#Benjamin Ginsberg, the author of
#Fatal Embrace is a Jew and professor of
Political Science who wrote about
Jews and politics. He tells us and them that they are a bunch of chancers
who come unstuck from time to time; also, more or less that they deserve it. He
also wrote
#How the Jews Defeated Hitler Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face
of Nazism. Note that they did this by manipulation rather than heroism.
Being in the front line with a rifle was dangerous; commanding an army was much
less so. The best general of the First World War
was John Monash, a Jew
from Australia. You might be surprised to know that
Jews Avoided War Service then claimed
that they served well. They lied, that is what Jews do.
Fatal Embrace by Benjamin Ginsburg ex Amazon
Professor Ginsburg's thesis is that Jews make themselves
influential by being useful to the rulers, then abuse their influence so
it all ends in tears. His book is aimed at Jews, warning them not to try it on
again. He is writing to people who were thrown out of Egypt, England and
literally dozens of other countries. See
Jewish Expulsions. He is writing at a time of huge Jewish
influence. Look at the men who surround George Bush. Some of them were in the
Clinton entourage too. Ask why America invaded Iran, or was it Iraq. It is
more than just a spelling mistake. He is a Jew writing for his own but he has
something to say that matters to all of us. For another review see
Deadly Enemy, Deadly Friend in which Doctor
Sniegoski's review tells us that Ginsburg is a nasty
bit of work with total contempt for human rights, caring only for Jews.
The good doctor is very much on the right lines.
How the Jews Defeated Hitler Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism
by
Benjamin Ginsberg
The title is self-explanatory and even [ whisper it ]
honest. Ginsburg is prone to tell the truth from time to time. A good
analysis comes from
How the Jews Defeated Hitler Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism, Part One of Two Reviewed
by Andrew
Joyce.
Benjamin Ginsberg ex Wiki
QUOTE
Ginsberg
is a
libertarian
[ sic ]
political scientist and professor at
Johns Hopkins University who is notable for his criticism of American
politics in which
citizens have become "marginalized as political actors" and
political parties weakened while state power has grown. His assessment of
the futility of voting along with his notion that the public has an illusion of
control over government has caused controversy, and sometimes his explanations
have been criticized. He is a co-author, along with Matthew Crenson, of Downsizing Democracy which received critical attention in mainstream
newspapers.
UNQUOTE
The idea that Ginsberg is a libertarian comes as a surprise but I'll drink to
the rest. The Wiki skates round The Fatal Embrace but then the Wiki has an
agenda too. Actually he has some worthwhile things to say as well as the rest.
Amazon Reviews Fatal Embrace
QUOTE
Ginsberg advances the notion that the Jewish-state embrace,
designed to ameliorate the effects of Anti-Semitism, has, paradoxically,
exacerbated the latter: "Thus, over the past several centuries, Jews have
played important roles in the construction of absolutist, liberal, and
socialist states as well as major parts in movements seeking to reform or
supplant regimes to which they were unable to obtain access. Jews have
traditionally offered their services to the state in exchange for the
regime's guarantee of security and opportunity. Ironically, however,
precisely this relationship between Jews and the state has often sparked
organized anti-Semitic attacks." (p. 57). Owing to the breadth of this
topic, this review focuses on only a few of Ginsberg's many points........
Jews played major roles in assisting the Hohenzollern rulers
(p. 17), and in events leading to the unification of the German state under
Bismarck (p. 18). No wonder that subjugated Poles commonly thought of Jews
as their co-oppressors!
Unlike some modern authors (e. g.,
Jan Tomaz Gross [ half
Jew ]), Ginsberg is
exceptionally forthright about the extent and significance of the Zydokomuna
(Jewish Communism). Beginning with Soviet Communism, he writes: "As we saw
earlier, in the aftermath of the Bolshevik
Revolution, Jews played an
extremely prominent role in the Soviet regime." (p. 53). "Three of the six
members of Lenin's first Politburo--Trotsky, Kamenev, and
Zinoviev--were of
Jewish origin...If the distinctive contribution of Jews to the absolutist
state was in the realm of finance, and their singular role in liberal
regimes was the mobilization of opinion, the special contribution of the
Jews to the Bolshevik state involved the organization of coercion...During
the 1920's and 1930's, Jews were a major element in the secret police and
other Soviet security forces...Jews were also important in the Red
Army...Another domain in which Jews were particularly visible was the Soviet
cultural and propaganda apparatus." (pp. 30-31). "In twentieth-century
Russia, Jews commanded powerful instruments of terror and repression." (p.
57). "During the Second World War, Jews played prominent roles in the Soviet
government, particularly in the realms of propaganda and foreign relations."
(p. 54)........
Some of Ginsberg's reasoning is dubious. In common with many
authors, he attributes the Jewish over-involvement in Communism to the
injustices that Jews had experienced in non-Communist societies (p. 28). But
many other peoples (e. g., the Poles) were also downtrodden, yet they never
supported Communism to any appreciable extent (a few Dzerzhinskys
notwithstanding). Ginsberg does not explain this. Ironic to his argument, he
also describes how, in the 1930's, Jews constituted about 500,000 of the ten
million victims of Stalin's purges, including the majority of the
politically most prominent victims (p. 53). Yet the Zydokomuna persisted.
Ginsberg fails to answer the following question: If it was injustices that
had driven Jews to Communism, then why didn't Communist injustices,
especially those against Jews, drive Jews AWAY from Communism?
UNQUOTE
Someone has his eye on the
ball. Some Jews tell some of the truth some of the time. NB the leaders of the
Bolsheviks, who brought us the
October Revolution were 3% Russian and 82%
Jew. See The Mark Of The
Jews On Russia or The
Fate of the Romanovs
How the Jews Defeated Hitler Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism
ex Amazon
One of the most common assumptions about World War II is that the
Jews did not actively or effectively resist their own extermination at
the hands of the Nazis. In this powerful book, Benjamin Ginsberg
convincingly argues that the Jews not only resisted the Germans but
actually played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The
question, he contends, is not whether
the Jews fought but where and by what means. True, many Jews were poorly
armed, outnumbered, and without resources, but Ginsberg shows
persuasively that this myth of passivity is solely that—a myth.
The author describes how Jews resisted Nazism strongly in four major
venues. First, they served as members of the Soviet military and as
engineers who designed and built many pivotal Soviet weapons, including
the T-34 tank. Second, a number were soldiers in the U.S. armed forces,
and many also played key roles in discrediting American isolationism, in
providing the Roosevelt administration with the support it needed for
preparing for war, and in building the atomic bomb. Third, they made
vital contributions to the Allies—the Soviet Union, the United States,
and Britain—in espionage and intelligence (especially cryptanalysis),
and fourth, they assumed important roles in several European anti-Nazi
resistance movements that often disrupted Germany’s fragile military
supply lines. In this compelling, cogent history, we discover that the
Jews were an important factor in Hitler’s defeat.
The
Value Of Violence
QUOTE
This provocative thesis calls violence the driving force not just of war,
but of politics and even social stability.
Though violence is
commonly deplored, political scientist Ginsberg argues that in many ways it is
indispensable, unavoidable, and valuable.
Ginsberg sees violence
manifested in society in many ways. "Law-preserving violence" (using Walter
Benjamin's phrase) is the chief means by which society preserves social order.
Behind the security of a stable society are the blunt instruments of the police,
prisons, and the power of the bureaucratic state to coerce and manipulate.
Ginsberg also discusses violence as a tool of social change, whether
used in outright revolution or as a means of reform in public protests or the
threat of insurrection. He notes that even groups committed to nonviolent
tactics rely on the violent reactions of their opponents to achieve their ends.
And to avoid the threat of unrest, modern states resort to social welfare
systems (a prudent use of the carrot instead of the stick).
Emphasizing the unavoidability of violence to create major change, Ginsberg
points out that few today would trade our current situation for the alternative
had our forefathers not resorted to the violence of the American Revolution and
the Civil War.
[ Also ]
State violence is often seen as the continuation of politics by
other means—to apply Clausewitz's famous observation on war. In his latest
book, Johns Hopkins political scientist Ginsberg (The Fall of the Faculty)
takes the contrary view, suggesting that violence is the driving force of
politics. In six essays, Ginsberg analyzes such topics as bureaucracy and
violence and how Cold War–era America became a nation marked more by warfare
than welfare. He illustrates how the use of force can legitimate the state
and examines the mechanization and depersonalization of warfare, noting that
the Air Force now trains more drone operators than pilots. However, despite
the book's original and exciting premise, it contains a number of stylistic
and methodological flaws: for example, Ginsberg's use of the term violence,
which he never defines, is so elastic that it includes wrongful prosecutions
by overzealous federal bureaucrats. Ginsberg's penultimate chapter on
Morality and Violence is marked by an antigovernment bias, and it includes
the questionable claim that even democratic governments generally have few
moral qualms about shedding the blood of disobedient citizens. Agent: Claire
Gerus, Claire Gerus Literary Agency. (Sept.)
UNQUOTE
Ginsburg is a cunning Jew but he tells it, more or less like it is from time
to time.
Full text from the October 1995 issue of
The
Last Ditch
Deadly enemy, deadly friend
By Dr. STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
Benjamin
Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, which deals with the
rise and fall of Jews in different societies, is an intellectual bombshell. A
liberal American Jew who teaches political science at Johns Hopkins, Ginsberg
makes observations about Jewish influence in government and society that would
be deemed anti-Semitic if expressed by a Gentile. Ginsberg, however, does not
criticize that Jewish power for being harmful to Gentiles; his only concern is
the harm it can cause for Jews by provoking Gentiles to anti-Semitic actions.
Outlining Jewish power since the Middle Ages, Ginsberg notes that Jews helped
kings expand and centralize their realms; in medićval Spain, for example, Jews
were closely tied to the monarchies, largely, but not solely, in the financial
sphere. But they also took the lead in working for the revolutionary destruction
of societies hostile to Jews; thus, Jews played key roles in European
revolutions, liberal and Communist alike.
In the liberal revolutions and in the development of liberal states, Jews
propagandized the public and financed liberal groups. In France, Jews helped
establish the Third Republic in the 1870s; their influence loomed especially
large in the republic's anti-clerical campaigns. Jewish financial and media
power also provided the underpinning for the Weimar Republic, whose depiction as
the Judenrepublik by anti-Semites was not far from the mark. In late
19th-century Britain, the Jewish-dominated press championed imperialism, which
benefited Jewish finance. And during the early stages of the Soviet regime, Jews
were numerous in leadership positions, especially in the secret police and the
propaganda agencies, which they dominated. In contrast to Judeophiles who claim
that Jews observe a higher humanitarian ethos, Ginsberg acknowledges that Jewish
Communists played a ruthless role in liquidating their opposition.
Ginsberg
warns that as a result of their great power, Jews become a highly visible target
for the enemies of the regime and often suffer group destruction with the
regime's demise. Thus in the late 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella expelled
the Jews from Spain, where they had occupied key positions under previous
monarchs. In Germany, Hitler eliminated the Jews along with the Weimar Republic;
what enabled Nazism to succeed was a coalescence of lower- and upper-class
opposition to Jewish power. Where such a fusion of divergent classes does not
take place, as in the French Third Republic, Jewish power survives despite a
high degree of anti-Semitism.
The Jewish fall from power does not always require the demise of a friendly
regime. Sometimes a previously hospitable regime will eliminate Jews when they
are no longer necessary for the maintenance of power, as was the case in the
Soviet Union when Stalin dispensed with Jews. Ginsberg's fundamental theory is
that the Jewish close relationship with the state is a "fatal embrace": the
achievement of great power, and the concomitant high visibility, invite group
destruction as situations change.
***
Ginsberg devotes the greatest part of his book to the history of Jewish power
in America. German Jews gained significant power in the United States after the
Civil War, largely in the realm of finance. Jews financed the U.S. regime's
Civil War debt, the debts of the reconstructed Southern states, and the nascent
industries. In essence, according to our author, Jews were a part of the new
business and industrial class of the Gilded Age, and became "identified with the
worst excesses of the nineteenth-century industrial order." (p. 75) Jewish
prominence induced an anti-Semitic opposition from Southern and Western
agrarians (Populists), and from old-stock New England patricians. Reacting to
that anti-Semitic criticism, the Gentile business class jettisoned its ties with
the Jews and aligned itself with the patricians. Thus, the 1890s saw the
emergence both of exclusive clubs that barred Jews and of anti-Jewish quotas in
the Ivy League colleges. Having been thrust out of the business elite, Jews
sought to alter the American economic system, Ginsberg writes. They identified
with the Progressive reform movement and — on the part of the newly immigrating
Eastern European Jews — with radical socialism. The Jewish role in the
Progressive movement crested in the Wilson administration, with Louis Brandeis
playing a major role in the creation of the Federal Reserve System and the
Federal Trade Commission. However, the Jewish rise was transitory, cut short by
the anti-radical Red Scare in the aftermath of World War I, which destroyed
radical and reform movements as well as (in Ginsberg's view) an emerging welfare
state.
It was with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal that Jews gained long-term power in
the United States, power that continues into the present.
Jews served as Roosevelt's idea men and staffed his New Deal agencies. They
played a fundamental part in fashioning the centralized American welfare state —
and Ginsberg asserts that they created it to serve their own interests. In
contrast to American Protestants' success in the private sector, Ginsberg writes
that Jews "relied upon the state and the public economy to achieve positions of
influence and status in American society." (p. 103) That account contrasts, we
should note, with Thomas Sowell's portrayal of Jewish success via the free
market.
Jews also played a significant role in getting the United States into World
War II to destroy their Nazi nemesis. And they worked actively to undermine
popular noninterventionist resistance to war. For example, the Anti-Defamation
League [
ADL ] "employed investigative agents who secretly penetrated isolationist and
anti-Semitic organizations and collected potentially damaging or incriminating
information" which it turned over to the FBI and other federal agencies. (p.
110) Ginsberg does not develop this point, but given the fact that the
overwhelming majority of "isolationists" were not enemy agents and were simply
exercising their constitutional right to oppose a policy, it is apparent that
activist American Jews have been quite willing to crush the civil liberties of
others in order to advance their own goals. Jews also played a critical part in
turning the media toward a prowar stance. (That was quite an achievement, since
the American mood in the 1930s was strongly antiwar and "isolationist.") In
Hollywood, Jewish film makers concentrated on producing anti-Nazi propaganda
films to prepare the masses for a crusade against evil.
In the immediate postwar period, right-wing attacks on Communist subversion
put Jews on the defensive. Since Jews had been numerous in the American
Communist Party, to them the attacks reeked of anti-Semitism. But by joining
forces with the also-imperiled WASP elite, Jews were able to destroy the threat
by exercising their media power. They did not just succeed in downplaying the
idea of Communist subversion; they were even able to change the issue from
Communist subversion to the right-wing threat to American civil liberties. That
was quite a striking ideological turnaround from the Jews' total disregard of
the civil liberties of pre-World War II "isolationists." The Jewish success
against the right-wing danger meant that by the late 1950s, "conservative
anti-Communists who sought to maintain a modicum of respectability ... carefully
avoided the least hint of anti-Semitism." (p. 125) Ginsberg cites William F.
Buckley Jr. as an example.
In the 1960s, the Jews played key roles in the civil rights revolution and
the concomitant Great Society programs. For Jews, Ginsberg points out, support
for black civil rights was not only a "moral commitment" but also an "important
political tactic" to weaken the white South and the ethnic machine politicians
in the North, and, as a consequence, increase their own relative power within
the Democratic coalition. Moreover, the advancement of the concept of "equality
of opportunity" bolstered Jewish power throughout society. (pp. 125-26) Jews
opposed the Vietnam War because it inhibited the expansion of those liberal
Great Society programs in which their power resided.
By the end of the Great Society reforms, Jews, in Ginsberg's view, had become
the major force in American politics and government:
"From
the 1970s onward, Jews led or were influential in most, though not all, of the
political reform, feminist, consumer rights, gay rights, environmentalist and
other public interest groups and related foundations, study groups, and think
tanks that came to dominate the Democratic party during the 1970s and continue
to be the leading forces within that party today." (p. 137) And Jews wield
considerable power in the institutions of the American welfare state, holding as
they do prominent positions in the "public or quasi-public economy of government
agencies, helping professions, private foundations, think tanks, and
universities." (p. 140) Since Jewish power and wealth is either directly or
indirectly tied to the national government, rather than to state and local
governments or to the strictly private sector, Jews have a vested interest in
its maintenance and expansion. In short, Ginsberg contends, Jews support the
liberal welfare state for reasons of material self-interest: "Jewish liberalism
is more an institutional than an attitudinal phenomenon. It is
associated more with Jews' political linkages and involvements than with their
underlying attitudes." (p. 143)
Ginsberg attributes the rise of black anti-Semitism over the past couple
decades to the desire of upwardly mobile blacks to share in the positions of
power held by Jews in the welfare-state apparatus. Jews may oppose some black
activities, but they cannot become too critical of blacks because it is the idea
of helping disadvantaged blacks that provides the "legitimation of the American
welfare state." Indeed, Ginsberg maintains, "Many Jews and Jewish organizations
believe that the fundamental interests of Jews are so closely tied, both
politically and institutionally, to those of blacks, that it is sometimes
necessary to support black demands even when, conceived narrowly or in the short
term, these seem to be disadvantageous to Jews." (p. 165) It is that vested
interest in the liberal welfare state that prevented most Jews from turning to
Republicanism in the 1980s despite the Republicans' support for pro-Jewish
positions on racial quotas and the defense of Israel.
Although the overwhelming majority of Jews did not turn to Reagan
Republicanism in the 1980s, "Jews played important roles in implementing the
administration's economic and foreign policy objectives," Ginsberg writes. "The
association of Jews with Reaganism, especially in the realm of foreign policy,
helped to heighten the anti-Semitism of forces on the political Left but
produced a measure of philo-Semitism on the right, most notably among Protestant
fundamentalists." (p. 188) Neoconservative Reaganauts identified Israel as
America's "strategic asset" in the Cold War, and Israel actually helped the
United States fight communism in Latin America and elsewhere. In the economic
realm, Jewish parvenu financiers such as Michael Milken were the major
beneficiaries of the Reagan rollback of regulations.
Ginsberg claims that the Republicans, unable to attract any significant
number of Jews to their side, abandoned their support of the neocon elite with
the end of the Cold War. Israel simply was no longer needed as an ally. Thus
President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker tried to coerce Israel into
following American Middle East policy and in so doing alienated their
neoconservative support. Ginsberg, who completed Fatal Embrace at the
beginning of the Clinton administration, emphasizes the large number of Jews who
were entering that regime, reinforcing his theme of American Jewry's continued
identification with liberal Democrats.
The author attempts to gauge whether Jewish power — which aroused strong
opposition in the past — is threatened today. Despite the explicit anti-Semitism
of blacks, Ginsberg doubts that they pose a direct threat to Jews because of
their dependence on the welfare state that Jews supervise: blacks and Jews are
"locked into a long-term relationship which neither can easily abandon." (p.
183) Black anti-Semitic rhetoric, however, has loosened the taboo against
anti-Semitism in American society, according to Ginsberg, so that white
right-wing forces — Joe Sobran, Patrick Buchanan, David Duke, paleoconservatives
— can attack Jews and their agenda. Ginsberg believes that those right-wingers,
if they should use the correct populist appeal to unite upper- and lower-class
whites in what he characterizes as the Nazi manner, could pose a formidable
threat to American Jewry: "An alliance of radical populists and respectable
conservatives would almost inevitably make vigorous use of anti-Semitic themes
to attack the liberal Democratic regime, and the Jews would find themselves
locked in the fatal embrace of yet another state." (p. 243)
***
Ginsberg is far more explicit on the reality of Jewish power than any other
pro-Jewish author of which this reader is aware. However, he leaves some
important matters unresolved.
First, it must be asked: What enables Jews to dominate societies? Ginsberg
says they have certain talents — scholarly, business,
managerial
— not possessed by the bulk of the population. However, he does not claim (like
Nathaniel Weyl) that Jews are innately more intelligent than other people. It is
odd that societies supposedly based on equality (such as America's current
welfare state) would come to reflect greater Jewish dominance. With all the
purported equal educational opportunities and aid to the disadvantaged, one
would think that social and economic differences among groups would lessen over
time. Of course, it could be argued that the real purpose of the liberal welfare
state is not to help the disadvantaged but rather to keep them dependent in
order to maintain the rationale for the welfare institutions that Jews dominate.
Ginsberg does not even hint at this explanation.
Also problematic is the author's understanding of anti-Semitism. Ginsberg
characterizes as anti-Semitic those Gentiles who are critical of Jewish power
and its uses. Therefore, anti-Semitism does not necessarily entail racial
hatred, threats of racial expulsion or racial extermination, or even lies. A
statement can be perfectly truthful and still qualify as anti-Semitic! Despite
this apparent meaning, Ginsberg still gives anti-Semitism a negative
connotation. Presumably, it is wrong for Gentiles to oppose the Jewish agenda. A
reader of Ginsberg's book should understand from the outset that the work is
directed to Jews and Judeophiles, and that the author's concern is the long-term
effect of Jewish power on Jews. He does not dwell on the negative impacts that
Jewish power has had on Gentiles, even though he cites examples in which
Gentiles have been harmed — such as in the Soviet Union.
Finally, Ginsberg underplays the importance of
neoconservatism. (Paul Gottfried, the foremost paleoconservative analyst of
neoconservatism, has underscored the significant power of neoconservatism in
such works as
The Conservative Movement. ) Bush and Baker did anger neocons, but
neoconservatism still dominates the Republican Party and the American
conservative establishment. Neoconservatism simply does not threaten the
welfare-state apparatus that provides Jews a base of power. As
paleoconservatives correctly point out, neoconservatism simply acts to coopt the
conservative thrust of the electorate, rendering it harmless to those whose
interests are served by the welfare state. Besides being innocuous to the
domestic welfare state, a neocon Republican regime might better serve Jewish
foreign policy interests than a liberal Democratic one. It could pursue a
Zionist-oriented globalistic foreign policy without the inhibitions of the
Democratic Left. And having neocons in strategic positions in the Republican
Party means that the Jews have placed their eggs in more than one basket: no
matter who controls the government, Democrat or Republican, Jewish power remains
intact. Outside of the Jewish orbit there remain only Patrick Buchanan and the
paleoconservatives, whom Ginsberg sees as imminent threats to Jewish power and
its agenda.
Despite some questionable interpretations, The Fatal Embrace is of
immense value for its candid discussion of Jewish power, especially since it is
authored by a Jew who identifies closely with Jewish interests. It is must
reading for anyone interested in this taboo but critically important subject.
Posted July 26, 2001
If you found this article to be interesting, please donate to our cause. You
should make your check or m.o. payable in U.S. dollars to
WTM Enterprises and send it to:
WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783
Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!
Notice to visitors who came straight
to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You should check
out our
home page and table of contents.
*New York: Macmillan, 1992.
[Back]
Errors & omissions,
broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever;
if you find any I am open to comment.
Email me atMike
Emery.
All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it
private, use my PGP Key.
Home Page
Updated on
Friday, 10 May 2019 10:11:59