David Duke’s Secret Behind Communism: Divide and Conquer

…by Jonas E. Alexis

David Duke points out in The Secret Behind Communism that the Communists used an ideologically powerful weapon to destroy the cohesive body of the Ukrainian people: “The fourth step in the process [of genocide] consisted in the fragmentation of the Ukrainian people at once by the addition to the Ukraine of foreign peoples…In this way, ethnic unity would be destroyed and nationalities mixed. Between 1920 and 1939, the population of Ukraine changed from 80% Ukrainian to only 63%.”[1]

Duke backs the claim up by citing the Soviet Archives in Moscow. One archive declares: “Famine in the Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence.”[2]

That was obviously a wicked agenda, and the powers that be continue to use it to destabilize any country or society they do not like. Why? Well, one reason is that people do not remember the past, therefore the powers that perpetually use the same old tricks. As George Santayana put it at the dawn of the twentieth century, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”[3]

The powers that be know that they can essentially destroy any country through ideologically powerful weapons such as “multiculturalism,” and they have used those weapons to beat the dumb Goyim over the heads for decades now. If this seems shocking or farfetched, then listen to Jewish revolutionary Barbara Lerner Spectre, director of Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century.

“Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

First of all, how has Europe thrived and survived over the centuries without Spectre’s essentially Talmudic ideology? And what does Spectre mean by “multiculturalism”? Doesn’t she know that the world has been “multicultural” since the beginning of time? Or does she mean that she is going to use “multiculturalism” to further an essentially diabolical activity and to fight what she perceives as anti-Semitism? More importantly, have Spectre and her brethren been using “multiculturalism” to divide and conquer, to kill two birds with one stone?

As already suggested, people like Spectre have been using similar methods for decades. As E. Michael Jones documents, “Multiculturalism has been a completely Jewish creation from start to finish. For over 100 years now, Jews in America have been promoting multiculturalism as a strategy for weakening the dominant culture and thereby enhancing Jewish power.”[4]

These people have used whatever ideological weapon that was available to them in order to further their Talmudic goals and purposes, and multiculturalism has been one of those powerful weapons. In fact, Spectre knows that the multicultural ideology that she has been perpetuating is inherently hostile to the West and the moral and political order. All Spectre has to do is ask Jewish journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal, who eventually realized that the “multiculturalism” or “diversity” she had hoped was true was nonsense.[5] So what is the kind of multiculturalism that she is advancing?

Let’s break this down in simple terms. Multiculturalism is based on the relativistic idea that all cultures are equally valid. In other words, in “primitive” cultures some people might sacrifice children or promote polygamy,[6] while other cultures might uphold family and monogamous marriages. Multiculturalism states that child sacrifice and family values, polygamy and monogamy, are essentially equally valid. Yet whenever these lines of reasoning are applied, they always end up in cultural relativism, which makes no sense whatsoever.

If cultural relativism were true, it certainly would undermine many historical and scientific enquiries, including anthropology, and the United Nations would have to close down its offices for good.[7]

If multiculturalists want to say that a person’s contribution should be acknowledged regardless of ethnic background, then we agree. But that is not the point that has been portrayed in multicultural books, and that is not the point that Barbara Spectre was advancing. She had an ideological purpose in mind. In fact, she has never criticized Israel, which has never accepted her multicultural ideology. So why again was she projecting this multicultural idea on all of us? Again, she was furthering an insidious ideology.

Divide and Conquer in the The Civil Rights Era

Spectre’s diabolical strategy is not new at all. The history of the civil rights movement can help us unpack her ideological puzzle better. First of all, divide and conquer is powerful strategy, and ideologues have used it for centuries. For example, when many of his opponents began to fight among themselves, Vladimir Lenin proclaimed, “Do fight each other, I’ll enjoy it all from the sidelines, and once you’ve knocked one another out, then…”[8] Russian writer and a former Soviet military intelligence officer Victor Suvorov noted that “While brother was fighting brother, the Communists solidified and expanded their rule. Within a few years they subjugated the entire country.”[9]

Stalin adopted a similar tactic in 1939. He said, “Let Germany fight in the west, simultaneously wearing out itself and the Western Allies. We’ll do whatever it takes to help Germany get utterly exhausted, and then…”[10] As we have seen in the first article on the Secret Behind Communism, Jewish Neocon Daniel Pipes adopted the exact tactic in order to destabilize the Syrian government.

So how did Jewish revolutionaries use this “divide and conquer” strategy to subjugate people during the civil rights movement? Simple.

Jews who supported the civil rights movement saw it as a perfect opportunity to ally themselves with angry blacks, who themselves saw the civil rights movement as a way to stamp out “racism” in American society.

Jewish author Arthur Miller, known for his influential novel The Crucible, was “actively engaged in the broad range of liberal causes, from civil rights and racial integration to the American Communist Party’s rights to exist.”[11]

Born in 1915 in New York, Miller recalled his maternal grandfather telling him “never to walk under a large lighted cross overhanging the sidewalk outside a Lenox Avenue church; if by accident I did, I must spit when I realized what I had done, in order to cleanse myself.”[12]

What is particularly crucial to our study here is that the civil rights movement was largely funded by Jewish financiers and moguls, people who had a predisposition to ignite political fire and divide and conquer where it was unnecessary. Jewish scholar Benjamin Ginsberg of Johns Hopkins University writes in Fatal Embrace:

“Jews served as major financiers and strategists for the civil rights movement. Jews served as well as the key liaisons between the civil rights movement and the government during both the Kennedy and Johnson eras.

“Jewish groups, organized through the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, had long worked closely with blacks in efforts to eliminate housing and employment discrimination from the 1950s and after.

“Jewish organizations also worked closely with civil rights groups during the 1960s in their struggles on behalf of voting rights and for the desegregation of public facilities and accommodations. Jewish contributors provided a substantial share of the funding for such civil rights groups as the NAACP and CORE…

“Stanley Levinson, a longtime official and fund-raiser for the American Jewish Congress, became Martin Luther King’s chief aide and advisor…Harry Wachtel was a major legal advisor and fundraiser for the SCLC. Levison and Wachtel were often called King’s twin Jewish lawyers.

“Jack Greenberg, head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was the most important civil rights lawyer in the United States. Jews comprised a large segment—perhaps one-third of the whites who participated in civil rights marches and protests in the South during the 1960s.”[13]

Jewish historian Howard M. Sachar states that Jews “were the earliest supporters of the fledging National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In 1914, Professor emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University became chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise.”[14]

The public generally believes that the NAACP was founded by people like W. E. B. Du Bois, but the truth is that the organization was exclusively Jewish from its inception, founded by Henry Moscowitz (a German Jew) in 1909 and aided by Rabbi Emil Hirsch.[15] The first president of the organization was Joel Spingarn, a professor at Columbia University, who was actively involved in the civil rights movement.[16]

The NAACP, like Freudian psychoanalysis and Neoconservatism, did attract a number of non-Jews, but its founding principles were Jewish. Jewish historian Hasia Diner declares that since German Jews did not feel fully at ease in America, “black issues provided an attractive forum to work out certain tensions of acculturation.”[17]

For historian David Levering Lewis, although the Black-Jewish alliance did not produce much good fruit, it eventually “gave rise to an unworkable paradigm of success.”[18]

Like Harold Cruse and others, Lewis saw the Black-Jewish alliance as a weapon “to fight anti-Semitism by remote control” (although Lewis seemed to have backed off from that position by 1993).

If you think this is just a relic of the past, the Washington Times and the Daily Mail reported that George Soros spent at least $33 million agitating insurrection in Ferguson.[19] Why? E. Michael Jones provided the answer:

“For 60 years—from 1909 with the founding of the NAACP to 1969 when the FBI shut down the Black Panthers—influential Jews in organizations as diverse as the NAACP and the Communist Party tried to turn the Negro into a revolutionary. They created a monster instead. This is precisely what Tom Watson predicted in the aftermath of the Leo Frank trial:

“‘The National Pencil Factory, owned by Frank’s people, fought our Child Labor bill fiercely and helped to kill it—and in God’s mysterious way, it cost the Superintendent his life.’ In closing ranks behind Frank, the nation’s wealthy Jews had ‘blown the breath of life into the Monster of Race Hatred; and this Frankenstein, whom you created at such enormous expense, WILL HUNT YOU DOWN!’[20]

“In the aftermath of Ferguson, it looked as if Tom Watson’s warning was coming true. As a result of the Frank case, the Jews declared war on the South. The same influential Jews who had taken up the banner of Leo Frank went on to create the Anti-Defamation League.

“But more importantly for our purposes they infected the Negro with the virus of revolution. The Negroes of the South Side of Chicago now act the way they do because of an idea that was planted in their mind by Jewish revolutionaries.

“The main vehicle for this transformation in the black mind (from rural sharecropper to urban revolutionary) was the civil rights movement, which was the most successful part of the Black-Jewish Alliance, which was the 60-year-long attempt on the part of Jews at organizations like the NAACP and the Communist Party to turn Negroes into revolutionaries.”

In short, blacks were being used as pawns in the service of a larger Jewish revolutionary ideology. In the words of Jewish author Gelya Frank, Jews used both the civil rights movement and the NAACP as “remote control.”

The late Israeli scholar and academic Israel Shahak likewise noted,

“The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the U.S.A. during the 1950s and the 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support for the same Blacks…

“Stalin and his supporters never tired of condemning the discrimination against the American or the South African Blacks, especially in the midst of the worst crimes committed within the USSR…

“Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East.”[21]

Ginsberg goes on to acknowledge the self-interested Jewish ideologies behind the movement:

“During the 1960s, Jews joined with other liberal Democrats and with blacks in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements.

“Through this alliance, Jews were able to weaken their conservative Southern adversaries as well as their Northern white working-class rivals within the Democratic Party, and to virtually destroy the traditional party machines upon which these forces depended for their power.”[22]

One black Communist intellectual who began to see the forces behind those ideologies was Harold Cruse. Ginsberg writes,

“Through the 1960s, blacks were a subordinate group on the Left especially within the Communist Party which was dominated by Jewish intellectuals. Harold Cruse, a black Communist, described the situation in his 1967 work, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual.

“Jewish Communists, said Cruse, felt compelled to ensure their complete political and ideological power over their Negro allies.

“To this end, according to Cruse, Jewish Communists sought to dominate the field of ‘Negro studies’ and made certain that Jews always held the top Communist Party posts in the black community.”[23]

Cruse bluntly stated,

“Among the many myths life and history have imposed on the Negroes is the myth that the Negro’s best friend is the Jew. Far more accurately, certain Jews have been the best friend of certain Negroes—which, in any case, is nothing very unusual…

“There is little evidence that the Jewish group was much interested in the Negro’s plight for ‘social uplift’ reasons prior to the age of Booker T. Washington and the NAACP era that followed.

“But this is not to say that Jews were not accurately aware of the Negro’s existence. How aware certain Jews were, is revealed in a very unlikely source—the autobiographical notes of the great Russian writer, Feodor M. Dostoevsky.”[24]

Cruse quotes Dostoevsky’s own words, penned in 1877:

“[Jews] have already leaped en masse upon the millions of liberated Negroes, and have already taken a grip upon them in their, the Jews’ own way, by means of their sempiternal ‘gold pursuit’ and by taking advantage of the inexperience and vices of the exploited tribe…the Negroes have now been liberated from the slave owners, but that they will not last because the Jews, of whom there are so many in the world, will jump at this new little victim.”[25]

Dostoevsky would have almost certainly been surprised to know that some of his predictions have come to pass. Nearly all the blacks of the “Harlem Renaissance” era received support from wealthy Jews. And according to some witnesses, almost all the teachers in Harlem were Communist Jews. Jewish historian Mark Naison of Fordham University notes,

“According to Richard B. Moore, Jewish-Americans provided many of the shock troops for Harlem protests around the Scottsboro issue and constituted the bulk of the white administrators and education directors sent in to Harlem section after James Ford’s accession to leadership.

“Alice Citron and Morris Schappes, whites active in the Harlem section, recall that almost all of the white Communist teachers and relief workers in Harlem were of Jewish ancestry.”[26]

Even the “Negro-Jewish alliance” in some cases was used to portray Jews in a positive light, most particularly among Communists in Harlem.[27]

In the process, many of the era’s black artists and lawyers, such as Paul Robeson and Benjamin J. Davis, Jr., praised their relationship with the Jews; Robeson for example “predominantly featured Yiddish songs in his concert repertoire.”[28]

And many Jewish organizations supported black artists.

“Right through the forties the Rosenwald Fund subsidized many black artists and writers with grants and fellowships. The recipients included Ralph J. Bunch in political science, Marian Anderson in music, John Hope Franklin in history, Kenneth Clark in psychology, and Gordon Parks in photography. Among the writers Rosenwald assisted were Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, and William Motley, as well as [Langston] Hughes.”[29]

Jewish radicals like Marx Lieber, who became Langston Hughes’s literary agent, believed that blacks should concentrate their talent on revolutionary work.

“[Lieber’s] profitable production of Erskine Caldwell’s play Tobacco Road permitted him to indulge his social passions. He kept reminding Hughes and the other writers he represented of their leftist political obligations while representing them in negotiations with bourgeois publishers.”[30]

Lieber eventually helped Hughes gain recognition by selling one of Hughes’s poems, “Slave on the Block,” to Scribner’s magazine. Other blacks gained renown in a similar way, including James Baldwin, “whose talent was first recognized and nurtured by Jewish editors of small but influential magazines” such as Commentary, New Leader, and Partisan Review.[31]

When Baldwin’s “The Harlem Ghetto” first appeared in Commentary, sociologist Nathan Glazer, a member of its editorial board, praised Baldwin as a talented black writer, “how remarkable we didn’t yet know.”[32]

To this end, the editors of Commentary asked Baldwin to write a piece dealing with the issues of blacks and Jews, which Baldwin reluctantly agreed to do. For Baldwin, this issue was puzzling because he saw blacks suffering under the hands of Jewish exploiters. He declared,

“When we were growing up in Harlem our demoralizing series of landlords were Jewish, and we hated them.”[33]

Jewish historian Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht tells us that

“The landlords were hated because they did not paint or repair or heat, they just collected exorbitant rents…

“Baldwin lists the other Jews that blacks hated: the grocer, to whom they were in debt; the butcher, who sold them bad meat at high prices; and most of all, the pawnbroker.

“‘It is bitter,’ he wrote, ‘to watch the Jewish storekeeper locking up his store for the night, and going home. Going, with your money in his pocket, to a clean neighborhood, miles from you, which you will not be allowed to enter.’

“The overwhelming presence of the Jew as landlord, storekeeper, and boss made black anti-Semitism inevitable. Stokely Carmichael wrote, ‘Exploitation by Jewish landlords and merchants…first created black resentment toward Jews—not Judaism.’”[34]

Like the Jews in Poland, Jews in New York resorted to old tricks:

“In 1960 sociologist David Caplovits did a study on ‘The Merchant and the Low-Income Consumer.’ He said that ‘many, if not all, of the merchants happen to be Jews and many of the customers are Negroes.’ Caplovitz found that the merchants used all the traditional tricks to prey upon the poor: installment plans, overpricing, and bait-and-switch tactics.”[35]

For that reason,

“Black anti-Semitism was a response not only to the ghetto businessman but to Jewish racism. Many blacks have written that they expected more from Jews; they felt that a people so discriminated against should not discriminate.”[36]

Irving Louis Horowitz, a Jewish sociologist and professor, recounted that his parents used to cheat the black Christians, counting it “a special occasion on which my father wreaked his own revenge on Christendom.”[37]

Horowitz remembered:

“The scam went like this: the unsuspecting customer would bring in all light bulbs for testing. Each bulb would be placed against the side of the bulb tester rather than against the filament that would light up the bulb. The trick was easily learned and passed on to my mother, my sister, and me. I became a master at this special bulb test.

“When the same bulbs were retested after the customer left, they almost always were found to be perfect, or least good enough for resale. My father placed them into inventory and sold them as new. The special bulbs were resold countless times each season.

“Hence, it was no accident that the volume of December bulb sales probably surpassed that of any other month. December profits also showed remarkably uncharacteristic good health.”[38]

So why did Jewish revolutionaries attempt to turn blacks into revolutionaries again? Well, they were trying to create what ought to be known a race war in America. This has been the unspoken goal from the beginning. For example, Norman Podhoretz talked Baldwin into writing “his most famous essay,” entitled “Letter from a Region in My Mind,” which was later published in book form as The Fire Next Time and “remained on the bestseller list for forty-four weeks, helping to make Baldwin America’s most widely read black author.”[39]

This book, Murray Friedman tells us, “represented black rage against white America and pioneered a genre that other black writers would adopt.”[40]

Richard Wright, who joined the Communist Party in 1933 and whose first and second wives were Jewish, added to the “black rage” genre in 1957 with the publication of White Man, Listen!

Wright’s first married Dhima Rose Meadman in 1939, but got divorced two years later. His second wife, also Jewish, was Ellen Polar, a Communist Party organizer in Brooklyn, with whom he had two children.

In his fiction, Wright “has a Jewish Communist, Boris Max, defend his black protagonist in Native Son. When the protagonist refuses to cooperate in a police investigation because police ‘hate black folks,’ Wright has Max reply, ‘They hate others too. They hate me because I’m trying to help you. They’re writing me letters calling me a ‘dirty Jew.’”^[41]

Baldwin’s influence continues to this day, and can be seen in the writings of people like Cornel West (Race Matters) and Michael Eric Dyson (Race Rules). Even media personalities such as Jesse Jackson and con men such as Al Sharpton are products of this genre, although on many occasions they divert their ranting against Jews themselves (a classic example is the Gavin Gato incident in 1991).

Since Jews are a small minority, they join other minorities such as the blacks to form alliances aimed at weakening the majority. As we have seen in the introduction, their political ancestors such as Lenin have employed the same strategy. Jewish historian Michael Alexander writes in Jazz Age Jews:

“Increasingly, as Jews found themselves succeeding in the American social order and thereby wandering from an identity based on centuries of marginalization, they identified with outsiders to even the balance.

“As gambling, radical politics, and black music grew chic among the smartest, jazziest cliques, even gentile Americans could participate in the course of difference.

“In the grand, decade-long showdown between the old and new that characterized the Jazz Age, descendants of the great Jewish migration found themselves in the middle of the fray. Their tendency to identify themselves with the causes of outsiders had flung them there.”[42]

Jewish revolutionaries again used blacks as proxy warriors, and this is one reason why they gave the blacks the false impression that they were helping them. Friedman notes that

“The Communist leadership made a conscious point of dispatching Jewish party members to Harlem, where they operated under Komintern discipline.

“In certain respects their mission was analogous to that of the nineteenth-century revolutionaries who had sought to radicalize the Russian peasantry. One historian has observed that their Jewish ancestry may have inclined these radical missionaries to manifest a strong emotional response to black oppression.”[43]

The communist party “saw a political vacuum in the ghettos of America and sought to exploit it.”[44] This was because, as Jewish historian Arthur Liebman noted, Jews “saw blacks as more likely and more eligible recruits for Marxism.”[45]

This campaign was especially successful among black writers and artists, and in the process, black luminaries such as Lorraine Hansberry (A Raisin in the Sun), John Wideman (Brothers and Keepers), and Alice Walker (The Color Purple) all married Jews.[46]

Hansberry became a thorough revolutionary because she embraced the subversive spirit which dominated Jewish revolutionaries. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it, “the price the Negro has to pay for marriage (both literal and figurative) with the Jews is 1) loss of faith in God and 2) moral corruption.”[47] (Frederick Douglass is a classic example; it was his Jewish girlfriend, Ottilie Assing, who led him to lose his faith in God.)

By the time a Raisin in the Sun was written, Hansberry had already lost her faith in God, saying things like,

“God hasn’t got a thing to do with it….God is just one idea I don’t accept…I get tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God—there is only man and it is he who makes miracles.”[48]

The last sentence is really troublesome because it implies that Hansberry was carrying an intellectual burden which literally destroyed her position. In fact, if one follows this premise to its logical conclusion, then philosophical worthlessness or intellectual suicide is the end result.

If there is “only man” and if “it is he who makes miracles,” by what logical inference can Hansberry say that genocide or slavery is wrong? In fact, “miracles” like slavery were largely made by men—more precisely Jewish individuals in the nineteenth century. Why didn’t Hansberry pose that particular issue to her revolutionary husband, who probably knew about the forces behind nineteenth-century slavery? He taught her virtually everything about revolution but he didn’t tell her anything about the masters of the slavery business in that era?

If there is no ultimate transcendent moral virtue or value, who is Hansberry to tell us that might does not make right? Hansberry’s argument again is philosophically and logically indefensible.

Hansberry declared at the end of her life, “Do I remain a revolutionary? Intellectually—without a doubt. But am I prepared to give my body to the struggle or even my comforts? This is what I puzzle about.”[49]

Hansberry was indeed morally confused and intellectually lost. Her ideological principles ultimately lead to moral relativism, which she ought to have known is logically unacceptable and intellectually impermissible.

Summary

What is the conclusion to all of this? The Communist ideology of divide and conquer which David Duke eloquently describes in The Secret Behind Communism was and still is powerful. The same ideology did manifest itself in the civil rights movement. The end result is that the civil rights movement largely wrecked the average black family. Thomas Sowell himself attributed the disturbingly high rate of black crime to the 1960s and 70s.[50] Even the Atlanta-City Journal itself pointed out way back in 2005, “More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954.”[51] It can be argued that fatherlessness and the rise of crime which is now characterized as “ghetto behavior” in places like the South Side of Chicago are the logical extension of the civil rights movement.

Even in the 1940s and 50s, black crimes were quite low, but when the number of black marriages began to decline during the 1960s,[52] things were never the same. After the civil rights era, the moral pendulum for many black families seems to have swung in the opposite direction. The number of children born out of wedlock rose dramatically, as did crime rates among black families.

Many writers lay the blame for this moral breakdown directly at the feet of slavery. However, this widely held notion is false, historically and logically. Thomas Sowell himself wrote,

“[T]he fact is that in the late nineteenth century, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, there was nothing like today’s levels of unwed births or failure to participate in the labor force. It has been from the 1960s onward that these social pathologies have escalated. Whatever the cause, it has arisen long after slavery had ended.”[53]

He continued,

“Over the entire 85-year history of academic success in [Dunbar High School], from 1870 to 1955, most of its graduates went on to higher education.

“This was very unusual for either black or white high-school graduates during that era. Because these were usually low-income students, most went to a local free teachers’ college or to relatively inexpensive Howard University, but significant numbers won scholarships to leading colleges and universities elsewhere.“

“At one time, the reputation of Dunbar graduates was such that they did not have to take [an] entrance examination to be admitted to Dartmouth, Harvard, and some other selective colleges. When Robert N. Mattingly graduated from the M. Street School in 1902, he entered Amherst College, receiving credit for freshman mathematics and first-year college physics—and he graduated in three years, Phi Beta Kappa. Yet, far from being one of the elite, Mattingly was, in his own words, ‘at Amherst on a shoestring.”[54]

The logic is pretty straightforward: wicked ideologies and subversive movements have never been good and have never helped “marginalized” people. Divide and conquer is an essentially Communist or Bolshevik ideology, and it has never been good whenever it is applied. The people who advance such ideologies never like the moral and political order. David Francis, American ambassador to Russia, knew this. David Duke cites Francis saying:

“The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, cared little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide social revolution.”

This was true then and it is still relevant today. Revolutionaries have used all kinds of weapons in order to deconstruct or destabilize the moral order. If multiculturalism fails, then they use the blacks. If blacks like Harold Cruse wake up and realize that they have been used, then the revolutionaries use the homosexuals.[55]

In countries in the Middle East, the same revolutionaries have been using “democracy” and “freedom” to literally destroy countries Israel does not like. When those countries are destroyed, then civilians have to move to places like Europe and America. And the whole cycle of multiculturalism starts again. Who is benefitting from this?

I think the answer should be obvious by now.

We will continue with The Secret Behind Communism next month.

• [1] David Duke, The Secret Behind Communism: The Ethnic Origins of the Russian Revolution and the Greatest Holocaust in the History of Mankind (Mandeville, LA: Free Speech Press, 2013), 18.
• [2] Ibid.
• [3] George Santayana, The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress, Vol., I (London: Archibald Constable, 1906), 284.
• [4] E. Michael Jones, “False Flag in Oslo,” Culture Wars, September 2011.
• [5] Dorothy Rabinowitz, “Major Hasan, ‘Star Officer,’” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 16, 2011.
• [6] For sociological and anthropological studies, see Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before
• Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert B. Edgerton, Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony (New York: Free Press, 1992); Rodney Stark, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief (New York: HarperOne, 2007); Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954).
• [7] See Lawrence E. Harrison, “The End of Multiculturalism,” National Interest, Jan. 2, 2008
• [8] Quoted in Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? (Bristol: PL UK Publishing, 2012), kindle edition.
• [9] Ibid.
• [10] Ibid.
• [11] Martin Gottfried, Arthur Miller: His Life and Work (New York: Da Capo Press, 2003), 157.
• [12] Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 185.
• [13] Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 126.
• [14] Howard M. Sachar, A History of Jews in America (New York: Knopf, 1992), 803.
• [15] Sasha Polakow-Suransky, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010), 171
• [16] Ibid.
• [17] Murray Friedman, What Went Wrong?: The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance (New York: Free Press, 2007), 58.
• [18] Ibid., 58-59.
• [19] Kelly Riddell, “George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action,” Washington Times, January 14, 2015; see also “Billionaire George Soros spent $33MILLION bankrolling Ferguson demonstrators to create ‘echo chamber’ and drive national protests,” Daily Mail, January 16, 2015.
• [20] Steve Oney, And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank (New York: Pantheon Books, 2003), 599.
• [21] Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (New York: Pluto Press, 2002), 103.
• [22] Sachar, Jews in America, 225.
• [23] Ginsberg, Fatal Embrace, 177.
• [24] E. Michael Jones has an extensive chapter on this issue in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
• [25] Ibid.
• [26] See Mark Naison, Communists in Harlem during the Depression (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1983), 321.
• [27] Ibid., 324-325.
• [28] Ibid., 325.
• [29] Friedman, What Went Wrong?, 112.
• [30] Ibid., 112-113.
• [31] Ibid., 113.
• [32] Ibid.
• [33] Roberta Straus Feuerlicht, The Fate of the Jews: A People Torn Between Israeli Power and Jewish Ethics (New York: Times Books, 1983), 190.
• [34] Ibid., 190-191.
• [35] Ibid., 191.
• [36] Ibid.
• [37] Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 811.
• [38] Ibid.
• [39] Friedman, What Went Wrong?, 113-114.
• [40] Ibid., 114.
• [41] Friedman, What Went Wrong?, 121.
• [42] Michael Alexander, Jazz Age Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 8.
• [43] Friedman, What Went Wrong?, 121.
• [44] Ibid.
• [45] Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (New York: John Wiley, 1979), ix.
• [46] Friedman, What Went Wrong?, 121.
• [47] Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 908.
• [48] Ibid., 908-909.
• [49] Ibid.
• [50] Thomas Sowell, Education: Assumptions versus History (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1986 and 2016); Black Rednecks & White Liberals (New York: Encounter Books, 2005).
• [51] Kay S. Hymowitz, “The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies,” Atlanta City Journal, Summer 2005.
• [52] Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, 161.
• [53] Ibid., 160-161.
• [54] For a study on these issues, see Thomas Sowell, Education: Assumptions versus History (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2016); Black Rednecks and White Liberals (New York: Encounter Books, 2005), chapter 5.
• [55] For similar studies, see for example Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014); Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012).

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>