but each individual acts individually.
    For those who may have not read it, I highly suggest Rose Wilder Lane's
    "The Discovery of Freedom".

    1. Even if you employ methodological individualism in analyzing human action it does not negate the fact the individuals act to forward the interests of groups which they themselves belong too. If you want to take the Max Stirner approach of full egoism, you can still say that if people value the success of a certain group and act to forward it then it is indistinguishable from their individual goals.

      When I first studied Mises it took some time before I was willing to accept his axiom completely. I had the crude idea that he was referring to financial profit when he talked about profit. But as you know its about acting to arrive at a situation preferable to the situation that you start from. The specific preference is up for question.

      The mistake I believe you gents are making is this: you are unwilling to get into the weeds of the reality of human behavior and are stuck on an idealized view of human behavior (rational man). All libertarians would benefit from reading up on human biodiversity ( and group evolutionary psychology. If we know a priori what to expect from certain classes of people then we are much better equipped to understand what is going on around us.

      Hans Herman Hoppe understands this which is why he invites geneticists to his Property and Freedom Society.

      Do you think Misesean Economics is going to help you to understand a below 80 IQ jungle person who doesn't even have a concept of time? Would it not be better to try and understand this human like you would a dog?

      "each individual acts individually."

      This presupposes an unfettered freewill and doesn't take into account arguments from biological determinism. If you want your statement to be correct you would need to re-frame it as "individuals appear to act individually."

  5. "Did I write Marx was innocent? Of course not. Why do you introduce this irrelevant statement?

    Well obviously, [duh!] because you had said:

    "Hitler, Stalin, Mao: 100 million or more dead. Marx: from what I can tell, zero. " , which implies his innocence, to myself at the very least :-).

    Regards? onebornfree.

    1. Fair enough - I guess "innocent of what" might have been a better discussion point.

      Always regards!

  6. BM,

    This seems like as good a place as any for this question. I have read your time line to war (excellent, BTW) and your thoughts on bloodlands, so I agree that Hitler killed lots of jooz and other people, but why? What did he hope to accomplish with this genocide? What was his motivation?

    I also understand that anti-Semitism was well established in Europe and Russia for centuries before Hitler, so was he just using it to further his power?

    Your thoughts?

    1. One reason I wrote the original post was to demonstrate that the Germans had no corner on antisemitism. Prior to Hitler, it seems there were no meaningful differences on this topic in many corners of Europe.

      From Bloodlands I took away that Hitler was much closer to an equal-opportunity killer than advertised. Yes, he targeted Jews, but death was nearly as likely no matter one's nationality or religion once under Hitler's boot.

      As to Hitler's motives - perhaps he really believed it was all about the Jews; perhaps it was a mechanism to leverage the people's support - find a scapegoat that will be easily accepted. My understanding is that even Versailles - as bad as it was - was used as leverage by Hitler to move the people far more than the actual damage.

      Evil will find any lever to pull in order to perform evil. Hitler certainly didn't need Marx to blame.

  7. Since your article was addressing my comment specifically I will have a lot to say in response. This is the first of several replies.

    "I have been called many things, never ultra-liberal. What do you mean, precisely, by this term? Once you have precisely defined the term, please point to specifically what I have written that would cause you to apply this label to me."

    I apply ultra-liberal to you because that is what I believe plumb-line libertarianism to be, the logical conclusion of liberalism, hence- ultra. What makes libertarians different from progressives is their view on the use of State power. Both affirm the liberal doctrine of universal individual human rights. Anti-liberalism means the affirmation of group rights and identity in the particular. The difference between an anti-liberal and a liberal is that in the case of a specific problem the liberal differs to a universal value system where the anti-liberal differs to the question of "whom."

    Basically its this: we are all individuals. We are all participants in the market. No one person is apriori better or more deserving than another. Libertarians follow through on this thinking in a much more honest way than progressives, who waffle between the traditional liberal view and a particular view in which the favored groups become the worst groups: lgbtq, blacks, foreigners, etc.

    Ralph Raico makes very clear the relationship between modern libertarianism and classical liberalism.

    When I say ultra I just mean a classical liberal who has followed through on their philosophy to its logical conclusion: individualist market anarchism of one variety or another.

    I am not at all trying to misrepresent your position. I actually respect where you are coming from and I am getting the impression that is not reciprocated.

    1. "... I am getting the impression that is not reciprocated."

      Apologies. I am quite sensitive to this issue of lumping people into groups. I have personal reasons to both hate the practice and employ the practice - either choice could be easily justified on a pragmatic basis based on my personal experience.

      I have decided to always hate the practice. This will come out in my responses on such discussions. I take a hammer to it whenever it appears the gopher is coming out of the hole.

    2. I appreciate that man. I really do respect you and think you are an honest intellectual. The very fact you are publishing and engaging in this discourse is proof of that.

  8. "Those all-powerful Jews – every single Jew in the world – making sure Hitler got in power in order to destroy the Jews of Central Europe. Imagine, six-million (or whatever number you care to insert) Jews deciding that self-sacrifice was the right thing to do for the global Jewish conspiracy – the conspiracy that included every single Jew in Europe and the rest of the world."

    This is not my position. It is also an absurd caricature. Total straw man.

    1. “This is not my position. It is also an absurd caricature. Total straw man.”

      Came from the following, in the previous post:

      Unhappy, citing Lloyd George: “The Jewish race,”…“the Jews”…“the international power of the Jews."

      Unhappy, in response to Lloyd George’s comments: “Seems pretty reasonable to me.”

      Further from Unhappy: “Bionic, I am actually quite curious as to your position on…the Jews.”

      The Jews, the Jews, the Jews, the international Jews. I get it.

      I ask for names – which Jews? You give me men who never picked up a gun (I haven’t checked but I am exaggerating for effect).

    2. Maybe it would be better if we didn't slug t out over Lloyd George's comments. I admit I was baiting you to some extent with my endorsement. So your if your caricature comes from that specifically, it is indeed my fault.

  9. Stalin:
    "Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death."

    1. I am willing to guess that every single person on earth fell into one or another category of people who Stalin would punish "with death."

    2. Yeah. Stalin pretty much killed anything that moved.

  10. "Yes, the Frankfurt School; founded in 1923. Many Jews. The west already committed suicide by then via the Great War without their help."

    There are many different forms of suicide. It may well be true that the West had serious problems without the help of Jews. That however does not serve to minimize the importance and influence upon the late 20th century by the predominately Jewish Frankfurt school.

    1. I would very much welcome a specific discussion on this group. I will look into MacDonald's work.

    2. That would be great. Paul Gottfried, himself Jewish, has done some good work on the Frankfurt school as well. Gottfried and McDonald are not too far off in their views, and they had a correspondence in the wake of Gottfried's review of Culture of Critique. Once you familiarize yourself with McDonald's work we can discuss how their views differ. It is amusing to note though that on the question of politics Gottfried (a friend of Rothbard's) reflects my views quite well. If you haven't read his book After Liberalism, I highly recommend it.

  11. "those who suggest that the State of Israel somehow rules the Anglo power."

    Hilaire Belloc was one of the first to put forward that view in "The Jews."(1922):

    "Marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes. After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century, those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood was the exception"

    "Specifically Jewish institutions, such as Freemasonry (which the Jews had inaugurated as a sort of bridge between themselves and their hosts in the seventeenth century) were particularly strong in Britain, and there arose a political tradition, active, and ultimately to prove of great importance, whereby the British state was tacitly accepted by foreign governments as the official protector of the Jews in other countries. It was Britain which was expected to intervene [wherever Jewish persecution took place and] to support the Jewish financial energies throughout the world, and to receive in return the benefit of that connection."

  12. "This sure doesn’t sound like a full-on advocacy for Jews taking over and controlling the world"

    Make no mistake about that view does exist:

    "The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands"-Baruch Levy to Karl Marx.

    There was a very good reason that early 20th century right-wing movements associated the Left with organized Jewish power. I am only pointing out that there is some truth to this view. It does not follow from that that I believe Jews are omnipotent or the sole rulers of the world. Nor do they have a monopoly on State violence. Clearly the Chi-com demonstrate that otherwise. However, without Marx there would be no Mao.

    If I could summarize my view crudely, it is this: the West had AIDS and the Jews are a bad cold.

  13. I wish that you had dealt more substantially with my rather long post. After all you did write "America sends tons of money and forgives loans many other places as well". I demonstrated that while America does send some small amounts of money to other places, the overwhelming majority of that money goes to Israel or on behalf of Israel. "Tons" of money is not going anywhere except to Israel or for Israel. If I have changed your worldview then that should at least be acknowledged.

    If you title your post "its the Jooz" it suggests that you are not going to give your interlocutors due consideration. My view on "the Jooz" is virtually the same as Murray Rothbard, who I hear is an anti-semite.

    The Israel as pawn theme is something that I have heard before, and indeed, it makes sense. Surely the smaller state should be the client state, right? But that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Unlike what the media tells you, Israel is not an allied state of the USA, but receives protection as if an ally. Israel is not obligated to help the USA, and in fact doesn't help the USA. There is not one single advantage to this 'alliance' with Israel and Israel is a major headache for the USA. So the reasons for the 'alliance' are entirely domestic.

    Now, as to individuals. Human action is one of those axiomatic things, but it also accounts for cooperation. Unless you are looking at the managerial state and managerialism you are missing a huge part of the picture. The managerial state also manifests itself in the private sector.

    Yes, every single person is an individual person, but Jewish people have a very high degree of ethnocentrism that is hard for the average white person to understand. Take a look at Harvard. Jews are relatively high IQ, but they are not so high IQ that Jews could possibly be 25% of the student body. Grades indicate that Jews should be about 6% of Harvard. So what is happening here? The Jewish administrators of Harvard are discriminating against non-Jewish whites and Asians, in favor of their fellow Jews. There are less non-Jewish whites in Harvard than Jews. Number of Asians is negligible compared to how many there would be under a meritocratic system. Anti-semite (like Rothbard) Ron Unz has written extensively on this matter.

    Now I don't think it is necessary to mention "the Jooz" as much as David Duke, but they are a factor. The truth is that you can criticize all kinds of people, Blacks, native Americans, Latinos, etc, but not Jews. That's called Jewish power. Ask Rick Sanchez.

    1. “I wish that you had dealt more substantially with my rather long post.”

      Your subject post was 360 words long. My direct reply to you was 261 words long; if you add the conclusion – summarizing my thoughts for you and unhappy – the total is 415 words.

      As my generosity of writing even more words than you did in response to your post AND creating an entirely new blog post such that the dialogue does not get lost goes unappreciated by you, I will not be nearly as generous this time.

      “The Israel as pawn theme is something that I have heard before, and indeed, it makes sense. Surely the smaller state should be the client state, right?”

      My view has nothing to do with Israel being the smaller state.

      “There is not one single advantage to this 'alliance' with Israel and Israel is a major headache for the USA.”

      An excuse to surround Russia on the southwest; an excuse to involve itself in territory that is important for access to and control of the sub-continent – thereby surrounding Russia and central China.

      My theory also explains Vietnam, Korea, staying in Japan, staying in Germany, Taiwan, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and expanding NATO to the borders of Russia – in other words, virtually every intervention by the US in over 100 years (and Britain’s interventions even longer, to include Singapore, Hong Kong and the coast of China, and others): all to surround Russia and central China. Does yours?

    2. I guess AIPAC isn't necessary since the US government would support Israel in the Middle East anyway because Russia and China.

      Not convinced.

    3. Whether you are convinced or not is not very important in the grand scheme of things.

      But you refuse to answer the question or deal with what I have presented.

      Instead you reply as if a foreign-state-sympathetic lobbying organization in Washington is necessary to motivate the war-machine to action.

  14. "But you refuse to answer the question or deal with what I have presented".

    I don't know how to question or deal with it. You made a very broad assertion involving wonkish geo-political strategy, in two very short paragraphs.

    In any event, to the extent that I can attempt to understand what you are saying, I disagree with you. Almost all US foreign policy results from domestic considerations, not geopolitical strategy, in my opinion.

  15. I have an ID on Disqus but that's not available, hence anonymous

    Though most American Jews are assimilating into the American fabric, as have many European groups, there are always, in every group, those who hold doggedly to the old ways.

    A growing community of Orthodox Jews -- this group called the haredim -- have recently been attracted to a neighborhood across town. There are efforts, even petitions, to keep them out. This is not because of anti-semitism so much as it's due to a wariness, extended to similar groups, of those who who heavily access public benefits.

    These haredim are marginally poor.The men, in their traditional garb, spend many hours studying their Scriptures. The women, in their traditional garb, shepherd a passel of children. (A number of these folks are liberal, college educated American Jews who've "gone back to the land of Zion in the Sky" so to speak, though I don't mean to disparage. The girls ride their bicycles in their long skirts. The boys play catch with tennis balls in their long side curls and skull caps. The families live on, and qualify for, Food Stamps and other government emoluments. Most of these kids will grow up to be shopkeepers and will work either in manual trades, in the kosher food business or in some line of retail. From today's perspective, they're anachronisms, longing, heaven knows why, for the amenities of a ghetto existence in pre-Holocaust Warsaw and Crackow.

    Yet these are the folks whom many educated and less than educated people fear will one day rise from their rental units, reveal their hidden wealth like Superman's S beneath his white shirt and tie, then step forth and rule the world!

    1. These are the kind of neighbors you pray for. I've lived among 'em as do my in-laws currently. Great family value stuff, great playmates for the grandkids. Not be teachin 'em to smoke crack haha.

  16. One last thought after reading your exchange with Matt-

    You wrote, "regarding the two examples of organized Jewish power that you offer, overall a negative contribution to the peace of the world. Miserable to the Palestinians both during the Mandate and since."

    While I don't disagree with that I was referring more to the type of argument Matt is making, which I endorse. The problem is not, is Zionism bad for Palestinian non-Jews (obviously it is), but is it bad for the U.S and Europe? The answer is of course yes.

    My point is that you are risking downplaying the significance of this issue, and I think you do this because you are approaching these questions from a consistent methodological individualism. Regardless, I appreciate the exchange and I am sure you have some awareness of a how taboo this subject is. The reason why it is so taboo contains within it part of the answer.

  17. The context of the rise of Fascism and later Nazism is that many people in Europe believed that Jews would lead a Communist takeover in Europe. Even Winston Churchill wrote an essay about how the Communist Jews took over Russia. There were Communist Jewish revolutionary leaders in Germany and also the bloody revolution of Bela Kun in Hungary. Conservative Europeans supported Fascism and later Nazism as a reaction to the perceived threat from Communist Jews.