Hervé RYSSEN: The religious origins of the quest for world government

In the following two interviews, Hervé Ryssen, French author and historian, discusses his book, entitled Planetary Hopes (2005). These “planetary hopes” refer to the desire on the behalf of cosmpolitan intellectuals to unify the world. This desire corresponds to a religious prophecy, according to which the messiah – or, more to the point, their messiah –  will only come if the world is unified. In order to achive this unification,  of course, there must be no differences: everybody and everything must be the same. In other words, nations must disappear,  ethinc and religious distinctions must be wiped out, and a world government must be created to ensure that “peace” reigns everywhere in the world. These “planetary hopes”, then, are nothing other than messiansim diguised as a quest for world peace. Ryssen’s book is the fruit of years of intense research and, so far, is the only work to have made such in depth analysis of the religious origins of the quest for world government. At the end of these interviews, you will find a translation of Chapter 3 of his book.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

You have just published a long book with a slightly mysterious title. Could you explain to us what it’s about?

It’s quite simple. I have made an in depth analysis of cosmopolitan literature and philosophy. By cosmopolitan, I mean the ambition to remove national borders and unify the world. I realised that the term “hope” cropped up fairly frequently in the texts and perfectly suited what I wanted to demonstrate. As for the term “planetary”, the meaning is very clear. I prefer this term to “globalist” which is too imbued with ideology.

What did you want to demonstrate?

I wanted to show that the multicultural society is not a natural phenomenon but the result of an ideological point of view constantly repeated over decades. This planetary ideology gained strength following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and today all our intellectuals agree that a world government is an ideal to be attained.

The 1990s thus saw a tremendous rash of books, flaunting unbridled cosmopolitanism. The works of Jacques Attali, Alain Minc, Alain Finkielkraut, Marek Halter, Guy Sorman, Pierre Bourdieu, Jacques Derrida, Edgar Morin, Albert Jacquard, Bernard-Henry Lévy, Guy Konopnicki, to name but a few, illustrate this point very clearly.

These works make a very clear call for the multiracial society and the abolition of nations. One example of this is particularly amusing. Take Jacques Attali’s book, entitled The Dictionary of the 21st Century and choose the passages supporting this ideology of world unification; then arrange them in chronological order and the result is very similar to a highly controversial text published in Russia at the turn of the 20th century. It is very surprising. But the surprise is even greater when you see that the dozens of other authors, whose work I analysed, all have the same point of view, whether they be French, Russian or American. We even find this with German or Viennese authors at the turn of the century (Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Freud, Stefan Zweig, Joseph Roth, etc.). The concepts, the mentality, the methods used to evade questions and the ideological contortions are all identical from author to author.

What are the main themes of the book ?

I began by describing the scientific aspect of this planetary ideal. Since the discovery of a three million year old Australopithecine skeleton in the African Great Lake region, it is assumed that every single person in the world has a common ancestor and that Lucy – that’s what they called her – is the grandmother of humanity. Accordingly, at school, it is currently fashionable to claim that we are all “African”. Meanwhile, we await further discoveries which will allow us to say we are “Chinese” or “Turco-Mongol”…  Saying this sort of thing, it has to be said, also avoids laying oneself open to dreadful accusations.

There is another revolution of major importance. The decoding of the human genome proves that races do not exist and that we are all brothers and sisters. In any case, this is what professor Axel Khan is keen to tell us. These themes obviously support the idea of world unification.

After having outlined the planetary ideal (the global village, the nomadic lifestyle, the glorification of mixed race marriages, the destruction of the “patriarchal” family, etc.), it was then necessary to address the methodology used by the planetary intellectuals.  This is where we see, in all its glory, the utter contempt that the cosmopolitan authors have for the traditional cultures of sedentary populations.

Bernard-Henri Lévy excels in this field, but he is closely followed by Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Alain Minc. An entire chapter is devoted to guilt as well as immigration, which today constitutes the most effective weapon in the deadly war, waged by the global empire against ethnic groups which resist globalism. Needless to say, my work is backed up with hundreds of quotes. Indeed, I am surprised that this groundwork hasn’t been done before.

You didn’t tackle the European issue.

No, in actaul fact I did. Again, if you read Jacques Attali, for instance, we see that our intellectuals had already stated they consider this project to be a stepping stone to world government. It’s written very clearly in black and white, and there is no need to go searching for this in old pre-war documents. Of course, I had the immense pleasure of concluding this chapter with the referendum of 29 May 2005, an enormous slap in the face for the globalists.

Just a quick anecdote, here, if I may. During a televised debate, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, mad with rage, severely insulted Philippe de Villiers. We can forgive him for not reacting to this on TV because, after all, it is better that the electorate sees you as a martyr than a violent hothead. But Cohn-Bendit’s burst of anger seemed very revealing to me. Indeed, it has to be understood that the times we live in make people like Cohn-Bendit very jumpy.

They believe that everything today is in their favour and that humanity is finally on the verge of entering the messianic age.  In the Jewish tradition, the coming of the messiah coincides with the unification of the world and the disappearance of conflicts, whether they be of a national or social nature. Again, their books are very clear on this matter (Emmanuel Lévinas, Jacob Kaplan, George Steiner, etc.).

Consequently, the fact that the French voted against the EU in the referendum derailed a vital step, which had been eagerly awaited by the planetary intellectuals. Just put yourself in the place of Cohn-Bendit. For 3000 years, he has been waiting for the messiah. Finally, he is told he will arrive, that he is just around the corner, and then crash! Everything collapses because a handful of stupid reactionaries who understand absolutely nothing preferred to keep their petty national freedom rather than embracing the messianic age. You have to admit there is every reason to be furious!

Do you mean to say that both the action and the ideas of cosmopolitan intellectuals are governed by the fact that they await their messiah?

For Jewish intellectuals it is fundamental. It is the central issue for the Mosaic mind in so far as it coincides with the idea of unifying the entire planet.  It is essential to understand that Jewish intellectuals live in hope that their messiah will come and this state of permanent tension gives meaning to their acts and their words. It is very rare for them to write something neutral.  When I analysed the books and the films, I realised that their productions are inevitably imbued with the messianic ideology.

It therefore follows, without any doubt, that the establishment of the new world order involves the destruction of Catholicism and the European world. To understand just how far this furious urge to destroy can go, you have to have read the works of Wilhelm Reich and the “Freudo-Marxists”. Indeed, the theme of vengeance is present in both the religious texts of the 16th century and in the works of contemporary authors, such as Albert Cohen.

It was these leitmotifs which stood out the most to me. They have survived intact for centuries, having been passed down from generation to generation. There is nothing secret about this. Indeed, all the books I used for my research can be found in the public libraries in Paris.

What made you think to delve into all these books?

I wrote this book quite by chance, after having discovered Solzhenitsyn’s book (Two Hundred Years Together, published in 2003) which highlights the role of the “repressed” community in the Bolshevik revolution.

As I had been a fervent “Bolshevik” in my student days, I was surprised not to have been aware of this aspect before. So I re-read one by one all the major works in “Sovietology” (Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, Ernst Nolte, to name but a few) and I realised that all the great historians raised this issue but did so in a very anecdotal fashion. This topic forms the second part of the book which I entitled “The End of the Messianic Dream”.

The third part of the book, which is equally important as the first, looks at how Jews explain anti-Semitism as well as examining the cosmopolitan mentality in general. It also looks at a selection of current issues: anti-Semitism in the black community, the mafia, recent cases of large-scale fraud (whether they be financial or intellectual), the exaggerated attention that the media gives to certain issues and not others, etc.

You are aware, I hope, that you have taken on a tough opponent?

It’s funny you should say that. It’s exactly the expression used by a character in one of Patrick Mondiano’s books! But I’ll tell you something:  I don’t attack anybody. I merely make a level-headed analysis of what I discover here and there. If the truth is against the law, the duty of the judge, as a man of the law, is to condemn it.  As an author, my duty is to write the truth. In that respect, then, I believe everything is in order, especially as I confine myself to compiling what others have said. On the other hand, I think that the problem is located upstream, if I may put it that way. Indeed, I think it should be forbidden to insult us in our own country. When Mr Bernard Henri-Lévy writes that French regional culture “disgusts him”, we should force him to pay a very heavy fine, in proportion to his colossal income. Am I going too far by saying that?

Interview Translated from French

This interview first appeared in Libre Journal on 24 September 2005.

Source: http://herveryssen.hautetfort.com/les-esperances-planetariennes.html

Image associée

You have just published a book which at long last fully exposes globalist logic and its religious underpinnings. Indeed, for a long time, French nationalist intellectuals haven’t dared tackle “controversial issues” and  have refrained from condemning cosmopolitan propaganda. Could you first of all explain to our readers the title of your book?

I have focused on the written work of Jewish intellectuals in order to understand their vision of the world. After having read dozens of political essays and a whole variety of novels, I discovered that the word “hope” frequently appeared in the texts. For them, of course, this refers to the anticipation of a better world, the coming of the messiah and the “promised land”. Let’s not forget that if the Christians recognised their messiah, the Jews are still waiting for theirs. This anticipation that one day their messiah will come is at the heart of the Hebraic religion and the Jewish way of thinking, and this applies even to non-religious Jews. This is the central, key point. As for the term “planetary”, this simply signifies the quest for a world without borders.

My work focuses entirely on Jewish intellectuals. Contrary to what some may think, the use of the word “Jew” has not yet been made illegal. I know there are many French nationalists who break into a cold sweat at the mere mention of this word, but this is probably because they are afraid of making anti-Semitic remarks, which these days are indeed severely sanctioned by the law. Personally, I am in no way worried by this, because my research is based entirely on Jewish sources. Let’s just say that I take a rational and, dare I say it, totally dispassionate approach.

It is true that we often hear Jews talk about the “promised land” and the “messiah”, but we still have difficulty in understanding the meaning of these terms. Isn’t Israel the “promised land” ?

Historically speaking, it signifies the land of Canaan which was given to Abraham by Yahweh, as written in Genesis, the first book of the Torah. But even before the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus and his Roman legions, a great many Jews already formed a diaspora. Nevertheless, when the Balfour Declaration of 1917 recovered the “promised land” for the Jews by creating a “Jewish homeland in Palestine”, certain Jews may well have thought that the age of the messiah was at long last close.

But we shouldn’t forget that, during the same period, another group of Jews, far greater in number, believed that this promised land was situated further north in the vast Soviet Union where, following the October Revolution of 1917, a great many Jews rose to the most senior ranks of state power.

Just by reading slightly older texts, however, we see that, during the 19th century, it was France – country of the “human rights” – which raised all hopes and represented the “promised land” in the eyes of Jews the world over.

Early 20th century Vienna and in the Weimar Republic were also to be considered “promised lands” as the domains of culture and finance in these countries were very heavily influenced by intellectuals and artists of Jewish origin.

It should be noted that this hope invariably turns to bitter disappointment. The fact is that Israel is not a safe haven, to say the very least. As for Jewish-Bolshevist Russia, it turned against the Jews and drove them out of power, following the Second World War.

France, the country of “human rights”, is now turning into a Third World country. Ever since 2001, certain Jews have been urging their community to flee this “anti-Semitic” country, where Jews increasingly incur the wrath of young Arabs. Anyway, the bottom line is that it always ends badly for the Jews, no matter where they go, no matter what they do.

The “promised land” was also for a long time embodied by the American Dream. In the 1880s, tens of thousands of Jews left Central Europe for America, where they hoped to lead a better life, far from the Cossacks, the progroms and the reviled Tsar.

But the most recent “promised land” was, of course, post-Soviet Russia.  Within a few years, a handful of “oligarchs” succeeded in seizing control of a large part of Russia’s privatised assets. The most famous among them, the billionaire Khodorkovski, now languishes in the prison system of Vladimir Putin’s new Russia. Evidently, this new “promised land” wasn’t the right one either!

Basically, you see the point. Following their exit from the ghetto, the Jews haven’t ceased to change “promised lands” and their wandering systematically ends in disappointment. Only the United States still represents an Eldorado which keeps their hopes alive. But for how long?

Here you are talking about history and geography. But aren’t messianism and the “promised land” religious concepts?

Here we come to the heart of the matter. If you were to talk to a rabbi in Rue des Rosiers, he would immediately tell you that what the Jews hope for more than anything else is a world of peace, a world in which all conflicts have disappeared, whether they be social conflicts or conflicts between nations and races. It is the world of universal peace that must be achieved because, for them, this world of peace coincides with the messianic era.

Jewish authors are very clear on this matter. This is what the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas has to say:

“We can group the promises made by the prophets into two categories: political and social. The alienation introduced by the arbitrariness of the political powers in every human endeavour will disappear. But social inequity, the control of the poor by the rich, will disappear at the same time as political violence…” As for the world of the future, he goes on to define this as “the whole of humanity unified by a common destiny”. (Difficile liberté [Paris: Albin Michel, 1963], pp. 85-86.).

The chief rabbi of the Central Consistory of France, Jacob Kaplan, recalls that famous passage which is one of the sources of Jewish messianism:

“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6 – Le vrai Visage du judaïsme, Paris: Stock, 1987)

Kaplan adds that “it is obviously an image of future relations between nations, happy to maintain a mutual state of unity and harmony”.

In his book on messianism, David Banon clearly confirms this vision of the world

“The messianic era, such as it has been described by every single one of the prophets, consists of eliminating political violence and social injustice” (David Banon, Le Messianisme [Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998], pp. 15-16.).

So the Hebrew prophecies promise us humanity’s evolution towards a unified world together with the elimination of social inequalities. Here we can clearly see the original sources of both Marxism as well as the planetary ideology which, aided by media publicity, enchants so many of our fellow citizens as we enter the third millennium.

This is the crux of the Jewish vision of the world. This must be our starting point if we seek to understand Jewish mentality. And it is this which explains why Jews are forever talking about “peace”. Their “struggle for peace” is relentless.

Let’s take an example. In March 2000, on the Champ des Mars, Chirac inaugurated a “Wall for Peace”, designed by Clara Halter, the wife of the writer, Marek Halter. It is sort of glass vestibule, upon which little Clara has written the word “Peace” in thirty-two languages, probably, we imagine, to taunt the officer cadets in the military college just opposite.  These works have a religious meaning which very few goyim are capable of detecting.

Image associée

We can therefore argue that the “promised land” can only signify a hope on a planetary scale, a planet in which all nations have disappeared. The philosopher, Edgar Morin, confirms this when he writes:

“We do not have the Promised Land, but we have a hope, a desire, a myth, a dream: turn planet earth into a homeland” (Edgar Morin, Un nouveau commencement [Paris: Seuil, 1991], p. 9)

And this is what Jacques Attali talks about in his book, L’Homme nomade:

“turn the world into a promised land” (Paris: Fayard, 2003, p. 34)

It is, therefore, this pacified and unified world which will be the “promised land”. But the texts do sometimes suggest that certain intellectuals take this idea literally: they have been promised the entire planet! This explains a sometimes rather intrusive behaviour.

Judging by the policy of the American president, George Bush, it doesn’t appear that his numerous Zionists advisers are working to achieve the world of “peace” you talk about. How do you explain this contradiction?

Undeniably, the leaders of the American Jewish community bear a large part of the responsibility for the Iraqi war. You would have to be blind not to see this and disingenuous to deny it. Ever since the beginning of the 20th century, they’ve invariably had a great influence on the American government. American nationalists, such as the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, condemned moves by the “Jewish lobby” (in the US, it is considered to be merely a lobby among many others) to push the nation, considered to be too isolationist, into war with Nazi Germany.

In the 1920s, the industrialist Henry Ford had already understood the extent of the problem to which he devoted a newspaper. It should be recalled that Madeleine “Albright” and the “hawks” at the State Department brought their full influence to bear in support of the war against Serbia in 1999. So you are absolutely right to highlight that contradiction between the messianic faith and “terrestrial operations”, so to speak.

But they will very earnestly tell you that these wars are for “peace”. Just look at what the Nobel Peace Prize winning Elie Wiesel (who was, of course, raring for war in 1991) has to say when it came to bombing Iraq:

“It’s not just a question of helping Kuwait but of helping the entire Arab world”

So the whole Western world had to rise up against the “butcher of Baghdad”, guilty because he threatened the state of Israel:

“It is essential to wage war against his war. Against the destructive force that he deploys against humanity, we must use a greater force so that humanity may survive. For what is at stake is not only the future of Israel but the security of the civilised world and its right to peace…Thirst for vengeance? No :  thirst for justice. And peace”.  (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires 2, [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1996], pp. 144, 146, 152).

As you can see, they are quick to cloak their intentions in the ideals of peace and love when it comes to destroying their enemy. But, of course, there is absolutely no question that Israel should carry out its own military dirty work. That’s the job of Western countries, which, accordingly, have to be convinced by awareness campaigns to go and overthrow the dictator. Once their enemy is defeated, their ceaseless battle for democracy and “peace” comes back into line with the political situation. Indeed, once we have crushed our enemies, we are all for “peace”.

You talk about “democracy” … What is the possible link between a political system and messianic faith? Is democracy necessary for the coming of the messiah?

Democracy was not the only vehicle for planetary intellectuals. In the past, the Marxist ideal played this role. We know that Marx himself was Jewish as were the vast majority of Marxist ideologues and leaders: Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Georg Lukacks, and Ernest Mandel all had Jewish roots, as did the majority of the leaders of the 1968 Paris student revolt. This is no coincidence and only grass-root Communist campaigners at the bottom of the political hierarchy do not realise this.

Marxism aims to create a perfect world in which religion, nations and social conflict do not exist. As we can see, this plan fits perfectly well into the messianic vision. Ultimately, Marxist thought is merely a secular expression of traditional, Jewish eschatology. George Steiner viewed Marxism from the perspective of the biblical prophecies:

“Marxism is essentially a form of impatient Judaism. The messiah has been too long in coming or, more to the point, in not coming. It is man who should build the kingdom of justice here and now on this earth. This is what Karl Marx preaches in his Manuscripts of 1844, where we can clearly see the phraseology of the Psalms and the prophets” (George Steiner, De la Bible à Kafka [Bayard, 2002]).

Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Trotsky believed in God. And yet their Jewish origins shine brightly when seen through the prism of Jewish messianism. Political Marxism was, nonetheless, shunned in Europe following the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Indeed, in the plans to unify the entire planet, democracy has triumphed everywhere where Communism has failed.

In Western societies, however, we should note that it is the extreme left which continues to benefit from the media spotlight.  This is because it represents the vanguard of the project to create the egalitarian and multiracial society. It is also because the radical political differences, generated by the liberal system, are redirected by the extreme left in support of the globalist project.

This galvanising utopia is needed by a hopeless democratic system, whose only proposition for its younger generation is to wander aimlessly around in supermarkets. So Marxism is at its most useful when it is lodged at the heart of democracy. In the project to build the global empire, Marxism and democracy are in fact two perfectly complementary and mutually-dependent forces. Without Communism, the forces of political opposition would inevitably turn to nationalism and the system would not survive.

Following the failure of state Communism, multi-racial democracy and “human rights” are perhaps the ultimate weapon for those with “planetary” ambitions?

The globalists aim to destroy deep-rooted national cultures in order to create a uniform world. This quest for unity has been described by the Hassidic philosopher Martin Buber, who doesn’t appear to realise that he gives us here the exact definition of totalitarianism:

“Everywhere in Judaism we find the desire for unity. For unity within the individual. For unity between people divided within a nation and between nations. For unity with all people and with all living things, unity with God and with the world.” (Judaïsme, 1982, p. 35).

To achieve this perfect world, therefore, it is necessary to crush, grind, and smash all forms of national resistance, together with all ethnic and religious identities. “Unity” can only be formed from the dust of humanity and the remains of great civilisations. In this project to destroy traditional civilisations, immigration plays a vital role. The doctrine of “human of rights” in this respect is a devastatingly effective weapon.

This is what the chief rabbi Kaplan has to say about the matter:

“For the advent of an era free from threat to the human race, we should be able to rely heavily on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…Respect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a duty so pressing that each individual is duty-bound to contribute to every effort aimed at fully enforcing it worldwide”

The whole of humanity must comply. We could say that “human rights” are the preferred means of ensuring that the promises of Yahweh are fulfilled. Again, it’s no coincidence that René Cassin, the driving force behind the 1948 declaration, was also the secretary general of the Universal Israelite Alliance. In 1945, General de Gaulle appointed him as head of state council. His remains lie in the necropolis devoted to the heroes of the French republic in the Pantheon.

Can we say that there is consensus among the Jewish intellectuals on the immigration issue?

Jewish intellectuals can be liberals, Marxists, Zionists, religious or atheists.  But all these differences in no way invalidate the messianic foundation of their ambitions. And I can assure you that on the immigration issue they are all in perfect agreement. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, former leader of the 1968 Paris student revolt and now deputy mayor of Frankfurt, has this to say on the matter:

“In Frankfurt on the Main, foreigners account for over 25% of the residential population, but we can say that Frankfurt would not collapse if the percentage of foreigners one day rose to a third of the overall population” (Xénophobies, 1998, p. 14).

In this respect, he is in total agreement with the socialist Jacques Attali who, writing on Germany’s struggle with its ageing population, states:

“Indeed, the naturalised foreign population should reach a third of the total population, and half of the urban population.” (Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle, 1998).

There is perhaps another solution, which would be to encourage an increase in the German birth rate. But Jacques Attali does not envisage this as it is only the multiracial society which will guarantee the achievement of the planetary project. For France, Attali  advocates the same solution:

“It must find the means of a definite rejuvenation and, at the same time, accept the inflow of a great number of foreigners” (L’Homme nomade, 2003, p. 436).

A recent World Bank report also encourages Russia to open its borders and embark upon a large-scale immigration policy which, apparently, “is one of the principal requirements for stable economic growth” and provides a means of dealing with an ageing population. We should note, however, that the president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, has never encouraged Arab immigration into Israel as a means of supporting the ailing population of this country.

Statements of this sort are systematically made by practically all Jewish intellectuals, whether they be Marxist (Jacques Derrida), socialist (Guy Konopnicki), or liberal (Guy Sormon or Alain Minc). Moreover, they all have the annoying habit of taking us for idiots by trying to have us believe, for instance, that immigration has not increased in the last twenty years or that crime levels are in no way related to this phenomenon.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit brazenly assures us that “in order to eradicate racism, the best thing to do would be to increase the number of foreigners”! Their statements in this regard are shameless. Just take Guy Sorman who calmly explains to us the France of yesteryear, with its various dialects and patois, was altogether “more multicultural than it is today”. (En attendant les barbares, pp. 174-79). This is just one example of the shameless audacity of which they are very proud and which they call “chutzpah” (pronounced in Germanic fashion with guttural “r”).

The objective is to destroy the white world and, more generally, all deep-rooted societies. All these intellectuals assure us that this change is inevitable and that, consequently, it is futile to oppose it.  Here it should be recalled that, according to Marxist theory, it was the classless society which was supposed to be “inevitable”.  Just look at what the news editor Jean “Daniel” has to say on the matter

“Nothing will stop the migration of poor people to an old and rich West…This is why it would be now wise and reasonable to behave as if there will be more and more immigrants for whom we should provide facilities”   (Le Nouvel Observateur, October 13, 2005).

As you can see, the idea is to prevent the very idea of us defending ourselves.  The consensus of opinion on this matter among cosmopolitan intellectuals is really quite remarkable.

We often hear that the Nazis considered the Jews as being “an inferior race”. Your research, I believe, tends to show that they would be inclined to consider themselves as being “the superior race”. Is there anything to say on this matter? 

I can assure you there is immense pride to belong to the “chosen people”. Cosmopolitan intellectuals combine this pride with a contempt, which is equal in measure, for sedentary nations, considered to be significantly inferior. There are countless statements in this regard. For instance, this is what Bernard-Henri Levy wrote in the first edition of Globe in 1985:

“Of course, we are resolutely cosmopolitan. Of course, anything to do with region, drunken revelry, in short anything typically French or jingoistic is foreign to us, not to say despicable”.

“Homelands of all sorts and their procession of stale ideas” absolutely disgust him. All this is “just a fearful and tense retreat into the poorest of identities”

“Speaking in local dialects, dancing to the rhythm of drunks, marching to the sound of bagpipes…all this crass foolishness” “disgusts” him.  (L’Idéologie française, 1981, pp. 212-16).

The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas has also expressed his faith in the virtues of nomadism. For him, the greatest form of backwardness is without doubt that represented by pagan civilisations of antiquity:

“Paganism is parochialism: nationalism at its cruellest and most ruthless. Forest dwellers, a form of pre-human humanity”

Of course, all that can’t match the genius of the desert Bedouin tribes:

“It is on the arid desert land, where nothing takes root, that the true spirit came down to be written in order to be accomplished universally … Faith in the liberation of man is inseparable from the destruction of sedentary civilisations and the unravelling of thick layers from the past…You would have to be underdeveloped to advocate them as a way of life and fight for their place in the modern world.” (Difficile liberté, p. 299).

So it is not enough for these intellectuals to sprout nonsense, to bore us with human rights, to tie our hands behind our backs with draconian laws and to inject a foreign body into our national veins. They also have to pour into our ears their contempt for our traditional cultures.  But this contempt doesn’t seem to be enough to quench their thirst for vengeance. They also have to insult us and spit in our faces. We are “ignorant, xenophobic, paranoid, stupid, deranged, and so on”.

In La Vengeance des Nations (1990), Alain Minc, who explains to us the benefits of immigration, assures us that it is “ignorance which feeds xenophobia” (p154), and that we should “fight against the insanity of xenophobia” and put an end to this “French paranoia” (p208). To do this, Alain Minc proposes that immigrants be systematically favoured over the French, along the same lines as the American model.

Michael Moore, a favourite with the media, claims in his book, published in 2002, that there really is no point in pulling any punches with these Stupid White Men (the title of the book), because they understand absolutely nothing about their situation.

And I won’t list here the endless films in which cosmopolitan film directors seem to quench their thirst for vengeance against Christian civilisation in particular and the white man in general. It seems clear to me, in light of this logorrhoea, that those people hate us. It couldn’t be any clearer, even if they were fluorescent and had flashing lights on their heads!

How do you explain the obvious spirit of vengeance, whereas the religious texts tend to talk about universal peace?

The desire for revenge is found in a very large number of works. It can be clearly seen in the books of novelists such as Albert Cohen (in his Frères Humains) and Patrick Mondiano (La Place de l’Etoile). The great guru of Afrocentrism, Martin Bernal, who is in fact white, has touched upon this feeling: “My objective is to reduce the intellectual arrogance of Europeans.”

If we now go further back in history, we see that these recurrent themes have survived intact for centuries. At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the Rabbi Schlomo Molkho, who was considered by a great number of Jews to be a messianic figure, wrote down his very revealing prophetic visions, in which we find the idea that there will be “vengeance against nations” and that “nations will tremble”. (Moshe Idel, Messianisme et mystique, 1994, pp. 65-66). Moshe Idel comments that “the poem of Molkho clearly refers to the coming of a double revenge: against Edom and Ishmael”, that is to say against Christendom and the Islamic world.  He adds, moreover, that: “God not only shows how to fight against Christianity but also how to break its force so that the Redemption may come” (p48). Could it be any clearer?

This sort of prophetic delirium can be found among many other Jewish historical figures, such as Isaac Abravanel, who was the leader of the Jewish community in Spain prior to their expulsion in 1492. He later became the mythical hero of Iberian Jews. He very clearly described the revenge that the people of Israel would have against Christianity, and was already at the time calling

“for all nations to rise up and do battle with Edom” (the vision of Obadia, in Genesis 20:13, quoted in John-Christoph Attias, Isaac Abravanel: La mémoire et l’espérance [Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1992], p. 256).

For those who are still looking for the reason for this age-old hatred, here is a short explanation:

“Near is the day when the Eternal will take revenge on all nations which had destroyed the First Temple and enslaved Israel in exile. And you too, Edom, will know vengeance and the sword as with the destruction of the Second Temple…All deliverance promised by Israel is associated with the fall of Edom”  (ibid. p. 276).

 This ancient desire for vengeance, now over twenty centuries old, was also expressed by the philosopher Jacob Talmon, who in 1965 wrote:

“The Jews have some very ancient blood feuds to settle with the Christian West” (J.-L. Talmon, Destin d’Israël, [Paris: Calmann-Lévy 1965, 1967], p. 18).

In his novel, republished in 2000, Pierre Paraf, former president of the LICA (League Against Anti-Semitism), has one of his characters recall that:

“So many of our brothers, wearing the rouelle, agonise under the Christian whip. Praise be to God! Jerusalem will unite them one day; they shall have their revenge!” (Quand Israël aima [Paris: Les belles letters, 1929, 2000, p. 19).

2000 years of hatred ! It would appear that these people are tenacious when it comes to bearing grudges!

Indeed, we are far from the cinematic cliché of the “poor little persecuted Jew”. Can we finally give credence to the widespread idea or “prejudice” that Jews want to dominate the world?

I don’t have any personal ideas on this matter, and I confine myself to analysing purely what is written. Consequently, I cannot confirm that every single Jewish intellectual feels this way. But this idea has been expressed by some among them. The book on Abravanel confirms this interpretation based on Biblical texts:  “Samuel believed that all nations, during the messianic age, would be dominated by Israel, in accordance with what is written : “his rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth” (Zechariah 9,10). “During the deliverance to come, a king from the House of David will reign” (Attias, Isaac Abravanel, p. 228). “Great peace will reign on earth in the era of the Messiah-King” (Attias, Isaac Abravanel, p. 198). Here we have the confirmation that Israel fights for “peace”!

In the novel Flammes Juives (Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1936, 1999), Camille Marbo tells the story of young Moroccan Jews who leave their mellah in the 1920s to live in France. The book clearly mentions “Israel’s conquest of the world”. Further on, we find the following passages:

“Israel should rule the world”, says Daniel… (p10)

“They are scared of us”, repeated old Benatar, “because we are the race of the prophets” (p18)

“Our generation is not ready to conquer Christianity. But you will be able to lay the foundation and your children will be ready for work. They will confound the Christians. Israel will lead the world as it should.” (p126)

There are many other books on the same theme.

So the “anti-Semitic” accusation of Jews wanting to establish a world government is, therefore, perhaps not the product of “deranged minds” as Taguieff would claim?

There is no doubt that every effort is made to make us abandon our roots, our traditions, our history, our families and our homelands, in order to make us accept the “open society”  and the idea of world government, cherished by cosmopolitan intellectuals.

Alain Finkielkraut stressed that “evil comes into the world via homelands and surnames”. (L’Humanité perdue, p.154.). Post-modern man must stop “pursuing his traces from the past, both his own and those of others”. His claim to fame : “is to be cosmopolitan and to wage war against parochialism” (Alain Finkielkraut, Le Mécontemporain [Paris: Gallimard, 1991], pp. 174-77).

On this basis, we can finally accept the idea of a “planetary confederation”, as desired by Edgar Morin, or preferably, work for the establishment of a world government, as described by Jacques Attali:

“Once European-wide institutions have been put into place, there will perhaps be an urgent need for a world government” (Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle).

All this, of course, won’t stop the famous anti-fascist hunter Pierre-André Taguieff from being outraged by “anti-Semitic rants” and from claiming that the idea of world domination is an absurdity or a “hoax”.

One cannot deny, however, that the Jews have been persecuted terribly throughout history. How do they themselves explain their misfortune?

It’s probably the most surprising chapter of the book. All explanations of this are, once again, concordant. Most of the time they are based on the theory of the “scapegoat”, according to which nations turn against a pre-designated victim to be accused of all crimes “past, present and future”.

But those directly concerned seem to completely misunderstand this phenomenon. For instance, Clara Malraux (the wife of the author, André Malraux) believes that anti-Semitism “is easier to bear when you know it is completely and utterly unjustified and that, for this reason, the enemy is transformed into the enemy of humanity” (Rahel, Ma grande soeur . . . [Paris: Editions Ramsay, 1980], p. 15.).

The enemy of the Jews is the enemy of entire human race. Writing in the second volume of his Mémoires, Elie Wiesel says precisely the same thing:

“It’s just the way things are and we can do nothing about it: the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity…By killing Jews, the killers set about murdering the whole of humanity”

Yes, that’s right: to kill a Jew who is innocent by nature, so to speak, is tantamount to attacking every innocent person and every other community. Therefore whoever attacks the Jews must, by definition, be the enemy of humanity.

There is also more conventional interpretation, based on the idea that the Jews define themselves as humanity, the other nations being, according to an expression purportedly from the Talmud, “the seed of cattle.”

In his book (Le Discours de la haine), the philosopher André Glucksmann claims that :

“the hatred of Jews is the greatest of all enigmas…The Jew is no way the source of anti-Semitism. We need to consider this mania in isolation and in relation to itself, as if the Jew it persecutes didn’t exist…For two thousand years, the Jew has got in the way…For two thousand years, he has been a living problem for those around him. For two thousand years, he has been in no way to blame.”  (André Glucksmann, Le Discours de la haine [Paris: Plon, 2004], pp. 73, 86, 88.).

You must understand that “the Jew” is always innocent. Again, we haven’t just taken isolated cases here, and this attitude seems to be that of the majority of Jewish intellectuals.

Emmanuel Lévinas has also expressed this opinion as has Shmuel Trigano, for whom anti-Semitism “remains unexplained despite an enormous library on the subject” (Shmuel Trigano, L’Idéal démocratique… à l’épreuve de la shoah [Paris: Editions Odile Jacob, 1999], p. 17)

We also often hear that anti-Semitism is a mental illness…

Given that the phenomenon is inexplicable and that the Jews are innocent, the source of the problem, logically, can only be the goys themselves. Let’s look at what the philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, philosopher of religions, has to say on the matter in his book Portraits Juifs:

“Historically speaking, it is a phenomenon which is unfathomable. Anti-Semitism, as far as I’m concerned, is not a problem for the Jews but for the goyim” (Herlinde Loelbl, Portraits juifs, 2003).

In the first volume of his Mémoires, Elie Wiesel writes:

“I wasn’t far from saying to myself : it’s their problem not ours” ((Elie Wiesel, Mémoires, vol. I [Paris: Le Seuil, 1994], pp. 30, 31).

Mental disorder as an explanation for anti-Semitism is a theme often found in the work of Jewish intellectuals.  Raphaël Draï’s book, picks up on this theme :

“The anti-Semite attributes his own intentions to the Jew…The psychopathological dimension cannot be ignored…The Jews portrayed have been projected; the “Judaised” image is peculiar to the delusion of anti-Semites” (Raphaël Draï, Identité juive, identité humaine [Paris: Armand Colin, 1995], pp. 390-92).

The Russian author Vassili Grossman, expressed the same idea :

“Anti-Semitism is the mirror of the defects of man taken individually, of civil societies, of government systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I will tell what you are guilty of yourself. When National Socialism attributed to a Jewish people – which it had itself invented – characteristics such as racism, the desire to dominate the world or cosmopolitan indifference to his German homeland, it in fact endowed the Jews with its own traits” (Vassili Grossman, Vie et destin [Paris: Ed. Julliard, 1960], pp. 456-58).

Basically, as you can see, the anti-Semite blames Jews for his own defects. In this respect, it is indeed a problem for psychotherapy. But one question remains: is it really the goyim who are in most need of this?

You are aware, I hope, that your comments are very disconcerting and that you have taken on a tough opponent? Do you not fear legal problems?

My analysis is honest and scrupulous enough for me to fear nothing from a legal point of view. I can assure you that I am not attacking anybody. I confine my analysis to what I discover here and there. If today the truth is illegal, the duty of the judge, as a member of the judiciary, is certainly to condemn it. But my personal duty as a writer is to write it. Also, don’t forget that I have several centuries of quintessentially French impertinence behind me. And this does help!

Hervé Ryssen, 2006

Interview Translated from French

Source: http://herveryssen.hautetfort.com/les-origines-religieuses-du-mondialisme.html

Chapter 3 (pages 118-27) of Hervé Ryssen’s  Les Espérances Planétariennes (Planetary Hopes)

Going back a little bit in history, we can see that the craze for Turkey among the most “open minded” was already apparent during the 19th century. During this period, the Balkans were still ruled by the Ottoman regime, which resorted to the most extreme violence in order to suppress nationalist uprisings by Europeans subjected to its dictatorship. The Serbian uprising in 1875, for instance, was drowned in a bath of blood by the Turks, and that of the Bulgarians the following year had led to the most barbaric atrocities.

Europe was disturbed by this and Gladstone, a man who was not yet the British Prime Minister, wrote his famous book “Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East”, which condemned Turkey in general and Disraeli’s pro-Turkish policy in particular. This Jewish Prime Minister, an exception in British political history, also led Britain into the Afghan war, which led to an enormous loss of blood and treasure, all in the name of a supposed affront. Here again, Gladstone, in 1881, strove to oppose this disastrous military intervention which lost Afghan respect for the British.

A hundred and twenty three years later in 2002, the Afghans had to endure yet another Anglo-Saxon invasion led by George Bush and his closest advisers, the “neo-conservatives” and the ultra-Zionists. The 9/11 terrorist attacks couldn’t go unpunished. The New York twin towers, owned by Larry Silverstein, had to be avenged.

The invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 was followed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq by American soldiers in 2003. But Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan have never been a threat to Europe, and in so far as Saddam Hussein represented a danger, it was only really ever for Israel.

These various American military interventions are all part of the great planetary project. The goal is to weaken Islam in the Islamic territories, because its followers are the only ones today who seem to vigorously resist the masters of the New World Order. The ideal would be to submit and convert all Muslim countries to the ideals of the democratic free market and militant secularism. Another component of this planetary policy is to increase the Muslim population in European countries in order to dissolve national communities and to eliminate resistance by ‘ethnically homogenous’ populations.

So Serbia, accused of ethnic cleansing, had to be punished by the “international community”. It was therefore dutifully bombed by the American air-force in 1999. As usual, in order to prepare the European population for a new war, mass graves were discovered in order to support the idea of a murderous regime. People were terrified by the thought of a ‘new Hitler’ and the tyrant’s formidable armed forces, even though it was a tiny and impoverished country. We are now obliged to tell the truth and admit that the mass graves were in fact military grave yards.  As with the infamous mass grave in Timisoara in Romania, during the collapse of the Communist regime, we had to face up to the fact that the number of victims must have been multiplied by ten. All this propaganda, “raising awareness”, was aimed purely at preparing public opinion for a pre-meditated war.

During the military campaign against Serbia, the US government was strongly influenced by ultra-Zionist advisers all of whom were imbued with the planetary faith. On the 5 December 1996, the American President Bill Clinton had changed his foreign policy team.  At the State Department, Madelein K Albright replaced Warren Christopher. Albright is in fact the surname of her divorced husband, and K refers to Korbel, a family from Czechoslovakia. At the Department of Defence, William S Cohen replaced William Perry. At the head of the CIA, Antony Deutch is replaced by John Deutch, though here again it was just a case of one member of the Council of Foreign Relations replacing another member. The former assistant to Lake, Samuel R Berger, was now in a key strategic post in charge of national security.

The American intervention allowed the Muslims to expel the Serbs from what was historically their territory. The Serbian exodus slowly continued under Bernard Kouchner’s proconsul, mandated by the UN. The Muslims today form the clear majority, after having embarked on another operation of ethnic cleansing, which was met with complete indifference by the international community. Six years later in June 2005, Bernard-Henri Lévy, talking about his political involvement during the Serbian war on a television programme, stated: “I felt sick when President Mitterrand declared that, as long as he lives, France would never declare war against the Serbs” (1).

The shift in beliefs of the Communist author, Guy Konopnicki, tells us a great deal about the ideological development of a number of Western Jewish intellectuals. He today bemoans the anti-Americanism which prevails in France on both the extreme left and right. “This lack of humanity is totally sickening”, he writes. He was a founder member of SOS-Racisme and had left this organisation with the millionaire Pierre Berger as a protest against the group’s opposition to the first Gulf War.

He wrote at the time: “I had always been somebody who protested when bombs were dropped somewhere in the world. This time, and I say this without shame, I cheered when a deluge of fire rained on Iraq”. Patrick Bruel, the chart-topping French singer, also abandoned his militant pacifist convictions to support the extremely belligerent action of the US government.  It is true that Israeli interests were at stake…

Konopnicki, however, will not have anybody accuse him of Islamaphobia : “I have campaigned for equal rights for the young Arabs in our suburbs, participated in the creation of SOS-Racisme, defended the Afghan revolt against the 1979 Soviet invasion and the besieged Bosnia Muslims in Sarajevo” (2). But with this new international crisis he couldn’t really remain indifferent, especially as the Jews appeared to face a direct threat. Promote Islam in France but fight it abroad. All this is completely coherent and perfectly fits the cosmopolitan ideal. He states “Extremists have struck New York with the destruction of the Twin Towers, just as they had once destroyed Florence, and then Berlin with Kristal Nacht and the burning of books”. He then has the audacity to claim that all journalists, without exception, had hidden something during the crisis: “For Osama Bin Laden the destruction of the World Trade Centre was but the prelude to further destruction, dreamt of by many: the destruction of Israel. For him, the Twin Towers were a temple of Jewish power and symbolically represented Israel” (3). They might have said so sooner.

We now understand a little better the motives of the various parties involved and the Konopniciki’s relentless struggle against the new planetary enemy: “The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were all anti-Semitic. That of the 21st century may well be cloaked in an ethnic identity and present itself as an expression of a forgotten people but, in this particular case, it hardly distinguishes itself by its originality. Islamic extremism is an ideology of death which, just like all the others, revives anti-Semitism” (4)

Consequently, Europe must be called upon to wage war, a total war against the enemies of Israel. To this end, the interests of Israel will be said to be the same as those of “the West” and, in particular, the same as those of “civilisation” and the “whole world”. “World peace”, Konopnicki asserts, “is not in the hands of the Israeli government. On the contrary, peace will only be possible for Israel and the Palestinians if the European and American governments are capable of fighting Islamic extremism, keeping it at bay by military, economic and political means” (5).

Planetary hopes are fuelled by other people’s wars. But what is incredible is that the intellectuals who represent this school of thought have succeeded right from the very start, with the most outrageous cheek, to portray themselves as peacekeepers.

The thoughts of another avid warmonger confirm this. Elie Wiesel did not hesitate to emphasize the great ideals of peace and love in order to expedite the war against Iraq in 1991. “It is not just a question of helping Kuwait”, he said at the time, “it is a question of helping the entire Arab world.” The West as a whole had to rise up against the “butcher of Baghdad”. “It is vital to wage war against his war. Against the destructive force that he turns against humanity, we must use a greater force so that humanity may survive. For what’s at stake here is not just the future of Israel, but also the security of the civilised world, its right to peace… A desire for vengeance? No: a desire for justice. And peace. ”

The people of Israel are not to blame, of course. The people of Israel are innocent. Israel is always innocent. So they could not understand why the Iraqi dictator tried to take revenge on this country for the American invasion: “Because the Americans and their allies attack Baghdad, Iraq bombs Israel. Insane, criminal and absurd aggression but, given that this is Saddam Hussein, this doesn’t surprise anybody (6).”

Albert Einstein was deeply involved in the pacifist movement during the inter-war years. Some of his letters (7) clarify the great man’s motives. In the spring of 1914, Einstein left Switzerland to live in Berlin, where he was appointed director of a scientific institute.  He was a pacifist at the time, as demonstrated by what he wrote to a friend in 1914 : “The international catastrophe in which we find ourselves imposes a heavy burden on me as an internationalist”

He corresponded with the French pacifist writer Romain Rolland, who described the first time he met Einstein: “Einstein does not expect that Germany alone will be the author of its own revival. He hopes for an Allied victory which will destroy the Prussian regime and its dynasty. Despite his lack of affinity for Britain, he would still prefer a British to a German victory, because Britain would be better than Germany at leaving the world in peace… (Note that Einstein is Jewish, which explains his internationalist outlook and his snide criticism)”

If we have correctly understood Romain Rolland, Einstein was apparently more of a patriot than a pacifist. But in so far as he had patriotic sentiment for Germany, a country which after all had welcomed him, he apparently owed more loyalty to her enemies, because he identified more with democratic ideals than he did with the German nation. In another letter, written in September 1918, Einstein stated: “The salvation of Germany, in my opinion, can only come through a rapid and radical process of democratisation, modelled on the democratic institutions of the Western powers”. His wishes were granted with the German defeat on the 9th November, when the republic was declared. He wrote at the time: “I am delighted by the turn of events. The German defeat has worked wonders. The academic community see me as some kind of radical socialist.”

In late 1918, he gave a speech at the Reichstag as a representative for the academic community. In his speech, he expressed his affinity with Communist ideas: “The old society, in which we were governed by a class that confiscated power, has just collapsed of its own sins and by the liberating acts of soldiers. For the time being, we must accept as the organs of the popular will their swiftly elected Soldiers’ Council (8), acting in concert with the Workers’ Council. In this critical hour, we owe these public authorities our unconditional obedience and must support them with all our might.” This is a very clear declaration of support for the Marxist revolution.

Einstein, however, did not continue in this radical vain. On 2 April 1921, he arrived for the first time in the United States, accompanied by Chaim Weizman, leader of the Zionist movement. Few people in the US at the time were aware of his pacifist activities, and the aim of his first visit was to obtain the finance needed for the construction of a Hebrew university in Jerusalem. His efforts were fruitful, mainly thanks to the generosity of a large portion of the American medical community. During his stay, he organised several conferences which raised his profile in the US.

On his return to Germany in 1922, he confided to Max Planck that: “Some cautious people have advised me to leave Berlin for a while and to avoid any public appearance in Germany. According to them, I have been added to a list of people that the Nationalists plan to assassinate.” Ten days later he wrote to another friend: “Following the dreadful assassination of Rathenau, there is much civil unrest in the city. There isn’t a day that goes by without somebody urging me to be careful. I have had to report myself absent and cancel all my lectures. Anti-Semitism is gaining ground.”

To understand the meaning of this remark, we have to remember that Germany, at the end of the war, was in the midst of a civil war in which the Bolshevik leaders – many of whom were Jewish, such as Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht – were the catalysts.

So, in October 1922, Einstein came to Marseille and boarded a ship for the East. On the way back, he visited Palestine and Spain. On the 26 October 1922, he went to Colombo, on the island of what was then Ceylon, and noted in his travel-log: “Their lifestyle seems to be confined to the quite life of those who are submissive but nonetheless serene. Seeing these men live, one loses all respect for European men, who are far more degenerate, brutal, vulgar and grasping”. This contempt for the European male is very clearly detectable in all planetary literature and cinema.

In 1924, he was re-elected to the Committee on Intellectual Cooperation at the League of Nations. In April 1925, he went to Buenos-Aires. While in Montevideo, he wrote: “To hell with these great nations and their arrogance! If I had the power, I would break them up into tiny countries”

In 1930, he unequivocally declared his pacifism in a publication: “Those men who parade with glory in ranks, to the tune of a band, fill me with the most profound contempt. Do they really have any use for a brain? Shouldn’t their spinal cord be more than enough for them? The army, for me, is a shameful social deformity which we must try to cure as fast as possible.”

The same year at an event at New York, he gave a speech in which again he confirmed his “refusal to submit to any form of military duty. Where conscription exists, the pacifist must refuse military duty”. In addition, he reiterated his “uncompromising resistance to war”.  In a speech given in Lyon in 1931, he continued in the same vein: “I ask every newspaper, priding itself on supporting pacifist ideals, to urge its readers to refuse military service. Even before the next Geneva World Disarmament Conference, I call upon every man and every woman, from the most humble to the most powerful, to declare that they will refuse to fight in any war or in the preparation of any form of armed conflict.”

Einstein, then, had the same pacifist beliefs as Dr Freud. Einstein’s correspondence with Freud reached a peak during the summer of 1932, when, under the auspices of International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, the two men debated the causes of war and their remedies. In a letter to Freud, Einstein wrote that “international security implies that each nation must, to a certain extent, surrender its freedom of action, i.e. its sovereignty.”

Einstein’s active peace campaigning came to a sudden halt in 1933 when Hitler came to power. With the new political situation, Einstein made a complete U-turn. Accordingly, he stopped supporting anti-war movements and began supporting the rearmament of the Western powers. On the 5th May, he wrote to Paul Langevin that “I am, personally, convinced that it is still possible to deal with the German threat by imposing an economic blockade”

Immediately, then, he renounced his past as an active peace-campaigner to become a very vocal supporter of a war against Germany: “There is still time to crush those usurpers who have seized power”. On 6th June, he wrote to Stephen Wise, Rabbi of the Free Synagogue in New York, demanding that the American media launch a campaign to raise the public “awareness” of the war: “The American press must tell the public about the German military threat. It has a duty is to make people aware of the disaster that another European war will bring”.

On the 20th July, in another letter, this time to the Belgian Queen Mother, he stated: “Let me tell you in all candour that, if I were Belgian, I would not, at this hour, refuse to carry out my military service. I would graciously accept it because I would be totally convinced that my action would contribute to the protection of civilisation.”

The Bolshevik dictatorship, however, never led him to express such views. So it wasn’t the dictatorial nature of the German regime that sparked his opposition and bellicose ardour but rather its anti-Semitic nature. He wrote: “A bunch of gangsters have managed to seize power and terrorise the rest of the population, systematically indoctrinating youths (9).”

In an “unpublished” letter dating from 1935, he stated: “What really made Hitler leader of Germany was the vicious hatred that he had always felt for everything foreign, his curious dislike of a defenceless minority, the German Jews. Hitler could never stand their intellectual sensitivity which he considers to be – and for once I agree with him – alien to the German race”

On the 9 April 1938 he wrote : “It is, to say the least, worrying and appalling to witness the abolition of basic political and individual rights of a particular minority in certain nations, once proud of their cultural heritage … Germany’s barbaric persecution of its Jews and those of Austria has led it onto the path of destruction that I have just described.” When he wrote this, the Jews had indeed lost their right to work in various professions. This “barbaric persecution” was but the prelude to the true violence of Kristal Nacht, which took place sometime later on 9 November 1938.

On the 25 October 1942, at the height of the war, the Jewish Council for Russian War Relief, organised a dinner in honour of Einstein. As he was unable to attend for health reasons, he sent a message from his American home in Princeton. The message read: “I would finally like to say something of vital importance for us, the Jews. In Russia, equality for all cultural groups is not only written in law but it is also put into practice. For this reason, it seems to me only common sense to want to help Russia as best we can, by deploying all means at our disposal”

So here we have yet another example that demonstrates that Einstein reasoned first and foremost as a member of the Jewish community. His views on militarism, pacifism, democracy, Germany or Russia were but the reflection of specific interests which changed according to the circumstances. Pacifist during the 20s, he became a warmonger when Hitler came to power; pro-Soviet from the beginning, he became anti-Soviet when the Jews were removed from power after the Second World War. The millions of victims butchered by the Bolshevik regime during the inter-war years had never once, for one second, aroused Einstein’s sympathy.

In an interview, published in Free World, he stated: “I don’t see any other solution: either we destroy the German people, or we keep them under a repressive regime. I don’t think it is possible to educate them or to teach them how to think and behave democratically – not in the near future, at any rate.”

When Chaim Weizmann, an old friend of Einstein and the first Israeli president, died on 9 November 1952, Israel invited Einstein to become its second president. But he refused as he felt incapable of running a nation. As a Zionist, he gave his opinion on the Cold War: “We (Israel) should adopt a position of neutrality in the new conflict that divides East from West (10).”

But it is not really clear whether, in his letter of 1954 to Jospeh Lewis, he wrote as a political activist or as representative of his community: “You are right to want to fight against the superstition and power of the priesthood, and when we have defeated them – I do not doubt that one day we will have defeated them – it will seem even more clear to us that man must look to his own legacy, and nowhere else, in order to find the source of all his problems”

Ilya Ehrenbourg was Stalin’s Propaganda Minister during the Soviet war against Nazi Germany. In a large number of poems and texts, he very cleared called for the extermination of the Germans – all Germans, men, women, young and old. He even called for the murder of unborn German babies in their mothers’ wombs. He was, of course, number one on the Nazi death list. But after the war, he became an apostle of peace. This is what his biographer, Lilly Marcou, tell us:  “Witness to the October Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, and the march of German troops into Paris, he is still on the front-line”. After the war, he became “one of the leaders of the peace movement (11) ”. Once we have crushed our enemies, we always want peace…


(1) BHL, Saturday 25 June 2005, on the TV programme, broadcasted on the Franco-German channel, ARTE.

(2) Guy Konopnicki, La Faute des Juifs (Balland, 2002, pp. 17, 22.)

(3) Ibidem, pp. 128, 69.

(4) Ibidem, p. 191.

(5) Ibidem, p. 186.

(6) Elie Wiesel, Mémoires 2, Editions du Seuil, 1996, pp. 144, 146, 152.

(7) Albert Einstein, Le Pouvoir Nu Hermann, 1991.

(8) « Councils » is the translation of the Russian term « Soviet »

(9) “In 1939, the Gestapo employed 7 500 people compared to 366 000 employed by the NKVD in Bolshevik Russia (including those who manned the gulags).” Quoted from the book Du Passé faisons table rase, Histoire et mémoire du communisme en Europe ouvrage collectif, sous la direction de Stéphane Courtois, Robert Laffont, 2002, p. 219.

(10) Letter from Albert Einstein to Zvie Lurie, member of the Jewish Agency in Israel, 4 January 1955, cited in Le Pouvoir nu, op. cit.

(11) Lilly Marcou, Ilya Ehrenbourg, Plon, 1992, p. 11.

Translated from French

The orginal author was Hervé Ryssen, whose book, Les espérances planétariennes is published by Editions-Baskerville.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s