The American Nazi Bund and the communist Jews of post WWI Germany

The American Nazi Bund, more accurately known as the German American Bund (Amerikadeutscher Volksbund AV), emerged from an earlier organization called the "Friends of the New Germany"(FONG, FDND in German), was a pro-Nazi organization active in the United States from 1936 to 1941.  

The German American Bund aimed to promote German culture and Nazi ideology among German Americans. 

They held rallies, often adorned with Nazi symbols (like swastikas) and American flags, and featured Nazi salutes alongside the U.S. flag salute.

They vigorously promoted antisemitism, claiming Jews were enemies of both the U.S. and Germany, and spread conspiracy theories like "Judeo-Bolshevism." Additionally, the Jews were blamed for the defeat of Germany in the "Stab in the back" accusation and for the spread of communism.

They promoted false ideas and spreading the lie that Jews controlled politics, the economies, the media and other areas of society. 

• The Bund published its own newspaper, the "Deutscher Weckruf und Beobachter" (German Call and Observer), and circulated other propaganda materials.
• They established recreational camps across the U.S. (including in New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and California) and created an American version of the Hitler Youth to indoctrinate children in German language, history, and Nazi philosophy.
• The organization had a uniformed, paramilitary wing called the Ordnungsdienst (OD), modeled after the Nazi Party's SA, which provided security at their events.

The Bund sought to create a community that embraced Nazi principles and to influence American public opinion in support of Nazi Germany.

They insisted they were a patriotic American organization, claiming there was no contradiction between American patriotism and support for Nazism. Their vision for the U.S. included establishing white Christian supremacy, expelling Jews from labor and government, and isolating the U.S. from international conflicts.

While their leader Fritz Julius Kuhn, a naturalized American citizen born in Germany, claimed over 20,000 members. Historically documented evidence revealed that their actual membership peaked at around 6,000 to 10,000.

Despite its public presence and alarming activities, the Bund ultimately had a negligible impact within the broader German-American community, with the vast majority not supporting it. Even the German government disavowed the organization and restricted its activities in 1938 due to its ineffectiveness.

In the end the Bund faced increasing scrutiny from the U.S. government, including investigations by the FBI and the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Dies Committee).

Additionally, their leader Fritz Kuhn was jailed in 1939 for embezzling Bund funds, which significantly weakened the organization.

After the disasterous attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7th 1941, and the declaration of war by Japan's Axis Ally Nazi Germany. The Bund rapidly declined and was officially banned. Many of its leaders were subsequently tried for sedition.

Honest Reporting

As I have frequently stated I so dislike those po-Israel people who in their rush to write they do not do "Due Diligence" and verify the truth of what they say or PUBLISH! 

There are many of those whom I have chastised for their mistakes. who think of me as an cantankerous old coot.

As a truthful historian one must relay the documented truth! 

As a JOURNALIST, one must maintain journalist integrity-by doing "Due Diligence", which regretfully we see now is a thing of the past.

By relaying incorrect or false information it merely plays into the arsenal of mendacious lies of the backers of the "Landless refugee decendants of the eunuchs of the Great Nachba".

In an article ,that I read recently the writer relayed the nefarious claim that President Richard M. Nixon helped Israel in 1973 because of: "A Promise To His Mother".

This statement is incorrect.

It is an undocumented assertion that President Nixon aided Israel in 1973 primarily because of a promise he had made to his mother. This statement is not supported by any historical evidence. (Bovine Excrement)

Richard Nixon's personal sentiments and background are often discussed in relation to his presidency but here is ABSOLUTELY NO historical evidence to support this statement!

Historians and analyses of the Yom Kippur War and of Nixon's foreign policy point out that there were several key geopolitical and strategic motivations for the massive U.S. airlift of military supplies- (known as Operation Nickel Grass) to Israel.

• The most significant factor was the Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union, who was heavily arming and supporting Egypt and Syria. 
• A decisive Arab victory, especially with Soviet backing, would have greatly enhanced Soviet influence in the Middle East and been a major strategic blow to the U.S. and its position against communism. 
• US President Nixon and his then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saw the Arab-Israeli conflict as a proxy war between the superpowers.
• Preventing Israel's Defeat (and Potential Nuclear Escalation) was a major consideration. 

In the Yom Kippur War of 1973 Israel suffered significant initial losses. There were credible fears that if the tide of the war didn't turn, Israel might face a catastrophic defeat, potentially even leading to a desperate use of its undeclared nuclear capabilities. US President Nixon was determined to prevent Israel's collapse.

Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger believed that an Israeli victory, or at least a strong negotiating position, would be necessary to bring about meaningful peace talks between Israel and the Arab states. They aimed to establish a new diplomatic order in the Middle East that would be favorable to U.S. interests.

 As an ally, the U.S. had a vested interest in demonstrating its commitment to Israel thereby maintaining U.S. Credibility.  By abandoning Israel in its hour of need would have severely damaged U.S. credibility with allies worldwide.

The Nixon administration was still heavily dealing with the utter fiasco from the aftermath of the US actions in Viet Nam and the US Administrion strove to avoid yet another geopolitical disaster.  

US President Nixon and his then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were in their commitment to avoid another prolonged and costly military quagmire, as well as to prevent a situation that could escalate directly into a U.S.-Soviet confrontation.

Here is an exerpt from a book published by the Insight Team of the London Sunday Times, page 376-Regarding Nickel Grass:

"In this struggle, the U.S. resupply effort was now crucial, as the Egyptians realized. "We could see the effects of American aid after October 16," Egypt's deputy premier, Mohammed Abdel Hatem, said afterward. "From October 6-16, there was a marked decline in the effectiveness of the Israeli Air Force. They began with 3,000 sorties a day and declined to about 1,500 on October 16 [the day Sharon crossed]. But after October 16, the number of daily sorties increased sharply once more."

New tanks were arriving as well. At first, the giant U.S. C-5A Galaxy transports landed only at Lod Airport; but as the airlift got under way through the week of October 14-20, some Galaxies carrying M-48 and M-60 tanks landed in Sinai itself, at the airstrip at El Arish. This got the tanks to the front a few hours."

While Nixon's personal views on Jews and Israel were complex and at times contradictory (with some evidence of anti-Semitic remarks in private). 

His decision-making during the Yom Kippur War was overwhelmingly driven by strategic national interests within the context of the Cold War.

There is no widely accepted historical account that attributes his decision to a promise made to his mother. FACT!!

In his article the author also stated that; "Prime Minister Golda Meir was in a state of shock." 

Golda was NOT in anyway in "Shock". I know because when I had made aliyah in 1974 I was fortunate to meet and speak with Golda. She relayed to me how her "top" advisers -she OVER relied on Moshe Dayan- counseled her not to worry, saying they would have adequate notice before any war broke out. 

Shock? No! If anything she was deeply and emotionally sorrowful over the terrible price in lives we have paid for our homeland 

What angered her the most was the betrayal of "Court Jew" Henry Kissenger.

As Golda was a politician and party member and had never served in the military. She "over relied" on those "Generals" who were subservient to her.

and as I once contributed to Wikkipedia I wrote:

"In the days leading up to the Yom Kippur War, Israeli intelligence could not conclusively determine that an attack was imminent. 

However, on 5 October 1973, Meir received information that Syrian forces were massing on the Golan Heights. Golda was alarmed by the reports, and believed that the situation was similar to what preceded the Six-Day War. 

The advice of the "Generals" made sense at the time; after the Six Day War, since most of those in the Israeli intelligence community considered the Arabs unprepared to launch another attack.

Consequently, although the Knesset passed a resolution granting her power to demand a full-scale call-up of the military (instead of the typical cabinet decision), Meir did not mobilize Israel's forces early. 

Soon, though, the threat of war became very clear. Six hours before the outbreak of hostilities, Meir met with Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan and General David Elazar. Dayan continued to argue that war was unlikely and favored calling up the air force and only two divisions. Army Chief of Staff Elazar advocated a full-scale army mobilization and the launch of a full-scale preemptive strike on Syrian forces."

On October 6, Meir approved full-scale mobilizing but rejected a preemptive strike, citing concerns that Israel might be perceived as initiating hostilities. 

Take special note of this:

"She had made it a priority to inform Washington of her decision. U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger later confirmed Meir's assessment by stating that if Israel had launched a preemptive strike, Israel would not have received the backing of the United States." 

Golda was distraught after her telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Henry Kissenger. She realised that an Israel pre-emptive strike may save many Israeli lives but she also knew that Israel would be dependent on access to crucial foreign aid and military support, in particular from the United States, in the resulting conflict. 

In the continuation of the article that I mentioned the writer blithely stated: 

"Israel, with less than 200 tanks facing an enemy with 1400 tanks was totally ill-equipped to counter an onslaught of this magnitude."

As a historian and IDF veteran I wish to correct the article with the true facts!!!

In October 1973, at the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had a diverse tank inventory of some 1200, primarily consisting of modernized Western-made tanks.

The main types of tanks in the IDF's possession were:

Centurion tanks (Sho't): 

These British-made main battle tanks were heavily modified by Israel, receiving a new powerpack (Continental AVDS-1790-2A diesel engine and Allison CD850-6 transmission) and a 105mm L7 gun. 

These upgraded versions were known as "Sho't Kal" (Alef, Bet, Gimel, Dalet sub-variants). The Sho't Meteor, an earlier upgrade with the original Rolls-Royce Meteor engine but also armed with the 105mm gun, also saw some combat. By the start of the war, 293 Centurion tanks were operational.

M48 Patton (Magach-3): 

These American-made tanks were upgraded by Israel, primarily by replacing their original 90mm gun with the 105mm L7 gun and receiving other improvements such as new engines and transmissions. These were known as "Magach-3."

M60/M60A1 Patton (Magach-6): 

Newer American-made tanks that were also in Israeli service, sometimes referred to as "Magach-6."

In terms of numbers, documented sources indicate that Israel had approximately 540 of the modified M48A3 (Magach-3) and M60A1 (Magach-6) tanks as well as Centurions, 293 were operational at the beginning of the war. 

While older Sherman variants (M-50 and M-51, sometimes referred to as "Super Shermans") had largely been replaced in regular units, they were still used by reserve units on both the Sinai and Golan Heights fronts during the Yom Kippur War. 

TRUE DOCUMENTED FACTS!

The Patriotism of the American Jew

Why knowledge, education and historical fact are desperatedly needed today.

"My sympathies are with this brilliant race.Centuries ago its nationality was destroyed in Palestine. It was dispersed over the face of the globe. The laws of almost all nations have discrimminated against it; and yet it has shown such marvelous vitality that it has made for itself a proud place."

Samuel W McCall, House of Representatives on the abrogation of the Russian Treaty, December,1911 

Some 70 years ago my grandmother Jesse Abromson, wife of my maternal grandfather Ben Levy passed away. 

My mother Beverly Roseman Levy -their only child-went to clear out their home as my grandfather moved to live in our home. 

Among my grandmothers belongings was a book presented to, her father, my great grandfather Hyman Abromson in 1929, by the then standing Member of the House of Representatives George Huddleston, entitled: "The Patriotism of the American Jew"  by Samuel W McCall.

Samuel Walker McCall served twenty years (1893–1913) as a member of the United States House of Representatives, and he was elected to be the 47th Governor of Massachusetts, serving three one-year terms (1916–1919). 

Later in life he authored the book "The Patriotism of the American Jew" which was published in 1924.  This book explored the historical and ongoing contributions of Jews to American society and our Jewish strong sense of patriotism. 

The book, revolutionary for its time during the post WWI  "Isolationism Period", marked by a desire to avoid entanglement in European conflicts and a focus on domestic affairs, a national desire that significantly shaped American foreign policy throughout the 1920s and 1930s.

During this period of American history was an Anti-immigrant sentiment, partly fueled by post-WWI anti-European feelings and concerns about economic competition. This period gave rebirth to the largest and most widespread iteration of the Klu Klux Klan. Its revival was significantly influenced by D.W. Griffith's 1915 film "Birth of a Nation," which glorified the original Klan. 

This "second Klan" expanded beyond the South and gained millions of members nationwide, particularly in the Midwest. It broadened its targets to include not only African Americans but also Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and others perceived as threats to "100% Americanism." 

This version of the hate filled Klan wielded significant political power in some areas. Its influence "only" waned by the end of the 1920s due to internal strife, public exposure of its violence, and changing societal attitudes.

American isolationism in the post-WWI era also had a profound and often devastating impact on Jewish communities, particularly in the context of the rise of fascisim and rising antisemitism in Europe. 

This period was characterized by restrictive immigration policies, public xenophobia, and a reluctance to intervene in international affairs, all of which limited the ability of the United States to offer refuge and aid to Jews facing persecution.

In light of the "Wave of Isolationism", Samuel W. McCall argued in his book "The Patriotism of the American Jew" published in 1924. That Jewish Americans have consistently demonstrated their loyalty and commitment to the United States while also maintaining connections to their cultural and religious heritage, particularly their relationship with Israel. 

McCall writes of  the historical and ongoing contributions of Jewish individuals to American society and how Jews have consistently demonstrated their loyalty and commitment to the United States while also maintaining connections to their cultural and religious heritage, particularly their relationship with Israel. 

The book highlighted how Jews have been involved in American history since its founding, participating in the Revolutionary War and how Jewish Americans have actively participated in civic life, military service, and various social movements, contributing to the nation's progress and development. 

The book addresses the common misconception of dual loyalty, arguing that Jewish Americans' connection to Israel does not diminish their patriotism towards the United States. 

The book emphasized that the Jewish connection to Israel is rooted in cultural, historical, and religious ties, which are natural expressions of identity and heritage, not a conflict of loyalty. 

"The Patriotism of the American Jew" serves as a testament to the rich history of Jewish contributions to American society and challenges any notions of conflicting loyalties. 

Furthermore, It underscored the idea that one can be both a proud American while being deeply connected to our Jewish heritage and Israel.

William Shakespeare and Shylock

As a retired English teacher who once, some 50 odd years ago, wrote a dissertation regarding the antisemitism found in Shakespeares portrayal of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. I wanted to clarify for those who skipped English Literature lessons.

I wish to re emphasize the effect of the reformation and the Catholic versus Protestant conflict of the era and how there were NO schools for the middle and lower classes so theatrical plays were just not plays at this period in History but were written to teach virtue and morality.

William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in the year 1564, the exact date of his birth is unknown.

Shakespeare is often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (referring to his birthplace on the River Avon) as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist
His father, John Shakespeare, was a successful glove-maker and alderman.
He married Anne Hathaway in 1582, and they had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith.

Shakespeare began his career in London as an actor and playwright, rising to prominence in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He was a founding member and shareholder of the Lord Chamberlain's Men (later renamed The King's Men under King James I), one of the most successful theatre companies of its time.

Shakespeare wrote approximately 38 plays, including comedies, tragedies, and histories.

Some of his most famous plays include:

• Tragedies: Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar
• Comedies: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It
• Histories: Richard III, Henry IV (Parts 1 & 2), Henry V

He also wrote numerous sonnets and narrative poems.

Shakespeare's works are renowned for their profound exploration of the human condition, their rich language, and their enduring relevance. He coined many words and phrases that are still in use today, significantly impacting the English language.
His plays are performed and studied more often than those of any other playwright in history, and his influence on literature, theatre, and culture is immense.

Shakespeare died on April 23, 1616, in Stratford-upon-Avon, at the age of 52, and was buried in Holy Trinity Church.

Regarding "Shylock"

As I mentioned in my previous post,(on Facebook). Readers or those who see the play, need to understand and comprehend the playwright and the time period (pre 1600) and place where it was written and for WHOM it was written.
Those who know and understand fully the History of Elizabetan era England, know that the period was deeply shapened by the religious upheavals of the Reformation.

Only those knowledgeable of the Era can fully understand the gest of the famous high dramaticly charged soliloquy by Shylock in Act 3 Scene 1, of "The Merchant of Venice". The speech is spoken in termnology that was intended for those of the lower class audience members to understand. Shakespeare was a genius in his ability to craft language that resonated with all levels of society.

While England was officially Protestant, under Elizabeth I, the memory of Catholicism was still fresh, and religious identity was intensely scrutinized.

Having been massacred, in 1290 in York, England and those who remained expelled. Jews were NOT officially readmitted until the 17th century.

This absence, from Christian English society, paradoxically, often fueled misconceptions and reinforced negative stereotypes inherited from centuries of European anti-Judaism, particularly from Christian theological perspectives that often demonized Jews as "Christ-killers" or figures of usury.

The play, therefore, operates within a society where anti-Jewish sentiment was very prevalent and largely unchallenged.

Shylock's soliloquy uses relatively straightforward, visceral language to articulate his humanity and his suffering:

"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?" These are universal human attributes.

"Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?" These are common human experiences.

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" These are direct, undeniable physiological reactions.

This directness ensured that even the groundlings, those lower class uneducated Englishmen and women standing in the pit of the Globe, could grasp the fundamental assertion of shared humanity, even if their societal prejudices might still lead them to condemn Shylock.

While entertainment was certainly a goal, the function of theatre in Elizabethan England plays often served didactic purposes.
They explored moral dilemmas, showcased the consequences of various actions, and reinforced societal values (or, in some cases, subtly challenged them).

The Merchant of Venice can be seen as engaging with questions of justice, mercy, revenge, and the nature of prejudice.

The portrayal of Shylock as a Jewish moneylender, while undeniably problematic from a modern perspective, can be argued to have, perhaps unintentionally, revealed the hypocrisy and cruelty inherent in the treatment of outsiders, even as it played into existing stereotypes.

The "virtue" being taught in the play might have been Christian mercy, which is intentionally contrasted with the "Pound of Flesh" "vengeance" demanded by Shylock.
In his plays, Shakespeare masterfully wove together social commentary, historical context, and accessible language to create a powerful and enduring piece of theatre.

Therefore the "full gist" of Shylock's soliloquy truly does lie in understanding the specific cultural and religious landscape of Elizabethan England, and the function of theatre within that society.

The creation of the USA and the Jews

To begin with, one must note that the Jewish communities in colonial America and the early United States were small and primarily concentrated in port cities like; New York (New Amsterdam), Newport, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah.

Several Jewish communities established synagogues (like Touro Synagogue in Newport, Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia, and Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim in Charleston), which served not only as houses of worship but also as vital community centers, providing social and religious functions. 

These institutions atypically reinforced Jewish identity while also demonstrating their commitment to establishing permanent roots in the new nation.

Before the revolutionary period, the vast majority of Jewish communities were comprized largely of Sephardic Jews, many of the early arrivals were those who fled the Inquistion in Spain and Portugal. Many of these "wandering Jews"-a Nation of people who were refugees from their land, had previously fled to the Netherlands, Brazil, and the West Indies, followed only later by Ashkenazi Jews from Germany and England.

Early Jewish communities actively challenged discriminatory laws and practices that limited their rights, such as restrictions on voting or holding public office. 

Asser Levy in New Amsterdam (later New York) famously fought for the right of Jews to serve guard duty and be admitted as Burghers in the mid-17th century, setting an early precedent for equal rights.

Levy was the first Jew to "officially" own a house in North America.  As early as 1661, he purchased real estate in Fort Orange; he was also the earliest Jewish owner of real estate in New York City, his transactions there commencing in June 1662 with the purchase of land on South William Street. 

Within ten years of his arrival Levy had become a man of consequence, and when, in 1664, the wealthiest inhabitants were summoned to lend the city money for fortifications against the English, he was the only Jew among them: he lent the city 100 florins.

His Christian fellow citizens had in his honesty appears frequently from the court records. Property in litigation was put into his custody; he is named as executor in the wills of Christian merchants, and figures as both administrator and trustee in colonial records. His influence was not confined to New York; in the colonial records of Connecticut he appears as intervening to obtain the remission of a fine imposed upon a Jew there. The court remitted the fine with the comment that it did so "as a token of its respect to the said Mr. Asser Levy." 

As a distinct religious minority in a predominantly Protestant society, Jews often found themselves at the forefront of the fight for religious freedom. Their presence and their desire for equal rights pushed the Founding Fathers to articulate and implement broader principles of religious liberty than might otherwise have been the case.

Despite their small numbers, Jews played an active role in the economic life of the colonies as merchants and traders. 

They also largely supported the Patriot cause during the American Revolution particularly in demonstrating and advocating for the principles of religious liberty and in offering financial and logistical support to the Patriot cause.

Many Jews served in the Continental Army and local militias. While exact figures are hard to ascertain,it has been estimated that approximately 100 Jews fought in the Revolutionary War.

Some of the most noteable Jews during the Revolutionary War period: 

Perhaps the most famous Jewish contributor to the creation of the USA was, Haym Salomon who was a Polish-born Jewish financier and broker in Philadelphia. who ould count the first president, George Washington, among his friends. 

It documented that he loaned hundreds of thousands of dollars to the revolutionary cause – millions in today’s dollars.

 

It is also well documented that he would make private loans to prominent statesmen and historical figures like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Sources differ, saying he either charged them no interest or interest well below market rates.

He became a crucial financial agent for the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War.

• He helped convert French loans into hard currency.
• He brokered large donations to the Patriot cause.
• He provided personal loans to prominent statesmen like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (often without charging interest), helping them stay in public service.
• His efforts were vital in securing the funds needed to conduct the war and operate the government in its immediate aftermath. It's often said that he died penniless due to his extensive financial sacrifices for the cause.

Francis Salvador was an early and prominent Jewish Patriot. He was the first Jew elected to public office in the colonies (South Carolina Assembly) and is considered the first Jew to die fighting for American independence, killed in an ambush by Loyalists and Cherokee Indians in 1776.

Mordecai Sheftall was a prominent revolutionary leader from Savannah, Georgia, who served as the head of the local revolutionary committee and later as Deputy Commissary General for Federal troops, responsible for provisioning soldiers. He and his son were captured and imprisoned by the British.

Isaac Moses of Philadelphia, was a Jewish ship owner, who outfitted privateers to disrupt British shipping and engaged in blockade running to supply the Continental forces with vital provisions.

Let us take heed and hote those views of the "founding fathers":

John Adams:

 Adams often expressed high praise for the Jews and their historical impact, calling them "the most glorious nation that ever inhabited the earth" and acknowledging their profound influence on civilization. He even expressed proto-Zionist sentiments, hoping for the return of Jews to their homeland in Israel. However, it's also noted that Adams, like many Enlightenment thinkers, harbored the expectation that Jews would eventually assimilate or even "convert" to a more "liberal Unitarian Christian" perspective.

Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson was a strong advocate for the "wall of separation between church and state," a principle that greatly benefited Jews by ensuring religious freedom. However, in private correspondence, Jefferson also expressed some belittling views of Judaism as a faith, accusing it of having a "degrading and injurious" understanding of God that "needed reformation." This highlights the distinction between their political ideals of religious liberty and their personal theological views.

Benjamin Franklin: 

While a fraudulent document (the "Franklin Prophecy") later attempted to portray him as anti-semite. Documented historical evidence suggests Franklin generally advocated for religious tolerance and inclusivity. It is documented that he donated to help Philadelphia's oldest formal Jewish congregation

The most famous "landmark statemen", and most powerful articulation of the nation's commitment to religious pluralism of the Founding Fathers' vision for religious freedom, was George Washington's Letter in response, to the "Hebrew Congregation" of the Touro Synagogue (1790) in Newport, Rhode Island.

Washington wrote:

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

He added, "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Washington's words moved beyond the European concept of "toleration" (which implied that a majority religion merely permitted others to exist) to a declaration of inherent natural rights for all citizens, regardless of their faith.

In conclusion : 

While no Jews signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, due to their small numbers and the nascent stage of full political integration, their active participation and the principles they embodied played a crucial role in shaping the American experiment. 

Their contributions, particularly in the realm of financial support and their insistence on full religious liberty, directly influenced the unique American framework that separated church and state and guaranteed freedoms that were revolutionary for their time. 

Their contributions, can be witnessed in the historical documentation the U.S. Founding Fathers, which were inspired and driven by the ideals of Enlightenment and practical considerations for forming a diverse nation. These consideratons laid the groundwork for unprecedented religious freedom for Jews in America. 

While some still held personal theological reservations about Judaism as a faith, their public pronouncements and the constitutional framework they established ensured that Jews would be treated as full citizens with equal rights, rather than merely "tolerated." 

This commitment to religious liberty was a radical and transformative aspect of the American founding.

An Iranian-American attorney Elica Le Bon speaks out.

Who is Elica Le Bon (الیکا‌ ل بن)?

Elica Le Bon is an Iranian-American attorney, artist, activist, and speaker. She was born and raised in London, UK, and later moved to Los Angeles to attend law school. She initially worked as a criminal defense attorney, but has since developed a second career in activism.

Le Bon is known for her advocacy surrounding human rights in Iran and the wider Middle East. She has gained a significant following on social media, using her platform to raise awareness about the Iranian people's struggles and to combat misinformation. She is particularly outspoken against the Iranian regime and radical Islam.

She has appeared on various news programs and podcasts, including Piers Morgan, Dr. Phil, MSNBC, Fox News, and News Nation. Her activism has led to her losing friends and having family members' lives put at risk due to her views. Despite this, she continues to speak out, stating she feels a "sense of responsibility" to defend Israel and fight against what she sees as a dangerous alliance between Islamist and leftist forces in the Western world.

Elica recently wrote:

"Let me tell you why I decided that yesterday's appearance on Piers Morgan, alongside Dave Smith, would be my last.

First, I had spent the past couple of months being so emotionally exhausted and above that, genuinely devastated by Dave Smith's online rhetoric. 

It's hard to describe how much his words have hurt me, alongside millions of Iranians, and millions of Jews and Middle Eastern people. 

He repeatedly downplayed the brutality and threat of the Islamic regime in Iran, insisting over and over again "Iran (the regime) is not the threat, the U.S. government is the threat."

The overwhelming majority of 90 million Iranians know this line very well. It is the same propaganda of "anti-western imperialism," used as a red herring, that convinced them to take to the streets in '79 and bring in the Ayatollahs. 

Following that mistake, they realized this line, this rhetoric, this propaganda was complicit in one of the biggest heists of our time. 

For the past 45 years, Iranian intellectuals--both inside and outside of Iran--have exhausted themselves to try and demonstrate to the world how this type of commentary is not just a red herring, but it leads to the collapse of society, as it did for us. 

Imagine how exhausting and painful it is to try and explain the contours of this to the world, only to have people who discovered the Middle East yesterday insist we don't understand it.

After #October7, not just Dave Smith, but many westerners who had no familiarity with the reality of this type of propaganda were thrust to the spotlight by regurgitating these same appealing lines, having no idea who manufactured this rhetoric and to what end.

Societies who have been touched by the finger of death, be it under socialist utopias or jihadist domination--Iranians, Israelis/Jews, Venezuelans, Cubans, Yemenis, Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Russians, Chinese, even many Gazans, and more--understand where these talking points begin and end.

That considered, what the post-October 7th discourse has revealed is that much of the untouched western world has become so indoctrinated by the disinformation of these bad actors--who they can't even begin to understand the inner workings of--that conversations become futile. 

These conversations become more about "winning" to those whose only investment is being right, which inevitably means losing for those whose investment is survival.

So when Piers' team reached out to me to join the conversation, I'll admit that I did actually ask to debate Dave Smith. The thing is, though, a part of me inside was screaming, "don't."

Don't do it. This man is not here to listen to you, he is here to talk over you. 

He is not here to understand Iran, and the sentiments of millions of Iranians who do not support his advocacy for "diplomacy deals" that have proved fatal to them (quite literally, by enriching the machinery used to massacre them), but to insist that his out-of-touch perspective of Iran, without knowing an iota of the long history that brought us here from the Iranian perspective, is truth.

The whole "anti-war" line has been used by the regime's lobbyists for decades, the same one Dave Smith insists on now. 

Even court documents revealed correspondence between the regime and its U.S. based lobbyists in pushing this co-ordinated propaganda effort--which they admitted to intentionally aiming at naive western anti-war activists as their "easiest targets"--to induce diplomacy deals that line their coffers with hundreds of billions. 

The only true anti-war perspective is the one of millions of Iranians who have for decades asked not to platform this regime to the point of an inevitable military confrontation. 

But how could outsiders who aren't listening know this?

I'll be honest, as soon as that conversation began, I was already defeated. As soon as the opening line was Pies reciting how much I think Dave Smith's talking points are garbage (I do, but that's obviously not how you start a fruitful conversation, that's how you egg on a cat fight) I knew I made the wrong decision.

I knew I would be taunted, pushed, and agitated, not just because I have to contend with somebody who possesses an illicit amount of confidence and arrogance despite standing on the outside of our collective sentiment, but because the conversation was clearly never intended to bring him, nor the world, closer to truth. 

This is why you should always listen to your gut instinct, and I'm disappointed in myself that I failed my instinct on this occasion.

At this point, coming closer to the truth will not happen through debates. Why? because it isn't facts people don't have, its context. Underneath the thin layer of easily accessible facts, there exists oceans of context that escape people who have never swam in our waters. 

Dave Smith well never, not for as long as he lives, know how much he has hurt us. 

These conversations will never bring the world closer to truth.

Truth will come to light, as it always does, but it will happen not by attacking the darkness, but through shining the light. 

Eventually, enough people will shine the light of truth until every corner of darkness is dispelled.

So even though I won't be engaging in these reality TV style debates, I will continue speaking where people are interested in listening, and that have a chance of moving the needle closer to truth. 

Until then, we may continue to face the abuse, attacks, hate, and ostracization from the masses lingering in the dark, but in the words of Ricky Gervais, "your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."

John Adams the Zionist

As a historian I like to clarify some posts I have seen. Regarding President John Adams 

John Adams held a complex and generally respectful view of the Hebrews, as evident in his correspondence with Thomas Jefferson. 

While he, like many "enlightened" Christians of his era, saw Judaism as anachronistic and hoped for the conversion of Jews to Christianity, he also deeply venerated the ancient Hebrews and acknowledged their profound historical contributions.

Here are some key points from his letters to Jefferson regarding the Jews -"Hebrews" whom he labelled:

     "The most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth".

In an 1808 letter (not directly to Jefferson, but referenced in resources about their correspondence), Adams expressed strong admiration, stating:

"How is it possible [that Voltaire] should represent the Hebrews in such a contemptible light? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern." 

This quote of his highlights his profound respect for the historical impact of the Jews (Hebrews) , particularly in the realm of religion.

Adams viewed the Jews-"Hebrews" as having laid the foundation for Christianity: by enunciating monotheism. 

He saw Abraham as having given religion not only to the Hebrews but also to Christians and Muslims.

In a letter from February-March 1814, Adams mentions reading  Joseph Priestley's, "A Comparison of the Institutions of Moses with those of the Hindoos and other Ancient Nations"  published in 1799. He notes that Priestley: 

"proved the superiority of the Hebrews to the Hindoos, as they appear in the Gentoo Laws and Institutes of Menu." 

This suggests Adams agreed with the idea of the Jews (Hebrews) possessing a more advanced or significant institutional framework.

Adams believed that Jews deserved rights and protection under the law, seeing them as worthy of respect by virtue of their historic contributions and citizenship.

Remarkably, Adams later in life even expressed pro-Zionist views in later correspondence (after his presidency), stating in a letter (acknowledging a gift from Mordecai Manuel Noah) in 1819, 

"I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation." 

The two most powerful active and enterprizing Nations that ever existed are now contending with Us. 

The two Nations to whom Mankind are under more obligations for the Progress of Science and Civilization, than to any others except that of the Jews / Hebrews. 

This consideration affects me more than the danger from either Bolingbroke's religious skepticism or that of Voltaire's.

I excepted the Jews "Hebrews",  I strongly disagreed with Bolingbroke's religious skepticism and his disparagement of the Bible and the Hebrews "in Spight of Bolingbroke,". Which is a direct reference to Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke (1678–1751), a prominent English politician, statesman, and philosopher of the Enlightenment era who was a leading figure among the English Deists. Deism, broadly speaking, believed in a God who created the universe but does not intervene in its daily workings (a "watchmaker God").

In his quote Adams believed Voltaire presented the Hebrews in a sordid "contemptible light".

Voltaire was vehemently against organized religion, especially what he saw as the irrationality and superstition of Christianity. Since Christianity was founded upon Judaism, he often attacked Judaism as a way to undermine Christianity:

“The Jews are an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”  

Voltaire frequently employed common European antisemitic stereotypes of his time, particularly concerning avarice and usury, projecting negative aspects of emerging commercial society onto Jews.

Voltaire often expressed a deep-seated contempt beyond religious criticism, for the Jewish people as a distinct "race" or culture, believing them to be inherently flawed and unchangeable.

John Adams directly challenged the negative views propagated by Voltaire; 

"I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize Men than any other Nation. If I were an Atheist and believed in blind eternal Fate, I should Still believe that Fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential Instrument for civilizing the Nations." 

If I were an Atheist of the other Sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by Chance, I Should believe that Chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate, to all Mankind the Doctrine of a Supreme intelligent wise, almighty Sovereign of the Universe, which I believe to be the great essential..."

His rationale, however, was partly driven by a hope that "once restored to an independent government and no longer persecuted they [the Jews] would soon wear away some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character and possibly in time become liberal Unitarian christians."

In summary, John Adams held the ancient Jews "Hebrews" in high esteem for their historical and religious contributions, considering them a foundational people for monotheistic traditions. While his views on contemporary Judaism were tinged with the common prejudices of his time (hoping for conversion), his admiration for their past achievements and his belief in their fundamental rights were notable.