Utin was released within a short time, and his followers began to taste “the revolutionary excitement—and ‘martyrdom’—of opposing a government which seemed to be determined to return to pre-1855 regimentation.”
During the winter of 1862, Utin was associated with a political movement that sought “close cooperation with the Polish insurrectionists.” Fearing that he would be arrested again, he fled to London “several days before he was meant to be captured.”
The revolutionary spirit lay dormant after his departure, and only one Jew between 1864 and 1868 “had been linked to revolutionary activity in Russia.” Yet cultural and political insurrections sprang back to life; it was
“when a new wave of student disorder erupted in St. Petersburg and Moscow that Jewish radical involvement made itself again noticeable and, in fact, became the take-off point for a sustained and substantial participation in Russian revolutionary activity.”
Many universities in Russia constituted colonies of Jewish revolutionary activity, but when Mark Natanson set foot in St. Petersburg in August 1868 and enrolled at the Academy there, revolution had a new spirit.
Within a short time, Natanson became a rising star among his fellow freshmen, who “elected him to be their spokesman in dealings with the academic and administrative staff of the Academy.”
Inevitably, Natanson began to put his talents to work by creating a “‘sub-library of revolutionary-socialist more knowledge about socialist ideas and revolutionary history.”
His approach here was “moderate” in that it did not follow the radical approach of his predecessor, Russian radical Sergei Nechaev. But later on his Jewish friend Pavel Akselrod noted that
“Natanson, a person steeled in revolutionary work…lived for one purpose only: to gather again the scattered forces and resume revolutionary work.”
Haberer writes that
“Jewishness in Natanson must not be seen as a function of promoting consciously Jewish aspirations, rather it must be comprehended in terms of how ethnicity shaped his theory and practice of revolution.”
Yet Haberer argues against that premise in the following pages, saying that Natanson’s contemporaries referred
“to his Talmudic bend of mind in retaining encyclopaedic information and approaching any given problem from all possible angles of interpretation. Even his sense of social responsibility and ‘striving for moral ideals’ has been attributed to his religious upbringing.”
If that is the case, then it stands to reason that consciously or unconsciously, Natanson was following Talmudic interpretations. Haberer goes on to declare,
“During Natanson’s adolescence these traditional Judaic values were revitalized by the finest representatives of mid-nineteenth-century Lithuanian Jewry, Rabbi Israel Salanter and Rabbi Isaac Elhanan.”
Natanson’s revolution, in Haberer’s view, was a secular version of the Protestant Reformation, and Natanson lived in a time where
“the father of modern Hebrew prose, Abraham Mapu…strongly defended the virtues of secular knowledge, ethical idealism, and Jewish-socio-economic self-improvement.”
In a nutshell, Natanson was influenced primarily by two schools of thought: Judaic Talmudism and Jewish Enlightenment.
It is therefore safe to say that he was drawn to revolutionary nihilism—which he saw as “an ideology of salvation” and himself as a “nihilist personality”—because of his “Jewishness,” though other factors might have played minor roles.
Natanson’s contemporaries recognized both nihilism and Jewishness “in shaping Natanson’s personality,” and others saw that his approach to
“revolutionary affairs was due to his upbringing in a Jewish merchant household, his intellectual perseverance bordering on dogmatism derived from his Talmudic studies.”
Natanson’s other ideas were “possible only because of his Jewishness.” After many years of struggle, Natanson eventually built a party that was considered revolutionary in spirit and action between the years of 1876 and 1879. The party was named “the Society of Land and Freedom,” or “Zemlia i Volia.”
“The historical significance of Zemlia i Volia was far reaching. It laid the foundation for two subsequent ‘parties,’ the People’s Will (Narodnaia Volia) and the Black Partition (Chernyi Peredel), both of which were of great importance for the evolution of modern Russian revolutionary politics.
“Indeed, by stepping into the ‘revolutionary vacuum’ of 1874-75, Natanson initiated a process that eventually led to the formation of three political parties—Liberal, neo-Populist, and Marxist—which seriously challenged tsarism in 1905 and destroyed it in 1917.”
After Natanson, revolutionary colonies like the Chaikovskii circle began to reach their zenith in Russia, and spread like wildfire among young Jewish intellectuals and political activists such as Pavel Borisovich Akselrod, Grigorii Evseevich Gurevich, and the Levental brothers.
Revolutionaries like Samuil Kliachko were agitators “for the radical student movement emanating from St. Petersburg in the late 1860s,” and Jewish-led revolutionary activity was well-known to academics and scholars in the era that followed it in Europe.
Iankel-Abel Finkelstein planted revolutionary ideas in Russia among Jewish radicals. Finkelstein started to work on his subversive activity at the Vilna Rabbinical Seminary, which was a “centre of revolutionary propaganda.”
From there he spread his wings into other venues such as “illegal socialist literature.” Even while he was in school, Finkelstein was known for his “rebellious personality,” and “found himself constantly in trouble with the school authorities.”
Finkelstein left his Talmudic shackles in favor of fundamental atheism, which is compatible with the revolutionary Jewish mindset (even in 2011 many Jews saw atheism as compatible with Judaism).
Many Jews during that era in Russia felt the same way—that Judaism and Talmudic mores created a stumbling block for progress. For that reason, many “had no intention of continuing their work in a Jewish setting.”
Finkelstein was expelled from the Rabbinical seminary for “bad expressions demonstrating his disrespect for Christian and Judaic Religion,” and other “numerous offenses” such as setting up a “library of socialist literature” and “organizing an illegal ‘educational society.’”
Eventually the tsarist authorities began to keep an eye on Finkelstein and subsequently deported him “to his native Vladislavov where he was to be kept under police surveillance.”
When he escaped to Konigsberg, Finkelstein
“enrolled as a medical student at the local university. But instead of earning a medical degree he won for himself the name of the ‘red postmaster’ who, operating from Konigsberg, began to handle the ‘red mail’ of the revolutionary movement, particularly of the Chikovtsy, across the Russo-Prussian frontier.”
Finally, it was Jewish Bolshevik Yakov Yurovsky, along with a group of fellow Bolsheviks, who murdered the last Tsar and his family in 1918.
Rakov, who went to a Talmudic school, saw his act as a form of revenge. After his father had been sent to a Jewish settlement for theft, Yurovsky developed an undying hatred for the Tsar.
As historical accounts have discovered, Yurovsky was one of Lenin’s willing executioners. German historian Joachim Hoffmann notes that both Lenin and Trotsky issued the order to assassinate the Tsar.
After seventy-two years, even the New York Times was willing to admit this incontrovertible fact.
“In the early morning dark of July 17, 1918, they were taken to the basement and shot by local Chekists, members of the Bolshevik secret police. Bullets ricocheted from the jewels hidden in the corsets of the royal daughters, who had to be finished off with bayonets.
“When the screams died down, the bodies were carted to the countryside, stripped, burned and tossed in a mine shaft. The next night, to prevent a cult of the Romanovs, the leader of the firing squad exhumed the remains, doused them with disfiguring acid and reburied them in a secret grave.”
Even Jewish historian Richard Pipes agreed that Lenin “ordered the execution of the imperial family.” Pipes wrote,
“It can be established that the final decision to ‘liquidate’ the Romanovs was taken personally by Lenin…One could have inferred this fact much from the knowledge that no provincial soviet would have dared to act on the matter of such importance without explicit authorization from the center.”
Trotsky, Lenin’s collaborator, wrote in his diary that Lenin himself ordered that the imperial family be assassinated, and the order was carried out by his regime.
If history is not that important to my “historian” correspondent, perhaps he should take a look at what the Israeli regime is currently doing in the concentration camps in Gaza.
On July 17, it was reported that 220 Gazans lost their lives and 1,500 were wounded. How many Israelis were killed? Only one.
42-year-old Ofer Neiman and a number of Israeli Jews simply could not hold it much longer. With one voice, they declared,
“I feel my government is murdering children using my money and claiming to do it in my name, which is totally unacceptable.”
Nurit Peled-Elhaman, an Israeli education professor and a member of the “Jews against Genocide” group, added:
“The ceasefire means the previous situation will return, albeit much worse, because Gaza has been destroyed now and nobody will help rebuild it. Entire families are dead; there are a lot of orphans; hospitals are damaged.”
Here’s the funny thing. On July 15, it was reported that Israel orders some 100,000 Gazans to leave their homes. A number of Israeli and Jewish writers declared in the Wall Street Journal: “Israel warns thousands to leave Northern Gaza as army readies broader offensive.”
Sure. But where would those poor Gazans go?
Back in the States, my first teaching job was in a correctional facility, teaching math and science. I remember after one particular class session, I said, “Class is dismissed.” Little Suzy responded,
“Why do you have to say ‘class is dismissed?’ I mean, where will we go? Home?” My supervisor was right next to me and we tried to hold our laughter but it did not work.
Gaza, in Ron Paul’s own words, has been a “concentration camp” for years. Jewish writer Lawrence Weschlerhas recently declared the same thing, that “Gaza is a concentration camp.” He adds,
“I say ‘concentration camp’ and not ‘death camp.’ I am not comparing Gaza to Auschwitz-Birkenau, but one cannot help but liken the conditions today in Gaza to the sorts of conditions once faced by Japanese-Americans during World War II, or the Boers in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer War, or the black South Africans years later in such besieged townships as Soweto, or for that matter Jews and gays and gypsies at Dachau and Theresienstadt in the years before the Nazis themselves settled on their Final Solution.
“And it is quite simply massively self-serving delusion that Israelis (and their enablers and abettors here in America, among whom incidentally I count a steadily declining number of American Jews) refuse to recognize that fact.”
But now we are told that the Israelis have warned their victims to leave before they attacked! Isn’t that interesting?
Let us suppose that they go to a hospital nearby. What would have happened? Listen to Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker for the Knesset, Israel’s parliament:
“The blood of a dialysis patient in Gaza is not redder than the blood of our IDF [Israeli army] soldiers who will, God forbid, need to enter [Gaza].
“Therefore I call on the prime minister who we all support in this difficult hour, before we send the IDF into Gaza, we should simply shut down their electricity.”
Seumas Milne of the Guardian reported,
“Since Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip began, just over a week ago, more than 200 Palestinians have been killed. Nearly 80% of the dead are civilians, over 20% of them children.
“Around 1,400 have been wounded and 1,255 Palestinian homes destroyed. So far, Palestinian fire has killed one Israeli on the other side of the barrier that makes blockaded Gaza the world’s largest open-air prison.
“But instead of demanding a halt to Israel’s campaign of collective punishment against what is still illegally occupied territory, the western powers have blamed the victims for fighting back. If it weren’t for Hamas’s rockets fired out of Gaza’s giant holding pen, they insist, all of this bloodletting would end.”
In the same vein, a senior official in the Medecins Sans Frontieres (doctors without borders) humanitarian charity has described the Israelis’ recent invasion in Gaza as similar to being “an open-air prison to patch up prisoners in between their torture sessions.”
Who is responsible for this?
The official continued,
“An entire population is trapped in what is essentially an open-air prison. They can’t leave and only the most limited supplies – essential for basic survival – are allowed to enter. The population of the prison have elected representatives and organized social services.
“Some of the prisoners have organized into armed groups and resist their indefinite detention by firing rockets over the prison wall. However, the prison guards are the ones who have the capacity to launch large-scale and highly destructive attacks on the open-air prison.
“the voice of outrage of MSF medical teams is drowned out by the propaganda war that erupts each time a [military] operation such as this takes place and by the concerns that too loud a voice of criticism could cut off the organisation’s surgical teams from being able to reach the Gaza Strip.
“Everyone pays the price for living under siege and for their acts of resistance. Medical workers have been killed and health structures damaged.
“In such a densely populated environment, the claims of not targeting civilians in air raids are of little comfort.
“There are always limits to humanitarian action. Humanitarian organisations can treat the wounded. But we can’t open borders to end violence”