Why the doors of America slammed in the face of escaping Jews

After Lenin led the Communist party to victory in Russia in 1917, many stories of Bolshevik (Communist) atrocities came out of that country. Since Jews were disproportionately represented in the Communist movement, they were often blamed in the West. Paul Johnson, in his book “A History of the Jews” say that this had serious consequences:

“It was in the United States, however, that the Bolshevik takeover, and its association with radical Jews, had the most serious consequences…the Bolshevik scare effectively ended the policy of unrestricted immigration which had been the salvation of east European Jewry in the period 1881-1914, and which had enabled the great American Jewry to come into existence….The result (of the Bolshevization of Russia) was the ‘Red Scare’ of 1919-20, led by the Democratic Attorney-General, Mitchell Palmer, against what he called ‘foreign-born subversives and agitators’. …Much of the material circulated by Mitchell and his allies was anti-Semitic. One list showed that, of thirty-one top Soviet leaders, all but Lenin were Jews; another analyzed the members of the Petrograd Soviet, showing that only sixteen out of 388 were Russians, the rest being Jews, of whom 265 came from New York’s East Side. The result was the 1921 Quota Act, providing that the number of immigrants admitted in any one year was not to exceed 3 per cent of their existing ethnic stock in the US in 1910. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act cut the figure to 2 per cent and pushed the base-date back to 1890.”

One result of this was that Jews fleeing the Nazis did not find a safe harbor in the United States. The United States did not want Jewish refugees. “During the was period only 21,000 were admitted, 10 per cent of the number allowed under the quota law. The reason for this was public hostility. All the patriotic groups, from the American Legion to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, called for a total ban on immigration. There was more anti-Semitism during the war than at any time in American history.” and “In 1942, according to the polls, the Jews were seen as a bigger threat to American than any other group after Japanese and Germans.”
Interestingly, after American soldiers saw the results of the Holocaust themselves: “The GIs (soldiers) were furious when people back home refused to believe what they had seen or even look at their photos.”

The attraction to Marxism by a large number of secular Jews helped close the door to all Jews trying to escape extermination.

But we could ask, just what percentage of Jews were attracted to Marxism? I don’t know the answer to that one, but it was too large. We could also ask, did Marxist Jews make much of a difference in the US? I don’t know the answer to that either, but for example in the “Days of Rage” in Chicago, when Chicago reeled from rioting leftists that converged on that city, the Mayor, Richard Daley, lasted out at eastern liberals “Go home, you Jew bastards”. So at least in his perception, the leftists were disproportionately Jewish.
Now I’m Jewish, and not being a Marxist, I am of course dismayed by the role the Jews played in the success of that ideology. Obviously most Communists in the world are non-Jewish, for instance the huge population in mainland China, and the Marxists now controlling governments all over Latin America (Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Peru come to mind). But the point of this post is not to argue with that ideology, it is just to point out that the fatal attraction of too many Jews to it led to the doors of survival being shut in the faces of all Jews attempting to escape the “Final Solution.”

The Rise and Fall of the American Left – John Patrick Diggins
A History of the Jews – by Paul Johnson

The early left did not like Jews

At the current time when the more radical elements of the American left are turning against Israel, it is interesting to read that the early left did not like Jews. (The information below is taken from Paul Johnson’s 1987 book A History of the Jews.) He writes that at the time of Karl Marx, radical German writers discussed the idea that solving the ‘Jewish problem’ might provide a key to solving the problems of humanity. In 1843 Bruno Bauer, the anti-Semitic leader of the Hegelian left, published an essay demanding that the Jews abandon Judaism completely and transform their plea for equal rights into a general campaign for human liberation both from religion and from state tyranny.

Karl Marx replied to Bauer’s work in two essays called “On the Jewish Question”. He quoted with approval Bauer’s maliciously exaggerated assertion that ‘the Jew determines the fate of the whole [Austrian] empire by his money power… [and] decides the destiny of Europe.”
However Marx disagreed with the idea that removing the religion would solve the problem. The worldly god of the Jew, he said, was money. He added:

“Money abases all the gods of mankind and changes them into commodities. Money is the self-sufficient value of all things. It has, therefore, deprived the whole world, both the human world and nature, of their own proper value. Money is the alienated essence of man’s work and existence: this essence dominates him and he worships it. The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of this world.

The Jews, Marx continued, were turning Christians into replicas of themselves, so that the once staunchly Christian New Englanders, for example, were now the slaves of Mammon. Using his money power, the Jew had emancipated himself and had gone on to enslave Christianity. The Jew-corrupted Christian ‘is convinced he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbours’ and ‘the world is a stock exchange’.

Marx’s solution, therefore, is not like Bauer’s religious, but economic. To ‘make the Jew impossible’ it was necessary to abolish the ‘preconditions’ of the kind of money activities for which he was notorious. Marx advocated the abolition of private property and the personal pursuit of money. This would transform not only the Jewish relation to society but all human relations and the human personality itself. Later in the century August Bebel, the German Social Democrat, coined a phrase that Lenin picked up “Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools.” Behind this epigram was this argument: we all know that Jewish money-men, who never soil their hands with toil, exploit the poor workers and peasants. But only a fool blames the Jews alone. The mature man, the socialist, has grasped the point that the Jews are only symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. The disease is the religion of money, and its modern form is capitalism. Workers and peasants are exploited not just by the Jews but by the entire bourgeois-capitalist class-and it is the class as a whole, not just its Jewish element, which must be destroyed.

So if I understand the above, the early left was against Jews, not because of Israel and the Palestinians (Israel was under Turkish rule at this point), but because Jews were seen as taking away from the really important things in life, and substituting the pursuit of money. Personally this seems ridiculous. Money in itself is just paper, or metal coins or Bitcoin. It is valued for what it can buy, which not only includes the necessities of life, but vacation trips around the world, or scientific efforts to reveal the mysteries of the universe. By itself, it is just an improvement on barter. Its true many people would rather stay home and do other things than work for a living, but that is just as true under Communist societies. Some people in Capitalist societies are overly materialistic, some people are greedy, but many are neither.

The first Antifa was in Weimar Germany (and helped Nazis)

The violent leftist group “Antifa” is in the headlines for its attacks in the U.S., especially Portland Oregon, but it did not start in the U.S. According to Andy Ngo’s book “Unmasked”, the origins go back to Weimar Germany.

Nearly every political group or party had a paramilitary: the communists, the centrists and of course, the fascists.
While the [Nazi] Brownshirts are well remembered in contemporary Western society, the history of far-left paramilitaries in the German interwar years has faded to memory. Like the Nazis, the Communist Party of Germany had its own paramilitaries. The party was Stalinist in orientation and was closely aligned with the Soviet Union. …[the Communist] paramilitary: the Red Front Fighter’s League adopted the clenched fist as its symbol. Leftist groups today from Black Lives Matter to antifa have adopted that communist symbol.
Throughout the 1920s, the Red Front Fighters’ League was extremely violent, engaging in clashes with the paramilitaries of liberal parties. Come again? You read that right: the communist paramilitary was mostly preoccupied with fighting liberals and socialists rather than the Nazi paramilitary. Under the leadership of Ernst Thalmann, the German Communist Party and its various offshoots viewed social democrats and liberals as “social fascists” no different from Nazis. In fact, Communist International, the Vladimir Lenin-founded group that promoted communism around the world, believed that social democracy would inevitably lead to fascism.
Scholars estimate the communist Red Front Fighters’ League had upward of 130,000 members before it was banned in 1929 following days of deadly rioting. Despite claiming to be Germany’s “only anti-fascist party,” the German Communist Party sometimes worked with the Nazis to undermine the governing Social Democrats…

In May 1932, the German Communist Party announced the formation of the Antifaschistische Aktion (Antifascist Action, commonly referred to as “Antifa”), a new paramilitary communist group. This is the original “Antifa” and the group that contemporary antifa around the world take inspiration from.

Andy goes into the European origins a lot more. To me one lesson may be that the tendency of Antifa in the U.S. to make any conservative into an enemy has origins in interwar Germany.

Wishful thinking about Russia among conservatives

In his first interview after the 2020 presidential election, former President Trump said that “getting along with Vladimir Putin (of Russia) is a good thing, and I get along with him very well.”   Trump also said, however, that nobody was tougher on Russia than he was.   And in John Bolton’s book “The Room Where it Happened”, Bolton says that Trump did tell him that both Russia and China were a threat.

It would seem that the U.S. has shared interests with Russia.   Russia is a mostly Christian country that is geographically close to countries with extremist Muslim movements (like Afghanistan) and to countries with extremist Muslim governments (like Iran and Turkey).    Russia’s wide-open spaces borders a crowded and powerful China.     And some conservatives such as Pat Buchanan believe that Russia is morally superior to the hedonistic West.  

One big reason to be on the good side of Putin is, as Putin accurately pointed out at a banquet, that Russia was the only country that could “destroy America in half an hour or less.”

Putin has been described as rightly embittered by the expansion of NATO to former Soviet Bloc countries.   Donald Trump said in 2014 that  “We’ve hurt Russia and we’ve done certain things that have really hurt Russia…”  He added that Putin is “wounded” and that “wounded people and wounded animals can do lots of strange things and we’d better be a little bit careful.”

Whether the reasons for Russian behavior are understandable or not, its’ government has made the decision to be an adversary to the Western democracies.

Apart from the Russian troop buildup to Ukraine, on March 24 Daily Street News reported that “Tanks and other heavy armor” are “on-the-move in Grodno, Belarus, [heading] toward the borders of Poland and Lithuania.” Grodno is at the western-most road-hub leading to the Sawalki gap, considered to be “the most vulnerable stretch of land in Europe.” It is the ideal staging area for a Russian/Belarussian invasion of Poland and Lithuania. As reported by Time Magazine, “If Moscow gained control of the [Sawalki] corridor the Baltic States would, catastrophically, be cut off from other NATO allies.

It would seem that Russia would be cautious about China, but Russia and China  are allies, and as an example, they agreed last January, to develop a joint Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. 

It would also seem that the Russians would be cautious about extremist Muslim nations, but Russia supplies the very anti-American Muslim nation of Iran with arms.   In addition, American General John Nicholson, while he was head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan said this: “We’ve had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by Afghan leaders [who] said, this was given by the Russians to the Taliban.  We know that the Russians are involved.”

A country where Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran are all involved lies 1000 miles away from the U.S.   That country is Venezuela.  Nicolas Maduro’s Marxist dictatorship that leads that country got help in a rough spot from Russia.  When it looked as if an uprising against Maduro’s regime in Venezuela might succeed, Russian paramilitaries arrived to protect Maduro.”

 According to Bolton’s book “The Room Where It Happened”, “Moscow’s menace was undeniable, both military and financial, having expended substantial resources to buttress Maduro.”

Venezuela hands out passports to Iranians (and has Hezbollah (an Iranian supported Muslim terror Group) within its borders.   An agreement between Venezuela and Iran was signed during a visit of former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October 19, 2010. The contract provided for the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela.. 

Maduro has defied Western pressure with the assistance of Cuban security forces, as well as Russian and Chinese support. Russia startled U.S. officials in December 2018 by sending to Venezuela for military exercises two bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons.   It also dispatched about 100 members of the military to repair Maduro’s S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system after a nationwide power outage.

Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, boasted that his air force could sink the U.S. Fourth Fleet in the Caribbean because it had received 24 Russian Sukhoi Su-30MK2 combat aircraft.

So, to sum up, Russia works with America’s enemies, and concessions to it are of dubious value.   Trump, according to Bolton’s book, did privately float the thought of getting out of NATO entirely, and Biden in practice has been worse than Trump, signing an extension to the New Start nuclear weapons treaty without conditions that the Republicans had been pressing for.    Wishful thinking – that Russia has been pressed to the wall and is acting reasonably given the circumstances, is dangerous. During the cold war with the Soviet Union, which was then Communist, Americans had apologists for it as well – and our president called Stalin, who turned out to be a mass murderer, “Uncle Joe”. Winston Churchill, who was prime minister of England during World War II, said of Russia in 1939 “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” Russia saw its national interest differently than we would have – it signed a treaty with Nazi Germany, and they both carved up Poland, among other developments.

Russia still acts like an enemy.

How a spontaneous uprising against Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuelan dictatorship failed – from John Bolton’s book

During the Trump administration there was an uprising in Venezuela that failed. The U.S. tried to help and the story is in John Bolton’s book “The Room Where It Happened”.

“Nicolas Maduro’s autocratic regime was a threat due to its Cuba connection and the openings it afforded Russia, China, and Iran. …Moscow [had] expended substantial resources to buttress Maduro, dominate Venezuela’s oil and gas industry and impose costs on the US. Beijing was not far behind.”

Trump was considering a military option against Venezuela, but Bolton dissented: “I explained why military force was not the answer, especially given the inevitable congressional opposition.”

Bolton, who laments Trump’s propensity to change his mind often, also writes: “…Of course, Trump also periodically said that he wanted to meet with Maduro to resolve all our problems with Venezuela, which neither Pompeo nor I thought was a good idea. “

The Venezuelan liberation movement that the U.S. tried to help started when:

“The new young president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido, announced at a huge rally in Caracas that the Assembly believed Maduro’s manifestly fraudulent 2018 reelection was illegitimate, and therefore invalid.”

Its interesting now to note that Trump claims the U.S. election that defeated him (Trump) was fraudulent and therefore invalid, and John Bolton disagreed with Trump on that accusation. In response to that and other criticism by Bolton, Trump said his former national security adviser (Bolton) was a “dope,” and that Bolton’s advice always boiled down to “Gee, let’s go to war.”

At least in the case of Venezuela, this was not true, Bolton was against going to war.

The Russians themselves were not averse to using force for their interests, and Russian paramilitaries reportedly were arriving to protect Maduro.

To give you an idea of what Maduro’s regime was (and is) like: “Maduro’s secret police broke into Guaido’s home and threatened his wife and young daughter.”

But there were intermediate steps the U.S. could have taken and did not:

Bolton writes:

“Consistent with his public threats of a “full and complete embargo” on Cuba because of the oil shipments between Venezeula and Cuba, Trump also repeatedly asked the Defense Department for concrete options on how to stop such shipments, including interdiction.
Although military force inside Venezuela was a nonstarter, using force to slice Cuba’s oil lifeline could have been dramatic. The Pentagon did nothing.”

“In the meantime in late March, Russia sent in new troops and equipment, labelling one shipment as humanitarian, and trying to obfuscate what its presence amounted to. There were strong indications more were coming…”

“An unnecessary negative development, says Bolton, was Trump’s decision to call Putin…Putin said our support for Guaido had consolidated support for Maduro. ..” Bolton notes that he thought Putin largely persuaded Trump.

In one chapter Bolton tells the story of the uprising, the rallies of freedom lovers in Venezuela, the defectors from the regime, but in the end, it all failed. Why?

At the end of the chapter, Bolton gives his reasons:

“At the end of that last day in April 2019, two decades off mutual mistrust, cowardice on the part of several regime leaders who had committed to act but who lost their nerve at the critical moment; some tactical mistakes by the inexperienced Opposition; the absence of any US advisors on the ground who might and I underline “might,” have helped make a difference; and the cold cynical pressure of the Cubans and the Russians, brought the attempted uprising to a halt the day it started…
But make no mistake: this rebellion came very close to succeeding. “

On reading this chapter, I’m not convinced by Bolton. “Close to succeeding” is still not succeeding. Maybe if there had been American military presence more people would have taken the risk to defect. If you were a military person in Venezuela, you had to do a cost-benefit analysis. You saw the Cubans, the Russians, and the Iranians in your country, you assumed that Maduro’s military was mostly loyal to him, and you would take a big risk in opposing Maduro. American (or other forces) were nowhere to be seen. So I’m not surprised the uprising failed. Bolton says that one day Venezuela will be free. But if we look at Cuba’s own regime, it outlasted all the presidents from John Kennedy to now, and it shows no sign of going away. Venezuela, in my view, may stay a dictatorship for a very long time.

What it was like to work with Trump on National Security

In his book “The Room Where It Happened”, John Bolton describes his period as National Security Advisor in the Trump Administration. Bolton and others were disturbed that Trump would change his mind about various issues, and advisors were constantly worried he do something dramatic (and wrong, in their view). For instance Trump asked Bolton why not withdraw entirely from NATO. I’ll concentrate in this post on the chapter “Trump Heads for the Door in Syria and Afghanistan and Can’t Find it.” Here are some quotes from the book

War by radical Islamist terrorists against the United States began long before 9/11 (bloggers note, 9/11/2001 was when Islamic terrorists flew airplanes into American skyscrapers) and will continue long after. You can like it or not, but it is reality. Donald Trump didn’t like it, and acted like it wasn’t true.

“Ironically, although the media painted Trump as viscerally anti-Muslim, he never grasped…that Erdogan (the leader of Turkey) was himself a radical Islamicist…(who) was busy transforming Turkey from Kemal Ataturk’s secular state into an Islamicist state.”

Turkey had a long war with Kurdish groups, the PKK being one of the groups. The U.S. considered the PKK to be terrorists, but the Kurds had helped the U.S. fight ISIS. The U.S. felt that abandoning the Kurds would have severely adverse consequences for any future effort to recruit allies who might later be seen as expendable.

Trump wanted “to get the hell out” of Northeast Syria, where the American presence helped deter the Turks from invading and attacking the Kurds.

Trump told Erdogan that if Turkey fought ISIS, (which was present in Syria) the U.S. would just get out. Bolton did not like this, he felt that “withdrawing from Syria was a huge mistake, because of both the continuing global threat of ISIS, and the fact that Iran’s substantial influence would undoubtably grow.”

The French President, Macron, did not like it either. He told Trump that Turkey was focussed on attacking the Kurds and would compromise with ISIS. Israel’s ambassador Ron Dermer told Bolton that Trump’s decision to pull out made his (Dermer’s) day the worst day he had experienced thus far in the Trump administration.

Bolton had left the Trump administration for a month when in October 6, 2019, Trump again ordered a withdrawal. Bolton writes that “The result of Trump’s decision was a complete debacle for US policy and for our credibility worldwide.”

According to https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sad-history-all-times-west-abandon-kurds-87911″

The presence of the U.S. special forces amongst Kurdish YPG fighters had formerly served as an effective barrier against Turkish attack. Their abrupt withdrawal, following a phone conversation between Trump and Turkish President Erdogan, gave Ankara an unambiguous green light to initiate military operations against the Kurdish forces which could not be walked back by subsequent conflicting statements from the White House.
Less than 24 hours later, Turkish jets began pounding Kurdish positions, followed by a Turkish artillery and ground attacks.
Later, the United States joined Russia in vetoing a statement supported by the rest of the Security Council condemning Turkish operations against the Syrian Kurds.

For the consequences of the pullout see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria#Reports_by_the_Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights.

Switching to another war, the war in Afghanistan, Trump believed he had given Secretary of Defense James Mattis all the leeway he requested to finish the Taliban. The Taliban, however, were winning. Trump had campaigned on ending “endless wars” in faraway places. Bolton’s argument was that

“we hadn’t started the wars and couldn’t end them just by our own say-so. Across the Islamic world, the radical philosophies that had caused so much death and destruction were ideological, political and well as religious. Just as religious fervor had driven human conflicts for millennia, so it was driving this one, against America and the West more broadly. It wasn’t going away because we were tired of it, or because we found it inconvenient to balancing our budget.”

Bolton adds that he is not a “nation builder”, and the point wasn’t to make Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria nicer places to live. It was about keeping America safe from another 9/11, or even worse, a 9/11 where the terorists had nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Bolton also worried that if the Taliban took power in Afghanistan again, they would destabilize their Muslim neighbor, Pakistan. Pakistan had nuclear weapons, so having it fall to terrorists would be a specially bad scenario.

Trump said in a meeting with Bolton and others:

“We’ll never get out. This was done by a stupid person named George Bush. Millions of people killed, trillions of dollars, and we just can’t do it. Another six months, that’s what they said before, and we’re still getting our asses kicked.” Then he launched into a favorite story, about how we helicoptered schoolteachers every day to their school because it was too dangerous for them to go on their own” “Cost a fortune. The IG was right,” he said….(he added:) They hate us and they shoot us in the back, blew the back of the guy’s head off, arms and legs and things (referring to a recent “green-on-blue” attack where a Utah National Guardsman was killed.) [green on blue means an Afghan soldier or policeman who is supposedly on our side turns his gun suddenly on our soldiers].

My own impression of the book is that Trump wanted to keep his promises to his base, and did not understand why “endless wars” were justified, especially wars we were losing. On the other hand, I understand Bolton’s views as well. Personally, for what its worth, I feel the U.S. is a weak power – dramatically in debt, and currently with the left in power. I do not think we have the money to fight wars, and constraints such as the need to fight door to door (this happened in Fallujah Iraq, for instance) because we don’t want to bomb civilians does mean that we lose a lot of soldiers. In the case of Afghanistan, our supplies had to travel through either Pakistan (not quite a friend), or a former territory of the Soviet Union (I’m not up to date on what the status of our presence in that second territory is now). Elements of the Pakistan military help the Taliban, and Afghanistan also borders another enemy of the U.S., Iran. It just seems like a very bad setting to put our soldiers in.

Nonetheless, we should remember that when the Taliban were the rulers of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden plotted the 9/11 attacks from their territory, and Al Qaeda, the group that attacked on 9/11, had training camps there. We were minding our own business, when planes full of Americans were flown into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Its a big dilemma, and when we leave, those who allied with us will face death.

Trump, at least in this chapter, does not strike me as the caricature his opponents believed in (as a fascist), here in the United States. Bolton is not a fan of Trump, but that still doesn’t change my impression.

Lessons from the political left when it gets power

To learn about the leftist movement in the U.S. it helps to focus on what they do when they are in power. That is what “Radical in Chief” does as it examines the rise of Barack Obama to the presidency. I’ve put prior posts based on the book in this blog, and I’ll conclude with some miscellaneous lessons about the left.

  1. Obama was involved with ACORN, an organization that was notorious for fraudulent voter registrations. Given the current controversy (did voter fraud cost Donald Trump the presidency), and a professor who I’ve argued with who denied that voter fraud is a problem, this is worth knowing. Voter fraud is a breaking of the rules that allow for peaceful change of power, because people on the losing side decide that they have no peaceful way of ever regaining power.
  2. The left can use the latest slang, and be in tune with the latest trends, but their goals are not any more progressive than those of Karl Marx in the 19th century. Here is a flyer the Weathermen put out: “Cats are being fucked over everywhere. Like, what is there to do? You can go to school, but we know their schools are just jails. They’ve even got pigs there to make sure we don’t make any “trouble” for the jail wardens…It doesn’t make any difference where you work, cause it’s all jive shit…SDS is recruiting an army right now, man, a people’s army, under black leadership, that’s gonna fight against the pigs and win!!!”
  3. Another interesting point is that Organizers following the ideas of Saul Alinsky use polarization as a tactic. Organizers search for “enemies” – businessmen and political leaders who can either offer the group something valuable or serve as “targets” for anger. Targets are sometimes baited to strike back, thus further enraging the group. So whether a bank gives in and offers mortgages on easy terms or refuses to lower its lending standards, the community organization wins. Either the loans go through, or the group gets mad — and membership grows. Best of all, targeting encourages the public to view the business community — and ultimately capitalism itself – as the enemy. So the cause the left seems to be for may be secondary to radicalizing the people they recruit.
  4. When Obama was in power, he included a massive 1.4 billion dollars in this 2011 budget to create a massive force of government funded community organizers (Americorps). Congressional Democrats turned back Republican efforts to prohibit the flow of taxpayer dollars to groups “engaged in political or legislative advocacy”. So left wing press groups got massive funding. Again, this is a breaking of the rules. Government is not supposed to help citizens further a political agenda.

In the year 2021, again the left is in power. In the past, there has been both deception as to the goal of particular policies, and a breaking of the rules of Democracy, and there is no reason to think that this isn’t going on right now.

The strange philosophers of black radicalism:

Jeremiah Wright was the preacher in the Church that future U.S. president Barack Obama attended in Chicago. Wright is famous for saying “God Damn America” and that the Muslim attacks on 9/11/2001 that brought down the twin towers were “America’s chickens coming home to roost.” But behind these statements is a socialist outlook. Wright was (and is) a radical, and its worth understanding how he saw the world. Like Obama’s other friend, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah blamed black poverty on the government. He also blamed black imprisonment on the government, and implicitly on America’s entire economic and political system.
Wright insisted that his faith be placed within the context of “black liberation theology”. This theology was created in the sixties by James Cone, a professor of theology. In Cone’s book “Black Theology and Black Power”, Cone says that the black intellectual’s goal is to “aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.” To achieve that destruction, making whites feel guilt is important so that white men will “tremble, curse and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil.”
To Cone, those who looted during the urban riots of the late 1960s were affirming their “being”.
Long before it became a cliché, Cone came up with the concept of institutional racism – “racism is so/embedded in the heart of American society that few, if any, whites can free themselves from it.” Cone thought that racism could not be eliminated as long as capitalism remains intact. Jeremiah Wright and James Cone visited Cuba in 1984 – it was on this trip that Jesse Jackson, another black radical, courted controversy by chanting “Long Live President Castro! Long live Martin Luther King! Long live Che Guevara!”

Jesse Jackson, black American radical – and Fidel Castro of Cuba

Wright cited the opposition of Martin Luther King to the Vietnam war and said “When one goes against the war, one tampers with the financial institutions and the financial system that was put in place by the Founding Fathers of this country to keep the rich, rich!”
One colleague of Wright’s, Ira Carruthers, believed that the skin-pigment melanin made black culture better than white culture. “If you object that such theories are pseudo-scientific, Carruthers replies that Western science itself is a method of oppressive control.”
Its interesting that Thomas Sowell, a black conservative, started as a Marxist. Exploring Manhattan, he saw disparities in wealth. “Nothing in the schools or most of the books seemed to deal with that. Marx dealt with that,” says Sowell. But various sobering experiences eventually intruded and Sowell became a champion of the free market.
Says Sowell: “We (Sowell’s family) were much poorer than the people in Harlem and most anywhere else today, but in the sense of things you need to get ahead, I was enormously more fortunate than most Black kids today.”
That’s because he discovered the public library. “When you start getting in the habit of reading when you’re 8 years old, it’s a different ballgame!”
Jeremiah Wright, on the other hand, graduated from Central High School of Philadelphia in 1959, among the best schools in the area at the time. At the time, the school was around 90 percent white. The 211th class yearbook described Wright as a respected member of the class. “Always ready with a kind word, Jerry is one of the most congenial members of the 211,” the yearbook said. “His record in Central is a model for lower class [younger] members to emulate. Wright joined the Marines, and then the Navy. It seems as if his worldview moved left, while Sowell’s moved right.

I think if you want to understand black radicalism, you have to understand the attraction of Socialism. Black radicals are not just people who experienced racism, or who believe that the whites keep blacks down. They also have a socialist worldview. Which is ironic, because Marxist countries have used slave labor, have a complete intolerance for free speech and for human rights.
Sowell writes, “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules… that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today.”

Radical in Chief – Stanley Kurtz

The way a revolutionary bomber, Bill Ayers, looks at the USA and how his views become mainstream

Bill Ayers was a weatherman (a terrorist revolutionary) in the 1960s, and a friend of Barack Obama (the future president of the U.S.) in later years. Stanley Kurtz’s book on Obama has a chapter on Bill Ayers, and its worth looking at for understanding what radicals believe and how they try to implement their vision. In Bill’s violent incarnation, he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. 15 years later he worked as a professor of education at the University of Illinois.
From the Kurtz book we learn that: in Ayers eyes schools should be “sites of resistance” to an oppressive system. The point, Ayers says, is to “teach against oppression,” against America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

Kurtz talks about the “shared desire of Obama and Ayers to funnel a very large pot of money to the city’s most radical community organizers”

Money began to flow as well to Bernardine Dohrn’s Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law. Dohrn had been a weatherwoman. She is Bill Ayer’s wife. Bernadine thought of the American justice system as a modern version of the “slave ship” and the prison system a veritable political “gulag”. Dohrn also thought that violence is less the fault of criminals than of America’s structurally racist society. Welfare reform laws were a form of “state violence”. Even low wage jobs were a form of “state violence”.

Bernadine’s husband (Bill) compared America’s juvenile justice system to the mass detention of a generation of young blacks under South African apartheid.”

Bill also believed that America’s prison system is a racist plot to clear the streets of the kids most likely to make a socialist revolution.

Kurtz once appeared on a radio talk show to talk about the relationship between Obama and Ayers, specifically that Ayers worked directly with Barack Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and had a role in appointing Obama to the board. Callers to the show demanded that Kurtz be barred from speaking. Supposedly Kurtz was a “right wing hatchet man,” a “smear merchant,” and a “slimy character assassin,” perpetrating one of the “most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.”

But Kurtz shows in the book that the “smear” was well documented.

Ayers once told an interiewer that the notion of the United States as a “just and fair and decent place… makes me want to puke.” This leaves me with a question. When I see the U.S. I see a place that had (and has) flaws, but has attempted over time to correct them. I see a country where blacks have equal rights under the law. Unlike Bill, Bernadine, and Barack, I do not have a dream of a socialist alternative that makes a favorable contrast with the current situation. I see countries that socialists like, (such as Cuba) as unpleasant places to live in, where people’s potential is wasted, and free thought is not allowed. Why is there such a divergence in what I see, and what Bill Ayers sees? Why have many of his ideas become mainstream among the left?

Its not that I don’t see systemic problems with the U.S. Just the National debt, which jumps by a trillion during some president’s terms, is enough to prove a problem exists. And “cancel culture” and the breakdown of the family, and a host of other ills. Perhaps the world is divided into people who want to patch their rowboat, versus those who want to burn it in the belief that the ocean will disappear from under them!

Bernadine and Bill

How Do-gooders create disasters

ACORN (The association of Community Organizations for Reform now) was the largest community organization in the United States. ACORN was notorious for fraudulent voter registrations. It used ‘in-your-face’ protest tactics, and it helped precipitate the banking crisis of 2008. That crisis cost millions of jobs and hurt the people all over the world. (see https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2010/04/28/the-impact-of-the-september-2008-economic-collapse).
So how did an organization which was supposed to help the little guy cause so much damage? Skeptics argue that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which ACORN used to force banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers, could have influenced at most only about a quarter of the loans at the base of the financial meltdown. What critics miss is that ACORN used a combination of local protest actions and national lobbying to spread subprime lending far beyond the confines of CRA-controlled banks.

For instance, there is this quote from Stanley Kurtz’s book “Radical in Chief”.

“However much pressure ACORN put on banks to lower credit standards, tough requirements in the “secondary market,” run by quasi-federal housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, served as a barrier to change. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up mortgages en masse, bundle them, and sell them to investors on the world market. Back then, Fannie and Freddie refused to buy loans that failed to meet high credit standards. If, for example, a local bank buckled to ACORN pressure and agreed to offer poor or minority applicants a 5 percent down-payment rate, instead of the normal 10 to 20 percent, Fannie and Freddie would refuse to buy up those mortgages. That would leave all the risk of these shaky loans with the local bank.”

So the local bank would tell Acorn that they could only lower credit standards by a little.

In response ACORN had its friends in Congress introduce bills compelling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support subprime lending. Acorn won this showdown. Now quotas for low-income loans were imposed on Fannie and Freddie.

When Bill Clinton became president of the United States, ACORN found friends in the new government. ACORN had captured Fannie and Freddie, but now it wanted to rope in the insurance companies. ACORN people met with Bill Clinton and explained what they wanted to do. Clinton was enthusiastic, and said that while he probably couldn’t get a bill to ACORN’s liking through Congress, he would use the “executive power of the president” to achieve their goals.

The story is more involved than the above, and anyone interested on how socialist organizations get funds from the government should read the chapter on ACORN in Kurtz’s book. The irony is that the problems that ACORN contributed to did not come to a head in the Clinton administration, but during the presidency of a Republican president, George W Bush, who subsequently was replaced by Barack Obama, a Democrat who tried to minimize his ties with ACORN. Kurtz documents that Obama had more ties to that organization than he was willing to admit. Nancy Pelosi, currently speaker of the house and a Democrat, voted for ACORN sponsored provisions. And yet, we are heading in the same direction:

The basic problems of Fannie and Freddie have not been solved as of 2021, and a Biden administration is unlikely to address them – quite the contrary, says Charles Gasperino in a column in the New York Post.

There were various reasons for the 2008 financial crisis. Various steps in the loan making process were carried by people who had no skin in the game – the risk of the loan could be passed like a hot potato from one link in the chain of loans to the next. But the ultimate buyers probably had little idea that loan standards had been so weakened and that they were buying a package of loans some of which were worthless.

It was in the name of equity and justice and anti-racism that the low-standard loans that contributed to the disaster of 2008 were made. Supposedly these are pure motives, but Kurtz notes a role of Peter Dreier (an influential advisor to ACORN’s banking campaign) in all this. Dreier, who I mentioned in a previous post, wanted to overload American Capitalism with entitlements until it collapsed and Socialism replaced it. Perhaps there was method in ACORN’s madness.