Two “Anti” Ideologies: Anti-Polonism and Anti-Semitism

PART I: ANTI-SEMITISM

This article, which is divided into four parts, compares and contrasts two “anti” ideologies:  anti-Polonism and anti-Semitism. Accusations of anti-Polonism do not intimidate our opponents. By contrast, the fear of being disqualified, or delegitimized, as anti-Semites inhibits purposeful political action by Polish Americans.

Readers recall that the Holocaust Industry, or transnational politically organized Jewry, has succeeded in making lump-sum compensation, as much as $360 billion, payable by today’s Poles, for private property on conquered Polish territory that was despoiled by Nazi Germany and then nationalized by the communists during the World War II era, the top issue, measured by money, in state-to-state relations between the United States and Poland.  Is it a form of anti-Semitism to try to change United States Govenment policy toward Poland on the lump-sum compensation issue?  Is it anti-Semitic to insist that Poland must not pay for crimes perpetrated by Nazi Germany and the communists on conquered Polish territory?

The lurid fact that the Congressional Caucus on Poland, with members only in the House of Representatives, and NOT in the Senate, did NOTHING to oppose the JUST ACT of 2017 makes finding answers to these questions of immediate and direct importance to ensure fair play for our Fatherland. Apparently, the Polish American and Catholic Members of the House of Representatives who serve on the Congressional Caucus on Poland are either intimidated, or persuaded that  lump-sum compensation should be paid by Warsaw, rather than by Berlin and Moscow.  The facts of history clearly show that Poland should not pay.  So let us test the hypothesis that our Polish American legislators are intimidated by taking a close look at anti-Semitism.

Etymology often is revealing. Anti-Semitism was coined as a neologism by a paid publicist for Berlin’s Protestant(Lutheran and Calvinist) stockbrokers who lost their own and their clients’ money when the Berlin stock market crashed in 1873. An effective publicist, Wilhelm Marr, whose father was a painter of miniatures and an assimilated German Jew, was hired by Berlin’s Protestant stockbrokers to explain why they lost their clients’ money while Jewish stockbrokers actually made money for themselves and their clients following the boom-and-bust cycle in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871).

The defeated French promptly paid 3 billion in gold francs to the now united Germany under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck’s Prussia.  Bismarck was a client of the House of Bleichroder, a Jewish investment bank that prospered during the boom-and-bust.  The second German Empire was proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors of Versailles Palace, in 1871, and German troops occupied France pending the full payment of the then astronomical sum of 3 billion gold francs.  To get German troops off French soil with alacrity, the French raised the 3 billion gold francs with unexpected speed. This surprised the financial markets and of course caused inflation. Jewish firms in Berlin reacted more swiftly than their Protestant competitors.

The simple and direct explanation was: Protestant investment bankers lost their clients’ money because they did not sell in time, because they were not as nimble as the Jewish firms.  This truthful explanation, of course, suggested incompetence.  The Protestant stockbrokers feared that they would never attract clients in the future.  They needed to do two things:  occlude their ineptitude, and persuade potential clients that the successful Jewish firms are corrupt and unethical.

Wilhelm Marr rose to this task by persuading his readers, those who had money to invest, that Semites are biologically predetermined to be liars and thieves.  Before Marr wrote, most understood Semites to be speakers of Semitic languages ( Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic etc…), rather than a race.  Marr deliberately conflated the Semitic language group with the Jewish people in order to give pseudo-scientific validity to his charge that Jews as a group, because they are members of the Semitic race (which, of course, in fact, does NOT actually exist), are corrupt based on Charles Darwin’s ideas of natural selection in the struggle for survival.  Therefore, Marr invoked science to justify refusing to do business with Jews. By contrast, according to Marr, the German Protestant was biologically predisposed to truth telling and disinterested service.  Marr’s bogus race science manifestly was self-serving, but many were seduced by it because Darwinism, and especially Social Darwinism, were in vogue.  Marr’s admirers forgot that the Jewish bankers succeeded and the Protestants failed.

Marr’s explanation satisfied his Protestant stockbroker paymasters, and hostility toward Jews henceforth became based on fashionable science, as religious faith was wanning.  Marr and all those who followed him shifted suspicion and hostility toward Jews from the centuries old charges of deicide and misbelieving to biological determinism, a kind of biological Calvinism (Calvinists believe that God decides who is to be saved and who is not to be saved; good works on earth do not matter, as they do in the Catholic tradition).  In a nutshell, all Jews, according to Marr and his followers, are predestined by biology to be unethical.  According to Marr, there is nothing that Jews can do to become ethical, just as those predestined for damnation in the Calvinist tradition can do nothing to change their preordained fate.  Therefore, Marr’s message is that science persuades the prudent investor to do business with Berlin’s Protestant investment bankers and to avoid doing business with Jews.

In our times, as reported in the winter 2006 issue of the AMERICAN SCHOLAR magazine, Professor Bernard Lewis put forward a terse and fairminded definition of anti-Semitism, in a speech he delivered at Brandeis University.  Professor Lewis, long serving professor of history at Princeton University, who wrote many books about Arab and Islamic history, is a convinced pro-Zionist.  He deliverd his speech at Brandeis because he was concerned that accusations of anti-Semitism were proliferating on the American scene to no good purpose.  That is why Professor Lewis offered a simple and direct defintion of anti-Semitism with two components.  First, anti-Semites are those who are persuaded that Jews are cosmically evil, and therefore no social intercourse with Jews is possible.  Second, those who hold Jews to moral standards different from those to which they require of others are anti-Semites.

Professor Lewis’s definition still remains operational, and our supposedly pro-Polish legislators who serve on the Congressional Caucus on Poland should not allow themselves to be intimidated.  Instead, they should stop pressure by the United States Government on Poland to pay for World War II era crimes against private property which Poles did not commit.

In the January issue we will take a closer look at the historical context and the etymology of anti-Polonism.

PART II: JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM AND JUDEO-CHRISTIAN

Let us now review the history of the term anti-Polonism.  Before we examine the political context and purposes which explain the coinage of the term anti-Polonism, we need to consider when and why the terms Judeo-Bolshevism and Judeo-Christian came into usage.  This will show how the two anti-ideologies, anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism, are linked with each other.

While there is agreement among historians that Wilhelm Marr, a paid publicist for Berlin’s Protestant (Calvinist and Lutheran) stockbrokers invented the term anti-Semitism in 1873, the paternity of the term Judeo-Bolshevism is unclear.  Moreover, the term Judeo-Bolshevism has very limited descriptive value.  Jewish religious doctrines did not create Bolshevism; some very important Bolshevik leaders were of Jewish origin.  Nevertheless, Judeo-Bolshevism came into widespread usage.

An influential French journalist who used the pseudonym Pertinax, Andre Geraud, long-serving foreign correspondent for the Conservative and Catholic L’ECHO DE PARIS, had been publicizing, from the outbreak of the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917 until the mid-1920s, the official line of the French General Staff:  Germano-Bolshevism.  This view held that German Military Intelligence organized the victory of the Bolshevik Revolution in order to defeat, during World War I, Tsarist Russia on the Eastern Front. The classic way to defeat a formidable enemy is to foment revolution, or civil war, in the enemy’s rear, or home front, to make the continuation of foreign war impossible, and, according to the French view, this is what Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany did in Russia.

There is no doubt that German Military Intelligence facilitated Vladimir Lenin’s journey, in November 1917, across Gernman controlled Europe by rail from Switzerland to Saint Petersburg’s Finland Station where Lenin took charge of the Bolshevik Revolution.  It is also beyond dispute that German money helped to fund the Bolshevik Revolution. After the November 11, 1918 Armistice on the Western Front, France made a strong case for a punitive, or Carthaginian peace, with Germany.  Great Britain, supported by the United States, argued for a compromise peace on the grounds that a punitive peace would spark a Bolshevik Revolution in Germany that would destabilize Europe.

In fact, Bolshevik, or Communist, Revolutions did break-out in Germany. This complicates the historic context in which the term Judeo-Bolshevism emerged. German Communists whose top leadership included Jews seized power through armed force in Munich in April 1919 and proclaimed a Bavarian Soviet Republic, which was suppressed in May 1919 by the German Army and Freikorps.  It was at this point that Adolph Hitler started to work for German Military Intelligence. His job was to persuade workers NOT to support Bolshevik/Communist Revolution, which Hitler was instructed by his army mentors to denounce as Jewish, and therefore non-German and anti-German.

That is why, on orders from German Military Intelligence, the young Hitler delivered speeches to plebeian audiences to persuade them to support a German National Socialist, also then called National Bolshevik, Revolution.  This showed that Bolshevism, initially supported by German Military Intelligence to destabilize Tsarist Russia, did morph into a kind of Frankenstein monster in the case of the short lived Bavarian Soviet that threatened to destabilize Germany.  The short lived Bavarian Soviet Republic also gave rise to the National Socialist German Workers Party, abbreviated as the Nazi Party, as an anti-Communist Party, which eventually took over Germany and nearly conquered the Soviet Union.

Nevertheless, the official French position minimized the threat Bolshevism posed to Germany. The French asserted that the Anglo-American position was naive.  The French argued, with the facts on their side, that Bolshevism was a German creation dating from the final stages of the last war, and that the Bolsheviks only succeeded in Russia because they received substantial assistance from Germany.  In a nutshell, as the French saw it, the Germans controlled Bolshevism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere and used Bolshevism to promote German interests.  Bolshevism, according to the French, was but a stalking horse for German national interests.  France resented the fact that the German Government, which did not participate in the drafting of the Versailles Treaty, successfully manipulated the Anglo-American fear of a Bolshevik Revolution in Germany to obtain for Germany less harsh peace terms than the French advocated.

The Rapallo Treaty of 1922 which Germany and the Soviet Union signed gave substantial support to the French position.  This treaty made Germany the first country to give de jure recognition to the Soviet Union.  The secret military articles of this treaty allowed German armed forces to train in the Soviet Union with weapons forbidden to the German armed forces by the Versailles Treaty.  This allowed Germany clandestinely to rearm.  Most importantly, the commander of the Reichswehr, General Hans von Seeckt, discussed with his Soviet counterparts the overturning of the Versailles Treaty by planning for the invasion and partition of Poland, anti-Polonism in action,  by German and Soviet armed forces.  After destroying Poland with Soviet assistance, von Seeckt looked forward to crushing France without simultaneously fighting on the Eastern Front.  The key to Germany’s revision of the Versailles treaty was German-Soviet agreement and this was already underway in 1922.  Readers recall that Germany and the Soviet Union invaded, conquered, and partitioned Poland in 1939, and then Hitler’s Germany attacked and conquered France.  Before 22 June 1941, when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Germano-Bolshevism rather than Judeo-Bolshevism, seemed a better description of geopolitical realities in Central and Eastern Europe.

Peter Novick’s persuasive scholarly monograph THE HOLOCAUST IN AMERICAN LIFE (Houghton Mifflin, New York:1999) includes an important analysis of Judeo-Bolshevism.  Novick shows how Bolshevism, or Communism, in the United States and Europe was conflated with Jews and Judaism because many top Communist leaders were of Jewish origin.  Novick also points-out that World War II was initially presented to American public opinion as a Christian Crusade.  This left out Jews and seemed to ratify Judeo-Bolshevism even after the Soviet Union became an ally.  Therefore, the coinage, by the United States Office of War Information, of the term Judeo-Christian was designed to include Jews in the fight against the Axis, and to turn away attention from the identification of Jews with Communism.

The use of the term Judeo-Christian which began during World War II should not make us forget about Harry Dexter White, Stalin’s agent of influence who held the number two position in FDR’s Treasury Department.  In his spare time White, whose father was born in Białystock, gave lessons in Jewish religious history and traditions to young men working in the Roosevelt Administration.  John Koster’s recent history book OPERATION SNOW:  HOW A SOVIET MOLE IN FDR’S WHITE HOUSE TRIGGERED PEARL HARBOR (Regnery, Washington:2012) establishes beyond doubt that White drafted the November 26, 1941 Final Note to Japan, against the instructions of FDR and White’s boss Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau,Jr., who both wanted accommodation, not war, with Japan.

In May 1941, Stalin ordered then Soviet Foreign Intelligence Captain Vitalii Pavlov to instruct White to provoke war with Japan in order to prevent Japan, an Axis ally, from attacking the Soviet Union and forcing Stalin to fight on two fronts.  We remember that Vitalii Pavlov advanced to the rank of Lieutenant General and was KGB Resident in Warsaw when General Jaruzelski launched his coup of 13 December 1981.  In his memoires, Pavlov credits White with saving the Soviet Union from fighting a two front war and likely defeat in World War II.  The invention of the term Judeo-Christian did nothing to decrease Communist influence in FDR’s administration and this led to the betrayal of Poland at Tehran which was ratified at Yalta.

PART III: ANTI-POLONISM

Readers recall that our purpose is to compare and to contrast two anti-ideologies:  anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism.  Unlike anti-Semitism, which was coined by Wilhelm Marr in his pamphlet of 1873, anti-Polonism came into usage in a more oblique way.

Like Semitism, Polonism was considered negative, or pejorative, by those who put Polonism into usage.  Unlike Semitism, which properly referred to a language group, and then via Marr’s pseudo-scientific Darwinism to a bogus, or invented, race, Polonism always has been about political ideas.  Tyrants loathe limited government which ensures citizens’ liberties. Yesterday and today, top Central and East European tyrants and their ideologues, Aleksandre Dugin is a good contemporary example, call this Polonism, because this form of limited governance to ensure individual freedoms was established by Poles during early modern times. Dugin sees this as contrary to what he calls the Slavic soul, and regards the Polish idea of freedom as the creation of a Latinized Polish elite who specialize in duping and exploiting the Slavic people of Poland.

The Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth, or the Res Publica, was the western world’s first sustained experiment (from the middle of the sixteenth century until the late eighteenth century partitions) with a multi-ethnic and pluri-religious democratic republic.  The Res Publica had an elected king.  For early modern times, a large part, approximately 15%, of the Res Publica’s population was enfranchised and played an active role in politics, that is, the making of public decisions by public means.

By the early eighteenth century, the Res Publica was corrupted by the role of money in politics.  Vigorous efforts to reform the Res Publica started in the middle of the eighteenth century.  This reform project threatened the vested interests of the Res Publica’s neighbors.  The Romanov, Habsburg, and Hohenzollern dynasties were autocracies based on divine right which feared that their subjects would demand the liberties which the broadly based Polish nobility was successfully reasserting.  For the autocrats who ruled Russia, Austria, and Prussia, Polonism meant a limited republican form of government that safeguarded the liberties of the enfranchised in which legislation emerged after debate in parliament.  Polonism had no appeal for autocrats.

Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859) usually receives credit for coining Polonism as a pejorative.  He was a tyrants’ tyrant.  Metternich served as Foreign Minister of the Habsburg Monarchy from the Napoleonic Wars until his ouster by the Vienna Democratic Revolution of 1848.  He represented the Habsburg Monarchy, Austria, at the Congress of Vienna (September 1814 to June 1815), and acted as Chair of the Congress.

The purpose of the Congress was to restore order along anti-democratic principles in the wake of the Democratic Revolution which swept over Europe from 1760 until 1800.  Austria’s reactionary war of aggression against the newly proclaimed French Republic plunged Europe into nearly  continuous war from 1792 until Napoleon’s abdication in July 1815 following the Battle of Waterloo.  This restoration of monarchies toppled by the Democratic Revolution was named the Concert of Europe.  Monarchs throughout Europe felt threatened by new outbreaks of revolution and agreed to help each other to restore order by working together, or concerting with each other, to stop with armed force outbreaks of revolution.

In East Central and Eastern Europe, Poles were the motor of the Democratic Revolution.  The wave of democratic reform in Poland threatened the Habsburg and Romanov empires and autocratic Prussia.  That is why Russia, Austria, and Prussia partitioned Poland in 1772, 1793, and 1795.  These three courts feared that their own subservient nobles would demand the rights of Polish nobles, who were proto-democratic citizens.  Keeping Poland down was the common interest of these three empires. Their anti-Polonism, or hostility toward the establishment of democratic republics, prevented Russia, Austria, and Prussia from going to war with each other for a century, until 1914.

The nineteenth century staus quo in Central and Eastern Europe was established at the expense of Polish independence and democracy.  This status quo was anti-Polonism in action.  The Congress of Vienna established the Kingdom of Poland, called the Congress Kingdom, on a small portion of pre-partition Polish territory with Warsaw as capital and the Russian Tsar as king who was obliged to respect the Polish constitution.  After the 1863 January Uprising, Tsar Alexander II eliminated the Congress Kingdom of Poland and this portion of partitioned Poland was called by the Kremlin Vistulaland, or the Western Gubernias.  A gubernia was a Tsarist administrative district; today such administrative districts are called oblasts.

When democratic revolutions which challenged the restored monarchies established by the Congress of Vienna broke-out in Italy and Spain in the early 1820s, Metternich referred to these challenges to the established order as outbreaks of Polonism.  For example, French soldiers of the restored Bourbon monarchy marched into Spain in order to stop what Metternich disparaged as an outbreak of Polonism.  French troops, on orders from the Concert of Europe, marched south to defeat the Spanish revolutionists who referred to themselvees as Los Liberales, this is the origin of the term Liberal in modern political discourse.  Los liberales, in English the Liberals, wanted more freedom for men with property, a constitutional monarchy, and a parliament which enacted laws after debate.  Metternich wanted to restore the absolutist Bourbon monarchy in Madrid, and in Naples too.

In a nutshell, anti-Polonism stands for the denial of limited government and personal freedom.  In the next and final part of this article, we will see how contemporary tyrants have built on Metternich’s work.  We will also consider a new and even more pernicious form of anti-Polonism at work in our times.

PART IV: OUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS

Readers recall that the first three parts of this article have compared and contrasted two anti-ideologies, anti-Polonism and anti-Semitism.  The purpose of Part IV of this article is to show how our opponents, politically organized Jewry and the Kremlin’s lobby in the United States, which also includes some influential German interests, mobilize anti-Polonism in its contemporary form to promote their political goals.

Our opponents want American public opinion and the United States Government to see Poland and the Poles, and by extension Polish Americans, the negative way that they do in order to achieve their self-serving and lurid political objectives.  Most importantly, our opponents’ goals DO NOT promote the national security interests of the United States.  Our opponents are succeeding because they spend much more money than do we to influence American public opinion.  Today, public opinion not only legitimizes, but shapes policy-making by democratic republics throughout the world.  We Polish Americans are losing this struggle for American public opinion.  Politically organized Jewry has persuaded, most recently through the books of Princeton University Professor Jan Tomasz Gross, educated Americans that Poles are preternatural anti-Semites and unrepentant Judeocides who perpetrated the mass murder of European Jewry during World War II in tandem with Nazi Germany and who persist in refusing to pay lump-sum compensation.

First, politically organized Jewry worldwide wants money from Poland.  They want Poland to pay for crimes against Jewish owned private property despoiled by Nazi Germany and then nationalized by the Communists. The key players in this ghastly anti-Polish campaign are the component organizations of the Holocaust Industry, like the New York City based Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (which prefers to call itself the Claims Conference following the German Government’s declaration, several years ago, that it will make no further reparation payments for perpetrating the mass murder of European Jewry).  This allows Holocaust Industry lobbying organizations to succeeded in enlisting the United States Government to pressure today’s Poles to tax themselves to pay lump-sum compensation for private property owned by Jews on conquered Polish territory during the World War II era.  Your Government is acting as the lobbying agent of the Holocaust Industry. This is what the JUST ACT OF 2017 does. This is why the JUST ACT OF 2017 is most unjust to Poland.

Readers recall that in 1960 the United States and Poland acceded to a bilateral treaty on compensation for private property owned by United States citizens that was nationalized by the Soviet Union’s puppet regime in Poland, the Polish People’s Republic.  Poland has fulfilled the terms of this 1960 treaty.  Today, the United States Government is pressuring Poland to compensate the Holocaust Industry.  United States citizens already have been compensated by Poland’s Communist regime in the 1960s.

This is why we need to put forward before American public opinion the truth about the honorable role played by Poland and the Poles during World War II. Polish Americans must raise the money to get out this truthful message.

Related Posts

Previous Post Next Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 shares