Speaker 1: If you want to support the show and get the
episodes early and ad free, head on over to Freemanbeyond
the Wall dot com forward slash Support. I want to
explain something right now. If you support me through substack
or Patreon, you have access to an RSS feed that
you can plug into any podcast, including Apple, and you'll
be able to listen to the episodes through there. If
you support me through a subscribe, star, gum Road or
on my website directly, I will send you a link
where you can download the file and you can listen
to it any way you wish. I really appreciate the
support everyone gives me. It keeps a show going. It
allows me to basically put out an episode every day now,
and I'm not going to stop. I'm just going to accelerate.
I think sometimes you see that I'm putting out two
even three a day, and yeah, can't do it without you,
So thank you for the support. Head on over to
Freeman Beyond the Wall dot com, forward slash Support and
do it there. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone
back to the Peaking Yana Show. Aaron's back. You know,
it's been a little while. It's been at least two months.
Speaker 2: It's been too long since I've been on a professional
and interest program.
Speaker 1: Bird, I'm sorry, Bird, that has good Yeah, yeah, yeah,
all right. So I reached out. I was going through
run Uns's American prov this series, and I found this article.
It was the second time I've read it, and I
was like, you know, this really needs to be read
on the show. Considering also that I'm reading two hundred
Years together with Matthew Rafael, doctor Matthew Rafael Johnson, which
just really concentrates on one aspect of Russian history. But this,
this starts nailing down the revolution itself. And there was
no one else I wanted to have on because I mean,
I I don't know that there I've ever like talked
to somebody who even calls themselves like a communist or
a Marxist, who knows as much about Marxism and Communism
as or who can actually play one on the internet
as well as you do.
Speaker 2: I love it. Yes, I am still in a vowed
Marxist Leninist, and it's it's been a strange journey, but
here I am on the Pete Conyonas show yet again.
Speaker 1: I remember we were reading reading State and Revolution. Everybody's
like why are you reading this? It's like, oh, just wait, yeah, yep,
just wait.
Speaker 2: We must be doing something right, all right.
Speaker 1: So this is something that he dropped on July twenty third,
twenty eighteen, sixty nine hundred words. Nice. It's from his
American prov this series. If you have not read it,
start If it's like, oh, this just seems like too
big a task, just go to the ones that are
surrounding World War two and start reading. Or he has
audio on the website you can download that. I listened
to it at one point seventy five speed because mister
Uns does talk very slowly and deliberately. But this one
is titled the Bolshevik Revolution and it's aftermath. And for
those who are not watching, there's a postage stamp of
Leon Trotsky real name lev Da Vidovich Bronstein, and it's
a one hundredth anniversary of the Bolshiit and Bic Revolution
stamp that came out in twenty seventeen. I think that
was in Russia.
Speaker 2: He's got a good head of hair.
Speaker 1: Yeah, reminds me of that old Seinfeld episode You're when
George is trying to find something to grow hair and
he gets some Chinese guy he likes. Finds out there's
some Chinese cure and he calls China, but he can't
talk to anybody, goes they're Chinese. So the delivery guy
who's Chinese gets on the phone and just starts talking
to the guy and he's like, hey, hey, ask me
if if you can grow hair, And the guy goes, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah,
you grow hair. You look like Stalin, who had a
great head of hair and also looked like a male
model as a young man as he was robbing stage coaches.
Speaker 2: Handsome dude, lady killer.
Speaker 1: All right, let's start reading this. Stop me whenever, man,
mm hm. Although I always had a great interest in history,
and I usually believe that when I read in my textbooks,
and therefore regarded American history as just too bland and
boring to study.
Speaker 2: Cases. Yeah, it's insane. How your high school history classes
just numb three quarters of the students in it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's meant to do that. A really good history
book if you want to start with American history. Tom
Wood's politically incorrect Guide to American History is actually very good.
Love them yep. By contrast, one land I found especially
fascinating was China. The world's most populous country and its
oldest continuous civilization with a tangled modern history of revolutionary upheaval,
then suddenly reopened to the West during the next administration
and under Dang's economic reforms, starting to reverse decades of
Maoist economic failure. I know someone who had had a
profile pick of Deng, who was a.
Speaker 2: Yeah, dark maga Deng Xiaoping.
Speaker 1: In nineteen he's an inspiration. Yeah. In nineteen seventy eight,
I took a UCLA graduate seminar on the rural Chinese
political economy and probably read thirty or forty books during
that semester. Can you imagine? Can you imagine having the
time to do that?
Speaker 2: I couldn't. I can do I can read all those
books under a highway bridge if that was my job.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a callback from long ago. Io Wilson
Seminal socio Biology. The New Synthesis had just been published
a couple of years earlier, reviving the field after decades
of harsh ideological suppression, and with his ideas in the
back of my mind, I couldn't help noteing the obvious
implications of the material I was reading. The Chinese had
always seemed to very smart people in the structure of
China's traditional rural peasant economy produced social Darwinist selective pressure
so thick that you could cut it with a knife,
thus providing a very elegant explanation of how the Chinese
got that way. A couple of years later, in college,
I wrote up my theory while studying under Wilson, and
then decades afterwards dug it out again, finally publishing my
analysis as how social Darwinism made modern China. With the
Chinese people clearly having such tremendous inherent talent and their
potential already demonstrated on a much smaller scale in Hong Kong,
Taiwan and Singapore, I believe there was an excellent chance
that Deang's reforms would unleash enormous economic growth, and sure enough,
that's what that was exactly what happened in the late
nineteen seventies. China was poor than Haiti, but I always
told my friends that it might come to dominate the
world economically within a couple of generations. And although most
of them were initially quite skeptical of such an outrageous claim,
every for you years they became a little less so
The Economists had long been my favorite magazine, and in
nineteen eighty six they published an especially long letter of mine,
emphasizing the tremendous rising potential of China and urging them
to expand their coverage with a new Asia section. The
following year, they did exactly that.
Speaker 2: Yep. Uh. From the eighties onward, even until now, it's
going to be the Chinese century.
Speaker 1: Kind of hard to argue, kind of hard to argue
against that, especially when you have the world's quote unquote
superpower sending all their manufacturing there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, but when it collapses it will be spectacular.
Speaker 1: Like fireworks levels spectacular. These days, I feel tremendous humiliation
for having spent most of my life being so totally
wrong about so many things for so long, and I
claim to China as a very welcome exception. I can't
think of a single development during the last forty years
that I wouldn't have generally expected back in the late
nineteen seventies, with the only surprise having been the total
lack of surprises. About The only revision I've had to
make in my historical framework is that I'd always casually
accepted the ubiquitous claim that Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward
of nineteen fifty nine to sixty one had caused thirty
five million or more deaths. But I recently encountered some
serious doubts suggesting that such a total could be considerably exaggerated,
and today I might admit the possibility that only fifteen
million or fewer had died. I love I read that.
But although I always had a great interest in China,
European history was even more fascinating to me, with a
political interplay of so many conflicting states in the huge
ideological military upheavals of the twentieth century. In my unjustified arrogance,
I also sometimes relished a sense of seeing obvious things
that magazine and newspaper journalists got so completely wrong, mistakes
which often slipped into historical narratives as well. For example,
discussions of the Titanic twentieth century military struggles between Germany
and Russia quite often made casual references to the traditional
hostility between those two great peoples, who for centuries had
stood as bitter rivals, representing the eternal struggle of slav
against Tuton for dominion over Eastern Europe.
Speaker 2: And he does a really good job following this explaining
why that is completely incorrect.
Speaker 1: Although the bloodstained history of the Two World Wars made
that notion seem obvious, it was a fact. It was
factually mistaken. Prior to nineteen fourteen, those two great peoples
had not fought against each other for the previous one
hundred and fifty years, and even the Seven Years War
or the mid eighteenth century had involved a Russian alliance
with Germanic Austria against Germanic Prussia, hardly amounting to a
conflict along civilizational lines. Russians and Germans had been staunch
allies during the endless Napoleonic Wars, closely cooperated closely cooperated
during the the Metaics and bismarck Eras that followed, while
even as late as nineteen oh four Germany had supported
Russia in its unsuccessful war against Japan. Later why Mark
doctor Johnson says that he really considers that war, if
he really studied it, it's like a draw. Oh the uh,
the Russians were Japanese Japanese war. Yeah, he said, If
you studied a little more closely and look at it politically,
it's really a draw.
Speaker 2: It was a draw, but it also solidified Japan's place
as a colonial power.
Speaker 1: It definitely gave them legitimacy, gave him legitimacy, but also
gave them confidence to do some heinous fucking shit. Oh yeah,
all right. Later bymar Germany and Soviet Russia had a
period of close military cooperation during the nineteen twenties. The
Hitler Stalin Pact of nineteen thirty nine marked the beginning
of the Second World War, and during the long Cold War,
the USSR had no more loyalist satellite than East Germany,
the real Germany. Well think about it, what are the
most what sections of Germany right now reject modernism more
than any other?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's East Germany. And I'm sure if any Germans
were left in Prussia it would be that too.
Speaker 1: Perhaps two dozen years of hostilities over the last three centuries,
with good relations and even outright alliance during most of
the remainder hardly suggested that suggested that Russians and Germans
were hereditary enemies. Over Through much of that period, Russia's
ruling elite had had a considerable german Manic tinge. Russia's
legendary Catherine the Great had been a German princess by birth,
and over the century, so many Russian rulers had taken
German wives that the later csars of the Romanov dynasty
were usually more German than Russian. Russia itself had a
substantial but heavily assimilated German population, which was very well
represented in elite political circles, with German names being quite
common among German government ministers and sometimes found among important
military commanders. Even a top leader of the Decembrist revolt
of the early nineteenth century had had German ancestry, but
was a zealous Russian nationalist in his ideology where did
I go? There we go? Under the governance of this
mixed Russian and German ruling class, the Russian Empire had
steadily risen to become one of the world's foremost powers. Indeed,
given its vast sized manpower and resources, combined with one
of the fastest world's fastest economic growth rates and a
natural increase in total population, it was not far behind.
A nineteen fourteen observer might have easily pegged it to
soon dominate the European continent and perhaps even much of
the world, just as Tolkville had famously prophesized in the
early decades of the nineteenth century. A crucial underlying cause
of the First World War was Britain's belief that only
a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany. But I
suspect that an important secondary cause was to parallel German
notion that similar measures were necessary against arising Russia.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, good old perfidious Albion. We need to maintain
equilibrium on the continent, even if it means killing millions
of people.
Speaker 1: Obviously, this entire landscape was totally transformed by the Bolshevik
Revolution of nineteen seventeen, which swept the Old Order from power,
massacring much of its leadership, up enforcing the remainder to flee,
thereby ushering in the modern era of ideological and revolutionary regimes.
I grew up during the final decades of the long
Cold War, when the Soviet Union stood as America's great
international adversary, so the history of the revolution and its
aftermath always fascinated me. During college and graduate school, I
probably read at least one hundred books on that general topic,
devouring the brilliant works of Soulshanis and Solokov. The thick
historical volumes of mainstream academic scholars such as Adam Uhlan
Ulam and Richard Pipes, as well as the writings of
leaving Soviet dissidents such as Roy Medvedev, Andre Soakarov, and
Andre al Amalrik. I was fascinated by the tragic story
of how Stalin outmaneuvered Trotsky and his other rivals, leading
to the massive purchase of the nineteen thirties. As Stalin's
growing paranoia produced such gigantic loss of life.
Speaker 2: The uh, the Great Purge started in what nineteen thirty six?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, I mean I think most people would say,
what thirty six to thirty nine?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, And I what I never grasped, and maybe
I just didn't research long enough, but it seemed like
it was a lot of Jews killing other Jews, and
it really was just divided along ideological lines trotsky Ies
versus I guess what would later be known as Stalinists.
Speaker 1: What's interesting about thirty six to thirty nine is they
actually have officers in the field at that time in Spain. Yeah,
and they're you have to wonder in that period if
he sees okay, maybe early on he's like, well, I
think it looks like the nationalists are going to win this.
They're going to split the country. They're going to split
the East coast as well. What they did and basically
it was it was over after that. I'm wondering if
he just was like, it's going to take so much
more to do what we want to do. I just
need to get everyone that I think is in my way.
I need to get them out.
Speaker 2: Of my way. Yeah, it would make sense that he
would send trotsky Ies to to help the UH, to
help the Spanish.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is also the time when he's
looking and he's seeing what kind of what foreign groups
are living in, like what diaspora groups are in his
in his nation that have home countries like Germans, Lithuanians
and others that he pulls especially that I mean, he
just kills a mass.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep. Yeah. And it also makes sense from an
ideological perspective that trotsky Ice would be more likely to
volunteer air in these in these brushfire wars in other
countries because their whole, their whole shtick is, you know,
we need permanent revolution for the world, whereas Stalin, I mean,
the main point of contention was you know, we need
to get our house in order before we talk about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Maybe he looked at Spain and he saw the
just how many factions there were in Spain, and he
felt that maybe that's why the the quote unquote Republicans lost. Yeah,
and you know, we we need to get rid of
any possible factions in this country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, send send them to the meat grinder. Why not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was not so totally naive that I did
not recognize some of the powerful taboos surrounding discussion of
the Bolsheviks, particularly regarding their ethnic composition. Although most of
the books hardly emphasized the point, anyone with a careful
eye for the occasional sentence or paragraph would surely know
that Jews were enormously overrepresented among the top top revolutionary
he's with three of Lenin's five potential successors, Trotsky, Zenoviev,
and Kamenev all coming from that background, along with many
many others within the top communist leadership.
Speaker 2: Obviously, whose assassination was it one of them? Whose assassination
spurred the pursas.
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't no, Well, it definitely wasn't Trotsky. He
was killed in Mexico.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was ah, fuck, I have it in my
notes somewhere, but we're going to revisit that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Obviously this was wildly disproportionate in a country having
a Jewish population of perhaps four percent, and surely helped
explain the large spike in worldwide hostility toward Jews soon afterward,
which sometimes took the most deranged and irrational forms, such
as the popularity of the Protocols of the Learned Elders
of Zion and Henry Ford's notorious publication of the International Jew. Now,
do not go comparing the Protocols with Henry Ford, because
anyone who's read Henry Ford knows that those are he
is basically writing what he's seeing. I mean, that's just
he's writing these things in a newspaper. The Protocols of
Learning at Elders a Zion is something that, sure, it
looks like it could have been a roadmap for something,
and a lot of it came true, But we have
no real there's no real idea of who did. I mean,
I've heard people say Benjamin Disraeli wrote it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've never read it. I've heard about it a
lot in our studies, but I've never sat down and
read it. But it makes sense that Henry Ford did
read it and I kind of informed his his seemingly
uh views that came out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: But with Russian Jews so much more likely to be
educated and urbanized and suffering from fierce andy so medic
oppression into the Csars, everything seemed to make reasonable sense.
It wasn't fierce. I'll tell you that when you read
Sulshanesan's other book, it wasn't fierce.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean starting with like when when the Jews
first met the Kasars and ended up converting them, and
then they'd moved northwest and met the Kievan russ and
impressed everybody with how great craftsmen and traders they were.
It kind of oscillated between we like you, we don't
like you. We like you so much, we want you
to be in our in our court, in our advisor,
our royal advisors, and then swung the other way to
you're not allowed to trade with us, you're not allowed
to own land. It's like looking at the history of
of of Jews in Russia, it's it's it oscillates leader
to leader.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems like what did say was to say
in the Bible, a pharaoh. Pharaoh was born who did
not know of Joseph.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: They basically it was the next leader wasn't educated on
this group of foreigners that were living in their land,
and they would give them, they would open up doors
and allow them to be able to have a little
more freedom. And they immediately took advantage of it. And
then it was like, Okay, now we're going to pull
back on this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the fifteen hundreds when the whole Judaization heresy
came about. The Orthodox Church was the law of the
land at that time, and if it wasn't for them,
you know, you might have a Jewish a Jewish nation
in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, well we'll talk about that later. Then, perhaps
fourteen or fifteen years ago, I encountered a rip in
my personal time space continuum, among the first of many
to come. In this particular instance, an especially right wing
friend of evolutionary theorist Gregory Cochrane, had been spending long
days browsing the pages of Stormfront, a leading interranet forum
for the far right, and having come across a remarkable
factual claim, asked me for my opinion. Allegedly, Jacob Schiff
I've searched. He I can't find a connection to Peter Schiff.
People have asked before I've looked. It seems like Peter
Scheff's faily came here in the thirties.
Speaker 2: So what does shift translate to.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I've never checked. It's probably some old
German name that they stole. Yeah, Allegedly, Jacob Scheff, Americans
leading Jewish banker, had been the crucial financial supporter of
the Bolshevik Revolution, providing the Communist revolutionaries with twenty million
in funding. My first reaction was that such a notion
was utterly ridiculous, since a fact so enormously explosive could
not have been ignored by the many dozens of books
I had read on the origins of that revolution.
Speaker 2: No, man, it was completely organic grassroots.
Speaker 1: Didn't all those what in all those guys with like
similar last names put that in my textbooks?
Speaker 2: I don't damn it or the level up from that.
As those evil Germans wanted to shut down their Eastern Front,
so they funded.
Speaker 1: The revolution, But the source seemed extremely precise. The Knickerbocker
columnists in the February third, nineteen forty nine edition of
The New York Journal American, then one of the leading
local newspapers, wrote that today, it is estimated by Jacob's
grandson John Schiff, that the old man sank about twenty
million dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.
Speaker 2: What's that about one billion today?
Speaker 1: Oh? No, I think it's two. I think he might
mention that it's two. Yeah, it would be about two
billion in today's dollars. And he really wanted Bolshevism to
take take hold in Russia. Huh wonder what.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can do a lot with two billion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, especially back then. You can do a lot today,
But I mean you could do a whole lot more
back then. Once I checked around a little, I discovered
that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Shift
toward the Tsarist regime for its ill treatment of Jews,
and these days even so establishmentarian a sources. Wikipedia's entry
on Jacob Shift notes that he played a major role
financing the Russian Revolution of nineteen oh five, as was
revealed in the later memoirs of one of his key operatives. Yeah,
the Russian Revolution in nineteen oh five, what else? What
else does allegedly happened in that year. There was a
pogram and Odessa, which was basically revolutionary Jews rising up
and fighting and then when the Russians fight back, we're
being pogrommed, We're being post around.
Speaker 2: Yep. That was kind of the first failed rebellion, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And they they had more guns than the Russians did.
Speaker 2: Oh, I believe it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And if you run a search on Jacob Schiff
Bolshevik Revolution, numerous other references came up, representing a wide
variety of different positions and degrees of credibility. One very
interesting statement appears in the memoirs of Henry wickham Stead,
editor at the Times of London and one of the
foremost international journalists of his era. He very matter of
factly mentions that Schiff Warburg and the other top Jewish
international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks,
through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the
Jewish exploitation of Russia, and he describes their lobbying efforts
on behalf of the first of their Bolshevik allies at
the nineteen nineteen Paris peace conference following the end of
the First World War.
Speaker 2: Man that in group preference suicidal.
Speaker 1: Even the very recent and highly skeptical twenty sixteen and
night analysis in Kenneth D. Ackerman's twenty sixteen book, Trotzky
in New York nineteen seventeen notes that US military intelligence
reports of the period directly made that astonishing claim, pointing
to Trotsky as the conduit for the heavy financial backing
of Schiff and numerous other Jewish financiers. In nineteen twenty five,
this information was published in the British Guardian and was
widely discussed and discussed and accepted throughout the nineteen twenties
and nineteen thirties by numerous major media publications, long before
Schiff's own grandson provided a direct confirmation of those facts
in nineteen forty nine. Ackerman rather cavalierly dismisses all this
considerable contemporaneous evidence as antisemitic and a conspiracy story, arguing
that since Schiff was a notorious conservative who had never
shown any sympathy for socialism in his own American milieu,
he surely would not have funded the Bolsheviks.
Speaker 2: Despite all of those sources that on just named yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean you you have right now, billionaire Jews financing
quote unquote right wing think tanks who like eighteen months ago,
were pushing for the transagenda, full on, full steam ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, who are they hoping to exploit? Ye?
Speaker 1: Now, Admittedly a few details might easily have gotten someone
somewhat garbled over time. For example, although Trotsky quickly became
second only to Lenin in the Bolshevik hierarchy in early
nineteen seventeen, the two were still bitterly hostile over various
ideological disputes, so he certainly was not then considered a
member of that party. And since everyone today acknowledges that
Shift had heavily financed a failed nineteen oh five revolution
in Russia, it seems perfectly possible that the twenty million
figure mentioned by his grandson refers to the total invested
over the years supporting all the Differentussian revolutionary movements and leaders,
which together finally culminated in the establishment of Bolshevik Russia Russia.
But with so many seemingly credible and independent sources all
making such similar claims, the basic facts appear almost indisputable.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's so insane, How even back then, what is
the twenties and thirties, you still you could talk about
it openly and nobody gave a shit. But within the
span of a year, what nineteen forty eight, like that
was completely taboo and you were an anti American Nazi
for even even bringing up these sources.
Speaker 1: Well, Chef's grandson could say it because he was Jewish. Yeah,
so he's allowed to, you know, if not celebrate it,
at least put it out there. But if you judge
it in any way, that's that's where the problem them start.
Consider the implications of this remarkable conclusion. I would assume
that most of shift's funding of revolutionary activities was spent
on items such as activist stipends and bribes, and adjusted
for the average family's income of that era, twenty million
would be as like as much as two billion in
present day money. Surely, without such a enormous financial support,
the likelihood of any Bolshevik victory would have been far lower,
perhaps almost impossible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I mean just in food aid alone. I mean,
they were not guaranteed, they were not guaranteed to be successful.
But the thing that would have brought them down is
just their people starving to death. And I'm sure some
of that twenty million went towards food aid and you know,
civilian resources to keep things chugging along, keep things stable,
or as stable as they could be.
Speaker 1: When people casually to joke about the total insanity of
anti Semitic conspiracy theories, no better example was ever tossed
around than the self evidently absurd notion that the international
Jewish bankers had created the worldwide communist movement. And yet
by any reasonable standard, this statement appears to be more
or less true, and apparently was widely known, at least
in rough form for decades after the Russian Revolution, but
had never been mentioned in any of the numerous more
recent histories to shape my own knowledge of these events. Indeed,
none of these very comprehensive sources ever even mentioned Schiff's name,
although it was universally acknowledged that he had funded the
nineteen oh five revolution, which was often discussed in enormous
detail in many of those very weighty books. What other
astonishing facts might they be similarly be concealing? What might
they be good?
Speaker 2: It's well think about when we first started reading about this,
about the bulls, about the Bolshevik Revolution, about Marxist Lennon as,
and just going through all of the names and places
and seeing that, seeing the characteristics of those names and places,
and I'm sure we made I'm sure we made a
couple jokes about it, but it never I don't. It
didn't dawn on me that it characterized the entirety of Bolshevism.
Like I still thought it was the Russian Revolution, but
there was really nothing Russian about it. In fact, it
was anti.
Speaker 1: Russian, well, the Russian Russian Jews. Les Khan his book
The Jewish Century, which was I mean won like Jewish
literary awards. He has numbers, he has like percentages down
through the years. Yeah, yeah, I mean it's I mean,
when you look at the basically the executioners the ENKVD,
it's like forty.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, the first, the first leader of the NKAVD,
the second. It's something like it oscillates between like sixty
to eighty percent of all cadres in the uh in
like the United Soviets were Jews.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I heard recently that the I think it was
called the Abraham Lincoln Division that fought in the Spanish
Civil War was three thousand Americans. I think it was
sixty percent reduced.
Speaker 2: Which has just been called the Abraham legion.
Speaker 1: When someone encounters remarkable new revelations in an area of
history in which his knowledge was rudimentary, being little more
than being a little more than introductory textbooks or history
one on one courses, the results is a shock and
an embarrassment. But when the same situation occurs in an
area in which he had read tens of thousands of
pages in the leading authoritative texts, which seemingly explored every
minor detail, surely his sense of reality begins to crumble.
In nineteen ninety nine, Harvard University published an English edition
of The Black Book of Communism, whose six co authors
devoted eight hundred and fifty pages to documenting the hords
inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had
produced a total death toll they reckoned at one hundred million.
I never read, Yeah, yeah, I have never read that book,
and I have often heard that the alleged body count
had been widely disputed. But for me, the most remarkable
details is that when I examined the thirty five page index,
I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure
individuals whose names are surely unknown to all but the
most erudite specialists. But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff,
the world famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation
of the whole system in the first place, nor one
for Olaf ach ach Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden,
who played such an important role in providing the Bolsheviks
a financial lifeline during the early years of their threatened regime,
and even funded the first Soviet international bank.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality,
there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering
what mysterious objects might dwell there. The Ackerman book denounced
the notion of Schiff having funded the Bolsheviks as a
favorite trope of Nazi anti Jewish propaganda, and just prior
to those words, he issued a similar denunciation of Henry
Ford's Dearborn Independent, a publication which would have meant almost
nothing to me. Although Ackerman's particular book had not been
published when I began exploring the Shift story a dozen
years ago, many other writers had similarly conjoined those two topics,
so I decided to explore the matter. Ford himself, a
very was a very interesting individual, and his world historical
role certainly received very scant coverage in my basic history textbooks.
Although the exact reasons for his decision to raise his
minimum wage to five dollars per day in nineteen fourteen,
double the existing average pay for industrial workers in America,
can be disputed, it certainly seems to have played a
huge role in the creation of our middle class. He
also adopted a highly paternalistic policy of providing good company
housing and other amenities to his workers, a total departure
from the robber baron capitalism so widely practiced at that time,
thereby establishing himself as a worldwide hero to industrial workers
and their advocates.
Speaker 2: Not anymore, he's not. Yeah, well, you never hear about that.
The only thing I remember hearing about Henry Ford in
history class was the assembly line. How he perfected the
assembly line?
Speaker 1: Yep, and that was it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I would like him to read the book The House
of Morgan, because barren capitalism is kind of a myth
unto itself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep. I've seen similar, similar things pointing to that.
But yeah, I mean, it was always it was always
the union, the labor unions and labor activism. That led
to the minimum wage in the forty hour work week. Yeah,
who leads them?
Speaker 1: Indeed, Lenin himself had regarded Ford as a towering figure
in the world's revolutionary firmament, lossing over his conservative views
and commitments of capitalism, instead focusing on his remarkable achievements
in work of productivity and economic well being. It is
a forgotten detail of history that, even after Ford's considerable
hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks
still described their own industrial development policy as Fordism. Indeed
it was not. Indeed, it was not unusual to see
portraits of Lenin and Ford hanging side by side in
Soviet factories, representing the two greatest secular saints of the
Bolshevik pantheon.
Speaker 2: Wow, I did not know that that they lionized Henry Ford.
Speaker 1: Oh, he has a He actually has a footnote here
to to go to that. So you can find out
about the Lenin and Ford things. Yes, we do that later,
all right, And yeah, and you need the hot link.
I downloaded the PBF, but this is actually online and
all of these are hot links, so you could go
back and forth with them. So I'll make sure to
provide a link in the show notes. As for the
Dearborn Independent, Ford had apparently launched his newspaper on a
national basis not long after the end of the war,
intending to focus on controversial topics, especially those related to
Jewish misbehavior, whose discussion he believed was being ignored or
suppressed by nearly all mainstream media outlets. I wonder why
that would be.
Speaker 2: Nothing's changed one hundred years.
Speaker 1: I had been aware that he had long been one
of the wealthiest and most highly regarded individuals in America,
but I was still astonished to discover that his weekly newspaper,
previously almost unknown to me, had reached a total national
circulation of nine hundred thousand by nineteen twenty five, ranking
it as the second largest in the country and by
far the biggest with the national distribution. I found no
easy means of examining the contents of a typical issue,
but apparently the anti Jewish articles of the first couple
of years had been collected and published as short books.
As short books together constituting the four volumes of The
International jew The World's Foremost Problem, A notoriously anti Semitic
work occasionally mentioned in my history textbooks. Eventually, my curiosity
got the best of me, so it clicked a few
buttons on Amazon dot Com, bought the set, and wondered
what I would discover.
Speaker 2: God, it's kind of a shame that Henry Ford died
shortly before George Lincoln Rockwell came to be. That could
have been very interesting.
Speaker 1: Based on all my presuppositions, I expected to read some
foaming at the mouth screened and doubted I would be
able to get past the first dozen pages before losing
interest and consigning the volumes together at dust on my shelves.
But what I actually encountered was something entirely different. Over
the last couple of decades, the enormous growth in the
power and influence of Jewish and pro Israel groups in
America had occasionally led writers to cautiously raise certain facts
regarding the untoward influence of those organizations and activists, while
always carefully emphasizing that the vast majority of ordinary Jews
do not benefit from these policies and actually might be
harmed by them, even leading aside the possible risk of
eventually provoking an anti Jewish backlash. I mean, that's basically
what's you can go on Twitter, and someone's typing that
right now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean it's it seems it always seemed
like a soft conflict between the Marxist Jews and the
Zionist Jews, but lately, they, like I think the Marxist
Jews have been suffering, just setback after setback. Yeah, get
the ask, and Thesionist Jews don't seem to be doing
much better.
Speaker 1: No, no, now they if he if nta who ignores
the ceasefire? I mean, I don't know. Did you see
that that headline in.
Speaker 2: Uh, the hell to pay?
Speaker 1: Yeah, the hell to pay if if we don't find
a solution to this, there'll be hell to pay. And
what did it say? It said? Trump's all hell to
pay threat was also directed at Israel, not just Hamas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep he oh yeah, who can blame them? The
first world leader to congratulate Joe Biden in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: We know how people, We know how Trump treats people
who you know, we know how he treats people who
are loyal to him. Yeah, we know how he just
look how he treats people who are disloyal. All right,
So where was I? Okay?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: To my considerable surprise, I found that the vast majority
of the material in Ford's three hundred thousand word series
seem to follow the same pattern in tone. The individual
eighty chapter columns of Ford's volumes generally discussed particular issues
and events, some of which were well known to me,
but with the vast majority totally obscured by the passage
of almost one hundred years. But as far as I
could tell, almost all the discussions seem quite plausible and
factually oriented, even sometimes overly cautious in their presentation, And
with one exception, I can't recall anything that seemed fanciful
or unreasonable. As an example, there was no claim that
Schiff or his fellow Jewish bankers had funded the Bolshevik Revolution,
since those particular facts had not yet come out, only
that he had seemed to be strongly supportive of the
overthrow of Czarism and had worked toward the end for
many years, motivated by what he regarded as a hostility
of the Russian Empire towards its Jewish subjects.
Speaker 2: Oh so it's an ethnic conflict.
Speaker 1: This sort of discussion is not at all that different
from what one might find in a modern shift biography
or in his Wikipedia entry, though many of the important
details presented in the four books have disappeared from the
historical record.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just disappeared. Nobody knows where they went.
Speaker 1: Wasn't wasn't Gallane Maxwell's dad, Robert Maxwell publishing most of
our textbooks for about twenty years?
Speaker 2: What was the public name? Was it?
Speaker 1: Random House?
Speaker 2: Oh? My God?
Speaker 1: Although I somehow managed to plow through all four volumes
of The International jew the unrelenting drumbeat of Jewish intrigue
and misbehavior became somewhat supporphyic after a while, especially since
so many of the examples provided may have loomed quite
large in nineteen twenty or nineteen twenty one, but are
almost totally forgotten today. Most of the content was a
collection of rather monotonous complaints regarding Jewish malfsa, scandals and clannishness,
the sort of mundane matters which might have normally appeared
in the pages of an ordinary newspaper magazine, let alone
one of the mud racking type. However, I cannot fault
the publication for such a narrow focus. A consistent theme
was that, because of the intimidating fear of Jewish activists
and influence virtually all of America's regular media outlets avoided
discussion of any of these important matters, and since this
new publication was intended to remedy that void, it necessarily
required coverage overwhelmingly skewed toward that particular subject.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: The articles were also aimed at gradually expanding the window
of public debate and eventually shame other periodicals into discussing
Jewish behavior. Good luck when leading magazines such as The
Atlantic Monthly and Century Magazine began running such articles, the
result was cited as a major success.
Speaker 2: Hmm, yeah, that lasted maybe what eight years? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Another important goal was to make ordinary Jews more aware
of the very problematical behavior of many of their community leaders. Occasionally,
the publication received a letter of praise from a self
proclaimed proud American Jew, commending the series and sometimes including
a check to purchase subscriptions for other members of his community,
and this achievement might become the subject of an extended discussion.
And although the details of these individual stories differed considerably
from those of today, the pattern of behavior being criticized
seemed remarkably similar. Change a few facts adjust to society
for a century of change, and many of the stories
might be exactly the same ones that well meaning people
concerned about the future of our country are quietly discussing today.
Speaker 2: Or more conversely, if you rewind a hundred years, they
might have been discussed at that time as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Most remarkably, there were even a couple of a
couple of columns about the troubled relationship between the earliest
Scionist settlers in Palestine and the surrounding native Palestinians, and
deep complaints that, under Jewish pressure, the media often totally
misreported or hid some of the outrages suffered by the
latter group.
Speaker 2: Yeah, nothing's changed.
Speaker 1: I certainly cannot vouch for the overall accuracy of the
contents of these volumes, but at the very least they
would constitute an extremely valuable source of raw material for
further historical investigation. So many of the events and incidents
they recount seem to have been entirely omitted from the
major media publications of that day, and surely were never
included in later historical narratives. Given that even such widely
known stories as Shift's major financial backing of the Bolsheviks
were completely tossed down George Orwell's Memory Hole. With the
volumes long out of copyright, I have added the set
to my collection of HTML books, and those so interested
may read the text and decide for themselves. As mentioned,
the overwhelming majority of the international Jews seems a rather
bland recitation of complaints about Jewish misbehavior. But there is
one major exception which has a very different impact upon
our modern mind, namely that the writer took very seriously
the Protocols of Learned Elders a Zion. Probably no conspiracy
theory in modern times has been subjected to such immense
vilification and ridicules as to protos, But a voyage of
discovery often acquires a momentum of its own, and I
became curious about the nature of that infamous document. Apparently,
the Protocols first came to light during the last decade
of the nineteenth century, and the British Museum stored a
copy in nineteen oh six, but it attracted relatively little
attention at the time. However, all this changed after the
Bolshevik Revolution and toppling of many other long standing governments
at the end of the First World War led many
people to seek a common cause behind so many enormous
political uphupils. From my distance of many decades, the text
of the Protocols struck me as rather bland and even dull, describing,
a rather long winded fashion, a plan of secret subversion
aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting
groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by
bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical
lines with an entirely new group and control. Admittedly, there
were many shrewd insights into politics or psychology, notably the
enormous power of the media and the benefits of advancing
political frontmen who were deeply compromised or incompetent and hence
easily controllable, But nothing else really jumped out at me.
Perhaps one reason I found the text of the Protocols
so unsurprising is that, over the century since its publication,
these notions of diabolical plots by hidden groups have become
such a common theme in our entertainment media. Would countless
thousands of spy novels and science fiction stories presenting something similar,
though these usually involved far more exciting means, such as
a super weapon or a powerful drug. If some bond
villain proclaimed his intent to conquer the world merely through
simple political subversion, I suspect that such a film would
immediately die at the box office. But back one hundred
years ago, these were apparently exciting in novel notions, and
I actually found the discussion of the Protocols in many
of the chapters of The National Jew far more interesting
and informative than reading the text itself. The author of
the Forward Books seems to appropriately treat it as any
other historical document, dissecting its content, speculating on its providence,
and wondering whether or not it was what it's purported
to be, namely, an approximate record of the statements of
a group of conspirators pursuing mastery over the world, with
those conspirators widely believed to be an elite fraternity of
international Jews.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Ian Fleming probably read the protocols, because if you
look at all of the names of all the villains
inspector like that that global global cabal, they all have
Jewish names.
Speaker 1: Ian Fleming also were for British intelligence world War two.
I think he were. I can't remember if he was
also in World War One. But I'm pretty sure it
was World War Two. It was one of the wars. Yeah,
don't at me. Other contemporaries seem to have taken the
Protocols very seriously as well. The August Times of London
fully endorsed it, before later retracting that position under heavy pressure.
And I've read more than I've read that more copies
were published and sold in Europe of that era than
any other book save the Bible. The Bolshevik government of
Russia paid the volume its own sort of deep respect,
with mere possession of the Protocols warranting immediate execution.
Speaker 2: That's so good.
Speaker 1: Based Although the International jew concludes that the Protocols was
probably genuine, I doubt that likelihood based upon the style
and presentation. Browsing around on the Internet a dozen years ago,
I discovered quite a variety of different opinions, even within
the precincts of the far right, where such matters were
freely discussed. I remember some forum writer somewhere characterizing the
Protocols as based upon a true story, suggesting that someone
who as generally familiar was generally familiar familiar with the
secret of machinations of elite international Jews. Against the existing
governments of Zaris, Russia and other countries are drafted the
documents to outline his view of their strategic plans, and
such an interpretation seems perfectly plausible. Another reader somewhere claimed
that the Protocols were pure fiction but very significant. Nonetheless,
he argued that the very keen insights into the methods
by which a small conspiratorial group can quietly corrupt and
overthrow powerful existing regimes arguably ranked it alongside Plato's Republic
and Machiavelli's To Prince as one of the three great
classics of Western political philosophy, and earned it a place
on the required reading list of every political science one
oh one course.
Speaker 2: Check on that guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wanted an earlier life check on that guy quick. Indeed,
the author of the Ford's books emphasizes that there are
very few mentions of Jews anywhere in the Protocols, and
all the implied connections to Jewish conspirators could be completely
struck from the text without affecting their content whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Sure, in any event, I have to get into it,
I guess.
Speaker 1: In any event, this short work is now available as
one of my HTML books made quite so he Ron's
got it on his website. It's only twenty eight thousand words,
so it's only it's four times as long as this article.
Speaker 2: So yeah, lasting the audiobook of the Subway, but shaking
my head, so everyone knows I disagree with it, oh Man.
Speaker 1: Some ideas have consequences that others do not. Although my
introductory history textbooks have often mentioned Henry Ford's anti Semitic activities,
his production of the International jew and the concurrent popularity
of the Protocols, they never emphasize any lasting political legacy,
or at least I don't recall any. However, once I
actually read the contents, and also discovered the enormous contemporary
popularity of those writings and the huge national circulation of
The Dearborn Independent, I quickly came to a very conclusion.
For decades, pro immigration liberals, many of them Jewish, have
suggested that anti Semitism was a major factor behind the
nineteen twenty four Immigration Act that drastically reduced European immigration
for the next forty years. While anti immigration activists have
always heatedly denied this, The documentary evidence from that era
certainly favors the position of the latter, but I really
do wonder what important private discussions may not have been
set down in print and entered into the congressional record.
The overwhelming popular support for immigration restriction has been successfully
blocked for decades by powerful business interests which greatly benefited
from the reduced wages of the resulting labor competition. But
now matters had suddenly changed, and surely the Bolshevik Revolution
in Russia must have must have been a powerful influence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's something like from nineteen eighteen to nineteen ninety one,
it was like two million Jews were able to immigrate
out of the Soviet Union, whereas if one Gentile tried
to get over the wall, get past the Iron Curtain,
they could look forward to twenty years in prison at
a minimum.
Speaker 1: Russia, overwhelmingly populated by Russians, had been governed for centuries
by Russian ruling elite, then heavily Jewish. Heavily Jewish revolutionaries
drawn from a group of mounting to just four percent
of the population, had taken advantage of military defeat and
unsettled political conditions to seize control of the country, butchering
those previous elites or forcing them to desperately flee aboard
as penniless abroad as penniless refugees. Trotsky In a large
fraction of the leading Jewish revolutionaries had been living as
exiles in New York City, and now many of their
Jewish cousins still resident in America began loudly proclaiming that
it's similar revolution would soon follow here as well. Good
luck with the body. Huge waves of recent immigration, mostly
from Russia, had increased the Jewish fraction of the national
population to three percent, not far below the figure for
Russia itself on the eve of its revolution. If the
Russian elites who ruled Russia had been suddenly overthrown by
Jewish revolutionaries, as is it not obvious that the Anglo
Saxon elites who ruled Anglo Saxon America feared suffering the
same fate.
Speaker 2: Yes, and also South Africa. One of the acts that
officially implemented apartheid was implemented at the same exact time,
an act that basically tramped down communism came out of
their parliamentary system.
Speaker 1: The Red Scare of the of the nineteen nineteen was
one response, with numerous immigrant radicals such as Emma Goldman
rounded up and summarily deported, while the Saco Vanzetti murder
trial in nineteen twenty one Boston captured the attention of
the nation, suggesting that other immigrant groups were violent radicals
as well and might ally themselves with the Jews in
a revolutionary movement, just like the Lets and the other
disgruntled Russian minorities had done during the Bolshevik Revolution.
Speaker 2: I didn't know much about the Lets. They must be Lithuanian,
because I know, like Lithuania had a pretty fond view
of Jews throughout their history.
Speaker 1: But drastically reducing the inflow of these dangerous foreigners was
absolutely essential, since otherwise their numbers might easily grow by
hundreds of thousands each year, increasing their already huge presence
in our largest cities of the East Coast Sharply reducing
would certainly cause a rise in banker in workers, in
worker wages, and hurt business profits. But consideration of profits
or secondary if you fear that you and your family
might eventually end up facing a Bolshevik firing squad, or
flee into Buenos Aires with just to close on your
back and a few hurried packed suitcases, yeah makes sense.
A noteworthy bit of evidence in support of this analysis
was the subsequent failure of Congress to enact similar restrictive
legislation curtailing immigration from Mexico or the rest of Latin America.
The local business interests of Texas in the Southwest argued
that continuation of unrestricted Mexican immigration was important for their
American economic success, with Mexicans being good people, politely docile worker,
politically docile workers, and no threat to stability of the country.
This was a clear contrast with the Jews and some
other European immigrant groups.
Speaker 2: That's what's funny about right now is I'll take Mexicans
any day over Indians for the same reason. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Someone, you know, there's someone's screaming right now. I don't
want either of them in the I don't want either
of them. Yeah, someone just like had an autistic spur up.
Thanks Aaron with what you did. The much less familiar
early nineteen twenties battle over restricting Jewish enrollment in the
Ivy League may have been another consequence. In his Magisterial
Too Magisterial two thousand, volume two thousand and five volume
The Chosen, Jerome Carrabel documents how the very rapid growth
of Jewish numbers at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other Ivy
League colleges had by the early nineteen twenties become an
enormous concern to the Anglo Saxon elites which had established
those institutions and always dominated their student bodies. What was it?
World War One took out forty percent of the graduating
class of Harvard was taken out, and I think over
an England forty percent of the graduating class of Oxford
was taken out.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Hm income the replacements YEP.
Speaker 1: As a result of quiet war over admissions broke out,
involving both political and media influence, with the Ranning wasps
seeking to reduce and restrict Jewish numbers and the Jews
struggling to maintain or expand them. Although there seems no
paper trail of any direct references to the enormously popular
national newspaper and books published by Henry Ford or any
similar material, it is difficult to believe that the academic
combatants were not at least somewhat aware of the theories
of Jewish assault on gentile society then being so widely promoted,
it is easy to imagine that a respectable Boston Brahman
such as Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell, regarded his own
moderate anti Semitism as a very reasonable middle ground between
the lyric claims promoted by Ford and others and the
demands for unlimited Jewish enrollment made by his opponents. Indeed,
Carabell himself points to the social impact of Ford's publication
as a significant background factor to this academic conflict.
Speaker 2: Thanks Henry the synthesis, well, maybe just a little bit.
Speaker 1: At this point in time, the Anglo Saxon elite still
held the upper hand in the media. The very heavily
Jewish film industry was only in its infancy, and the
same was true for radio, while the vast majority of
the major print outlets were still in Gentile hands. So
the descendants of America's original settlers won this round of
the admission wars. But when the battle was rejoined a
couple of decades later, the strategic, political, and mediate landscape
had completely shifted, with Jews having achieved near parody and
print influence and overwhelming dominance in the more powerful electronic
media formats such as film, radio, and nascent television, and
this time they were victorious, easily breaking the whole of
their longtime ethnic rivals, and eventually achieving almost complete dominance
over those elite institutions.
Speaker 2: I want to click on that hyperlink. So bad, almost
complete dominance over those elite institutions. Yeah, it's going to
be a graf.
Speaker 1: I'm looking up the quote right now about it was.
I believe it was a a priest who said, I'm
trying to trying to figure out what I'm trying to
give him credit for it. It was just a crazy quote. Yeah,
it was a father Leonard E. Feenie from The Point
magazine in nineteen fifty seven. He said, having a television
in your home is like having a Jew in your
living room. And ironically enough, the most lasting cultural legacy
of the widespread anti Jewish agitation in the nineteen twenties
may be the least recognized. As mentioned above, modern readers
might find the text of the protocols rather boring, a blend,
almost like they had been cribbed from the extremely long
winded monologue of one of the diabolical villains of a
James Bond story. But it wouldn't surprise me if there
were actually an arrow of causality in the opposite direction.
Ian Fleming created this genre in the early nineteen fifties
with his string of international best sellers, and it is
interesting to speculate about the source of his ideas. Oh Yeah,
here we go. Fleming had spent his youth during the
nineteen twenties and thirties, when The Protocols were among the
most widely read books in much of Europe, and leading
British newspapers of the highest credibility were recounting the successful
plots of Shift and other international Jewish bankers to overthrow
the government of Britain's czarist ally and replace it with
Jewish Bolshevik rule. Moreover, his later service in an arm
of British intelligence would surely have made him privy to
details of that history went far beyond those public headlines.
I think it is more than pure coincidence that two
of his most memorable Bond villains, Goldfinger and Blofeld, had
distinctly Jewish sounding names, and that so many of the
plots involve schemes of world conquest by Specter, a secretive
and mysterious international organization hostile to all existing governments. The
Protocols themselves may have been forgotten today, but their cultural
influence probably survives in the Bond films, whose seven billion
of aggregate box office gross ranks them as the most
successful movie series in history when adjusted for inflation.
Speaker 2: And how poetic would it be if Bond were to
be replaced by a black guy.
Speaker 1: A Gollum amazing. The extent to which establish historical facts
can appear or disappear from the world should certainly force
all of us to become very cautious in believing anything
we read in our standard textbooks, let alone that we
let alone what we absorbed from our more transient electronic media.
In the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution, almost no
one questioned the overwhelming role of Jews in that event,
nor their similar predominance a preponderance in the ultimately unsuccessful
Bolshevik takeovers in Hungary and parts of Germany. For example,
former British minister Winston Churchill in nineteen twenty denounced the
terrorist Jews who had seized control of Russia and other
parts of Europe, noting that the majority of the leading
figures are Jews, and stating that in the Soviet institutions
the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. While lamenting
the horrors these hoes had inflicted upon the suffering Germans
and Hungarians, and then he basically became their slave. Similarly,
journalist Robert Wilton, former Russia correspondent at the Times of London,
provided a very detailed summary of the enormous Jewish role
in his nineteen eighteen book Russia's Agony and nineteen twenty
book The Last Days of the Romans, although one of
the most explicit chapters of the latter was apparently excluded
from the English language edition. Yep, I'm wondering if that's uh, I.
Speaker 2: Don't know, so I get an early life check on
the publisher.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure it's the I'm wondering if that's the
chapter that there are some that say, I know, doctor
Matthew Rafael Johnson says to Romanos were not only executed,
but they were all raped too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've heard that too.
Speaker 1: Not long afterward, the facts regarding the enormous financial support
provided by the Bolshevik to the Bolsheviks by international Jewish
bankers such as Schiff and Oschburg were widely reported in
the mainstream media.
Speaker 2: Jews and Communists, what during collective is just just so
that like everybody knows how brutal it was, and it
wouldn't at all be surprising if they were rape before
they were executed. When Lenin was presiding over the collectivisation
of all the peasant farms, anybody who resisted, one of
the ways they tortured them was to cut out their
small intestines, tie them to a tree and make them
walk around it like while they slapped them until they
basically rent out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jews and Communism were just as strongly tied together
in America, and for years the largest circulation communist newspaper
in our country was published in Yiddish. When they were
finally released, the Venona Decrypts demonstrated that even as late
as nineteen thirties and nineteen forties, or remarkable fraction of
America's communist spies came from that ethnic background. That's a
personal anecdote tends to confirm these dry historical records. During
the early two thousands, I once had lunch with an
elderly and very eminent computer scientists with whom I became
a little friendly while talking about this and that, we
happened to mention that both He happened to mention that
both his parents had been Zell's Communists, and given his
obvious Irish name. I expressed my surprise, saying that I'd
thought that all Communists of that era were Jewish. He
said that was indeed the case, but although his mother
had such an ethnic background, his father did not, which
made him a very rare exception in their political circles.
As a consequence, the Party had always sought to place
him in a prominent, as prominent a public role as possible,
just to prove that not all Communists were Jews. And
although he obeyed party discipline, he was always irritated at
being used as such a token.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, the IRA became Marxist after a while. Sometime,
I think in the nineteen sixties they were officially Marxist,
you know, less less Catholic, more Marxist. It became like
gay anti colonialism justification.
Speaker 1: However, once Communism sharply fell out of favor in the
nineteen fifties America, nearly all the leading Red baiters, such
as Senator Joseph McCarthy, went to enormous lengths to obscure
the ethnic dimension of the movement they were combating. Indeed,
many years later, Richard Nixon casually spoke in private of
the difficulty he and other anti communist investigators had faced
in trying to focus on gentile targets, since nearly all
the suspected Soviet spies were Jewish, and when this tape
became public, his alleged anti Semitism provoked a media firestorm,
even though his remarks were obviously implying the exact opposite.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean he'd have to look at like your
only other option is like Ira and should fain operatives
in the US.
Speaker 1: The last point is an important one, since once the
historical record had been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering
strands of the original reality that survive are often perceived
as bizarre delusions or denounces conspiracy theories. Indeed, even today,
the ever amusing pages of Wikipedia provide an entire thirty
five hundred word article attacking the notion of Jewish Bolshevism
as an anti Semitic canard. I remember in the nineteen seventies,
the enormous gusts of American praise for Socialisians three volume
Gulog Archipelago suddenly encountered a temporary headwind when someone noticed
that his two thousand pages had included a single photocopy
depicting many of the leading Gulag administrators, along with a
caption revealing their unmistakably Jewish names.
Speaker 2: He got one by.
Speaker 1: This detail was treated as serious evidence of the great
author's possible anti Semitism, since the actual reality of the
enormously large role of the Jews at the NKVD and
the Gulag system had long since disappeared from all the
standard history books. Well, he just put a nail in
that coffin later on when he wrote another book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it didn't disappear from David Duke's books.
Speaker 1: As another example, the Reverend Pat Robertson, e leading Christian televangelist,
published The New World Order in nineteen ninety one, his
fiery attack on the godless globalists, whom he considered his
greatest enemy, and it quickly became a massive national bestseller.
He happened to include a couple of brief, somewhat garbled
mentions of the twenty million which the Wall Street banker
Jacob Shiff had provided to the Communists, carefully avoiding any
suggestion of a Jewish angle and providing no reference for
that claim. His book quickly provoked the vast outpouring of
denunciation of rid Huel across the hillype media, with the
Shift story seen as conclusive proof of his delusional anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: Wasn't he a Zionist?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that. I think you saw this in
Billy Graham. Billy Graham was perfectly fine with zion Jews,
but he had a real problem with communist Jews. Yeah,
and I think that was I think that became pretty
much a default of a lot of people in power
and influence, gentiles and power and influence after World War Two. Yeah,
saw it. They saw it as a way where they
could still they could still criticize the Jews, but they're
just calling them communists at that point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're still getting called anti Semitic no matter what.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, So well, I cannot really fault these
critics since in pre internet days they could only consult
the indexes of a few standard histories of the Bullshek Revolution,
and finding no mention of Shift for his money, naturally
assumed that Robertson or his source had simply invented the
bizarre story. I myself had exactly the same reaction at
the time, only after Soviet Communism had died in nineteen
ninety one and no longer was perceived as a hot
the force where academic scholars in America once again able
to publish mainstream books that gradually restored the true picture
of the past era in many respects of widely praised
works such as The Jewish Century by Yuri Sleskin, published
in two thousand and four by Princeton University Press, provides
a narrative quite consistent with long forgotten works by Robert Wilton,
but makes a very sharp departure from the largely obfuscatory
histories of the intervening eighty odd years. Until about a
dozen years ago, I had always vaguely assumed that Henry
Fords The International jew was a work of political lunacy
and the Protocols was a notorious hoax. Yet today I
would probably consider the former as a potentially useful source
of possible historical events otherwise excluded from most standard accounts,
while at least understanding the argument of why the latter
might deserve a place alongside Plato and Machiavelli as a
classic of Western political thought.
Speaker 2: No less than five hundred pounds whoever wrote that.
Speaker 1: And we're and we're done.
Speaker 2: Then see where can I learn more about the Jewish century?
Speaker 1: That's that's Leskian book. Will Well, we'll knock you out.
It's it's pretty wild. It's the first Soviet international bank,
which was the link that you wanted to do. Almost
complete dominance over those lead institutions was apparently excluded from
the English Land. Largest circulation communist newspaper in our country
was published in Yiddish. That's an interesting one.
Speaker 2: The hero and Savior of Britain, Winston Churchill, wrote a
really good article about it in nineteen twenty.
Speaker 1: Yep. Yeah, that was his book. That was his book
on Bolshevi, his mar Zionism, I mean, his his article
Bolshevism or Zionism, where he just basically said, you know,
we must encourage Bolshevism, I mean Zionism because Bolshevism is
so dangerous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, as if they can't exist together.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well yeah, And you know a lot of people
will point to point to the fact that, oh, look,
you know he was writing about the Jews in nineteen twenty,
Why did he If he was writing about the Jews
and warning about the Jews in nineteen twenty, why is
he you know, why why is he listening to them?
Why is he? Why do you say that he was
under their control in the nineteen thirties, It's like, well,
I mean he was under the control of.
Speaker 2: The Jews that he you know, sold a lot of
money to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, owed a lot of money too. But it also
just so happens that they're Zionist Jews.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, yeah, it's it's it's insane how we basically
had eight eighty some odd years or even one hundred
some odd years of just a complete blind spot. Like
you can see the names, you can see the places,
you can see the actions, but you never, like I
never had the wherewithal to associate it with that particular
ethnicity or religion.
Speaker 1: Well, the something that you mentioned before we started recording,
you said that you had discovered a cheat.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, So whenever you're doing any research into any
Soviet government officials and positions of high power, if you
come across an obstacle where you know, the early life
check doesn't say what what they clearly are, just look
at where they're from or where their parents are from,
and then just see if that place is in the
pale settlement.
Speaker 1: Easy pasy right and.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent of the time it is like I
I was wondering who was responsible for minimize my windows
and get my tabs up, who was responsible for allowing
people to emigrate out of the Soviet Union, and why
that emigration was chiefly Jewish. And during the nineteenth during
the nineteen fifties, there were two people besides Stalin that
were that were chiefly in charge of that, and that
was Mikile seuss Love and Boris Ponamarev. And if you
were to early life check either of these people. They
were in the International Department of the Central Committee of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. So they looked
at other Communists, other Communist movement outside of Russia and
basically sent them men in materiel for funding. And that's
where that's basically where you get the millions of Jews
that were able to leave the Soviet Union. It was
for that these people made that decision. And uh, when
you look at their Wikipedia, it doesn't it doesn't tell
you that they're Jewish, but it tells you that you
know their parents are from I'll give you one Zara
esque in the which is in the Pale settlement for
Boris Panamarav and whereas it the other guy was shakov Skoya,
which is where SEUs Love was born, and that's also
in the Pale settlement. So you know you can put
two and two together.
Speaker 1: H Yeah, rather interesting. It's nice to have someone like
mister UN's out there writing about this stuff considering the
yeah that's his background.
Speaker 2: And writing about it in a accessible but still very
much intellectual way. Like that's not a that's not a
substack piece by some schitzo. Like he's he's a pretty
learned guy.
Speaker 1: I think the article he put out I get his
emails of. He has a weekly article, and his article
this week with seventeen thousand words. I was just like,
I mean, he's doing this on a weekly basis. Yeah,
it's a great it's a great service he does. And
he posts so much stuff on there. He allows so
many people to post on the website. And he documents
Father Kaflin's old social justice magazine. There's copies on their
digital copies. He has digital copies of the the Rothbard
Rockwell Report. That's probably the best, uh best place to
find those. I mean, he's there's the site looks insane
and it looks like it's probably like something from like
nineteen ninety five. Once you learn how, once you learn
how to navigate it properly, you you could be on
there for years. You can be on there for the
rest of your life and not read everything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, now that is that is awesome that there
are still people that do that. I mean, that's kind
of what the Internet was made for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, let's get out of here. What do
you what do you els promote?
Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much for having me again, and uh,
you can find me on x at BTWA Underscore returns
and you can find me every single Wednesday on the
Timeline Earth podcast where I deliver you the news.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I do like it when you're there for
the news.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: It adds a.
Speaker 2: Certain tension, sexual tension.
Speaker 1: Maybe a little more weight to it too. And I'm
not talking about body weight.
Speaker 2: Oh I gotta work on that too. But yeah, so
I will not be on this week's episode unfortunately, h
Bird went behind all of our backs and yes, something
else planned.
Speaker 1: Do you have Jay Burden on again? I think is
becoming a guest. Like I mean, it's like, you know
how the joke about you coming on my show. Yeah,
it's definitely going back in that direction with mister.
Speaker 2: It's coming full circle. I'm eating, reaping what I've sown.
But uh, luckily it's Jay and he is a very
nice boy, very smart, and he's going places, which is
more than I can say for a lot of other people.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, oh yeah, what's his background? Never mind? All right, man,
we get that here. Thank you, thanks for
Speaker 2: Having me, man,