The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary Part Two of Three: The Nineteenth Century

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


Thomas Macaulay

Go to Part 1.

Mirroring developments in Germany, by 1831 the Jewish Question, in the form of the desirability of granting Jews admission to Parliament, had also become a topic of fevered discussion in Britain. One of the most fascinating published opinions produced during this period was Civil Disabilities of the Jews, an essay produced by the historian, essayist and politician Thomas Macaulay (1800—1859). Ostensibly the argument of a classic Liberal in favor of extending political power to Jews, the text is in fact complex and thus more significant. Macaulay’s argument in favor of admitting Jews to Parliament reveals much about the extent and nature of Jewish power and influence in Britain at that time. He viewed emancipation as a means of ‘keeping the Jews in check.’ For example, he insisted that “Jews are not now excluded from political power. They possess it; and as long as they are allowed to accumulate property, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made between civil privileges and political power, is a distinction without a difference. Privileges are power.” Jews were thus already incredibly powerful in the form of civil privileges, and since political power was accompanied by a set of checks and balances, Macaulay’s theory was that admitting Jews into such a system could be a way of better controlling their power and influence.

Macaulay was aware of the role of finance as the primary force of Jewish power in Britain. He asked: “What power in civilized society is so great as that of creditor over the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power more despotic by far, than that of the King and all his cabinet.” Macaulay responds to Christian claims that “it would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament” by stating bluntly that “a Jew may make money, and money may make members of Parliament. … The Jew may govern the money market, and the money market may govern the world. … The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper may be worth more than the word of three kings, or the national faith of three new American republics.” Macaulay’s insights into the nature of Jewish power at that time, and his assertions that Jews had already accumulated political power without the aid of the statute books, are quite profound. Yet his reasoning — that permitting Jews into the legislature would somehow offset this power, or make it accountable — seems pitifully naive and poorly thought out. Nevertheless, the context and content of his famous essay should be regarded as essential reading.

As well as political challenges to the move for increased Jewish power, cultural challenges were also prominent. As part of their effort to gain influence within the bureaucratic machinery of the modern state, Jews constructed intellectual groupings designed to ‘prove’ that Jews had embraced the principles of the Enlightenment to the same extent as their hosts. These intellectual groups, of which Moses Mendelssohn can be considered as something of a pioneer, developed a system of pseudo-scholarly apologetics — Wissenschaft des Judentums or the Science of Judaism. The activities of this group of Jewish intellectuals began to peak in the second decade of the nineteenth century, especially following the founding of the Center for Culture and the Science of Judaism in Berlin in 1819. Some of the most important productions of the group were apologetic accounts of the Jewish past, which included factually dubious accounts about how Jews were ‘forced’ into money-lending and other socially despised behaviors. Many of the modern regurgitations of ideas like this by organizations like the ADL, or even mainstream Jewish historians, can be traced directly to the “scholars” of the Wissenschaft des Judentums. This effort at cultural reinvention provoked a different texture of reaction from non-Jewish intellectuals, and an excellent example in this regard is Jakob Friedrich Fries (1773-1843).

In 1816 Fries, an extremely popular lecturer in philosophy at the universities of Jena and Heidelberg, published a small text titled On the Danger to the Well-Being and Character of the Germans Presented by the Jews. The book was a reaction against the development of a series of apologetics presenting Jews as a downtrodden and victimized group. Fries described as a “prejudice” the idea that “Jews were persecuted by us with blind rage and unjust religious zeal during the Middle Ages.” Rather, Jews aroused hostility because “princes almost always favored them too much,” and they made their living, out of choice, as “insidious second-hand dealers and exploiters of the common people.” Fries argued that the extension of civic rights would not alter the behavior of the Jews because empirical evidence was available in lands where Jews already enjoyed such rights and their socio-economic and political behavior was indistinguishable from that of Jews in the German states. Much like Macaulay, Fries saw money as the fulcrum on which Jewish influence gained its strength, and he warned that Jewish influence would always be highest in states with a strong central government and oppressive taxation.

Another important historiographical text of the same period was Heinrich Leo’s Geschichte des judischen Volkes (History of the Jewish People), published in 1828. Leo (1799–1878) had been a radical Leftist in his student days but became disillusioned with this form of politics after the high-profile murder of the aristocrat August von Kotzebue in 1819 by a student attached to revolutionary politics. He quickly came under the influence of philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder, developing an affinity for conservatism and romanticism. An ardent opponent of the extension of civic rights to Jews, Leo argued against the idea of historical Jewish victimhood and warned in History of the Jewish People that they possessed a “corroding intellect,” and explained that Jewish monotheism, as well as other qualities of Judaism and Jewish national character were the result of a peculiarly destructive reason.

A few historiographical examples aside, however, political statements were the norm throughout the nineteenth century, and the debate around the extension of ‘civic rights’ remained dominant. This was certainly the focus of The Jewish Mirror, (1821), by Hartwig von Hundt-Radowsky (1759–1835). Unlike many of the authors previously mentioned, Hundt-Radowsky was a journalist and political writer rather than a scholar or professional politician. The tone of The Jewish Mirror thus has a more polemical and sensational aspect to it. However, few works articulate in simple, emotional terms, the case of the Europeans against the encroachment of Jewish influence in their systems of government. Indeed, his appeal can be considered even from the modern perspective of opposition to mass immigration. Hundt-Radowsky writes: “Granting civic rights to Jews was an injustice perpetrated by the government against the non-Jewish inhabitants. The latter and their ancestors founded the state, defended and preserved it with their wealth, blood, and lives, against both internal and external enemies. Now, however, a class of morally and spiritually degenerate people (whom we shelter, and who have benefited from the state but never benefit it at all) is treated in the exact same manner that we are.”

One of the seminal texts which took a truly broad and nuanced view of the historical and contemporary interaction between Jews and Europeans is Bruno Bauer’s The Jewish Question (1843). Bauer (1809–1882) was a theologian, philosopher and historian, as well as a keen student of Hegel (leading to his own radical criticism of the New Testament). After being dismissed from a teaching position at Bonn on account of his radical ideas, Bauer turned to writing histories of the rise of Christianity as well as shorter pieces on contemporary politics and culture. Bauer was strongly opposed to ‘Jewish emancipation,’ for reasons he articulated at length in The Jewish Question. Bauer is essential reading for the incisiveness and occasional humor in his discourse. For example, he castigated the naive social justice warriors of his day for fighting against privilege while they “at the same time grant to Judaism the privilege of unchangeability, immunity, and irresponsibility.” All demands are made of the Germans while “the heart of Judaism must not be touched.”

To Bauer, Jews could not “feel at home in a world which they did not make, did not help to make, which is contrary to their unchanged nature.” Rather than conform to the state of the Gentiles, Jews would seek entry to the state only in order to adapt it for their own requirements and comfort. Like Fries, Bauer had little time for false narratives of historically oppressed Jewish communities. Jews had indeed suffered violence at times, but the cause of violence was Judaism itself — they suffered because of the negative effects of their selfish creed on others. It was “for their way of life and for their nationality that they were martyred. They were thus themselves to blame for the oppression they suffered, because they provoked it by their adherence to their law, their language, to their whole way of life. A nothing cannot be oppressed. Wherever there is pressure something must have caused it by its existence, by its nature. In history nothing stands outside the law of causality, least of all the Jews.”

Bauer also has some stinging comments to make on the more reckless egalitarianism of the Enlightenment. In particular, he argued against the idea that ‘rights’ are innate, writing that they instead come with certain requirements and responsibilities: “The idea of human rights was discovered for the Christian world in the last century only. It is not innate in man, it has rather been won in battle against historical traditions which determined the education of men until now. So human rights are not a gift of nature or of history, but a prize which was won in the fight against the accident of birth and against privilege which came down through history from generation to generation. Human rights are the result of education, and they can be possessed only by those who acquire and deserve them.”

Bauer’s commentary on the Jewish Question sparked a renewed controversy throughout Germany involving heated contributions from both sides of the debate. One of the contributors in the aftermath of Bauer’s publication was none other than Karl Marx (1818–1883) who published On the Jewish Problem in 1844. Describing Bauer’s analysis as “one-sided,” Marx further accuses Bauer of treating the Jewish problem as an exclusively religious question. To Marx, this is a weak approach because ‘the Jew’ is much more than an adherent of a religion: “What is the worldly basis of Judaism? Practical necessity, selfishness. What is the worldly culture of the Jew? Commerce. What is his worldly God? Money.” Marx thus argues that a society that abolishes the “presuppositions of commerce” would “have made the existence of the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would dissolve like a thin vapor in the real life atmosphere of society.” Jews, in this reading, are thus mere victims of capitalism and circumstance. While lengthy and verbose, Marx’s On the Jewish Problem is not really any different in content or aims from the efforts of those behind the Wissenschaft des Judentums. Whereas these scholars argued that Jews were ‘forced’ into money-lending and were thus victims in that sense, Marx offers the apologetic that Jews are victims of capitalism and the presuppositions of commerce, and therefore ‘just like anyone else.’ The apologetic element of Marx’s text is quite cleverly disguised, and it has been mistakenly described as an anti-Semitic tract by many mainstream historians. Certainly, Marx is at times blunt in his use of language when discussing the Jewish fascination with money, but his over-arching thesis is of a kind that ultimately leads the discussion towards capital and away from a useful discussion of what makes Judaism and Jewish group behavior so antagonistic to surrounding populations. What Marx fails to address anywhere in his thesis is the blindingly obvious — the unique and very lucrative role of Jews within capitalism at all points in history.  Despite its weaknesses, the text is worth studying even if only because of the historical significance of its author.

By the 1850s, ‘Jewish emancipation’ had become the norm throughout Western Europe. Even at the earliest stages, some of the figures who had previously issued warnings now felt that their admonishments had been vindicated. The rapid progression of Jews in parliaments, state bureaucracies, academic faculties, branches of culture, journalism, and finance was matched by increased Jewish critique of national cultures and the idea of the nation. An excellent example of the deeper origins of this ‘Culture of Critique’ is The History of Jews (in eleven volumes) by the Jewish intellectual Heinrich Graetz.

Heinrich von Treitschke

Rather than offer my own critique of Graetz, I refer readers instead to another valuable reading on the Jewish Question: Heinrich von Treitschke’s Ein Wort ueber unser Judenthum (A Word About Our Jewry). During 1879 and 1880 Treitschke (1834–1896), a renowned German historian, published a number of articles on the Jewish Question under this heading in the Preussiche Jahrbuecher, one of the most prestigious academic journals in Germany at that time (and which he edited). To Treitschke, the core of the Jewish Question was the contradictory stance of the Jews — claiming an absolute right to protect and preserve their particular national identity while also claiming the right to participate fully (or interfere) in the lives of other nations. Of particular annoyance to Treitschke was what he perceived to be a Jewish arrogance, a particularly obnoxious conceit that often manifested in the most vicious critique of the host culture, and the attempt by Jews to claim credit for any and all advancements achieved by those nations (on this see my analysis of a more modern example of the same phenomenon in relation to Spinoza). In this regard, Treitschke found ample material in the Jewish history of Heinrich Graetz:

A dangerous spirit of arrogance has arisen in Jewish circles and the influence of Jewry upon our national life has recently often been harmful. I refer the reader to The History of the Jews by Heinrich Graetz. What a fanatical fury against the ‘arch enemy’ Christianity, what deadly hatred of the purest and most powerful exponents of German character, from Luther to Goethe and Fichte! And what hollow, offensive self-gratification! Here it is proved with continuous satirical invective that the nation of Kant was really educated to humanity by the Jews only, that the language of Lessing and Goethe became sensitive to beauty, spirit, and wit only through [Jewish intellectuals] [Ludwig] Boerne and [Heinrich] Heine!

Treitschke’s critique of Jewish culture is damning. He argues that Jews share heavily in the guilt for “the contemptible materialism of our age.” All over Germany, from the cities to the villages, “we have the Jewish usurer.” While Jews do not occupy the top rank in art and science, they swell the third rank with “Semitic hustlers” who enjoy the support and promotion of their co-religionists in the media: “And how firmly this bunch of literateurs hangs together! How safely this insurance company for immortality works, based on the tested principle of mutuality, so that every Jewish poetaster receives his one-day fame, dealt out by the newspapers immediately and in cash, without delayed interest.” To Treitschke, “the greatest danger is the unjust influence of the Jews in the press.” The Jewish intellectual Boerne “was the first to introduce into our journalism the peculiar shameless way of talking about the fatherland in an off-hand manner and without any reverence, like an outsider, as if mockery of Germany did not cut deeply into the heart of every individual German.” While Treitschke doubted that there would ever be a solution to the Jewish Question, since “there has always been an abyss between Europeans and Semites,” he did assert that improvement would only come about if Jews “who talk so much about tolerance, became truly tolerant themselves and show some respect for the faith, the customs, and the feelings” of those they dwell among.

While Treitschke’s analysis was measured and typically academic, the same complaints he had made also gave rise to a more popular and emotional form of response. One was the Antisemiten-Katechismus (Anti-Semite’s Cathecism), published in 1883 by Theodor Fritsch. In this tome, Fritsch (1852–1933), a publicist and politician, printed an ethno-nationalist version of the ‘Ten Commandments’ which he believed would reduce frictions between Jews and the host population. In brief, they are calls to take pride in one’s ethnicity; to regard Jews as opponents; to “keep thy blood pure”; to help those of your own race; to have no social intercourse with Jews; to have no business relations with Jews; to refrain from adopting Jewish tactics and strategies in any walk of life; to refrain from using Jewish lawyers, doctors or teachers; to refuse all Jewish writings and opinions and keep them “from thy home and hearth”; and to refrain from engaging in any form of violence against Jews “because it is unworthy of thee and against the law. But if a Jew attack thee, ward off his Semitic insolence with German wrath.”

While the 19th century witnessed an outpouring of commentary on the Jewish Question, four texts are absolutely dominant in the nationalist discourse of that century: two from Germany and two from France. The German examples are Richard Wagner’s Jewry in Music (1850) and Wilhelm Marr’s The Victory of Judaism over Germandom (1879; summary and commentary here). Wagner’s piece is interesting for a number of reasons, not least his sardonic assessment of liberalism. When Europeans found themselves caught up in a drive to ‘emancipate’ the Jews, it wasn’t as a result of careful analysis of the possible positive or negative consequences of such an action. Rather, those involved were merely “champions of abstract principle.” Liberalism, argues Wagner, is “not a very lucid mental sport.” Liberalism relies on emotion and feelings, rather than rationality and facts. Europeans had been duped into fighting for the ‘freedom’ of a people “without knowledge of that people itself, nay, with a dislike of any genuine contact with it. … Our eagerness to level up the rights of Jews was far more stimulated by a general idea, than by any real sympathy.” Of course, the same argument might be made today in relation to the ‘refugee’ craze. Liberals are merely in love with the idea of helping migrants, rather than this being something they are genuinely emotional about. Liberalism, as Wagner rightly perceived, is the political expression of selfish emotionality. Aside from his musings on Liberalism, Wagner’s comments on Jews in culture are so profound and extensive that they cannot be adequately be covered here. It simply remains to be said that Jewry in Music is an essential text, worthy of careful study.

Marr’s book is important, but remains one of my own least favorites. The reasons for this lie in both its journalistic rather than scholarly approach, and in its pessimistic and almost claustrophobic tone. For Marr, a journalist, the Jewish Question is barely worth consideration because Judaism has already enjoyed total victory over Europe. He writes in sharp staccato sentences, and each is ripe with despair: “There is no stopping them. … A sudden reversal of this process is fundamentally impossible. … The Jewish spirit and Jewish consciousness have overpowered the world.” Beneath this thick blanket of suffocating pessimism, there are nevertheless occasional gems of insight and analysis from Marr. Of particular interest are his comments that the modern, Christian state would be no help to the nationalist cause because a synchronicity of values had taken place between the Jews and the state. Chief in this regard was the shared assumption and value that nationality would be reduced to a matter of paperwork — the idea that belonging to a nation merely meant that you were in a sense ‘contracted’ to a particular state. Marr is also worth reading because of his focus on the inertia of the masses in the face of rising Jewish influence. For example, he finds it remarkable that Jews have been able to conquer entire national systems without violent revolution but instead “through the compliance of the people.”

Marr’s text had an impact beyond Germany, and was certainly widely discussed throughout Europe. However, its pessimistic and apocalyptic tone was not entirely original. In 1845 Alphonse Toussenel, a French publicist and amateur ornithologist, wrote Les Juifs, rois de l’epoque (The Jews: Kings of the Epoch). Like Marr, Toussenel saw his nation engulfed by “terrible stagnation” and its people consumed by “a general inertia and torpor of the spirit.” France, in his opinion, was in the midst of a critical period in its history, a period in which parliament was powerless and the law had been reduced to the level of financial transaction. Wielding influence over this dazed nation was a “feudal clique,” the Jews. Much like Marr’s text, I found the negativity of Toussenel’s work to be overpowering, and certainly it is inferior to the best French work on the Jewish Question of the nineteenth century: Edouard-Adolphe Drumont’s La France Juive (Jewish France), published in 1886.

In Jewish France, Drumont (1844–1917), a journalist and leader of the political anti-Semitic movement in France, employed his considerable investigative talent to present one of the most comprehensive and factual accounts of Jewish influence produced in the nineteenth century. The book went through one hundred printings in a single year, turning Drumont into one of the best known public figures in France. One of the texts great strengths was that it didn’t rely on a single approach or viewpoint. It wasn’t just academic or journalistic, and it didn’t focus purely on politics or culture. The work embraced references from sources as varied as Catholics and socialists, while also including substantial elements of history, economic statistics, race science, and social criticism. Perhaps its greatest quality, however, is its break from the pessimism of Toussenel and Marr. Drumont writes of “considerable obstacles,” but asserts that “they are not insurmountable.” In many respects the work is a bridge between older texts, and those of the twentieth century and later.

It is to modern works on the Jewish Question that we now turn our attention.

Go to Part 3

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

22 Comments to "The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary Part Two of Three: The Nineteenth Century"

  1. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    May 11, 2017 - 10:27 am | Permalink

    “…Macaulay was aware of the role of finance as the primary force of Jewish power in Britain. He asked: “What power in civilized society is so great as that of creditor over the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power more despotic by far, than that of the King and all his cabinet…”

    So why is this presented as a moral dilemma ? If taking away from the Jew “the security of his property” (read : usury) will end his despotic power, then why not do it ? Over-conscientiousness toward those without conscience leads to defeat.

    • May 11, 2017 - 6:00 pm | Permalink

      Judging by Macaulay’s History of England, and his description of William of Orange landing on the coast and proceeding to London, with cheering crowds lining most of the road, Macaulay was always a Jew apologist. He frequently dined at Holland House and was tolerated – sorry, appreciated for his brilliance – by the super-rich. Just another hireling scribbler, in my view.

    • JM's Gravatar JM
      May 12, 2017 - 5:32 am | Permalink

      Macauley: “If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property.” Not only that, “we” also resolve the essence of the “Jewish Question” which pivots on his economic leverage in society. Roll on the day when “the Jew” can become part of the mainstream.
      Perhaps way too Utopian in the present circumstances, though of his own making.

  2. May 11, 2017 - 10:47 am | Permalink

    Have you read Goldwin Smith’s essay on the JQ? Its rather similar to many of the other readings suggested in these articles, in that it discusses Jewish power in journalism and finance, Jewish exploitation of serfs and other lower-income groups, their ethnocentrism, etc.

  3. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    May 11, 2017 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

    “Macaulay’s insights into the nature of Jewish power at that time, and his assertions that Jews had already accumulated political power without the aid of the statute books, are quite profound. Yet his reasoning — that permitting Jews into the legislature would somehow offset this power, or make it accountable — seems pitifully naive and poorly thought out.”

    He would have figured out that giving Jews more power would not end well if he were reasoning freely. But a framework had been provided for him that limited his reasoning. His errors were pre-programmed.

    Even today, the UK’s Whig party (there is one) is proud most of all of its support of Jews in the 18th/19thCs, and their pro-invasion position today. Not much else remains today, but the burnt out framework that underpinned it all: Jewish hand-rubbing.

    You give lukewarm antisemites of the past too much credit by keeping their names alive. They were tools.


    Isn’t it always this way with the class of antisemites of the past we are encouraged look to for guidance – from philosophers, historians, religious men, politicians? Are they not always always misdirected toward pro-Jewish and anti-White tendencies by some fixed idea or other that runs like a central nerve thru the framework of ideas provided for them, we may assume ultimately by Jew?

    Would Macaulay ever have been considered a great historian or politician or thinker if he had stated the common-sense view of the non-establishment man, that Jews, given all their characteristics, should simply be booted out of the country?


    Think of how we mock today the apologists for Islamic rape-Jihad, or the immivasion, or neocons. These are the modern Macaulays. Given today’s necessary bad ideas, by Jews, to help Jews screw us. What’s the difference?

  4. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    May 11, 2017 - 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I responded to a tweet about Wilhelm Marr by Tanstaafl, likely the best pro-White critic of Jews writing today, and followed up with a comment at his blog, with a relevant quote, citation and comment:

    “At this time, a Hamburg journalist, Wilhelm Marr, issued a sensational pamphlet, “The Victory of Judaism over Germanism” (1879), calling for the defense of the “vanquished” against their “conquerors.” It is through the writings of this Jewish renegade that the term anti-Semitism was coined, “expressing antagonism to the social and political equality of Jews.” The pamphlet of this otherwise obscure writer fell on fruitful soil. It harmonized with the raging national jingoism that had mounted skyhigh with the unification of Germany and that had aimed at the creation of a unified racial and religious body of German citizens.”

    Source: Jewish Reference Book: B’nai B’rith Manual
    Edited by Samuel S. Cohon
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    pp. 287-88

    About 2005 only one copy showed up in UK library searches and someone at the old libertyforum went to the Bodleian and posted a scan. I haven’t read any of Marr’s stuff. Most vintage antisemitism is weak.


    Keywords: Jewish renegade

    Tan replied:

    “Marr’s infamous critique of jews was lame. See:

    And that definitely is worth reading!

  5. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    May 11, 2017 - 7:34 pm | Permalink

    It is unbelievable, and certainly an historical travesty, that, to the best of my knowledge, Drumont’s much cited book has never yet been translated and published in the English language !

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      May 12, 2017 - 12:52 am | Permalink
    • May 12, 2017 - 5:20 am | Permalink

      A warning here: Drumont’s book seems to contain an immense ragbag of accusations, claims, etc., thrown together indiscriminately. Miles Mathis’s website has a piece on the ‘Dreyfus Affair’, once a huge (((media))) storm in France, which Mathis and his co-writer think was an intentional device to get the French to think that, after all the fuss, Dreyfus was proven innocent after all, so everything is fine about Jews. Drumont may have been part of all that. Unfortunately, Jews have had, and still do have, such control over publishing that really serious crits of Jews are filtered out. I fear, with all respect to Joyce, that fully-informed writers, with facts and figures, are very hard to find. So that e.g. Macaulay, who at first sight seems a serious commentator, in effect is just another ‘Shabbas Goy’. And conversely, Walter Scott’s writings on the then-recent French Revolution and Jews, are all but impossible to find. There must have been serious writers from Spain, Poland, and Holland on Jews, but, again, they are hard to locate – though with Internet this must be easier than before. Please be aware of this constant and very serious bias.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        May 13, 2017 - 4:08 pm | Permalink

        This criticism of Drumont applies even more to numerous silly books and pamphlets which make ridiculous assertions and use proven fakes (some possibly deliberately contrived to discredit the gullible). Adolf Hitler, who seems to have used and certainly recommended Theodor Fritsch, remarked on the low cultural level of much antisemitic writing that he first encountered, and A. K. Chesterton, whose conspiracy beliefs derived mainly from Douglas Reed and Denis Fahey, said that he had met more crazy people among (fellow) “antisemites” than anywhere else.

        • May 15, 2017 - 5:17 am | Permalink

          As usual, you scatter accusations unfairly, presumably in your Jew puppet station in life. Evidence on Jews is hidden and destroyed; it’s not surprising criticism is fragmentary and not well informed. In the 19th century theoretical economic history and such things as published company records were undeveloped.
          The criticism of Drumont has been deliberately misrepresented by you. The criticism is that Drumont’s book was intentionally designed to be weak and to fall under attack.

          • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
            May 16, 2017 - 2:44 pm | Permalink

            @ Rerevisionist

            You have an incorrigible tendency to imagine evil intentions and designs where none exist or without evidence. It is you who scatter unfair, indeed untrue, accusations e.g. about me.

            Incidentally, how much do you know about the contacts between Edouard Drumont and Theodor Herzl?

            You do have a point about the suppression of material in some cases. My recollection is that the original complete document by Sir Richard Burton on what is called the Blood Libel among the Sephardim survives in only one copy kept under lock-and-key by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

            There is quite a case to be made from published Jewish and especially Zionist literature and activity themselves, but you won’t get your fingers burned or your narrow mind contaminated. A tiny little illustration is the statement by Chief Rabbi Mirvis about acting behind the scenes to get political results, but this appeared in “The Jewish Chronicle” which you would refuse on “principle” to read as a source of information.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          May 16, 2017 - 4:55 pm | Permalink

          Mr. Ashton: Apropos your later comment about Richard Burton and the so-called blood libel, I note two things.

          (1) David Irving reprints a 2001 article on the Board of Deputies’ chagrin at their failure to get the hoped-for financial bonanza on the auction of the Burton MS. Poor babies.

          (2) I never encountered an Australian site called Love for Life prior to today, but this article is well worth a read.

          An addendum: as late as my high school years (1958–1962), my Catholic teachers (mostly members of an order then called the Irish Christian Brothers), along with the vast majority of the bishops and priests in the United States and elsewhere in the world, had no hesitation in affirming that full responsibility for the ritual murders of Saint Simon of Trent, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, William of Norwich, and several other children lay with bloodthirsty Jews.

          Then came Vatican II and the Great Subversion and Sellout …

          • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
            May 17, 2017 - 6:37 am | Permalink

            @ Pierre de Craon
            We must be of similar age; I was interested in becoming a Catholic in the very years you mention, but the aftermath of Vatican II was one reason why I did not jump on a rock that had turned itself into sand. To lose not only parents but a prospective faith as well as a grammar school and later a national homeland is a grief hard to bear.

            Later in the 1960s I met the late David McCalden, an Ulster “racist”, who told me he had painstakingly investigated all the BL cases listed in Arnold Leese’s booklet and concluded there was nothing in them. Bernard Lazare said it was probable that isolated magicians of Jewish heritage may have sacrificed children. Some allegations well be just as illusory as witchcraft allegations in the past or some satanic/pedophile abuse stories today. In any event, the Jews do not drink Christian blood at Passover or generally practice magic.

            I have several books on the subject, including Little Hugh, but it would be a needless distraction to follow all this up. Joshua Trachtenberg, “The Devil and the Jews” (1993), chh.8-10, and Elliott Horowitz, “Reckless Rites” (2006), may be of interest to others with more misguided time on their hands.

            Thank you for the “Love for Life” website reference – this contains some document gold amid a good deal of dross.

  6. Paul Harvey's Gravatar Paul Harvey
    May 11, 2017 - 8:53 pm | Permalink

    This is very interesting. I think the challenge is to get Jews to admit that they have an agenda and that their proposed rules of engagement: “We can say anything to you and hurt you but you can’t say anything against us without being a monster” have got to go. But mainly we need to convince the gentiles of this and It’s hard, at this point, with so many battles already lost, to get traction. One angle is the quota system against Asians at public universities. Since nearly all American Jews are atheists, what sense is there in a quota against Asians administered by Jews? Another angle is the strong support of Jewish groups for jailing Holocaust deniers and the like. American politicians should be litmus-tested on whether they support such laws and whether they would support extensions to cover speech against gays, evangelicals, people who live in trailers, etc.

  7. Forever Guilty's Gravatar Forever Guilty
    May 11, 2017 - 11:38 pm | Permalink

    “Jews would seek entry to the state only in order to adapt it for their own requirements and comfort.”

    Yes. Take For example a recent article about Jewish lawyer mr. Shenkman working hard to suppress voting rights of White people living in small communities. He is bragging, that he is very successful at that..

    In article, he is basically described as some kind of “rogue lawyer” . But I doubt it . Most likely he has strong (((support))). But if it’s comes to scandal he could always claim to work on his own.

    Jewish Laws Enforcer in California

  8. SSPX's Gravatar SSPX
    May 12, 2017 - 2:57 am | Permalink

    Dr. Joyce,

    How is that jewish/white nationalist alliance BTW you and the jews going?

    Have they taken advantage of you yet?

  9. joe six pack's Gravatar joe six pack
    May 12, 2017 - 6:55 am | Permalink

    How about Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister and Church of England attendee but by blood a Sephardic Semite. According to this article, David Ceasarini condemned Disraeli, Prime Minister for having Sidonia, his Semitic Superman in the novel Tancred,say:

    “It is an affair of race . . . And when a superior race, with a superior idea to Work and Order, advances, its state will be progressive, and we shall, perhaps, follow the example of the desolate countries. All is race; there is no other truth.”


    But C’mon, that was then and this is now. It was the age of Racism. Race explained everything. The Germans had the misfortune to just be late to the Racism party and so got tagged with being the worst people in the history of the world because they sucked at public relations.

  10. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    May 13, 2017 - 3:39 am | Permalink

    “To Treitschke, the core of the Jewish Question was the contradictory stance of the Jews — claiming an absolute right to protect and preserve their particular national identity while also claiming the right to participate fully (or interfere) in the lives of other nations.”

    I saw this in action in Breitbart before I was banned. One minute it was ‘Can you blame the Jews for supporting Bolshevism after the way they had been treated by the Czar?’ and ‘We were forced into usury’ and ‘I am still angry about what the Romans did to us 2000 years ago’ (or more) —ie it is ‘us’ and ‘we’, but then the next minute it was ‘how dare you say I am not loyal to this country! I am just as English as you are!’.

    ” Of particular annoyance to Treitschke was what he perceived to be a Jewish arrogance, a particularly obnoxious conceit that often manifested in the most vicious critique of the host culture, and the attempt by Jews to claim credit for any and all advancements achieved by those nations (on this see my analysis of a more modern example of the same phenomenon in relation to Spinoza). ”

    There is plenty of this on Breitbart on display, which is not helping their cause at all. In discussions they come across as arrogant and hostile to the host nation, by their repeated references to events from centuries ago which reveal their inner hostility. Before the internet such interaction between Jew and gentile simply never occurred. There was simply no debate. It was settled. The Nazis were bad, the Jews were good and persecuted for no reason at all by the Nazis- end of discussion as there is nothing to discuss and if you say there is, then you are implying that the Allies were not the saintly warriors fighting evil and saving the Jews, as the people in allied countries had managed to convince themselves that this was what the War was about, as oppose to rival armies fighting for no reason, and the last thing people want to hear after a devastating war was that it was pointless. So the people need the story about them rescuing the Jews so they can feel good about themselves.

    Now, due to the internet, discussions are taking place, and the Jews are not winning themselves any friends by their arrogance and hostility in these debates.

    On the same subject, however, so do the Alt-right not do themselves any favours by the manner in which they criticise anyone on the right who is not in total accord with all their views. Eg there is a speech on the internet by Tommy Robinson about the British Police persecuting him for criticising muslims, and the far-right appear in the discussion and then proceed to put everyone off the far-right by calling Tommy Robinson names.

    See the top comment under:

    The alt-right should provide support and backup for others on the right like Tommy Robinson, but instead they make wild accusations that he is supported by Jewish money and influence, when clearly this is not the case, as he went to prison where he was meant to be killed due to not being able to afford top lawyers. These alt-right people attack Tommy Robinson on a forum full of right-wing people who support him. This is no way to win any arguments. It just puts people off the alt right.

    These people make the mistake of thinking that just because a right wing person does not criticise Jews for promoting mass immigration therefore this person is controlled by them and paid by them. The right wing person probably does not even know that the Jews are doing this! What they do not realise is that these right wing people support Israel simply because they see a civilised country surrounded by backward ones that want to conquer it. The alt-right hostility to Jews is so intense that they cannot see Israel/Palestine in these terms as other right-wing people do. They see any enemy of the Jews as their friend – including the Palestinian muslims. They should stop viewing everyone who supports Israel in the Israel/muslim conflict as somehow in league with all Jews. In my view a better tactic in discussions is to simply give links to Jewish organisations supporting muslim immigration into the West and asking why they support this, and ask if this support from Jews for mass immigration into the West reveals a hostility on the part of the Jews to the host nation.

    These right-wing people support Israel because Israel has the muslims as their declared enemies, as the West does also. This is a logical position to take. It is actually more logical than observing that muslims want to conquer us but then still supporting the muslims in Palestine just because they also want to conquer the Jews (the position of the alt-right). A more logical approach is to say to Israel ‘We sympathise that Israel is a civilised country that the muslims would like to conquer. We sympathise because we are in the same position ourselves in the West. However, although we sympathise, we cannot translate this into helping you until you stop your uncalled for hostility to the West, in terms of promoting mass immigration into he West in order to bring down the West. How do you expect us to continue to help you in Israel when you behave in this openly hostile way to us when we provide you with wealth and security? We observe your hostility to us, and we regretfully conclude that we can no longer tolerate any sort of enemy within doing this to us, whether it is muslims or Jews.’

  11. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    May 13, 2017 - 6:12 pm | Permalink

    “…He would have figured out that giving Jews more power would not end well if he were reasoning freely. But a framework had been provided for him that limited his reasoning. His errors were pre-programmed…”

    He didn’t understand that the Jews were a tribe of psychopaths. Most people when given responsibility will look after that for which they are responsible. They have a conscience. Jews will not. The more power they have the worse they get. Look what they did in Russia after they gained total power. Mass murder.

    Stalin was a psychopath just like them. They push psychopaths to the front to work with them and the society rapidly plummets to the bottom.

  12. PPight1931's Gravatar PPight1931
    May 17, 2017 - 10:46 am | Permalink

    @David Ashton in Re yours: May 17, 2017 – 6:37 am @ Pierre de Craon

    I want to add this one comment to that thread.

    Are you going to dismiss this as purely febrile Jewish imagination? Or perhaps some other explanation can be found…? The infamous (bewigged) ‘Vicki Devil Worship – 1989 Oprah Winfrey Show Interview With A Jewish Woman’

    Was Chaucer’s The Prioress’s Tale merely the rabid outpouring of another unreasoning, hateful anti-Semite?

    I enjoyed (if such be the word) McCalden’s ‘Exiles From History: a Psycho-historical Study of Jewish Self-hate’, but would be interested to know if his excoriation of Leese’s scholarship on blood ‘libel’ preceded the appearance of Ariel Toaff’s ‘Blood Passover’ in English translation. Presumably yes, since McCalden died in 1990 and for all I know, the English translation of Toaff’s book didn’t appear till 2007.

    I have not checked (nor am in a position to) whether the foregoing casts doubt on any of McCalden’s reported findings concerning Leese’s sources and conclusions. Regardless, the point I am suggesting, with limited resources perhaps, is that you exhibit much diligence and resourcefulness in endeavouring to prove for all practical purposes a complete negative, in the face of a body of evidence, varying in weight and plausibility, that just won’t go away.

    I can’t place the quotation, but I humour myself that I once read Henry H. Klein having remarked that he had til late in life assumed that everything in Judaism was “above board”, but something had shaken that belief – something touching this topic. Unlike Revilo Oliver I don’t assume that Klein’s stance on this, any more than Klein’s acting as defence attorney in the Sedition Trial/s (Pelley?) or writing his various anti-graft and other expose’s, was to be explained away as purely his own idiosyncratic idea of what was “good for the Jews”.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      May 17, 2017 - 3:42 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for reminding me of Ariel Toaff and the consequent controversy relating to his relatively new research into a somewhat limited aspect of this “blood” question; I have just read the Wikipedia entry. Time permitting I shall look again into this, and also Joshua Trachtenberg’s “Jewish Magic & Superstition”.

      Some stories may have had a factual basis whatever the murder motivation; I studied Chaucer at university, and know about Jewish “problems” in medieval Norwich in Norfolk where I now reside.

      I used to be interested in European witchcraft (and much more recent “magick”); and realize that both reliable evidence, and general theories, from Margaret Murray to Montague Summers, are open to question.

      Today Jews do not kill Christian children to make food for Purim or Pesach. If you have any evidence to the contrary, contact your local police. There is not much more I can add.

Comments are closed.