Libertarians and "Jews Against Communism"

Libertarians -- Another "Jews Against Communism"

March 10, 2012

(left, Bernard Baruch, 1870-1965)

Ninety per cent of the funding for "American Jewish League Against Communism" came from Rothchild front-man Bernard Baruch.










The Rothschilds, who controlled the "socialist" Roosevelt administration and backed the Bolshevik Revolution, were also, via Baruch and Kohlberg, behind the "right-wing" John Birch Society and the Libertarian movement...It is time to realize that the real dialectic is the Illuminati bankers versus humanity.

by Memehunter
(henrymakow.com)

In How the Illuminati $pawn Libertarians, Anthony Migchels explained how a myriad Libertarian organizations were funded by the Illuminati Money Power. The purpose of this funding is to conceal the Illuminati's creation of Communism.

The Illuminati Jewish bankers who had organized the Bolshevik Revolutionwere aware that many observers were noticing  the Jewish involvement in Communism. In order to deflect criticism, they sought to show that there were Jews against Communism.

The American Jewish League against Communism

As explained in Illuminati Bankers controlled Joseph McCarthy, [BELOW] there were only two purposes for the founding of the American Jewish League against Communism, or AJLAC: "the number one purpose was to take the heat off the Jewishness of Communism, and a secondary aim was to get the Jews out of Communism and to support Zionism."

The chairman of the AJLAC was Jewish businessman Alfred Kohlberg head of the so-called "China Lobby". The same Kohlberg, a close ally of Senator McCarthy, also co-founded the John Birch Society with Robert Welch and Fred Koch, head of Koch Industries.

Moreover, Kohlberg was a major sponsor of Plain Talk, which merged with the Freeman, a libertarian journal still published today by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), itself a direct offshoot of the William Volker Fund and an active supporter of the Mont Pelerin Society (see Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy).

Who was hiding behind Alfred Kohlberg?

Ninety per cent of the funding for AJLAC came from Bernard Baruch, according to Norman Marks, a member of the national board of the AJLAC. But Baruch explicitly demanded his contribution be concealed. He was essentially hiding behind Kohlberg.

Baruch, who had bought Woodrow Wilson's letters to his mistress for $65,000 (an enormous sum at the time), wound up directing Wilson's presidency from behind the scenes along with "Colonel" Edward Mandell House. As head of the War Industries Board during World War I, Baruch practically controlled the entire industrial output of the United States. He and his cronies profited accordingly.

At Versailles, Baruch was adviser to the Zionist delegation that clamored for the British Protectorate in Palestine that led to the State of Israel.

Later, Baruch was, once again, the unofficial dictator of the United States during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency.

Of course, Baruch was an agent of the Rothschild, as several conspiracy historians have pointed out.

So, in a nutshell: The Rothschilds, who controlled the "socialist" Roosevelt administration and backed the Bolshevik Revolution, were also, via Baruch, via Kohlberg, behind the "right-wing" John Birch Society and the funding of the Libertarian movement in the United States. Libertarians were just another "Jews Against Communism." (See "Proof Libertarians an Illuminati Ploy." )

The Rockefeller connection

The Rockefellers also contributed to right-wing causes.

Initially, William Volker did not intend for his foundation to support Libertarian think tanks. However, when Volker's nephew Harold Luhnow took control of the Volker Fund, its orientation changed.

During the 1930s, Luhnow contacted longtime activist Loren Miller, who headed the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research (BGR).

The BGR was directly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and Miller was probably a Rockefeller agent.

Miller introduced Luhnow to Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek and convinced him to bring Hayek to Chicago.

Miller went on to oversee the activities of the Volker Fund and attended the first Mont Pelerin Society meeting. In fact, both the Volker Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation supported the Mont Pelerin gatherings for over a decade.

Miller and Luhnow pulled out all the stops to bring Milton Friedman and Hayek to Rockefeller-controlled University of Chicago. As Philip Mirowski and Robert Van Horn write, "Luhnow and the Volker officers were not mere accessories to the rise of the Chicago school: they were hands-on players, determined and persistent in making every dollar count."

Importantly, the involvement of the Rockefeller dynasty in promoting Austrian economics predates the Volker Fund. Indeed, David Rockefeller, who was taught by Hayek in London, "had been intermittently subsidizing Hayek since his Vienna days at Mises' business cycle institute."

Already in 1926, Ludwig von Mises's first tour in the United States was paid by the Rockefeller Foundation. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which supported Mises in the 1940s, was also heavily sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Mises's salary in New York was paid by Lawrence Fertig, Kohlberg's colleague at the AJLAC, and by the Volker Fund.

Working both sides of the dialectic

As Antony Sutton shows, Wall Street funding for the Bolshevik Revolution was organized from 120 Broadway St. in New York, in what Sutton called "the Morgan-Rockefeller complex".

In the late 1910s and 1920s, both Roosevelt and Baruch worked at 120 Broadway Street, where several major financial concerns were located, including the general offices of the American International Corporation and the New York branch of the Federal Reserve.

Working both sides of the dialectic, Baruch, likely arranged for the Reader's Digest to publish a widely circulated condensed version of Hayek's Road to Serfdom in 1945. This successful marketing ploy helped disseminate Hayek's work and garner additional funding.

Baruch is credited with coining the term "Cold War" in a speech given in 1947. He knew what he was talking about.

Escaping the Illuminati dialectic

Both the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties funded the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the rise of the Libertarian movement in the United States.

As shown in a previous article,  the Jesuits a.k.a Illuminati formulated the ideological content that led to the modern versions of both Libertarianism and Communism. Moreover, both movements were corrupted by Satanic influences.

The Illuminati elites are toying with us, trapping people into a deceitful dialectic whose poles both lead to a domination by a transnational plutarchy. 

More than ever, it is time to exit the Matrix by escaping the Illuminati dialectic and starting to realize that the real dialectic is the Illuminati bankers versus humanity.

Chart of Libertarian Connections. Solid lines refer to funding. Dotted lines to Influence.
----------------------------------------------------------

Illuminati Bankers Controlled Joseph McCarthy

March 4, 2012

(McCarthy -- March 8, 1954 Edition of TIME)

"We were the ones that wrote the speeches for McCarthy  back in West Virginia that started his build-up into the famous  anti-Communist that he is today. Our pressure on the press resulted in  his getting as much attention as he has. In return for this build-up  he agreed not to call up or expose Jews in the Communist movement by  the investigations through his sub-committee."
by Michael Collins Piper
(from his 2006 book, "The Judas Goats")
(First posted here Nov. 24, 2010)

 
DeWest Hooker (1918-1999) was an American patriot and successful businessman.  During the 1950s, he uncovered a Zionist effort to control the "anti-communist" movement, an  eye-opening and sobering revelation for Americans who are unaware of how Illuminati bankers manipulate public perception.

What follows is the text (slightly annotated for purposes of clarity) of a sworn statement that Hooker executed on September 30, 1954 outlining his findings about the role of the self-styled "American Jewish League Against Communism" and how it was manipulating then Sen.  Joseph R. McCarthy's efforts to investigate communism in high places  in the American system. The affidavit reads:

 "I had an astounding interview for two hours some time ago with Norman  L. Marks of the American Jewish League Against Communism, Inc.  As a matter of fact, I was brought along by another party, and Mr. Marks did not know anything about me (hence he really opened up because the person who took me was "trusted" by him).  The AJLAC has offices at 220 West 42nd Street, New York City. Its  national chairman is Alfred Kohlberg. Its executive director is Rabbi  Benjamin Schultz, and its treasurer is Harry Pasternak. Listed on its  national board are the following: Bern Dibner, Lawrence Fertig,  Theodore Fine, Benjamin Gitlow, Hon. Walter R. Hart, Herman Kashins,  Eugene Lyons, Norman L. Marks, Morris Ryskind, Rabbi David S. Savitz,  Nathan D. Shapiro, George E. Sokolsky, Maurice Tishman, Rabbi Ascher  M. Yager.
[DeWest Hooker, left)
I swear under oath to you that the following is as accurate as it is possible to put down from memory an hour or so later. Also, the  information can be verified by the other unnamed party.

Mr. Marks, listed above and on the letterhead of the AJLAC as a member  of the national board, said: "Far and away the principal financial contributor to the AJLAC is Mr. Bernard Baruch." When questioned on this point as to what percentage he would say Mr. Baruch contributed, he answered: "About 85% or 90% of the funds."

 I said that I had thought Mr. Kohlberg was the main contributor to the  AJLAC and Mr. Marks answered: "Well, he contributes some but nothing  like what Baruch contributes." I asked Mr. Marks why Baruch's name did  not appear on the letterhead. He stated that Baruch was very emphatic  about NOT having his name appear on the letterhead, and that it was to  be unknown that he contributed funds to it.

 Mr. Marks said that the organization was entirely Jewish but that a  funny thing was that many of the founders of it seemed to have  "Christian" wives. He said that they used to meet every Thursday at  the Ambassador Hotel for lunch and talk about the world situation.  Marks said that the organization would not accept either a "Christian  in it" or a "Christian dime of support" and that no Christian money  had ever been accepted in the past--that it was completely a Jewish  organization and financed by them.

 He said there were only two purposes for its founding: That the Number  One purpose was to take the heat off the Jewishness of Communism, and  a secondary aim was to get the Jews out of Communism and to support  Zionism. He said that: "for a while there, almost all the spies of the  Communists that were turned up were Jews and that they had become  concerned, and thought that something should be done to take the sting  off the Jews. They wanted to show the Christian world that ALL Jews  were not Communists."

 When asked just how they went about this whole project, Mr. Marks  said: "It's impossible for a Christian to get away with criticizing  the Jews. Only a Jew can do that."

 He went on: "And so we got together a strong group of Jews that "were  known to be anti-Communists" and started our campaign of pressure from  our point of view."

 [According to Hooker's original affidavit, Marks' reference to those  who were said to be "anti-Communists" actually meant that the Jewish  leaders in question were, as Hooker put it, "meaning  anti-Stalinist."--Ed.]

Marks stated: "We were the ones that wrote the speeches for McCarthy  back in West Virginia that started his build-up into the famous  anti-Communist that he is today. Our pressure on the press resulted in  his getting as much attention as he has. In return for this build-up  he agreed not to call up or expose Jews in the Communist movement by  the investigations through his sub-committee."

 Mr. Marks stated that a lot of Jews called McCarthy an anti-Semite but  little did they know that "he is the best friend the Jews ever had."

 [Hooker noted of McCarthy that "Eventually they destroyed him anyway  when he started calling up Jewish Communists later on."--Ed.]

 Marks went on to say that "other investigations might have turned up  Jews and McCarthy had been given credit for them, but that if we  traced the record back, we would find that McCarthy actually did not  call up a single Jew in that period when the heat was on the Jews." He  later qualified these remarks by saying that "while McCarthy was  operating as a temporary subcommittee under the Truman administration,  he did not call up any Jews; that when he once got himself elected as  the chairman of the permanent investigating committee, in the new  administration, he then began to call witnesses "as they came."  [That is, whether the witnesses were "Jewish or not," according to Hooker--Ed.]
Mr, Marks continued: "But that doesn't make much difference now because he accepted our own men to work right with him. For example,  he accepted as his top man next to him our man Roy Cohn, left, which was  arranged through another of our men, George Sokolsky."

If memory serves me correctly, Marks stated that Julius Kahn was also  their man on the McCarthy committee, but who was now on the Senate  Foreign Relations Committee. He definitely stated that David Schine  was NOT with the AJLAC but that he was put there by "another group  which I don't know about."

 Mr. Marks went on to say that "not only is McCarthy under our control  but so are Jenner and Velde, who also took our men to work right with  them. Benny Mandel and Robert Morris represent us on the Jenner  Committee." He mentioned Robert Kunzig as "their man" for Velde.  Marks also stated definitely that Professor Louis Budenz was under  "their control" and one of "their men," and that he was working to  take the "heat" off the Jews.

 [Budenz was a well-known "ex-communist" who became a leading figure in  the so-called anti-communist movement, key elements of which had come  under the control of the Zionist and Trotskyite elements. Hooker's  revelations explain why--Ed.]

 He stated that [Alfred] Kohlberg, their national chairman, was the one  who "found" Budenz when he was testifying in Washington and Kohlberg  "picked him up and practically supported him for a while in order to  get him started and built up to the man he is today in the  anti-Communist movement."

 Marks also stated that they got "their man Robert Morris" elected  recently as a judge in New York City, and that Victor Lasky was  another one of their men who did a lot of "press work" for them, and  "made speeches favoring their people, for example, Robert Morris." He  said, "All these people agreed to take the 'heat' off the Jews."

 I recall now another statement by Mr. Marks that "there is a vast  pooling of information in the New York City area and throughout the  country which is connected with our organization."

 I asked if J. B. Matthews and his files were in on "the deal" and he  said: "Yes, we have access to all of his files."

 [J. B. Matthews was a prominent "anti-communist crusader" in the  period, but, clearly, under the control of the Zionist-Trotskyites.--Ed.]

He said that they have at least "thirty Communists on our payroll who  report information to us," and that "we know everything that goes on  in this field."

 Mr, Marks told all the above information as if there was nothing  "wrong" with what he was saying. He even invited me and this other  unnamed fellow to go to a meeting the following Tuesday night at the  University Club, sponsored by Norman Lombard.

 When they finally found out who I was, however, I was told by Norman  Lombard and Norman Marks not to come to the meeting. I sure hope that  the true patriotic American nationalists will be able to straighten  out a few of these "pseudo-patriots" who are trying to lead the  so-called "anti-communist" movement.

 Don't misunderstand me: I'm just as anti-Communist as any of you, but  I don't want our country to be led head-long into traps which enable  these pseudo-patriots to "use" the fine instincts of the American  people and the anti-Communist movement for their own diabolical ends.  In other words, some of these pseudo-patriots are "anti-Communist,"  meaning "anti-Stalin communism," but are pro- as hell another form of  Communism (American brand) leading to dictatorship by them in our own  country and the rest of the world under Bernard Baruch and the crowd  he represents.

 [The "American brand" of communism to which Hooker referred, although  he didn't say it directly, was precisely the Trotskyite brand, then in  its evolution, that has come today to be known as "neo-conservatism."  --Ed.]

 (Signed) DeWest Hooker

---Makow comment: Reading this, it's hard to imagine that the same forces didn't put Hitler into power. Or that The John Birch Society and some unnamed anti-NWO websites are truly independent.

After World War Two ended, the Illuminati needed to create the bogus Cold War to justify the arms race and the national security state (just as the "war on terror" replaces the Cold War today.) The problem was that Communism could be traced back to the Illuminati Jewish bankers. Most Communist spies were Jewish and Soviet Communism was Illuminati Jewish. They used McCarthy to fuel Cold War hysteria while de-emphasizing the role Jews play as agent/dupes for the Illuminati  bankers. Apparently McCarthy outlived his usefulness and they murdered him at Bethesda Naval Medical Center after disgracing him earlier.   

This article impugns most Jews but I can assure my readers that I am still waiting for my offer. (You'll know I've accepted it when I get mainstream media coverage. That's the tell.)  It's pathetic that anti-Communist/ anti-NWO forces need to be organized and subsidized by the enemy. It proves my contention that grass roots or populist resistance is negligible and nothing gets done politically unless someone pays for it. And you know who can afford that.

---Thanks to Tony Blizzard for sending me this excerpt.

Kevin MacDonald reviews a book on McCarthy & the Jews  [BELOW]-----------------------------------------------

Joe McCarthy and the Jews: Comments on Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, by Aviva Weingarten (2008).

Kevin MacDonald

July 12, 2009

Beginning in the 19th century, liberal/leftist politics has been a hallmark of the Jewish community in America and elsewhere. The attraction of Jews to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution was an entirely mainstream movement among large numbers of Jews in America and led to one of several anti-Jewish stereotypes during the 1920s and 1930s — stereotypes that were aided and abetted by people like Henry Ford and Father Charles Coughlin. Into the 1930s the American Communist Party (CPUSA) had a Yiddish-speaking Jewish section. and Jews around the world had positive attitudes toward the USSR, at least partly because Jews had achieved elite status there.

After World War II, however, anti-Semitism declined precipitously in the US, and Jewish organizations were poised to spearhead the transformations in civil rights and immigration legislation that would come to fruition in the 1960s. By 1950 the Jewish community was part of the establishment — well connected to the power centers in the media, politics, the academic world and the construction of culture generally.

But there was a major problem that the organized Jewish community was forced to confront—a problem stemming from the long involvement of the mainstream Jewish community in communism and the far left, at least until the end of World War II, and among a substantial number of Jews even after this period. In Jewish Organizations' Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, Aviva Weingarten points to a “hard core of Jews” (p. 6) who continued to support the Communist Party into the 1950s and continued to have a “decisive role" in shaping the policies of the American Communist Party (CPUSA) (p. 9).

Weingarten notes that unlike other communists, Jewish communists continued to have an ethnic  identity (p. 10) and often participated in the wider Jewish community. This is a refreshing change from a long history of Jewish apologetics over this issue. The standard line, not only among Jewish activist organizations but by academic authors such as Yuri Slezkine, has been that Jews ceased being Jews when they joined the Communist Party or participated in other far left causes. As a result, the focus of Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique is to demonstrate that Jewish radicals retained a strong Jewish identity and a sense of pursuing specifically Jewish interests. Most egregiously, the American Jewish Congress — by far the largest Jewish organization in terms of membership — continued to be associated with the far left and was formally affiliated with organizations listed as subversive by the US Attorney General. The CPUSA viewed members of the AJCongress as “democratic forces”  in their attempt to create “democratic and anti-fascist” policies in the World Jewish Congress (p. 25).

This history of Jewish involvement in communism and sympathy toward communism was now combined with the new situation of the Cold War in which the Soviet Union had become the mortal enemy of the United States.

I suppose that in the ideal Jewish world of 1950, Jewish organizations and the great majority of Jews would have smoothly transitioned to a world of what became mainstream liberal politics: the movements for civil rights, for non-European immigration, and for removing any sense that the United States had a European, Christian identity. But, as Weingarten’s book makes clear, Senator Joseph McCarthy made this transition a delicate matter because McCarthy’s investigations into communist infiltration of the government often targeted Jews — not because they were Jews but because Jews were highly overrepresented among communists. And Jewish defendants accused of communist  affiliations were typically represented by Jewish attorneys (p. 30). The result was that Jewish organizations were terrified that the public would be reinforced with the stereotype of Jewish communism.

Such fears were well-founded. A survey by the American Jewish Committee in 1948 found that 21% answered affirmatively the question “Do you think most Jews are Communists?” And an informal survey showed that more than half the people mentioned Jews in responding to the question “What do you think of the atom [spy] stories in the newspapers?,” even though the question didn’t mention Jews (p. 34).

The matter was compounded by the fact that many of the causes championed by the Jewish organizations in the area of civil rights, immigration, and globalist internationalism were also championed by the CPUSA. And throughout the period, the CPUSA viewed Jews as a group that was particularly susceptible to communist messages and recruitment and therefore actively courted them.

In particular, the CPUSA and pro-communist sympathizers continually tried to paint as anti-Semitism any targeting of Jews as communists, no matter how well founded. A paradigmatic case was the spy trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. The CPUSA-inspired National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Trial held meetings defending the Rosenbergs in Jewish community buildings. “Headlines in the Daily Worker in the form of ‘Anti-Semitism and the Rosenbergs’ were an inseparable part of this campaign” (p. 32) — a view that the Rosenbergs themselves promoted. Indeed, as Stuart Svonkin points out, the Rosenbergs saw themselves as Jewish martyrs and viewed their political radicalism as intimately bound up with their Jewish identification.

The strategy pursued by the organized Jewish community under these circumstances had several facets:

·    Education within the Jewish community aimed at decreasing sympathy for communism. The main organizations here were the ADL and the AJCommittee, with the AJCongress conspicuous by its absence due to its far-left proclivities. A main tactic was to point out the anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union after World War II — a tactic that assumed (correctly) that Jewish communists had a Jewish identity and would be motivated by it. The ADL and the AJCommittee also fought against Jews who cooperated with high-profile communist campaigns, such as the defense of the Rosenbergs. In 1954 the ADL advocated continuing old programs begun in 1950 and established new programs, indicating that they saw a continuing need for anti-communist work within the Jewish community. For example, there was great embarrassment in 1953 when a person who invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned by HUAC turned out to be a member of the Council for Jewish Community Centers in Cleveland.

·    Public condemnations of communism by Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders, such as Senator Herbert Lehman (D, NY). However, the established Jewish organizations rejected the American Jewish League Against Communism, a Jewish organization that supported McCarthy and took a strong stand in favor of ridding the Jewish community of communism. They were worried that the AJLAC would bring too much attention to the Jews-as-communists concerns of the mainstream Jewish organizations.

·    Intellectual work rationalizing the political goals of Jewish organizations in the areas of civil rights and immigration as fulfilling American ideals rather than communist ideals. Here Weingarten credits the “mostly Jewish” New York Intellectuals as developing a left/liberal ant-communist perspective that left an “indelible mark” on American intellectual life. (In The Culture of Critique, the New York Intellectuals are discussed as a Jewish intellectual movement.) Weingarten highlights the role of Commentary (published by the AJCommittee) as publicizing anti-Semitism in the USSR and Eastern European countries. Commentary also published articles on the incompatibility of Judaism and communism. Throughout the entire period the organized Jewish community continued to engage in propaganda campaigns designed to re-educate the American public along liberal lines. Both the ADL and the AJCommittee supported academic research by the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals designed to promote civil rights, end the European bias of US immigration laws, and promote the idea of the United States as a proposition nation with no ethnic or cultural core.

      It bears emphasizing that although all of these intellectuals began their careers as Marxists and continued to promote anti-White policies in areas such as immigration reform, they framed their ideas in language that was more acceptable to an American audience and often appealed to American ideals of democracy and freedom. For example,  Sidney Hook, a leader among the New York Intellectuals, argued that democracy required multiculturalism. An influential paradigm of this approach is The Authoritarian Personality, a product of the Frankfurt School that was funded by the AJCommittee — and the subject of Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.

·    Strong opposition to McCarthy himself.

But why exactly were these Jewish organizations and the vast majority of individual Jews so opposed to McCarthy? One might think that the Jewish organizations could simply cooperate with McCarthy to rid the Jewish community of hard-core communists. One reason was that the atmosphere created by McCarthy was not conducive to the liberal/left political agenda that the Jewish organizations were actively pursuing in the areas of civil rights and immigration policy. The  McCarthy era produced an upsurge of patriotism in the US at a time when patriotism had strong overtones of supporting the traditional people and culture of America. Everything linked to communism came under suspicion. And since the CPUSA supported the domestic political agenda of Jewish organizations — an agenda entirely at odds with traditional conceptions of America, the Jewish organizations had an obvious motive to end McCarthyism as soon as possible.

Moreover, McCarthy fanned the passions of anti-communism and, because of the strong association of Jews and communism, these passions often had anti-Jewish overtones. A well-known example was the so-called Peekskill riots of 1949 in which demonstrators yelled out anti-communist and anti-Jewish epithets at people attending a scheduled performance by Black baritone and political radical Paul Robeson. Most of the concertgoers were Jewish radicals from New York City.

Jews were also vastly overrepresented in high-profile cases among those invoking the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, so that public hearings like McCarthy's inevitably highlighted the Jewish role in communism. For example, in 1952, of 124 people questioned by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Weingarten identifies 79 Jews, 32 non-Jews and 13 with unknown ethnicity. All invoked the Fifth.

Even more remarkably, of the 42 people who were dismissed from their positions at the Fort Monmouth Laboratories in New Jersey on suspicion of constituting a spy ring (the same one that Julius Rosenberg belonged to), 39 were Jews and one other was married to a Jewish woman. M. Stanton Evans has an excellent chapter on the Monmouth case in his Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies — by far the best and most exhaustive survey of McCarthy's battles. Evans shows how many of the Fort Monmouth accused invoked the 5th Amendment under questioning by McCarthy and he exposes the incredibly lax security procedures at the facility. For example, one employee "signed out at one  time or another for more than 2700 documents (not a typo)" (p. 510). Two-thirds were still missing after an investigation, but when the employee was brought up on security charges, all of this was omitted from the record on orders from above.

Evans also quotes the post-McCarthy testimony of a Soviet scientist that "in the 1940s secret U.S. material involving radar had turned up in Russia in vast amounts, and that literally 'thousands' of these had been identified on their face as having come from Monmouth" (p. 510). Other evidence indicated that the Monmouth spying continued into the 1950s at the  time of McCarthy's hearings. In the end, the Fort Monmouth battle proved pivotal for McCarthy, "provoking a showdown of epic nature between McCarthy and the executive branch" (p. 513).

I also suspect there was a visceral gut solidarity with the Jewish left which made it very difficult to simply cooperate with McCarthy. Again, the AJCongress was the by far largest Jewish organization during this period and its membership was sympathetic to the left even when not explicitly pro-communist. Particularly salient was the 50,000-member Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order, an affiliate of the AJCongress listed as a subversive organization by the U. S. Attorney General. The JPFO was the financial and organizational “bulwark” of the CPUSA after World War II and also funded the Daily Worker and the Morning Freiheit. Although the AJCongress severed its ties with the JPFO and stated that communism was a threat, according to Stuart Svonkin, it was “at best a reluctant and unenthusiastic participant” in the Jewish effort to develop a public image of anti-communism—a position reflecting the sympathies of many among its predominantly second- and third-generation Eastern European immigrant membership. 

The organized Jewish community consistently opposed measures intended to make it more difficult for communists to operate within the American system even as it officially opposed communism. For example, Jewish organizations objected to any infringements of civil liberties or academic freedom enacted to firm up national security. Weingarten attributes this stand to a principled Jewish respect for human rights (e.g., p. 66), particularly on the part of the AJCongress, the Jewish organization most closely identified with the far left.

But it can be easily seen that Jews and Jewish organizations have not consistently been on the side of civil liberties and academic freedom. During the 1920s and 1930s mainstream Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals rationalized Soviet despotism and turned a blind eye to Soviet mass murder during a period when Jews were an elite within the Soviet Union. And in the present era, Jewish organizations, most notably the ADL, have been prime advocates of “hate crime” legislation aimed at penalizing beliefs and ideas. Jewish organizations have also attacked the academic freedom of professors who have been critical of Israel. The ADL has also been critical of my writing and, along with the $PLC, engaged in public denunciations of my writing and associations at the university where I work. In general, perceived interests are a much better predictor of Jewish behavior than principles.  

Finally, another reason the organized Jewish community opposed McCarthy was that even though Joe McCarthy surrounded himself with Jews and did his best to ingratiate himself with the Jewish community, some of his supporters and associates were well known to be anti-Jewish. Most of these people are little known now, with the exception of Gerald L. K. Smith. Weingarten interprets these associations as McCarthy using these people for his own ends, not as indicating that McCarthy was anti-Jewish.

Indeed, some of McCarthy’s closest associates were Jews, including Roy Cohn, chief counsel of McCarthy’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Cohn’s protégé David Schine. Cohn is portrayed as a strongly identified Jew who felt that Jewish organizations did not do enough to support Jews who were in the front lines opposing communism. Cohn was remembered by college friends as “reacting almost violently to any Jew suspected of pro-communist leanings” (p. 92); a TV producer claimed that Cohn had said that “although not all Jews are Communists, but all Communists are Jews” (p. 92).

Another Jew close to McCarthy was George Sokolsky who was a journalist for the Hearst newspapers and was associated with the “China Lobby,” a group devoted to Chiang Kai-Shek and a non-communist China. Sokolsky was the Hearst newspapers’ liaison with McCarthy and set up McCarthy’s relationship with Cohn. Sokolsky also set up a meeting of McCarthy with the ADL. There are varying accounts of this meeting, but nothing positive came of it. One observer claimed that a drunken McCarthy stated “you just write what my credo ought to be and I’ll sign it” (p. 108), but the offer was turned down by the ADL representatives.

Alfred Kohlberg, a businessman associated with the China Lobby, was also a close friend of McCarthy. Sokolsky, Kohlberg and Cohn were all associated with the American Jewish League Against Communism.

As Weingarten notes, “the fact of their being Jews and anti-communists was made full use of by McCarthy, who wanted to expand his circle of support, while doing his best to free himself of any hint of anti-Semitism” (p. 100). McCarthy also attempted to get Cohn appointed to a position on the ADL executive council, presumably, as Weingarten suggests, in order to dampen the animosity of these organizations toward him. 

Indeed, McCarthy seems to have done everything he could to curry favor with Jews. Lucy Dawidowitz wrote that in the early 1950s “for anyone in public life [anti-Semitism] is the sign of Cain. So overwhelming is the disrepute of anti-Semitism that an unrestrained demagogue like McCarthy has studiously avoided the Communist provocation and has, as a matter of fact, tried to establish himself as a philo-Semite” (p. 128).

The fact that McCarthy attempted to gain Jewish allies and did his best not to offend the Jews shows quite clearly that Jews were very powerful in 1950s America. In retrospect, the campaign of the organized Jewish community and their allies in the media and the intellectual world was quite successful in containing the threat posed by McCarthy to the general public policy positions pursued by the organized Jewish community during this period: civil rights, non-white immigration, and the idea that America is a proposition nation with no ethnic or religious identity. All these campaigns were carried on in the teeth of McCarthyism and despite the fact that these same ideas were promulgated by communists.

In the long run, these public policy positions were far more important than the national security threat posed by pro-Soviet Jewish leftists. The general climate created by McCarthy delayed the triumph of these policies but could not ultimately hold them back. At least part of the problem was that McCarthy was not concerned with challenging the policy positions of the Jewish organizations related to civil rights, immigration, and the proposition nation, but focused exclusively on containing the internal security threat. The nexus among elites in politics, the intellectual world and the media was not threatened by McCarthy or his allies in the moribund conservative movement of the period, and indeed this elite ultimately caused his downfall.

This hostile elite — hostile to the traditional people and culture of America — is still in place. But unlike  McCarthy (and with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight), we now realize that the Jewish involvement in the transformations of recent decades must be discussed openly and honestly — even if mainstream conservatives are still terrified at the prospect.

Indeed, one might ask these conservatives, "What do you have to show for decades of not openly discussing Jewish influence?" The answer, quite clearly, is that by not discussing Jewish issues openly and honestly, mainstream conservatives are cooperating in the displacement of White America and are forfeiting any sense that conservatism ought to defend the traditional people and culture of America. As they say, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.  Email him.

---------------------------------