The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary Part Three of Three : The Twentieth Century and Beyond

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

One of the first great texts on the Jewish Question to appear in the 20th century was The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1st English Edition, 1911) by the Germanophile Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927). Having married one of Richard Wagner’s daughters and taken up residence in Germany, Chamberlain, a philosopher, involved himself heavily in the German völkisch scene and the promotion of its ideas. In Foundations, Chamberlain refined the racial theories of the French diplomat and essayist Joseph Arthur Gobineau, in which the Frenchman had argued that there was demonstrable inequality in talent, worth, and culture among the various races of man. While Gobineau placed Aryan man at the pinnacle of his racial categorizations, Chamberlain was among the first to refine this categorization to include Northern Europeans in particular at the pinnacle. This is perhaps a more controversial position today, owing to the more modern emphasis on total White unity, as well as significant disillusionment with the way the Nordic and Germanic nations have succumbed so intensively to the multicultural onslaught.

Foundations is a complex work, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Chamberlain’s attitudes towards Jews and the Jewish Question. For a start, the author admires some aspects of Judaism, namely, that it holds purity of blood as a religious principle: “Judaism made this law of nature sacred. And this is the reason why it triumphantly prevailed at that critical moment in the history of the world.” A veiled admiration is also evident in his assertion that Jewish financial strength is not the sum total of the Jewish Question. In fact, Chamberlain describes it as “of least account” because “our governments, our law, our science, our commerce, our literature, our art…practically all branches of our life have become more or less willing slaves of the Jews. … The Indo-European, moved by ideal motives, opened the gates in friendship: the Jew rushed in like an enemy, stormed all positions and planted the flag of his, to us, alien nature — I will not say on the ruins, but on the breaches of our genuine individuality.” The end result of this process will be apocalyptic: “If that were to go on for a few centuries, there would be in Europe only one single people of pure race, that of the Jews, all the rest would be a herd of pseudo-Hebraic mestizos, a people beyond all doubt degenerate physically, mentally and morally.”

While Chamberlain’s text is epic in tone and scope, the influence of German Romanticism on its writing is clear. There are elements of mysticism, and at times its style is obscure. In the 1920s two significantly more straightforward assessments of the Jewish Question were published in the Anglosphere: Henry Ford’s The International Jew (1920), and Hillaire Belloc’s The Jews (1922). Since Kevin MacDonald has written an excellent review of Ford’s work, and since I have published a lengthy assessment of Belloc’s contribution, I see no reason here to go into detail about the content of either. It should suffice to state that both are essential reading for anyone hoping to get to grips with this subject matter, and also that they are almost without parallel in terms of the clarity of their language and argument. They are simply indispensable.

During the 1930s and 1940s, high-level academic study of the Jewish Question became a feature of the universities of the Third Reich. Although many of the texts, journal articles, and works of research from this period have since been destroyed or made almost impossible to access, the best English-language insight into some of it can be found in Studying the Jew: Scholarly Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany by Alan E. Steinweis (Harvard University Press, 2006). Written by a Jewish academic, the text is every bit as biased as one might expect. However, if one can ignore the ceaseless caveats and subtle imprecations, there remains a wealth of information to be discovered about this important era of research. My own favorite chapter concerns research into the criminal profile of Jews, particularly in relation to financial crime. Third Reich scholars were permitted access to government crime statistics for the period 1892–1917, which revealed that Jews “were 12 times more like than non-Jews to be involved in usury, 11 times more likely to be involved in theft of intellectual property, and 8.9 times as likely to declare fraudulent bankruptcy (p.139).” One of the foremost scholars of the Jewish Question during the period was Johann von Leers, whose studies into its criminological aspects were eventually published in 1944 as The Criminal Nature of the Jew — a text that is now almost impossible to obtain. Steinweis’s book, for the time being, remains the only compromise solution for someone seeking an insight into the many scholars and works produced between 1933–1945 on this subject matter.

Between the 1940s and the 1990s few texts of note were published on the Jewish Question, until a succession of publications marked a rather strong revival. There were a number of reasons for this lag. The Holocaust narrative was of course largely successful in immunizing Jews ‘as a group’ from criticism from anything but the most fringe sources. Another important reason was that Jewish intellectuals had been mostly correct in their assumption that promoting multiculturalism, and ending White hegemony in the West, would result in an atmosphere less threatening to Jewish interests. In the context of mass immigration, migrant crime epidemics, desegregation and ‘civil rights,’ endless ‘race relations’ programs, and efforts to completely revolutionize the Western social landscape, Jewish influence became more obscure and also became just one subject among many others that pressed for the attention of nationalists and social conservatives. A further development was the proliferation of new forms of communication in the movement. In particular, cheap printing, the further development of radio, and the rise of the internet led to the greater production of tracts, pamphlets, and podcasts — not always of the best quality.

Just as the first great wave of works on the Jewish Question emerged from the universities, so it was in the 1990s when we witnessed the publication of John Klier’s Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History (1992), Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994) and Separation and Its Discontents (1998), and Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears (1997). Of course, none of these texts were overly similar to earlier publications in tone or even form of argument. None were originally intended to be seen as contributions to the canon of works on the Jewish Question, ranked in some form or another with the likes of Henry Ford, Drumont, or Treitschke. However, all of them can be said to contribute to just such a lineage in a number of ways, the most important being that they have all chipped away at the monolithic narrative of the “lachrymose history of the Jews.” In doing so, they take up the same mantle adopted by Heinrich Leo, Bruno Bauer, and others in the long European intellectual tradition of exploring the Jewish Question.

The 1992 contribution of John Klier (1944–2007), along with his Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–2 (2011), was emphatic, even at the highest levels of the academic establishment. Although gatekeepers and the dedication of ethnocentric academic cliques have prevented Klier’s work from gaining wider recognition, his research on the experience of the Jews in Eastern Europe was groundbreaking. Eschewing Jewish communal victimhood narratives, Klier, professor of modern Jewish history at University College London, pioneered a clinical approach to the study of Russian-Jewish relations by employing a methodology based purely on verifiable archival records. The result was a body of findings that disproved almost every aspect of the existing Jewish narrative. The ‘repressive’ May Laws were found to be overwhelmingly benign. The ‘pogroms’ were almost non-existent, and were largely the fictional products of Jewish propaganda networks stretching from Kiev to Vienna, and from Vienna to London and beyond. Jews were found to have been heavily involved in a large number of socially antagonistic behavior (from draft-evasion to rampant usury), while no evidence could be found that Russians had an irrational hatred of the Jewish religion. Klier found that the mass exodus of Jews from Russia to the United States in the late nineteenth century had no link to violence, but very strong links to economic slumps and population growth. In total, Klier’s work was a rejection of the myth of Tsarist oppression. Perhaps most controversially, it implicitly suggested that there was a strong logic to Russian anti-Jewish feeling and, by extension, to anti-Semitism more generally.

The same suggestion is apparent in the work of Kevin MacDonald, and this is especially the case with Separation and Its Discontents. Taken together with A People That Shall Dwell Alone, this text was probably the first book devoted in its entirety to the argument that there was a logic to anti-Semitism, in this case framed within the theory of group evolutionary strategy. Separation and Its Discontents was the first of MacDonald’s book that I read, now almost ten years ago. I’d been conducting a significant amount of independent research into historical anti-Semitism at the time, and discovered the book purely by chance with a keyword search on an academic book-sourcing catalog. I was oblivious to the controversy that had since become attached to MacDonald after the publication of his works on Jews, but by the time the book arrived for me from another college library there was by then very little chance that it would have dissuaded me from reading it. I’d become extremely dissatisfied with Jewish-produced works on anti-Semitism, having made my way through dozens of the standard works by Sander Gilman, Robert Wistrich, Gavin Langmuir, Jacob Katz, Marvin Perry, Frederick Schweitzer, and Shmuel Almog, in addition to particularly poor contributions from James Parkes and Jean-Paul Sartre.

To me, the most impressive aspect of Separation and Its Discontents was its mastery of the vast historiographical literature on the subject. Indeed, MacDonald’s bibliography dwarfed that of any of the works by any of the authors listed above. As well as consulting an almost unprecedented amount of secondary literature on the subject, another key strength of the text was the purity of its argument. This was a book that did not need to rely on stretches of logic or dubious attempts to pathologize historical actors in order to convince the reader of its central thesis. Instead, MacDonald took the factual findings revealed in many of these Jewish-authored secondary works, and brought them to a more logical conclusion. A good example of this is in MacDonald’s chapter where he examines the themes of anti-Semitism. Jewish scholars had hitherto been very eager to attribute this or that anti-Semitic allegation, or ‘canard,’ to irrational stereotyping. MacDonald examined these allegations and found remarkable historical consistency across diverse geographical and political contexts, leading in turn to the conclusion that the deeper origin of inter-group friction lay in the stimulating rather than reactive force —the behavior of Jews rather than the ‘prejudices’ of host populations. There is much more I could write about Separation and Its Discontents, but the time of the reader would be much better invested in reading the text itself. Having waded my way through hundreds of books and articles on the nature and history of anti-Semitism, I can state with some confidence that Separation and Its Discontents has no equal.

In 1997 Albert Lindemann, professor history at the University of California–Santa Barbara, published Esau’s Tears: Modern anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. As the title suggests, Lindemann’s thesis is that modern European anti-Semitism is linked to a very substantial increase in the cultural, political, and economic power of Jews beginning in the nineteenth century. As Kevin MacDonald notes in his review of Lindemann’s work, the book “challenges the still common view that anti-Semitic attitudes are nothing more than the fundamentally irrational residues of Christian religious ideology or the psychological projections of inadequate personalities.” Lindemann pays particular attention to the Russian context, and thus explicitly or implicitly borrows much from the pioneering work of John Klier, particularly where it concerns the dubious nature of the ‘pogrom’ narrative and the development of international Jewish propaganda. If you’ve read MacDonald or Klier there probably won’t be a great deal in Esau’s Tears that will surprise you, but it merits reading due to the clarity of its prose, a wealth of telling anecdotes and historical examples, and its strong central thesis.

Another Jewish-authored text which merits close attention is Benjamin Ginsberg’s How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (2013). A full review of this important text will be coming very soon to TOO, but I will take this opportunity to outline some key points and arguments. Ginsberg is Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and had previously written Do Jews Have a Future in America? (2010) in which he argued that Jews were a very powerful group that nonetheless possessed a remarkable unease quite contrary to their material circumstances. In his brief but powerful 2013 book, Ginsberg rejects the almost universal idea that Jews were passive victims during World War II. He instead argues that Jews were extremely active participants in the conflict at all levels, and that they “played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.”

Jewish power and influence manifested itself in several ways during the war. Jewish action was international and, although at times lacking co-ordination, was driven globally by a desire to defend Jewish interests and use all avenues of influence available to them. Ginsberg offers chapters on Jewish action within the Soviet Union, Jewish activism within the United States, Jewish involvement in wartime intelligence agencies, and Jewish involvement in directing and participating in the worst of partisan warfare — a form of fighting that had a devastating impact on German supply lines, and in turn led to a justified German military paranoia about Jewish communities in general.

Some of the revelations are stunning, and Ginsberg is quote forthright in his assessment of the extent of Jewish power. In the Soviet Union, Jews played major roles in the ruling Communist party and the Soviet state, and quickly assumed every position of influence — “foreign affairs, propaganda, finance, administration, and industrial production.” Half of Lenin’s first Politburo were Jewish. Trotsky organized and commanded the Red Army during the civil war. The Jews Kamanev and Zinoviev ruled the Soviet Union along with Stalin after the death of Lenin. The President of the Communist Party Central Committee during this period was the Jew Yakov Sverdlov. The commissar for foreign affairs was the Jew Maxim Litvinov. The press commissar was the Jew Karl Radek. One of Stalin’s top aides was the Jewish mass murderer Lazar Kaganovich. The head of the secret police was Genrikh Yagoda, another Jew, while the orchestrators of the police state in the Soviet Union were the Jews M.T. Gay, A.A. Slutsky, and Boris German who developed the gulag system. Jews like Mikhail Koltsov dominated Soviet journalism and the film industry. Jews enjoyed massive over-representation in the universities, were under-represented as workers, and lived in a state in which anti-Semitism had been made illegal.

During the war, Soviet Jews worked with their American counter-parts to secure vital lend-lease deals on weaponry. Meanwhile, on the front lines, Jews were almost entirely absent from fighting. Jewish involvement at the ‘raw end’ of the conflict was limited mainly to over-representation at officer level, while Jews absolutely dominated the realm of popular mobilization, in the sense that they developed propaganda to persuade the wider population to fight even though they hated the Soviet regime; and they were deeply involved in meting out punishments for those who didn’t respond. Although comprising only 2% of the Russian population, more than 15% of Soviet war propagandists were Jews. Publications like the official army newspaper Red Star were the mouthpieces of the Jews David Ortenberg and Ilya Ehrenberg, the latter being responsible for the line: “If you have killed one German, kill another. There is nothing jollier than German corpses.”

In the United States Jews really rose to power under FDR, forming 15% of his appointees at a time when they were less than 3% of the population. Ginsberg demonstrates that Jews formed the leadership of almost every aspect of the New Deal, described rather accurately by some contemporaries as the ‘Jew Deal.’ In particular, Jews were keen to strengthen the position of central government in America, and being close to a kind of ‘Big Government’ is something that is perfectly in keeping with their preferences historically. Ginsberg further shows that Jews used their dominance of the media and film industries to manipulate public opinion, taking the population from a strong anti-war position to a pro-intervention position in just a couple of years. Of particular note is Ginsberg’s exploration of Jewish organizations like the ADL, and their covert work with the security agencies to manipulate public opinion and discredit isolationists.

In the intelligence agencies, Jews were everywhere, and there were even Jewish agents (the most famous being the group known as the ‘Red Orchestra’) operating within the Third Reich itself. In partisan warfare, Jews comprised around 25 per cent of all resistance fighters in Western Europe. In the Soviet Union, almost all early partisan groups were led by Jewish Communists and soldiers. Increasingly harsh German treatment of civilian populations in the East, argues Ginsberg, was directly linked to the impact of Jewish partisan activity. A further measure of Jewish domination of partisan warfare was the occasional execution of non-Jewish partisans for actions perceived to be anti-Semitic.

Ginsberg’s book isn’t perfect. There are occasions when, despite the title of the text, he appeals directly to narratives of Jewish passivity and victimhood, particularly when referring to the Czarist period. His last chapter, which purports to look at anti-Semitism in the post-war world, also contains some woefully inadequate analysis. However, the book is a useful compendium of quite damning insights into the astonishing level of global Jewish influence in the early twentieth century, and it also goes some way, despite its conclusion, to denting the notion of Jewish passivity and victimhood — something that European intellectuals have been striving after for centuries.


The question of Jewish influence is extremely significant to our movement, and to the future of our people. It fully deserves to be at or near the forefront of our discussions. In order for this to happen in a useful and beneficial way, it’s crucial that these discussions are well-informed and are placed within broad historical, political, and cultural contexts. As readers can tell from the list of works produced in this briefest of introductions to writing on the Jewish Question, this issue is far from ‘fringe’ material. It has occupied some of the best minds in European history. As such, it should be treated with a level of respect, and perhaps there is a responsibility on the part of those adopting this mantle to be as well-informed as possible, and to express themselves in a manner similar to those who have gone before. Becoming familiar with this literature, and fully incorporating it into one’s intellectual and psychological worldview, is a good place to start.

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

52 Comments to "The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary Part Three of Three : The Twentieth Century and Beyond"

  1. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    May 12, 2017 - 8:15 am | Permalink

    Could we add Werner Sombart?

    • Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
      May 12, 2017 - 10:10 am | Permalink

      And perhaps Theodor Fritsch’s later Handbuch der Judenfrage ?

      Steinweis’ book is indeed a very useful guide to discovering the plethora of high grade Third Reich institutional publications and general literature on the J.Q.

      Another earlier, but very useful research publication is the 1982 book by Robert Singerman, called Antisemitic Propaganda. An Annotated bibliography and Research Guide.

      • May 12, 2017 - 4:21 pm | Permalink

        No-one has mentioned Michael Hoffman’s rediscovery of the German text by Johann Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, in 2 volumes (1711ish) which was, he says, bought up and destroyed by Jews, though they kept copies for themselves as sources.
        NB I appreciate Joyce has a class interest in academics, but (a) their record, on the whole, is abysmal; and (b) many people with detailed experience, in banks, various militaries, politics, business dealings, crime, media, education and so on are not academics, and yet collectively have knowledge far exceeding academics.

        • May 13, 2017 - 3:50 am | Permalink

          It occurs to me that good translators from German and French in particular (I’d guess Poland, Russia etc would have been fully censored) and with a nose for detecting few remaining copies of undestroyed copies of important books might do more for research into Jews than all academics put together.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        May 13, 2017 - 3:16 pm | Permalink

        There is a case for studying in some depth what Jewish academics actually write about themselves and others. This is precisely what has given Dr MacDonald’s books a unique and challenging significance, despite the dismissive entry in e.g. Richard Levy et al (eds) “Antisemitism: A Historical Enyclopedia of Prejudice & Persecution”, which can be quite useful as a time-saving research source.

    • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
      May 16, 2017 - 4:48 am | Permalink

      I was scurrying the text to see whether Sombart was mentioned, when I stumbled on your question! Nice “coincidence”.
      Let’s then add it:
      Sombart, Werner (1911): Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben. Leipzig: Duncker. Translated into English: The Jews and Modern Capitalism., Batoche Books, Kitchener, 2001
      Available on-line in various formats.

      Indispensable reading, as all Sombart’s writings should be (‘Der Bourgeois’, translated as ‘The quintessence of capitalism’, ‘Händler und Helden’, ‘Deutscher Sozialismus’ -English translation:’A New Social Philosophy’, as the most important). For the not faint-hearted:
      ‘Der moderne Kapitalismus. Historisch-systematische Darstellung des gesamteuropäischen Wirtschaftslebens von seinen Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart’. Final edn. 1928, repr. 1969, paperback edn. (3 vols. in 6): 1987 Munich: dtv. (Also in Spanish; no English translation yet.)

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        May 16, 2017 - 1:03 pm | Permalink

        He also said “A Negro can be German in the spiritual sense.”

        I see the seeds of egalitarianism. You want to trust this weenie with insights on economics?

        3. Sombart as Marxist and Anti-Marxist

        Werner Sombart himself proudly confessed that he gave a good part of his life to fight for Marx.23 It was Sombart, not the wretched pedants of the ilk of Kautsky and Bernstein, who introduced Marx to German science and familiarized German thought with Marxist doctrines. Even the structure of Sombart’s main work, Modern Capitalism, is Marxian.

  2. Amasius's Gravatar Amasius
    May 12, 2017 - 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Jews use their money to buy off (most of) the intelligent, and their propaganda to control everyone else. Quite the stranglehold.

  3. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    May 12, 2017 - 1:22 pm | Permalink

    re the website: the ‘ask me anything on VOAT’ link (the next article) is not working

  4. May 12, 2017 - 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Chamberlain was among the first to refine this categorization to include Northern Europeans in particular at the pinnacle. This is perhaps a more controversial position today, owing to the more modern emphasis on total White unity, as well as significant disillusionment with the way the Nordic and Germanic nations have succumbed so intensively to the multicultural onslaught.

    This may be the case now, but it’s only a matter of time before the Slavic East succumbs in the same way. It’s just that, now, invaders don’t select those nations when they have much better pickings in the West, and the Jews have not put the pressure on those nations yet either.

    Plus, Southern Europeans are succumbing in the same way.

    I don’t think “White” is a very good distinction when it comes to unity. Whites aren’t particularly loyal to one another, are they.

    • Luke's Gravatar Luke
      May 12, 2017 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

      I would rather sadly have to agree with Carolyn’s observation: “Whites aren’t particularly loyal to one another…”

      In fact, per capita – I would wager that of all the different races and species of humans on this planet – the White race has the highest percentage of race traitors within it’s ranks.

      And, it is painful beyond my ability to express how sickening and disheartening it is for me to admit this horrible reality.

      • Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
        May 15, 2017 - 8:37 am | Permalink

        Bingo again on that Luke. Whites are often their own worst enemies. It doesn’t take long to recognize these walking White paradoxes, for what they are, that’s for sure. Despite the odds, these are the atomized, inert people in self denial that we are trying to change.

  5. Robert Pinkerton's Gravatar Robert Pinkerton
    May 12, 2017 - 3:43 pm | Permalink

    More attention should be paid to the proceedings of the Cheka, though reader discretion is advisable as some of their activities were breath-takingly cruel.

  6. May 12, 2017 - 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Joyce:

    I like this 3-part article very much. You seem to take pains to be very clear about Jewish thinking and strategies and that’s good. The more simple and clear our understanding of the problem, the better.

    But for all the research you have brought us, you still have not definitively answered the question: How did Jews get so much power? What are they doing and what are we not doing? That should be spelled out as plainly as possible. All Kevin MacDonald can ever say, in a multitude of ways, is “Whites are too altruistic, not ethno-centric enough.” That is too generalized to lead to any plan of action. If it’s inherent in our way of thinking, and we can’t change that, then we are doomed. I think most of us can see that possibility very clearly already.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      May 13, 2017 - 6:45 am | Permalink

      @ Carolyn Yeager:
      Fiat money and fractionally-reserved banking. Until the money hegemon is slain, it’s hard to imagine a reversal of fortune.
      Put up a chart of money supply and see how its exponential growth since the mid-seventies mirrors Jewish power.

      • May 13, 2017 - 11:46 am | Permalink

        I agree with you. It started with Rothschild financing Napoleon, and led to getting every world government caught in their trap. It really burns me that they stuck Americans with an income tax. It must be unconstitutional.

        Yes, I think we haven’t done enough to explain how Jews steal our money and do not perform the great service for our economies that they profess. Of course, they have their large stable of ‘shabbos goy’ who are proclaimed to be our race’s best minds. This, all by itself, is a huge battle but it should be fought. You’re probably right that it’s #1.

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          May 13, 2017 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

          Here’s a chart for your consideration. Note the abrupt change in the seventies following Nixon’s closure of the Gold Window. This marks the start of Wall St.’s dwarfing of Main St. Of course, there is no theft in any technical, legal sense. Empirically, however, a high-inflation setting (high money supply, not CPI, growth) penalizes the saver and rewards the asset-trader, especially the geared one. Guess the composition of those two classes! Private-sector financial players, however, are hardly the only beneficiaries of this re-distributive mechanism. The Federal government is by far the largest. Pointless to remind you of how wild money supply growth during the Weimar Republic transferred – legally – wealth from savers to speculators, many, though not all of whom, were Jews.

          The ethnocentric argument doesn’t fit that time-line at all. In half a century it was our environment that changed, not us.

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        May 13, 2017 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

        The Hegemoney is the World’s Foremost problem. The World’s-not just Whites.

        All races need to join in Kumbaya-Hate against the Information and Money Monopolies. We need to hold hands with the Japs and Chinks, and put the fake money through a wood chipper. Then put something- someone- else through the same chipper.

    • May 13, 2017 - 7:27 am | Permalink


      Part of the problem is that whites are not ethnocentric enough. Inspired by this article (I even wrote a short entry about it in my blog) I’ve started to reread some passages of Separation and Its Discontents and hit this quote: “As Greek ideas about the one-ness of humanity spread… The Greeks saw their oecumene, that is, the civilized universe… where their ideas prevailed, as a multi-racial, multi-national, and those who refused to accept it were enemies of man.”

      Unlike the Spartans and Republican Romans, the ancient Athenians, Alexander the “Great” and imperial Romans fell into this sort of ethnosuicidal thinking.

      Whites are certainly doomed unless they adopt National Socialism. That only NS saves is something that white nationalists have yet to discover.

      • May 13, 2017 - 11:57 am | Permalink

        Of course, Whites are not ethnocentric enough. But it does vary. Some of us have learned to be. As you say, the Spartans and Roman Republicans were. For our societies, I think we just need to be educated in the facts. And get over the taboos. That’s why the Jews targeted the takeover of the media. And why they attack NS so unmercifully. They’re scared of that!

    • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
      May 13, 2017 - 10:33 pm | Permalink

      In future, when I need to augment gaps in my knowledge on the JQ, I will know where to go to. A humble thank you very much, Dr. Joyce, for your effort, this implicitly also includes all other researchers and commenters.

      The litmus test for me is, how does one act on this information?

      Otherwise it leads to a “paralysis by analysis” situation.

      There exists a huge bookshelve analysing this question from all angles, but the solution oriented bookshelve is meagre and full of gaps.

    • Alden's Gravatar Alden
      May 15, 2017 - 11:27 am | Permalink

      From the fall of Rome to the present time in Europe it was simple.
      Jews contacted and bribed and extorted the advisors and relatives of the King, Duke, Earl, bishop whatever who ruled the province. When they got to the head man they offered a deal

      Accept our bribes and allow us into your province to lend money at 400 percent interest rates. When your population gets sick and tired of us we will go quietly on to the next place we can exploit. An important function was lending money for Europe’s endless wars.

      The Catholic Templars did the same thing for a few hundred years but when their money lending got out of hand they were destroyed. But the Jews stayed on and prosperous from their usury.

      They’ve done the same thing in America by funding political campaigns and the endless Jewish media propaganda.

      But they will never leave America.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      May 19, 2017 - 8:06 am | Permalink

      Carolyn – perhaps there are 15% on the true left. Then another 70% follow them as the left own the MSM and control the narrative. But the opinions of the 70% can quickly change, as they are malleable. They might change when, for example, there is a war or the economy collapses. For the present the people are rich and pampered. And although for the present the 70% have accepted the narrative of the left, despite this, deep down the message of the left is not in agreement with their inner instincts – apart from the money redistribution part of the narrative, which they quite like. In all other aspects the message of the left is in conflict with their basic nature. Eg the left wants to bring them down and rubbish them and their culture, and destroy it. This is not in accord with their own instincts.

  7. gjjd's Gravatar gjjd
    May 12, 2017 - 8:18 pm | Permalink

    As such, it should be treated with a level of respect, and perhaps there is a responsibility on the part of those adopting this mantle to be as well-informed as possible, and to express themselves in a manner similar to those who have gone before.

    Please, oh please, we must get the “trolls” and the crazies to shut up about the JQ. You have to wonder how many of them are actually Jewish themselves.

    • May 16, 2017 - 4:22 am | Permalink

      They so often are! The Jews like to feel like matyrs, but also they like so much to make others feel bad! I suppose it must be because they are brought up to believe that they are hated by ALL THE REST OF MANKIND! All mankind!
      That is what they are taught from birth, byt their own MOTHERS! It is absolute and horrifying child abuse, poor things!
      As for the Gentiles – obviously our pseudo leaders allow this to go on – and on, and I have no idea what can be done about it except perhaps to simply stop using money at all! It IS possible to live without using money. Look into the UBUNTU Movement. Maybe it will help.
      But, I also think that it is high time we understood that there never was a Jew called Jesus Christ! That the entire Christianity is built on a lie and that it might just help if we all freed ourselves from that incredible tyranny.
      IUSA the KRST was born in a stable on the 25th. December of a Virgin called IsisMery. He taught in the Temple at age 12 and he was baptised at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser – who was beheaded. He had 12 companions and he walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead. He was crucified, died and was buried in a tomb of rock. He was resurrected – naturally.!
      All that comes out of the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Pyramid Texts!
      Read DM Murdock’s “Christ in Egypt” – but also realise that this crucifoxation story is simply the story about life – and there have alwasy been many other hero myths all following this story! MANY!
      That is just part of it. How to be rid of the Jews and get them off the backs of mankind is beyond me – except that I believe it is absolutely necessary to re-instate the love of Mother Nature – NOT in a stupid sentimental way, but REALLY. I donot know how to explain that to fools who think that technology will save us. If you cannot have gratitude towards beautiful Nature, you are simply beyond my comprehension!
      The Jews decided – around 200 BC when they decided t write up (copying from others mythology) that they would destroy Asherah, their version of the Mother Goddess or Queen of Heaven. W#She was the wife of their miserable god they call – to this day apparently – “Yahweh”., They took her, smashed her, burnt her and ground her fine to powder and threw her in the river.” Very intense it seems. The “sinister Levites” to use Douglas Reed’s words, wanted to gain total control over their miserable little tribe and so they wanted ONLY ONE GOD!!!
      That is why we have masculinised women now! The feminie was denigrated and degraded. That is also why we are ruled by technology.
      Anyway, the Jews know that there is a strong turn towards Nature and they WILL CO-OPT it all if we do not be aware.
      Apart from that, I really do not know what can be done about the Jews! They are so sick.
      I suppose we had better just find our own way to live without corrupt leaders.
      Look at Trump and thenlook at his cold and strange son in law!
      Jared Kushner is a member of the Lubavitcher Chabad – and that is a terrifying organization, or Jewish cult.
      They have a lot to do with the drug trade. They are everywhere now – they boast about being even in places like Botswana.
      There are pictures on the Internet of Lubavvitcher Chabad rabbis surrounding the desk of all the Presidents going back to Reagan. They had eachof theose presidents sign into Law the so called “Noahide Laws.” Those “laws” demand the beheading of all those who “worship idols and who blaspheme.”
      That means Christians.

  8. H. Moore's Gravatar H. Moore
    May 12, 2017 - 10:27 pm | Permalink

    As Irony has it, today I just completed The International Jew: Complete four Volumes (I checked it out from my local library; they also had Martin Luther’s, The Jews and Their Lies.. How cool is that?).. I think Ford’s book, along with McDonald’s trilogy and the Protocols, are the modern foundational prereqs for the JQ (maybe include the Bible, too)..

    Informative article… Well done

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      May 16, 2017 - 2:19 pm | Permalink

      The “Protocols” are important, though not what they purport to be. “They touch on every important political issue of the time” (Hannah Arendt). Their immediate target was the Jewish-Masonic collaboration in France at the close of the 19th century, with a resonance for the Czarist empire in the contemporary financial crisis and brewing revolution. They contain material taken directly from Maurice Joly, indirectly from Benjamin Disraeli, probably Jacob Brafman, Albert Sorel and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and items from the agenda of secret societies, plus various Jewish sources filtered through a hostile prism.

      There is a vast and varied literature on the subject, which has not ceased since the so-called “definitive” study by Norman Cohn (1967), including a revival of the possible role of Matvei Golovinsky who ended up working for the Soviet “health service”.

      In my view, several publications deserve study together: (1) Cesare G. de Michelis, “The Non-Existent Manuscript” (2004). This provides the sort of textual analysis that Revilo Oliver wanted, though with an outcome he least expected. (2) Kerry Bolton, “The Protocols of Zion in Context” Parts I & II (2003). (3) Nesta Webster, “World Revolution” (1921). Unlike Hitler, she did not consider the “Protocols” as an authentic report, but post WW1 criticism of her eccentricity now looks premature in the light of her summary of the “plot against civilization” as entailing the ultimate abolition of the traditional family, national sovereignty, monarchies, property inheritance and the Christian religion.

  9. John Lockett's Gravatar John Lockett
    May 13, 2017 - 4:05 pm | Permalink

    It doesn’t matter how many books are written or read. It doesn’t matter how much we discuss the Jewish Question, the fact are this people are miles or light years ahead of us. They control the money and the system that runs it. They control the political systems by controlling the politician. In modern time they imposed their economical system on the world. I think , as far as the Western world we are stuck. As long as the USA and EU are on the same page we are stuck. The only hope is the China and Russia manage to brake from this system of Globalization and come out with a more humane way, there is no hope for the human race and that not only include the white race, but whole of the human race.
    John Lockett

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      May 17, 2017 - 5:04 am | Permalink

      @ John Lockett

      Not a Pax Sinica I hope. Some seeds of self-destruction exist in top-heavy global usury, currency manipulation hedge-funding rackets. We should analyze and oppose its obvious disadvantages in an accurate and humane manner that cannot be passed off as coded “racial hatred”. Even the “free-marketing” Mises Institute (see the Sombart comments above) has questioned the “fractional” reserve problem. What doesn’t help is to relapse into impotent rage, and give the ADL and SPLC gratuitous ammunition to depict serious opposition as crazy and/or cruel, and to nullify serious rebellion against the “vampire squids”.

      I have suggested for many years past on sites like American Renaissance that we should (1) master the technology as well as content of the cyber-sphere, (2) have more white children, and (3) secure the heritage. I am too old to help with (1) & (2), but there are some clever people out there in “generation identity”.

      Time for us to “agenda network”.

  10. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    May 13, 2017 - 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Your writings are always outstanding. I do believe you’ve missed something very important. You have covered sociological and political wrings but you neglect the biological. I believe that a great deal of Jewish behavior can be explained by the fact that they are a tribe of psychopaths. One of the best on this is “The Biological Jew” by Eustace Mullins. This is a watershed book and doesn’t call Jews psychopaths but does call them parasites which is one of the prime characteristics of psychopaths.

    Another classic which covers tactics but does seem to lean towards the idea that this sort of behavior is the Jews destiny or they are just programmed to act this way is “The Jewish Strategy”
    by Revilo Oliver.

    Both of these books are top of the line major insights on the Jews. I think reading these two books will give a great deal of insight on the Jews.

    One thing I think we should realize is they are not going to stop. They will not be reasoned with. The 9-11 attacks should clue you into this. I’ve heard others say the Jews are not like chess players. They play high stakes poker and throw everything in the pot every hand. They will destroy us before they quit and we should be cognizant of the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

  11. Aitch.'s Gravatar Aitch.
    May 15, 2017 - 6:09 am | Permalink

    Does anyone know of any good books about the American Civil War which deal with the part played in it by the Jews? Douglas Reed, in his book ‘Far and Wide’, implied that they played an important role in bringing it about, and that it was an early example of those destructive conflicts we’ve become familiar with in more recent times, which he believed were designed to effect the dissolution of nation states and the establishment of a totalitarian world government. I’ve checked Amazon, but everything on this subject seems to have been written by the Jews themselves. Incidentally, I was surprised to learn recently that the Confederates’ Secretary for War was a Jew.

    • Alden's Gravatar Alden
      May 15, 2017 - 11:08 am | Permalink

      Start with the confederate treasurer Judah Benjamin. Read everything you can about him and then check out the books in the bibliography. Even the most seccessionist southerners didn’t start the war until they were assured of money from the British bank Benjamin worked for.

      There is a theory that the Rothschild bank was behind the abolition movement. We borrowed the funds for our revolution from France and France borrowed that money from the Frankfort bankers including Nathan Rothschild.

      So after the Napoleon wars the Rothschilds looked for another war to ferment and funded the abolition movement with the Old Testament puritans of New England as a front.

      Economic historians look on the civil war as a northern take over of the iron, coal, lumber and forest products such as resin, tobacco, rice, cotton, sugar and dozens of excellent warm weather ports from Baltimore to Galveston.
      Jews would be far more interested in an economic take over instead of slavery and constitutional arguments about secession.

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        May 15, 2017 - 9:56 pm | Permalink

        They especially want Whites to slaughter other Whites, as in WW1 and WW2.

        It would be amazing that jews did not foment the Civil War, considering that they admit to starting the other two.

      • Aitch.'s Gravatar Aitch.
        May 16, 2017 - 5:56 am | Permalink

        Thanks, Alden. I’ll take your advice.

  12. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    May 15, 2017 - 8:48 am | Permalink
  13. Edward Harris's Gravatar Edward Harris
    May 16, 2017 - 5:39 am | Permalink

    I have read that the London Jewish Chronicle, at the end of the 19th Century, carried many reports of convictions of Eastern Jews for Brothel keeping and organising child prostitution.
    My mother’s father was descended from the Jews who were sent from Paris to set up Oxford University.
    They detested the Eastern Europeans who converted to Judaism and called themselves Jews.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      May 17, 2017 - 5:26 am | Permalink

      Re “prostitution” see e.g. Albert Lindemann, “Esau’s Tears” (CUP 1997) p.66.

      The role of Jews in pornography of various types today is out of all proportion to their numbers. The chief motivation, I suggest, is money-making rather than sexual depravity or aggression against Christian morality.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        May 17, 2017 - 10:04 am | Permalink

        The chief motivation, I suggest, is money-making rather than sexual depravity or aggression against Christian morality.

        With respect, reasonable men may well differ as to whether the making of money is necessarily the chief motivation in a given instance, time, or place. After all, one of the Jews’ most remarkable “achievements” is the extent to which they have made the several vices fungible!

        I’m not so naive as to suggest that making money is ever far from the typical Jew’s mind,* but the example of Shneur Odze alone, as presented here by Jack Sen, suggests that proportioning these iniquities is often far from a simple matter.

        Furthermore, we see from the sheer breadth of the Jewish example that as depravity feeds on itself, one vice leads to another. One strikingly plain Jewish vice, the lust for power—power sufficient not merely to advance one’s own position but to harm others, irrespective of whether they have harmed him who lusts for power—may, I think, be seen as the “socialized” dimension of Jewish sexual depravity.

        What a remarkable people!
        *I understand that every sampled group of sufficient size has its statistical outliers, and I grant that the Jews are no exception in this regard. But as Christ Himself told the Pharisees, they and their antecedents were all liars, like their father Satan, and had been the murderers of the prophets (i.e., the Jewish sample’s outliers), right down to John the Baptist. By extension, one may justly see, I believe, the post-70 AD fabrication of rabbinic Judaism as a case of the Jews’ doubling down on Christ’s indictment of them and ornamenting it with an upthrust middle finger and a sneer of “what the f—— is it to you, man?”

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          May 18, 2017 - 1:45 am | Permalink

          Yes, money would appear to be a secondary consideration. Were it not so, TV programming would be pitched at the heterosexual audience and its appetites. Ditto for race, where casting whites and offering white-centric narratives make good economic sense. The desire to debase and destroy a perceived enemy predominates.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            May 18, 2017 - 12:26 pm | Permalink

            Just so. And thanks for the David Duke link.

            Another example is that were money the preeminent consideration for Hollywood’s moguls, Jim Caviezel would have had to follow Saddam Hussein’s WMDs into unfindably deep seclusion to protect himself from the tidal wave of acting gig offers that should have come his way in the wake of the release of The Passion of the Christ. Instead, the A-list stage of his career ended abruptly—and unlike Mel, Caviezel hasn’t “rehabilitated” himself by discovering the redemptive power of abandoning one’s wife for a cute near-tart.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          May 18, 2017 - 3:09 am | Permalink

          @ Pierre de Craon

          I have no idea about the relative scale of specifically “Jewish” sexual depravity, though no doubt some people (e.g. Nazi sociologists) have gone into it. Ordinary Jews I have known haven’t seemed any worse “sexually” than anyone else, including Christian clergy.

          They don’t make their money by burglary or mugging, nor do they get into drunken brawls; their anti-social activities are more “sophisticated”.

          I don’t quite remember the point Ole Ez Pound made about the “snipped pecker”, but “Portnoy’s Complaint” seems pretty widespread today among Gentiles. Other than that, I can only note the Freudian obsession with sex, Otto Weininger on “Sex and Character” and Shmuely Boteach on “Kosher Sex”.

          Incidentally, “The Murder of William of Norwich” by E. M. Rose (Oxford University Press) has just come out in paperback. Ex uno disce omnes?

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            May 18, 2017 - 12:46 pm | Permalink

            Ordinary Jews I have known haven’t seemed any worse “sexually” than anyone else, including Christian clergy.

            Sad to say, my own experience is virtually the polar opposite, the absence of hypocrisy about their deviance being the characteristic of the Jews’ attitude and conduct that many find admirable but I find especially deplorable.

            Indeed, if there is any oversold “vice” in our day, hypocrisy is it. (To continue the statistical jargon indulged in above, this statement, I understand, renders me an outlier on any of several graphs.) Suffice to say that I am in full agreement with La Rochefoucauld’s maxim “L’hypocrisie est un hommage / que le vice rend à la vertu.”

          • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
            May 18, 2017 - 6:00 pm | Permalink

            The Weimar Republic is fertile ground for this sort of scholarship.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          May 18, 2017 - 9:44 am | Permalink

          PS – I forgot to mention Leon Blum’s notorious book on marriage, supporting incest and sexual promiscuity among girls.

  14. Rosemarie's Gravatar Rosemarie
    May 17, 2017 - 1:22 pm | Permalink

    I think Hervé Ryssen should be added to the list. He looks at the worldview and psychology that drives Jewish action. Ryssen is uniquely astute in his analyses, and very academic and elegant in his reasoning. I very much admire his work.

  15. Paul Harvey's Gravatar Paul Harvey
    May 18, 2017 - 12:26 pm | Permalink

    Two points: 1) Only in recent years has it become evident that Jewish IQ is significantly higher. This would explain why Jews rise quickly to wealth and power and why the fact has been until recently attributed to unseemly machinations — which is not to say that Jews have not been guilty of acting like they think they’re God’s chosen people. 2. VDare did not publish my letter (perhaps badly written) to the effect that the current flap over Trump and Russia/Putin is really about the Jewish hostility to nationalism in Slavic countries and the possible revival of Christianity and thwarting of censorship it is making possible. However, in a recent youtube interview Georgetown professor and former CIA officer Michael Scheuer strongly hints at a similar diagnosis. The pitch of political events is such that a frank discussion of the “JQ” is urgently needed. Such a discussion could be framed in such a way to make it relatively inoffensive, in that people are now used to endless discussions of ethnicity and the political motives it produces and how those motives can or cannot fit into a democratic politics.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 18, 2017 - 2:44 pm | Permalink

      Only in recent years has it become evident that Jewish IQ is significantly higher.

      Mr. Harvey: I’ve been living on this planet for getting on to seventy-two years, and what has become evident to my senses is that high Jewish IQ is a fiction of Hollywood proportions. I’d agree that Jews tend toward the extreme right of the curve when solipsism, egotism, low cunning, and arrogance are being measured, but one need not spend much time in their company to grasp that these are substitutes for intelligence, not its concomitant attributes.

      As for VDARE, whether well written or otherwise, letters that too frankly criticize Jews never get published there. Note, too, that whenever James Kirkpatrick, Patrick Cleburne, or James Fulford allows clearsightedness to momentarily overwhelm tact, there is seldom more than a twenty-four-hour wait before something utterly sycophantic about the Jews is published under the byline of Brenda Walker or John Derbyshire.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      May 18, 2017 - 7:15 pm | Permalink

      No, higher median intelligence, absent ethnic networking, does not adequately explain Jewish success.

    • Dave Bowman's Gravatar Dave Bowman
      May 20, 2017 - 5:13 am | Permalink

      become evident that Jewish IQ is significantly higher

      Though it makes me tired and irritable, I will NOT refrain from contradicting this tedious, inaccurate nonsense at every necessity.

      There is a world of difference – to anyone blessed with a genuine, educated intelligence – between proven, tested I.Q. and the simple, low, devious rat-cunning of the vermin world – and vermin-like humans. If commenters here cannot or will not understand this essential distinction, I for one would appreciate it if they would simply avoid making comments pertaining to non-existent high Jewish IQ.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        May 20, 2017 - 8:01 pm | Permalink

        @ Dave Bowman:
        IQ scores do measure something, and most importantly, enable group and individual comparisons of that something. Ashkenazi (not Sephardic, Mizrahi or Ethiopian) Jews do have a very high median score.

        Cunning is not testable.

  16. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    May 20, 2017 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Fascinating “anti-Semitic” reflection by Pavlov on Russians, serfs in their own land.

  17. May 21, 2017 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

    It always astonishes me that people can discuss the issue of white self-betrayal and never mention Freemasonry which is at the heart of it.

Comments are closed.