[3] In 1958 (three years before this publication) the Premier of Québec, Maurice Duplessis, was compared to a “Negro king” by André Laurendeau, meaning that Duplessis could maintain in Québec the 19th-century combination of extreme cultural conservatism (granting enormous influence to the Catholic Church) and laisser-faire economic policy, because forces outside of Québec kept Duplessis in power, much as a Negro king in Africa might be kept in power by the British and could do as he liked so long as he cooperated with the British on matters of importance to them. The period of Duplessis’s policies (1936-1959) is called la Grande Noirceur (the Great Darkness). When Bardèche refers to an archaic “Negro king,” it seems that he has in mind the backward rule of Maurice Duplessis, which was sometimes wrongly called fascist. Bardèche seems to say that Duplessis did not object to the label, even though it was inaccurate.
[4] In May 1958 a group of generals, supported by “committees of public safety,” seized control in some of the French colonies and in Corsica, and demanded that Charles de Gaulle take over the French government and stop the dissolution of the French Empire. De Gaulle had given them reason to believe that he supported their cause, but once in power, he did the opposite of what they wanted. These generals were called “fascist” by the Communists in France. There seems to be some ironic humor in Bardèche’s reference to the “discovery” of the “fascist officers,” since as Gaullistes they surely did not consider themselves fascist, any more than De Gaulle himself.

 June 1950

In recent years when such countries as the United States, France, and Sweden have been beset by industrial strife, National-Socialist Germany has enjoyed the blessings of peace on the economic front. National-Socialists have prided themselves upon their ability to escape the labor unrest to be found elsewhere. They point to the post-1933 “new deal” in Germany’s system of employer-employee relations as an example of what can be done to reconcile the interests of economic groups. It is not without interest to review the efforts of the Hitler regime in the sphere of labor relations in order to gain some understanding of what it is the National-Socialists have accomplished. The recent alterations in the German system of labor relations will only be properly understood, however, if the motives which prompted intervention by the government and the National-Socialist party are kept in mind. The necessity for action is largely to be found in the compelling pressure of political expediency, in certain aspects of National-Socialist economic and political policy, and in the tenets of National-Socialist ideology.

Once the National-Socialists were in office it was imperative that they consolidate their position by liquidating or curbing all possible sources of opposition. Attention was directed at once to the old trade unions whose opposition to the National-Socialist movement was well known. Millions of their members had long been under Social-Democratic control, and in 1932 and 1933 many had shown an inclination to accept the political leadership of the Communist party. It was apparent to the National-Socialists, therefore, that the old labor-union organization would have to be abolished. It was deemed to be of vital importance, however, that some alternative organization be provided at once to take care of the members of the liquidated unions. As we shall see, the unions were soon eliminated, an a new organization of labor made its appearance in due time.

As for the economic motive, it was self-evident in the Germany of 1933 that something would have to be done to revive dormant industry. Party leaders believed this could be accomplished by creating jobs, by instituting a public-works program, and by heavy rearmament. It was hoped that the impetus given to Germany heavy industry by a gigantic arms program would stimulate the economy of the country all along the line. Further, arms would, so the National-Socialists believed, assure the Reich that political Freiheit and equality which had been promised the country. But it was clear that if this program was to be carried out successfully the country’s economic system would have to be “disciplined.” No obstructions could be tolerated. A way would have to be found to organize employers and employees so that relations between the two groups would be responsive to the government’s wishes.

Although there were very practical reasons for a reorientation in labor relations it must not be overlooked that philosophical grounds for a change existed as well. For years there had been an ideological war between National-Socialist theories of the state and community on one hand and the views of liberal democrats and Marxists on the other. To the National-Socialist it seemed that the individual liberty and the freedom of action available under democracy were but indications of weaknesses in the system. Under the liberal democratic state the authority of the government was subordinated in favor of the will of the individual. Accordingly, opposing economic groups took advantage of this freedom to organize for selfish purposes. The National-Socialists believed that the greater the reliance upon the principles of democracy the more pronounced the tendency would become for economic groups to intensify their respective organizations. Self-help by labor and business, if carried to its logical conclusion, would precipitate a struggle that would undermine the very foundations of the state. Further, this struggle would inevitably play into the hands of the Marxists.

Although principles of democracy were found to be “decadent” by the National-Socialists, their dislike of Marxian socialism was even more intense. The idea of the class struggle and the rule of the proletariat was anathema to the Nazis. These were teachings which, if accepted, would destroy the unity of the state by keeping its citizens in a constant turmoil. That a worker should feel primary loyalty to a proletarian colleague in a foreign country rather than to his own state was a view which Hitler emphatically rejected. The national state was uppermost in National-Socialist ideology. The National-Socialists characterized Communism as “an international Jewish disease”; and more than that by way of damnation could not be said.

National-Socialists have advanced an alternative philosophical basis for the system of employer-employee relations erected in the past five years. As might be assumed, these theories place an emphasis upon the national state and prescribe limitations upon free initiative and the use of property. The National-Socialists hold that the economic system is not an end in itself but that it must serve the common good. The economic order must no longer be thought of as a meeting ground for labor and business, each intently engaged in a struggle for selfish purposes. Rather, the world of industry and commerce must bring employees and employers together ina co-operative effort to serve the good of the national community. The basic unit in the new German industrial order is the Betriebsgemeinschaft, the “works-community,” which is to be thought of as a cell in a larger organism, the Volksgemeinschaft. Each Betriebsgemeinschaft is not complete if one part of the cell is missing. According to National-Socialist theory, the works-community is a place of employment which includes the owner or employer, or someone acting as his representative, and workers, united in the performance of productive functions under the guidance of the state. Instead of the class struggle there is common service for the Fatherland or, as the National-Socialists themselves put it, there is the realization that “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz.” It is true that the National-Socialist doctrine may be expressing an ideal that is not in accordance with the facts, but Hitlerites have said that the structure created by them in the sphere of labor relations has for its purpose the translation of their theories into practice.

Little time was lost in bringing the “blessings of National-Socialism” to the German wage-earning classes. Adolf Hitler became national chancellor at the end of January, 1933. The following May the existing trade unions were largely liquidated, and their assets were seized. The first of May was declared to be a day which no longer would be utilized to honor the international proletariat, but would be made an occasion for the commemoration of German national labor in its service for the Fatherland. A law of May 19, 1933, provided for the appointment by the national chancellor of labor trustees who were to serve as economic dictators over the districts under their jurisdiction. They were given full powers to maintain industrial peace and to regulate detailed phases of labor relations. Within a period of four months rapid strides along the road to national-socialization of employer-employee relations had been made. The early successes, as well as later progress, were possible, according to Dr. Ley, the head of the political organization of the party, because the government followed a policy based upon “a healthy combination of freedom and compulsion.” The government and the party sought success for their policies by altering German labor law and by the use of persuasion. If these measures proved ineffective, there were always the stormtroopers. By the end of 1934 the forms of the new edifice stood out quite clearly. The German Labor Front had been established, the “new social constitution” or Law for the Regulation of National Labor had been enacted, labor trustees were at work, and the social honor courts were functioning. Each of these institutions will be discussed in the pages which follow.

Prior to 1933, National-Socialist attempts to organize labor proved to be futile. But a small number of German workers had joined the National-Socialism Industrial Cell Organization (NSBO). In 1934 it was apparent that the National-Socialist organization among handicraft workers (NSHago) also was not meeting with success. With the abolition of the trade unions it seemed advisable, therefore, to provide a new organization to absorb the membership of these defunct bodies. The German Labor Front was accordingly created, and the bulk of German workers are now numbered among its members. The purposes of the Labor Front are to be found in a decree of October 24, 1934, and limitations upon its activities are implied in the provisions of the Arbeitsordnungsgesetz (AOG) or labor regulation law of January 20 of the same year. The Labor Front assumed the assets and the liabilities of the dissolved labor unions.

The leadership principle (Führerprinzip) used in National-Socialist political rule has been applied to the Labor Front as well. The leader of the Labor Front is Dr. Ley, who is also the head of the political organization of the National-Socialist party. German employers and employees are his followers. The leader commands from above, the followers obey. As a matter of practical interest, the Labor Front is controlled almost entirely through the political organization of the party. Its officials are drawn largely from the NSBO, the NSHago, the SA, and the SS (Sturmabteilung, Schutzstaffel). Very few former free trade unionists have been entrusted with office. Membership in the Labor Front is open to employers, as well as employees, who are Aryans and who are not disqualified from citizenship. Theoretically, membership is on a voluntary basis. Actually it is inexpedient not to belong to this “union of brain and brawn.” At the end of 1937 Dr. Ley was proud to announce that 24,000,000 Germans were enrolled as his followers. The bulk of these members pay dues which are determined by a scale graduated according to income. Most of the revenue of the Labor Front is derived from the low-wage-earning groups (those receiving under 200 marks per month). In talking with German workers the writer frequently encountered complaints concerning the amounts of the dues and assessments and the lack of information regarding the expenditures of the money thus obtained.

The Labor Front is not merely an organization to facilitate the party’s control over employers. It performs numerous functions for its members. Among the more important of these are its propagandist activities and its attempts to “educate” its members in accordance with National-Socialist doctrine. The Labor Front has been likened to a “training school” where German workers and businessmen can absorb the principles of the National-Socialist way of life. The Labor Front also provides a plan of insurance for its members comparable to the schemes previously available uner the labor unions. There is also a legal-aid bureau with headquarters in Berlin and with offices in each of the district bureaus of the Labor Front. The legal-aid service is divided into two branches, one for employers and one for employees. The personnel of this service is to give legal advice to members, to act as investigators and arbitrators in labor disputes, and to represent members in court if necessary. The writer was told by the head of the legal-aid bureau that it was the intention of his service to reduce the amount of labor litigation which was finding its way to the courts. If the figures he made available are correct there are thousands fewer cases coming before tribunals at present than there were in 1932.

An Italian vacation for German workers.

Closely associated with the Labor Front and administered by it is the Kraft durch Freude (“strength through joy”) organization. This movement has made it possible for persons of small means to enjoy educational and recreational facilities which might ordinarily be denied them. Cruises to foreign countries, holidays by the seaside, hiking trips, and excursions are arranged for those who belong to the Labor Front. Athletic grounds have been built near places of employment, library facilities have been made available for workers, concerts have been provided for, and touring theatrical companies have been sent to workers’ communities. According to Dr. Ley, within two years approximately 52,700,000 persons had attended the 142,000 entertainments organized by the entertainment section. He has also said that in the same period more than 6,000,000 persons took advantage of the travel facilities offered. These figures, if accurate, indicate that the “strength through joy” movement is not inactive. Labor Front leaders hope that these benefits will be acceptable as substitutes for real wages, which have not risen appreciably since Hitler entered office.

The provisions of the labor law of January 20, 1934, and its amending decrees and statutes have been hailed as the bases for Germany’s “new social constitution.” This legislation must therefore be examined with some interest. Under this “constitution,” employers retain their position as managers of their enterprises, but are now known as leaders of a Betrieb or shop. Their employees are their followers. Leader and followers must co-operate for the common good of the nation. The leader must act in such a way as to safeguard the welfare of his followers, and the latter, in turn, owe him obedience and loyalty. Strikes and lockouts, although not expressly forbidden, are frowned upon and almost never occur.
   
According to law, employees are to participate in the management of a Betrieb through membership in a confidential council (Vertrauensrat*). Each place employing an average of twenty workers must have such a council. Council members are elected by the workers from a list of candidates prepared for them by their employer acting in co-operation with the local head of the NSBO.
 
 

How labor in a factory was organized under the DAF.

To be eligible for membership on the council in his shop a worker must , among other qualifications, be a member of the Labor Front and promise to support the national state without reservation. Should there be difficulty in agreeing upon candidates or should the candidates not receive a majority vote, the members of the council may be appointed by the district labor trustee. The confidential councils meet at the request of the leader of the Betrieb or upon demand of one-half of the councilors. Decisions of the council have no validity if the labor trustee disapproves. If the councilors act in a manner disturbing to the peace of the works-community they may be unseated by action of the labor trustee or their district. Both the employer and the councilors may appeal to the labor trustee against one another’s decisions.

Communists recorded this, then wished they hadn’t.

“The Ballad of October 16th” recorded by the Almanac Singers (written by Millard Lampell) was released on Songs for John Doe in May 1941, featuring Pete Seeger on banjo. At that time Communists like Seeger were opposed to American intervention in the European war.

Evidently they believed that the situation in Europe as of early 1941, with France subjugated and mostly disarmed, and British forces driven from the continent but still fighting Germany on the sea and in North Africa, was a situation that worked in favor of the Soviet Union, with its massive quantitative superiority over Germany. It is evident in Stalin’s behavior at the time that he regarded Germany’s situation as highly vulnerable, to the point of trying to force enormous concessions out of Germany in return for continuing Soviet “friendship.” Heinrich Haertle describes the situation:

Molotov’s November 1940 extortion attempt in Berlin already practically signaled Stalin’s determination for war. He was pressuring Germany, which was still at war with England and already in a de facto war with the United States, to hand over to the Soviet Union the Balkans, the Baltic Sea, and above all the war-deciding oil supply in Romania, thereby making it clear that he would stab Germany in the back at the first opportunity. [Heinrich Haertle, 1965]

The month after Songs for John Doe was released, Operation Barbarossa commenced and the Red Army — arrayed for attack, not defense — was sent reeling, forced into a chaotic retreat. Thereupon Communists worldwide did an abrupt and highly revealing about-face: Seeger and other Communist pseudo-folksingers switched from anti-war songs to pro-war songs. Copies of this recording not yet sold were recalled and destroyed.

It was on a Saturday night and the moon was shining bright;
They passed the Conscription Bill.
And the people they did say, for many miles away,
‘Twas the President and his boys on Capitol Hill.

Oh Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt.
We damned near believed what he said!
He said, “I hate war, and so does Eleanor,
But we won’t be safe till everybody’s dead.”

When my poor old mother died, I was sitting by her side.
A-promising to war I’d never go.
But now I’m wearin’ khaki jeans, and eatin’ army beans,
And I’m told that J.P. Morgan loves me so!

I have wandered over this land, a roamin’ workin’ man,
No clothes to wear and not much food to eat,
But now the government foots the bill, gives me clothes and feeds me swill,
Gets me shot and puts me underground six feet!

Oh Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt.
We damned near believed what he said!
He said, “I hate war, and so does Eleanor,
But we won’t be safe till everybody’s dead.”

Why, nothing can be wrong, if it makes our country strong.
We’ve gotta get tough to save democracy!
And though it may mean war, we must defend Singapore;
This don’t hurt you half as much as it hurts me.

Oh Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt.
We damned near believed what he said!
He said, “I hate war, and so does Eleanor,
But we won’t be safe till everybody’s dead.”

Here’s another song from Songs for John Doe,”Washington Breakdown,” written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays, to the tune of “Ida Red”:

Obviously it was widely understood that a very large portion (of course not “all”) of Communists and pro-Communists were Jews; otherwise the complaint that McCarthyism was intrinsically anti-Semitic would make no sense. For some reason, however, it has been the practice of lame conservatives, when writing about McCarthy, to avoid mentioning that fact, as if it were not long-established common knowledge.

Whom do these lame conservatives think they are fooling by not saying that most of the security-risks that McCarthy discovered were Jews? Certainly they are not fooling Jews, who already know it. This kind of tippy-toeing around key facts only allows the non-Jewish majority to remain in amnesia and confusion about what happened.

As a matter of fact, the overwhelming Jewishness of Communism in the United States is the central fact in Senator McCarthy’s rise and fall, and the key to understanding what happened to him.

George Lincoln Rockwell’s This Time the World recounts DeWest Hooker’s explanation of how Jews set up and then brought down the anti-Communist crusade of  Senator Joseph McCarthy. Here is a spoken summary of it, emphasizing the moral of the story, from a talk that Rockwell gave in 1965:

And here is the excerpt from Rockwell’s book, with more detail (and a correction from me):

My first meeting with Hooker was on a Thanksgiving Day, when he was due at a family dinner, but we got so totally absorbed in our discussion that he kept his wife waiting hours, until she was very angry at him. As we talked, he told me one amazing thing after the other.

Wes explained the Jews to me more clearly than I had ever figured out before. He described, with dramatic gestures, how they operate like a snake with different skins, which they crawl out of or into as the strategic need may arise.

When Jewish Communism begins to get too “hot,” as it has here in the U.S., because of the millions who saw the parade of Jew Communist spies, they slide out of that skin and become Zionists. And when this also gets too hot, then they molt and become “anti-communists” or something else. In the excitement, nobody ever seems to notice that it is always the same snake.

Even more enlightening, he gave me a sparkling clear picture of the mess I had come to know on my own as the “movement” — the cowards, the loud-mouths, the hobbyists, the ADL agents, the “prostitutes” who make money out of it — the whole depressing lot of them.  

This energetic young genius then told me the astonishing and accurate inside story of Joe McCarthy, completely winning me with his way of fathoming and presenting the vital information about enemy operations which had so far baffled me. Every step of the way, he showed me documents, newspaper clippings and photostats to back up the story about how Joe McCarthy got started, rose, and was finally ruined.

He told me that Bernard Baruch had started it all, when too many Jew spies were becoming prominent. Baruch called Joe up to his New York apartment — here, Hooker showed me a clipping from The New York Times — and told him that there was need of an anti-communist crusade, but that there was an unfortunate idea getting around that Communism was Jewish, because of so many Jew spies. Would Joe conduct a good, exciting Red hunt, being a little “fairer” by digging up some non-Jewish spies? If Joe would do this, Bernie would see that there was good publicity and advancement in it for Joe. McCarthy could smell the aroma of this deal, but, like many a shabbez goy before him, he imagined he could out-fox the Jew. When the time came, he would use the publicity and backing to drag out ALL the Communists, Jew and Gentile alike.

So Joe agreed to conduct the great hunt and began in Wheeling, West Virginia. He promised to identify the “master Red agent” in America, and made a lot of charges about Communism in the State Department.

George Sokolsky

Then he was approached by his “good Jew” friend, George Sokolsky, the columnist, who warned him of the danger of being accused of being an “anti-Semite,” because of the “fortuitous” presence of so many Jews in the Communist apparatus. “Why not guard against this by taking a ‘good’ Jew on as head of your staff?” wheedled George. “Then they couldn’t say you were anti-Semitic!”

Joe thought this advice was pretty good and George just “happened” to have in mind the right Jew — Roy Cohn. The matter was soon arranged and Cohn the Jew became the organizer of “McCarthyism.”*

Then Cohn approached fighting Joe and suggested that, since they needed contributions and more help, and wanted to be doubly sure they would not be accused of “anti-Semitism,” it might be wise to hire a wonderful, rich young Jew friend of his, Dave Schine, for the staff. Again, McCarthy went along with this brilliant stroke.

When all was in readiness, McCarthy duly brought out his “big red fish,” as promised, which turned out to be a college professor named Owen Lattimore — a Gentile! Nobody had heard much of him, before or since, but in the middle of the trials of more than twenty Jewish Soviet spies, Lattimore was dragged back and forth in the press as the real red herring, a Gentile herring, with suitable screaming back and forth by both “sides.” Bernie had done a fine job.

McCarthy, through all of this, figured he was smarter than his manipulators and, when a Republican got into power, he would then go after ALL the reds, Jew and Gentile, and let the chips fall where they might. However, for the moment, he rested on his laurels as the man the Jew papers and the Communist Daily Worker were screaming about, the man who had been set up by a Jew, advised by a Jew, and staffed by two Jews.

The loyal and hard-working staff now set about displaying “McCarthyism” to the world. Cohn and Schine, the two Jews, made a whirlwind tour of Europe, visiting libraries of the U.S. Information Service which are, as a matter of fact, loaded with red and pink propaganda. But they did not do a responsible job exposing and stopping this rotten use of U.S. taxpayers’ money to spread Marxism. Instead, they threw tantrums for the press, threw books on the floor and acted like two idiots. Nobody noticed that they were two Jews, but everybody came to equate “McCarthyism” with insanity, thanks to the wide press coverage these two received! 

The presidential election was now in full swing and McCarthy went to bat for Ike, dreaming sneakily of the day he would not have Truman to stop him — the day he could really dig out Communists, no matter how many of them were Jews! Sure enough, Ike was elected and McCarthy pulled the plug, floored the accelerator, touched off the boosters and let go with all he had.

He went to Fort Monmouth, to our most secret radar laboratories and discovered 41 people with atrocious security records and red backgrounds. Of these 41, 39 were Jews! Then he found a Jew dentist named Irving Peress, who had been caught red-handed committing perjury in denying his red record. McCarthy asked the Defense Department to look into it and report the circumstances. Instead of doing this, the Anna Rosenberg-dominated Army promoted Peress and mustered him out, beyond reach of court-martial — in one day!

McCarthy, righteously lusting for blood, went after Irving and demanded to know who promoted this Communist. He would have eventually found his way to Anna, the writer of articles for The New Masses and a member of a Communist John Reed Club. Perhaps the trail would have led him up to Secretary Marshall, who boasted that he personally disarmed the Nationalist Chinese with a stroke of his pen, thus turning China over to Communism.

So McCarthy’s two Jew “assistants,” Cohn and Schine, went into action again. Schine was drafted into the Army and Cohn, in McCarthy’s name, called and tried to obtain favors for him by influence. This corrupt action was a perfect red herring to take the heat off those who promoted a Communist Jew dentist, guilty of perjury, and who mustered him out before he could be court-martialed.

Once more, the two Jews who had created “McCarthyism” and given it a bad reputation — not Joe McCarthy — were the source of dirty dealing which caused the downfall of a truly brave and great-hearted man.

When Hooker had finished this utterly devastating and unanswerable display of the manipulative genius of the Jews, and his own genius at figuring it out, I was staggered by the enormity of it all![Rockwell, This Time the World, ch. XI]