Zionist-Communist Collusion in the Middle East

This chapter is a reprint of a portion of the newsletter Behind the News of January 1984 and later published in Canada as a booklet entitled The Middle East Riddle Unwrapped. It also formed a chapter in the first edition of The. Zionist Factor and is reprinted yet again for its value as a total picture of the Middle East situation in world-historical perspective, endorsed by developments which have occurred since it was first written.

We cannot hope to be able to understand the present perilous and rapidly worsening situation in the Middle East unless armed in our minds with an interpretation of history which exhibits in their true colors the two main antagonists: the Soviet Union as the supposed supporter of the Arab states and the state of Israel as the supposed bastion of Western resistance to Soviet expansionism.

In other words, the real meaning of developments which threaten to draw the world into the conflagration and holocaust of another great world war is to be found not in the Middle East today but in developments of a very different kind which began towards the end of the nineteenth century.

According to this interpretation of history, not to be found in media reporting or in any of the history books, all the major political changes which have occurred in our century can be traced to revolutionary changes which at that time began to take place in the realm of high finance.

Political happenings which are joined inseparably to these financial changes include: the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent raising of the Soviet Union to the status of an industrial and military giant; World War II; the dismantling of the colonial empires; the setting up of the United Nations and the instant creation of innumerable new nations, some of them very small, none of them economically self-sufficient, all of them now represented in the new shadow world parliament and government.

Changes in the realm of high finance which made all these and many other revolutionary changes possible can be described briefly a9 follows.

For a long time after the beginning of the modem industrial era, finance-capitalism - not to be confused with private-ownership capitalism—existed almost entirely in national concentrations; there was a British finance-capitalism, answerable to a British government which was in turn answerable to an electorate; a German finance-capitalism, a French one, a Dutch one, etc., each one joined to a national government and finally answerable to a national electorate.

Last century and well into the twentieth, these national concentrations of financial power were in vigorous competition, a major example of this rivalry being the scramble for colonial possession in Africa and elsewhere in the industrially undeveloped world, and another was the First World War, which arose out of the rivalry of national financial powers centered in Britain and Germany,

What then happened was that the many national concentrations of finance-capitalism were drawn into coalescence to form something new in history: namely, an international finance- capitalism, fiercely resolved to free itself from answerability to any national government and its electorate.

This process of coalescence had already begun at the time of the Anglo-Boer War but only began to exert a major influence in world affairs in the next two decades.

One of the last national concentrations of finance-capitalism to capitulate was that of the United States of America; this occurred in the middle 1930s when the multi-millionaire American pioneering families, led by J.P. Morgan, finally lost their supremacy in Wall Street to the internationalists, as recorded by Dr. Carroll Quigley.

There can be no doubt that a major factor in bringing about revolutionary changes in the realm of high finance was the existence within the different nations of Europe of banking families or dynasties which had always specialized in transnational banking as is told by Dr. Quigley in his "History of the World in Our Time,” Tragedy and Hope; he writes:

The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1943-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild's five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled.

Dr. Quigley names as some of the other international banking families: Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet and Fould. This list could easily be extended - Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, Schiff, etc.

There is no need to inquire deeply into the genealogies of these internationally dispersed banking dynasties which, as Dr. Quigley put it, . .

... in time brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on the one side and industries on the other.

Everyone knows that with very few exceptions these banking families are, and always were, Jewish-and even exceptions like Morgan and Rockefeller can be shown to support the thesis that the control of international finance as an integrated system is essentially Jewish. The all-important subject of the submergence of national high finance in a Jewish-controlled international high finance calls for some expansion: this is supplied as a note at the end of this chapter, and further developed in other chapters.1

With so much at stake for the West, and the peril increasing daily, the time has come to state bluntly that any further yielding to propaganda and pressure aimed at discouraging full and frank discussion of the Jewish role in power politics is an unforgivable evasion of duty and responsibility.

All the major changes which have occurred in our century—the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, the precipitation of World War II, the dismantling of the colonial empires and the creation of a bogus “world parliament," etc,-all of these and much else can be explained as having been dictated by the needs and ambitions of the new international financial power; for there was obviously no way in which the prosperity and security of this Jewish-controlled money power could be reconciled with the continued existence of strong governments in Europe and Russia to which it would have to be responsible and answerable.

Only the willful blindness of those totally committed to a socialist religion-substitute can prevent anyone from finding out for himself that the Bolshevik Revolution and the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat" which it inaugurated, was an exercise in fraudulent misrepresentation without parallel in history.

The Bolshevik Revolution was masterminded and financed from abroad, and the Soviet Union was set up, rescued from collapse, and raised to the status of an industrial and military superpower by the same international money-power which set up and has continued to maintain and massively arm the state of Israel; there is enough evidence to support that statement to fill a library, evidence which the media have found it safer to ignore than to challenge.

The dismantling of the colonial empires can be similarly explained as the freedom which international finance secured for itself as it detached vast territories from the jurisdiction of the European colonial powers, setting over them instead oppressive proxy regimes, easy to manipulate and even easier to remove when no longer required—with the weakening of the nation states of Europe and the creation of innumerable controllable votes at the United Nations as an additional gain for the internationalists.

While no one with any pretensions to a knowledge of history would dare to challenge the thesis that the Bolshevik Revolution was preeminently a Jewish exercise, and that there could have been no massive transfers of Western wealth and industrial technology to the Soviet Union without the endorsement and participation of a Jewish-controlled international finance, there has been much confused debate down the years about the ethnic identity of the Soviet Union's political masters, particularly after the end of World War II.

Soviet policy in the Middle East in the 1960s has been put forward as the strongest argument against the thesis that Jewish power still predominates in the Soviet Union. For it would seem, as one writer has pointed out, that being the self-proclaimed friend of the Arabs and funnelling vast amount of money into the more anti-Zionist Middle East states is not exactly an exhibition of "pro- Semitism." So it would seem, but how else than by false seeming could so many of the Arabs-and the rest of the world-have been deceived?

Where deception is suspected, as in the case of the ostensible Soviet support for the Arabs, should we not pay more attention to the results produced than to the kind and quantity of assistance given? So, what were the results of Soviet policy in the Middle East?

Answer: Both the Zionists and the Soviet Union made important gains in the Middle East, and Soviet “assistance” left the Arabs, especially the Palestinians, worse off than ever. The Soviet Union was able to secure a firm foothold in the eastern Mediterranean, and Israel was able to grab more Arab territory, both inside Palestine and from neighboring states.

It is hard to see how the Israelis could have made such gains without that ostensible Soviet support for the Arabs.

The Israelis clearly needed the specter of Soviet expansionism in the Middle East; they needed to be able to represent themselves as a “bastion’’ of Western resistance to the expansionism in order to justify or explain the massive aid in money and arms they demanded and received from the Western countries and especially from the United States, And the Soviet Union gave the Israelis exactly what they needed, while at the same time taking good care of its own expansionist interests.

In other words, the Soviet union behaved throughout exactly as might have been expected by those who knew it to be still covertly under Jewish control at the highest level-a false friend to the Arabs and a feeble and ambivalent opponent of the Israelis.

The late King Faisal never doubted that there had been continuous collusion between the Soviet Union and the Zionists in the Middle East; interviewed by Newsweek (December 21,1971), he said: “Zionism and Communism are working hand-in-glove to block any settlement that will restore peace," and went on the describe Zionism as “the mother of Communism,” adding: “It helped to spread Communism around the world. It is now trying to weaken the U.S. and if the plan succeeds it will inherit the world."

Asked how he reconciled this view with the fact that the Russians and Israelis were on opposite sides in the Middle East conflict, King Faisal replied:

Its part of a great plot, a grand conspiracy . . . They are only

pretending to work against each other in the Middle East. The

Zionists are deceiving the United States ... the Communists are cheating the Arabs, making them believe they are on their side. But actually they are in league with the Zionists.

Brigadier Sir John Glubb (Glubb Pasha), in his book Middle East Crisis, says nothing about possible Jewish influence in the Kremlin, but he never doubted for a moment that it was Soviet policy in 1967 “to cause the United States to come out irretrievably on the side of Israel* and then to "lure the Arabs into a catastrophic defeat" which would leave them even more helplessly dependent on Soviet support.

More important than the views of authorities like King Faisal and Brigadier Glubb is the evidence of what actually happened in the Middle East.

On whose side did the Soviet Union stand when the state of Israel was inaugurated? The Polish-born Jewish scholar Isaac Deutscher (Stalin's biographer) writes in his book The Non-Jewish Jew:

In 1948 when Israel was forming itself into a state we witnessed a curious situation in which the Russians and the Americans—the super-antagonists-joined hands. Together they managed to dislodge the British from the Middle East; and together they acted as midwives in the act of the birth of Israel.

This would not have seemed “a curious situation" to the Times of London correspondent Douglas Reed, who saw it all coming immediately after the end of World War II:

Today the scene is set for the third act, intended to complete the process. The money-power and the revolutionary-power have been set up and given sham but symbolic shapes "capitalism" or "Communism") and sharply defined citadels ("America" or "Russia"). Suitably to alarm the mass-mind, the picture offered is that of bleak and hopeless enmity and confrontation , , , Such is the spectacle publicly stated for the masses. But what if similar men with a common aim secretly rule in both camps? . . , I believe any diligent student of our times will discover that this is the case,2 But the Soviet Union's role as a friend of Israel did not end when it joined hands with the United States in assisting at the somewhat gory parturition of the state of Israel. For, as Israel’s first prime minister, Mr, David Ben-Gurion, remarked in an address to university students at Haifa, “Russia supplied us with arms that helped us to survive our war of independence," adding: “Present Soviet policy is only a passing stage” (Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1970).

Mr. Ben-Gurion went much further in exonerating the Soviet Union from blame, for the Chicago Tribune report goes on: "Ben- Gurion said he could not accept popular current charges that the Soviet Union helped Israel from the beginning in hopes of using Israel as a stepping stone into the Middle East."

Why should David Ben-Gurion have spoken like that so soon after a war in which Israel’s Arab enemies had been encouraged and armed by the Soviet Union, if it did not mean that he knew a lot more than it would have been expedient to reveal?

Millions of people in the West have been helped to forget-if they were ever told-that the part which the Soviet Union played in helping to dislodge the British from the Middle East included the arming of terrorist groups like the Stern Gang and Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi, with consequences like the shooting down of British soldiers, the assassination of UN negotiator Count Bemadotte of Sweden and British ambassador Lord Moyne, and the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was war material supplied by the Soviet Union that was used by Begin and his henchmen when, with a campaign of terror that began with a great massacre of civilians at Deir Yassin, the Jews drove close on a million Palestinians into the Negev Desert and into the neighboring Arab states, including Lebanon.*

For obvious reasons it would have been impossible for Mr. Ben- Gurion to publicly inform an entire body of Jewish students that there was collusion at the highest level between the Soviet Union and Israel, but he came as near as possible to so doing as he shared with them his own confident assurance that the Israelis had nothing to fear from that quarter.

It has never been seriously denied that the Six-Day War which ended so disastrously for the Egyptians was precipitated by the Soviet Union, not is there any doubt about how it was done: Moscow's military intelligence informed the Egyptians that the Israelis were planning to launch an attack on Syria, one of Egypt’s' partners in a defense alliance of Arab states. It was common knowledge at the time, confirmed by the Soviet specialist Isaac Deutscher, that it was as a result of this warning, “and with Soviet encouragement," that Colonel Nasser ordered mobilization and a concentration of his forces on the Sinai frontier, the sole purpose of it being to discourage Israel from attacking Syria.

Is it possible that the Kremlin bosses were acting as genuine friends in offering this advice and encouragement to Egypt's Colonel Nasser?

There were certain suspicious circumstances which could only have come to the attention of a Soviet specialist with ready access to the Soviet press; Deutscher writes:

Soviet propaganda still continued to encourage the Arabs in public. However, a conference of Middle Eastern Communist Parties held in May (its resolutions were summarized in Pravda) was strangely reticent about he crisis and allusively critical of Nasser. More important were the curious diplomatic maneuvers behind the scenes. On 26 of May, in the dead of night (at about 2:30 a.m.) the Soviet Ambassador woke up Nasser to give him a grave warning that the Egyptian army must not be the first to open fire. Nasser complied. The compliance was so thorough that he not only refrained from starting hositi lilies, but took no precautions whatsoever against the possibility of an Israeli attack' he left his airfield undefended and his planes grounded and uncamouflaged. He did not even bother to mine the Tiran Straits or to place a few guns on their shores (as the Israelis found to their surprise when they got there). (The Non-Jewish Jew, Isaac Deutscher).

Deutscher tries to explain what happened as Kremlin “bungling," but the facts he supplies make out a much stronger case for deliberate treachery; he goes on:

Having excited Arab fears, encouraged them to risky moves, promised to stand by them, and having brought out their own naval units into the Mediterranean to counter the moves of the American Sixth Fleet, the Russians then tied Nasser hand and foot. Why did they do it? As the tension was mounting the “hot line” between the Kremlin and the White House went into action. The two superpowers agreed to avoid direct intervention and to curb the parties to the conflict.

The decision of the superpowers not to intervene would have been communicated immediately to the Israeli government and would have been all they needed to know before launching their attack on the hopelessly inferior Egyptian forces on the other side of the border, paralyzed into a state of unprepared ness by the belief that they had full support of an ally the Israelis would not dare to challenge.

Is it possible that the Kremlin bosses were so stupid as not to know that by committing themselves not to intervene they were giving a vastly superior Israeli army carte blanche to destroy the Egyptian army and to seize its huge store of weapons supplied by the Soviet Union? Could it have been “bungling” that reduced all the Arab states to an even worse state of helpless dependence on the Soviet Union?

Brigadier Sir John Glubb's answer;

After the destruction of the Egyptian army in Sinai, the British press expressed jubilation at the rebuff suffered by Russia, who had “backed the wrong horse.” Unfortunately the Soviet government are not so simple-minded as that: On the contrary, Russia must have been fully aware that the Egyptians would be disastrously defeated, and wanted it that my. (Middle East Crisis-, emphasis added).

Is it possible that the Kremlin bosses in their "bungling" imagined that the Egyptians would be able to withstand an Israeli onslaught? Glubb’s answer: "Everyone who had any military experience in the Middle East during the last twenty years was hilly aware that the Egyptian army had not the faintest chance against the Israelis ” There were no signs at the time that the Soviet leaders were upset and angered over what looked like an appalling miscarriage of their Middle East policy: and a few days later, to the dismay of the whole of the Arab world, the Soviet delegate at the United Nations voted in unison with the Americans for a cease-fire without attaching any conditions for an Israeli withdrawal from captured territory. Deutscher writes:

The debacle aroused an alarm in Eastern Europe as well. 'If the Soviet Union could let Egypt down like this, may it not also let us down when we are once again confronted by German aggression?”, the Poles and the Czechs wondered. The Yugoslavs, too, were outraged. Tito, Gomulka, and other leaders rushed to Moscow to demand an explanation and a rescue operation for the Arabs. This was all the more remarkable as the demand came from the "moderates'’ and the “revisionists" who normally stand for “peaceful coexistence" and preachment with the U.S.A. It was they who now spoke of Soviet "collusion with American imperialism."

The government of Red China was convinced that there had been collusion, and stated so publicly.

A history of collusion between the top echelons of Zionism and Communism also offers to explain why the Soviet leaders harbored no feelings of resentment towards the Israelis for having apparently upset their political applecart in the Middle East. The Zionist South African Jewish Times shortly after the Six-Day War reported a visit by four leading members of Israel’s Communist Party to Moscow:

Hardly had the Israeli Communists left the Kremlin gates when rumors began to circulate that they had received important assurances.

Yet there is reason to believe that, if not actually an assurance, the Israeli Communists were given to understand that the Kremlin is not committed to support Nasser in his aggressive plans . . .

To a certain extent this gesture was promoted by a desire to show Nasser that the Soviet leaders understand and appreciate the situation of Israel, where the Communist Party is officially represented in Parliament, has its own press and may criticize, if not actually influence, Government policy. No such conditions exist in Egypt. Hence the Israeli Communists were treated as real friends and people of importance.

This importance was emphasized by the very warm reception which the Israeli delegates were later given in the editorial offices of the Sovietisch Heimland. More than that, the Kremlin went even further in preparing the ground and the warm atmosphere for the visit of the Israeli Communists. (Emphasis added).

There was no suggestion in the South African Jewish Times handling of this report that the Israeli delegation who went to Moscow so soon after the “debacle" were in any way out of favor with the government of Israel-or with the Jewish Times.

Again t it is only the willful blindness of the totally misled which can prevent anyone from seeing that all over the West there has been evidence of continuous collusion between Communism and Zionism, with examples enough to fill innumerable volumes. As Douglas Reed remarks in his great book The Controversy of Zion, Chaim Weizmann's autobiography, Trial and Error.

... is the best single fount of information about the twin roots of Communism and Zionism and their convergent purpose, He was present at the birth of Zionism, he became its roving plenipotentiary, he was for forty years the darting of Western courts, presidential offices and cabinet rooms, he became the first president of the Zionist state, and he told the entire tale with astonishing candor.

Nowhere in post-war Europe was the conjunction of Soviet and Zionist interests more plainly in evidence than in the career of Britain’s former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, for whom, as he himself put it on one occasion, "support for Israel and friendship with Russia need not be mutually exclusive (Inside Story, Chapman Pincher).

In his book, Chapman Pincher shows that in the case of this politician, support for Israel and friendship with the Soviet Union could even be complementary and mutually supportive; for virtually all Wilson's contacts with the Soviet Union after the end of World War II were exercised through Jewish intermediaries, “refugees who had retained and developed contacts behind the Iron Curtain which enabled them to make huge fortunes in Britain and acquire considerable political influence, some of them even to be raised to the peerage."

Typical of these, all of them "passionate Zionists ” was Lady Plummer (born Beatrice Lapsker), “a frequent and welcome visitor to the Soviet Embassy" who, with his lordship her husband, enjoyed the privilege of holidays at a Black Sea resort where they could bask in the company of premier Khrushchev. Lady Plummer, Chapman Pincher tells us, "was instrumental in introducing Wilson to many of the Jewish businessmen to whom he later awarded honors," and Wilson was even employed for nine years by one of these Jewish tycoons, with duties that “took him to Moscow on several occasions,"

Even a cursory scrutiny of postwar public affairs in the United States reveals similar convergence of Soviet Communism and Zionist affiliations, among “majority" politicians no less than among citizens of Jewish origin; nor has there been any evidence of antagonism between those promoting aid for Israel, by whatever means, and those involved in subversive activity on behalf of the Soviet Union.

Even the most concise interpretation of the history of the 20th century would be incomplete without some reference to the climate of ideas which made possible so many revolutionary changes.

We should remember, however, that it is strong »natives rather than strong ideas which produce important changes, and that ideas are almost invariably found to be at the service of motives.

While it is true, therefore, as Solzhenitsyn remarked in his 1976 BBC address, that it is certain doctrines which have produced a widespread paralysis of the will in the West, the real danger will be found not in the doctrines or their misguided exponents but, rather, in the power-wielders of high finance who instantly recognized ideological socialism as a potent weapon to be used against the West,

For there was no way in which an aberration of the intellect, the treachery of the miseducated, le trahison des ckrcs, could have gained such ascendancy over the minds of many millions in the West, if it had not been massively funded and encouraged from centers of high finance. The establishment of the London School of Economics as a fountainhead of socialist indoctrination by millionaire banker Sir Ernest Cassel set the pattern for the ensuing decades and epitomizes the fraudulent character of a doctrine which, by promising a brave new world for the masses in the West, plans to grab everything for its own alien elite.

Notes

1. See Chapter 9, “The Communist-Capitalist Nexus." The role of the money* power during the Anglo-Boer War is illustrated in Thomas Fakenham’s The Boer War (Weidenfeld & Nicoteon, 1979); see also, The War in South Africa, J.A, Hobson Games Nlsbet, London 1905), Sir William Butler, Autobiography, chapter XH-X1V and XXII and XXIII (Constable, 1911).

2. Far and Wide, Douglas Reed (Jonathan Cape, 1951).

3. Deir Yassin and other Israeli acts of terrorism are detailed in Dispossessed: The Ordeal of the Palestinians 1917-1980, David Gilmour (Sidgwick & Jackson), The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed (Dolphin Press), The Zionist Connection, Alfred Lilienthal (Veritas, Australia), Bitter Harvest, Sam Hadawf (Veritas), and others. See also article by Dr. R. Gayre in The Mankind Quarterly, Vol. IV No, 2 Oct-Dec. 1963, “Northern European Elements in the Eastern Mediterranean" (Armorial, Edinburgh).

Communist-Capitalist Nexus

There is no proletarian movement, not even a Communist one, which does not operate in the interests of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the period permitted by money, and all this without the idealist in its ranks having any suspicion of the fact.

—Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West

Even the briefest survey of the forces which are shaping the history of the twentieth century, creating social and political conditions correctly described by Spengler as “anarchy become a habit," would be incomplete without a closer look at the relationship of those supposed mighty opposites: Capitalism and Communism,

The key to the riddle is the word capitalism. Most people, most of the time, make the mistake of supposing that die word capitalism means one thing; in fact, the word as commonly used has two sets of meaning as different as chalk and cheese.

If we are to understand why governments representing capitalist states adopt the most weirdly ambivalent attitudes towards Communism, we must first learn to separate in our minds the two sets of meaning which that one word capitalism has been called on to represent.

Thus, two words are needed: capitalism, meaning what that word originally meant, what the dictionary says it means; and super capitalism, meaning the wholly changed form of what was once correctly called capitalism,

Capitalism, as originally and correctly understood, means private ownership of property and resources and competitive free enterprise in the supply of goods and services.

Super capitalism, which can be defined as highly concentrated finance-capitalism, is not only different from capitalism, it is the antithesis of capitalism and sooner or later acquires the character of being actively anti capitalist.

For it is not possible to continue concentrating ownership and control of property and resources without at the same time reducing the number of those who own and control property and resources. Likewise, there can be no huge concentration of ownership and control without a corresponding inhibition or suppression of competitive free enterprise.

What we have seen in the West is a progressive degeneration of capitalism into a form of super capitalism or anti capitalism, which the less it resembles the original capitalism the more it resembles socialism, or Communism.

Just enough genuine capitalism has remained in most of the countries of the West, and especially in the United States of America, to confuse the picture and make it harder for most people to see that capitalism has been largely replaced by what is essentially super capitalism. In other words, the weak and struggling capitalism that survives serves as a camouflage for an all-powerful anti capitalism which dominates both economics and politics.

Modem super capitalist regimes, like the American and Communist regimes, have their differences and their oppositions of interest, but these are unimportant when compared with what they have in common.

Both are irreconcilably antagonistic towards nationalism. Therefore, both super capitalism and Communism are essentially revolutionary, having set themselves in fierce antagonism towards all political forms which are essentially evolutionary.

Since nationalism is inseparably joined to a people's cultural heritage, it follows that all attacks on nationalism much include cultural sabotage and subversion - which is what we see today on both sides of the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, promoted with equal zeal by super capitalists and Communists.

There is only one genuine nationalism they both support and that is Zionism, which is an internationally dispersed Jewish nationalism-plus, of course, all sorts of spurious “nationalisms" which they themselves set up and use, like “Black nationalism" in Africa, and even these are nearly always heavily laced with Marxism.

The reason why Western super capitalism lives in constant dread of nationalism can be easily explained.

The fundamental issue in any state is whether or not there shall be an authority superior to economics. Which shall rule-politics or economics? There can be doubt that nationalism, in spite of all the ailments to which it is heir, energized by the instincts and will of the population, means that politics is the master and that economics, no matter how important it may be, has been reduced to its proper and natural subordinate status.1

Since there is no way in which Communism can be effectively resisted and defeated except by nationalism, it follows that Western supercapitalism is totally committed to coexistence with Communism, and that super capitalists, even if not Zionists, can have no other long-range aim except that of ultimate convergence with Communism-never suspecting that the ultimate triumph of their antinationalism would manifest itself instantly as the triumph of Zionist nationalism.

Likewise, and this is most important, there is only one political weapon that super capitalism can use against nationalism, and that is a socialist or Communist ideology that marshals the forces of the underworld and of rootless intellectualism, holding them ready to be aimed like a battering ram against all nationalist targets-except only one, that of Zionism.

What, then, is the real relationship of Western super capitalism and Marxist-Communism? Is there one new global imperialism?-or two?-or, with Zionism, three? If only one, how are they all conjoined?

There is no way in which we can hope to find clear answers to questions like these unless we are armed in advance with a sound political philosophy which serves us both as a firm foothold in reality and as an instrument of the mind with which to dissect, analyze and evaluate all political phenomena.

As this writer has observed before, any individual who has, from whatever causes, begun to adopt a detached, sceptical and critical attitude towards an ailing 20th century world and its dubious values has, in fact, set his feet on the path towards personal regeneration and that of the community to which he belongs.

This aspect, the authority of a genuine nationalism, has been developed by the present writer in his hook Truth Out of Africa, Chapter 9, "Dr. Sun Yat- sen and the Principles of Nationalism,”

Chapter Ten

Some Reflections on “The Mammon of Unrighteousness”

The final battle for Christianity will be over the money problem, and until that is solved there can be no universal application of Christianity.

—Henry de Balzac

A question is asked: What do you consider to be the subject on which, more than any other, the people of the West need to be enlightened?

The monetary question-more precisely, the principle of usury, which is the keystone of the present monetary system and the key to all modem monetary questions.

Why is the principle of usury the most important part of the most important issue now troubling mankind?

The principle of usury is the eye of the octopus of that huge un­righteous power which Alexander Solzhenitsyn has caBed "the concentration of world evil." Or it could be called the eye at the apex of the pyramid of worldwide illegitimate power.

Is there any possibility of overthrowing the present global autocracy?

The power of money is symbolized by the Tower of Babel; those who labor to build it higher are not going to desist until the tower totters and the stones M about their heads. This the autocrats know, and they are now desperately trying to save themselves and perpetuate their power by converting their money power into a global political and military power.

Precisely what is meant by the word "usury”?

Usury means money lent at a profit? it means converting money, a medium of exchange, into a commodity which can be bought and sold like any other. A clear distinction must be drawn between money lent at a profit and other things of value lent at a profit. A farm or house for which rent is paid can be said to have been lent at a profit, but that is something fundamentally different from money, the medium of exchange, tent at a profit.

Is it possible to compress into a few words the truth about usury that all people need to know?

We can say, as has been said again and again all down the ages, that usury is intrinsically evil, but it is not possible to convey in a few words an insight that recognizes at a glance its appalling potentiality for evil, Some truth is of that kind. Pythagoras could “see” that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angle triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides; most of us still do not “see" it, we only believe it because it has been demonstrated or infallibly proved true by experience. The truth about usury can be seen clearly only on the screen of the moral imagination,

The lending of money is not always and inevitably disadvanta­geous to the borrower-a particular loan can even be highly advan­tageous—but those who make a trade of lending place themselves at compounding statistical advantage over those who borrow and, collectively, against the whole class of those who work and produce, by declining to share the borrower's mass; the balance of advantage is, therefore, always with the lender, as with one who operates a sweepstake or plays with loaded dice.

The socially injurious compounding advantage enjoyed by the practitioner of usury consists of this: he frees himself from the natural law of enrichment As men work and produce, contributing to the common weal, there is a natural Until to the surpluses capable of being generated by those who deal in money; hence the existence of banking families powerful enough to place a lien on the productive powers of entire populations by lending to governments. Money in such quantities serves only one appetite: an insatiable appetite for power,

What authority is there for the statement that the principle of usury is pernicious?

We find it in the Holy Bible, in the Holy Koran, in the writings of the West’s greatest savant, William Shakespeare, and in many other authoritative places-if we are to be guided more by authority than our own insight.

In chapter 15, verse 6 of the Book of Deuteronomy we read: Thou shalt lend unto many nations but thou shalt not borrow and thou shalt reign over many nations but they shall not reign over thee.”

And again, in chapter 18, verses 12 and 13: “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath.*’

These were injunctions addressed to the Judahites by their tribal god and not by the Creator and God of all mankind.1

Deuteronomy, like other books in the Old Testament, draws a clear distinction between two radically different moral codes-a code of righteousness and justice to be practiced inside the community and a code of indifference or enmity to be practiced against all those who do not “belong.” It is obvious that the writers of the Book of Deuteronomy understood with complete certainty that usury, money lent at a profit, the conversion of the medium of exchange into a commodity, is in its final analysis a principle hostile to group unity and amity, establishing, as it must sooner or later, relationships of injustice and unrighteousness—usury leading in the end, inevitably, to usurpation. Hence, money lent at interest to “a brother1 is condemned as an abomination {Deuteronomy 23:20).

Islam is equally categorical in its condemnation of usury, declaring that both the lender and the borrower and the writers of its papers are guilty. On the other hand, Islam, worshipping the God of all mankind, does not recommend usury as a form of political warfare designed to enable one set of people to get “above” and to “reign" over others. There can be no doubt that the Prophet Mohammed saw usury as a form of social poison utterly irreconcilable with a faith that promotes the principle of the equality and brotherhood of man in the sight of God - which was also the teaching of Jesus Christ.

The same would apply to any kind of lending which permits one man to take advantage of the misfortunes or needs of another in order to gain possession of his property. Shakespeare, with his genius for penetrating the deepest recesses of the human heart and mind, is no less definite in his understanding of usury, and his play The Merchant of Venice is a masterly treatise on the subject, leaving nothing unsaid. Shakespeare pinpoints the essentially evil character of usury in the dialogue between Antonio and Shylock, in which Shylock tries to justify usury as a form of "thrift” comparable with the lawful but morally indefensible trick used by Jacob in getting as his wages more than a fair share of his uncle Laban’s flocks which he had been minding {Genesis 31).

How, then, are we to explain the persistence down the ages of a principle of evil which has been exposed so often by mankind’s most revered philosophical leaders?

For reasons much the same as those that explain the persistence of habit-forming drugs-because it is profitable to the "pusher* and because it confers the euphoria of a short-term advantage, or an illusion of advantage, on the user.

As the proliferation of the opium trade in China reduced a large part of the population to a condition of drug dependence, so has usury reduced most people in the industrially developed countries to a condition of loan-dependence.

Like grains of steel under the influence of a powerful magnet, we are all held, together, by a confused sentiments of self-interest, real or imagined, participating in verying degrees of compromise, as lender, borrowers or "writers of its papers." And everyone knows that any sudden “kicking* of the habit is liable to produce painful withdrawal symptoms, for the "hooked’' nation no less than for the “hooked” individual.

This means that the salvation of a nation would require a careful process of detoxification, not to be undertaken as national policy without some danger. Meanwhile, however, there is a great deal the individual can do to effect his own personal salvation; and there is no possibility of effective collective action which does not begin with the awakened individual doing something to protect himself.

Stated bluntly, what has come into existence in the world is an enormously powerful criminal overworld—power unregulated by moral obligations-corresponding exactly with a much publicized criminal underworld, with unmistakable signs of a nexus between the two as the dregs and dropouts of society are incited, financed and regimented in subversion and revolution against all who offer any resistance to the over world’s ambitions.

This criminal over world profits enormously as it builds up the Communist states, and profits again as it sells the so-called "free” nations the arms with which to try to defend themselves.

The evil of lending at a profit is multiplied a thousand told by a system of legalized counterfeiting and theft as vast quantities of money are created out of nothing and pumped into the economic system as interest-bearing debt. For how else has there come into existence a quantity of debt which compares with money in circulation and on deposit as a mountain compares with a molehill, turning the banking system into an insatiable cancerous growth on the body of mankind?

How else was it possible for the West to channel into the Communist and Third World countries hundreds of billions of dollar’s worth of goods and services, to be paid for finally in the form of inflation and taxation by the diminishing few in the West who work and produce or render genuine service?

If that is true, how is it to be explained that the Western European intellect, which has proved itself capable of placing men on the moon, has failed to discover that usury is being used to corrupt and dragoon the West into a slave like subjection?

One part of the answer is that the Western intellect for more than a century has been concentrating its attention almost exclusively on problems of science and technology and has been richly rewarded and further motivated by the results produced.

The other half of the answer is that the income of a fraudulent monetary system is so enormous that the hordes of otherwise innocent and well-meaning people drawn into active participation in the swindle can be handsomely rewarded, people like politicians, bankers, academics and journalists. Human nature is so constituted that very few are proof against the temptations of obvious private advantage, whether in terms of cash or advancement in their careers. The evil is compounded by the Westerner's pronounced acquisitive instincts, nowhere exhibited more clearly than in the present-day consumerist mania which binds the masses ever more securely to the debt system, as the instant euphoria of acquisition blinds them to all other considerations.

That is all very well, but what about the economists and monetary experts—haven't they been using all the disciplines and explorative skills of modem science in their efforts to solve the problems of the distribution and exchange of Ike products of human endeavor, assisted today by a computer science that can multiply a thousand fold the powers of the human mind?

The short answer is that economics is a bogus science; it betrays its bogus character by evading its moral obligation to define its own terms-the term “money," for example, or "credit,” Economists can hardly be expected to solve problems which they cannot even state and make comprehensible!

However, to be more precise: before we can solve a problem we must know precisely what is the problem we are trying to solve. Even then, we cannot solve it unless we have been able to bring together all the information relative to that problem. By placing men on the moon, American scientists showed that they were in possession of all the facts relative to the problem of putting men on the moon and bringing them safely back to earth. If those scientists had proceeded as economists do, those men would either have been burned to a cinder on the ground or shot off into space to be lost forever.

Not only do the economists fad to bring together all the necessary information, but the most vitally important information is expressly excluded, as we shall see.

The writers of the Book of Deuteronomy, the Prophet Mohammed, Shakespeare and others did not have anything like the quantity of information available to the modem economist, but they could solve the problem of usury with what they had because they did not lack that knowledge which is the key to the whole problem: information about man himself and his moral nature.

Thus the discipline of scientific “detachment" and "objectivity” with which economists flatter themselves, by excluding man himself, his appetite for possession and power and his susceptibility to the temptations of injustice, not only fails to produce good results but is dangerously counterproductive, compounding and consolidating the evils of usury instead of exposing them.

The very thing that adds telescopic and microscopic power to the intellectual eyes of the scientist only fixes and confirms the economist in his incomprehension—an incomprehension not punished with natural consequences, as in the exact sciences and technology, but rewarded with prestige as well as high incomes.

Economists see usury only as an apparently necessary part of a monetary mechanism which they hope will one day be made to work; wise men of all ages have seen it as something that cannot be prevented from adding strength to the elbow of unrighteousness, a weapon of aggression against “strangers," and an “abomination of desolation" when practiced against a friend or brother.

Final question: How is the individual helped by fully understanding the truth about usury in a society which has almost turned it into a condition of existence?

The short answer is that a knowledge of the truth, in all circumstances, operates on the individual as a liberating force, even if it tells him no more than that he is not free and that only the truth will make him free.

In other words, there is not one who is not fortified inwardly and better equipped morally and intellectually to solve the problems of his adjustment to society by a clear insight into those influences which are so obviously spreading a soul-sickness and discouragement among the people of the West.

Note:

A few of the many works dealing with modern banking systems, economics, etc., recommended for further reading are: Money: the Decisive Factor, Desmond Adhesion & Edward Holloway, with foreword by Sir Arthur Bryant (Christopher Johnson, London, 1959); Equality, the Third World and Economic Delusion, Professor P.T, Bauer (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1981); The Income Tax: Root of all Evil, Frank Chodorov (Devin- Adair, 1063); A Matter of Life or Debt. Eric de Mare (Veritas, 1986): The Monopoly of Credit, C.H. Daugtas: Individualism and Economic Order, Friedrich A, Hayek (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949); The New Despotism, Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England (Ernest Benn, London, 1945); The Federal Resent Bank, H.S. Kenan (Noontide Press); The Bankers'Conspiracy, Arthur Kitson (Omni, California, 1967); Banking and Currency and the Money Trust, Charles A. Lindbergh Sr; Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, Professor Frederick Soddy {Omni, 1961); The Jews and Modem Capitalism, Werner Sombart (Macmillan Company): The Menace of Inflation, G. Carl Weigand, ed, (Devin-Adair, 19771; Cod and the Goldsmiths, R. McNair Wilson (Omni, 1961).

Geography of the Intellect

A sentence, even a phrase, may seem plain enough; yet tvhen its meaning has been thoroughly examined, the intricacies and errors that were hidden in apparent simplicity are startlingly revealed.

John Baker

Dr. Nathanial Weyl and his wife Sylvia Casleton Weyl have been active in promoting the theory that the Jews are the leading “creative elite" in the United States of America, and that their superiority is the product of genetic inheritance.

In an article in The Mankind Quarterly1 the Weyls suggest that the source of Jewish superiority is "an aristocracy of religious scholarship, and the development of institutional and religious pressures upon this scholarly element to marry early and procreate much.“ They state:

In short, the acute and subtle minds, winnowed out of the Jewish mass by the competitive educational process, must have outbred the others for they married earlier, were eagerly sought after for marriage alliances with the richer and merchant families, and hence, through such advantages as better diet, housing, cloths. sanitation, medical care, foreknowledge of impending persecutions , . , more likely to succeed in raising more of their children to maturity,

Dr. Weyl has already explored this theme with some thoroughness 111 learned journals and in two well-documented books, The Creative Elite in America, and The Geography of the Intellect co-authored with Dr. Stefan Possony,2

Another major contributor to this branch of sociological research is Professor Ernest van den Haag, whose book The Jewish Mystique was promoted with great fanfare of academic trumpets in 1970 and was, paradoxically enough, warmly endorsed by several of the world’s most vehement protagonists of the “race equality” theory, including Professor Ashley Montagu, thus lending more weight to the doctrine enunciated by George Orwell in his book Animal Farm that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

No fault can be found with the statistical methods used by Nathaniel and Sylvia Weyl in establishing Jewish predominance in terms of performance coefficients, calculated on a percentage basis, in various academic disciplines, but the question arises whether all the facts which they offer can be accepted as proof of their main thesis that Jewish success is attributable to genetic factors.

Have they supplied all the evidence? Have they even considered all the evidence from which a historically valid assessment of Jewish intellectual talent can be drawn? It would seem that the whole of their study has been conducted within a too severely restricted intellectual frame of reference.

As we are so often reminded in the teachings of the Chinese savants, the truth will often elude us unless we seek it in the "whole" to which it belongs. Bring one set of facts together, and we get one result; increase the number of relevant facts, and it can happen that we get a totally different result. The important thing, therefore, is to be sure, in respect of any propositions or any statement of what we hold to be true, that it is indeed the product of all the necessary facts.

In fairness to Dr. Weyl, it should be pointed out that in The Geography of the Intellect he does give us a clue to the possible existence of some more comprehensive frame of reference, for he tells us that "both Spengler and Toynbee contributed to cultural anti-Semitism”-meaning, of course, that these two leading Western scholars did not endorse the Jewish assessment of Jewish intellectual superiority.

“To Spengler," wrote the Weyl-Possony partnership, “Judaism was a ‘fellah religion' which had been lifeless for at least nine centuries." The two authors add: To Spengler also the Jews were decadent because they were vestiges of a Magian culture - civilization which had long since exhausted its creative impulse "

Toynbee, on the other hand, they go on, “discovered that the Jews were fossilized fragments of the Syriac civilization’; in other words, he appropriated Spenglers ideas, but changed the vocabulary,"

Carl Gustav Jung, the Swiss-German psychologist, also drew some unwelcome attention to himself with his comments on some of the qualities which make the Jewish intellect significantly different from that of the typical Western European. Freely admitting that there was an area of activity in which the ordinary Jew enjoys competitive advantage, Jung writes:

As a member of a race with a 3000-year-old civilization, the Jew, like the cultured Chinese, has a wider area of psychological consciousness. Consequently it is, in general, less dangerous for the Jew to put a negative value on his unconscious.

Jung adds:

The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and, as far as we can see, never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for his development,

These brief references to Spengler, Toynbee and Jung should at least indicate that there has existed in some gifted minds an intellectual frame of reference which could put a wholly different construction on all those facts so painstakingly gleaned from the statistics of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare by Nathaniel and Sylvia Weyl,

Any thoroughgoing investigation of the comparative intellectual status of different ethnic taxa would need to begin with some agreement over the meaning of expressions like “intelligence,* "cognitive ability” and “performance," all of them used when the achievement levels of different races of people are compared.

Dr. John Baker, in his book Race, discusses some of the innumerable definitions of the word intelligence” which have been offered by psychologists and others. Alfred Binet, who gave his name to a system of intelligence testing which, with variations, is still in use, settled for a rather prosaic explanation of what the word means: "Intelligence reveals itself by the best possible adaptation of the individual to his environment.” Dr. Baker adds that “one can find in the literature a number of definitions that follow this line,* and he gives several examples.

An expression like "adaptation to environment” presents no difficulty when applied to fauna and flora and even to human beings in small and primitive communities, but how is "adaptation to environment" to be evaluated in an infinitely complex and even dangerously unstable human environment of the kind to be found in most civilized countries today?

Here the concept of "adaptation’' acquires hitherto-undreamed-of dimensions of meaning. In Germany before World War II the Jews had an elitist coefficient easily comparable with what has been achieved in the United States of America, but, as events were to show, this did not prove the "best possible adaptation'’ to that particular environment.

Even in the short range, in respect of the performance of the individual in a relatively homogeneous community with a shared genetic inheritance, there can be an elusive dynamic element, “en­vironment," that can make all the difference in the world. Hence the old English saying: “From clans to clogs in three generations,” meaning that a very ordinary man, possibly even a peasant-type, can produce a son who is an outstanding performer, who in turn produces a son who is a bitter disappointment in spite of, possibly even because of, all the apparent environmental advantages con­ferred on him by his successful father.

The operative environment in the case of the outstanding performer must thus be conceived of as essentially a dynamic reality, a special kind of stimulus-response motivational system giving rise to chain reactions of energy release which can even transmute environmental disadvantage into its very opposite, a sort of springboard of advantage! And all within a shared pool of genetic inheritance.

Establishment academics who do not happen to be Jewish can be expected to give a wide berth to the issues raised by the Weyls, Possony and Van den Haag because, as experience has shown they must either agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions drawn by these scholars, or else, like Spengler, Toynbee, Jung and Keith, expose themselves to the risk of being tagged as "anti-Semites."

For it is obviously impossible to make a full and proper compar­ative analysis without acknowledging that from the point of view of performance, Jews and gentiles are different people occupying dif­ferent stimulus-response motivational systems. In other words, the two groups are not competing on one track but on parallel tracks, are differently mounted and perhaps even have different winning posts in view.

For bow Is it possible to compare on a percentage basis the contributions to any kind of elitism of two communities so different in character and so differently situated? On the one hand, a majority which needs for its cultural survival a substantia] reservoir of skilled artisans and even unskilled workers, plus an agricultural or peasant class with its roots deeply planted in the soil; and on the other hand, a small population minority, its nerves always under great strain, wholly committed to the preservation of its national identity and unity while dispersed in a much larger host population.

Jung showed that he understood the subtle but most important difference in the area of motivation and performance when he remarked that the Jew has a wider area of consciousness and that it is consequently ‘less dangerous for the Jew to put a negative value on his unconscious.*

Obviously there is some competitive advantage in being able to put a negative value on the unconscious, but the question might as well be asked whether the Jewish people are not paying too high a price for this advantage in terms of long-term viability. Are they not just packing up for some future day of reckoning a danger inseparable from the downgrading of the unconscious?

Indeed, the very influence which confer elitist success on Jews in Western society have been the very ones from which persons of Jewish descent have frequently sought emancipation in order to be able to operate intellectually on a very much higher plane-men like Moses Mendelssohn and his son, the musician, Spinoza and Disraeli, not to mention Moses ben Maimonides and many others, including courageous Jews of our times named elsewhere in this book.

Thus, it would seem that the high degree of intellectual specialization and differentiation is for the Jews both an advantage and a disadvantage-and at many times in their troubled story it has been a grave disadvantage.

The Jewish people may be able to read a warning out of Fredric Schiller's remarks about the harmful consequences of an excessive specialization of function;

When the commonwealth makes the office or function the measure of the man, when of its citizens it does homage only to memory in one, to a tabulating intelligence in another, and to a mechanical capacity in a third; when here, regardless of character, it urges only toward knowledge, while there it encourages a spirit or order and law-abiding behavior with the profoundest intellectual obscurantism-when, at the same time, it wishes these single accomplishments of the subject to be carried to just as great