Wikipedia doesnt cite a single source in the article regarding the speculations
as to Schiff's motivations. Howeverif Schiff did contribute money to overthrow
the vicious, Jew-murdering Tsarist dictatorship, that's admirable. To consider
Schiff to be in any sense a major factor in the Bolshevik revolution though
would be absurdly simplistic and reductionistic--to date, I've only heard that
claim from those with an overall anti-Semitic agenda.
The article also points out that Schiff was not an admirer of the Soviet
regime. I have no reason to doubt that.
Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You can't
name a single specific fact that Wikipedia got wrong about Jacob Schiff? Until
you can rebut Wikipedia's entry on Schiff with facts from highly reliable
sources, we can tentatively assume that they are true. Jacob Schiff attacked
the Russian government with a conspicuous Jewish agenda specifically in mind,
and in the process no doubt provoked the wrath of many Russians against himself
and everything he stood for and was associated with. (Again, for the benefit
of ethnic cultists and collectivists with major cognitive impairment: Jacob
Schiff DOES NOT equal "the Jews.")
With regard to Antony Sutton: is it fair to say that Sutton is arguing that the
Anglo power elite was more responsible for Communism than the Jewish power
elite? Does Sutton have any hard numbers regarding the comparative involvement
and financial contributions of both groups to the establishment of Communism as
a major world movement? I would especially like to see the financial numbers
presented in a simple list.
tigerbengalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Who cares what Wikipedia says? They're not an
authority on anything. For god sakes, they let Chip Berlet write tons of their
stuff.
No, I'm not aware that "quite a few major Jewish scholars" make the claim you
attribute to them. And in fact, most serious scholars tend to trace modern
communism back to communalistic Christian movements.
But you sean, re argiuing that Schiff (a Jew) was a major factor in the deaths
of 100 million people, through a line of spurious reasoning leading from a
cash contribution to deaths that were attributable to complex global events
over decades.
One could just as easily (and more effectively) attribute the Soviet terror of
the post 1918 era to the anglo american attempts to drown the revolution in
blood.
Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doesn't Wikipedia report that Jacob Schiff supported
the Russian Revolution as part of a particularist Jewish agenda? Should
Wikipedia revise these passages or not? Schiff, an international banker, was
the foremost leader of the Jewish lobby in his time, according to Wikipedia.
Are you aware that quite a few major Jewish scholars argue that Marxism and
Communism were essentially secular iterations of Jewish messianism? (This is
NOT to argue that "the Jews" are responsible for Communism, which is indeed an
antisemitic belief.)
tigerbengalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim--
Glad you brought up the fine scholar Sutton.
From his book on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks:
"However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical
evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the
effect that the British authorities possessed "letters intercepted from various
groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion." If
indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for
a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution
and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
"Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence
and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the
starting point particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else then we
must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were
involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed
have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of
Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons
of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what?
Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston
Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik
Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved
in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews
involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is
adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less
than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries and these Jews
were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years.
Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism.
"It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that
the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the
Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.5
This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the
Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.
"The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed
suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the
real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests
that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in
supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles
(Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.
What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the
medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?"
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/appendix_02.htm
tim_howells_1000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LeaNder wrote:
Admittedly I have a moral problem here. I guess I do not need to explain it
further, do I? My central question would be, could he foresee the results of
his actions, that is the rise of the communists? He does not feel like
somebody, who would support it, considering his occupation and status. I
checked in Google Scholar. So yes, willful ignorance. What
books/experts/authors would you recommend on the issue.
Jacob Schiff was pretty much at the center of a revolution in US affairs
that occurred between the Civil War and The beginning of World War I. This was
when we were transformed from a democracy into a plutocracy. For a brief
introduction that manages to hit many of the big issues with great clarity
see The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard. His online essay Wall Street,
Banks and American Foreign Policy covers some of the same material.
The financial powers that consolidated their control of the United States
during this period appear to have gone on to fund both the Communist Revolution
in Russia, and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. See:
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Anthony Sutton
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Anthony Sutton
Conjuring Hitler: How Britain And America Made the Third Reich, Guido
Giacomo Preparata
I haven't read the last yet, but it looks very interesting, and I have it on
order. We've discussed Sutton here before, and I know you and Sean have an
aversion because you associate him with the CIA Drugs crowd. Try not to hold
that against him - this is not his fault! Sutton is actually a very fine
scholar.
Tim Howells
>
> I guess we have approached the center of earlier allusions, I never
> quite understood.
>
>
>
> LeaNder" wrote:
>
> ... But I find it hard to consider this as double loyalty.Admittedly, I
> still wonder why Tim picked this example. Schiff'sactions were
> supportive of his countries politics. So politicians atthe time probably
> considered them utterly loyal.
>
> Barbara, you are once again withdrawing into your willful ignorancemode.
> As you know perfectly well, and as I explicitly spelled out foryou in a
> previous post <../../../../message/25236> , I was talking about the
> impact of Schiff's actions, which he took on behalf of the Russian
> Jewish community, on RUSSIA and not the impact of those actions on the
> United States.
>
> But in any case your assumption that Schiff's actions weresupportive of
> US policies is also completely wrong. In fact Schiffpressured President
> Taft to abrogate treaties that the US had signedtogether with Russia,
> and when Taft refused Schiff stormed out of theroom and started working
> feverishly to defeat Taft in the nextelection. This was ultimately
> accomplished by convincing TeddyRoosevelt to run again on a third party
> ticket, splitting theRepublican vote, and allowing the political
> featherweight, WoodrowWilson to waltz into the White House.
>
> There were other more important reasons why Schiff and other
> majorfinancial forces turned against Taft, but for Schiff, the Russian
> issuewas a factor.
>
> Tim Howells
>
---------------------------------
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
