Posted on 04/15/2021 10:19:41 AM PDT by inpajamas
Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People - By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill -
Over 100 years ago, on February 8th, 1920, an article was published on page 5 of the Sunday Herald (London). The writer was none other that Winston Churchill. The context of the time in which the article was written was marked by a few major events. The first was World War I. Less than two years earlier on November 11, 1918 Germany had formally surrendered and on June 28, 1919, Germany and the Allied Nations signed the Treaty of Versailles, which formally ended the war.
During the 4 year period of fighting the war, two other events had taken place in the fall of 1917. Leftist revolutionaries led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin launched a nearly bloodless coup d’état against the Duma’s provisional government, successfully taking control of power in Russia. At the same time in Great Britain, Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, were instrumental in obtaining the Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917), which promised British support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
In these three major events, Churchill saw three options for the world’s Jewish population: Zionism, Nationalism, and Leftism (the last of which Churchill address in the terms of his day, Bolshevism and Internationalism)
Interestingly, those three choices have continued until now, however, as Western nations spiral downward into global socialism, the lines between latter two options are blurring. More and more we now see the three options are becoming two: Zionism or Leftism, or if you prefer, Freedom or Leftism.
Churchill’s article is rather long so I will post a link to the article in it’s entirety at the end. Quoting from the first part of the article, I will follow with a summary of most of the remainder:
Churchill begins:
“SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: "The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews." Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli's confident assertion.”
Good and Bad Jews - [Today this categorization would be denounced as anti-Semitic by some, especially when using the term, "International Jews". However, It’s not anti-Semitic. In context of the whole article it is clear he is speaking of ideologies which today could be termed as, freedom vs. socialism, or national sovereignty vs. International Marxism, not race. - Editor]
Churchill:
“The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.”
After this introduction, Churchill begins to separate Jews by ideology. He begins with national Jews, but first he offers what almost seems a disclaimer to qualify the three mind-sets he presents:
“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.
At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews. two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.”
Churchill then Identifies the three main worldviews Jews identify with - [encapsulated]:
National Jews: Those Jews who have embraced their resident nation as their home, these Churchill embraces with great praise for both their sacrifices and contributions to their nation.
International Jews and terrorist Jews: While separating the two under different headers, Churchill sees these two groups as of one mind. Both pose the same diabolical threat in that they embrace Marxist ideologies. Those he terms ‘terrorists’ are the Bolshevik revolutionaries; while the internationalists Churchill sees as seeking to undermine the system of sovereign nation states in favor of internationalism.
Zionist Jews: Under this header, Churchill speaks as a Zionist in full support of a Jewish state, while commending both Lord Balfour, and the fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for all practical purposes, of the Zionist project.
In the last portion of the article, Churchill calls upon the Jewish people to join the fight against Leftist ideology:
“The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people. . . It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.”
Quite an in interesting take from over 100 year ago if you were to ask me. The Jewish people certainly surpassed by far Churchill’s anticipations of Israel; but that should have been expected. In some ways, however, some things have not changed much and in terms of the warring ideologies, it seem things are coming to critical mass, not only among Jews, but all of the world. The entirety of the article can be found here:
International Jews and terrorist Jews: While separating the two under different headers, Churchill sees these two groups as of one mind. Both pose the same diabolical threat in that they embrace Marxist ideologies. …Such people are no more “Jews” than “Christians” who embrace the evil of Marxism are Christian.
“Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.”
— Lenin, “Religion”, Introduction
*Good article ping*
We just might be looking at JINOs and CHRINOs, then?
agreed, that is entirely correct.
the term “Jews” can encompass a wide spectrum but atheism and especially atheistic materialism lacking any genuine moral basis ... is not Jewish. It is in opposition to Judaism (and Christianity).
In pre-WWII Europe there were Zionists and “Bundists” who abhorred the idea of a Jewish State, because they felt it took away from their real goal of a worldwide Socialist Revolution, and they wanted nothing to do with the Zionists.
That’s a theme that’s all through the Bible, in fact.
The General Jewish Labor Bund may have appropriated the name “Jewish”, but they were anything but, even calling traditional Jewish life “reactionary” and thus labeling it bourgeoisie. Descent from the tribe of Judah is one thing, but without Biblical morals and instead embracing dialectical materialism it’s an utter rejection of one’s heritage.
A lot of them did migrate to this country. That explains why there are a lot of Jews here that couldn’t care less about Israel.
Gets down to that self-identification thingy.
How many Christians in name only do we have that are really raging Marxists? No shortage of them in politics; the current usurper is certainly one, never mind Pelosi and others like those two; and of course the Bushes who are nominally Methodist.
Happening today, at least last week. Randi Weingarten Tells Jews Not to Criticize Teachers’ Unions: ‘American Jews Are Now Part of the Ownership Class’ You'll find the term "ownership class" in early Marxist writings, it's the bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoise has a better ring to it.
I'm sure in Churchill's mind "Terrorist Jews" included those in Palestine fighting for independence. Understandable for a Brit.
Agreed. Beautiful visions of future utopian states are one thing. Working to help create them are a second thing, and can be understood as desirable and even mandated behavior. But all conduct must still be informed by the core Jewish or hydro-christian moral code. Absent such guidance, the chances of “jumping the shark” or “going off the rails” and causing great harms to society and individuals — are manifest. See for instance communism, most manifestations of socialism, today’s DNC “progressivists”, and so forth. It would be far far better for the world if such misguided, amoral “do-holders” would just stay home and watch reruns of Peter Paul and Mary concerts on the boob toob. Far better.
Correct
Why would you assume Churchill thought that? Lots of Marxist terrorists in there that called themselves “Jewish” but were actually fighting to turn Israel into a socialist state that would persecute religious Jews for being Jewish.
I’ve had to face up to Churchill not being wrong about Irish terrorists, besides, in spite of what I was taught in Irish schools about some of whom they regard as heroes for independence.
There were marxist amongst the Irgun and particularly Lehi but I wouldn’t call either a marxist organization. Brits considered them, and others committing violent acts against the Mandatory government terrorists. I assume Churchill would take the same position. I don’t consider the King David bombing a terrorist act given the prior warning, but particularly because it housed British military headquarters and Mandatory headquarters. I don’t know if he used the term terrorist, but he was highly critical. As I’d expect of a brit. Of course the term terrorist has a somewhat different meaning today, focusing more on attacks against civilians/non military targets than government assets. I’m not criticizing Churchill for it.
That is correct.
Lehi may not have been specifically Marxist, but they were hard left.
Chamberlain’s White Paper was a disaster, publicly repudiating the Balfour Declaration and appeasing the Arabs with the appearance of British weakness.
That’s it exactly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.