My family was very small when it arrived in Israel; it was made up of just five people: my great-grandmother, my grandmother, my mother, and my mother’s aunt and uncle (my grandmother’s sister and her husband). There’s nothing particularly unusual in that; plenty of Jews arrived in Israel in the years following the war by themselves or with just a handful of family members left to them.
But our family isn’t small because of the Holocaust. Sure, the Nazis played their part: when the Romanians marched into Ukraine my great-grandfather’s family were their victims, killed where they had lived or shipped off to camps in the east. The way the Holocaust is taught in British schools, one imagines that Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen were the only camps, that only German Jews were killed, and some French, some Dutch.
But as efficient as the Nazis were in their efforts to exterminate those they found undesirable, with my family, they’d already missed their window. We were already small.
Every family has their founding legend; ours is that, in 1917, my great-grandmother was found at five years old wandering the streets on frostbitten feet, and that the doctors wanted to cut her toes off but that one of her brothers stopped them. She had four brothers. No one knows what happened to them after that.
Our assumption is that they were part of the 7-11 million people killed during the Russian Civil War of 1917-23, based solely on the fact that they were of fighting age and do not appear to have looked for my great grandmother, or to reclaim her from the orphanage she was sent to.
Of my maternal grandfather’s family we know nothing. He was Ukrainian. 12 million Ukrainians starved to death in the Holodomor, the terror-famine of 1932-33, which came about purely because of the Communists’ collectivisation plan which took food from the regions and shipped it to the elites in Moscow.
That genocide happened five years before Kristallnacht, the night which sparked the Nazi genocide which claimed the lives of 6 million Jews. Yet one is a well-known event, the other is not. Why?
To this day, people hold up the Communist Manifesto as a book which may have its flaws, but nevertheless offers a fundamentally useful critique of capitalism. Left wing commentators like Ash Sarkour feel no shame in going on TV to announce “I am literally a Communist!” yet they wouldn’t dream of suggesting that Mein Kampf held some good ideas, or of announcing “I am literally a Nazi!” Why?
Why is one genocide more egregious than another? Why are one set of demonstrably evil ideas any more worthy of our consideration than another?
THIS WEEK, the UK left the European Union. We have been told for many years that the EU is nothing more than a friendly solution to an economic problem, a mere trading bloc, little more than cordial relations between neighbouring countries. We’ve been told, in the last few years, that leaving the EU would mean economic ruin for Britain.
If that were true, if it were merely a matter of money, why is the debate so flyblown with emotion? Brexiteers aren’t merely economic saboteurs, they’re thick, racist, xenophobic, uneducated, moronic hate-filled oafs who can’t be trusted and who should never have been asked. Brexiteers have been every bit as demonized over the last few years by the enlightened intellectuals who imaging themselves our superiors as the Jews were in Nazi Germany, or the Kulaks were in Communist Russia.
The reason they’ve been so vehement, and that the British people who resisted them and voted to leave, is because it’s widely, albeit subliminally, understood that the EU is a communist enterprise, and those who want to remain in have bought wholesale into the project.
For those who doubt, here is the preamble to the Treaty of Rome (1957) which gave rise eventually to the European Union we know today. It states that the six signatories, representing Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, being:
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,
ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,
DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,
INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,
HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community.
Here’s the same idea in Marx’s words, as written in the Communist Manifesto:
“[T]he bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie; in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
“The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”
In both cases the idea is that an overarching power – the bourgeois in Marx’s terms, nation states according to the EU – are oppressive regimes imposed upon ordinary people in order to enslave them. Therefore it is the duty of the compassionate to smash those structures and break down the barriers in order to spread the wealth more evenly.
‘But don’t national boundaries create wars?’ I hear you cry. ‘Hasn’t the EU ensured peace in Europe?’ No, they don’t, is the short answer, and no, it hasn’t, that was NATO.
What’s important to understand here is that the drive to build the EU as a response to Nazism was merely the next development of an ongoing fight between two socialist factions.
Here is Hitler in Mein Kampf on Marxism and the Jews:
The function of the so-called liberal Press was to dig the grave for the German people and REICH. No mention need be made of the lying Marxist Press. To them the spreading of falsehood is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of international finance and its masters, the Jews.
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear.
When Nazism was defeated by the allies on the Western Front and the Red Army in the East, Communism was given a free reign to enjoy the spoils of war. Stalin took control of vast swathes of Eastern Europe and communists in the west were free to propagate their ideas, including through the construction of the European Economic Community, and eventually the European Union.
But both philosophies are fatally flawed, because both think in terms greater than the individual; in Marxist terms it’s workers v’s bougeois; in Nazism it’s Aryans v’s Jews. Both seek to determine people not according to their individual thoughts, ideas and motives, but according to some abstract aspect of their being: class, or race. Or in modern times, sexuality, or gender.
In short, swap out the word ‘bourgeois’ in Marx’s critique and replace it with ‘Jew’ or ‘intellectual’, and you get Hitler’s socialism. In that respect, all three ideologies are homogenous: all hold that poverty and inequality are caused by a selfish power group who steer society for their own benefit. That critique is wrong, divisive and evil no matter who the power group is said to be. It killed six million Jews under Nazi rule, between half a million and five million kulaks under the Communists’ dekulakisation program of 1929-33, and countless millions more around the globe as Communism sank its teeth into societies from China to the Caribbean.
It was brought to and end by the British-American alliance when they fought the Nazis in the second world war, and when Thatcher and Reagan won the cold war and brought the Iron Curtain down, and now we’re seeing that alliance at work again, in the groundswell of support by British and American patriots for Brexit and Trump.
AND SO on the same day that Britain leaves the EU, it looks certain that the impeachment efforts against Trump will also fail, and that he will likely go on to win the next election. Good news all round for those who value freedom over totalitarianism.
But the story doesn’t end there. Russian efforts to spread communism globally didn’t finish when the curtain fell. To the contrary, they merely morphed and continued unabated by harnessing capitalism instead of seeking to demolish it.
The EU’s proponents certainly haven’t given up. On Wednesday, Guy Verhofstad, loyal party man that he is, gave a speech in the European Parliament in which he claimed that, far from Brexit being a warning to the EU institutions that too much integration would be its demise, doubled down.
“Brexit is a failure of the Union. There is a lesson to learn from it: to deeply reform the Union. To make it into a real Union, a Union without opt-in, without opt-outs, without rebates, without exceptions. Only then we can defend our interests and defend our values,” he said, before promising to strive for Britain to return to the fold.
So the fight against tyranny goes on. But perhaps that’s a story for another day.