There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national character.
There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent – in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct.
In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
Whatever his faults were, might one be forgiven for liking Churchill more and more as this goes on? And this key quote will be used in a later post on the Muslims.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them.
Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an English man practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree.
We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army, Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The Muslims allowed into our land may well heed that paragraph today.Was it GB Shaw or some other notable who wrote that the Jews were “more English than the English” in this land. Disraeli may have been their high point in the UK. Contrast him with, Sadik Whatisname, the Muslim mayor.
But now comes a discordant note. Writing of the Russian Jews and then referring back to Britain, Churchill continues:
In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
Liberal and progressive movements AND among the staunchest? Should that not be – DESPITE THAT, they have been among the staunchest? He then identifies a subtype among Jews but in subsequent parts of this essay today, I’d say it is not a subtype at all but a different people.
However, his quote:
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race.
Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
And this next is a key point, upon which so much turns:
It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Moses Mordecai Levy [Marx], Alinsky, Benjamin, Marcuse – these were all Jews of that “international” type, let’s stick with that definition “international Jew” for now.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.
Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews.
Far more, Winston than atheist. They are not atheist, they have an alternative god – more in subsequent parts.
In my eyes, Churchill is in no way anti-Semitic in writing this, he is observing history, trying to identify just what it is about this caustic, nasty, godless type of Jew, as distinct from the faithful and ordinary. He’s writing as he observes.
The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.
Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
I’ve read a fair bit about the Ashkenazi Jew but it seems to me that that places it too late in history – this thing had been going on since Biblical times. There was something which happened at the time, dealt with later in this essay.
Before Part 3, may I add this, from Ken Craggs’ post:
Your chance to analyse Sigmund Freud:
The US Library of Congress has created and published online (1 Feb 2017) an archive of 20,000 personal documents belonging to Sigmund Freud.
Part three in a couple of hours.