Nationalism beyond Zionism: Lessons from Jewish Communists in Palestine
A new book presents a political and cultural history of Jewish Communism in Palestine-Israel, and a model for a non-ethnocentric national identity.
By Shaul Magid February 20, 2022.
Israeli Communist Party MK Moshe Sneh addresses a crowd at an election campaign event in Ramat Gan, October 30, 1959. (Fritz Cohen/GPO)
Israeli Communist Party MK Moshe Sneh addresses a crowd at an election campaign event in Ramat Gan, October 30, 1959. (Fritz Cohen/GPO)
“Holidays of the Revolution: Communist Identity in Israel, 1919-1945,” by Amir Locker-Biletzki, State University of New York Press, 2020.
When the story of Israel is told, certainly by Jews, it is almost always told from a Zionist perspective. For example, Arthur Hertzberg’s “The Zionist Idea” (first published in 1959) collects myriad examples of Zionist ideologues to illustrate the plethora of visions that existed within the Zionist movement. Anita Shapira’s comprehensive “Israel: A History” (2012) is likewise written fully within the Zionism paradigm.
The far left of that story are the Socialist Zionists, in part embodied by the Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim kibbutz movements and thinkers such as Ber Borochov or Nachman Syrkin, both architects of the Zionist labor movement. But there were other Jews in Palestine during those heady years who are often excluded from the story because they were decidedly anti-Zionist.
Subscribe to The Landline
+972's weekly newsletter
That’s right: Jews who lived in Palestine for the purpose of building a collective Jewish existence who were, nevertheless, anti-Zionist. I do not refer to Haredi anti-Zionists who thought Zionism was heresy, or the Canaanites who wanted to found a new Hebrew civilization divorced from Judaism and the Jewish diaspora. Both of these were marginal, more a curiosity than a real threat to the Zionist mainstream. I refer, rather, to Jewish Communists, internationalist revolutionaries with strong ties to Trotsky and the Comintern (the Third International Communist organization) who viewed Palestine as a location for Jews and Arabs to join forces in the global battle against capitalism and imperialism. (By Arabs here I refer only to Muslim and Christian Arabs, not Jews from Arab lands.)
Amir Locker-Biletzki’s excellent new study “Holidays of the Revolution: Communist Identity in Israel, 1919-1945” (SUNY Press, 2020) offers a fresh look at Jewish Communism in Palestine/Israel — not only from a political perspective, but from a cultural one as well. How did Jewish Communists confront, resist, and at times absorb their Socialist Zionist opponents? How did they construct a Jewish national identity against the Zionist one? How did they support Arab-Jewish solidarity while cultivating a Jewish nationalist (albeit anti-Zionist) program? And what can we learn from these Jewish Communists in today’s world where Zionism has arguably congealed into a chauvinist movement and, via the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law, has codified its rejection of equality in Israel for all its citizens?
The post-Nation State Law, uber-capitalist Start-Up Nation is still mired in the highly ideological conundrum of its inception. An alternative to Zionism can still be gleaned from the (arguably archaic) communist battle against what the Jews who waged it saw as Zionism’s bourgeois and imperialist roots.
From ‘Jewish labor’ to Arab-Jewish solidarity
Locker-Biletzki writes, “At the core of the Jewish-Israeli Communist identity stood anti-Zionism. From its formative stages, Communists in Palestine-Israel preferred Socialism over Zionism.” This antagonism between seemingly adjacent ideological groupings is not unusual. The ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists viewed the non-Zionist and religious Agudat Israel (founded in 1922), rather than secular Zionism, as their main opponents. They argued that Agudat Israel’s collusion with the Zionists sullied their own religious and ideological commitments. In a similar way, the Jewish Communists viewed the Socialist Zionists as their opponents, “subordinating their Marxism to their Zionism.” The Hashomer Hatzair movement often referred to their position as “Socialist realism,” which amounted to a merging of socialism and nationalism.
Locker-Biletzki shows the story was more complicated still. The Communists themselves “selectively used the cultural means and mechanisms created by the Socialist-Zionists in their own subculture.” The Communists in Palestine/Israel could not avoid the Zionist orbit in which they lived, even as they continued to try to find alternative ways of cultivating a national consciousness that remained wedded to the revolutionary project of class struggle and committed to the Jewish and Palestinian working class.
Kibbutz members march in a 1951 ceremony. (photo: אביבה שני בית חרות/CC BY 2.5)
Kibbutz members march in a 1951 ceremony. (photo: אביבה שני בית חרות/CC BY 2.5)
Hannah Arendt’s 1944 essay “Zionism Reconsidered” makes the point quite well. In her critique of the Socialist Zionists she writes:
Since the days of Borochov… the leftist Zionists never thought of developing their own answer to the national question: they simply added official Zionism to their socialism. The addition hasn’t made for an amalgam, since it claims socialism for domestic and nationalist Zionism for foreign affairs… no attention was paid to the economic conditions of the Arabs, who, through the introduction of Jewish capital and labor and the industrialization of the country, found themselves changed overnight into potential proletarians.
Arendt’s comment requires some nuance, in that “Jewish labor” was an attempt to diversify labor among Jews and create a Jewish proletariat in the land, which it did. Its point may not have been exclusively to reject Palestinian labor but also to create a diverse Jewish workforce and cultivate a sense of agency in building Jewish colonies and farms. In practice, however, it excluded the Arab majority in Palestine from the new Zionist project. Arendt writes: “The social revolutionary Jewish national movement, which started… with ideals so lofty that it overlooked the particular realities of the Near East and the general wickedness of the world, has ended, as do most such movement – with the unequivocal support not only of national but chauvinist claims – not against the foes of the Jewish people but against its possible friends and present neighbors.”
For the Socialists Zionists, as Arendt views them, the international reach of socialism became an internal project of Jewish revival. The Palestinians may have mattered, but they were not really part of the project. “Jewish labor,” the mark of the Second Aliyah, moved the Zionist movement from a regional project to a national one. Ironically, some scholars such as Rashid Khalidi in his book “Palestinian Identity,” argue that “Jewish labor” helped spark the rise of Arab nationalism in Palestine, drawing, for example, on the writings of the Palestinian Christian scholar Khali Sakakini. Edward Said noted in “The Question of Palestine” that “Jewish labor,” far from being only a noble exercise in self-sufficiency, was actually an exercise in exclusion. Socialist Zionists largely forsook solidarity that crossed ethnic lines.
While the Zionists were fortifying their national project, the Jewish Communists were struggling to develop a movement of Arab-Jewish solidarity and workers’ rights to create a socialist society founded on Jewish values that combined a commitment to revolution and equality. As Locker-Biletzki shows, their project was cultural as well as political. They developed rituals and ceremonies that combined the spirit of Communism with Judaism in a secularized form (many Zionists were also engaged in the secularization of Judaism). Politically they remained tied to the international Communist movement and its larger goals of labor rights and equality. As Communists, they were certainly anti-religious but so were the large majority of Zionists in this period.
With the introduction of Socialist Zionist figures such as Moshe Sneh and Shmuel Mikinus into the Communist Party — Mikinus in the 1940s and Sneh in the 1950s — the Communist Party slowly began to adopt quasi-Zionist ideas even as it continued to resist Zionism, renouncing it as an imperialist enterprise guilty of alienating and exploiting Arab workers. Sneh still opposed Zionism and was thus trying to thread the needle between what Locker-Biletzki calls, “the Israelization of parts of the Communist Party, not an account of the Zionization of the Communist Party.”
As I understand this, the Communist Party wanted to create Israeliness without Zionism, a collective identity that included both Jews and Palestinians. (Palestinians could and did live in a Zionist state as citizens but, as the Jewish Nation-State Law makes explicit, it is not their state. It is a “Jewish” state that they live in).
‘A Jewish internationalist class struggle staged from Palestine/Israel’
One of the more salient and useful aspects of Locker-Biletzki’s study is the story of how Jewish Communists were engaged in a project of forging an anti-Zionist Jewish national identity — as part of the larger communist commitment to class struggle that included at its core Arab-Jewish solidarity in Palestine, something they believed the Socialist Zionists had gradually abandoned for chauvinistic nationalism. Locker-Biletzki writes, “The heart of the Jewish Communist’s approach to Jewish nationalism lay not in the conflict between Zionism and Communism, between Jewish identity and Red assimilation, but the harmonization of Jewish and Israeli identities and internationalist and class approaches.”
As Nissim Calderon, a member of Banki, the Communist Party youth movement in 1962-1965 put it, “nationalism was welcome not as a negative phenomenon. We accepted it.” However, Zionism was not its appropriate form because it denied an internationalist component and it excluded non-Jews as part of its concern. The exclusively Jewish character of the Zionist project made it unfit as an ideology for a country with a sizable non-Jewish constituency (until 1947, the majority). It inevitably created Jewish hegemony and, by extension, inequality.
Members of the Communist Party on election day in Nazareth, January 25, 1949. (Hugo Mendelson/GPO)
Members of the Communist Party on election day in Nazareth, January 25, 1949. (Hugo Mendelson/GPO)
But even the Jewish Communists in America did not deny a new national identity in Palestine. Alexander Bittelman, a member of the Communist Party in the US who worked with Jews in the party in the 1940s, wrote that, “Communists can – and must – carry on the fight for national independence of their people, not as bourgeois nationalists but working-class internationalists.” (“Israel and the World Struggle for Peace and Democracy” 1948). The tide of history was too strong, however; national chauvinism won the day.
What was this non- or anti-Zionist Jewish identity the Communists wanted to create? It was not anti-statist per se: many Jewish Communists fought in the 1948 war. The identity, at its core, was “Jewish” but not exclusivist in terms of the state’s structure, and binationalist in principle. The Jewish Communists were committed to a Jewish internationalist class struggle staged from Palestine/Israel. Locker-Biletzki interestingly notes, “not unlike sections of Haredi society, [the communists] professed a limited loyalty to the state, defending its independence from imperialism while negating its Zionist ideological core.”
In both cases, one can be a Jewish collectivist of sorts, and not a Zionist. Thus Meir Vilner, the head of MAKI, the Israeli Communist Party in 1948, was a signatory to Israel’s Declaration of Independence and a long-standing Knesset member. Similarly, the non-Zionist Agudat Israel could agree to become part of the transgressive secular state.
The focus of Locker-Biletzki’s study is on the cultural aspects of the Jewish communist project, to show how Jewish Communists cultivated symbols, holidays, and rituals that merged the Jewish calendar with their internationalist communist agenda: the establishment of May Day parades in Tel Aviv where Jews and Arabs marched as one, the propagation of a communist interpretation of Hanukkah (opposing its hyper-nationalist Zionist formulation), and commemoration of the Holocaust that also includes the role of the Soviet Union in liberating concentration camps, most famously Auschwitz. The party celebrated independence by criticizing Israel’s dependence on western colonial powers, and viewed the new state as part of the global force of post-colonialism, called upon to be an exemplar of internationalism.
A truck carrying images of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin during the May Day Parade in Tel Aviv, May 1, 1949. (Hans Pin/GPO)
A truck carrying images of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin during the May Day Parade in Tel Aviv, May 1, 1949. (Hans Pin/GPO)
More emphatically, Holidays of the Revolution examines the complex ways Jewish Communists tried to cultivate a new Jewish national identity opposed to Zionism yet in favor of a Jewish national project. At the heart of this project was class struggle and Arab-Jewish solidarity. This may be where the study becomes more relevant for us today. The Jewish communist battle against Zionism’s bourgeois capitalist and imperialist underpinnings no longer resonates in the Start-Up Nation, three decades after the fall of the Soviet Union. But the question of Arab-Jewish solidarity remains.
‘The Jewish Communists became just another version of Zionists’
Echoing Arendt (and later Edward Said in his The Question of Palestine), Locker-Biletzki notes that “Socialist Zionists practiced the exclusion of Palestinians from the labor market and their lands marked out for Jewish settlement, culminating in the ethnic cleansing of the 1948 War and the military government that followed.” One could also recall David Ben-Gurion, a Socialist Zionist leader, who refused to allow Palestinians to return to their homes after the 1948 war at a time when it would not have significantly changed the demographic balance.
For many socialists, even as they began with much more idealistic hopes, socialism became an almost exclusively Jewish project, and some Jewish Communists were swept into that orbit as well, which in part resulted in the Arabization of the Communist Party in Palestine in the 1930s, as documented in Musa Budeiri’s “The Palestine Communist Party 1919-1948” (1979). Budeiri shows the way creeping statism begins to erode the solidarity of Jewish and Arab Communists as the yishuv moved further toward the establishment of a state, when “Yishuvism” morphed into eventual “Jewish” statism that the Communists opposed.
Jewish Communists persisted in Jewish-Arab solidarity, meanwhile, and this persistence resulted in a deep commitment to the Palestinian cause. “In stark contrast to Socialist-Zionist culture, which very quickly abandoned Socialist internationalist claims and developed a worker’s culture and institutions for Jews only, the Jewish Communists remained loyal to proletarian internationalism… In Marxist-Leninist terms, the Jewish Communists perceived Palestinians as the direct victims of Zionist colonization and British imperialism.”
Locker-Biletzki notes in his conclusion: “As the cultural transformation project of the Left Men [those integrating the Communist Party into the Zionist movement] gathered pace, the Communist internationalist and anti-Zionist parts of the Jewish communist identity eroded. At the end of this process, the Jewish Communists became just another version of Zionists, and then they were no more.” And yet, “Zionism is commonly perceived as the hegemonic form of Jewish nationalism in Palestine/Israel. This book has shown that beyond the Zionist hegemony and within Israeli environments a non-Zionist national identity – not based on pre-Zionist Judaism – can be formed… progressive and inclusive, in contrast to the exclusionary framing of Jewish-Israeli Zionist identity in Palestine/Israel ever since the late nineteenth century.”
Demonstrators march during the International Worker's Day protest in the center of Tel Aviv May 1, 2013. (Photo by: Shiraz Grinbaum/ Activestills.org)
Demonstrators march during the International Worker’s Day protest in the center of Tel Aviv May 1, 2013. (Photo by: Shiraz Grinbaum/ Activestills.org)
Is the first part of his assertion correct? That is, has Jewish nationalism indeed become synonymous with Zionist hegemony? In many ways, yes, but we can also recall exceptions. Matzpen (Compass), for example, which was active in the 1960s and 1970s, presented an Israeli iteration of the American New Left. Its members – some of whom were exiles from MAKI and other socialist groups – forged a relationship with the newly-founded Israeli Black Panthers and set their sights on ending the occupation of the territories seized by Israel in 1967 as the most overt iteration of what they determined was Zionism’s chauvinistic underpinnings. The Arab-Jewish political party Hadash, of which MAKI is the most powerful faction and is now part of the Joint List, remains identified as non-Zionist today.
There are remnants of the Jewish Communists of old, a commitment to equality, economic justice and solidarity even if the international communist revolution no longer drives the narrative and even as Zionism, in its highly nationalized form, has become ubiquitous. True, this small remnant has almost no real voice in Israel. And yet they may hold a key to undoing the chauvinistic and hegemonic nature of the present state of Zionism that is illustrated in the Jewish Nation-State Law and the de-facto annexation of Palestinian territories.
Jewish nationality beyond ethnocentrism
What is the main challenge facing Zionism today? Zionism may have had its day and served its quintessential purpose — it certainly generated the founding of a Jewish state. But perhaps something new is required to bring that state into the twenty-first century. Maybe the Jewish Communist’s commitment to Arab-Jewish solidarity that was not heeded in a time when Jews were reeling from persecution and genocide, can once again become the raison d’etre of a new form of Jewish national identity that is not Zionist, but is founded on binationalism and shared sovereignty.
Jewish Communists (and others, like staunchly anti-Marxist Hannah Arendt) held this as well. Many believed by the 1930’s that Zionism could not overcome its chauvinistic and hyper-nationalist foundations. Arendt placed emphasis on the Atlantic City Resolution in 1944 that, in its statement, totally ignored the Palestinians (the 1942 Biltmore Platform does mention Arab minority rights even though Arabs were still the majority). Zionism, certainly its Herzlean variety, was at least in part instigated by antisemitism, but the European enemy eventually became the enemy in Palestine; the enemy where the Jews were the victims now became the enemy where the Jews are the sovereign.
Israel is now a country, albeit one that arguably carries on its back the weaknesses of Zionism that have become endemic to its identity. It remains locked in a nationalism that cannot quite make room for dual sovereignty and true solidarity with its Palestinian population. It has become an ethnocentric state. Arendt held that this was baked into the Zionist project even before statehood, while others like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes feared hyper-nationalism would take over the state’s agenda.
Locker-Biletzki provides us with a serious and well-crafted history of Jewish, and Arab and Jewish Communists in Israel who had another national vision, who were trying to forge a different project for Jewish national identity in Israel in the years before the state’s founding. Part of that project may no longer resonate in our neoliberal world of globalized capitalism. And the totalitarianism of Stalinism revealed in the 1950s alienated many Jewish Communists from the party. But other parts of the communist project in Israel can still resonate today: particularly the commitment to Arab-Jewish solidarity, justice, equality, and the protection of minorities. A vision that sees Jewish nationality outside of an ethnocentric framework in which one group is given privilege over another – otherwise known as a “Jewish state.”
It is easy to scoff and mock the Communist program as naïve and outdated. That may well be partially true. But we do so, in my view, at our own peril. As I see it, liberal and progressive Jews who care deeply about Israel are stuck, because the ideas upon which their liberalism and Zionism are founded are no longer relevant or cannot provide real solutions to the endemic problems of Zionism that the Communists, among others, saw in the 1920s. We can’t seem to think about non-Zionist Jewish national identity, but Zionism is stuck in a chauvinism of which it cannot seem to break free.
Maybe it is time to think of Jewish national identity beyond Zionism. The Jewish Communists, deeply committed to Jewish revival and equally committed to equality and justice, offered an anti-Zionist alternative. They are now almost inaudible. But they may have something crucial to offer after all.
Shaul Magid is professor of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College, Kogod Senior Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, and Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard University. His latest book is Meir Kahane: The Public Life and Political Thought of an American Jewish Radical, Princeton University Press, 2021. His forthcoming book is The Necessity of Exile: Essays from a Distance with Ayin Press in 2023. He writes regularly for +97
The Hegelian dialectic presupposes the factual basis for the theory of social evolutionary principles, whichcoincidentally backed up Marx. Marx's Darwinian theory of the "social evolution of the species," (even thoughit has been used for a century to create a vast new scientific community, including eugenics and socio-economics), does not adhere to the basis for all good scientific research, and appears to exist mainly toadvance itself, and all its sub-socio-scientific arms, as the more moral human science. To the ACL thismeans the entire basis for the communitarian solution is based on a false premise, because there is noFACTUAL basis that "social evolution of the species" exists, based as it is only on Darwinian and Marxistideology of man's "natural" evolution towards a British version of utopia.The London-Marxist platform in 1847 was "to abolish private property." The American Revolution was basedin private property rights. Marxist societies confiscate wealth and promise to "re-distribute it equally." America promised everyone they could keep and control what was the product of their own labor. ModernMarxist adherents openly claim they will "rebuild the world," and they train activist "change agents" to openlysupport overthrowing the legitimate governments of the world. Since their inception, Marxist agentprovocateurs can be linked to every anarchist assassination and student uprising that caused chaos to theestablished European civilization throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Modern Americans havesuccumbed to the conspiracy theory label and will only listen to what the propaganda machines tell them.Now our people don't believe anyone other than maybe the Arab world "hates our freedom." Most modern Americans will never know what went wrong with their "great experiment in democracy."While the Marxist-communitarian argument has not provided a shred of evidence to prove their utopianvision, and their synthesis does not match their own projected conclusions of world justice, we are convincedtheir argument does in fact substantiate our conclusion, that the entire philosophical dialectical argument isnothing but a brilliant ruse. We used to call it "a cheap parlor trick" until a responder to this page wonderedhow we could call it "cheap" when it's been so successful. And he was right. The dialectical arguments forhuman rights, social equity, and world peace and justice are a perfectly designed diversion in the defeatedBritish Empire's Hegelian-Fabian-Metaphysical-Theosophical Monopoly game. It's the most successful con job in the history of the modern world. (For a well presented Christian overview of the con, see AmericanBabylon: Part Five-the Triumph of the Merchants by Peter Goodgame.)The communitarian synthesis is the final silent move in a well-designed, quietly implemented plot to re-makethe world into colonies. To us it doesn't matter if there is some form of ancient religion that propels theplotters, nor does it really matter if it turns out they're aliens (as some suggest). The bottom line is theHegelian dialectic sets up the scene for state intervention, confiscation, and redistribution in the U.S., andthis is against our ENTIRE constitutional based society. The Hegelian dialectic is not a conspiracy theorybecause the Conspiracy Theory is a fraud. We've all been duped by global elitists who plan to taketotalitarian control of all nation's people, property, and produce. Communitarian Plans exist in every corner ofthe world, and nobody at the local level will explain why there's no national legal avenue to withdraw from theU.N.'s "community" development plans
Historically, Zionism and Communism Closely Linked Zionism and Communism have been closely linked, ....Classroom .... but it is a complicated history. Some of the early Communist leaders, notably Trotsky, were Jews, and that may have contributed to the idea of connections between Zionism and Communism. The early Zionists themselves imagined a socialist Jewish state -- the terms socialism and communism being roughly interchangeable until the early 20th century -- and drew directly on Marxist ideas in planning that state. Many Communists, however, especially in Palestine, were openly hostile to Zionism.
The Zionist movement, which began in the latter part of the 19th century, sought to establish a Jewish state in the historical land of Israel, under the sovereignty of Jews. Zionism, as a political movement, has its roots in Vienna, where Jewish writers and intellectuals, such as Nathan Birnbaum and Theodore Herzl, argued that Jews would always face anti-Semitism and be regarded as aliens and outsiders wherever they lived, and therefore needed their own national identity and state.
Communism was a political and economic theory advocated most famously by Karl Marx. Communism argues for a socialist revolution toward creating a communal, classless state. Marx was Jewish, though his family had converted to Protestantism. One of Marx's early works, "On the Jewish Question," which expresses some anti-Semitic ideas, also addresses an issue important to the Zionists, namely political emancipation. It was a Jew and an early Zionist, Moses Hess, who introduced Marx to socialism in the first place.
Hess was an associate of Marx in Cologne, where he is credited with having contributed to Marx's views of socialism. Hess was also a forerunner of the Zionists, and argued for a socialist Jewish state. Later political Zionists, notably Nahman Syrkin and Herzl, also envisioned the new Jewish state as a socialist utopia, a cooperative society based on the use of science and technology to develop the land. Socialist Zionism, also called Labor Zionism, was the dominant form of Zionism during the period between the world wars, and was the precursor of the modern Labor Party in Israel.
Ironically, as the Labor Zionist movement grew in the 1930s and worked towards the creation of a socialist Israel, the Communist Party of Palestine expressed its concerns about Zionism, arguing that both the Zionists and the British were imperialists, and that their political and economic dominance in Palestine went against the communist movement, because it oppressed the Arab working class. In spite of the many theories in circulation today that regard Bolshevism and Communism as a Jewish political movement, Joseph Stalin and the apparatus of the Soviet state were hostile to Zionism and to Jews generally.
Some critics of Zionism describe it as racist and colonialist, but Zionists contest these descriptions, even indicating that the criticism itself is another form of anti-Semitism. Additionally, some Jews disagree with Zionism. The group Jews Against Zionism argues that the movement has created a pseudo-Judaism, replacing the Torah with nationalism. The group says on its website that the confusion between Judaism and Zionism endangers Jews worldwide, particularly those in Israel.
Communist Party of Great Britain
This article is about the organisation active from 1920 to 1991. For other British communist organisations, see Communist Party of Great Britain (disambiguation).
Communist Party of Great Britain
Albert Inkpin (first)
Nina Temple (last)
Founded 31 July 1920
Dissolved 23 November 1991
British Socialist Party
Communist Labour Party
Communist Party (BSTI)
Communist Unity Group
Socialist Labour Party
South Wales Socialist Society
Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Scotland[a]
New Communist Party of Britain
Headquarters Marx House, Covent Garden, London
Student wing Communist Students
Youth wing Young Communist League (YCL)
60,000 (at peak; 1945)
4,742 (at dissolution; 1991)
Political position Far-left
International affiliation Comintern
Politics of United KingdomPolitical partiesElections
The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) was the largest communist organisation in Britain and was founded in 1920 through a merger of several smaller Marxist groups. Many miners joined the CPGB in the 1926 general strike. In 1930, the CPGB founded the Daily Worker (renamed the Morning Star in 1966). In 1936, members of the party were present at the Battle of Cable Street, helping organise resistance against the British Union of Fascists. In the Spanish Civil War the CPGB worked with the USSR to create the British Battalion of the International Brigades, which party activist Bill Alexander commanded.
In World War II, the CPGB mirrored the Soviet position, opposing or supporting the war in line with the involvement of the USSR. By the end of World War II, CPGB membership had nearly tripled and the party reached the height of its popularity. Many key CPGB members became leaders of Britain's trade union movement, including most notably Jessie Eden, Abraham Lazarus, Ken Gill, Clem Beckett, GCT Giles, Mike Hicks, and Thora Silverthorne.
The CPGB's position on racial equality and anti-colonialism attracted many black activists to the party, including Trevor Carter, Charlie Hutchison, Dorothy Kuya, Billy Strachan, Peter Blackman, Henry Gunter, Len Johnson, and Claudia Jones, who founded London's Notting Hill Carnival. In 1956, the CPGB experienced a significant loss of members due to its support of the Soviet military intervention in Hungary. In the 1960s, CPGB activists supported Vietnamese communists fighting in the Vietnam War. In 1984, the leader of the CPGB's youth wing, Mark Ashton, founded Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners.
From 1956 until the late 1970s, the party was funded by the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the party's Eurocommunist leadership disbanded the party, establishing the Democratic Left. The anti-Eurocommunist faction had launched the Communist Party of Britain in 1988.
The Communist Party of Great Britain was founded in 1920 after the Third International decided that greater attempts should be made to establish communist parties across the world. The CPGB was formed by the merger of several smaller Marxist parties, including the British Socialist Party, the Communist Unity Group of the Socialist Labour Party and the South Wales Socialist Society. The party also gained the support of the Guild Communists faction of the National Guilds League, assorted shop stewards' and workers' committees, socialist clubs and individuals and many former members of the Hands Off Russia campaign. Several branches and many individual members of the Independent Labour Party also affiliated. As a member of the British Socialist Party, the Member of Parliament Cecil L'Estrange Malone joined the CPGB. A few days after the founding conference the new party published the first issue of its weekly newspaper, which was called the Communist and edited by Raymond Postgate.
In January 1921, the CPGB was refounded after the majorities of Sylvia Pankhurst's group the Communist Party (British Section of the Third International), and the Scottish Communist Labour Party agreed to unity. The party benefited from a period of increased political radicalism in Britain just after the First World War and the Russian Revolution of October 1917, and was also represented in Britain by the Red Clydeside movement.
During the negotiations leading to the initiation of the party, a number of issues were hotly contested. Among the most contentious were the questions of "parliamentarism" and the attitude of the Communist Party to the Labour Party. "Parliamentarism" referred to a strategy of contesting elections and working through existing parliaments. It was a strategy associated with the parties of the Second International and it was partly for this reason that it was opposed by those who wanted to break with Social Democracy. Critics contended that parliamentarism had caused the old parties to become devoted to reformism because it had encouraged them to place more importance on winning votes than on working for socialism, that it encouraged opportunists and place-seekers into the ranks of the movement and that it constituted an acceptance of the legitimacy of the existing governing institutions of capitalism. Similarly, affiliation to the Labour Party was opposed on the grounds that communists should not work with 'reformist' Social Democratic parties. These Left Communist positions enjoyed considerable support, being supported by Sylvia Pankhurst and Willie Gallacher among others. However, the Russian Communist Party took the opposing view. In 1920, Vladimir Lenin argued in his essay "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder that the CPs should work with reformist trade unions and social democratic parties because these were the existing organisations of the working class. Lenin argued that if such organisations gained power, they would demonstrate that they were not really on the side of the working class, thus workers would become disillusioned and come over to supporting the Communist Party. Lenin's opinion prevailed eventually.
Initially, therefore, the CPGB attempted to work within the Labour Party, which at this time operated mainly as a federation of left-wing bodies, only having allowed individual membership since 1918. However, despite the support of James Maxton, the Independent Labour Party leader, the Labour Party decided against the affiliation of the Communist Party. Even while pursuing affiliation and seeking to influence Labour Party members, however, the CPGB promoted candidates of its own at parliamentary elections.
Following the refusal of their affiliation, the CPGB encouraged its members to join the Labour Party individually and to seek Labour Party endorsement or help for any candidatures. Several Communists thus became Labour Party candidates, and in the 1922 general election, Shapurji Saklatvala and Walton Newbold were both elected. As late as 1923 the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party endorsed Communist parliamentary candidates, and 38 Communists attended the 1923 Labour Party Conference.
1920s and 1930s
In 1923, the party renamed its newspaper as the Workers Weekly. In 1923, the Workers' Weekly published a letter by J. R. Campbell urging British Army soldiers not to fire on striking workers. The Labour government of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald prosecuted him under the Incitement to Disaffection Act but withdrew the charges upon review. This led to the Liberal Party introducing a motion to establish an inquiry into the Labour government, which led to its resignation.
The affair of the forged Zinoviev Letter occurred during the subsequent general election late October 1924. Intended to suggest that the Communist Party in Britain was engaged in subversive activities among the British Armed Forces and elsewhere, the forgery's aim was to promote the electoral chances of the Conservative Party in the general election of 29 October; it was probably the work of SIS (MI6) or White Russian counter-revolutionaries.
After Labour lost to the Conservative Party in the election, it blamed the Zinoviev Letter for its defeat. In the aftermath of the Campbell Case and the Zinoviev letter, Labour expelled Communist Party members and banned them from running as its parliamentary candidates in the future. After the 1926 British general strike, it also disbanded 26 Constituency Labour Parties which resisted the ruling or were otherwise deemed too sympathetic to the Communist Party.
Throughout the 1920s and most of the 1930s, the CPGB decided to maintain the doctrine that a communist party should consist of revolutionary cadres and not be open to all applicants. The CPGB as the British section of the Communist International was committed to implementing the decisions of the higher body to which it was subordinate.
This proved to be a mixed blessing in the General Strike of 1926 immediately prior to which much of the central leadership of the CPGB was imprisoned. Twelve were charged with "seditious conspiracy". Five were jailed for a year and the others for six months. Another major problem for the party was its policy of abnegating its own role and calling upon the General Council of the Trades Union Congress to play a revolutionary role.
Nonetheless, during the strike itself and during the long drawn-out agony of the following Miners' Strike the members of the CPGB were to the fore in defending the strike and in attempting to develop solidarity with the miners. The result was that membership of the party in mining areas increased greatly through 1926 and 1927. Much of these gains would be lost during the Third Period but the influence was developed in certain areas that would continue until the party's demise decades later.
The CPGB did succeed in creating a layer of militants very committed to the party and its policies, although this support was concentrated in particular trades, specifically in heavy engineering, textiles and mining, and in addition, tended to be concentrated regionally too in the coalfields, certain industrial cities such as Glasgow and in Jewish East London. Indeed, Maerdy in the Rhondda Valley along with Chopwell in Tyne and Wear were two of a number of communities known as Little Moscow for their Communist tendencies.
During the 1920s, the CPGB clandestinely worked to train the future leaders of India's first communist party. Some of the key activists charged with this task, Philip Spratt and Ben Bradley, were later arrested and convicted as a part of the Meerut Conspiracy Case. Their trial helped to raise British public awareness of British colonialism in India, and caused massive public outrage over their treatment. At the same time, Asian and African delegates to the Comintern such as Ho Chi Minh, M. N. Roy, and Sen Katayama criticized the GBCP for neglecting colonial issues in India and Ireland.
But this support built during the party's first years was imperilled during the Third Period from 1929 to 1932, the Third Period being the so-called period of renewed revolutionary advance as it was dubbed by the (now Stalinised) leadership of the Comintern. The result of this "class against class" policy was that the Social Democratic and Labourite parties were to be seen as equally as much a threat as the fascist parties and were therefore described as being social-fascist. Any kind of alliance with "social-fascists" was obviously to be prohibited.
The Third Period also meant that the CPGB sought to develop revolutionary trade unions in rivalry to the established Trades Union Congress affiliated unions. They met with an almost total lack of success although a tiny handful of "red" unions were formed, amongst them a miners union in Scotland and tailoring union in East London. Arthur Horner, the Communist leader of the Welsh miners, fought off attempts to found a similar union on his patch.
But even if the Third Period was by all conventional standards a total political failure it was the 'heroic' period of British communism and one of its campaigns did have impact beyond its ranks. This was the National Unemployed Workers' Movement led by Wal Hannington. Increasing unemployment had caused a substantial increase in the number of CP members, especially those drawn from engineering, lacking work. This cadre of which Hannington and Harry MacShane in Scotland were emblematic, found a purpose in building the NUWM which resulted in a number of marches on the unemployment issue during the 1930s. Although born in the Third Period during the Great Depression, the NUWM was a major campaigning body throughout the Popular Front period too, only being dissolved in 1941.
The CPGB's General Secretary, Harry Pollitt, gives a speech to a large crowd outside the British Museum in support for the Aid to Russia Fund, 1941
After the victory of Adolf Hitler in Germany, the Third Period was dropped by all Communist Parties as they switched to the policy of the Popular Front. This policy argued that as fascism was the main danger to the workers' movement, it needed to ally itself with all anti-fascist forces including right-wing democratic parties. In Britain, this policy expressed itself in the efforts of the CPGB to forge an alliance with the Labour Party and even with forces to the right of Labour.
In the 1935 general election Willie Gallacher was elected as the Communist Party's first MP in six years, and their first MP elected against Labour opposition. Gallacher sat for West Fife in Scotland, a coal mining region in which it had considerable support. During the 1930s the CPGB opposed the National Government's European policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. On the streets the party members played a leading role in the struggle against the British Union of Fascists, led by Sir Oswald Mosley whose Blackshirts tried to emulate the Nazis in anti-Semitic actions in London and other major British cities. The Communist Party's Oxford branch under the leadership of Abraham Lazarus managed to successfully contain and defeat the rise of fascism in the city of Oxford, forcing the Blackshirts to retreat from the town and into the relative safety of Oxford University after the Battle of Carfax.
1939 to 1945: Second World War
An example of a CPGB poster supporting the British war effort against Nazi Germany during WWII
With the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, the CPGB initially continued to support the struggle on two fronts (against Chamberlain at home and Nazi fascism abroad). Following the Molotov–Ribbentrop nonaggression pact on 23 August between the Soviet Union and Germany, the Comintern immediately changed its position. The British party immediately fell in line, campaigning for peace, and describing the war as the product of imperialism on both sides, and in which the working class had no side to take. This was opposed within the CPGB by Harry Pollitt and J. R. Campbell, the editor of the Daily Worker, and both were relieved of their duties in October 1939. Pollitt was replaced by Palme Dutt. From 1939 until 1941 the CPGB was very active in supporting strikes and in denouncing the government for its pursuit of the war.
However, when in 1941 the Soviet Union was invaded by Germany, the CPGB reversed its stance immediately and came out in support of the war on the grounds that it had now become a war between fascism and the Soviet Union. Pollitt was restored to his old position as Party Secretary. In fact, the Communists' support for the war was so vociferous that they launched a campaign for a Second Front in order to support the USSR and speed the defeat of the Axis powers. In industry, they now opposed strike action and supported the Joint Production Committees, which aimed to increase productivity, and supported the National Government that was led by Winston Churchill (Conservative) and Clement Attlee (Labour). At the same time, given the influence of Rajani Palme Dutt in the Party, the issue of Indian independence and the independence of colonies was emphasised.
In the 1945 general election, the Communist Party received 103,000 votes, and two Communists were elected as members of parliament: Willie Gallacher was returned, and Phil Piratin was newly elected as the MP for Mile End in London's East End. Harry Pollitt failed by only 972 votes to take the Rhondda East constituency. Both Communist MPs, however, lost their seats at the 1950 general election. The Party was keen to demonstrate its loyalty to Britain's industrial competitiveness as a stepping point towards socialism. At the 19th Congress, Harry Pollitt asked rhetorically, "Why do we need to increase production?" He answered: "To pay for what we are compelled to import. To retain our independence as a nation."
The party's membership peaked during 1943, reaching around 60,000. Despite boasting some leading intellectuals, especially among the Communist Party Historians Group, the party was still tiny compared to its continental European counterparts. The French Communist Party for instance had 800,000 members, and the Italian Communist Party had 1.7 million members, before Benito Mussolini outlawed it in 1926. The Party tried, unsuccessfully, to affiliate to the Labour Party in 1935, 1943 and 1946.
Harry Pollitt gives a speech to workers in Whitehall, London, 1941
1946 to 1956: Start of the Cold War
In 1951 the party issued a programme, The British Road to Socialism (officially adopted at the 22nd Congress in April 1952), which explicitly advocated the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism – but only after it had been personally approved by Joseph Stalin himself, according to some historians. The BRS would remain the programme of the CPGB until its dissolution in 1991 albeit in amended form and today is the programme of the breakaway Communist Party of Britain.
From the war years to 1956 the CPGB was at the height of its influence in the labour movement with many union officials who were members. Not only did it have immense influence in the National Union of Mineworkers but it was extremely influential in the Electrical Trade Union and in the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, a key blue-collar union. In addition, much of the Labour Party left was strongly influenced by the party. Dissidents were few, perhaps the most notable being Eric Heffer, the future Labour MP who left the party in the late 1940s.
In 1954 the party solidified its opposition to British racial segregation, with the publication of A Man's a Man: A Study of the Colour Bar in Birmingham. Although the Communists had always opposed both racial segregation and British colonialism, this publication made clearer the party's position, and also had an enduring influence on British anti-racist politics outside the party.
The death of Stalin in 1953, and the uprising in East Germany the same year had little direct influence on the CPGB, but they were harbingers of what was to come. Of more importance was Nikita Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in which he denounced Stalin. According to George Matthews, Khrushchev made a deal with the CPGB to provide a secret annual donation to the party of more than £100,000 in used notes. The Poznań protests of 1956 disrupted not only the CPGB, but many other Communist Parties as well. The CPGB was to experience its greatest ever loss of membership as a result of the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. "[T]he events of 1956 ... saw the loss of between one-quarter and one-third of Party members, including many leading intellectuals." This event was initially covered in the CPGB-sponsored Daily Worker, by correspondent Peter Fryer, but as events unfolded the stories were spiked. On his return to Britain Fryer resigned from the Daily Worker and was expelled from the party.
1957 to 1970s: Decline of the party
William Alexander, representing to Politburo of the CPGB receives applause from the Presidium of the Fifth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, East Berlin, 16 July 1958.
After the calamitous events of 1956, the party increasingly functioned as a pressure group, seeking to use its well-organised base in the trade union movement to push the Labour Party leftwards. Trade unionists in the party in 1968 included John Tocher, George Wake, Dick Etheridge and Cyril Morton (AEU); Mick McGahey, Arthur True and Sammy Moore (NUM); Lou Lewis (UCATT) and Max Morris (NUT). Ken Gill became the party's first elected officer (Deputy General Secretary of DATA, later TASS) in 1968 and former party member Hugh Scanlon was elected president of the AEU with Broad Left support – defeating Reg Birch, the Maoist ex-party candidate. The Broad Left went on to help elect Ray Buckton (ASLEF), Ken Cameron (FBU), Alan Sapper (ACTT) and Jack Jones (TGWU) in 1969. Gerry Pocock, Assistant Industrial Organiser described the industrial department as "a party within a party", and Marxism Today editor James Klugmann would routinely defer to Industrial Organiser Bert Ramelson on matters of policy.
The party's orientation, though, was to the left union officers, not the rank and file. Historian Geoff Andrews explains "it was the role of the shop stewards in organising the Broad Lefts and influencing trade union leaders that were the key rather than organising the rank and file in defiance of leaderships", and so the party withdrew from rank-and-file organisations like the Building Workers' Charter and attacked "Trotskyist" tactics at the Pilkington Glass dispute in 1970.
Still the party's efforts to establish an electoral base repeatedly failed. They retained a handful of seats in local councils scattered around Britain, but the CPGB's only representative in Parliament was in the House of Lords, gained when Wogan Philipps, the son of a ship-owner and a long-standing member of the CPGB inherited the title of Lord Milford when his father died in 1963.
The Daily Worker was renamed the Morning Star in 1966. At the same time, the party became increasingly polarised between those who sought to maintain close relations with the Soviet Union and those who sought to convert the party into a force independent of Moscow.
The international split between Moscow and Beijing in 1961 led to divisions within many Communist Parties but there was little pro-Beijing sympathy in the relatively small British Party. Perhaps the best known of the tiny minority of CPGB members who opposed the Moscow line was Michael McCreery, who formed the Committee to Defeat Revisionism, for Communist Unity. This tiny group left the CPGB by 1963. McCreery himself died in New Zealand in 1965. Later a more significant group formed around Reg Birch, an engineering union official, established the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). Initially, this group supported the position of the Communist Party of China.
Divisions in the CPGB concerning the autonomy of the party from Moscow reached a crisis in 1968 when Warsaw Pact forces invaded Czechoslovakia. The CPGB, with memories of 1956 in mind, responded with some very mild criticism of Moscow, refusing to call it an invasion, preferring "intervention". Three days after the invasion, John Gollan said "we completely understand the concern of the Soviet Union about the security of the socialist camp ... we speak as true friends of the Soviet Union".
Even this response provoked a small localised split by the so-called Appeal Group which was in many respects a precursor of the 1977 split which formed the New Communist Party. From this time onwards, the most traditionally-minded elements in the CPGB were referred to as 'Tankies' by their internal opponents, due to their support of the Warsaw Pact forces. Others within the party leaned increasingly towards the position of Eurocommunism, which was the leading tendency within the important Communist parties of Italy and, later, Spain.
In the late-1960s, and probably much earlier, MI5 had hidden surveillance microphones in the CPGB's headquarters, which MI5 regarded as "very productive".
The last strong electoral performance of the CPGB was in the February 1974 General Election in Dunbartonshire Central, where candidate Jimmy Reid won almost 6,000 votes. However, this strong result was primarily a personal vote for Reid, who was a prominent local trade union leader and gained much support because of his prominent role in the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in, which had taken place a few years earlier and was seen as having saved local jobs. Nationally the party's vote continued its decline: according to a contemporary joke, the CPGB at this time pursued the British Road to Lost Deposits.
According to historian Geoff Andrews, "The mid-1970s saw Gramscians" (otherwise known as Euro-Communists) "take leading positions within the party". Dave Cook became National Organiser in 1975 and Sue Slipman was appointed to the executive committee and to the Marxism Today editorial board. Jon Bloomfield, former Student Organiser became the West Midlands District Secretary. Pete Carter prominent in UCATT, had been gaining influence since the late 60s and was appointed National Industrial Organiser in 1982. Beatrix Campbell (a contributor, with Slipman, to Red Rag) and Judith Hunt became active in the National Women's Advisory Committee. Martin Jacques, on the executive committee since 1967, replaced James Klugmann as editor of Marxism Today in 1977. Its turn to Eurocommunism was prefigured by what Andrews describes as Sarah Benton's "radical and heretical" stint as editor of the fortnightly review Comment. Critics from the past, like Eric Hobsbawm and Monty Johnstone, also gained influence.
The Euro-Communists in the party apparatus were starting to challenge the authority of the trade union organisers. At the 1975 Congress, economist Dave Purdy proposed that "the labour movement should declare its willingness to accept voluntary pay restraint as a contribution to the success of the programme and a way of easing the transition to a socialist economy" – a challenge to the Industrial Department's policy of "free collective bargaining". An argument he reiterated in print in The Leveller in 1979.
The growing crisis in the party also affected the credibility of its leadership, as formerly senior and influential members left its ranks. In 1976, three of its top engineering cadres resigned. Jimmy Reid, Cyril Morton and John Tocher had all been members of the Political Committee, playing a crucial role in determining the direction of the party. Like another engineer, Bernard Panter, who left a few months before them, they jumped a sinking ship.
According to the Party's official historian, this period was marked by a growing division between the practitioners of cultural politics – heavily inspired by the writings of Antonio Gramsci and party's powerful industrial department which advocated a policy of militant labourism.
The cultural politics wing had dominated the party's youth wing in the 1960s and was also powerful in the student section. As such many of its members were academics or professional intellectuals (or in the view of their opponents, out of touch and middle class). They were influenced by the environmental and especially the feminist movement.
The other wing was powerful in senior levels of the trade union movement (though few actually reached the very top in the unions) and despite the party's decline in numbers were able to drive the TUC's policy of opposing the Industrial Relations Act. In the view of their opponents on the cultural or Eurocommunist wing, they were out of touch with the real changes in working people's lives and attitudes.
As the seventies progressed and as industrial militancy declined in the face of high unemployment, the tensions in the party rose even as its membership continued to decline.
1977–1991: Breakup of the party
By 1977, debate around the new draft of the British Road to Socialism brought the party to breaking point. Many of the anti-Eurocommunists decided that they needed to form their own anti-revisionist Communist party. Some speculated at the time that they would receive the backing of Moscow, but such support appears not to have materialised. The New Communist Party of Britain was formed under the leadership of Sid French, who was the secretary of the important Surrey District CP, which had a strong base in engineering.
Another grouping, led by Fergus Nicholson, remained in the party and launched the paper Straight Left. This served as an outlet for their views as well as an organising tool in their work within the Labour Party. Nicholson had earlier taken part in establishing a faction known as "Clause Four" within Labour's student movement. Nicholson wrote as "Harry Steel", a combination of the names of Stalin ("man of steel" in Russian) and Harry Pollitt. The group around Straight Left exerted considerable influence in the trade union movement, CND, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and amongst some Labour MPs.
Under the influence of Eric Hobsbawm on the opposing wing of the party Martin Jacques became the editor of the party's theoretical journal Marxism Today and rapidly made it a significant publication for Eurocommunist opinions in the party, and eventually for revisionist tendencies in the wider liberal-left, in particular for the soft left around Neil Kinnock in the Labour Party. Although the circulation of the magazine rose it was still a drain on the finances of the small party.
As early as 1983, Martin Jacques "thought the CP was unreformable ... but stayed in because he needed its subsidy to continue publishing Marxism Today." Jacques' conviction that the party was finished "came as a nasty shock to some of his comrades" like Nina Temple, who "as unhappy as Jacques himself, stayed on only out of loyalty to Jacques."
In 1984, a long-simmering dispute between the majority of the leadership and an anti-Eurocommunist faction (associated with party industrial and trade union activists) flared up when the London District Congress was closed down for insisting on giving full rights to comrades who had been suspended by the executive committee. After the General Secretary closed the Congress a number of members remained in the room (in County Hall in South London) and held what was, in effect, the founding meeting of a breakaway party, although the formal split did not come until four years later. Members of the minority faction set about founding a network of Morning Star readers' groups and similar bodies, calling themselves the Communist Campaign Group. In 1988, these elements formally split from the CPGB to organise a new party known as the Communist Party of Britain. This was considered by many in the anti-Eurocommunist faction, including national executive members like Barry Williams, to be the death of the 'Party'.
In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Eurocommunist-dominated leadership of the CPGB, led by Nina Temple, decided to disband the party, and establish the Democratic Left, a left-leaning political think tank rather than a political party. The Democratic Left itself dissolved in 1999 and was replaced by the New Politics Network, which in turn merged with Charter 88 in 2007. This merger formed Unlock Democracy, which was involved in the campaign for a yes vote in the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum.
Some Scottish members formed the Communist Party of Scotland, while others formed Democratic Left Scotland and Democratic Left Wales Chwith Ddemocrataidd. Supporters of The Leninist who had rejoined the CPGB in the early 1980s declared their intention to reforge the Party and held an emergency conference at which they claimed the name of the party. They are now known as the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and they publish the Weekly Worker. But the Communist Party of Britain is the designated 'Communist Party' in the UK by the Electoral Commission. In 2008 members of the Party of the European Left, which contains several former communist parties in Europe, established a non-electoral British section.
Size and electoral information
The party began with 4000 members at its founding congress. It experienced a brief surge around the 1926 general strike, doubling its membership from 5,000 to over 10,000. This surge was short-lived, however, as membership eventually sank down to 2,350 by 1930. The party reached its peak in 1942 at 56,000 members. This reflected the popularity of the party in the active phase of the Second World War. In the post-war period, the membership began declining, culminating in the sudden loss of around 6,000 members in 1957, around the aftermath of the Soviet intervention in Hungary. From that point, the party gradually recovered into the early 1960s; however, it began slowly shrinking again in 1965. The downward trend continued until the leadership pushed for the dissolution of the party in 1991. The final congress recorded an overall figure of 4,742 members.
Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East
Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East is the title of a document that was published in series (episodes) in the German paper Spiegel and later on in a prominent French paper. A Lebanese doctor translated the document to the Arabic language and from there on it was translated to English and other languages. Waqf Ikhlas publications put out and circulated the document in English in hard copy and electronically under the title: Confessions of a British spy and British enmity against Islam. This document reveals the true background of the Wahhabi movement which was innovated by Mohammad bin abdul Wahhab and explains the numerous falsehood they spread in the name of Islam and exposes their role of enmity towards the religion of Islam and towards prophet Mohammad sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam and towards Muslims at large. No wonder the Wahhabis today stand as the backbone of terrorism allowing and financing and planning shedding the blood of Muslims and other innocent people. Their well known history of terrorism as documented in Fitnatul Wahhabiyyah by the mufti of Makkah, Sheikh Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, and their current assassinations and contravention is due to their ill belief that all are blasphemers save themselves. May Allah protect our nation from their evils.
Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East
Page 1 of 2
Our Great Britain is very vast. The sun rises over its seas, and sets, again, below its seas. Our State is relatively weak yet in its colonies in India, China and Middle East. These countries are not entirely under our domination. However, we have been carrying on a very active and successful policy in these places. We shall be in full possession of all of them very soon. Two things are of importance:
1- To try to retain the places we have already obtained;
2- To try to take possession of those places we have not obtained yet.
The Ministry of Colonies assigned a commission from each of the colonies for the execution of these two tasks. As soon as I entered the Ministry of Colonies, the Minister put his trust in me and appointed me the administrator of the company of East India. Outwardly it was a company of trade. But its real task was to search for ways of taking control of the very vast lands of India.
Our government was not at all nervous about India. India was a country where people from various nationalities, speaking different languages, and having contrasting interests lived together. Nor were we afraid of China. For the religions dominant in China were Buddhism and Confucianism, neither of which was much of a threat. Both of them were dead religions that instituted no concern for life and which were no more than forms of addresses. For this reason, the people living in these two countries were hardly likely to have any feelings of patriotism. These two countries did not worry us, the British government. Yet the events that might occur later were not out of consideration for us. Therefore, we were designing long term plans to wage discord, ignorance, poverty, and even diseases in these countries. We were imitating the customs and traditions of these two countries, thus easily concealing our intentions.
What frazzled our nerves most was the Islamic countries. We had already made some agreements, all of which were to our advantage, with the Sick Man (the Ottoman Empire). Experienced members of the Ministry of Colonies predicted that this sick man would pass away in less than a century. In addition, we had made some secret agreements with the Iranian government and placed in these two countries statesmen whom we had made masons. Such corruptions as bribery, incompetent administration and inadequate religious education, which in its turn led to busying with pretty women and consequently to neglect of duty, broke the backbones of these two countries. In spite of all these, we were anxious that our activities should not yield the results we expected, for reasons I am going to cite below:
1- Muslims are extremely devoted to Islam. Every individual Muslims is as strongly attached to Islam as a priest or monk to Christianity, if not more. As it is known, priests and monks would rather die than give up Christianity. The most dangerous of such people are the Shiites in Iran. For they put down people who are not Shiites as disbelievers and foul people. Christians are like noxious dirt according to Shiites. Naturally, one would do one's best to get rid of dirt. I once asked a Shiite this: Why do you look on Christians as such? The answer I was given was this: "The Prophet of Islam was a very wise person. He put Christians under a spiritual oppression in order to make them find the right way by joining Allah's religion, Islam. As a matter of fact, it is a State policy to keep a person found dangerous under a spiritual oppression until he pledges obedience. The dirt I am speaking about is not material; it is a spiritual oppression which is not peculiar to Christians alone. It involves Sunnites and all disbelievers. Even our ancient Magian Iranian ancestors are foul according to Shiites."
I said to him: "Well! Sunnites and Christians believe in Allah, in Prophets, and in the Judgment Day, too; why should they be foul, then?" He replied, "They are foul for two reasons: They impute mendacity to our Prophet, Hadrat Muhammad may Allah protect us against such an act! (1)* And we, in response to this atrocious imputation, follow the rule expressed in the saying, If a person torments you, you can torment him in return', and say to them: 'You are foul.' Second; Christians make offensive allegations about the Prophets of Allah. For instance, they say: Isaa (Jesus) 'alaihis-salaam' would take (hard) drinks. Because he was accursed, he was crucified."
In consternation, I said to the man that Christians did not say so. "Yes, they do," was the answer, "and you don't know. It is written so in the Holy Bible." I became quite. For the man was right in the first respect, if not in the second respect. I did not want to continue the dispute any longer. Otherwise they might be suspicious of me in an Islamic attire as I was. I therefore avoided such disputes.
2- Islam was once a religion of administration and authority. And Muslims were respected. It would be difficult to tell these respectable people that they are slaves now. Nor would it be possible to falsify the Islamic history and say to Muslims: The honor and respect you obtained at one time was the result of some (favorable) conditions. Those days are gone now, and they will never come back.
3- We were very anxious that the Ottomans and Iranians might notice our plots and foil them. Despite the fact that these two States had already been debilitated considerably, we still did not feel certain because they had a central government with property, weaponry, and authority.
4- We were extremely uneasy about the Islamic scholars. For the scholars of Istanbul and Al-adh-har, the Iraqi and Damascene scholars were insurmountable obstacles in front of our purposes. For they were the kind of people who would never compromise their principles to the tiniest extent because they had turned against the transient pleasures and adornments of the world and fixed their eyes on the Paradise promised by Qur'aan al-kereem. The people followed them. Even the Sultan was afraid of them. Sunnites were not so strongly adherent to scholars as were Shiites. For Shiites did not read books; they only recognized scholars, and did not show due respect to the Sultan. Sunnites, on the other hand, read books, and respected scholars and the Sultan.
We therefore prepared a series of conferences. Yet each time we tried we saw with disappointment that the road was closed for us. The reports we received from our spies were always frustrating, and the conferences came to naught. We did not give up hope, though. For we are the sort of people who have developed the habit of taking a deep breath and being patient.
The Minister himself, the highest priestly orders, and a few specialists attended one of our conferences. There were twenty of us. Our conference lasted three hours, and the final session was closed without reaching a fruitful conclusion. Yet a priest said, "Do not worry! For the Messiah and his companions obtained authority only after a persecution that lasted three hundred years. It is hoped that, from the world of the unknown, he will cast an eye on us and grant us the good luck of evicting the unbelievers, (he means Muslims), from their centers, be it three hundred years later. With a strong belief and long-term patience, we must arm ourselves! In order to obtain authority, we must take possession of all sorts of media, try all possible methods. We must try to spread Christianity among Muslims. It will be good for us to realize our goal, even if it will be after centuries. For fathers work for their children."
A conference was held, and diplomats and religious men from Russia and France as well as from England attended. I was very lucky. I, too, attended because I and the Minister were in very good terms. In the conference, plans of breaking Muslims into groups and making them abandon their faith and bringing them round to belief (Christianizing them) like in Spain was discussed. Yet the conclusions reached were not as had been expected. I have written all the talks held in that conference in my book "Ilaa Melekoot-il-Meseeh."
It is difficult to suddenly uproot a tree that has sent out its roots to the depths of the earth. But we must make hardships easy and overcome them. Christianity came to spread. Our Lord the Messiah promised us this. The bad conditions that the east and the west were in, helped Muhammad. Those conditions being gone, have taken away the nuisances (he means Islam) that accompanied them. We observe with pleasure today that the situation has changed completely. As a result of great works and endeavors of our ministry and other Christian governments Muslims are on the decline now. Christians, on the other hand, are gaining ascendancy. It is time we retook the places we lost throughout centuries. The powerful State of Great Britain pioneers this blessed task [of annihilating Islam].
In the Hijree year 1122, C.E. 1710, the Minister of Colonies sent me to Egypt, Iraq, Hidjaz and Istanbul to act as a spy and to obtain information necessary and sufficient for the breaking up of Muslims. The Ministry appointed nine more people, full of agility and courage, for the same mission and at the same time. In addition to the money, information and maps we would need, we were given a list containing names of statesmen, scholars, and chiefs of tribes. I can never forget! When I said farewell to the secretary, he said, "The future of our State is dependent on your success. Therefore you should exert your utmost energy."
I set out on a voyage to Istanbul, the center of the Islamic caliphate. Besides my primary duty, I was to learn very well Turkish, the native language of the Muslims being there. I had already learned in London a considerable amount of Turkish, Arabic (the language of the Qur'aan) and Persian, the Iranian language. Yet learning a language was quite different from speaking that language like its native speakers. While the former skill can be acquired in a matter of a few years, the latter requires a duration of time several times as long as this. I had to learn Turkish with all its subtleties lest the people should suspect me.
I was not anxious that they should suspect me. For Muslims are tolerant, open-hearted, benevolent, as they have learnt from their Prophet Muhammad 'alai-his-salaam'. They are not skeptical like us. After all, at that time the Turkish government did not have an organization to arrest spies.
After a very tiresome voyage I arrived in Istanbul. I said my name was Muhammad and began to go to the mosque, Muslims' temple. I liked the way Muslims observed discipline, cleanliness and obedience. For a moment I said to myself: Why are we fighting these innocent people? Is this what our Lord the Messiah advised us? But I at once recovered from this diabolical [!] thought, and decided to carry out my duty in the best manner.
In Istanbul I met an old scholar named "Ahmed Efendi." With his elegant manners, open-heartedness, spiritual limpidity, and benevolence, none of our religious men I had seen could have equalled him. This person endeavored day and night to make himself like the Prophet Muhammad. According to him, Muhammad was the most perfect, the highest man. Whenever he mentioned his name his eyes would become wet. I must have been very lucky, for he did not even ask who I was or where I was from. He would address me as "Muhammad Efendi." He would answer my questions and treat me with tenderness and with compassion. For he considered me a guest who had come to Istanbul to work in Turkey and to live in the shadow of the Khaleefa, the representative of the Prophet Muhammad. Indeed, this was the pretext I used to stay in Istanbul
One day I said to Ahmed Efendi: "My parents are dead. I don't have any brothers or sisters, and I haven't inherited any property. I came to the center of Islam to work for a living and to learn Qur'aan al-kereem and the Sunnat, that is, to earn both my worldly needs and my life in the Hereafter." He was very delighted with these words of mine, and said, "You deserve to be respected for these three reasons." I am writing down exactly what he said:
"1- You are a Muslim. All Muslims are brothers.
2- You are a guest. Rasoolullah 'sall-allaahu alaihi wa sallam' declared: 'Offer kind hospitality to your guests!'
3- You want to work. There is a hadeeth-i shereef stating that 'a person who works is beloved to Allah.' "
These words pleased me very much. I said to myself, "Would that there were such bright truths in Christianity, too! It's a shame there aren't any." What surprised me was the fact that Islam, such a noble religion as it was, was being degenerated in the hands of these conceited people who were quite unaware of what was going on in life.
I said to Ahmed Efendi that I wanted to learn Qur'aan al-kereem. He replied that he would teach me with pleasure, and began to teach me (Faatiha soora). He would explain the meanings as we read. I had great difficulty pronouncing some words. In two years' time I read through the whole Qur'aan al-kereem. Before each lesson he would make ablution himself and also command me to make ablution. He would sit towards the qibla (Ka'ba) and then begin teaching.
What Muslims call ablution consisted of a series of washings, as follows:
1) Washing the face;
2) Washing the right arm from fingers to elbows;
3) Washing the left arm from fingers to elbows;
4) Making masah of (moistening both hands and rubbing them gently on) the head, backs of ears, (back of) neck;
5) Washing both feet.
Having to use the miswaak vexed me very much. "Miswaak" is a twig with which they (Muslims) clean their mouth and teeth. I thought this piece of wood was harmful for the mouth and teeth. Sometimes it would hurt my mouth and cause bleeding. Yet I had to use it. For, according to them, using the "miswaak" was a muakkad sunnat of the Prophet. They said this wood was very useful. Indeed, the bleeding of my teeth came to an end. And the foul breath that I had till that time, and which most British people have, was gone.
During my stay in Istanbul I spent the nights in a room I had rented from a man responsible for the service in a mosque. This servant's name was "Marwaan Efendi". Marwaan is the name of one of the Sahaaba (Companions) of the Prophet Muhammad. The servant was a very nervous man. He would boast about his name and tell me that if I should have a son in the future I should "name him Marwaan, because Marwaan is one of Islam's greatest warriors."
"Marwaan Efendi" would prepare the evening dinner. I would not go to work on Friday, a holiday for Muslims. On the other days of the week I worked for a carpenter named Khaalid, being paid on a weekly basis. Because I worked part time, from morning till noon, that is, he would give me half the wage he gave the other employees. This carpenter would spend much of his free time telling about the virtues of "Khaalid bin Waleed." Khaalid bin Waleed, one of the Sahaaba of the Prophet Muhammad, is a great mujaahid (a warrior for Islam). He accomplished various Islamic conquests. Yet his (Khaalid bin Waleed's) dismissal from office by 'Umar bin Hattaab during the latter's caliphate chafed the carpenter's heart(2)*.
"Khaalid", the carpenter for whom I worked, was an immoral and extremely neurotic person. He somehow trusted me very much. I do not know why, but perhaps it was because I always obeyed him. He ignored the Sharee'at (Islaam's commandments) in his secret manners. Yet when he was with his friends he would display obedience to the commandments of the Sharee'at. He would attend the Friday prayers, but I am not sure about the other (daily) prayers.
I would have breakfast in the shop. After work I would go to the mosque for noon prayer and would stay there till afternoon prayer. After the afternoon prayer I would go to Ahmed Efendi's place, where he would teach me such lessons as (reading) Qur'aan al-kereem, Arabic and Turkish languages for two hours. Every Friday I would give him my weekly earnings because he taught me very well. Indeed, he taught me very well how to read Qur'aan al-kereem, requirements of the Islamic religion and the subtleties of Arabic and Turkish languages.
When "Ahmed Efendi" knew that I was single, he wanted to marry me to one of his daughters. I refused his offer. But he insisted, saying that marriage is a sunnat of the Prophet's and the Prophet had stated that "A person who turns away from my sunnat is not with me." Apprehending that this event might put an end to our personal dealings, I had to lie to him, saying that I lacked sexual power. Thus I ensured the continuance of our acquaintance and friendship.
When my two-year stay in Istanbul was over, I told "Ahmed Efendi" I wanted to go back home. He said, "No, don't go. Why are you going? You can find anything you might look for in Istanbul. Allaahu ta'aalaa has given both the religion and the world at the same time in this city. You say that your parents are dead and you have no brothers or sisters. Why don't you settle down in Istanbul?..." "Ahmed Efendi" had formed a compulsive dependence upon my company. For this reason he did not want to part company with me and insisted that I should make my home in Istanbul. But my patriotic sense of duty compelled me to go back to London, to deliver a detailed report concerning the center of the caliphate, and to take new orders.
Throughout my stay in Istanbul I sent reports of my observations monthly to the Ministry of Colonies. I remember asking in one of my reports what I was to do should the person I was working for ask me to practice sodomy with him. The reply was: You can do it if it will help you attain your goal. I was very much indignant over this answer. I felt as if the whole world had fallen down on my head. I already knew that this vicious deed was very common in England. Yet it had never occurred to me that my superiors would command me to commit it. What could I do? I had no other way than to empty the drug to the dregs. So I kept quiet and went on with my duty.
As I said farewell to "Ahmed Efendi", his eyes became wet and he said to me, "My son! May Allaahu ta'aalaa be with you! If you should come back to Istanbul and see that I am dead, remember me. Say the (soora) Faatiha for my soul! We will meet on the Judgement Day in front of 'Rasoolullah'." Indeed, I felt very sad, too; so much so that I shed warm tears. However, my sense of duty was naturally stronger.
My friends had returned to London before I did and they had already received new commands from the Ministry. I, too, was given new commands upon returning. Unfortunately, only six of us were back.
One of the other four people, the secretary said, had become a Muslim and remained in Egypt. Yet the secretary was still glad because, he said, he (the person who had remained in Egypt) had not betrayed any secrets. The second one had gone to Russia and remained there. He was Russian in origin. The secretary was very sorry about him, not because he had gone back to his homeland, but because perhaps he had been spying on the Ministry of Colonies for Russia and had gone back home because his mission had been over. The third one, as the secretary related, had died of plague in a town named "Imara" in the neighborhood of Baghdaad. The fourth person had been traced by the Ministry up to the city of San'aa in the Yemen and they had received his reports for one year, and thereafter his reporting had come to an end and no trail of him had been found despite all sorts of efforts. The Ministry put down the disappearance of these four men as a catastrophe. For we are a nation with great duties versus a small population. We therefore do very fine calculations on every man.
After a few of my reports, the secretary held a meeting to scrutinize the reports given by four of us. When my friends submitted their reports pertaining to their tasks, I, too, submitted my report. They took some notes from my report. The Minister, the secretary, and some of those who attended the meeting praised my work. Nevertheless I was the third best. The first grade was won by my friend "George Belcoude", and "Henry Fanse" was the second best.
I had doubtlessly been greatly successful in learning Turkish and Arabic languages, the Qur'aan and the Sharee'at. Yet I had not managed to prepare for the Ministry a report revealing the weak aspects of the Ottoman Empire. After the two-hour meeting, the secretary asked me the reason for my failure. I said, "My essential duty was to learn languages and the Qur'aan and the Sharee'at. I could not spare time for anything in addition. But I shall please you this time if you trust me." The secretary said I was certainly successful but he wished I had won the first grade. (And he went on):
"O Hempher, your next mission comprises these two tasks:
1- To discover Muslims' weak points and the points through which we can enter their bodies and disjoin their limbs. Indeed, this is the way to beat the enemy.
2- The moment you have detected these points and done what I have told you to, [in other words, when you manage to sow discord among Muslims and set them at loggerheads with one another], you will be the most successful agent and earn a medal from the Ministry."
I stayed in London for six months. I married my paternal first cousin, "Maria Shvay". At that time I was 22 years old, and she was 23. "Maria Shvay was a very pretty girl, with average intelligence and an ordinary cultural background. The happiest and the most cheerful days of my life were those that I spent with her. My wife was pregnant. We were expecting our new guest, when I received the message containing the order that I should leave for Iraq.
Receiving this order at a time while I was awaiting the birth of my son made me sad. However, the importance I attached to my country, doubled with my ambition to attain fame by being chosen the best one among my colleagues, was above my emotions as a husband and as a father. So I accepted the task without hesitation. My wife wanted me to postpone the mission till after the child's birth. Yet I ignored what she said. We were both weeping as we said farewell to each other. My wife said, "Don't stop writing to me! I shall write you letters about our new home, which is as valuable as gold." These words of hers stirred up storms in my heart. I almost cancelled the travel. Yet I managed to take control of my emotions. Extending my farewell to her, I left for the ministry to receive the final instructions.
Six months later I found myself in the city of Basra, Iraq. The city people were partly Sunnite and partly Shiite. Basra was a city of tribes with a mixed population of Arabs, Persians and a relatively small number of Christians. It was the first time in my life that I met with the Persians. By the way, let me touch upon Shi'ism and Sunnism.
Shiites say that they follow 'Alee bin Aboo Taalib, who was the husband of Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' daughter Faatima and at the same time Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' paternal first cousin. They say that Muhammad 'alaihis-salaam' appointed Alee, and the twelve imaams, 'Alee's descendants to succeed him as the Khaleefa.
In my opinion, the Shi'ees are right in the matter pertaining to the caliphate of 'Alee, Hasan, and Huseyn. For, as far as I understand from the Islamic history, Alee was a person with the distinguished and high qualifications required for caliphate. Nor do I find it alien for Muhammad 'alaihis-salaam' to have appointed Hasan and Huseyn as Khaleefas. What makes me suspect, however, is Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' having appointed Huseyn's son and eight of his grandsons as Khaleefas. For Huseyn was a child at Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' death. How did he know he would have eight grandsons. If Muhammad 'alaihis-salaam' was really a Prophet, it was possible for him to know the future by being informed by Allaahu ta'aalaa, as the Messiah had divined about the future. Yet Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' Prophethood is a matter of doubt to us Christians.
Muslims say that "There are many proofs for Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' Prophethood. One of them is the Qur'aan (Koran)." I have read the Qur'aan. Indeed, it is a very high book. It is even higher than the Torah (Taurah) and the Bible. For it contains principles, regulations, moral rules, etc.
It has been a wonder to me how an illiterate person such as Muhammad 'alaihis-salaam' could have brought such a lofty book, and how could he have had all those moral, intellectual and personal qualifications which could not be possessed even by a man who has read and travelled very much. I wonder if these facts were the proofs for Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' Prophethood?
I always made observations and research in order to elicit the truth about Muhammad's 'alaihis-salaam' Prophethood. Once I brought out my interest to a priest in London. His answer was fanatical and obdurate, and was not convincing at all. I asked Ahmed Efendi several times when I was in Turkey, yet I did not receive a satisfactory answer from him, either. To tell the truth, I avoided asking Ahmed Efendi questions directly related to the matter lest they should become suspicious about my espionage.
I think very much of Muhammad 'alaihis-salaam'. No doubt, he is one of Allah's Prophets about whom we have read in books. Yet, being a Christian, I have not believed in his Prophethood yet. It is doubtless that he was very much superior to geniuses.
The Sunnites, on the other hand, say that "After the Prophet's passing away, Muslims considered Aboo Bekr and 'Umar and 'Uthmaan and 'Alee suitable for the caliphate."
Controversies of this sort exist in all religions, most abundantly in Christianity. Since both 'Umar and 'Alee are dead today, maintaining these controversies would serve no useful purpose. To me, if Muslims are reasonable, they should think of today, not of those very old days(3)*.
One day in the Ministry of Colonies I made a reference to the difference between the Sunnites and the Shiites, saying, "If Muslims knew something about life, they would resolve this Shiite-Sunnite difference among themselves and come together." Someone interrupted me and remonstrated, "Your duty is to provoke this difference, not to think of how to bring Muslims together."
Before I set out for my travel to Iraq, the secretary said, "O Hempher, you should know that there has been natural differences among human beings since God created Abel and Cain. These controversies shall continue until the return of the Messiah. So is the case with racial, tribal, territorial, national, and religious controversies.
"Your duty this time is to diagnose these controversies well and to report to the ministry. The more successful you are in aggravating the differences among Muslims the greater will be your service to England.
"We, the English people, have to make mischief and arouse schism in all our colonies in order that we may live in welfare and luxury. Only by means of such instigations will we be able to demolish the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, how could a nation with a small population bring another nation with a greater population under its sway? Look for the mouth of the chasm with all your might, and get in as soon as you find it. You should know that the Ottoman and Iranian Empires have reached the nadir of their lives. Therefore, your first duty is to instigate the people against the administration! History has shown that 'The source of all sorts of revolutions is public rebellions.' When the unity of Muslims is broken and the common sympathy among them is impaired, their forces will be dissolved and thus we shall easily destroy them."
When I arrived in Basra, I settled in a mosque. The imaam of the mosque was a Sunnite person of Arabic origin named Shaikh 'Umar Taaee. When I met him I began to chat with him. Yet he suspected me at the very beginning and subjected me to a shower of questions. I managed to survive this dangerous chat as follows: "I am from Turkey's Igdir region. I was a disciple of Ahmed Efendi of Istanbul. I worked for a carpenter named Khaali (Haalid)." I gave him some information about Turkey, which I had acquired during my stay there. Also, I said a few sentences in Turkish. The imaam made an eye signal to one of the people there and asked him if I spoke Turkish correctly. The answer was positive. Having convinced the imaam, I was very happy. Yet I was wrong. For a few days later, I saw to my disappointment that the imaam suspected that I was a Turkish spy. Afterwards, I found out that there was some disagreement and hostility between him and the governor appointed by the (Ottoman) Sultan.
Having been compelled to leave Shaikh 'Umar Efendi's mosque, I rented a room in an inn for travellers and foreigners and moved there. The owner of the inn was an idiot named Murshid Efendi. Every morning he would disturb me by knocking hard at my door to wake me up as soon as the adhaan for morning prayer was called. I had to obey him. So I would get up and perform the morning prayer. Then he would say, "You shall read Qur'aan-al kereem after morning prayer." When I told him that it was not fard (an act commanded by Islam) to read Qur'aan al-kereem and asked him why he should insist so much, he would answer, "Sleeping at this time of day will bring poverty and misfortune to the inn and the inmates." I had to carry out this command of his. For he said otherwise he would send me out of the inn. Therefore, as soon as the adhaan was called, I would perform morning prayer and then read Qur'aan al-kereem for one hour.
One day Murshid Efendi came to me and said, "Since you rented this room misfortunes have been befalling me. I put it down to your ominousness. For you are single. Being single (unmarried) portends ill omen. You shall either get married or leave the inn." I told him I did not have property enough to get married. I could not tell him what I had told Ahmed Efendi. For Murshid Efendi was the kind of person who would undress me and examine my genitals to see whether I was telling the truth.
When I said so, Murshid Efendi reproved me, saying, "What a weak belief you have! Haven't you read Allah's aayat purporting, If they are poor, Allaahu ta'aalaa will make them rich with His kindness'?" I was stupefied. At last I said, "All right, I shall get married. But are you ready to provide the necessary money? Or can you find a girl who will cost me little?"
After reflecting for a while, Murshid Efendi said, "I don't care! Either get married by the beginning of Rajab month, or leave the inn." There were only twenty-five days before the beginning of the month of Rajab.
Incidentally, let me mention the Arabic months; Muharram, Safar, Rabi'ul-awwal, Rabi'ul-aakhir, Jemaaziy-ul-awwal, Jemaaziy-ul-aakhir, Rajab, Sha'baan, Ramadaan, Shawwaal, Zilqa'da, Zilhijja. Their months are neither more than thirty days, nor below twenty-nine. They are based on lunar calculations.
Taking a job as an assistant to a carpenter, I left Murshid Efendi's inn. We made an agreement on a very low wage, but my lodging and food were to be at the employer's expense. I moved my belongings to the carpenter's shop well before the month of Rajab. The carpenter was a manly person. He treated me as if I were his son. He was a Shiite from Khorassan, Iran, and his name was Abd-ur- Ridaa. Taking the advantage of his company, I began to learn Persian. Every afternoon Iranian Shiites would meet at his place and talk on various subjects from politics to economy. Most often than not they would speak ill of their own government and also of the Khaleefa in Istanbul. Whenever a stranger came in they would change the subject and begin to talk on personal matters.
They trusted me very much. However, as I found out later on, they though I was an Azerbaijani because I spoke Turkish.
From time to time a young man would call at our carpenter's shop. His attirement was that of a student doing scientific research, and he understood Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. His name was Muhammad bin Abd-ul-wahhaab Najdee. This youngster was an extremely rude and very nervous person. While abusing the Ottoman government very much, he would never speak ill of the Iranian government. The common ground which made him and the shop-owner Abd-ur-Ridaa so friendly was that both were inimical towards the Khaleefa in Istanbul. But how was it possible that this young man, who was a Sunnee, understood Persian and was friends with Abd-ur-Ridaa, who was a Shi'ee? In this city Sunnites pretended to be friendly and even brotherly with Shiites. Most of the city's inhabitants understood both Arabic and Persian. And most people understood Turkish as well.
Muhammad of Najd was a Sunnee outwardly. Although most Sunnites censured Shiites, in fact, they say that Shiites are disbelievers this man never would revile Shiites. According to Muhammad of Najd, there was no reason for Sunnites to adapt themselves to one of the four madh-habs; he would say, "Allah's Book does not contain any evidence pertaining to these madh-habs." He purposefully ignored the aayet-i-kereemas in this subject and slighted the hadeeth-i-shereefs.
Concerning the matter of four madh-habs: A century after the death of their Prophet Muhammad 'alaihis- salaam', four scholars came forward from among Sunnite Muslims: Aboo Haneefa, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Maalik bin Anas, and Muhammad bin Idris Shaafi'ee. Some Khaleefas forced the Sunnites to imitate one of these four scholars. They said no one except these four scholars could do ijtihaad in Qur'aan al-kereem or in the Sunna. This movement closed the gates of knowledge and understanding to Muslims. This prohibition of ijtihaad is considered to have been the reason for Islam's standstill.
Shiites exploited these erroneous statements to promulgate their sect. The number of Shiites was smaller than one-tenth that of Sunnites. But now they have increased and become equal with Sunnites in number. This result is natural. For ijtihaad is like a weapon. It will improve Islam's fiqh and renovate the understanding of Qur'aan al-kereem and Sunna. Prohibition of ijtihaad, on the other hand, is like a rotten weapon. It will confine the madh-hab within a certain framework. And this, in its turn, means to close the gates of inference and to disregard the time's requirements. If your weapon is rotten and your enemy is perfect, you are doomed to be beaten by your enemy sooner or later. I think, the clever ones of the Sunnites will reopen the gate of ijtihaad in future. If they do not do this, they will become the minority and the Shiites will receive a majority in a few centuries.
[However, the imaams (leaders) of the four madh-habs hold the same creed, the same belief. There is no difference among them. Their difference is only in worships. And this, in turn, is a facility for Muslims. The Shiites, on the other hand, parted into twelve sects, thus becoming a rotten weapon. There is detailed information in this respect in the book Milal wa Nihal].
The arrogant youngster, Muhammad of Najd, would follow his nafs (his sensuous desires) in understanding the Qur'aan and the Sunna. He would completely ignore the views of scholars, not only those of the scholars of his time and the leaders of the four madh-habs, but also those of the notable Sahaabees such as Aboo Bakr and 'Umar. Whenever he came across a Koranic (Qur'aan) verse which he thought was contradictory with the views of those people, he would say, "The Prophet said: I have left the Qur'aan and the Sunna for you.' He did not say, I have left the Qur'aan, the Sunna, the Sahaaba, and the imaams of madh-habs for you.' Therefore, the thing which is fard is to follow the Qur'aan and the Sunna no matter how contrary they may seem to be to the views of the madh-habs or to the statements of the Sahaaba and scholars."
During a dinner conversation at Abd-ur-Ridaa's place, the following dispute took place between Muhammad of Najd and a guest from Kum, a Shiite scholar named Shaikh Jawad:
Shaikh Jawad. Since you accept that 'Alee was a mujtahid, why don't you follow him like Shiites?
Muhammad of Najd Alee is no different from 'Umar or other Sahaabees. His statements cannot be of a documentary capacity. Only the Qur'aan and the Sunna are authentic documents. [The fact is that statements made by any of the As-haab-i kiraam are of a documentary capacity. Our Prophet commanded us to follow any one of them].
Shaikh Jawaad Since our Prophet said, "I am the city of knowledge, and 'Alee is its gate," shouldn't there be difference between 'Alee and the other Sahaaba?
Muhammad of Najd, If 'Alee's statements were of a documentary capacity, would not the Prophet have said, "I have left you the Qur'aan, the Sunna, and 'Alee"?
Shaikh Jawaad Yes, we can assume that he (the Prophet) said so. For the stated in a hadeeth-i-shereef, "I leave (behind me) Allah's Book and my Ahl-i-Bayt." And 'Alee, in his turn, is the greatest member of the Ahl-i-Bayt.
Muhammad of Najd denied that the Prophet had said so.
Shaikh Jawaad confuted Muhammad of Najd with convincing proofs.
However, Muhammad of Najd objected to this and said, "You assert that the Prophet said, I leave you Allah's Book and my Ahl-i-Bayt." Then, what has become of the Prophet's Sunna?"
Shaikh Jawad. The Sunna of the Messenger of Allah is the explanation of the Qur'aan. The Messenger of Allah said, "I leave (you) Allah's Book and my Ahl-i-Bayt." The phrase 'Allah's Book' includes the 'Sunna', which is an explanation of the former.
Muhammad of Najd. Inasmuch as the statements of the Ahl-i-Bayt are the explanations of the Qur'aan, why should it be necessary to explain it by hadeeths?
Shaikh Jawaad When hadrat Prophet passed away, his Ummat (Muslims) considered that there should be an explanation of the Qur'aan which would satisfy the time's requirements. It was for this reason that hadrat Prophet commanded his Ummat to follow the Qur'aan, which is the original, and his Ahl-i-Bayt, who were to explain the Qur'aan in a manner to satisfy the time's requirements.
I liked this dispute very much. Muhammad of Najd was motionless in front of Shaikh Jawaad, like a house-sparrow in the hands of a hunter.
Muhammad of Najd was the sort I had been looking for. For his scorn for the time's scholars, his slighting even the (earliest) four Khaleefas, his having an independent view in understanding the Qur'aan and the Sunna were his most vulnerable points to hunt and obtain him. So different this conceited youngster was from that Ahmed Efendi who had taught me in Istanbul! That scholar, like his predecessors, was reminiscent of a mountain. No power would be able to move him. Whenever he mentioned the name of Aboo Haneefa, he would stand up, go and make ablution. Whenever he meant to hold the book of Hadeeth named Bukhaaree, he would, again, make ablution. The Sunnees trust this book very much.
Muhammad of Najd, on the other hand, disdained Aboo Haneefa very much. He would say, "I know better than Aboo Haneefa did." In addition, according to him, half of the book of Bukhaaree was wrong.
[As I was translating these confessions of Hempher's into Turkish, I remembered the following event: I was a teacher in a high school. During a lesson one of my students asked, "Sir, if a Muslim is killed in a war, will he become a martyr?" "Yes, he will," I said. "Did the Prophet say so?" "Yes, he did." "Will he become a martyr if he is drowned in sea, too?" "Yes," was my answer. "And in this case he will attain more thawaab." Then he asked, "Will he become a martyr if he falls down from an aeroplane?" "Yes, he will," I said. "Did our Prophet state these, too?" "Yes, he did." Upon this, he smiled in a triumphant air and said, "Sir! Were there aeroplanes in those days?" My answer to him was as follows: "My son! Our Prophet has ninety-nine names. Each of his names stands for a beautiful attribute he was endowed with. One of his names is Jaami'ul-kalim. He would state many facts in one word. For example, he said, 'He who falls from a height will become a martyr.' " The child admitted this answer of mine with admiration and gratitude. By the same token, Qur'aan al-kereem and hadeeth-i-shereefs contain many words, rules, commandments and prohibitions each of which denotes various other meanings. The scientific work carried on to explore these meanings and to apply the right ones to the right cases, is called Ijtihaad. Performing ijtihaad requires having profound knowledge. For this reason, the Sunnees prohibited ignorant people from doing ijtihaad. This does not mean to prohibit ijtihaad. After the fourth century of the Hegiral Era, no scholars were educated so highly as to reach the grade of an absolute mujtahid [scholar profoundly learned (enough to perform ijtihaad)]; therefore, no one performed ijtihad, which in turn naturally meant the closure of the gates of ijtihaad. Towards the end of the world, Isaa (Jesus) 'alaihis-salaam' shall descend from heaven and Mahdee (the expected Islamic hero) shall appear; these people shall perform ijtihaad.
Our Prophet 'sall-allaahu alaihi wa sallam' stated, "After me Muslims shall part into seventy-three groups. Only one of these groups shall enter Paradise." When he was asked who were to be in that group, he answered, "Those who adapt themselves to me and my Ashaab." In another hadeeth-i-shereef he stated, "My As-haab are like celestial stars. You will attain hidaayat if you follow any one of them!" In other words, he said, "You will attain the way leading to Paradise." A Jew of Yemen, Abdullah bin Saba, by name, instigated hostility against the As-haab among Muslims. Those ignorant people who believed this Jew and bore enmity against the As-haab were called Shi'ee (Shiite). And people who obeyed the hadeeth-shereefs, loved and followed the As-haab-i-kiraam were called Sunnee (Sunnite).]
I established a very intimate friendship with Muhammad bin Abd-ul-wahhaab of Najd. I launched a campaign of praising him everywhere. One day I said to him: "You are greater than 'Umar and 'Alee. If the Prophet were alive now, he would appoint you as his Khaleefa instead of them. I expect that Islam will be renovated and improved in your hands. You are the only scholar who will spread Islam all over the world."
Muhammad the son of Abd-ul-wahhaab and I decided to make a new interpretation of the Qur'aan; this new interpretation was to reflect only our points of view and would be entirely contrary to those explanations made by the Sahaaba, by the imaams of madh-habs and by the mufassirs (deeply learned scholars specialized in the explanation of the Qur'aan). We were reading the Qur'aan and talking on some of the aayats. My purpose in doing this was to mislead Muhammad. After all, he was trying to present himself as a revolutionist and would therefore accept my views and ideas with pleasure so that I should trust him all the more.
On one occasion I said to him, "Jihaad (fighting, struggling for Islam) is not fard."
He protested, "Why shouldn't it be despite Allah's commandment, 'Make war against unbelievers.'?"
I said, "Then why didn't the Prophet make war against the munaafiqs despite Allah's commandment, 'Make Jihaad against unbelievers and munaafiqs." [On the other hand, it is written in Mawaahibu ladunniyya that twenty- seven Jihaads were performed against unbelievers. Their swords are exhibited in Istanbul's museums. Munaafiqs would pretend to be Muslims. They would perform namaaz with the Messenger of Allah in the Masjeed-i- Nabawee during the days. Rasoolullah 'sall-allaahu alaihi wasallam' knew them. Yet he did not say, " You are a munaafiq," to any of them. If he had made war against them and killed them, people would say, "Muhammad 'alaihis- salaam' killed people who believed in him." Therefore he made verbal Jihaad against them. For Jihaad, which is fard, is performed with one's body and/or with one's property and/or with one's speech. The aayat-i-kareema quoted above commands to perform Jihaad against unbelievers. It does not define the type of the Jihaad to be performed. For Jihaad against unbelievers must be performed by fighting, and Jihaad against munaafiqs is to be performed by preaching and advice. This aayat-i-kereema covers these types of Jihaad].
He said, "The Prophet made Jihaad against them with his speech."
I said, "Is the Jihaad which is fard (commanded), the one which is to be done with one's speech?"
He said, "Rasoolullah made war against the unbelievers."
I said, "The Prophet made war against the unbelievers in order to defend himself. For the unbelievers intended to kill him."
At another time I said to him, "Mut'a nikaah is permissible."
He objected, "No, it is not."
I said, "Allah declares, In return for the use you make of them, give them the mehr you have decided upon'."
He said, "'Umar prohibited two examples of mut'a practice existent in his time and said he would punish anyone who practiced it."
I said, "You both say that you are superior to 'Umar and follow him. In addition, 'Umar said he prohibited it though he knew that the Prophet had permitted it. Why do you leave aside the Prophet's word and obey 'Umar's word?"
He did not answer. I knew that he was convinced.
I sensed that Muhammad of Najd desired a woman at that moment; he was single. I said to him, "Come on, let us each get a woman by mut'a nikaah. We will have a good time with them. He accepted with a nod. This was a great opportunity for me, so I promised to find a woman for him to amuse himself. My aim was to ally the timidity he had about people. But he stated it a condition that the matter be kept as a secret between us and that the woman not even be told what his name was. I hurriedly went to the Christian women who had been sent forth by the Ministry of Colonies with the task of seducing the Muslim youth there. I explained the matter to one of them. She accepted to help, so I gave her the nickname Safiyya. I took Muhammad of Najd to her house. Safiyya was at home, alone. We made a one-week marriage contract for Muhammad of Najd, who gave the woman some gold in the name of "Mehr." Thus we began to mislead Muhammad of Najd, Safiyya from within, and I from without.
Muhammad of Najd was thoroughly in Safiyya's hands now. Besides, he had tasted the pleasure of disobeying the commandments of the Sharee'at under the pretext of freedom of ijtihaad and ideas.
The third day of the mut'a nikaah I had a long dispute with him over that hard drinks were not haraam (forbidden by Islam). Although he quoted many aayats and hadeeths showing that it was haraam to have hard drinks, I cancelled all of them and finally said, "It is a fact that Yezeed and the Umayyad and Abbasid Khaleefas had hard drinks. Were they all miscreant people and you are the only adherent of the right way? They doubtless knew the Qur'aan and the Sunna better than you do. They inferred from the Qur'aan and the Sunna that the hard drink is makrooh, not haraam. Also, it is written in Jewish and Christian books that alcohol is mubaah (permitted). All religions are Allah's commandments. In fact, according to a narrative, 'Umar had hard drinks until the revelation of the aayat, 'You have all given it up, haven't you?" If it had been haraam, the Prophet would have chastised him. Since the Prophet did not punish him, hard drink is halaal." [The fact is that 'Umar 'radiy-allaahu anh' used to take hard drinks before they were made haraam. He never drank after the prohibition was declared. If some of the Umayyad and Abbasid Khaleefas took alcoholic drinks, this would not show that drinks with alcohol are makrooh. It would show that they were sinners, that they committed haraam. For the aayat-i-kereema quoted by the spy, as well as other aayat-i-kereemas and hadeeth-i-shereefs, shows that drinks with alcohol are haraam. It is stated in Riyaad-un-naasiheen, "Formerly it was permissible to drink wine. Hadrat 'Umar, Sa'd ibni Waqqas, and some other Sahaabees used to drink wine. Later the two hundred and nineteenth aayat of Baqara soora was revealed to declare that it was a grave sin. Sometime later the forty-second aayat of Nisaa soora was revealed and it was declared, 'Do not approach the namaaz when you are drunk!'" Eventually, the ninety-third aayat of Maaida soora came and wine was made haraam. It was stated as follows in hadeeth-i- shereefs: "If something would intoxicate in case it were taken in a large amount, it is haraam to take it even in a small amount." and "Wine is the gravest of sins." and "Do not make friends with a person who drinks wine! Do not attend his funeral (when he dies)! Do not form a matrimonial relationship with him!" and "Drinking wine is like worshipping idols." and "May Allaahu ta'aalaa curse him who drinks wine, sells it, makes it, or gives it."] ***
Muhammad of Najd said, "According to some narratives, 'Umar drank alcoholic spirits after mixing it with water and said it was not haraam unless it had an intoxicating effect. 'Umar's view is correct, for it is declared in the Qur'aan, 'The devil wants to stir up enmity and grudge among you and to keep you from doing dhikr of Allah and from namaaz by means of drinks and gambling. You will give these up now, won't you?' Alcoholic spirits will not cause the sins defined in the aayat when it does not intoxicate. Therefore, hard drinks are not haraam when they don't have an intoxicating effect."
I told Safiyya about this dispute we had on drinks and instructed her to make him drink a very strong spirit. Afterwards, she said, "I did as you said and made him drink. He danced and united with me several times that night." From them on Safiyya and I completely took control of Muhammad of Najd. In our farewell talk the Minister of Colonies had said to me, "We captured Spain from the disbelievers [he means Muslims] by means of alcohol and fornication. Let us take all our lands back by using these two great forces again." Now I know how true a statement it was.
One day I broached the topic of fasting to Muhammad of Najd: "It is stated in the Qur'aan, 'Your fasting is more auspicious for you.' It is not stated that fasting is fard (a plain commandment). Then, fasting is sunna, not fard, in the Islamic religion." He protested and said, "Are you trying to lead me out of my faith?" I replied, "One's faith consists of the purity of one's heart, the salvation of one's soul, and not committing a transgression against others' rights. Did not the Prophet state, 'Faith is love'? Did not Allah declare in Qur'aan al-kereem, 'Worship thine Rab (Allah) until yaqeen comes to thee? Then, when one has attained yaqeen pertaining to Allah and the Day of Judgement and beautified one's heart and purified one's deeds, one will become the most virtuous of mankind." He shook his head in reply to these words of mine.
Once I said to him, "Namaaz is not fard." "How is it not fard?" "Allah declares in the Qur'aan, 'Perform namaaz to remember Me.' Then, the aim of namaaz is to remember Allah. Therefore, you might as well remember Allah without performing namaaz."
He said, "Yes. I have heard that some people do dhikr of Allah instead of performing namaaz.' I was very much pleased with this statement of his. I tried hard to develop this notion and capture his heart. Then I noticed that he did not attach much importance to namaaz and was performing it quite sporadically. He was very negligent especially with the morning prayer. For I would keep him from going to bed by talking with him until midnight. So he would be too exhausted to get up for morning prayer.
I began to pull down the shawl of belief slowly off the shoulders of Muhammad of Najd. One day I wanted to dispute with him about the Prophet, too. "From now on, if you talk with me on these topics, our relation will be spoilt and I shall put an end to my friendship with you." Upon this I gave up speaking about the Prophet for fear of ruining all my endeavors once and for all.
I advised him to pursue a course quite different from those of Sunnites and Shiites. He favored this idea of mine. For he was a conceited person. Thanks to Safiyya, I put an halter on him.
On one occasion I said, "I have heard that the Prophet made his As-haab brothers to one another. Is it true?" Upon his positive reply, I wanted to know if this Islamic rule was temporary or permanent. He explained, "It is permanent. For the Prophet Muhammad's halaal is halaal till the end of the world, and his haraam is haraam till the end of the world." Then I offered him to be my brother. So we were brothers.
From that day on I never left him alone. We were together even in his travels. He was very important for me. For the tree that I had planted and grown, spending the most valuable days of my youth, was now beginning to yield its fruit.
I was sending monthly reports to the Ministry of Colonies in London. The answers I received were very encouraging and reassuring. Muhammad of Najd was following the path I had drawn for him.
My duty was to imbue him with feelings of independence, freedom and skepticism. I always praised him, saying that a brilliant future was awaiting him.
One day I fabricated the following dream: "Last night I dreamed of our Prophet. I addressed him with the attributes I had learnt from hodjas. He was seated on a dais. Around him were scholars that I did not know. You entered. Your face was as bright as haloes. You walked towards the Prophet, and when you were close enough the Prophet stood up and kissed between your both eyes. He said, 'You are my namesake, the heir to my knowledge, my deputy in worldly and religious matters.' You said, 'O Messenger of Allah! I am afraid to explain my knowledge to people.' 'You are the greatest. Don't be afraid,' replied the Prophet."
Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Wahhaab was wild with joy when he heard the dream. He asked several times if what I had told him was true, and received a positive answer each time he asked. Finally he was sure I had told him the truth. I think, from then on, he was resolved to publicize the ideas I had imbued him with and to establish a new sect.
Roots of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
In part 1 and the entry entitled “Are Wahhabis Sunnis? Chechnya Conference and Saudi anger…“, we explained that the links and intermarriages between Saudis and Wahhabis run deep. We also explained that Saudis have a Jewish ancestry. (This in and of itself doesn’t mean much. What is significant however is the concealment of this ancestry and the fabrication of a different genealogy that is used publicly… as well as the real interests that are sought by Wahhabis and Saudis)
What is as interesting, but even less known, than the Jewish ancestry of Saudis, is that Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab’s ancestors were also Jews.
In the following excerpts, the author of the article is alluding to a 53 page report drafted in 2002 by Iraqi intelligence, declassified by the US in 2008, entitled “The Birth of Al-Wahhabi Movement And its Historic Roots.” In their remarks on the report, the US says :
The study aims at uncovering the links of this movement with the British Government and promoting Muhammad Bin ‘Abd-al-Wahab (the founder) and his meetings with the rulers of Al-Sa’ud to pass on their plans to target Islam and causing division among Muslims.
The actual document can be found here.
Please allow me to quote to quote from this article:
Although known to historians and religious experts, the centuries-old political and economic influence of a group known in Turkish as the “Dönmeh” is only beginning to cross the lips of Turks, Arabs, and Israelis who have been reluctant to discuss the presence in Turkey and elsewhere of a sect of Turks descended from a group of Sephardic Jews who were expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition in the 16th and 17th centuries. These Jewish refugees from Spain were welcomed to settle in the Ottoman Empire and over the years they converted to a mystical sect of Islam that eventually mixed Jewish Kabbala and Islamic Sufi semi-mystical beliefs into a sect that eventually championed secularism in post-Ottoman Turkey. It is interesting that “Dönmeh” not only refers to the Jewish “untrustworthy converts” to Islam in Turkey but it is also a derogatory Turkish word for a transvestite, or someone who is claiming to be someone they are not.
The Donmeh sect of Judaism was founded in the 17th century by Rabbi Sabbatai Zevi, a Kabbalist who believed he was the Messiah but was forced to convert to Islam by Sultan Mehmet IV, the Ottoman ruler. Many of the rabbi’s followers, known as Sabbateans, but also “crypto-Jews,” publicly proclaimed their Islamic faith but secretly practiced their hybrid form of Judaism, which was unrecognized by mainstream Jewish rabbinical authorities. Because it was against their beliefs to marry outside their sect, the Dönmeh created a rather secretive sub-societal clan.
the article continues
In his book, The Dönmeh Jews, D. Mustafa Turan writes that Wahhab’s grandfather, Tjen Sulayman, was actually Tjen Shulman, a member of the Jewish community of Basra, Iraq. The Iraqi intelligence report also states that in his book, The Dönmeh Jews and the Origin of the Saudi Wahhabis, Rifat Salim Kabar reveals that Shulman eventually settled in the Hejaz, in the village of al-Ayniyah what is now Saudi Arabia, where his grandson founded the Wahhabi sect of Islam. The Iraqi intelligence report states that Shulman had been banished from Damascus, Cairo, and Mecca for his “quackery.” In the village, Shulman sired Abdul Wahhab. Abdel Wahhab’s son, Muhammad, founded modern Wahhabism.
The article actually also confirms what we said earlier about the Jewish roots of the Saudi family:
The Iraqi report also makes some astounding claims about the Saud family. It cites Abdul Wahhab Ibrahim al-Shammari’s book, The Wahhabi Movement: The Truth and Roots, which states that King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, the first Kingdom of Saudi Arabia monarch, was descended from Mordechai bin Ibrahim bin Moishe, a Jewish merchant also from Basra. In Nejd, Moishe joined the Aniza tribe and changed his name to Markhan bin Ibrahim bin Musa. Eventually, Mordechai married off his son, Jack Dan, who became Al-Qarn, to a woman from the Anzah tribe of the Nejd. From this union, the future Saud family was born.
The Iraqi intelligence document reveals that the researcher Mohammad Sakher was the subject of a Saudi contract murder hit for his examination into the Sauds’ Jewish roots. In Said Nasir’s book, The History of the Saud Family, it is maintained that in 1943, the Saudi ambassador to Egypt, Abdullah bin Ibrahim al Muffadal, paid Muhammad al Tamami to forge a family tree showing that the Sauds and Wahhabs were one family that descended directly from the Prophet Mohammed.
After World War I, the British facilitated the coming to power of the Saud regime in the former Hejaz and Nejd provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The Sauds established Wahhabism as the state religion of the new Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and, like the Kemalist Dönmeh in Turkey, began to move against other Islamic beliefs and sects, including the Sunnis and Shi’as. The Wahhabi Sauds accomplished what the Kemalist Dönmeh were able to achieve in Turkey: a fractured Middle East that was ripe for Western imperialistic designs […]
The myths of British imperial benevolence and Palestine
Israel’s violence in Gaza is not merely self-defence but part of a longer story of settler colonialism dating from the heyday of European colonialism.
Raymond A Spruance Professor of International History and Professor of History at Stanford University
Published On 16 Jun 2021
16 Jun 2021
Arab protestors travelling to Amman for a demonstration against the Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, Jordan, 1936. The banners read: ''Palestine for t
Arab protesters travelling to Amman for a demonstration against the Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, Jordan, 1936. The banners read: ''Palestine for the Arabs'' and ''Our homeland is our faith and complete freedom is our life''. [Photo by Roger Viollet/Getty Images]
Last month, as Israeli artillery destroyed buildings in Gaza, one of two slivers of territory into which Palestinians have been squeezed over the last century, the British government was once again asserting the benevolence of its imperial past against those demanding a reckoning with its harms. #BritishEmpire trended on Twitter even as Gaza burned.
These phenomena are connected: the persistent whitewashing of British imperial history ensures that condemnations of Israel’s actions as “settler colonialism” fail to resonate morally in many quarters. Far from tainting Israel’s origins, the country’s British antecedents are held up as validating. The British government’s Balfour Declaration proclaiming support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in 1917 is mythologised as having laid the foundation for a Jewish state in the Middle East and thus providing international legitimacy for the creation of the state of Israel. Awareness of the morally dubious origins and meaning of this declaration might help puncture the entangled myths of British imperial benevolence and Israel’s benign presence in Palestine.
The Balfour Declaration was one of several strategic “promises” the British made during the first world war concerning the territories of the Ottoman Empire, as the British busily dismembered it in the name of protecting the route to India and the oil-rich Gulf. To get the region’s Arab population on their side, they promised the Sharifian rulers of the Hejaz, in the Arabian Peninsula, an independent kingdom stretching through Palestine to Damascus. At the same time, in secret negotiations with the French and the Russians to divide the region, they promised to make Palestine an international territory. When Russia withdrew from the war in October 1917, they saw an urgent need to secure the British position in the Middle East with a fresh promise, this time to the Zionist movement. Palestine thus became a thrice-promised land – reason enough to doubt the sacredness of any one of the promises.
The new promise was officially authored by the British foreign secretary, leading Conservative Arthur James Balfour. Known as “Bloody Balfour” for his suppression of Irish demands for greater independence as chief secretary for Ireland, Balfour was a determined imperialist. He was also an amateur philosopher suspicious of reason and drawn to the occult – and the notion of the occult power of certain groups. The idea that a promise to the Zionists would secure the Middle East for them emerged partly out of his anti-Semitic assumption, which was shared by other influential British politicians, that Jews controlled public opinion and global finances. Balfour calculated that his propaganda statement would rally American and German Jewish opinion to the Allied cause, while also ending the flow of unwanted Eastern European Jews into Britain.
The declaration was in line with the type of British settler colonialism that shaped the history of violent dispossession in Kenya and other colonies. That the British thought Palestine was something they could promise to any group without consulting its population was typical imperial presumption. The difference here was that Jewish rather than British settlers would take on the “civilising mission”- and act as a loyal presence near the Suez Canal. The declaration implied Jews were racially and culturally superior to Palestine’s indigenous population, even as it implied that Jews did not properly belong in Europe and possessed conspiratorial powers.
Not everyone in the British government shared these views. The secretary of state for India, Edwin Montagu, was Jewish and considered the declaration highly anti-Semitic. “Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine,” he feared. He insisted that the members of his family had no necessary “community of view” with Jewish families elsewhere: “It is no more true to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation.” Montagu feared that the declaration would mean that “Jews should be put in all positions of preference” in Palestine, and that Muslims and Christians would be made to “make way for the Jews”. He foresaw: “When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants.”
Montagu was just then formulating the Montagu Declaration, promising Indians greater self-government to secure their wartime loyalty. Conservatives, especially Balfour, baulked at this concession to anti-colonialism, arguing that Indians were incapable of such self-government. That’s the kind of imperialist Balfour was.
After the war, the British reneged on all wartime promises about the Middle East: They first betrayed the arrangements with the French by letting the Sharifian Prince Faisal set up a government in Damascus, but then let the French push Faisal out, in exchange for a free hand in oil-rich Mosul. Faisal was instead crowned king of Iraq under British rule – despite wartime promises of independence to Iraqis. Britain took direct control of Palestine (no international territory) – confirming that the Balfour Declaration’s ambiguous promise about a national home implied nothing about Jewish political control. In 1921, Britain also carved Jordan out of Palestine without any sense of having violated the Jewish national home. A White Paper of 1930 backed away from the very idea of a Jewish national home. A Zionist outcry forced the British government to withdraw the paper.
As Hitler rose to power, hundreds of thousands of desperate European Jews who found doors closed in Britain and the US arrived in Palestine. Increasingly landless and impoverished, Palestinians revolted in 1936. The British drew on brutal, terrorising, and destructive counterinsurgency methods developed in Ireland and Iraq, which shaped the practices of the Israeli military later.
The British changed policy in 1937 and 1939, by turns favouring the Jews and the Arabs. It was in the course of advising Palestine policy that Winston Churchill uttered his eugenicist defence of settler colonialism in general in 1937: “I do not admit…that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia…by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race…has come in and taken their place.” He saw Jewish settlement of Palestine as analogous to these earlier cases, including their genocidal implication.
At this time, Hitler was also looking to the genocide of Native Americans as a model for his conception of Lebensraum and began to apply the violent logic of settler colonialism in Europe itself. Churchill admired Hitler, devoting a chapter to him in his 1937 book on Great Contemporaries. Though Britons today celebrate Churchill for defeating Nazism, they have still not unambiguously condemned the settler-colonial ideology on which Nazism was founded.
Apologists for British imperialism instead pour their energies into defending Cecil Rhodes, another promoter of settler colonialism, even after a careful commission has recommended the removal of his statue at Oriel College in Oxford. Rhodes contended: “We are the finest race in the world and…the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.” His private company killed tens of thousands of the Matabele in founding the settler colony of Rhodesia. As prime minister of the Cape Colony, he also established the foundations of South African apartheid – to which the current Israeli regime is often compared – depriving non-white people of the vote and claiming their land. Even his British contemporaries were outraged by his actions.
Recently, after former US senator Rick Santorum claimed on CNN that settlers created the US “from nothing,…there was nothing here”, erasing not only the existence of Native American cultures and life but also the memory of massive settler violence against them, CNN parted ways with him, responding to intense pressure from the public, including the Native American Journalists Association.
Major British news outlets such as The Times, however, continue to allot generous space to apologists for settler colonialism. Last month, the Guardian formally regretted its support for the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when its editor wrote: “The existing Arab population of Palestine is…at a low stage of civilisation.” It is time for wider, unequivocal condemnation of its false promise and of the settler-colonial ideology on which it was based.
British wartime promises were not founded on principle but made for the sake of expedience and grounded in racist notions – hardly ground for the sacred. Moreover, the declaration included self-negating language assuring that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Balfour’s Conservatism was all about avoiding radical change. The declaration was framed vaguely so that it might be broken, like the wartime promises to the Sharifians. There is little in its origins in expedience, colonial presumption, and anti-Semitism to give it the aura of legitimacy – much less sacredness – that it has in some quarters today.
The British launched settler colonialism in Palestine as carelessly and recklessly as they had in Australia and New Zealand and in Kenya and Rhodesia. Israel’s violence in Gaza is not merely self-defence but part of a longer story of settler colonialism dating from the heyday of European colonialism. Contrary to British myths, settler colonialism was an aggressive process of ethnic cleansing grounded in racism. The US’s support of Israeli encroachment into Palestinian territory is the support of one British-made settler-colonial nation to another. It is no coincidence that that support became especially generous during the Trump administration, which was also unapologetically proud of white supremacy in North America. Reckoning with the history of colonialism is essential to reckoning with colonialism itself.
How British Imperialists Created the Fascist Jabotinsky
by Steven P. Meyer
Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), the patron-saint of Israel's Likud party who also created Revisionist Zionism, and Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), the decades-long chairman of the World Zionist Organization who was seen as the prime minister-in-exile of a Jewish Palestine, were both witting champions of the British Empire. They were instruments of Lord Alfred Milner and Leo Stennet Amery, the final authors of the Balfour Declaration, who craftily used them to secure British rule over Palestine as part of the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreements.
The British also controlled the leaders of the Arab nationalist movements, which they created and funded. They owned Haj Amin al-Husseini, a young radical, whom they chose as Mufti of Jerusalem. They funded his religious network and social organizations, and to give him status among all of the Islamic faith, they created the post of Grand Mufti for him. (See accompanying articles.)
The armed conflict in Israel today, which threatens to become World War III, is the continuation of almost a century of British-staged armed conflict between Arab and Jew that dates back to the Nebi Musa riots of 1920, just months after the close of World War I, as the British settled in to occupy Palestine. Eyewitness intelligence reports proved that British military operatives encouraged and facilitated the Arab rioting, lead by Haj Amin al-Husseini, against the Jews.
The Jewish armed response was led by Jabotinsky, and a British-trained Zionist military force that had been placed in Palestine at the end of the war. The Jewish Legion, as it was called, had no military significance. Its creation was opposed by the world's Jewish community, including the small Zionist movement that then existed. But it was a major propaganda tool created by Milner and Amery to back up Sykes-Picot. When the war ended and the Legion demobilized in Palestine, it became a deadly weapon to be used for violent bloody confrontations with the Arabs.
The Nebi Musa riots lasted several days. Five Jews and four Arabs were killed, and 216 Jews and 23 Arabs were wounded. Both Jabotinsky and Husseini were made public heroes by their British controllers, and the results gave them the capability to recruit followers that would be used for future confrontations. The die was cast, but the stage for the conflict had already been set decades before.
1. Modern Zionism and the British Empire
Palestine had been a necessary imperial target of acquisition for consolidation of the Empire for more than half a century before the Sykes-Picot agreements, dating back to the 1830s and the efforts of Lord Shaftsbury, a leading Tory politician, and Lord Palmerston, his stepfather-in-law. Palmerston served as Foreign Minister from 1830-51 and was destined to become prime minister and master of cultural and political warfare.
Shaftsbury was a Christian Zionist and British Israelite, who believed that the Jews must return to Zion before there could be a second coming of Christ. Although he opposed Jewish civil emancipation in England, and was indeed anti-Semitic, he believed it was Britain's destiny to establish Zion. Shaftesbury wrote: "though admittedly a stiff-necked, dark-hearted people, and sunk in moral degradation, obduracy, and ignorance of the Gospel, [the Jews] were not only worth of salvation but also vital to Christianity's hope of salvation." Shaftesbury's writings appeared in the The History of London Society for the Propagation of Christianity among the Jews. Shaftesbury was a member of the society and, in 1848, served as its president.
In 1838, an Arab revolt took place in Greater Syria, run by Muhammad Ali, the Ottoman viceroy of Egypt. British Foreign Secretary Palmerston offered the Sultan of Turkey British help in putting down the revolt, and in return, Britain was given the right to establish a vice-consulate in Jerusalem. Once this beachhead for the Empire was secured, the British decided to use a fledgling Zionist movement as their proxy, to increase their presence in the Holy Land.
In 1840, Palmerston sent a letter to the British ambassador in Constantinople, instructing him to contact the Sultan: "There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe, a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine.... It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth which they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan's dominions; and the Jewish people, if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan, would be a check upon any future evil designs of Muhammad Ali or his successor. I have to instruct Your Excellency strongly to recommend the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine."
In 1845, Edward Ledwich Mitford, one of Palmerston's collaborators in the Foreign Service and a political supporter, published "An appeal in Behalf of the Israel Nation in Connection with the British Policy in the Levant." The piece called for the "final establishment of the Jewish nation in Palestine as a protected state under the guardianship of Great Britain." Mitford reasoned that such a state would "place the management of our steam communication entirely in our hands and would place us in a commanding position in the Levant from whence to check the process of encroachment, to overawe open enemies and, if necessary, to repel their advance."
With the introduction of the steamship in the 1840s, the most efficient route to India and other parts of Asia was through what the British call the Near East. Britain's dominant shipping route now went from London, through the Mediterranean to Alexandria and Cairo by steamship, overland to Suez, and then continued by steamship to points east. Britain was no longer dependent upon the Atlantic currents and the whims of nature to circumnavigate Africa to reach India.
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 massively increased the efficiency and shortened the time of travel, putting an even higher premium on Britain's securing a base of operations in Palestine, as a northern defense of the canal. One of Britain's motives in starting World War I was to finally secure Palestine, and they did that with Sykes-Picot and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. No longer would the British have to entreat the Turks to accept the Jewish immigrants, which in British eyes were only surrogates for their empire.
Jabotinsky's Imperial Roots
Every Likud prime minister in Israel has been an avowed promoter of the policies of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Some were personal protégés, others extremist leaders within his movement. The father of current Likud leader and candidate for prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was Jabotinsky's personal secretary.
The Likud prime ministers are considered an elite grouping. They are often referred to as Jabotinsky's Princes, and to this day, Jabotinsky is omnipresent within the Jewish right wing. His picture adorns the Likud website, and U.S. Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman has had a framed photo of him on his desk.
Jabotinsky was a wholly owned and created asset of the British Empire. He was controlled by a political network led by Leo Stennet Amery, who became Britain's most prominent Imperial spokesman and political organizer. Amery's circle included the greatest names of British imperialism: Cecil John Rhodes, the self-avowed enemy of the American republic; the Coefficients group; and Alfred Milner, Rhodes' mentor, who ran Rhodes' secret society.
Jabotinsky and the creation of a Jewish Legion became Amery's number one project, as the British moved to take over Palestine at the close of World War I.
Amery's vision was that of Rhodes, who, in 1877, wrote his first Last Will and Testament. Only a bit more than a decade had passed since the British plan to dismember the United States in a Civil War had failed, bitterly. Rhodes, a rabid British race imperialist, had amassed his fortune through the exploration and mining of gold in Africa. Rhodes wrote that the purpose of his Will was: "To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands ... and especially the ... entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, ... the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, ... the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire..." (emphasis added).
Rhodes' secret society, and the intricacies of how it operated, are detailed in Carroll Quigley's The Anglo-American Establishment. Quigley describes the British power elite and their purpose at the turn of the century. They combined important press outlets, created political institutions, and used financial power to affect their policy. This elite group consisted of the Venetian Cecil family; the political and financial trustees of Rhodes' Trust, in which Alfred Milner was key; various banking institutions, including Lazard Frères; and the British royal family. Quigley describes a small inner core of collaborators, with two concentric circles of semi-witting and non-witting conspirators from Britain's aristocracy and financial elite.
By and large, they shared the aims of Rhodes' Will. They had one major enemy, the American System of Political Economy. It threatened the existence of the British Empire, which depended upon a mercantilist system of securing cheap raw materials from colonized, backward parts of the world, and shipping them back to England for industrial production and military use.
At the turn of the century, there were two powers in the world that represented the American system: the United States of America, and Germany, which had built its economy on the model of America's great economist Henry C. Carey. Following the stipulations of Rhodes' Will, his collaborators sparked World War I to dismantle a hated and threatening Germany, and to carve up Europe. They sought to secure and expand their colonial holdings by acquiring much of the Ottoman Empire, which would give them its oil holdings, as well as secure Palestine as a military buffer to the Suez Canal. In order to accomplish these goals, they also worked non-stop to trap the United States into collaborating with their warring schemes, and sought to diminish America's industrial economy from within.
Lord Alfred Milner, who ran Rhodes' Trust, was central to the secret cabal. He had been British High Commissioner for Africa, had won the Boer War, and had united South Africa as one political entity under British rule. That act gave Britain looting rights for the most important raw materials on the continent, and he derived much power from these accomplishments.
At the close of the Boer War, Milner recruited a group of the best and the brightest from Oxford University to assist him in establishing British rule in Africa. He recruited them to his philosophy and became each and every one's mentor. Known as Milner's Kindergarten or The Kindergarten, these individuals returned to London and would play a major role in both World War I and World War II.
As World War I approached, Rhodes' secret society, under the direction of Milner and various other collaborators, went to work. Both Liberal and Conservative, they held in common a rabid racial imperialism. Their own writings detail their thoughts and aims. For propaganda purposes, they created the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), but they also purchased the Times of London and ran other crucial press organs to rally the public behind their aims.
Milner's personal protégé was Leo Stennet Amery. Quigley describes their relationship: "Amery can be regarded as Milner's political heir. From the beginning of his own political career in 1906 to the death of Milner in 1925, he was more closely associated with Milner's active political life than any other person ... his associations with Milner became steadily more intimate. In his last years of public office, Milner was generally assisted by Amery (1917-1921), and when he died it was Amery who arranged the public memorial service and controlled the distribution of tickets."
To understand today's Likud and the rest of the right wing in Israel, one must understand Amery and Milner and their role in shaping the British Empire. They used Zionism to secure the oilfields of the Middle East and defense of the Suez Canal. They stated this openly, as did their Christian Zionist supporters. This was geopolitics in the mode of Sykes-Picot.
2. Amery: The Empire Is 'The Kingdom of Heaven'
Leo Amery's son, Julian, aptly described his father in the 1988 introduction to The Empire at Bay, Notes from the Leo Amery Diaries. British Imperialism, he wrote, "was a civilizing mission to which the British peoples could dedicate themselves: one from which they would derive a sense of purpose and a source of pride.
This concept of Empire was much more than a political programme. It was an ideology that constituted a coherent system of thought to which every issue, political, economic, social, cultural, and even moral could be related. More than that, it was a faith. This faith would sustain [Leo Amery] throughout his entire life.
In Leo Amery's own words, this faith and concept of Empire, with its responsibility for "civilizing other cultures," was mandated by God. Amery is famously quoted as saying: "The Empire is not external to any of the British nation. It is something like the Kingdom of Heaven within ourselves."
Amery entered Oxford College at Balliol in 1892. Aside from languages, his study concentrated on political economy. He became a Fellow at All Souls College and left in 1898, taking a post writing for the Times. He was recruited by Milner in South Africa while reporting on the Boer War, and was known as Milner's mouthpiece.
Amery had a long dinner meeting with Cecil Rhodes in Africa, a few years before the latter's death in 1902. Rhodes discussed with him the Rhodes Trust, and the establishment of a scholarship fund that would recruit talented young men to attend a special program at Oxford. The scholarships would be awarded to select students from the British Dominions, Germany, and the United States, with the proportion heavily weighted to U.S. recipients. The overt purpose was to recruit American support for the British Empire.
Amery ran Rhodes' Trust from 1933 until his death in 1955. He joined the board as a director in 1919, and for the next 36 years, he missed only one meeting.
While at Oxford, Amery founded a branch of the Fabian Society, and established a close relationship with the Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb. He also came under the hegemony of Joseph Chamberlain, to become the leading spokesman for a tariff policy to secure advancement of the Empire.
In 1902, he and the Webbs founded the Coefficients, a secret dining club of Liberal and Conservative imperialists. The group of a dozen persons was chosen for their expertise. They included Bertrand Russell for science; Halford Mackinder for geopolitics; Sir Clinton Dawkins, a partner of Morgan Guaranty Bank, London, for finance; Prof. W.A.S. Hewins, principal of the London School of Economics, for economics; and Leo Maxse, a close collaborator of Amery's and editor of the National Review, for journalism. H.G. Wells was chosen for his general knowledge. Of Wells, Amery wrote in his autobiography: "Our minds certainly worked very much alike in many ways and for some years we saw a good deal of each other."
The format of the club required each specialist to make a presentation over dinner. Discussion ensued. Their intent was to create a Brains Trust that would make government policy.
Amery's area of expertise was the military. Having covered the Boer War for the Times, he had become ensconced with a grouping of leading military personalities, and, representing the Milner Group, Amery was in the process of anonymously writing a 12-part series on the Army that would appear in the Times. The articles detailed how inadequate were the training and staffing of the army. He argued for a complete overhaul, so that well-trained troops could be efficiently deployed to the European continent and Dominions, in the event of a new war. In other words, Amery presented the reorganization plans for the Army that would allow the British to fight World War I.
Amery was already passionately imbued with Rhodes' and Milner's view of the British Empire in world affairs, and Bertrand Russell later described Amery's presentation to the Coefficients: "... in 1902, I became a member of a small dining club called the Coefficients, got up by Sidney Webb for the purpose of considering political questions from a more or less Imperialist point of view. It was in this club that I first became acquainted with H.G. Wells, of whom I had never heard until then. His point of view was more sympathetic to me than that of any member. Most of the members, in fact, shocked me profoundly. I remember Amery's eyes gleaming with blood-lust at the thought of a war with America, in which as he said with exultation, we should have to arm the whole adult male population..." (emphasis added).
The original Coefficient group lost many of its members, but Amery and the Webbs remained, as did Wells for a while, with Amery being the only original member left when the group disbanded in 1909. Russell dropped out early, but Milner and Sir Henry Birchenough, the chairman of the British South Africa Company, along with John H. Smith, chairman of Hambro's bank, soon joined, as did others from Milner's circle.
In 1910, Amery married Florence Greenwood. Her father, Hamar Greenwood, had emigrated from Wales to Canada, where he married into a family of American colonists who had sided with the British during the American Revolution. Her family was fiercely loyal to the United Empire Loyalist tradition, which combined a deep suspicion of everything American with an almost fanatical reverence for the British Crown and everything British.
On June 11, 1916, less than a month after the secret Sykes-Picot treaty had been signed, Milner was given a full page in the New York Times to make his case that America should partner with the British Empire. The article was entitled "Lord Milner Wants Anglo-American Union: British Statesman, Who Was Among First Mentioned as Kitchener's Probable Successor, Believes It Will Bring World Peace." The significance of the timing of this article cannot be overstated. Milner knew of the secret agreements with the French to move the war to Palestine and the East, and for the carving up the Ottoman Empire between the two. His article was placed to gather America's support for that outcome.
A New York Times reporter had interviewed Milner in London. America had already entered the war on the side of the British, and as the United States would provide the margin of victory, it would have a major say in the settlement of the peace. Milner, the man in pursuit of carrying out Cecil Rhodes' Last Will and Testament, was about to join a War Cabinet with Prime Minister David Lloyd George. The secret agreement to move the war to the eastern front would give Britain control over Palestine, providing a military buffer to the Suez Canal. Palestine would also provide a deep-water port (Haifa) on the Mediterranean for the export of oil. Milner needed the Americans on his side for the plan to succeed.
The New York Times gave Milner a glowing introduction. Looking towards the end of the war, Milner sought two essential agreements. The first, that the United States and Great Britain would have a cooperative purpose in handling the peace; and the second, that there would be agreements signed to establish a unified military to ensure the peace—and, of course, the British Empire. Those exact same demands were echoed less than a quarter of a century later, during World War II, by American Clarence Streit, who authored Union Now with Britain.
Milner's words speak for themselves:
...What I especially stand for is the closest possible union between the various States under the British Crown. Always I have aimed as well as I have been able, at the accomplishment of this. This might seem to strike away from closer relationship between Great Britain and the United States. I do not think it need do that.
I believe philandering between nations to be foolish, but there must never be another serious quarrel between the States and England. I believe the greatest disaster in human history was the split which separated the American colonies from the home country... [emphasis added].
The word 'empire' and the word 'imperial,' imperfectly convey the thought, and perhaps, have been unfortunately chosen. They suggest domination, ascendancy, the rule of a superior over inferior or vassal States. But British 'imperialists' of the modern school (of which I am one and ever shall be one), when speaking of the British Empire think, not of an empire in the old acceptation of the term, but of a group of States, independent one of the other in local affairs, although bound together in the defence of their common interests and the development of a common civilization.
Lord Milner then went on to speak of England's work in governing backward peoples. He declared that she was doing America's work as well as her own. Someone, said Milner, must bear "the white man's burden," and Germany had a bad record in this respect:
I do not believe America would care to see the British dependencies in Africa ruled in the spirit which has been shown by Germany in such few enterprises of the sort as she has undertaken. And I am sure that those in the United States who are familiar with the facts of British Government in India, would never wish to see that Government replaced by a Government of Junkers.
... I was ultra-British—an out and out British Imperialist.
That is what I am and always shall be. I have given you my reasons for it, my reasons too, for thinking that British Imperialism, as I conceive it, should find favour and sympathy in your country, on which, next to my own, I base my hopes for the future freedom and progress and peace of the world.
Milner was a lying scoundrel. His purpose and belief were quite to the contrary. A March 18, 1917 entry in Beatrice Webb's diary describes Milner's more private thoughts. Webb's entry is made at the conclusion of a briefing she was given by Tom Jones, then acting secretary to the Cabinet Committee on Territorial Terms of Peace, and a close friend. Milner was the chairman of this committee. "There is a vivid movement, guided by Milner and served by Amery, to prepare for another war, to complete the ruin of Germany and the domination of the British Empire. This gang of Power worshippers are running down the Russian revolution and minimising the entry of the U.S.A as one of the belligerents. They are bent on maintaining a ruling caste of a ruling race: they fear and despise democracy. Any aspirations towards self-government among British subjects, who do not already possess it, is sedition to be put down by machine guns and plentiful hangings."
Milner's private papers give credence to this report. After colonizing Southern Africa, he wrote: "I believe in a lot of virtual-self-government in the new Colonies, without letting the supreme control out of Imperial hands."
Amery's view was similar:
South Africa must develop as a white man's country under the guidance of white men, and not as a bastard country like most of South America.... In five hundred years' time I expect the South African white man will contain a strong dark blend, and the end of all things may be a brown South African race.... That doesn't matter, what does matter is that there should not be too quick a mixture now or for the next few centuries.
Amery was a eugenicist, as well, referring to the African population as "niggers."
From the Jewish Legion to Berchtesgaden
Amery's civil career in Britain's Imperial Command was illustrious, varied, and colored throughout by sympathy for fascism. He joined Milner as an undersecretary at the War Cabinet, where he first met both Jabotinsky and Weizmann. When Milner became Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1919, Amery was posted as his Under-Secretary. In 1922, he joined the Privy Council and was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. He became Colonial Secretary in 1924, and in 1925, he was concurrently given the post of Dominions Secretary which put him in charge of the Palestine Mandate, a post he held until 1929.
During the 1930s, as a member of the board of various British and German metal companies, he often travelled to Germany and monitored its rearmament. As Quigley reports, the policy of the Milner group was to re-arm Germany to go east to destroy Russia. Statements to that effect are included in Amery's diaries.
In August 1935, more than a year after Hitler's Night of the Long Knives (his purge of the Nazi party), and only two months after the signing of the British-German naval agreement that allowed Germany to rebuild its Navy, Amery met with Hitler. Amery gave Hitler his advice on how to strengthen the German economy. Amery's diary entry dated Aug. 13, 1935 reads as follows:
At 10.45 the big open car, familiar to cinema visitors, arrived and K., myself and Dr. Schmidt, another expert from von Ribbentrop's office, ... drove through Berchtesgaden up the winding road to Obersalzberg.... We were welcomed by a burly brown shirt ADC, like a jollier Göring, and then taken on to a veranda where Hitler met us and took us in to a room opening out on to it. He didn't waste much time on compliments but got on to high politics at once. What I was chiefly interested in was his outlook on the European problem generally. On this he talked what seemed to me vigorous commonsense....
We talked—though it was about ten to one—for over an hour and a half. I did not find the hypnotic charm I had heard of, and no attempt to exercise it, but liked his directness and eagerness to let his hearer know all his mind. Intellectually he has a grip on economic essentials and on many political ones, too, even if it is crude at times and coloured by deep personal prejudice.... His immediate surroundings, like K. regard him as a universal genius as well as a national saviour. It will be interesting to see how he shapes in the next 20 years, if he lasts, and there is no particular reason why he shouldn't. He over works and under-sleeps, but as he leads an extraordinarily ascetic life he may stand more of that than most. We got on well together I think, owing to the fundamental similarity of many of our ideas. But I admit we didn't discuss some controversial subjects like Austria, constitutional liberty, Jews, or colonies. I did, however, expound to him my view that Germany should enter into preferential schemes with Holland and Belgium in regard to their colonies (emphasis added).
Amery was also an intimate of Reichsbank president and later Hitler's Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht, whom he met numbers of times. It was Schacht who told Lord Lothian that Amery said the British were not interested in allowing Germany to have her colonies back, but there was no reason Germany couldn't go east to build up her economy.
Amery's friend and collaborator, Lord Lothian, a member of the pro-Hitler Cliveden set, naturally also admired Hitler. As late as May 1937, he met with Hitler. Amery's diary reported: "... RIIA Garden Party in St. James Square.... Lothian told me all about recent interviews with Hitler and Göring, describing the former as essentially a prophet and the latter as a genial buccaneer of the F.E. type. He says the Germans are very anxious to be friends with us if they can but that if we allow things to drift, ... they will solve it by force, in which case we are likely to climb down ignominiously."
A proponent of corporatist fascism, Amery admired and advised Benito Mussolini, with whom he was in frequent communication. David Low, the cartoonist famous for his Colonel Blimp character, which made fun of the hypocrisy of the British aristocracy, published a cartoon in the Evening Standard of June 29, 1934, entitled "Signor Moslini's language class." It shows a bust of Mussolini as Giovanni Bull, towering over a group of Englishmen in brown shirts. Amery is at the center of the group. British Fascist Sir Oswald Mosley is standing before the group at a lectern, leading them in a rendition of "Rule Britannia," sung in Italian. On the wall is a map of the Fascist Empire (British Section), with the countries of the British Empire highlighted.
Amery became Secretary of State for India and Burma in the closing phase of his career, According to his son Julian, "India was an empire of its own closely connected with the Middle Eastern and later with the far eastern theatres of war. Amery's main task, working with two great Viceroys, Linlithgow and Wavell, was to mobilise the human and material resources of the subcontinent in support of the war. No less important, with the Japanese enemy at the gate, was the need to contain the efforts of Gandhi and the Congress Party to overthrow the Raj.
India ... absorbed Amery's main energies throughout the war but as a member of the Cabinet he was naturally involved in other spheres as well. He fought a long battle ... over post-war economic policies where he feared that American economic imperialism and 'anti-Colonialism' would threaten the very existence of the Commonwealth and Empire.
Amery had a visceral hatred of President Franklin Roosevelt and his closest advisors. According to Amery's biographer William Roger Louis, who had access to his private papers, Amery reserved special venom for Sumner Welles, President Roosevelt's Under-Secretary of State who, Amery correctly believed, wished to break up the British Empire. He warned Lord Linlithgow in a private letter of Jan. 25, 1941 about Roosevelt's Secretary of State: "Cordell Hull really represents mid-nineteenth-century vision on economics, coupled no doubt with the desire to create an American export hegemony in the world." Amery described Hull's philosophy as dating back "to somewhere around 1860," which implies the economic philosophy and foreign policy of Abraham Lincoln's collaborator, American System economist Henry Carey. According to Louis, Hull accurately identified Amery, Viceroy Linlithgow, and Sir Winston Churchill as the "arch-opponents" of any attempt to break up the empire.
Roosevelt did intend to dismantle the British Empire at the end of the war, and Amery's response is revealed in a letter dated Aug. 26, 1942 to Robert Arthur James Gascoyne-Cecil, Fifth Marques of Salisbury, Viscount Cranborne, Secretary of State for the British Colonies: "After all, smashing Hitler is only a means to the essential end of preserving the British Empire and all it stands for in the World.... It will be no consolation to suggest that Hitler should be replaced by Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek or even an American President if we cease to exercise our power and influence in the world. What I think is needed to-day more than anything else is a vigorous reaffirmation of our faith in our destiny as an Empire ... , regarding the war merely as a step in that process."
Amery had a formidable will as the philosopher and spokesman of the Imperial movement. He was a prolific writer, rallying the public behind the empire. At the close of World War II, he wrote The Washington Loan Agreements, A Critical Study of American Economic Foreign Policy, where he warned that Roosevelt's New Dealers could use the Bretton Woods agreements and the terms of the British war debt to the United States to dismantle the British Empire. Again he railed: "The object of American policy is perfectly simple. It is to clamp upon the world, and in particular upon the British Empire, the obsolete economic system of the last century."
3. Israel on the Plains of Armageddon
Both Weizmann and Jabotinsky were steered by British intelligence operatives, who were Christian Zionists. Weizmann's confidante, and the only non-Jewish member of the Palestine Executive, was Blanche "Baffy" Dugdale. Dugdale was the go-between for Weizmann and the British royal family and Anglo-Dutch elites.
Trained as a naval intelligence expert during World War I, she founded the League of Nations Union after the war, with her cousin, Lord Robert Cecil, and headed its intelligence unit until 1928. According to her diaries, she befriended Weizmann by no later than 1923, and she and Amery, identified in her diaries as her "invaluable friend," were to closely collaborate on their Zionist project for the next several decades.
Amery's relationship to Weizmann dates back to the Balfour Declaration of 1918, at least. But what probably cemented their relationship was the threat that the United States might get the mandate for Palestine at the close of the World War I.
Weizmann was made chairman of the British-run Zionist Commission after the Balfour Declaration, and in 1918, it made its first official tour of Palestine. On the day of departure, Mark Sykes (of Sykes-Picot) arranged for Weizmann to be received by the King at Buckingham Palace. The reception made Weizmann the most heralded man in Zionism: It was a knighting of sorts. Weizmann was accompanied on the trip by Maj. William Ormsby-Gore (Lord Harlech, the political liaison officer of the Zionist Commission. Ormsby-Gore had been Milner's private secretary and was an old hand at the Arab Bureau.
Upon his return in October 1918, Weizmann was summoned to see Amery. According to Weizmann's biographer Barnet Litvinoff: "An authoritative Jewish voice was more necessary than ever now to a government facing the new situation of an America demanding its say in world affairs. Shortly after his return to England Weizmann was advised by Leopold Amery of the Cabinet Secretariat, of renewed moves to bring Palestine into the trusteeship of the United States.... Amery looked to Weizmann for help in locking Palestine into the Empire, for the sake of territorial contiguity between Egypt and India. Weizmann required no persuasion on this score."
Their relationship lasted decades, and there are numerous entries in Amery's diaries of meetings and dinners with Weizmann and Dugdale. In 1945, the English Zionist community honored Weizmann on his 70th birthday with a Festschrift; both Amery and Dugdale were asked to write for it.
Amery avowed that his support for Weizmann and Zionism was geopolitical from its inception:
My own acquaintance with Dr. Weizmann and with the cause with which his name will always be identified goes back to the beginning of 1917, when, together with the late Sir Mark Sykes [of Sykes-Picot], I was appointed one of the political assistant-secretaries to Mr. Lloyd George's newly formed War Cabinet. Sykes was an enthusiastic advocate of the establishment of the Jewish national home in Palestine. I myself had not previously thought of Zionism as much more than a sentimental fantasy. But Sykes soon persuaded me that, from the purely British point of view, a prosperous Jewish population in Palestine, owning its inception and its opportunity of development to British policy, might be an invaluable asset as a defence of the Suez Canal against attack from the north and as a station on the future air routes to the east....
Amery had entered a similar thought into his diary on July 26, 1928: "Our ultimate end is clearly to make Palestine the centre of a western influence, using the Jews as we have used the Scots, to carry the English ideal through the Middle East and not merely to make an artificial oriental Hebrew enclave in an oriental country."
Dugdale's maternal grandfather was George Campbell, the Eighth Duke of Argyll, who was the Secretary of State for India and Lord Privy Seal under Gladstone. Her maternal grandmother was the sister of Robert Cecil, third Marques of Salisbury, leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister of three administrations. Her mother, Lady Frances Campbell, who most influenced her life, was a suffragette activist, and Dugdale would throw herself into support for Zionism as her mother had for the right for women to vote. Her father was Eustace Balfour, the brother of Arthur James Balfour, of whom Dugdale was the official biographer. As a young woman, Dugdale had an official "coming out ceremony" and met Queen Victoria on at least three occasions in this period; the Queen's daughter Princess Louise was married to Dugdale's uncle.
Norman Rose, the editor of Baffy, The Diaries of Blanche Dugdale 1936-1947, describes her as the only non-Jewish supporter who was allowed into "the inner circle of Zionist policy-making bodies." Her day-to-day work at the Jewish Agency and Zionist Federation headquarters in London consisted mainly of helping to draft policy documents. More than that, she was a member of Weizmann's entourage and one of his key advisors. Her access to government officials and the elite gave the Zionists a wide range of capabilities and intelligence. According to Rose,
Baffy constituted in fact an essential ingredient in all diplomacy. Well informed, trusted by both sides, she acted as an unofficial channel of communication, freely passing information back and forth....
Questions of dual loyalty held no fear for her. Upholding the Zionist cause, defending it from attack, rescuing it from defeat was for her a British interest.
The diaries detail that Dugdale travelled to Geneva, Paris, and Palestine, with or on behalf of Weizmann, in their pursuits, both social and political. Dugdale held sway amongst the Zionist elite beyond Weizmann, as well. Notably, the diaries mention that Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, often differed in policy and approach with Dugdale and Weizmann.
The Campbells and Balfours were both members of the Church of Scotland, and according to Rose, Dugdale's religious upbringing was crucial to her sense of self, plus "it afforded her a profound understanding of the roots of Zionism."
"Nurtured on the scriptures and fortified by a deeply-felt bond with the Old Testament," Rose wrote, "it was the prophecies of the Book she knew so well that were being redeemed by the twentieth-century descendants of the Children of Israel." A glimpse into the religious fervor that motivated her Zionism is afforded by the entry for April 27, 1937: "... Frontiers fairly satisfactory to Chaim—all the north—the most important after Emek [the Vale of Esdraelon]. Complete independence. Chaim told him he would go as far as he could—... Great events lie ahead. The Jews in the plains—so it must be before Armageddon" (emphasis added)).
Jabotinsky: Warrior for the Empire
In 1915, one of the most crucial steps in the buildup of the Jabotinskyites occurred, when Col. John Henry Patterson was selected to command Britain's Zionist Mule Corps. Like Dugdale, he was a rabid Christian Zionist, and he chose Jabotinsky as his military collaborator. For the next 31 years Patterson remained an ardent supporter of the Jabotinskyites, including the terrorist Irgun, and maintained an intimate relationship with Ben Zion Netanyahu, father of Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Mule Corps was composed of all-Russian Jewish exiles living in Alexandria, Egypt. Organized by Jabotinsky, who did not serve, this military support group saw themselves as having the opportunity to help the British take over Palestine and themselves gain a foothold in establishing a Jewish state. It was Britain's first hint at using the Jews to secure Palestine as part of the broader Sykes-Picot arrangement.
Patterson wrote of his appointment:
It was certainly curious that the General's choice should have fallen upon me, for, of course, he knew nothing of my knowledge of Jewish history, or of my sympathy for the Jewish race. When, as a boy I eagerly devoured the records of the glorious deeds of Jewish military captains such as Joshua, Joab, Gideon and Judas Maccabaeus, I little dreamt that one day I, myself, would in a small way, be captain of a host of the Children of Israel.
Swearing in the roughly 750 Jewish soldiers on March 3, 1915, Patterson said: "Pray with me that I should not only, as Moses, behold Canaan from afar, but be divinely permitted to lead you into the Promised Land." To their dismay, the Mule Corps was sent to Gallipoli, in what is today Turkey, where it saw action for several months, but was demobilized on Dec. 28, 1915, after the British military failure, never setting foot in Palestine.
On the evening in 1918 that the Balfour Declaration was passed by the British War Cabinet, Patterson was invited to dinner with other luminaries at the home of Weizmann. He and Amery then created the Jewish Legion, for which Jabotinsky was the organizer and spokesman. The Legion, a propaganda effort to support Sykes-Picot, was deployed to Palestine at the end of the war.
After Patterson retired from military duty in 1920, he became a spokesman for Zionism, and helped transform Jabotinsky from a somewhat clandestine intelligence operative jointly run by British intelligence and the Russian Okhrana, into a major political figure. In the second phase of their relationship, Patterson travelled the world over with Jabotinsky.
In 1921, he accompanied Jabotinsky to the 12th World Zionist conference at Carlsbad, Germany, and later, in the Fall of the same year, he accompanied him on a fundraising trip to the United States.
Patterson maintained his support for Jabotinsky in 1925, when the latter broke from the World Zionist Organization and created Revisionist Zionism, a right-wing movement that supported Hitler and Mussolini. In 1928 and 1929 he accompanied Jabotinsky to Palestine to review Betar training camps. The Betar was a militarist Revisionist youth group, modelled on Mussolini's brownshirts, who were often involved in armed confrontation with the Palestinian Arabs.
In 1929, Jabotinsky was the director of the Judea Insurance Company, thought to be a financial conduit from the United States for clandestine activity. Patterson was the manager of its Cairo branch.
In 1933, when Weizmann's friend and Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff was assassinated, Patterson was the conduit of the Revisionist report denying involvement, and accusing the Labor Party of using the incident against them. Arlosoroff had been targetted for assassination by the right wing of the Revisionist movement. He had been corresponding with the American Elwood Meade, the water specialist who had made California's barren land into a blooming garden, and was secretly meeting with leading Arabs with whom he was discussing joint economic development, based upon harnessing the Jordan River. Arlosoroff was a threat to the British, who were the only ones to benefit from the assassination.
In 1936, Jabotinsky joined Patterson on a speaking tour to oppose the 1936-37 Peel Commission (Palestine Royal Commission) report, and to organize for a Jewish Palestine, which would join the British Crown as a Seventh Dominion.
In January 1939, Patterson toured the United States to raise funds for the Irgun. In September of the same year, after Britain announced its entry into the war, he returned with Jabotinsky to the United States, where they attempted to raise a Jewish Army and intelligence unit of half a million Jews. They met with Lord Lothian, then British Ambassador to the United States, who sanctioned their activity, and Patterson and Jabotinsky addressed a mass rally in New York calling for the new Legion.
Patterson was always a conduit for money to the Revisionists. Early in 1940, he embarked upon a fundraising tour of Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, and Peru. He was with Jabotinsky on Aug. 3, 1940, reviewing a Betar youth camp in New York State, when Jabotinsky was struck dead by a heart attack. Patterson never returned to England, but corresponded regularly with Amery up until his death in 1947.
After Jabotinsky's death, Patterson assisted Ben Zion Netanyahu, father of the current Likud leader, who took the reins of leadership of the Revisionist movement. Patterson served as the honorary president of the New Zionist League of America, the Revisionist Zionist organization headed by Netanyahu. He continued to organize for Irgun operations as well. Patterson worked closely with Peter Bergson, a collaborator of Netanyahu, whose real name was Hillel Kook. A founder of the terrorist Irgun in Palestine, Bergson changed his name to operate in the United States.
Bergson was the nephew of Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of Palestine under the British Mandate, who supported the activities of Jabotinsky and the right-wing Zionists. Patterson served as the military advisor and honorary chairman of the Committee for a Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinian Jews, a Revisionist front group and propaganda organization located in New York City and run by Bergson. He was a member and officer of various other Revisionist and Irgun front groups run by Netanyahu and Bergson, and often spoke at their rallies and meetings.
In 1946, a year before his death, Patterson was honored by the Netanyahu family for his services to Jabotinsky and Revisionist Zionism. When Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu's younger brother was born, Patterson was anointed his godfather, and the son was given the name Jonathan, to honor both Patterson and Bibi's grandfather Nathan.
Amery and Jabotinsky
While Patterson's Zionist Mule Corps was deployed to Gallipoli, Jabotinsky continued his organizing efforts to get a full Jewish Legion established and trained that would deploy to Palestine. Although he travelled through Britain and the European continent, there was little support within the Zionist community. In the Summer of 1915, the Zionist Actions Committee, which was composed of delegates from Russia to England, passed a resolution that Zionists everywhere should oppose the formation of such a group. Jabotinsky returned home to London by mid-August, where he found no support. The wartime policy of Field Marshall Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener, was to direct all efforts to the Western Front. There was no discussion of an offensive in Palestine. He drew support only from Weizmann. The two became close, and Jabotinsky moved into Weizmann's apartment for several months.
Through the first half of 1916, the Jewish Legion project was dead in the water. Then Patterson asked Jabotinsky to meet with him in London. The two went immediately to Amery, who had already spoken with Patterson about the project. Amery was then Secretary to Lord Derby at the War Office. Jabotinsky was well aware of the importance of the liaison. He described Amery as "one of the most important members of Lloyd George's famous secretariat (known as the 'kindergarten' to the elder political generation, who deplored the youthfulness of the members of this omnipotent group)." As Joseph Schechtman states in his official biography of Jabotinsky, Amery became Jabotinsky's most energetic and devoted advisor and contact man in government circles. Details of their first meeting are scant, but the timing coincides with the signing of the Sykes-Picot agreements in May.
Jabotinsky then set out to gather thousands of signatures on a petition with the intent to present them to the British government, but he secured a mere 300. At public recruiting meetings, the Jewish opposition, both Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews, were able to overwhelm Jabotinsky, calling him and his associates provocateurs, militarists, and murderers, and pelting them with rotten potatoes.
Patterson and Amery kept the project alive nonetheless. By the end of 1916, Amery managed to move 124 former Zionist Mule Corps volunteers to London from Alexandria, Egypt, into a separate company of the 20th Battalion, which met with Jabotinsky. Amery wrote to Jabotinsky on Jan. 22, 1917: "Since I saw you I have had an opportunity of speaking to people in the War Office, who have promised to look into the whole question again." The next day, Jabotinsky sought Amery's counsel. The latter directed him to write a detailed proposal that he would review and edit, and move it along to the War Cabinet and Prime Minister.
You might recapitulate that you originally opened negotiations with the War Office and Foreign Office armed with credentials from the Russian authorities, who were favorable to your enterprise; and that you understood at the time that the Foreign Office was not unsympathetic to the idea in view of the political effect in America, but that you also understood that the War Office did not at that time consider the matter of sufficient importance to warrant the raising of a special Corps for service in Egypt and Palestine... ; then you ought also briefly to mention that, without official encouragement, you undertook a purely personal campaign of meetings in East London, which in the absence of any canvassing or official support did not attract more than a very limited number. What I mean is that you ought to briefly put the Prime Minister in possession of the main facts as to your previous efforts to form a special Jewish Corps in this country.
A few days later, Amery received the final text signed by Jabotinsky and his fellow organizer Joseph Trumpeldor, and committed himself to handing it over personally to Prime Minister Lloyd George. Amery kept in constant contact with Jabotinsky over the next weeks and kept the project moving. On April 13, Amery was able to give Jabotinsky some good news: "Your affair is really making progress at last.... Anyhow, you can be sure that I have done my best to help the thing forward and will continue to do so."
By the end of April, the War Cabinet approved the proposal, and Secretary for War Lord Derby met with Jabotinsky to discuss the details. Amery set a slew of meetings for Jabotinsky with other key individuals, including Gen. Jan Smuts, the South African Prime Minister, who was attending War Cabinet meetings.
Jabotinsky praised Smuts in his diaries as
a deeply cultured man, educated at the Universities of Holland, Heidelberg and Cambridge, and a fine thinker and writer. He was a Zionist of the caliber of Balfour or Robert Cecil....
On Aug 23, 1917 the creation of the Jewish Regiment was officially announced in the London Gazette. Patterson was assigned to recruit and train the soldiers. There was still opposition from the highest levels of the British aristocracy, and Amery and Weizmann went straight to Lord Milner, who extracted a compromise from the aristocracy.
But the East End of London, which was the Jewish enclave, was largely opposed, even after the Legion was endorsed officially by the government. On Aug. 17, the Jewish Chronicle reported: "As to the proposed formation of a Jewish regiment, it can be said frankly that the mass of Jews will not hear of it. Organized Jewish labor is opposed to it as violently as the Zionists.... They regard it as a deep grievance that one or two individuals have influenced the authorities in that direction.... What is most galling to the Jewish public opinion is the arbitrary manner in which the scheme has been foisted on them."
Socialists and Zionists were most outspoken in their hostility. At a conference of Jewish trade unions, it was unanimously resolved that a Jewish Regiment was undesirable. Several Zionist societies passed resolutions disapproving of a Jewish Regiment, contending that if they had to fight, they would do so "as Englishmen or Russians, but not as Jews."
But the creation of the Jewish Legion for deployment to Palestine during World War I was sealed by Amery and Milner, who would write the final drafts of the Balfour declaration just two weeks later. This was Sykes-Picot: Palestine was to come under a British Mandate, and, as Amery said, the Milner group was using the Jews as its proxy.
The Legion was ultimately sent to Palestine near the end of that campaign, under Gen. Edmund Allenby's command; it saw limited combat. At the close of the war, Jabotinsky was officially demobilized as an officer in the British Army and protested to the Foreign Office and Colonial Office, hoping to maintain a defense force in Palestine for the new Jewish home. Amery, now posted to the Colonial Office, replied on Oct. 16, 1919:
I was very sorry indeed to hear from you that the military authorities in Palestine demobilized you in so summary and ungracious a fashion. I don't suppose that anything could be done now to remobilize you.... I think the least the War Office could do would be to show their recognition in some way or other of your services in the creation of the Jewish units and have written to urge this upon them....
At Amery's urging, the War Office bestowed the Medal of the Most Distinguished Order of the British Empire (MBE) upon Jabotinsky. The order was created by King George V, in 1915, for those who had served the empire during the war. Its motto is "For God and the Empire." Jabotinsky was not of the mind to accept. However, Amery sent Patterson to Palestine with a letter, dated Feb. 17, 1920, which urged him to accept the decoration, because it was "officially recommended by the War Office and approved of by His Majesty the King." Jabotinsky then accepted the award.
The letter continued: "I know, in your keenness for the cause, you will be concentrating all your efforts in the future." What Amery and Milner had done was to place a trained military contingent of Zionists, under the leadership of fascist Ze'ev Jabotinsky, on Palestinian soil, where none had existed before; then Amery signalled his post-war support for Jabotinsky's Legion on the ground in Palestine.
Less than six months later, on April 4, 1920, the Nebi Musa riots occurred in Jerusalem. British intelligence officer Richard Meinertzhagen, who was on the scene, wrote a secret report detailing how the British military had encouraged and facilitated the Arabs in rioting against the Jews. Meinertzhagen alleged that Col. Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor, General Allenby's chief of staff, had secretly given Haj Amin al-Husseini instructions to run the riots so as to show the world the Arabs would not stand for Jewish rule in Palestine. An arrest warrant was issued for al-Husseini, who fled into exile. He was subsequently made the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British, and became a collaborator of Hitler.
Numbers of former Jewish Legion members were arrested. Some had been found with illegal weapons, and others had taken part in a shootout. A cache of weapons and ammunition was found in Jabotinsky's apartment. Nineteen men were imprisoned, but not Jabotinsky, since he was not at the apartment at the time the weapons were seized. According to Israeli historian Tom Segev, author of One Palestine, Jabotinsky was indignant that he had not been arrested, so he went to the Kishla Prison at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem with his attorney, Mordechai Eliash, demanding to be arrested! At the beginning of the riots, Jabotinsky had willfully offered and handed over his illegal pistol to British Military Governor Storrs (one of Jabotinsky's supporters). The British authorities ultimately arrested him for that.
The events showed Jabotinsky to be a protected asset of the highest of authorities. Military Governor Brig. Gen. Ronald Storrs went to the jail to make sure that Jabotinsky was properly treated. He led Jabotinsky to a more comfortable cell, and ordered that a bed with a mattress and wash basin be provided. Jabotinsky was brought food from the adjacent Amdursky Hotel and was served wine with his meals!
He was then made into a cause célèbre by his protectors. Tried along with the others, he was convicted of possession of an illegal firearm and sentenced to 15 years in prison, the equivalent of the sentence handed out to Arab rioters who were convicted of raping Jewish women.
Both his trial and sentence created an uproar. The Milnerites and their British Israelite collaborators went into motion to protest the sentence and create a firestorm behind Jabotinsky. The Prime Minster's private secretary, Philip Kerr, protested at the San Remo Conference. In the House of Commons, Robert Cecil and a host of others who had been Jabotinsky's supporters filed parliamentary questions.
The same British newspapers that had promoted Jabotinsky in creating the Jewish Legion came to his defense. The entire London press, as well as provincial papers, prominently and sympathetically featured a report by the Jewish Correspondence Bureau, released by Reuters Agency, in which it was stressed that "Jabotinsky is to the Jews what Garibaldi was to the Italians."
On July 8, 1920, civil rule in Palestine was transferred by the military to Herbert Samuel, the new High Commissioner. One of his first acts was to provide amnesty to all those imprisoned for the Jerusalem riots, both Arab and Jew. Upon his release, Jabotinsky travelled back to Jerusalem, where he was received by his supporters, headed by Rabbi Kook. According to Jabotinsky biographer Joseph Schechtman, "He was returning to liberty as a universally recognized and acclaimed national hero: his popularity was at its peak."
'Service to the Empire'
Jabotinsky's Revisionist cadre and the militant Betar groups were at the center of riots and armed confrontations with Palestinians over decades. They were openly pro-fascist during the latter part of the 1920s and early 1930s, as were Amery and Lord Lothian, promoting corporatist economic schemes for Palestine, and praising Hitler and Mussolini. Jabotinsky established a naval military school under the official auspices of the Fascist Italian government, to train Revisionist cadre.
Amery and other members of Milner's Kindergarten continued their promotion of Jabotinsky through this entire period, until his death in New York in 1940, when he was meeting and corresponding with Lord Lothian, then British Ambassador to the U.S.A., who officially supported his activities. And Jabotinsky was loyal to these British controllers. A survey is useful.
In April 1928, Jabotinsky spent ten days in London, having been invited by Amery, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies. A dinner was held for him at the House of Commons, which was arranged by Col. Josiah Wedgewood, a long-time supporter. Wedgewood was in the process of completing a book entitled The Seventh Dominion, which called for Palestine to officially become the Seventh Dominion of the British Crown, replacing the temporary British Mandate. Jabotinsky was recruited to the idea, and in a confidential letter to Wedgewood, he noted that the book was "more than brilliant and clever—it is a service to both causes, the British and the Zionists ... [and] had we today even a 99 per cent majority in Palestine, I, the extremist, would still fight every idea of independence and would insist on keeping within the British Empire" (emphasis added). He told Wedgewood squarely that he "should not be averse to submitting it to the Revisionist League for acceptance." Wedgewood concurred.
Jabotinsky presented the Seventh Dominion concept at the Third Revisionist World Conference in Vienna in December 1928, and the conference resolved that there was "no contradiction' between the idea of a Jewish Palestine and an eventual Dominion status within a British Commonwealth of Nations; further, that every Revisionist was free individually to join the Palestine Dominion League, which was headed by Wedgewood. In May 1929, when a Seventh Dominion League was constituted in Jerusalem, Jabotinsky accepted its chairmanship.
Abba Achimeir, the mentor of Benjamin Netanyahu, was the leader of the extremist wing of Revisionist Zionism. An avowed fascist, he was an early supporter of Hitler and Mussolini, and authored a column on fascism which appeared regularly in Dor Hayoam, a major Revisionist newspaper in Palestine. Achimier wrote of the British: "In every East-West conflict, we will always be on the side of the West, for the West has represented a more superior culture than the East over the last thousand years, after the destruction of the Baghdad Caliphate by the Mongols ... and we today are the most prominent and loyal bearers of the culture ... our interest lies in expanding the British Empire even further than intended by the British themselves" (emphasis added).
Jabotinsky openly voiced his deep respect for and kinship with the British Empire, and it cohered with his early writings on race superiority. In a speech in Warsaw, Poland on Dec. 28, 1931, he stated: "England is no longer inspired by her old lust for building and leading. And what we ask of the English is, indeed, this lust and resolution, the capacity for more courageous, more creative action.... England is becoming continental! Not long ago the prestige of the English ruler of the 'colored' colonies stood very high. Hindus, Arabs, Malays were conscious of his superiority and obeyed, not unprotestingly, yet completely. The whole scheme of training of the future rulers was built on the principle, 'carry yourself so that the inferior will feel your unobtainable superiority in every motion.' But a decline of imperialist instinct is felt in Englishmen.... This lessening of the taste for imperialist scope is revealed in various ways—in the indifference with which the emancipation of Egypt was received, in the lack of concern at the prospect of the loss of India and Ireland. This does not mean that all is lost. In five or ten years all this may change. England may still reeducate her proconsuls. The imperial appetite may flame up anew, because this is a very powerful and gifted people" (emphasis added).
In the ensuing years, as official British support for Zionism wavered, Jabotinsky's allegiance to his British controllers did not diminish, although his criticism of actions of the British government increased. Speaking at the Sixth Revisionist World Conference in Cracow in January 1935, he said: "British statesmen, and perhaps some of our own hot-heads too, should get one thing absolutely clear. We are mercilessly critical with regard to the Mandatory's present policy in Palestine, and we demand a switch to a better policy, more appropriate to the interests of Zionism. But since it is to England that we put such demands, it means that we want her to stay on in Palestine, and to go on ruling Palestine. For you cannot say to a person, 'go away—and help me into the saddle.' If you want England to help you into the saddle, you don't want England to go away; on the contrary, the implication is that you believe she can be persuaded to help you. What is more: Israel is no beggar asking for services that she does not intend to repay. Since you demand a historical service from England, you imply that, if that service is rendered, Jewish Palestine will be ready to repay it, loyally and durably, by service to the Empire..." (emphasis added).
Jabotinsky testified before the Peel Commission in the House of Lords, on July 11, 1937, and three days later, he was feted at the Hotel Commodore in a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish Legion. The event was organized by Amery. Among the other sponsors were Field Marshal Sir Philip Chestwood, Colonel Patterson, and Colonel Wedgewood. Although the celebration was boycotted by the World Zionist Organization, intelligence operative Baffy Dugdale sat at the main table. Over 200 persons came and heard speeches from Amery, Wedgewood, Chestwood, and Patterson honoring Jabotinsky, who spoke last. Jabotinsky drew his speech to a close by rising and proclaiming the final toast of the evening:
I believe in Freedom and the ultimate triumph of freedom. I believe in England, and the brotherhood between England and Israel.
Charles Leopold, Maurice Stennet Amery, My Political Life, Vols. 1-3, England Before the Storm: 1896-1914 (London: Hutchinson, 1953); War and Peace: 1914-1929 (London: Hutchinson, 1953); Vol. 3, The Unforgiving Years: 1929-1940 (London: Hutchinson, 1955).
——, Maurice Stennet Amery, The Washington Loan Agreements, A Critical Study of American Economic Foreign Policy (London: Macdonald and Co., 1945).
John Barnes and David Nicholson, eds., The Leo Amery Diaries, Vol. 1: 1896-1929 (London: Hutchinson, 1980); The Empire At Bay, The Leo Amery Diaries: 1929-1945 (London: Hutchinson, 1988).
Paul Goodman, ed. Chaim Weizmann, A Tribute on his Seventieth Birthday (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1945).
Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Story of the Jewish Legion (Bernard Ackerman, Inc., 1945).
Barnet Litvinoff, Weizmann, Last of the Patriarchs (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976).
William Roger Louis, In the Name of God, GO! Leo Amery and the British Empire in the Age of Churchill (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1992).
Shmuel Katz, Lone Wolf, A Biography of Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky (New York: Barricade Books Inc., 1966).
Lieut. Col. John Henry Patterson, With the Zionists in Gallipoli (George H. Doran Co., 1916).
Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: A History of the World In Our Time (GSG and Associates, 1966).
Norman Rose, ed., Baffy: The Diaries of Blanche Dugdale, 1936-47 (Vallentine Mitchell and Co., 1973).
Joseph B. Schechtman, Fighter and Prophet, The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story, The Last Years (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1961).
Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2001).
William Roger Louis, "American Anti-Colonialism and the Dissolution of the British Empire" International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs: Vol. 61, No. 3, Summer 1985).
Norman Rose, "The Seventh Dominion," The Historical Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 1971.
Regina Sharif, "Christians for Zion, 1600-1919," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 5, Nos. 3-4, Spring-Summer 1976.
"Lord Milner Wants Anglo-American Union," New York Times, June 11, 1916.
 The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1872-1914 (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1967).
Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism To Destroy Islam
The 'House' of Saud" - No More Islamic Than Billy Graham
By David Livingstone
Following the dictates of Hegelian dialectic, the Globalists have created two antagonizing forces, the "Liberal-Democratic" West, against Terrorism, or "political Islam", to force us into the acceptance of their final alternative, a New World Order.
The West and Islam have had a long era of compatibility, but this history has been denied to foster the myth of a "Clash of Civilizations". In order to inflame the sentiments of the West against Islam, our attention has been focused on the specter of fanatical Wahhabism, and more specifically, its most notorious exponent, Osama bin Laden.
However, as outlined in an excellent article by Peter Goodgame, The Globalists and the Islamists, the Globalists have had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine and the Afghan Mujahideen. But the history of their duplicity dates farther back still, to the 18th Century, when British Freemasons created the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia itself, to further their imperialistic objectives.
That a British spy by the name of Hempher was responsible for shaping of the extreme tenets of Wahhabism was mentioned in a Turkish work, Mir'at al-Haramain, by Ayyub Sabri Pasha between 1933-1938. British policy in its colonies often involved the creation of deviant sects, in order to Divide and Conquer, as was the case with the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam in India in the nineteenth century.
The details of this conspiracy are outlined in a little known document by the name of The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher published in series (episodes) in the German paper Spiegel, and later in a prominent French paper. A Lebanese doctor translated the document to the Arabic language and from there on it was translated to English and other languages.
The document is a first-hand account by Hempher of his mission for his government, which sent him to the Middle East to discover ways to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Among the vices the British were to promote were racism and nationalism, alcohol, gambling, fornication and tempting Muslim women to uncover themselves.
But most important was the strategy to "insert heresies into Muslims' creedal tenets and then criticize Islam for being a religion of terror." To this purpose, Hempher located a particularly corrupt individual by the name of Mohammed Ibn Adbul Wahhab.
To understand the brand of fanaticism that Wahhabism inculcated, it is first necessary to recognize that Islam called upon all Muslims, regardless of their race or nationality, to see themselves as brothers in faith. The killing of another Muslim was strictly forbidden.
However, as part of their strategy of Divide and Conquer, the British hoped to pit the Arab Muslims against their Turkish brothers. The only way to do so was to find a loophole in Islamic law whereby the Arabs could declare the Turks as apostates.
Abdul Wahhab was the instrument by which the British were able to insinuate this vile idea into the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula. Basically, Wahhab contrived the idea that, simply by the trivial act of offering prayers to saints, their Turkish brethren had forfeited their faith, and therefore, that it was permitted to kill all who refused to adhere to his reforms, and to enslave their women and children. But that included the entire Muslim world, except for his small misguided band of followers.
But the Wahabbi movement was insignificant without the allegiance of the Saudi family, who, despite claims otherwise, were descended from Jewish merchants from Iraq. Orthodox jurists of the time branded the Wahhabis as heretics and condemned their fanaticism and intolerance. Nevertheless, the Wahhabis then demonstrated their contempt for their pretended faith by indiscriminately slaughtering Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Wahhabis then set about destroying all the holy tombs and burial grounds. They stole the Prophet's treasure, which included holy books, works of art and innumerable priceless gifts sent to the city during the previous thousand years. The leather and gilt bindings of the Islamic holy books they had destroyed were used to make sandals for the Wahhabi criminals.
The Ottoman Sultan brought an end to the first Wahhabi rebellion in 1818, but the sect revived under the leadership of the Saudi Faysal I. The movement was then somewhat restored until once again destroyed at the end of the nineteenth century.
After WWI, the former regions of the Ottoman Empire were divided into varying puppets regimes. For aiding to undermine the Ottoman authority in the region, Ibn Saud was duly rewarded with the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. One year later, in 1933, the Saudis granted oil concessions to California Arabian Standard Oil Company (Casoc), affiliate of Standard Oil of California (Socal, today's Chevron), headed by Rothschild agent, and chief among [US] Illuminati families, Rockefeller. Since that time, Saudi Arabia has been the most important ally to the West in the Middle East, not only providing ready access to its plentiful oil reserves, but also in tempering Arab aggression against Israel. Due to the evident hypocrisy of the regime, it has been necessary to suppress the ensuing dissent with brutality. Another important aspect has been preventing scholars from speaking of "politics", that is, to criticize the regime.
In The Two Faces of Islam, Stephen Schwartz writes, "Their tastes led them to taverns, casinos, brothelsÂ ... They bought fleets of automobiles, private jets, and yachts the size of warships. They invested in valuable Western art they did not understand or like and which often offended the sensitivities of Wahhabi clerics. They spent as they wished, becoming patrons of international sexual enslavement and the exploitation of children."
The result has been that, in order to nonetheless appear to be espousing Islam, the Saudi regime and its puppet scholars have evolved a version of Islam that emphasizes ceremonial details of the religion, at the expense of helping to understand broader political realities. Their manner has encouraged a literal interpretation of Islamic law, permitting the likes of bin Laden to exploit the Koran to justify the killing of innocents.
Ultimately, the profusion of Rothschild financed petro-dollars in the coffers of the Saudi family has made it possible for them to propagandize their bastardized version of Islam to other parts of the world, most notably to America, where they purportedly subsidize up to 80 percent of the mosques in the country, a version of Islam that substitutes political awareness for dogmatic insistence on ritualistic fanaticism.
In 1999 King Fahd of Saudi Arabia attended the Bilderberg meeting, presumably to discuss his role in furthering the interests of world government, along with other such luminaries as Yasser Arafat and the Pope. Evidently, the Saudi family are part of the deceptive ploys of the Illuminati network. Their complicity in the accumulation of petro-dollars has gone into the financing of global terrorism, from Afghanistan to Bosnia, merely for the purpose of fomenting the necessary animosity of the world against Islam.
David Livingstone is the author of
The Dying God: The Hidden History of Western Civilization
His website is here.
Note added by Peter Meyer, 2005-02-13 CE: There are some who vigorously dispute the author's statement in the article above that the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam was created by the British (in order to divide and conquer). The Ahmadiyya Movement today has many members, mostly in Pakistan, but many also in the UK and some in Israel. One Ahmadi wrote to say that David Livingstone's allegation is refuted by the author of the article Ahmadiyyat and the British. As with all controversial issues discussed or mentioned on this website the interested reader must make the effort to inform himself so as to come to a sound conclusion. A web search on "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" or "Ahmadiyya Movement" will bring up plenty of websites, pro- and anti-. We note, however, the interesting comment at Qadiyanism: A Brief Survey that "Qadiyanis ... established good liaison with the State of Israel immediately after its establishment and Israel gave them full protection" (whatever that means). On this matter, see the contradictory claims of Ahmadis in Israel and Ahmadis and the State of Israel. Clearly the disputes involving the Ahmadis are complex. These pro- and anti-Ahmadiyya disputes actually remind one of the original purpose of Wahhabi'ism: to sow discord among Muslims and to bring Islam into disrepute. Same old "divide and conquer" strategy in a new guise? Perhaps, though in this case it is unclear who exactly is fomenting the discord.
Risto Karajkov: Islam: The Young and the Old â¤" Wahhabi infiltration of the Balkans
The Jewish Hand Pushing for WWIII
To understand the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we need to review some relevant history. Over the centuries, there have been constant battles over the lands of present-day Ukraine, with Poles, Austro-Hungarians, and Russians alternately dominating. Russia took control of most of Ukraine in the late 1700s and held it more or less continuously until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991; this is why Putin claims that the country is “part of Russia.”
For their part, Jews have experienced a particularly tumultuous relationship with Russia, one that ranged from disgust and detestation to a burning hatred. As it happened, Jews migrated to Russia in the 19th century, eventually numbering around 5 million. They were a disruptive and agitating force within the nation and thus earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reign 1825 to 1855), Alexander II (1855 to 1881, when he was assassinated by a partly-Jewish anarchist gang), and especially Nicholas II (1894 to 1917)—the latter of whom was famously murdered, along with his family, by a gang of Jewish Bolshevists in 1918. Already in 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could refer to the Russian Jews as “a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite”. The assassination of Alexander initiated a series of pogroms that lasted decades, and which set the stage for a lingering Jewish hatred of all things Russian.
For present purposes, though, we can jump to the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (I note that Ukraine also has a prime minister, but unlike most European countries, he typically has limited powers). In 2004, it came down to “the two Viktors”: the pro-Western V. Yushchenko and the pro-Russian V. Yanukovych. The first round was nearly tied, and thus they went to a second round in which Yanukovych prevailed by around three percentage points. But amid claims of vote-rigging, Western Ukrainians initiated an “Orange Revolution”—backed by the Ukrainian Supreme Court—that annulled those results and mandated a repeat runoff election. The second time, the tables were turned, and the pro-West Yushchenko won by eight points. The West was elated, and Putin naturally mad as hell.
The following years witnessed financial turmoil and, unsurprisingly, constant harassment from Russia. By 2010, Ukrainians were ready for a change, and this time Yanukovych won handily, over a Jewish female competitor, Yulia Timoshenko—notably, she had “co-led the Orange Revolution.” Russia, for once, was satisfied with the result.
But of course, in the West, Europe and the US were mightily displeased, and they soon began efforts to reverse things yet again. Among other strategies, they apparently decided to deploy the latest in high tech and social media. Thus in June 2011, two of Google’s top executives—Eric Schmidt and a 30-year-old Jewish upstart named Jared Cohen—went to visit Julian Assange in the UK, then living under house arrest. It is well-known, incidentally, that Google is a Jewish enterprise, with Jewish founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page running the ship.
The nominal purpose of the trip was to conduct research for a book that Schmidt and Cohen were working on, regarding the intersection of political action and technology—in plain words, how to foment revolutions and steer events in a desired direction. As Assange relates in his 2014 book When Google Met Wikileaks, he was initially unaware of the deeper intentions and motives of his interviewers. Only later did he come to learn that Schmidt had close ties to the Obama administration, and that Cohen was actively working on political upheaval. As Assange wrote, “Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s ‘director of regime change’.” Their immediate targets were Yanukovych in Ukraine and Assad in Syria.
By early 2013, the American Embassy in Kiev was training right-wing Ukrainian nationalists on how to conduct a targeted revolt against Yanukovych. It would not be long until they had their chance.
In late 2013, Yanukovych decided to reject an EU-sponsored IMF loan, with all the usual nasty strings attached, in favor of a comparable no-strings loan from Russia. This apparent shift away from Europe and toward Russia was the nominal trigger for the start of protest actions. Thus began the “Maidan Uprising,” led in large part by two extreme nationalist groups: Svoboda and Right Sector. Protests went on for nearly three months, gradually accelerating in intensity; in a notable riot near the end, some 100 protestors and 13 police were shot dead.
As the Uprising reached its peak, at least one American Jew was highly interested: Victoria Nuland. As Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State (first under Hillary Clinton, and then under the half-Jew John Kerry), Nuland had direct oversight of events in eastern Europe. And for her, it was personal; her father, Sherwin Nuland (born Shepsel Nudelman), was a Ukrainian Jew. She was anxious to drive the pro-Russian Yanukovych out of power and replace him with a West-friendly, Jew-friendly substitute. And she had someone specific in mind: Arseniy Yatsenyuk. On 27 January 2014, as the riots were peaking, Nuland called American Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt, to urgently discuss the matter. Nuland pulled no punches: “Yats” was her man. We know this because the call was apparently tapped and the dialogue later posted on Youtube. Here is a short excerpt:
Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step? […]
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
It was clear to both of them, though, that the EU leadership had other ideas. The EU was much more anxious to be a neutral party and to avoid direct intervention in Ukrainian affairs so as to not unduly antagonize Russia. But in time-tested Jewish fashion, Nuland did not give a damn. A bit later in the same phone call, she uttered her now-famous phrase: “Bleep the EU.” So much for Jewish subtlety.
But there was another angle that nearly all Western media avoided: “Yats” was also Jewish. In a rare mention, we read in a 2014 Guardian story that “Yatsenyuk has held several high-profile positions including head of the country’s central bank, the National Bank of Ukraine… He has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party’s western Ukraine heartland.” For some reason, such facts are never relevant to Western media.
As the Maidan Uprising gave way to the Maidan Revolution in February 2014, Yanukovych was forced out of office, fleeing to Russia. Pro-Western forces then succeeded in nominating “Yats” as prime minister, effective immediately, working in conjunction with president Oleksandr Turchynov. This provisional leadership was formalized in a snap election in May 2014 in which the pro-Western candidate Peter Poroshenko won. (The second-place finisher was none other than Yulia Timoshenko—the same Jewess who had lost to Yanukovych in 2010.)
It was under such circumstances that Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, in February 2014. It was also at this time that Russian separatists in Donbass launched their counter-revolution, initiating a virtual civil war in Ukraine; to date, eight years later, around 15,000 people have died in total, many civilians.
With this American-sponsored coup finished, Ukrainian Jews began to reach out to the West to increase their influence. Thus it happened that just a few months after Maidan, the wayward son of the American vice president got in touch with a leading Ukrainian Jew, Mykola Zlochevsky, who ran a large gas company called Burisma. In this way, Hunter Biden incredibly found himself on the board of a corporation of which he knew nothing, in an industry of which he knew nothing, and which nonetheless was able to “pay” him upwards of $500,000 per year—obviously, for access to father Joe and thus to President Obama. Hunter carried on in this prestigious role for around five years, resigning only in 2019, as his father began his fateful run for the presidency.
Despite a rocky tenure, Yatsenyuk managed to hold his PM position for over two years, eventually resigning in April 2016. His replacement was yet another Jew, Volodymyr Groysman, who served until August 2019. The Jewish hand would not be stayed. All this set the stage for the rise of the ultimate Jewish player, Volodymyr Zelensky.
This situation is particularly remarkable given that Jews are a small minority in Ukraine. Estimates vary widely, but the Jewish population is claimed to range from a maximum of 400,000 to as low as just 50,000. With a total population of 41 million, Jews represent, at most, 1% of the nation, and could be as small as 0.12%. Under normal conditions, a tiny minority like this should be almost invisible; but here, they dominate. Such is the Jewish hand.
Re: The Jewish Hand Pushing For World War Three by Cameleon72(f): 3:03pm On Jul 13, 2022
Re: The Jewish Hand Pushing For World War Three by MagicBishop: 3:04pm On Jul 13, 2022
Enter the Jewish Oligarchs
In Ukraine, there is a “second government” that calls many of the shots. This shadow government is an oligarchy: a system of rule by the richest men. Of the five richest Ukrainian billionaires, four are Jews: Igor (or Ihor) Kolomoysky, Viktor Pinchuk, Rinat Akhmetov, and Gennadiy Bogolyubov. Right behind them, in the multi-millionaire class, are Jews like Oleksandr Feldman and Hennadiy Korban. Collectively, this group is often more effective at imposing their will than any legislator. And unsurprisingly, this group has been constantly enmeshed in corruption and legal scandals, implicated in such crimes as kidnapping, arson and murder.
Of special interest is the first named above. Kolomoysky has long been active in banking, airlines and media—and in guiding minor celebrities to political stardom. In 2005 he became the leading shareholder of the 1+1 Media Group, which owns seven TV channels, including the highly popular 1+1 channel. (The 1+1 Group was founded in 1995 by another Ukrainian Jew, Alexander Rodnyansky.) Worth up to $6 billion in the past decade, Kolomoysky’s current net wealth is estimated to be around $1 billion.
Not long after acquiring 1+1, Kolomoysky latched on to an up-and-coming Jewish comedian by the name of Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky had been in media his entire adult life, and even co-founded a media group, Kvartal 95, in 2003, at the age of just 25. Starring in feature films, he switched to television by the early 2010s, eventually coming to star in the 1+1 hit show “Servant of the People,” where he played a teacher pretending to be president of Ukraine. Then there was the notable 2016 comedy skit in which Zelensky and friends play a piano with their joysticks—in other words, typical low-brow scatological Jewish humor, compliments of Zelensky and Kolomoysky.
By early 2018, the pair were ready to move into politics. Zelensky registered his new political party for the upcoming 2019 election, and declared himself a presidential candidate in December 2018, just four months prior to the election. In the end, of course, he won, with 30% of the vote in the first round, and then defeating incumbent Poroshenko in the 2nd round by a huge 50-point margin. Relentless favorable publicity by 1+1 was credited with making a real difference. Notably, the third-place finisher in that election was, yet again, the Jewess Yulia Timoshenko—like a bad penny, she just keeps coming back.
Zelensky, incidentally, has dramatically profited from his “meteoric rise” to fame and power. His Kvartal 95 media company earned him some $7 million per year. He also owns a 25% share of Maltex Multicapital, a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands, as part of a “web of off-shore companies” he helped to establish back in 2012. A Ukrainian opposition politician, Ilya Kiva, suggested recently that Zelensky is currently tapping into “hundreds of millions” in funding that flows into the country, and that Zelensky himself is personally earning “about $100 million per month.” A Netherlands party, Forum for Democracy, recently cited estimates of Zelensky’s fortune at an astounding $850 million. Apparently the “Churchill of Ukraine” is doing quite well for himself, even as his country burns.
In any case, it is clear that Zelensky owes much to his mentor and sponsor, Kolomoysky. The latter even admitted as much back in late 2019, in an interview for the New York Times. “If I put on glasses and look back at myself,” he said, “I see myself as a monster, as a puppet master, as the master of Zelensky, someone making apocalyptic plans. I can start making this real” (Nov 13). Indeed—the Kolomoysky/Zelensky apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Between rule by Jewish oligarchs and manipulations by the global Jewish lobby, modern-day Ukraine is a mess of a nation—and it was so long before the current “war.” Corruption there is endemic; in 2015, the Guardian headlined a story on Ukraine, calling it “the most corrupt nation in Europe.” An international corruption-ranking agency had recently assessed that country at 142nd in world, worse than Nigeria and equal to Uganda. As a result, Ukraine’s economy has suffered horribly. Before the current conflict, their per-capita income level of $8700 put them 112th in the world, below Albania ($12,900), Jamaica ($9100), and Armenia ($9700); this is by far the poorest in Europe, and well below that of Russia ($25,700 per person). Impoverished, corrupt, manipulated by Jews, now in a hot war—pity the poor Ukrainians.
Re: The Jewish Hand Pushing For World War Three by MagicBishop: 3:07pm On Jul 13, 2022
Hail the American Empire
Enough history and context; let’s cut to the chase. From a clear-eyed perspective, it is obvious why Zelensky and friends want to prolong a war that they have no hope of winning: they are profiting immensely from it. As an added benefit, the actor Zelensky gets to perform on the world stage, which he will surely convert into more dollars down the road. Every month that the conflict continues, billions of dollars are flowing into Ukraine, and Zelensky et al. are assuredly skimming their “fair share” off the top. Seriously—who, making anywhere near $100 million per month, wouldn’t do everything conceivable to keep the gravy train running? The fact that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dying has no bearing at all in Zelensky’s calculus; in typical Jewish fashion, he cares not one iota for the well-being of the White Europeans. If his soldiers die even as they kill a few hated Russians, so much the better. For Ukrainian Jews, it is a win-win proposition.
Why does no one question this matter? Why is Zelensky’s corruption never challenged? Why are these facts so hard to find? We know the answer: It is because Zelensky is a Jew, and Jews are virtually never questioned and never challenged by leading Americans or Europeans. Jews get a pass on everything (unless they are obviously guilty of something heinous—and sometimes even then!). Jews get a pass from fellow Jews because they cover for each other. Jews get a pass from media because the media is owned and operated by Jews. And Jews get a pass from prominent non-Jews who are in the pay of Jewish sponsors and financiers. Zelensky can be as corrupt as hell, funneling millions into off-shore accounts, but as long as he plays his proper role, no one will say anything.
So the “war” goes on, and Zelensky and friends get rich. What does Europe get from all this? Nothing. Or rather, worse than nothing: They get a hot war in their immediate neighborhood, and they get an indignant Putin threatening to put hypersonic missiles in their capital cities in less than 200 seconds. They get to deal with the not-so-remote threat of nuclear war. They get to see their currency decline—by 10% versus the yuan in a year and by 12% versus the dollar. They get a large chunk of their gas, oil, and electricity supplies diverted or shut off, driving up energy prices. And they get to see their Covid-fragile economies put on thin ice.
But perhaps they deserve all this. As is widely known, the European states are American vassals, which means they are Jewish vassals. European leaders are spineless and pathetic lackeys of the Jewish Lobby. Judenknecht like Macron, Merkel and now Scholz, are sorry examples of humanity; they have sold out their own people to placate their overlords. And the European public is too bamboozled and too timid to make a change; France just had a chance to elect Le Pen, but the people failed to muster the necessary will. Thus, Europe deserves its fate: hot war, nuclear threat, cultural and economic decline, sub-Saharan and Islamic immigrants—the whole package. If it gets bad enough, maybe enough Europeans will awaken to the Jewish danger and take action. Or so we can hope.
What about the US? We could scarcely be happier. Dead Russians, the hated Putin in a tizzy, and the chance to play “world savior” once again. American military suppliers are ecstatic; they don’t care that most of their weapons bound for Ukraine get lost, stolen or blown up, and that (according to some estimates) only 5% make it to the front. For them, every item shipped is another profitable sale, whether it is used or not. And American congressmen get to pontificate about another “good war” even as they approve billions in aid.
And perhaps best of all, we get to press for an expansion to that American Empire known as NATO. We need to be very clear here: NATO is simply another name for the American Empire. The two terms are interchangeable. In no sense is NATO an “alliance among equals.” Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Albania have absolutely nothing to offer to the US. Do we care if they will “come to our aid” in case of a conflict? That is a bad joke, at best. In reality, what such nations are is more land, more people, and more economic wealth under the American thumb. They are yet more places to station troops, build military outposts, and run “black sites.” NATO always was, and always will be, the American Empire.
The push for Ukraine to join NATO by the West-friendly Zelensky was yet another blatant attempt at a power grab by the US, this one on Russia’s doorstep. Putin, naturally, took action to circumvent that. But of course, now the push moves to Sweden and Finland, both of whom are unwisely pursuing NATO membership in the illusory quest for security, when in reality they will simply be selling what remains of their national souls to the ruthless Judeo-American masters. For their sake, I hope they are able to avoid such a future.
And all the while, American Jews and a Jewish-American media play up the “good war” theme, send more weapons, and press ever further into the danger zone. Ukrainian-American Jews like Chuck Schumer are right out front, calling for aid, for war, for death. “Ukraine needs all the help it can get and, at the same time, we need all the assets we can put together to give Ukraine the aid it needs,” said Schumer recently, eager to approve the next $40 billion aid package. As Jews have realized for centuries, wars are wonderful occasions for killing enemies and making a fast buck. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the present proxy war against Jewish enemies in eastern Europe began not long after the 20-year war against Jewish enemies in Afghanistan ended. Life without war is just too damn boring, for some.
Re: The Jewish Hand Pushing For World War Three by MagicBishop: 3:13pm On Jul 13, 2022
If more than a minuscule fraction of the public knew about such details, they would presumably be outraged. But as I mentioned, the Jewish-controlled Western media does an excellent job in restricting access to such information, and in diverting attention whenever such ugly facts pop up. The major exception is Tucker Carlson, who is able to reach some 3 million people each night; this is by far the widest reach for anything like the above analysis. But Carlson falls woefully short—pathetically short—in defining the Jewish culprit behind all these factors. Jews are never outed and never named by Carlson, let alone ever targeted for blame. This crucial aspect is thus left to a literal handful of alt-right and dissident-right websites that collectively reach a few thousand people, at best.
And even if, by some miracle, all 3 million Tucker viewers were enlightened to the Jewish danger here, this still leaves some 200 million American adults ignorant and unaware. The mass of people believes what they see on the evening news, or in their Facebook feeds, or Google news, or on CNN or MSNBC, or in the New York Times—all Jewish enterprises, incidentally. This is why, when polled, 70% of the American public say that current aid to Ukraine is either “about right” or even “too little.” This, despite the fact that around 50% claim to be “very concerned” about nuclear war; clearly they are unable to make the necessary connections. And for many, it is even worse than this: around 21% would support “direct American military intervention” against Russia, which means an explicit World War Three, with all the catastrophic outcomes that this entails. Our Jewish media have done another fine job in whipping up public incitement.
In sum, we can say that our media have cleverly constructed a “philo-Semitic trap”: any mention or criticism of the Jewish hand in the present conflict is, first, highly censored, and then, if necessary, is dismissed as irrational anti-Semitism. Sympathy toward the (truly) poor, suffering Ukrainians is played up to the hilt, and Putin and the Russians relentlessly demonized. Leading American Jews, like Tony Blinken and Chuck Schumer, are constantly playing the good guys, pleading for aid, promising to help the beleaguered and outmanned Ukrainian warriors. Who can resist this storyline? Thus, we have no opposition, no questioning, no deeper inquiries into root causes. Jews profit and flourish, Ukrainians and Russians suffer and die, and the world rolls along toward potential Armageddon.
The reality is vastly different. Global Jews are, indeed, “planetary master criminals,” as Martin Heidegger long ago realized. They function today as they have for centuries: as advocates for abuse, exploitation, criminality, death and profits. This is self-evidently true: if the potent Jewish Lobby wanted true peace, or flourishing humanity, they would be actively pushing for such things and likely succeeding. Instead, we have endless mayhem, war, terrorism, social upheaval and death, even as Jewish pockets get ever-deeper. And the one possible remedy for all this—true freedom of speech—recedes from our grasp.
On the one hand, I fear greatly for our future. On the other, I feel that we get what we deserve. When we allow malicious Jews to dominate our nations, and then they lead us into war and global catastrophe, well, what can we say? Perhaps there is no other way than to await the inevitable conflagration, exact retribution in the ensuing chaos, and then rebuild society from scratch—older and wiser.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author of The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019). He has authored or edited several additional books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His other works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020) and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah! All these are available at www.clemensandblair.com. See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.
 Cited in Wheen, Karl Marx (1999), p. 340.
 Russia’s recent defense of Assad in Syria, against Israel, has obviously not made things better. Nor has the fact that Putin, once thought to be a tool of Jewish-Russian oligarchs, has been able to turn the tables and hold them in check.
 Google has been particularly tenacious in altering its search engine results to censor (‘de-rank’) critics of Jewish power and stifle alternative voices. And Google owns Youtube, another force for censorship, which is currently run by the Jewess Susan Wojcicki. For their efforts, Brin and Page have become among the wealthiest men in the world; each is currently worth in excess of $100 billion.
 Svoboda began its existence as the “Social-National Party of Ukraine”—a not-so-subtle allusion to National Socialism. This is, in part, why both Svoboda and their allies have been called ‘neo-Nazi.’
 Nuland is currently “Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs” in the Biden administration.
 Another Jew likely involved in this incident was the Hungarian-American investor George Soros. In late 2019, the lawyer Joseph diGenova appeared in the news, openly charging Soros with direct intervention in American policy: “Well, there’s no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the career Foreign Service at the United States State Department. … But the truth is George Soros had a daily opportunity to tell the State Department through Victoria Nuland what to do in the Ukraine. And he ran it, Soros ran it.”
 For what it’s worth, Hunter seems to have a “thing” for Jewesses. In 2016, while married, he took up with his dead brother’s Jewish widow, Hallie Olivere Biden. The marriage failed and the illicit affair died out after a year or so, but then the ever-industrious Hunter latched on to another Jewess, “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen, in 2018. They married in 2019.
 In a revealing quotation, Ukrainian nationalist Dmytro Yarosh once asked this question: “I wonder how it came to pass that most of the billionaires in Ukraine are Jews?” Criminal activity is surely a large part of the answer.
 Not long after winning the presidency, Zelensky named another Jew, Andriy Yermak, as “Head of Presidential Administration.” (The current prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, seems not to be Jewish.)
 Other Ukrainian-American Jews, like Steven Spielberg and Jon Stewart, and the heirs to the Sheldon Adelson fortune, are assuredly equally elated about the course of events.
 Cited in P. Trawney, Heidegger and the Myth of a Jewish World Conspiracy (2015), p. 33.
Sydney Hook, Karl Marx and Moses Hess
From New International, Vol. 1 No. 5, December 1934, pp. 140–144.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
NO ACCOUNT of the intellectual development of Marx would be complete unless it considered Marx’s relationship to an Influential group of German radical thinkers who called themselves “true” or “philosophical” communists. So important and dangerous did Marx regard their views that for years both he and Engels carried on a fierce polemic against them in the radical periodicals of the time. This was brought to a climax and finish in the special section of the Communist Manifesto devoted to Der deutsche oder der wahre Sozialismus (IIIc) in which after a short summary and refutation of their views, Marx accused the “true” socialists of being allies of the feudal reaction.
The understanding of the situation is complicated by the fact that the leading figures of “true socialism” stood closer to Marx and Engels than any other radical German group in the ’40’s. We know that Moses Hess, the chief theoretician of the movement, converted Engels to communism, and Zlocisti, Hess’ biographer, claims that Hess was not without influence on Marx, too. More interesting is the fact that Hess collaborated with Marx in writing Die deutsche Ideologie (1845); part of the manuscript is in his handwriting. Hess was also an ally of Marx in his struggles against Bruno Bauer, Ruge, Stirner, and Feuerbach. After the first critical writings of Marx and Engels against “true socialism” appeared, Hess avowed himself convinced by their arguments, forswore his past literary habits and plunged into a study of political economy (Letter to Marx, July 28, 1846). His essay – Die Folgen der Revolution des Proletariats (1847) – published before the Communist Manifesto was written, is Marxian in tone and analysis, save on some organizational issues. Yet the Communist Manifesto published early in 1848 unmistakably concentrates its fire on Hess, making allowances neither for the actual development of Hess’ views nor for his revolutionary integrity.
Another factor which has made it difficult for some to understand Marx’s criticism is the general acknowledgment that, personally, Moses Hess was a man of singular purity of character. He was sensitive to every form of injustice, passionate in his devotion to principles, and almost saintly in his everyday behavior. He was unable to hate even those who had harmed him. Although subjected to a life-long poverty, even more grinding than that of Marx, he never wavered in his allegiance to revolutionary ideals. He was very active in the First International where he joined forces with Marx against Bakunin. Early in life he broke away from his orthodox Jewish home and married a prostitute – “in order to atone for the evil society had done” – with whom he lived in happy marriage until his death. His friends nicknamed him “the communist rabbi”.
Both the vehemence and justice of Marx’s denunciation of the “true socialists” have been challenged by students of the period. Koigen, Hammacher, and Zlocisti  have maintained that Marx himself was at one time a “true socialist” (about Engels’ “philosophical socialism” there is no question at all), and that historically there is no more justification for believing Hess to be a precursor of Marxism than for accepting Marx’ characterization of him.
Mehring, Bernstein, and G. Meyer  do not maintain that Marx was a “true socialist” but they are unequivocal in stating that Marx and Engels did less than justice to “true socialism” in general and to Hess in particular. Riazanov takes a middle ground; but Lukacs  defends Marx in every particular and even asserts that far from being a “true socialist”, Marx was not even a genuine Feuerbachian.
For our purpose it is immaterial whether Marx was a “true socialist” or whether Hess was a forerunner of Marx. That they shared a great many positions together is indicated by their common derivation from Hegel and Feuerbach on the one hand, and their common struggles against other oppositional tendencies on the other. More important are the differences which manifest themselves between them. Even if it should turn out that Marx was a “true socialist” and that the views he argued against were those that he himself had earlier embraced, it would still be necessary, in tracing Marx’s intellectual biography, to consider his criticism of “true socialism” as self-criticism.
The Philosophy of Moses Hess
“In Frankreich vertritt das Proletariat, in Deutschland des Geistesaristokratie den Humanismus.” – HESS.
“True socialism” was a pseudo-political tendency among a certain group of literary men, publicists and philosophers in Germany, all of whom had been influenced by Feuerbach. It was not a system of thought. In a sense, every “true socialist” had his own philosophy. Hess, Grün, Lüning, Kriege, Heinzen, each developed his position in his own way so that no general exposition can be an adequate account of all the “true socialists”. If one must choose a representative of this tendency, there is no choice but to turn to Moses Hess. He was the recognized leader of the group. By virtue of his unremitting activity in behalf of revolutionary ideals, he had already won the title of the “father of German communism”. Unfortunately, the philosophy of Hess is not a unified doctrine. It is futile to look for system or consistency in it. Hess was by turns a Spinozist, an Hegelian, a Feuerbachian, a Marxist, a natural science monist, and a combination of them all. It will therefore be necessary to select for exposition only those of his views which Hess held in the Forties and which were in large measure shared by his “true socialist” comrades. Marx’s criticisms will then be more intelligible.
1. The Social Status of the German Intellectual. It was Heine who first proclaimed that the Germans had succeeded in doing only in thought what others had already done in fact. This was a pointed way of saying that although the Germans were lagging behind other western nations in their social and political development, their philosophical theory from Kant to Hegel had already given an adequate ideological expression of the needs and ideals of bourgeois society. In Germany proper, however, the bourgeoisie had not yet come to power and the class relationships were obscured by a host of traditional, religious, sectional and political factors. The country was predominantly agricultural; the semi-feudal estates provided a food supply sufficient not only for the domestic market but for export. Political power was largely concentrated in the hands of the nobility. This power had been challenged by Napoleon in two ways. First, by a direct attempt to introduce democratic and constitutional customs in those parts of Germany which he had conquered; and second, by the indirect effects of the imposition of the Continental system, which by barring English manufacturers from Germany called into existence a German industrial class (cf. Engels, Der Status Quo in Deutschland, Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, Sec. I, Vol. 6, p. 231ff.). With Napoleon’s defeat the first danger was removed – (except for the promise of a constitution which the Prussian King had made in order to spur his subjects on against the invader). But the second danger remained. The German bourgeoisie which had grown strong enough to dominate the domestic market during the Napoleonic wars, continued to grow. Manufacturing, mining and shipping were developed on a wider scale. The bourgeoisie demanded a tariff-union (Zollverein) for all the thirty-nine German states and got it. It demanded a protective tariff for Prussia, and got that too. At every step, however, it encountered the opposition of the landed feudal interests whose wealth and power had been adversely affected, first, by the Napoleonic wars which had closed the French and English markets, second, by the English Corn Laws, enacted after the restoration of peace, and third, by overseas competition in agricultural and grazing products. The struggle between the rising bourgeoisie and the nobility was mediated by the monarchy which tolerated the bourgeoisie because it increased the national wealth and supplied new sources of revenue. Politically, however, the monarchy favored the landed nobility because it feared that the development of industry would force the surrender of absolutism and accelerate the national unification of Germany. Meanwhile, the consequences of the agrarian reforms of Stein had increased the number of independent peasant-proprietors who, together with the local hand-workers, small tradesmen, etc., constituted a class of petty bourgeoisie. Its interests were as much opposed to the large landlords as to the industrial capitalist. A small, inarticulate and newly created class of proletarians, which accompanied the growth of industry, suffered an intensive exploitation that often takes place when a country is first opened to manufacture.
In this confused social and political scene, government was possible only with the help of a great bureaucracy of officials who administered the complicated laws and regulations which grew out of the conflicts of so many different interests. In the course of time the bureaucracy began to consider itself an independent class with independent interests. But since by training and origin it was feudal in outlook, it was unsympathetic to the bourgeoisie. With growing resentment the latter found that the red tape, and the bribery necessary to break it, were interfering with normal industrial expansion and adding to the costs of production. Its economic interests demanded the overthrow of the absolute monarchy, but it was itself so strongly infected with the semi-feudal Staat-und Ständesphilosophie that it preferred to truckle to the nobility and bureaucracy rather than to risk an open fight. Its only possible allies were the proletariat and a part of the petty bourgeoisie. The first was too weak, and the second – in Germany – more royalist than the king. And so the German bourgeoisie hoped to win its much needed reforms not by open class struggle but by (1) involving the nobility in the net of its investment schemes, (2) by making the government dependent upon it for its finances, and (3) by petitioning the king and his bureaucracy for a liberal constitution in the name of “social progress”, “humanitarianism”, and “philosophy”.
It is against this background that the “true socialism” of the radical German intellectuals must be understood. They were acquainted with the great French socialist writers without having acquired a clear insight into the class stratification of their own country or a consciousness of the specific needs of the proletariat as a class.  As a group the intellectuals could only function either by direct or indirect service with the bureaucracy – which meant going over to outright reaction – or by expressing the demands of an opposition class. In the Thirties the Young Germans and the Young Hegelians had frankly adopted the point of view of the German bourgeoisie and had agitated for all the constitutional rights which England and France were enjoying. But with the disintegration of these schools of thought and with the dissemination of French socialist ideas, the German intellectuals lost their enthusiasm for the bourgeoisie. Instead of continuing with them in a common struggle against the absolutist monarchy, they turned all their weapons against bourgeois culture and politics, criticizing the social consequences of industrial production. In their most advanced phase they spoke in the name of the proletariat, but the only proletarians they knew were the ones talked about by the French Socialist writers. Or what was even more confusing, they sometimes proclaimed that “Das Proletariat ist die Menschheit” (the proletariat is humanity) so that it would appear, as Marx once caustically observed, that in struggling to abolish classes, the communists were striving to destroy humanity.
In fact, whatever revolutionary consciousness developed among the German intellectuals took place quite independently of the development of the German proletariat. Hess was not only unacquainted with the German working classes, he was even unaware of the existence of communistic groups among the German workers in Paris. “When I came to Paris,” he writes, “I was no more aware of the existence of communistic groups of German journeymen than they were of me.” (Sozialistische Aufsätze, ed. by Zlocisti, p. 122) And Engels in one of his letters to Marx, writing of the great interest in communism which he and Hess had succeeded in awakening by public meetings, admits that they were winning converts among all classes except the proletariat.
“All of Elberfeld and Barmen, from the money aristocracy to the épicerie, was represented. Only the proletariat was not there ... Things are going fine. Everyone is talking about communism, and we are winning new followers every day. Wuppertaler communism is une verité, yes, almost a force ... The dumbest, most indolent and philistine of people who are interested in nothing in the world are beginning to become enthusiastic [schwärmen] about communism.” (Gesamtausgabe, Sec. III, Vol. 2, p. 14.)
Engels, himself, had already perceived the limitations of a theory of communism which took its point of departure from abstract ethical principles without relating them to the concrete struggles of the working class. In the preface to his Condition of the English Working Class (1845) he admits that one of the aims of his book is to put an end to all communist “Phantastereien und Schwärmereien pro et contra” and to provide a factual analysis of the economic realities which were shaping the social destinies of the proletariat and determining the conditions of their emancipation. The majority of the radical German intellectuals, however, were insensitive to the existence and importance of social class divisions. Imbued with the ideals of a perfect society; they were unable to join the bureaucracy which administered present society. They also refused to make themselves a vehicle for the specific temporal demands of the bourgeoisie or proletariat. The only standpoint from which they passed criticism upon society was an allegedly classless ethics whose values expressed not the immediate need of this or that class but the essential needs of the whole of society. They felt themselves to be the prophets of the good society whose organization could be deduced from the “true nature” of man. They were concerned with the sufferings of the proletariat and the disparity which existed between their present life and their life as it ought to be. But they had no conception of what constituted the proletariat. The proletariat was identified with an abstract category of distress. The “true socialists” sympathized with the proletariat as they would sympathize with the cause of any underdog. They claimed to be socialists as much for the sake of the ultimate welfare of the nobility and bourgeoisie as for the sake of those whom these classes oppressed.
It should now be clear why such a position tended to strengthen the belief that it was possible to find an objective social philosophy which was valid for all classes of society.
2. Communism as Humanism. The philosophy of Hess was born of a desire to find fundamental principles of social organization which would make possible the elimination of all conflict between man and man, and class and class. Early in his career, as a follower of Spinoza and Hegel, he believed that valid principles of social order could be derived only from a knowledge of the metaphysical structure of existence. The good life is a life based upon the insight into the unity and necessity of all things. Virtue arises from the knowledge of our status and function in the all-embracing totality – called by both Spinoza and Hegel, God. Two difficulties, however, compelled Hess to modify his original Spinozism. First, its contemplative outlook upon life conflicted with his consciousness that a great many things had to be done, that problems were pressing for a solution which could not be found by viewing them sub specie aeternitatis. Secondly, a consistent Spinozism and Hegelianism seemed to imply that in the complete vision of the order and connection of things, everything was blessed with necessity, and that evil was non-existent. This would call into question the very reality of the social problems of evil and oppression which irked Hess’ sensitive nature and which had furnished the starting point of his whole philosophical enquiry. The practical upshot of this philosophical ethics was to identify religion with morality and to make the problems of daily life which confronted him, unimportant and unreal.
Hess’ task was now to find a philosophy which would justify the autonomy of moral activity. Like most of the Young-Hegelians, Hess turned to Fichte. The active personality of Fichte, his early enthusiasm for the French Revolution, and his apparent social and political liberalism had initiated a kind of Fichte Renaissance among the Young-Hegelians. Since it was from him that Hegel had taken over and developed the dialectical method, the Young-Hegelians could with good philosophical grace couple their allegiance to the hero of the Atheismusstreit with their school loyalty to Hegel, the philosopher of the restoration. About the same time that Hess was writing his pieces in the Rheinische Zeitung and his essay, Philosophie der Tat, Koppen, the close friend of Marx, published an article on Fichte und die Revolution in which he declared:
“Now that the impulse to free political development has again come to life in us Germans ... the voice of the purest, most determined, and strongest character among German philosophers will be better understood and will find a readier reception than ever before.” 
Hess, however, was more interested in grafting Fichte’s metaphysics of activity upon Spinoza’s doctrine of substance (something which Hegel had already done) than in Fichte’s explicit political doctrines.
“Not being but action is first and last ... Now is the time for the philosophy of spirit to become a philosophy of activity. Not only thinking but the whole of human activity must be lifted to a plane on which all oppositions disappear ... Fichte in this respect has already gone further than the most recent philosopher.” (Philosophie der Tat, Sozialistische Aufsätze, p. 37, p. 50)
In invoking the Fichtean principle of activity to supplement the Spinozistic doctrine of Substance, Hess was expressing in an esoteric way the conflict which he had already described in more popular fashion as the conflict between religion and morality. The religious outlook, he contended, was essentially one of acceptance – an acceptance of the order of the universe, whether it be called God, Nature, Reason, or Spirit, of which human beings were a part, and whose mysterious and purposive ways could only be dimly apprehended by faith and intelligence. The standpoint of morality, on the other hand, was one of assertion – an assertion of what ought to be and what is not, an imposition of a new order and not merely the recognition of an old. The root of religion was man’s feelings; the source of morality was the practical necessities of life. So long as human beings strive after ideals of perfection, there can be no completely irreligious men; so long as they live in society, they cannot be completely immoral. Irreligion is simply a word for other people’s religion; immorality, a term for behavior different from our own. The essence of religion is worship; the essence of morality, conscientiousness. (Religion und Sittlichkeit, ibid., p. 28)
The conflict between religion and morality, Hess went on to say, can only be avoided if both observed a proper division, of labor. Religion had no business in politics or with the concerns of the state. It is a private matter – an affair of the individual soul faced by the immensities of the cosmos. The field of politics belongs to ethics; its object is the general interests of mankind.
“Let religion educate, edify, and elevate the individual soul. Let it support the weak and console the suffering. But in public life let man show himself not in his individual but in his general character. Public life – the state – demands not weak but strong, courageous and independent men.”
But now Hess found himself confronted by even greater difficulties. If religion could not serve as a basis for social peace, how could ethics take its place? In affirming the Fichtean principle of activity, Hess was subscribing to the view that individuality is a brute metaphysical fact. Principles cannot act in time and be acted upon; only individuals can. In the social field, individuality expresses itself in the different personalities whose relationships constitute the social order. But, if virtue be no more than conscientiousness, if each individual is to fulfill the law of his own nature, what is the guarantee that social peace and freedom can be secured? Hess is asking how genuine social morality is possible. A social morality based upon convention or contact between personalities breaks down as soon as an individual or a group becomes sufficiently powerful to violate the compact with impunity. A social morality based on authority or revelation is compatible with the autonomy of moral action. Yet a social morality must be grounded on some objective order. It cannot be the order of nature. And at this point, Hess turns to Feuerbach. Morality must be grounded on the “true” nature of the human species – on Man viewed not as a series of isolated individuals or as one abstract universal – Humanity – but as a living unity whose different parts have developed from a common source and which are bound to-pether by a feeling of natural kinship. But man cannot live as man – and here Hess improves on Feuerbach – unless he recognizes that his human needs require new institutions; that all the social and political conflicts of the past and present have grown out of the root evils of private property; that money plays the same role in distorting man’s practical life that religion plays in distorting his intellectual life. Having read Proudhon and the Utopian French socialists, Hess tries to link up their conclusions with Feuerbach’s method:
“The essence of God, says Feuerbach, is the transcendent essence of man, and the real theory of the divine nature is the theory of human nature. Theology is anthropology. That is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. The nature of man, it must be added, is social, involving the cooperative activity of all individuals for the same ends and interests. The true theory of man, the true humanism is the theory of human society. In other words, anthropology is socialism.” (Loc. cit., pp. 115–116)
The logical corrolary of this position was that the struggle for human freedom and social security must be waged not in the name of the proletariat, but in the name of humanity.
3. Communism as the Ethics of Love. The specific content with which Hess filled this abstract humanism is not hard to guess. It was a variant of the Feuerbachian ideal of love. Although the full realization of communism depended upon the existence of certain social conditions (about whose nature Hess at this stage was rather vague), communism as an ideal was already implicit in every altruistic tendency which stirred within the human breast. The historical development of society, he held, may be legitimately viewed as a result of the conflict of two great passions – egoism, manifested in individual self-assertion against others, and love, as expressed in all action inspired by the consciousness of the essential identity of the individual with mankind. Egoism or selfishness is the final source of all social oppression and exploitation. Cruelty, fraud and robbery, feudalism, chattel and wage slavery, pauperism and prostitution are possible only because men draw a circle around themselves and their nearest of kin, and focus attention so strongly upon the field of their immediate vision that they become indifferent, and ultimately blind, to the interests and the very existence of those who live beyond the line. Social institutions are such as to place a premium upon selfish behavior. And although this behavior is hedged in by rules of law imposed by the state, these rules themselves represent the organized selfishness of dominant groups. Capitalism or “the system of free competition is the last word; of egoism”. It distorts and perverts every phase of culture – religion, art, education – by substituting for the ideals of the collectivity, private interest and private satisfaction as controlling factors.
Although the history of society has been the progressive replacement of the “egoism of one group by the egoism of others, it is significant that all groups come to power by professing allegiance to theoretical principles of love and humanity, freedom and equality. The more altruistic their declaration, the more consistent – as the history of the English and French bourgeoisie illustrates – their egoism. The fact, however, that in order to move great masses into action, vehement lip-service to the ideals of love and humanity is necessary indicates that “the real nature of man” recognizes that these ideals alone are ultimately valid and yearns for their fulfillment. But they can only be fulfilled when private property and the arbitrary power which its possession gives over other human beings, is abolished. “Communism is the law [Lebensgesetz] of love applied to social life.” It is not enough to preach love to realize communism, as Feuerbach does; nor can it be brought about by preaching hate. Love must be organized into action; recognition of the identity of the real interest of all mankind must be carried over into every phase of personal and social life:
“You have been told that you cannot serve two masters at once – God and Mammon. But we tell you that you cannot serve either one of them, if you think and feel like human beings. Love one another, unite in spirit, and your hearts will be filled with that blessedness which you have so vainly sought for outside of yourselves, in God. Organise, unite in the real world, and by your deeds and works you will possess all the wealth, which you have so vainly sought, in money. So long as you do not strive to develop your own nature, so long as you strive to be not human but superhuman and inhuman creatures, you will become inhuman, you will look down contemptuously upon human nature, whose real nature you do not recognize and treat ‘the masses’ as if they were a wild beast. The beast which you see in the people is in yourself.” (Ueber die Not in unserer Gesellschaft und deren Abhilfe, Sozialistische Aufsätze, p. 149)
Hess left it unexplained how this belief in the essential unity of mankind could be reconciled with his characterization of those who did not share his belief. Perhaps it is too much to expect this of one whose first interest was not in social analysis – but, like the old Hebrew prophets, in social justice.
If anthropologically, communism was humanism, and ethically it was humanitarianism, it followed that the appeal to action would be framed not in terms of material interests but in terms of culture, creative activity, peace, honor, justice, and other ideal goods. The “true socialists” took the field against all those who pretended that the communist movement was exclusively or even primarily a movement of the proletariat, and who spoke as if its demands centered around the needs of the stomach. How could communists preach the ideal of classlessness and still appeal to one class against another? How could the ideal values of communism be regarded as the concern only of the proletariat when they really flowed from the real nature of man? Hess admitted, to be sure, that in France the movement was proletarian, but he explained this by saying that the French proletariat was communistic “not out of egoism but out of humanity”. The proletariat becomes communistic out of love of mankind. But why should one, asks Hess, who out of love of mankind is already a communist, regard himself as a proletarian? And in fact there are communists who are not proletarians and there are proletarians who are not communists. All that one can say is that since the proletariat suffers most from the effects of organized egoism (which Hess identifies with capitalism) it is more likely than any other group to feel and understand the unity of mankind, and the necessity of establishing communism to realize it. Hess makes a point of correcting Lorenz von Stein, an Hegelian of the center, whose book, Der Sozialismus und Kommunismus des heutigen Frankreich (1845) introduced, so to speak, the theories of French socialism to the German public. Despite his reactionary tendencies, Stein had made some surprisingly realistic analyses of the French revolutionary movement. He had grasped the importance of the class struggle in French history and had distinguished between the “proletariat” as an historical category bound up with capitalism and the “poor” and “unfortunate” to be found in any society.  Hess insists that Stein has given a misleading account of communism.
“It is an error – and this error is due to the egoistic narrowness which cannot rise to a truly human outlook – yes, it is an error diligently spread by the reaction, and by Stein above all, that socialism develops only among the proletariat, and among the proletariat only as a question of fulfilling the needs of the stomach.” (Sozialistische Aufsätze, p. 129)
Socialism is not a question of bread, although it may be that, too. It is in the first instance a question of man, of moral values, especially of human dignity. These values Hess formulates differently at different times. Sometimes it is simply truth which is the communist ideal; only under communism will social parasitism and the civilization of lies based on it disappear. Sometimes it is creative work in which effort and enjoyment will always be found together. Sometimes it is character or virtue, defined by Hess, as the “freedom to follow the law of one’s own life” (and which dangerously approaches the ideal of bourgeois freedom). But through the entire scale of ethical variations developed by Hess, there sounds one fundamental theme: the social revolution presupposes a moral revolution.
4. “True Socialism” as Reactionary Socialism. Had the “true socialists” restricted themselves to declarations of brotherly love, they probably would have been remembered only as another Utopian socialist sect. But they prided themselves upon having advanced beyond their master, Feuerbach. If thinking flowers in action, then political thinking must concern itself in the most intimate way with the contemporary issues of politics. As has already been indicated, the German bourgeoisie was struggling against the nobility and bureaucracy for the democratic rights already enjoyed by the bourgeoisie in France and England. The “true socialists”, posted on French communist theory, knew that in a bourgeois democracy the proletariat was exploited even more openly than in an absolute monarchy, that the formal rights of press, assemblage, trial by jury, etc., could not be effectively exercized where glaring social inequalities prevailed. Speaking, then, for the proletariat – for the future of humanity – the “true socialists” repudiated the demands of the bourgeoisie, attacked their spokesmen as hypocrites, and succeeded in confusing the intellectual strata of the petty bourgeoisie who had regarded the change from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional republic as genuine social advance.
In this crusade against bourgeois liberalism the chief offender was not Moses Hess but Karl Grün and after him, Otto Lüning. But Hess was not without faults. He paraded an indifference to the political program of the democrats and was quick to accuse them of compromise, insincerity and cowardice. Even communists were suspect if their origins were bourgeois. The badge of real ethical purity was proletarian.
“Most communists,” he wrote, “who stem from the bourgeoisie go no further than general phrases and attempts at compromise [between the older order and the new]; it is only the proletariat which carries things to a decisive break with the existing order.” (Rheinische Jahrbücher, Vol. II, 1846, p. 65)
Hess maintained that the real cause of social distress was economic and to agitate for political reforms was therefore a waste of time. All governments, except revolutionary ones, were indifferent to the welfare of the proletariat. Addressing German liberals, he wrote:
“Has the King of Prussia shown less concern for the misery of the poorer classes than the French Assembly or the French kirig? So convinced are we by reflection upon the facts and upon the real causes of social distress that this is not so, that all liberal political strivings appear to us as immaterial, even as downright disgusting” (förmlich zum Ekel geworden sind).
It was Karl Grün, however, the man upon whom Marx poured out the vials of his wrath, who formulated the anti-liberal attitude of “true socialism” most sharply. The promise of a constitution which the King of Prussia had made in 1815 was long overdue. At every opportunity, the bourgeoisie reminded him, his counsellors, and his successor, of his unredeemed pledge. Every incident of domestic unrest was capitalized by bourgeois and liberal opinion to point out that constitutional safety-valves of popular resentment were better than none. The clamor for a constitution became particularly strong after the revolt of the Silesian weavers. It was in answer to this that Grün wrote:
“Who in Prussia wants a constitution? The liberals. Who are the liberals? People who sit within their four walls, and some littérateurs who either themselves own property or whose horizon is bounded by the wishes of the worthy factory owners. Does this handful of owners with their literary hacks constitute the people? No. Does the people desire a constitution? Not in its dreams ... Had the Silesian proletariat a consciousness ... it would protest against a constitution. The proletariat has no consciousness but we ... act in its name. We protest.” (Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 98–100)
Lüning was more interested in awakening the proletariat to its great mission of social salvation than in drawing it into supporting the political demands of the bourgeoisie.
“There is only one way of making the proletariat conscious of its humanity, that is through the organization of education.” (Dieses Buck gehört dem Volke [a periodical], Vol. II, 1846, p. 102, quoted by Speier, loc. cit., p. 126)
And so the “true socialists”, each in his own way, helped the reactionary nobility in its struggle to retain sole political supremacy in Germany.
5. Communism and Nationalism. Hess was the first socialist of his day to link up the question of nationalism with the theory of communism. Nationalism is of two varieties, just as internationalism is of two varieties. True nationalism, which may be defined as pride in the distinctive character of local culture, has been perverted into the false nationalism of modern states by the institution of private property. So long as competition and war between individuals prevail within communities, it is inevitable that the same principles be applied by the organized groups which constitute states in their relations with each other. The struggle between nations takes more gruesome forms – wars, massacres, etc. – than the struggle between individuals within the nation, because there is no consciousness of common ties of local culture to diminish the cruelty towards others called forth by a conflict over the means of life. Just as it is necessary td find a rule to regulate the distribution of goods within the community in order to give each one an opportunity to develop his personality, so it is necessary to find a rule which will apply between nations so that each nationality will be able to develop its distinctive culture.
“The problem of the elimination of national hate is intimately bound up with the problem of egoistic competition. International war cannot cease until individual war, competition, ceases. All the problems, all the difficulties, all the contradictions which have arisen in this country, flow out of this fundamental question.” 
Commercial nationalism generally gives rise to a spurious renaissance of national culture. Everything becomes “national” and therefore the concern of the true patriot, e.g., “religion and a protective tariff for monopoly enterprises; freedom and cotton; mediaeval ruins and modern industry; gravestones and railroads.” In this way, national cultures which are the bearers of unique value, become claimants to total and exclusive value. They no longer are content to live peacefully side by side faithful to their own national genius and yet tolerant of others; they seek to impose their own culture upon others in the name of a militant and holy nationalism. They thereby destroy not only the unique value of other cultures but their own.
False nationalism breeds a false internationalism – cosmopolitanism. True internationalism recognizes the necessity of distinct cultures and nations. “But only the individual is real”, and nationality is the individuality of a people. It is no more possible for humanity to exist without particular peoples and nations than to exist without particular individuals.
Like most of his contemporaries Hess had a strong belief not only in the existence of national traits and character, but in their fixity. National traits may be an historical product, but the kind of development which is possible to each nation is determined by its essential nature. The German is essentially contemplative, the Frenchman passionate, and the Englishman practical. These traits will be found reflected in their revolutionary movements too. The German is a communist out of philosophy; the Frenchman, out of his strong feeling for justice; the Englishman, because of material interests. All three elements are necessary; but in the struggle for socialism, the Frenchman will give the signal for action. 
6. Transition to Realism. It would be a great injustice to Hess to close the exposition of his thought at this point. For his “true socialism” phase lasted only a few years. By 1847 Hess had already abandoned his appeal to humanity and the essential nature of man and had undertaken a study of political economy. His essay, Die Folgen des Revolution des Proletariat, no longer speaks of ideal presuppositions of communism but of material conditions, not in terms of the development of the spirit of humanity but of the development of productive forces. In this essay of Hess will be found, with a clarity and precision quite foreign to his other writings, the theory of the concentration and centralization of capital, the theory of increasing misery, the theory of overproduction to account for the periodicity of crises, the doctrine that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, and the view that the development of revolutionary consciousness is a simple and direct outgrowth of economic distress – theories which were to receive classic formulation, together with a denunciation of “true socialism”, a few months later, in the Communist Manifesto. The change in tone and subject matter is so striking that mere paraphrase cannot convey it. I quote therefore some characteristic passages.
“A revolution of the proletariat presupposes before all things the existence of a proletariat – presupposes a struggle, not merely about abstract principles but about concrete and tangible interests, presupposes that the very existence of the great majority of the workers is threatened, that these workers know who the enemy is they have to fight, and that they have the means in their own hands to achieve victory ... It remains to ask what must social relations be in order to produce uniform oppression of the workers as well as the instrument of their liberation? ... We have already indicated how free competition – in the last instance free-trade – makes wages equal. But before free competition can reach the highest phase of its development ... a certain series of economic facts must precede it ... Machines must be discovered, instruments of production must be perfected and multiplied, work must be subdivided, more must be produced than consumed, business crises must arise as a result of overproduction and threaten to ruin an entire country in case the obstacles which remain in the way of industry are not removed ... Once social relations have reached this revolutionary height, nothing can stop the proletarian revolution. All measures to revive and develop private interest are at last exhausted ... It is large industry which, as we saw, in the last instance provides, the means and conditions for the overthrow of the existing social order based upon private industry, private trade, and private property. It is large industry which creates a revolutionary class and unifies it against the ruling bourgeoisie. It is large industry which makes the proletariat subjectively conscious of the necessity of shaking off its yoke in that it gives the proletariat a consciousness of its position ... What fetters production today? The business crises? How do crises arise? Through overproduction. Why is more produced than can be consumed? Have, then, all the members of society more than enough of what they need? By no means, most of them lack the barest necessities of existence, not to speak of everything else which man needs for the development of his natural dispositions and capacities ... Why, then, this overproduction, this distress in the midst of plenty? Well we have seen: the more progress private industry makes, the more capital accumulates in private hands, the more those who are propertyless are compelled to sell their personal labor power [Arbeitskräfte] in order to secure the necessary means of life. The worker, however, who is compelled to sell himself or his labor power, becomes a commodity. Its value obeys the same economic laws as other commodities.” (Sozialistische Aufsätze, pp. 215–216)
It remains to ask where Hess derived these views, especially since in some of his later writings, the echoes of his earlier doctrines are still to be heard. There can be no question but that Hess read Ricardo and the Ricardian socialists in the light of Marx’s views as expressed in the Anti-Proudhon. It is a legitimate inference that these views were developed for Hess by Marx in their last period of collaboration. As we proceed to Marx’s criticism of Hess, it is necessary to bear constantly in mind that for all his dislike of the personal characters of Marx and Engels, after 1847 Hess regarded himself as a Marxist.
Top of page
1. Koigen’s Zur Vorgeschichte des modernen philosophischen Sozialismus in Deutschland, Berne, 1901, p. 149; Hammacher’s Zur Würdigung des wahren Sozialismus, in Grünberg’s Archiv fur die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, Vol. I, p. 89ff.; Zlocisti’s Moses Hess, der Vorkämpfer des Sozialismus und Zionismus, Berlin, 1921, pp. 232ff. The whole of chapter IX should be read in this connection. Zlocisti’s biography of Hess is frankly partial towards its subject, but it contains a very lively account of Hess’ social and intellectual milieu. His discussion of the relation between Marx and Hess is vitiated by a stubborn misunderstanding of Marx on salient points. For example he is capable of writing the following:
“Although Hess placed himself decisively in the Marxian camp, one thing distinguished him from the ‘leader’ [Marx], viz., activity. For in the last analysis the Marxian conception excluded in a priori fashion every organisation directed to the achievement of specific goals. Everything develops out of the relations of production according to rigidly determined laws. It is this development alone which undermines itself by its own laws; so that capitalism collapses of itself.” (p. 255)
2. The first in Aus dem literarischen Nachlass Marx-Engels, Vol. 2, pp. 348, 390–392; the second: “It is objectively unjustifiable to describe Hess’ writings as ‘foul and enervating literature’,” (Marx’s characterization of “true socialism” in the Communist Manifesto) quoted by Zlocisti, op. cit., p. 260; the third in Friedrich Engels, Eine Biographie, Vol. I, pp. 106ff.
3. Riazanov: “Up to a point, the severe criticism of German or ‘true’ socialism contained in the Manifesto is a self-criticism ... of Marx’s own philosophical development.” (Explanatory notes to Communist Manifesto, Eng. tr. p. 213. Italics mine. To what point is however not indicated.) Lukacs: Moses Hess und die Probleme in der Idealistischen Dialektik, Leipzig 1926 (Sonderabdruck), pp. 27ff.
4. “To these true socialists belong not only those who call themselves socialists par excellence but also the greater part of those literary men in Germany who have accepted the party name of communists. These last are, if that is possible, even worse than the true socialists.” (Engels, loc. cit.)
5. Anecdota ..., Vol. I, 1843, p. 154; for more complete documentation of the Fichtean tendency among the Young Hegelians, see Speier, Die Geschichts-phihsophie Lassalles, in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft, Vol. 61, pp. 118ff.; as well as for a convincing interpretation of Lassalle as a “wahre Sozialist” (pp. 60ff.)
6. As far as the mooted question of Stein’s influence on Marx is concerned, it is sufficient to point out that Stein prophesied that the existing proletariat would develop in Germany. Responsibility for the existence of the proletariat is laid at the door of the Weltgeist, Cf. op. cit., p. 29.
7. Sozialistische Aufsätze, p. 86. In his Die europäische Triarchie (1841) a work which brought him to public attention, Hess already proclaimed the necessity of a federated national unity of England, France and Germany, without interpreting nationalism as an expression of material egoistic interest.
8. For an amusing contrast between the French and German type of revolutionist, cf. Sozialistische Aufsätze, pp. 156–157.
Timeline Of The Jewish Genocide Of The British People
Posted on February 2, 2015 by cigpapers
JEWS CONTROL BRITAIN AND ARE COMMITTING GENOCIDE ON US.
Here’s how it happened:
1066: In return for financial support William The Conqueror brought the jews to England with him. The jews soon acquired a reputation as extortionate moneylenders which made them extremely unpopular with both the Church and the general public.
1290: King Edward I finally expelled the jews from England. The jews swore their revenge.
Expusion and relocation of jews during the Middle Ages.
Expulsion and relocation of jews during the Middle Ages.
1649: The jews financed Oliver Cromwell’s otherthrowing and beheading of Stuart King Charles I after he refused them control of England’s finances.
1655: The jews were readmitted to England by their puppet Oliver Cromwell.
1660: With the British People becoming sick of austerity under the jewish puppet Oliver Cromwell, Charles Stuart landed in Dover in May 1660 and was restored as King Charles II of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland to wide popular acclaim. The jews planned their revenge.
1688: The jews ordered William III Prince of Orange (formerly a Dutch soldier called William Stadholder)to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the jews, he abdicated and fled to France.
King William III of Orange
King William III of Orange
1694: William III of Orange (AKA William Stadholder) who the jews had installed as the King of England, asked the jews for financial help to keep the Stuarts at bay. Jews issued first bank notes on interest to William of Orange and first central bank had its beginnings. The Bank Of England was established.
1697: London Stock Exchange became the world’s largest “purse.” Twelve ruling seats were reserved for jews only.
1701: The Bank of England establish the Bevis Marks Synagogue in the City of London.
1714: The jews install King George I (AKA Georg Ludwig 1660-1727) from the House of Hanover as the British King. There were, and still are, allegations that the House of Hanover are secretly jewish.
1715: James Stuart (AKA The Old Pretender), son of King James II, invaded Scotland and attempted unsuccessfully to take back the British Crown from the jews.
1745: The Stuarts made their final attempt to take back Britain from the jews by invading England with an army made up of Scottish Highland Clans under Bonnie Prince Charlie (1720-1788) grandson of King James II. Finally defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Bonnie Prince Charlie went in to exile and the British Royal House of Stuart came to an end.
Bonnie Prince Charlie made one last attempt to free the British People from enslavement to the jews.
Bonnie Prince Charlie made one last attempt to free the British People from enslavement to the jews in 1745.
1750: The House of the Red Shield (Rothschild) was established and became prime money-lenders to the British Crown.
1753: King George II, a pawn of the Rothschilds and Amsterdam jewish bankers, passed a Naturalization Bill allowing jews to become British subjects.
1757: Following Clive of India’s victory at Plassey The East India Company seized control of Bengal, India’s richest province, and got seriously involved in the opium trade.They also tripled local taxes leading to the starvation of 10 million Indians.
1773: Warren Hastings brought all opium production under the monoply control of The Bank of England. Eventually 17 million Chinese died of drug addiction as 2000 chests of opium were exported every year.
1773: Mayer Rothschild created the World Revolutionary Movement and Red-Flag Socialism as the banksters’ means of overthrowing National ruling elites (e.g. French and Russian Revolutions). Red-Flag socialism and the political groups that adhere to it have always been created and controlled by the Rothschilds. The red flag is the flag of the Rothschilds family – Rothschild means red shield.
1789: Mayer Rothschild organised the French Revolution, and mass murder of the French aristocracy, to seize control of the French economy by privatising the Bank Of France.
The French revolutionaries often used the red flag of the World Revolutionary Movement.
1803: The Bank Of France was privatised and a National Debt, to be paid off by income tax, was fraudulently established.
1808: Napoleon became master of Europe after seizing control of France back from the jews. He issued a decree which the jews termed the Decret Infame (Infamous Decree). The Decret Infame placed many justifiable restrictions on the jews. The jews planned their revenge.
Napoleon fought to free Europe from enslavement to the jews.
Napoleon fought to free Europe from austerity through debt-enslavement to jewish central bankers.
1814 to 1815: James & Nathan Rothschild ordered all European rulers to assemble at the Congress of Vienna. The Rothschilds drafted a plan that would make it impossible for another Napoleon to rise to power by creating a European “balance of power.” – this basically meant that if any European Nation revolted against jewish control all the jew controlled Nations would attack it.
1815: The Battle of Waterloo signified the end of Napoleon’s heroic anti-jewish rule and the Christian domination of Europe. Both James Rothschild of France and Nathan Rothschild of England financed Wellington’s victory over Napoleon at Waterloo.Nathan Rothschild used false information, about Napoleon winning Waterloo, to defraud the London Stock Exchange and seize control of Britain’s economy.
1882:The East India Company funded the “Opium Trust”.
1884:The Fabian Society was formed with jewish industrialist financing. A faux elite group, of pseudo-intellectuals and sexual deviants, who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing Red-Flag socialism (AKA jewish racial supremacy and Globalisation) to the World through the infiltration of Workers’ Groups and Political Parties i.e. The Labour Party.
1890: The largest munitions factory in the world, Vickers of England, was established by the Rothschilds. The stage was set for the Rothschild’s engineering of World War I and all future wars.
1906: Guglielmo Marconi’s invention of the radio is marketed and taken over by the Jew, David Sarnoff. Sarnoff established the Marconi Company in England and RCA in America. Thus began the Jewish control of the World’s media.
1910: Jews took over the office of Minister of Finance throughout Europe. Louis Klotz became Minister of Finance of France; Michael Luzzati of Italy; Bernhard Dernburg of Germany; Rufus Isaacs of England; and Djavid Bey of Turkey. All jews.
1914: The Vickers Munitions Company, owned by the Rothschilds, engineered World War I.
1916: Germany was winning World War One. The jews promised to obtain American support in exchange for Britain supporting Zionism. Prime Minister Lloyd George accepted the offer. Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed American President Wilson in to the USA joining World War One.
1917: Lord Balfour made formal Lloyd George’s capitulation to Weizmann in a letter to Lord Rothschild known as The Balfour Declaration. The Zionist theft of Arab lands was made “official.”
1917: The Rothschilds funded Lenin and Trotsky with $20 million (real names Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Lev Bronshtein – both jews) via the Schiff banking family to otherthrow the Russian Tsar and murder him and his family by a Red-Flag revolution. The Rothschilds then privatised the Russian Central Bank and enslaved the Russian people to a jewish Red-Flag socialist elite. Russsia was the first Red-Flag jewish dictatorship and between 20 to 100 million White Christians were murdered in an orgy of executions, rape, torture and enslavement.
The flag of Communist Russia – there is a Satanic pentagram representing jews (ruling) above the industrial workers (hammer) and agricultural workers (sickle). In the background is the red flag of the Rothschilds.
1919: The jews insured Germany’s humiliation with their Treaty of Versailles. The jew Bernard Baruch advised Wilson at the conference. The jew Phillip Sassoon, the Parliamentary Private Secretary, advised Lloyd George. The jew, Georges Mandel, (aka Louis Rothschild), French Minister of the Interior, advised Georges Clemenceau.
1922: Jew Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the Pan-European Movement in Vienna with the purpose of creating a New World Order based on a federation of Nations led by the USA. Banker Max Warburg donated 60,000 Marks to set it up.
1925: Jew Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote the book Practical Idealism which laid down the blueprint for a new Europe. In his book Kalergi indicated that the residents of a future Europe will not be White, but due to miscegenation, will be a mongrel race of Asian/White/Negroes to serve a jewish aristocracy. He also suggested the destruction of Individual Nation States to create a United States of Europe. There is still a Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize given out every two years to the European Politician who has done most to support this genocide.
1933: International jewry declared all out war on the German People and swear to destroy them after they threw off the shackles of jewish oppression.
1939: The jewish puppet, and British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain declared war on Nationalist Socialist Germany on September 3rd 1939, after Germany struggled to free itself from jewish oppression. The pretext was the war between Poland and Germany that Poland had instigated.
1945: The jewish controlled allies, led by jewish puppet Winston Churchill, defeat Nationalist Socialist Germany. After their surrender over 1 million German soldiers are murdered by the jewish allies including boys as young as 14. About 1 million more Germans are taken by the jew Bolshevik Russians as slaves and worked to death. The mass rape of German Women in East Prussia is effectively a genocide.
1946 to 1949: The jewish controlled Allies put on a show trial called the “The Nuremberg Trials” where the Germans are found guilty and the Holocaust myth is created. The Germans are forced to pay for the creation of Israel.
1948: The jews started their genocide of White Britain with the arrival of Windrush on 22nd June 1948, a boatload of negroes from West India. The Zionist press claimed this was to deal with an alleged labour shortage in Britain.
The Windrush arrives and the genocide of the British People starts.
The Windrush arrives on June 22nd 1948 and the genocide of the British People starts.
1958: The Notting Hill riots happened when the negroes sought to assert themselves through violence following members of the British White Working Class fighting back against anti-White violence.
1965: The jews introduced the notorious Race Relations Act 1965 making it a civil offence (rather than a criminal offence) to refuse to deal with people due to their National or racial origins.
1966: The jews introduced the Race Relations Board to deal with complaints under the Race Relations Act. The intention was to smash any resistance to integration AKA White genocide.
1973: The jewish puppet, moral degenerate, paedophile and British Prime Minister Edward Heath (1916-2005) took the UK in to the European Economic Community. Later Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.
British Prime Minister Edward Heath - internationalist, degenerate, paedophile and traitor.
British Prime Minister Edward Heath – internationalist, degenerate, paedophile and traitor.
1976: The jews introduced the Race Relations Act 1976 to further promote White genocide and smash any resistance.
1981: The Brixton riots happened when the negroes refused to be subjected to British Laws and customs.
1994: The Leader of the Labour Party, John Smith QC MP, dies of a heart attack and is replaced by jewish puppet Tony Blair. The Labour Party is renamed New Labour AKA Jew Labour. Labour MP Tam Dalyell complains publically about the jewish cabal running the Labour movement. Tony Blair vows to clear New Labour of any racists i.e. anyone opposed to White genocide.
1995: The Barcelona Agreement is signed between all European Countries and Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Israel. The Barcelona Agreement is a legal contract to carry out the Kalergi Plan. The Barcelona Agreement is concealed by Governments and the jewish-controlled main stream media from the general population. .
1997: Jew Labour, using jewish Lord Levy’s personal puppet Tony Blair to front it, win a landslide election with Zionist media backing.
Tony Blair fronted Jew Labour for the jew Zionists.
Tony Blair fronted Jew Labour for the jew Zionists.
1997: Jew Labour leader Tony Blair and his jewish cronies including Jack Straw, Barbara Roche and Johnathan Portes opened the floodgates to Third World immigration to hasten the genocide of White Britain. Between 1997 and 2010 Jew Labour allowed up to 8 million Third Worlders in to Britain.
1998: The leader of Jew Labour Tony Blair publicly states “It is time to implement Practical Idealism“. Most British People failed to notice this seemingly political oxymoron and its hidden reference to White genocide.
2013: Muslims in Britain perform their first public beheading on 22nd May 2013 in London.Their victim is British Army soldier, Fusilier Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.
ï¿½ 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact: email@example.com