Sartre’s “Anti-Semite and Jew”: A Critique [Part One]


“That book is a declaration of war against anti-Semites, nothing more.”
 Jean-Paul Sartre, 1980.

A little over a decade ago I decided to research the Jewish Question in earnest. The precise chain of events leading to this decision was complex, but the main engine driving it was sheer intellectual curiosity. Here was a subject at once profound and deeply entwined with European history, and yet also obscure and apparently also half-sunk in a quagmire of shame. As a young developing scholar in the Arts, I felt the Jewish clash with Europeans had it all — economic aspects, religious factors, the opinions of philosophical giants, the dictates of kings and the risings of peasants. Here was history in raw, perpetually political form. As a result, I found myself haunting college and public libraries, slowly absorbing the topic’s mainstream texts, along with the not so mainstream, until one day I came across a small, unassuming volume just barely visible between two much larger books.

The name of the author brought about a spark of recognition, but it was the title that made me reach for it. There was something about Anti-Semite and Jew (1946) that suggested a personal approach to the subject that I felt had been hitherto lacking in the works I’d consulted. I took Sartre’s slim monograph to a nearby table where I devoted an afternoon to some but not all of its contents. I couldn’t finish it. Materially sparse and logically recondite, the book disappointed all initial hopes. I returned it to the shelves, and for the next ten years never felt the need to consult Sartre’s contribution to the discussion of anti-Semitism.

Until now. Prompted by a public radio discussion on Sartre (mainly focussing on his childhood and private life), around three months ago I decided to return to the Frenchman’s ideas on anti-Semitism — not because of any value inherent in the ideas themselves, but because of what a thorough critical treatment of them might tell us about Sartre and about philo-Semitic apologetics in general. During that time, I examined the text in full, making notes as I progressed. These notes eventually formed the following essay, which is, as far as I am aware, the first time that an ‘anti-Semite’ has replied to Sartre’s work.

The Significance of Anti-Semite and Jew

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) was a French philosopher, writer, political activist, and literary critic. In 1964, Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize for his literary work but refused it on the grounds it was a cultural symbol with which he did not wish to be associated. He is perhaps best known as one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism, an area of philosophy which contends that Man is a self-creating being who is not initially endowed with a character and goals but must choose them by acts of pure decision — existential ‘leaps.’ Sartre was born into a bourgeois Parisian family of comfortable means but would go on to be generally regarded as one of the most important Marxist philosophers of the 20th century. His father died when he was 15 months old, something which I believe profoundly affected the philosopher, consciously or not, throughout his life.

Sartre may be usefully characterized as someone in several respects at war with his roots, a fact demonstrated in stories (almost certainly apocryphal) from his autobiography and related to friends. Among them, for example, is an account of Sartre throwing his family tree into a waste basket.[1] Much of his future intellectual work could be seen as a rebellion against his own deeply bourgeois roots and perhaps even a form of self-loathing or an attempt to escape the Self. Never growing more than five feet tall, and painfully aware from a young age of his physical unattractiveness, Sartre invested a great deal of time on philosophical speculations on ugliness. Importantly, he viewed his ugliness as a form of social marginalization. It is particularly interesting that in these discussions he linked ugliness to other forms of perceived social marginalization, and even more interesting that he sometimes used the formulation “Aryan/Jew, handsome/ugly.”[2] Stuart Charme remarks:

To be labelled with one of the negatively valued of these “unrealizables” (Jewish, ugly, vulgar) is immediately to be exiled to social marginality. Yet the society of the marginalized also offers a kind of freedom not available to those preserving conventional values. For Sartre, to internalize ugliness as an important part of his identity is just one of his many attempts to ally himself with the negative Other of bourgeois society. Ugliness would be a visa stamped on his face that might gain him admission to the ranks of the authentically marginal and a way out of the world of the marginally authentic.[3]

Sartre was thus a man actively seeking a way out of a community and social structure he viewed as having rejected him, as well as seeking alliances with those he felt were already on the periphery or in opposition to the same community and social structure he felt antipathy towards. Charme suggests that Sartre’s ugliness, as well as his

discomfort and embarrassment regarding his own bourgeois background led him to idealise marginal groups and others who are seen as outside the normative model of selfhood. He identified part of his own self, moreover, with the situation of such classic outsiders as Jews, women, homosexuals, Blacks, and other groups. But it was the Jews in particular who represented the clearest embodiment of otherness for Sartre. …Throughout his life Sartre was intrigued by the situation of the Jews. …To a certain extent, his ideas about Jews reflected his own mythology of the Other. They reveal more about Sartre’s attitude toward his own background than they do about his knowledge of Jews and Judaism.[4]

Sartre, in later life, would come to acknowledge this psychological entanglement of identities, writing “while I believed that I was describing the Jew in Anti-Semite and Jew, I was describing myself.”[5] I suggest that psychological mechanisms evident here in Sartre, alongside his ostensibly impartial literary/philosophical defense of the Jews, provide a useful counter-argument to the idea of ‘pathological altruism’ in White actions on behalf of minorities, at least among the more radical and dedicated of such socio-political actors. Essentially, in what may be described as self-deception, or a variation on the Marxist theme of ‘false consciousness,’ Sartre and those like him feel abandoned or targeted by their surrounding culture, and then begin to see themselves as having interests (often highly abstract rather than material) different from that culture. They then construct ideological frameworks in which they advance these wholly adopted interests but do so in such a way as to deceive themselves that these ideologies are moral-intellectual crusades rather than what they truly are — an elaborate flight from the weakness of the Self. It’s quite possible that there is a similar dynamic going on with many sexual non-conformists (LGBTQ…) who become hostile to traditional institutions and values because they have low social status within the traditional framework and then develop theories which condemn traditional values and institutions and in which their own particular sexual orientation is seen as morally above reproach or even superior to heterosexuality. Of course, a similar dynamic is likely in the case of Jews become hostile to the traditional social order because they see it as anti-Jewish.

What results is not necessarily a pattern of self-hatred, but certainly an act of aggression: a revenge of the weak or, in Nietzsche’s formulation, a revolt of the slave. It is further argued here that the gravitation of such individuals towards Jews (and Sartre was not alone in this) and the growing tide of non-White immigrants is not so much an act of genuine altruism and brotherhood, but also an implicit, if often unconsciousness, demonstration of the understanding that these groups are oppositional forces arrayed against Western culture and its people, and therefore appropriate allies. Importantly then, Sartre didn’t need to demonstrate a genuine interest in religious Judaism, but rather a genuine interest, indeed obsession, with the Jew as agent of cultural critique, as opponent of the West, and as template for social revenge. Again, the contention here is that Sartre and his work on Jews is a classic demonstration of such a mechanism in action.

Sartre’s psychology had a highly significant bearing on the development of the ideas advanced in Anti-Semite and Jew. In some respects Sartre’s life and interests mirror very closely that of David Dellinger (the radical member of the mostly Jewish ‘Chicago Seven’ ) and Ted Allen (a pioneer in ‘Whiteness studies’). These are individuals of European ancestry who actively sought out deep relationships with a Jewish milieu and adopted forms of Jewish thinking hostile to Europe and its peoples — an extreme form of philo-Semitism which manifests in efforts not only to ingratiate oneself with Jews by attacking one’s own ethnic group, but to undertake efforts to ‘become Jewish’ in cultural or psychological forms (with or without religious conversion). Confronted not only with Anti-Semite and Jew, but with significant elements of the philosopher’s life and work, it is particularly interesting that Sartre scholar Michel Contat has asked: “Is Sartre a super-Jew, an honorary Jew?”[6] Steven Schwarzschild concurs somewhat, writing that “the phenomenon of the Jew is located even closer to the center of Sartre’s works and life than is popularly realised. … In the end, Sartre regarded himself, with no little justification, if not as a Jew then as a Judaicist.”[7] John Gerassi, a friend and contemporary of Sartre’s, recalled that at the end of his life the philosopher was “searching for his ‘Jewish roots.’”[8]

In terms of his personal life, Louis Menand comments that Sartre had a “sadistic attitude to sex” and exercised this with a series of Jewish lovers, among them a 16 year old girl named Bianca Bienenfeld whom he ‘shared’ with his part-time bisexual girlfriend and later influential feminist, Simone de Beauvoir.  Sartre’s adopted daughter Arlette was Jewish, and in his autobiography, Les Mots, he refers to his father as Moses.[9] While studying at the Sorbonne, and for some time afterwards, Sartre embedded himself in a predominantly Jewish circle of friends, among them the Jewish anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and the Jewish anarchist philosopher Simone Weil.

In terms of culture, he had a near obsession with the Jewishness of Freud which resulted in his writing a play on that theme, The Freud Scenario. He was strongly attracted to psychoanalysis, which he first encountered as a lycée student in the 1920s, and remained deeply fascinated by it until the 1970s.[10] Charme notes that Sartre believed that “confronting the reality of bodily functions is a way of piercing bourgeois civility…Like Freud, Sartre felt he had an obligation to recognize and publicize the less civilised and less tasteful side of human existence.”[11] Some of Sartre’s work is so laden with scatalogical references and preoccupations that his ‘existentialism’ has been referred to by some critics as ‘excrementalism.’[12] In keeping with the ideas advanced above regarding Sartre’s ‘adoption’ of Jews as a method of social revenge, Sartre, in his own words, saw Freud as a “profoundly aggressive” figure acting against his surrounding culture in order to avenge “the anti-Semitism from which his father suffered.”[13] When Sartre adds that Freud was “a child who felt things very deeply and probably immediately,” one is once again confronted with the question of whether Sartre is again describing himself via Jewish proxies; immersing himself in the imagined Jewish experience, adopting, ventriloquising, and assisting Jews as a form of vengeful self-expression.

Sartre also advanced an atheistic concept of the Jews as “Chosen People,” once writing that “there is a sincerity, a youth, a warmth in the manifestations of friendship of a Jew that one will rarely find in a Christian, hardened as the latter is by tradition and ceremony.”[14] Setting aside Sartre’s ignorance of Jewish tradition and ceremony and its impact on Jewish-Christian relations over centuries (which will be explored later), this is an irrational and remarkable demonstration of philo-Semitism which more than evinces its own form of prejudice. In the context of even this brief biographical sketch, a purportedly impartial and clinical book published by such an individual on the themes of anti-Semitism and the nature of Jewishness should obviously be treated with great caution.

Perhaps the most lasting significance of Anti-Semite and Jew is that it remains a classic work of philo-Semitism which continues to prove useful to the broader system of Jewish apologetics. Robert Misrahi notes that when the text was published in 1946 “its impact was immediate.”[15] Misrahi writes of an “emotional response” among Jews who were “deeply affected” that such a high-profile figure would write on their behalf, and were “full of admiration for the writer.” On June 3 1947, France’s largest Jewish organization, Alliance Israelite Universelle, organized a large-scale event for Sartre to give a lecture and promote the book. “Posters advertising the lecture were sent to all the synagogues in Paris, Neuilly, Vincennes, La Verenne.”[16] Sartre had made it clear he wanted to “be on their side,”[17] and the book, in Misrahi’s opinion, had a “positive practical and social impact.” Part of its practical impact owed to its practical proposals — one of the key recommendations of the text was that Jews should organized more effectively into defense bodies like the Anti-Defamation League. Jews received the publication of the book not only as

a powerful affirmation of sympathy, but even more importantly, it was an effective weapon against anti-Semitism…So much so, in fact, that after the book’s publication it became much more difficult for anti-Semitism to be publicly expressed. Sartre’s prestige, authority, talent and philosophy had succeeded in making any anti-Semitic approach or thought an outrage.[18]

The text retains a high level of academic and social respect, somewhat boosted by Jewish scholars and the Leftist tilt of modern academia, with Joseph Sungolowsky writing in Yale French Studies that Anti-Semite and Jew “remains one of the most lucid and penetrating analyses of the Jewish problem.…It is not exaggerated to consider Sartre’s book a classic.”[19] Michael Walzer posits the text as “a powerfully coherent argument.”[20] Marxist historian Enzo Traverso, meanwhile, has pointed to it as a “classic diagnosis” of anti-Semitism.[21]

It is the phrasing of Traverso’s assessment that points to the heart of the significance of Anti-Semite and Jew, because Sartre’s text represented one of the earliest and most prestigious arguments in favor of the idea that anti-Semitism was a form of emotional pathology, or an almost medical deformity of the personality. Writing in 1949, Jewish academic Julian Aronson, evidently eager to adopt and extend Sartre’s terminology, commented that Sartre’s “principle contribution to the literature of anti-Semitism is his stress on the personality factors behind the malady.”[22] Traverso comments that Sartre ‘diagnosed’ anti-Semitism as “an emotional syndrome.”[23] Walzer writes that Sartre’s “portrait of the anti-Semite is commonly and rightly taken to be the strongest part of the book.”[24]

When Misrahi praised the “originality” of Anti-Semite and Jew, it was primarily because of the novelty of pathologizing the anti-Semite that he was referring.[25] The importance of this dubious innovation can’t be stressed enough. Prior to the early twentieth century, anti-Semitism had, in its worst social and cultural representations, been portrayed as a form of bullying. Certainly, by the nineteenth century the term ‘Jew-baiting’ was employed as a synonym for the ‘bullying of Jews’ when one wished to disparage anti-Jewish agitations, and the term implied the indecorous exertion of strength by the strong or the masses, over a putatively weak Jewish minority. It should be stressed here that anti-Jewish agitations were not necessarily viewed as ill-founded or even unjust in such critiques, but rather, in the British parlance, that it was ‘bad form’ to be a ‘Jew-baiter’ and to call for harsh or discriminatory actions against Jews. There was a broad, diffuse, consensus in European culture that Jews were a problematic people, but that this was a problem that was best allowed to simmer rather than bubble over. Anti-Semitism, to use the modern terminology, was therefore for the most part critiqued for its method of expression rather than for the basis of its expression.

The changing of this position occurred slowly at first, helped along by psychoanalysis and the further intrusion of Jews into European cultural discourse, but also, I believe, in the coining by Wilhelm Marr of the term ‘anti-Semitism.’ Although created by a self-styled German ‘anti-Semite’ as a label for his ‘anti-Semitic’ movement, the term lent itself more readily than ‘Jew-baiting’ to scientific and even medical pretensions, and these were eventually exploited and inverted—to the great gain of Jewish apologists. Indeed, the term was almost immediately adopted into English usage in the 1880s as a pejorative, and its most high-profile early usage in the English language was by the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire.[26] Since that date ‘anti-Semite’ has remained predominantly a slur, or at the very least a term used almost exclusively for Jewish apologetic responses to anti-Jewish critique.

Sartre’s preoccupation with Jewishness and psychoanalysis, coupled with his Marxist/existentialist philosophy helped pave the way to a critique of anti-Semitism laden with the language of psychopathology. This was something of an innovation, especially from a non-Jewish European, and it should come as no surprise that Sartre’s work on anti-Semitism was eagerly followed by the Frankfurt School, and was probably influential in shaping their work to some degree. Omar Conrad notes “a close affinity between the critical theorists’ depiction of the authoritarian personality and Jean-Paul Sartre’s portrait of the anti-Semite,” adding that there are “many important points of congruence between Sartre and Adorno et al.”[27] Michael Walzer adds “Anti-Semite and Jew, in its best passages, stands with Theodor Adorno’s study of the Authoritarian Personality.”[28] Like the Frankfurt School, Sartre claimed to be highly skeptical in regards to the question of biological inheritance.[29] Also like the Frankfurt School, Sartre relied heavily on ‘character sketches’ or illustrations of ‘personalities’ as a means of creating and advancing his theories and arguments regarding anti-Semitism (this methodology will be critiqued later). According to John Gerassi, Herbert Marcuse had “carefully read all of Sartre’s works.”[30] Theodor Adorno, meanwhile, in a footnote to The Authoritarian Personality (1950), refers to Anti-Semite and Jew as “Sartre’s brilliant paper,” and describes similarities between Sartre’s book and his own “empirical observations” as “remarkable.”[31]

What we see here is the interaction of early efforts to design a theoretical framework with which to pathologize not anti-Semitism as such, but the anti-Semite. In the aftermath of the National Socialist government in Germany, prior forms of Jewish apologetics were seen as having failed or were at least regarded as insufficient to ensure Jewish security. Sartre’s innovations, a blend of Marx and Freud, developed alongside those of the Frankfurt School in an effort to move Jewish apologetics into a more aggressive stance — to directly assault the reputation and personality of the anti-Semite and make him a social pariah and portray his opinions as nothing more than a manifestation of underlying psychopathology. It was therefore not for nothing that the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas praised Sartre for giving Jews “a new weapon” with which to combat anti-Semitism.[32] The aggressive descriptive language used by many of these commentators was of course no coincidence, since this was essentially the recruitment of ideas in the service of ethnic warfare rather than objective scholarly enquiry. Sartre himself would state that his book was “nothing more” than a “declaration of war against anti-Semites.”[33]

And on this note, we turn our attention to the contents of the text.


[1] A. Cohen-Salal, Sartre: A Life (New York: Heinemann, 1988), p.41

[2] S. Hammerschlag, The Figural Jew: Politics and Identity in Postwar French Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), p.88.

[3] S. Charme, Vulgarity and Authenticity: Dimensions of Otherness in the World of Jean-Paul Sartre (Amhert: University of a Massachusetts Press, 1991), p.30.

[4] Ibid, p. 106.

[5] Ibid, p. 105.

[6] M. Contat, ‘The Intellectual as Jew: Sartre Against McCarthyism: An Unfinished Play,’ October, Vol. 87 (1999), pp.47-62 (p.47).

[7] S. Schwarzschild, ‘J.-P. Sartre as Jew,’ Modern Judaism, Vol.3, No.1 (1983), pp.39-73, (p.39).

[8] J. Gerassi, Jean-Paul Sartre: Hated Conscience of his Century, Volume 1: Protestant or Protester? (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989), p.22.

[9] C. Howells, Sartre: The Necessity of Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p.188.

[10] D. Fisher, ‘Jews, Patients, and Father’s in Sartre’s ‘Freud Scenario’,’ Sartre Studies International, Vol. 2, No.2 (1996), pp.1-26 (p.1).

[11] Ibid, p.24.

[12] Ibid, p.23.

[13] Ibid, p.6.

[14] Quoted in R. Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ October, Vol. 87 (1999), pp.63-72, (p.64).

[15] R. Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ October, Vol. 87 (1999), pp.63-72, (p.63).

[16] P. Birnbaum, ‘Sorry Afterthoughts on Anti-Semite and Jew,’ October, Vol.87 (1999), pp.89-106, (p.89).

[17] R. Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ October, Vol. 87 (1999), pp.63-72, (p.64).

[18] Ibid, p.64 & 67.

[19] R. Sungolowsky, ‘Criticism of Anti-Semite and Jew,’ Yale French Studies, No. 30, (1963), pp.68-72, (pp.71-2).

[20] M. Walzer, ‘Preface,’ in Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), p.vi.

[21] E. Traverso, ‘The Blindness of the Intellectuals: Historicizing Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew,’ in Understanding the Nazi Genocide: Marxism After Auschwitz (), p.31.

[22] J. Aronson, ‘Sartre on Anti-Semitism,’ Phylon, Vol. 10, No.3 (1949), pp.231-232 (p.232).

[23] Traverso, ‘The Blindness of the Intellectuals: Historicizing Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew,’ p.31.

[24] Walzer, ‘Preface,’ in Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, p.viii-ix.

[25] Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ p.63.

[26] For the best available account of the early career of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ in English see D. Glover, Literature, Immigration, and Diaspora in Fin-de-Siècle England: A Cultural History of the 1905 Aliens Act (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 80-6.

[27] O. Conrad, ‘The Social Psychology of Anti-Semitism,’ Mid-American Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School) 1992, pp.37-56, (p.37).

[28] Walzer, ‘Preface,’ in Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, p.vii.

[29] Conrad, ‘The Social Psychology of Anti-Semitism,’ p.40.

[30] Gerassi, Jean-Paul Sartre: Hated Conscience of his Century, Volume 1: Protestant or Protester?, p.7.

[31] Conrad, ‘The Social Psychology of Anti-Semitism,’ p.44.

[32] Birnbaum, ‘Sorry Afterthoughts on Anti-Semite and Jew,’ p.92.

[33] Jean-Paul Sartre & Benny Levy, Hope Now: The 1980 Interviews (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996), p.101.

101 replies
  1. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    Semites, and I’m including ‘Muslims’ within the rather broad category, have for many centuries displayed an attitude and eagerness to do harm to European civilization. The so-called Anti-Semitism is merely a sensible protective reaction developed by some European people so as to limit Semitic depredations. Why should we feel it necessary to apologize for a logical and self-defensive mechanism. It is a bit like a person in reasonable good health apologizing for his immune system being ‘anti-bacterial’!

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      So-called “anti-Semitism” is simply self-defense against Jewish destructive parasitic behavior and as such nothing “pathological”.

      Jewish pathologization of anti-Semitism is a false defense mechanism. That the non-Jew Sartre also engaged in it is rooted in his own pathological state which is clearly described in this article (his self-hatred and inferiority complex).

      I already knew that Sartre was a hypocrite, a snob and a limousine liberal, now I also know that he was psychologically seriously disturbed. An ideal intellectual shabbos goy to defend the “eternally innocent” Jews !

      • Danelaw
        Danelaw says:

        Sartre was just another Champagne Socialist with disdain for his own kind. There are always a few beyond two or three standard deviations away from the normal in each population.

        Our real problem is the so-called Holocaust (which we are not allowed to question) that has been used to silence the goyim cattle.

        • Peter
          Peter says:

          I wonder if being half German (Alsatian) also played a role in his attitude. According to what I’ve read, Alsatians were not particularly patriotic. They are ethnic Germans, but unlike Germans in the newly created Poland, Lithuania and Czechoslovakia after WW I, they did not feel strongly about reuniting with Germany (at least this is my impression according to what I’ve heard about them), but at the same time the French felt they were not particularly pro-French either. I believed France tried to de-Germanze them by unsuccessfully steer them away from speaking German.

          They (at least some) served in the German army after the fall of France, but I’m not sure how eager they were to serve. My German mother met an Alsatian after Germany’s defeat and didn’t like his unpatriotic attitude towards Germany.

          By contrast the Saarland was occupied by France until 1937 when a plebiscite was held and the Saarlanders voted almost unanimously (97%) to re-unite with Germany. No doubt, this was a huge disappointment to France and their peace loving democratic allies.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Yes, interesting extant film clips of Saarlanders on sidewalks having to walk in the gutter, having to give way to French Colonial troops from Africa prancing along.

            Or Saarlanders being assaulted by French non-coms, if they refused to stand at servile attention, doffing their caps, while these troops pranced through the streets in what can loosely be described as formations.

            Good riddance to Versailles and its Weimar, with its 40 parties.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        Without ever reading a Word of Sartre’s works, I knew that when Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion discussed Sartre in 1973, that he had to be a joke.

    • Pero Ercegovac
      Pero Ercegovac says:

      @ PaleoAtlantid why? Because our compassion has made us impotent, always trying to justify and understand the other rather than dealing with the self has led us Europeans to forget about the self.

  2. Joey Virgo
    Joey Virgo says:

    Great build-up. I’m hooked. I had no idea how small and ugly Sartre was and how his alienation and self-hatred led him to philo-Semitism. But the argument thus far is clear, and I look forward to Joyce’s further excavations.

  3. tadzio308
    tadzio308 says:

    Sartre claimed to be highly skeptical of biological inheritance while seeking Jewish ancestral roots to understand himself. Not very rigorous thinking. Akin to the Jewish belief that all races have equal intellectual capacity while at the same moment proclaiming Ashkenazim super IQs. A life without shame is not a thing that European Christians can feel comfortable with. Some may live it but it is not a trait. They are disgusting aberrations.

  4. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    Profound. Thank you, Dr. Joyce and TOO for publishing. As I read through Part 1, the image of a rural, cloudless, night sky came to mind. So many stars, so many portals of light, however distant! On occasion, an essay such as this one by Dr. Joyce presents itself for closer attention, a portal to history unlearned, dots not otherwise connectable, given one’s peculiar path through “modern education”, even to an eventual surfacing, earning the Ph.D. (in my case, in Pharmacology), then thrust into the “real world”. I do look forward to Part 2!

  5. Michael Wolanski
    Michael Wolanski says:

    Based on several quoted passages in this essay Satre just sounds like a Mischling with an attitude problem/inferiority complex. There were Sephardic Jews in southwestern France before and after the reconquista and as eveyone knows not having gone through a population bottleneck (like the medieval Ashkenazi) Sephardic dna has no unique signiture. The biological nature of Jewishness is real and Satre sounds like a prime candidate for a square genotype in a round culture.

      • Seymour Ellis
        Seymour Ellis says:

        it is not the crookedness of the nose if he was a mixed Jew then it might not even be that big. Taken as a whole he is a prime candidate for being non-european

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        At least that is a hugely more flattering photo than the hideous creation heading Dr Joyce’s article. But the simple, obvious truth is that the clothing, bookcases and calm, domestic pipe of a civilised, educated White man hang very emptily and meaninglessly around the person of a sallow, unhealthy, exercise-free weakling with a chronic Vitamin-D deficiency. Perhaps that’s something to do with the fact that the lifestyle of a morally strong, balanced, intelligent, good-hearted White man – “this Happy breed” – was intended to improve and adorn his character – not to conceal the darkness of what he really was inside.

  6. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Sad, but simultaneously essential, that anyone need reply to these humanoids; lest they believe we swallow their excrementalism. At best material for Psy-101; including his proponents and Siegmund.

    I wonder how the 16-year-old Bienenwiese envisioned her self-worth, while staring up into that grimace.

    Pseudo-intellectual, programmatic, personal, psychological, self-hating, projected food-fight in their small sandbox, artificially and purposefully raised to the level of literature and philosophy.

    Apparently entitled to serious critique.

  7. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    (Mod. Note: Pierre, your concerns have been communicated to “the higher powers”. Thanks.)

  8. Tim
    Tim says:

    Great essay! Convincing and well referenced.

    Though, I am glad I had breakfast before seeing that mugshot.

  9. John King
    John King says:

    Very interesting. Sartre came under the control of an erstwhile Maoist named Benny Levy, who became his personal secretary, late in his life. There is a small sketch of Levy in an essay by Edward Said in the London Review of Books. Sartre and de Beauvoir tried to rope Said into supporting the rapprochement between Israel and Egypt in the mid-1970s. The whole essay is deeply fascinating for the way in which Said shows that the so-called French left (in point of fact a Jewish left) at this point was corrupted by its love of Israel and its abhorrence of anti-Semitism. De Beauvoir and other friends of Sartre disliked Levy and believed that he had become a kind of Svengali figure. I don’t know if this involved access to Sartre’s royalties, but it might be worth trying to find out. Afterwards, Benny Levy left France, moved to Israel, and became a rabbi.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      “…Afterwards, Benny Levy left France, moved to Israel, and became a rabbi…”

      In other words : “mission accomplished, return to base”.

      • HelenChicago
        HelenChicago says:

        Do an image search for Benny Levy. Sartre may have been the only creature on the Continent who was uglier.

  10. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    Freuds claim that anatomy is destiny though pertaining to gender easily takes on new significance in Sartres case. Ugliness is equated to Jewishness and Jewishness is equated to excrement. Fair enough, nothing to argue there, but to be “obligated to publicize the less civilized and tasteful side of human existence” with the aim of “piercing bourgeois civility” is an admission that they recognize themselves as tasteless and uncivilzed and rather than wallow in their cesspool undisturbed they must drag the civil down into their sewage. Equality.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      rather than wallow in their cesspool undisturbed

      Or, God forbid, drag themselves out of it, and actually change their habitual inbred degeneracy into something approaching common (White) civility.

  11. The AntiLoser
    The AntiLoser says:

    Unless I missed it no attempt is made to define “anti-Semitism.” The absence of a definition makes it difficult to defend people accused of it. Does the anti-Semite oppose a race, a nation, a personality type, a doctrine, or what? The term ‘racism’ is similar, but less difficult to sort out, since nobody pretends that blacks share an agenda to the same extent that Jews are sometimes said to.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      The UK Government and others have now issued extended “definitions” of “antisemitism” available on-line. These still do not cover all possibilities, so anyone who campaigns against cattle slaughter without stunning or infant circumcision is not lumped, as yet, into the same category as someone who slaughtered infants in WW2.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        “as someone who slaughtered infants in WW2.”

        David – there you go again, lying, but by innuendo. Who, pray tell, are you referring to as one who slaughtered infants? Maybe the one who gave the order/okay to British Bomber Command’s massive fire and phosphorous raids on civilian housing? Or the Russian submarine commanders who sunk German refugee-carrying ships (women and children) in the frigid Baltic Sea in January? Or maybe Harry Truman who ordered the atom bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (to see what it would actually do)? You are being inexcusably vague here.

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          Not quite what I meant: the KZ “slaughtered infants” are part of the imaginative moral obloquy showered on any critics of any specific Jewish activity. I doubt if there is much truth in the babies with heads bashed in or thrown alive into fire in the Nazi camps, though children do seem to have been among those killed “as partisans” by the SS and non-German auxiliaries.

          All the atrocities by western governments you mention I completely condemn. Worse than Wielun, Rotterdam, Coventry or Stalingrad.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Haha, you are such a sneaky old guy. You find a way to mention head-bashing of babies, etc. that you only ‘doubt’ took place. And child partisans (who actually WERE dangerous partisans), but whom had nothing to do with ‘infants.’ Then you also fit in ‘Wielun, Rotterdam, Coventry and Stalingrad’ … all when NOT admitting that your reference to “someone who slaughtered infants in WW2” was merely a provocation on your part.

            It’s no wonder that most of the commenters here have learned to simply ignore you. I am learning that too.

  12. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    Sartre’s nauseating lucubrations about antisemitism are part and parcel of the vast and older current of Jewish ‘criticism’ of Christianity and Christian societies, particularly virulent at all times in the France ‘de la gauche’ (especially after the Dreyfus Affair). And also of the growth of the old rot of subterranean Judaeophilia in the Catholic Church, which burst into the open at the turn of the 19th century.
    He swam in that current, even if not ostensibly Jewish, from his early days. His mother was the first cousin of Albert Schweitzer, the ‘famous’ debunker of Christianity along the Jewish lines. The Schweitzers were Alsatian ‘Lutherans’ (until we stumble upon a David Schweitzer, orfèvre in Strasbourg).
    But there is another reason that “Réflexions sur la question juive”, was published so shortly after the end of the war (1945). It was his ‘penance’ for his suspected ‘collaborationism’ during the German occupation.
    “During the occupation”, declared Jean-Paul Sartre, “we had two choices: collaborate or resist”. “In 1939, 1940 we were terrified of dying, suffering, for a cause that disgusted us. That is, for a disgusting France, corrupt, inefficient, racist, anti-Semite, run by the rich for the rich—no one wanted to die for that, until, well, until we understood that the Nazis were worse”.
    He understood that apparently only after the ‘liberation’. There is ‘highly likely’ that he was presented with a stark choice: “épuration” or “chronicler of France’s calvary” (rewriting the history of ‘La Résistance’).
    There is a parallel case in Cioran’s turn against ‘fascism’. Perhaps (just perhaps) the ‘nausée’ and nihilism they display in their writings reflects their disgust at their own cowardice.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      His plays continued to be staged during the Occupation. To your point:
      “It has also recently been uncovered that the prestigious teaching position Sartre acquired in 1942 was made vacant because it had been previously been occupied by a Jewish teacher who was barred from teaching by Vichy’s Jewish Statute. It seems unlikely that Sartre would not have known this (Galster 1986: Galster 2001). None of this is meant to sustain the absurd claim Sartre was a collaborator, but it does illustrate how difficult it was for intellectuals not to compromise themselves to some degree.”

      https://tinyurl.com/yb777hwz

    • HelenChicago
      HelenChicago says:

      What is the “blue hair phenomenon”? Is it something to do with Smurfs? Are you saying Sartre was a philosemitic Smurf?

  13. Pero Ercegovac
    Pero Ercegovac says:

    As a student I always found Satre boring and egotistical. Now I know why. Good article Andrew, I look forward to the follow up.

  14. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Much can be against Sartre’s personal habits, political record and “philosophy”, but the key point of his unusually lucid essay on antisemitism was to the effect that the “Antisemite makes/defines the Jew”. Before Hitler’s fully documented pseudo-biological generalization, it was largely – though not entirely – the other way round, but since the Nazi condemnation of every Jew or part-Jew as a universally demonic verminous parasitic threat to mankind, then Jews, whatever their actual activities, have become sensitive to criticism, however reasonable, as a potential prelude to physical injury.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Anti-Semitism could “make” or “define” the Jew only if he is assimilating to such a degree that he is hardly conscious of his Jewishness or doesn’t want to be reminded of it. That happens in an environment that is not hostile to Jews. The result is intermarriage on a grand scale, such as in Weimar Germany or present day US, where 71% of secular Jews intermarry. Therefore some Jews make the curious remark that “anti-Semitism is good for Jews”, i.e. keeps their sense of identity intact. Jewishness is an “identity-against-the-world”, but if that world is not hostile that identity is in danger.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Franklin Ryckaert

        Nice to find an argument on this and similar threads instead of discussions of the supposedly racial origins of an ugly physiognomy (e.g. Kirk Douglas, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Dane, Gwyneth Paltrow). Many Jews are of course raised to consider their ethnic identity as special and also to imbibe a history of persecution. But WW2 and then Israel mark a watershed (or bloodshed) in their internal narrative and external “defense” networking, especially in the USA. Their individual members will act collectively if they feel, rightly or wrongly, existentially endangered, but otherwise are quite diverse in communal attachments and outlook: five Jews, and seven opinions.

        • Michael Wolanski
          Michael Wolanski says:

          ‘Nice to find an argument on this and similar threads instead of discussions of the supposedly racial origins of an ugly physiognomy’

          ha ha ha *slow golf clap* how mamy of the aforementioned are half Jews specifically selected by Hollywood for their appearence to attractive Europeans?

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Five Jews, seven opinions…on what best suits Jewish collective interests (the Tanstaafl addendum).

          • Michael Wolanski
            Michael Wolanski says:

            ‘Five Jews, seven opinions…on what best suits Jewish collective interests (the Tanstaafl addendum).’

            Man I was going to say it. Thank you for bringing it up. The idea that Jews who have no civilisation of their own (Israel doesn’t count it is subsidised massively by Whites) can have fundamental differences beyond the point of lets keep fleecing the hosts as a parasitic community is just nonsense and is the acid test for someone arguing in bad faith or not understanding the Jewish question.

    • The AntiLoser
      The AntiLoser says:

      Brilliant point, if I follow. You are saying that if Jews are defined biologically, and Jewish biology is pronounced harmful, then calling out a Jew for any behavior becomes a threat that the Jew cannot meet by adjusting the behavior. If so, he is forced to use his power as best he can to suppress his accuser. I am not a historian so I don’t know if history bears this out but it seems plausible, and it would appear to generalize to blacks and other groups that are deemed to lack socially desirable traits — intelligence, at any rate. Instead of arguing that blacks are somehow inclined to violence we could argue that blacks have it in their power to eschew violence. Since we don’t have the option of exiling either blacks or Jews, it would appear more promising to argue that “victimhood” does not put their behavior outside the realm of fair criticism. All the problems related to black crime and unwise immigration policy would be easily soluble if we could find a counter to the Jewish academician and philanthropist’s insistence on the blamelessness of these victims of bigotry. We must begin by finding a way to talk about it outside of “off-Broadway” websites. I note that in the 90s blacks were warming to the theory that past oppression does not morally excuse present crime nor does it make that crime into a beneficial strategy. Then Charles Murray brought out The Bell Curve and instantly destroyed all the receptivity that had been built up. I suspect the Jewish neocons encouraged Murray to bring out the book when he did because despite their rhetoric scolding GOP racism, the LAST thing they want is for blacks to reject the behavior that keeps them beholden to white liberals who favor social policies that Jews also favor.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ The AntiLoser

        Your interesting long comment requires a longer answer than is tolerable here. On the biology of the different groups of self-identified Jews, I would refer to: Richard Lynn, “The Chosen People” (2011); Raphael Falk, “Zionism & the Biology of the Jews” (2017); Otmar von Verschuer, “Racial Biology of the Jews” (tr 2000); for a “Jewish” angle, Google the irrepressibly prolific output of Sander Gilman.

        There are Jewish critics of misbehavior by “blacks”.

        One must defend oneself against criminals and aggressors however they are so motivated. One should not punish people who have not committed a crime just because their face doesn’t fit.

        • Michael Wolanski
          Michael Wolanski says:

          ‘There are Jewish critics of misbehavior by “blacks’

          They’re called the alt light. I want to talk about the disease not it’s symptoms.

          ‘Google the irrepressibly prolific output of Sander Gilman’
          isn’t this the Jewish propagandist who slandered Macdonald?

          ‘One should not punish people who have not committed a crime just because their race doesn’t fit’

          there FIFY

          Jews are caucasoid and have alot of European dna but they are not white. I have met many part Jews and believe me as a rule of thumb they should be treated as an alien people.

          • Alicia
            Alicia says:

            @Michael Wolanski. Close to all Jews in Poland had the specific looks before WWII, as they did not intermarry with Goyim, and 85 % of them did not even speak Polish. In Poland of today you hardly can say who has Jewish roots, as many are Mischlings with Slavic appearance and their Polish is excellent, not to mention that very few have kept their family names. Unlike most of the older Polish Jews, Poland’s present First Lady, Agata Kornhauser Duda, did not change her name, neither has she a trace of the specific looks of her father’s (Julian Kornhauser who distinguished himself by creating anti-Polish poetry). The wife of Poland’s former president, Anna Komorowska, and the wife of his predecessor, Maria Kaczynska (deceased in the Smolensk airplane crash), and the wife of his predecessor, Jolanta Kwasniewska, were equipped with Slavic names even before their marriages. Furthermore, one could easily register that all three of Poland’s first ladies were also “enriched” with non-slavic genes.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      David, you are once again not telling the truth. It’s well known that Hitler had some half-Jews and other part Jews in his personal circle. Many part Jews and some full Jews were given approval by Hitler to serve, or continue to serve, in the Wehrmacht.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Carolyn Yeager

        Interesting to be called a “once again” anti-Hitler liar here and a pro-Hitler liar elsewhere. I am prepared to answer your point, if the Moderator permits quotation, this time, from authentic Nazi publications. You still have not commented on Hitler’s statement to Horthy in 1943 on Jewish deaths in concentration camps. I am quite prepared to retract any statements conclusively shown to be untrue – by anyone.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          David, you use a tactic of changing the subject. I most certainly did comment on Hitler’s statement to Horthy. Your characterization of it being about “Jewish deaths in concentration camps” is incorrect in itself.

          It was Ribbentrop, Hitler’s foreign minister, who said to Horthy on April 17, 1943 that the Jews must be put in concentration camps; if not then the only other option was to kill them. Which only meant there was no option but to put them in camps. He said this because the day before (April 16) Hitler is stated to have said that Jews should be placed in concentration camps but “If there was talk of murdering the Jews, then he (the Führer) must point out that only one person murdered, namely the Jew who started wars and who by his influence gave the wars their anti-civilian, anti-women and anti-children character.”

          Anything further that Hitler is reported to have said comes from the alleged minutes of the meeting and the supporting IMT testimony of Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt, Hitler’s interpreter. Schmidt testified that he was present at the meeting and that the minutes were genuine and prepared by him. However, in his later book, he wrote that he was not present, because Horthy had insisted on his leaving the room!

          There are quite a number of statements you should retract.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            Schmidt had an obvious interest in claiming to have left the room. The quotation itself has two parts: Hitler says Jews who refuse to work will be shot, and those unable to do so would succumb like animals. The language used is typical Hitler, as I shall now demonstrate, but let me concede that we cannot be absolutely certain when Schmidt was reliable.

            Mein Kampf presents “the Jew” as the world enemy of “the Aryan” and other peoples, in the context of eternal struggle between races. He is a parasite whose doctrine if allowed to progress will destroy the other inhabitants of the planet, but cannot be rescued from his fixed notions; i.e. he is an incorrigible criminal. His vileness is so gigantic that the Devil as the symbol of all evil takes the living shape of the Jew. He cannot create a state of his own and the Zionist claim to build one in Palestine for productive settlement is a characteristic lie. He systematically ruins women by bastardization and dispense with democracy to become master over the hated white race. The Jew is a germ-carrier, a noxious bacillus, the fission-fungus of mankind. After the death of his human victim, this vampire himself will die.

            Hitler repeated the idea of removing the Jewish bacillus from the life of all the world’s peoples at Wilhelmshaven on 1 April 1939.

            The comparison of all Jews to swarms of disease-carrying rats appears in the officially authorized film “Der ewige Jude” (1940) which can be watched in full on Youtube and whose implications were recorded in German movie commentaries.

            You already know his “Vernichtung” speeches, and Goebbels’ references to the wartime opportunity for “liquidating”. Other relevant annotated observations on ideology and language are summarized by Ian Kershaw, “Hitler” (1991), pp.19-20; and Richard Weikart, “Hitler’s Ethic” (2009). Calvin College can provide translations of related Nazi propaganda documents online.

            That Hitler made a tiny number personal exceptions and made tribute to his mother’s doctor, and that quite a number of free Mischlinge and undetected Jews fought with the Wehrmacht, do not greatly alter my main thesis. In the later stages of the war many foreigners were brought in to prevent defeat, including Asiatics and even a few Negroes.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “we cannot be absolutely certain when Schmidt was reliable.”
            Then why rely on him?

            “Mein Kampf presents “the Jew” as the world enemy of “the Aryan…”
            That is a correct observation by Hitler.

            “… in the context of eternal struggle between races.”
            Those are your words. I don’t think he said “eternal struggle between races.” And the rest of the paragraph are your words, and my, you really get into it! Why the passion if you are not Jewish? Please give some proofs that your paraphrasing is actually in Mein Kampf.

            “Jewish bacillus” is a accurate term given Jewish crypto behavior and their interest in marrying their daughters to wealthy or influential Aryan men and their young men to wealthy Aryan and fertile women.

            Hitler was not the writer, director or producer of “Der ewige Jude” What about how he and his associates were portrayed in Hollywood and other Jewish films? Just as bad. And your nation, GB, portrayed Germans in WWI as giant apes attacking women and the entire European continent. War propaganda always goes to extremes.

            The use of the word “Vernichtung” has been well-discussed by many people who are more expert in the language. The typical German usage of the word is not “murder” but different methods of “getting rid of” something unwanted. Without doubt, Hitler wanted to rid Germany of Jews. I just don’t understand who you think you’re going to get upset over this.

            Your last paragraph brings to mind Hitler’s early friend and sometime cook, Emil Maurice, who it turned out was 1/8 Jewish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maurice Even after Hitler learned that Maurice was in a relationship with Geli, Hitler’s niece, Hitler only brought an end to the relationship and removed Maurice from his service, but did not force him out of the SS. Why? Because Hitler was a fair-minded person.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Further to your reference to Hitler’s April 1939 Wilhelmshaven (http://www.der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/39-04-01.htm) speech – a great speech about history, fairness and peace – only one mention to Jews is made:

            “I believe in a conclusive understanding among peoples which will come sooner or later. There is no point in bringing about co-operation among nations, based upon permanent understanding, until this Jewish FISSION-FUNGUS (Bacterium) of peoples has been removed.”

            He believed in a coming understanding among the peoples of Europe, of the world even, but that could only happen after the Jewish “bacterium” had been removed. His plan to remove Jews from Europe and confine them to some type of adequate space, as in a quarantine, shows that he did not intend to kill them. For one reason, he didn’t want blood on the hands of Germans, whom he saw a a good, righteous and long-suffering people.

            He would have had to have been far stupider than he was to believe he could have carried out “the Holocaust” without the world finding out! So you are not making your point, David.

    • Michael Wolanski
      Michael Wolanski says:

      ‘Before Hitler’s fully documented pseudo-biological generalization, it was largely – though not entirely – the other way round, but since the Nazi condemnation of every Jew or part-Jew as a universally demonic verminous parasitic threat to mankind, then Jews, whatever their actual activities, have become sensitive to criticism, however reasonable, as a potential prelude to physical injury’

      No. Jews have always treated their host population with suspicion and contempt and there never was an era where naieve Jews sought full assimilation (as defined by complete intermarriage- not just closed Jewish societies offering gentile aristocrats Jewish wives with dowries) only to be rebuffed by uncouth antisemites. This is basic b***h Jewish apologetics and should be called out as such. See medieval Spain and the inquisitions (and the Muslim ferreting out of insincere Jewish converts to Islam hundreds of years before that). The idea that Sartre changed anything fundamental about Jewish-European conflict other than giving a modern spin to Jewish gaslighting of Europeans (‘antisemites’ are crazy, intolerant, unpatriotic e.t.c) is just nonsense and at no time in thier interactions with Europeans have Jews been naieve idealists. To suggest otherwise is just utter nonsense and an indication of somone who is arguing in bad faith

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Michael Wolanksi

        If you are accusing me personally of writing “utter nonsense” in “bad faith”, I must say that I never suggested that Sartre’s book “changed anything”. My reference was to the different aspect added to Jewish reflections and organizations since the mid-1940s.

        My very extensive study of both “antisemitic” and Jewish literature, which began decades ago as personal inquiry into attacks on the British Union of Fascists, continuously long predates that by both Andrew Joyce and Kevin MacDonald, and I resent personal slurs against my honesty and willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads, whether other people like my always provisional conclusions, or not. To be falsely described previously on TOO as a “Jewish Hasbara Troll” and recently by a British daily newspaper as an “Evil Anti-Semite” is a cross I have to bear.

        That said, I do not deny the hostility and suspicion that Jewish communities have felt towards “host societies” across times and climes – and which has often been “heartily” reciprocated.

        The two questions are: why, and what should now be done about it.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          “The two questions are: why, and what should now be done about it.”

          What should be done about it is Jews should be removed from Gentile societies because they don’t belong there. Jews have always been a source of serious trouble, being actual plunderers of the host society, as well as disloyal. The first step is to wrest our media out of the hands of the Jews in any way it is possible to do so. We need strong, authoritarian leadership in order to do this; democratically elected legislatures/parliaments cannot do it. We need to face facts. Stop going along with the promotion of ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic values.’ Jews love democracy and use it to advance their own interests. http://carolynyeager.net/adolf-hitler-jewish-democracy-and-importance-spoken-word

        • Henry
          Henry says:

          David Ashton said….

          “To be falsely described previously on TOO as a “Jewish Hasbara Troll” and recently by a British daily newspaper as an “Evil Anti-Semite” is a cross I have to bear.”

          David are you referring to the article concerning Max Mosley and yourself, published in the 28th Feb edition of The Scottish Daily Mail?

          This one: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20180228/281694025272944

          That article mentions the claim in the Manchester Moss Side election leaflet (1961) warning of the danger of immigrants bringing diseases to the UK. Nothing wrong with that I thought. But having watched your old friend, MM, getting himself in a muddle on Channel 4 News when grilled on this by the hapless, Cathy Newman, I have to say I was stunned when Mosley failed to mention that, only a few months after the circulation of the leaflet, there were in fact multiple outbreaks of smallpox; a contagious disease brought to Britain by newly arrived immigrants from Pakistan and which soon claimed the lives of many native Brits.

          At the time of the outbreaks Mosley must have been a more than interested witness to events as they unfolded. But when Newman gave him the chance to cast his mind back to the early 1960’s and comment on the veracity of the leaflet, he completely failed to take that chance; choosing instead to say nothing about the outbreaks. His poor self-defence was baffling to me, and very disappointing.

          Perhaps you know or could suggest a reason for his reticence….

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            Actually Max did refer to the current concerns about contagious diseases from immigration; and it was an issue in the press and for the British Medical Association at the time. I think the “racist” angle was a reference to “colored” immigrants as a whole, although in fact the infections came from a minority of people from tropical climes. Since his father died he has mainly concerned himself with motor racing and changed his political views.

            The last contact I had with Max was some 56 years ago. The attack on me by the “Daily Mail” was full of false suggestions and suppressions of fact, and will be referred to IPSO if fail soon to get acknowledgment from Editor Dacre. Some of my answers are on Spiked Online, and the whole story is not of great interest to your readers, even those like poor Caroline Yeager who still mistakenly thinks I am another Evil Jew.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            PS – Sorry, “Carolyn” not “Caroline”. Simply an error by a tired man, not a “lie”.

          • Henry
            Henry says:

            @ David Ashton, I wasn’t referring to “current concerns about contagious diseases from immigration” whether or not “it was an issue in the press and for the British Medical Association at the time”…then or now. And you know I wasn’t.

            I was referring to the specific outbreaks of smallpox that occurred in England and Wales around six months after the Moss Side by-election. These outbreaks were due to the import of infected immigrants from Pakistan and they served to confirm, without doubt, the warnings given in the by-election leaflets as being entirely prescient. That your friend Max Mosley failed to even mention this in his own defence when attacked on national TV casts doubt on his current standing as a man of character. In fact he came across as a man who’d sell his soul (and his own people) for just one more day at the races.

            In the following news-link [video] is the confirmation that Mosley’s published warning was correct and only six months from coming true. I’m sorry but the fact hat he did not mention it in defence of his former self does look like evidence of a man who has no respect for his present self…

            On live TV, this answer would have destroyed Cathy Newman’s ant-white, anti-Mosley agenda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhj3HJIp8jQ

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “POOR Caroline Yeager who still mistakenly thinks I am another Evil Jew.”

            Another example of your sneaky method to deal with your critic by veiled insult without ever defending your words or answering the questions put to you in an honest, direct way.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            Max Mosley was never “my friend” even when I met him, for the first and last time, on no more than half-a-dozen occasions at Oxford in 1960-2. I am not responsible for anything he did or should have done, publicly or privately, then, later, or now. I knew his father, but never met his brother Alex and do not think I ever spoke to his wife Jean.

            I cannot answer Carolyn Yeager (and others) in precise detail, without my time and your space being readily available; e.g. tediously unnecessary pagination from my translation of MK. It was hardly “sneaky” to refute her own “veiled insult” that my views of Nazi ideology show that I am a Jew. I am not especially “passionate” about these matters over 70 years ago, but do you have to be Jewish to feel that Nazis perhaps overdid things a bit? The “liquidation” mentioned by Goebbels in his Diaries is clear, and the views of Himmler about “good” Jews &c are well documented; it will be interesting to see how David Irving handles them in his forthcoming biography.

            My complaint about “The Holocaust” is that it has become a sacred icon, a way to deflect criticism of Israeli Zionism on one hand and a means to promote the “equality & diversity” ideology on the other.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “I cannot answer Carolyn Yeager (and others) in precise detail …”

            Unbelievable. Suddenly it is “your translation” of Mein Kampf that you are going by. No wonder you refuse to quote it; I don’t suppose it exists.

            You didn’t think it took up too much time and space to write your prior comment describing what Hitler wrote in MK, but it does now to actually quote from MK. I’m willing to take up the space to remind those interested of your earlier comment:

            “Mein Kampf presents “the Jew” as the world enemy of “the Aryan” and other peoples, in the context of eternal struggle between races. He is a parasite whose doctrine if allowed to progress will destroy the other inhabitants of the planet, but cannot be rescued from his fixed notions; i.e. he is an incorrigible criminal. His vileness is so gigantic that the Devil as the symbol of all evil takes the living shape of the Jew. He cannot create a state of his own and the Zionist claim to build one in Palestine for productive settlement is a characteristic lie. He systematically ruins women by bastardization and dispense with democracy to become master over the hated white race. The Jew is a germ-carrier, a noxious bacillus, the fission-fungus of mankind. After the death of his human victim, this vampire himself will die.”

            But now you are not passionate about the whole subject anyway, you only feel ‘the Nazis perhaps overdid things a bit.’

            And finally, it now becomes Goebbels and Himmler–forget about Hitler–whose views you are sure prove the Jewish genocide took place. Let’s look to David Irving to give us the defining truth! He wrote a terrible book on Goebbels and has been promising his book on Himmler for 10 years now. I don’t think we’ll ever see it because he doesn’t have the goods. Just like you, DA.

  15. dubya
    dubya says:

    Very interesting. It’s always revealing to get a sense of who the author of a text is, their personality, childhood and physical appearance before reading. It makes it easier to recognize biases.

  16. Bardamu
    Bardamu says:

    L.F. Celine ubiquitously referred to Satre as “Tatre” (Tart) in his works.

    Damn cool essay, Mr. Joyce.

  17. gemjunior
    gemjunior says:

    Jews seem top-heavy on perverts and the sexually licentious. Even if Sartre wan’t Jewish, he was leaning toward the pervy side, having relationships with a 16 year old and a bisexual woman? And sounds like he was into whips and chains. Ugh. These their unwholesome “influential” marxists always have a desire to wreck the world. They hate everything that is or has already been a way of life, even if it is a positive one for the vast majority of people. It is a very Jewish trait to want to up-end anything good and their admirers are even worse like Sartre.

    • Seraphim
      Seraphim says:

      Good point. One cannot separate Sartre from the ugly lesbian and promiscuous feminist harpy “La Beauvoir”.
      Her most famous lover was American author Nelson Ahlgren Abraham, whom she met in Chicago in 1947, and to whom she wrote across the Atlantic as “my beloved husband.” Nelson was the son of Goldie (née Kalisher) and Gerson Abraham, the son of a Swedish convert to Judaism (so, Nelson was only ‘partly Jewish’!). He was an acclaimed author whose writings seethe with “drunks, pimps, prostitutes, freaks, drug addicts, prize fighters, corrupt politicians, and hoodlums”.
      Another lover was Claude Lanzmann, the (in)famous “French filmmaker known for the Holocaust documentary film Shoah”! Incidentally, he was “the grandson of Russian Jews who fled pogroms and conscription in the great westward Yiddish-speaking migration at the turn of the century”. Interestingly, he was raised by his father (after his mother, ‘an unconventional Jewess’ left them), “a politically prescient man who drilled his kids in escape techniques and arranged for their safety during the Nazi Occupation” (but of course, they emerged after the war as pillars of the ‘Resistance’!).
      This was the cesspool in which Sartre wallowed all his life. No wonder that he wrote ‘La Nausée’, which take place in a town Bouville (Mud Town).

      • Theodora
        Theodora says:

        Claude Lanzmann is a Harvey Weinstein avant-la-lettre. A dutch film critic and journalist has been harassed in 1985 by this almost ´holy´ filmmaker. As a young and coming film critic, Joyce Roodnat had the opportunity to do an interview with the man and was sexually assaulted. She was 27 years old and so ashamed about the thing that she could not talk about it.

        http://media.tpo.nl/2017/10/19/nrc-columniste-beschuldigt-franse-holocaust-documentairemaker-aanranding-metoo/

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          I vividly recall watching Shoa, by Lanzmann [ Yiddish Landsman/Fellow Jew: German Landsmann/Countryman ].

          At its beginning I was taken in by his common script trickery of making a privileged voyeur of every onlooker, by ostensibly filming an ex-Nazi from cameras hidden in an opportunely parked 50’s VW bus, through veiled windows: after dusk, requiring Nazi-apartment lighting.

          Simultaneously his ” journalist ” interviewers were openly recording their interview inside the conveniently street level apartment of this Nazi. With audio and video subsequently synchronized.

          This Nazi/Actor could not help himself from looking directly into the ” hidden ” camera, some 60 ft distant, on several occasions; before he lowered the blinds for added ” what now ! ” drama, without, however, slanting them down as well, to completely block the view.

          Not unlike American TV series in which distant extras around a bar cannot refrain from ignoring the director’s orders not to look directly into the camera.

          All of it equal to the scene in the Tel Aviv barbershop, where they filmed the former Auschwitz inmate-barber Bomba, who testified to cutting the hair of female inmates, in rooms adjacent to the chambers immediately prior to their gassing: their hair to be utilized by German SS-owned firms.

          Bomba didn’t include Mengele as one of his clients, but, de rigueur, at least a woman from his village; a friend of his wife. Periods of long silence while he suppressed his emotions.

          Very impressive, eliciting politically and financially profitable commiseration; as long as you merely watch, but don’t really see !

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            The connection of Claude Lanzmann to Sartre’s book and to Simone de Beauvoir, who regarded him as more sexually satisfying than “le Grand Penseur” is explored in a revealing article by Richard Brody, “New Yorker”, March 19, 2012, online.

            There are interesting critiques of “Shoah” by e.g.
            Robert Faurisson and Bradley R. Smith, and an ineffective defense by the “Holocaust Controversies” people, all online. I sat through this strange film years ago with an open mind and a notebook, and recall three features: (1) the story Bomba told (Treblinka, not Auschwitz) was ridiculously impossible, (2) odd items like the boy who sang songs around the camp from a boat, and (3) Polish Christians as a propaganda target.

            By the way, my “paraphrase” of Mein Kampf on the racial conflict with Jews, and my “interpretation” of “Der ewige Jude” (to which Goebbels contributed), can be confirmed by anyone with the patience to go through the book carefully, and the fortitude to watch the entire movie, whether you are a passionate hater of Jews and devotee of Hitler like Carolyn, or just a normal person.

            I repeat here, hopefully for the last time, that I am a white Anglo-Saxon, christened in an Essex church, with no Jewish ancestry, religion or affiliations. None of my best friends are Jews or Antisemites or lunatics, or even members of the present UK Labour Party. I have been a lifelong opponent of communism, multicultural immigration and racial persecution of all kinds; a defender in private and public of England and of European Civilization – a thankless task, it seems, even on this website.

            Whatever the facts about “gas-chambers”, and irrespective of the tall stories that fatally embellish Holocaust Narratives, the “racial antisemitism” of the Nazi leadership in WW2 is hardly deniable, and its apologists can only try to condone or “justify” it.

            “We are seeing the fulfillment of [Hitler’s] prophecy – the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe… It is perishing according to its own law…. All Jews by virtue of their birth and their race are part of an international conspiracy against National Socialist Germany” (Goebbels, 1943).

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            One more time, briefly. It here comes down to “the ‘racial antisemitism’ of the Nazi leadership in WW2 is hardly deniable.”

            Who is denying it?!! No one. In 1920 Adolf Hitler gave a long speech in the Munich Hofbrauhaus titled “Why We are Antisemites.” He explained it then.

            You are dishonest because you jump from antisemitism to “wanting to destroy/kill/murder every Jew in Europe.” You knowingly do this, using a kind of sleight of hand.

            I’ll also call you on not giving the full source for your quotes. Here you write (Goebbels, 1943). That means nothing; it’s the same as nothing. It’s no help at all. More insult is when you write:
            “… my “paraphrase” of Mein Kampf on the racial conflict with Jews … can be confirmed by anyone with the patience to go through the book carefully.” Whaat? I can’t imagine anything worse than that. If this were the CODOH Forum, you would have been banned long ago for breaking the rules of debate which require you to answer questions and provide and sources for subjects you have brought up. As they put it, no evasion. no ducking.

          • Henry
            Henry says:

            David quoted…

            ““We are seeing the fulfillment of [Hitler’s] prophecy – the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe… It is perishing according to its own law…. All Jews by virtue of their birth and their race are part of an international conspiracy against National Socialist Germany” (Goebbels, 1943).”

            David, you should know that your quote is part of a piece published by Goebbels dated 14th, Nov 1941, and not as you claim 1943. It has been reported that the essay was issued to the German public when they collected their rations for that month. In part, at least, its purpose was to give an explanation as to why tens of thousands of Jews had suddenly become visible to them due to the introduction of the yellow star, which Jews in Germany were now being forced to wear.

            The essay was later reissued in a 1943 NSDAP publication but it was still dated 14 Nov, 1941.

            Now I really don’t think that Goebbels was telling the world in 1941, that the good ship “holocaust” had been launched and there was no turning back…do you?

            Incidentally, Hitler’s complete “prophecy” was that if another war was forced on the continent then the other nations of Europe would eventually follow Germany’s example by taking similar actions against the Jews (whom Hitler said had already been defeated in Germany) so as to remove them and their culture from Europe forever…but that crucial part of the prophecy is usually left out by your friends to provide pre-war evidence of Hitler’s intention to genocide.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            @Henry

            Here is the relevant video, Hitlers speech in parliament :
            https://youtu.be/11fl8AykFqo My translation :

            “…If international Finance Jewry inside or outside Europe would succeed to plunge the peoples once again in a world war, then the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the triumph of Jewry, but the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe…”

            The meaning is clearly genocide (“destruction of the Jewish race”) and not “the removal of them and their culture”. Whether this is a serious threat or only an emotional outburst is still not clear to me.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Franklin,
            This has been discussed again and again. You use the word “Destruction”; Henry uses the words “remove them and their culture”. And then “from” or “in” EUROPE is another key … not from this world but from EUROPE. So it does not “clearly” mean murder at all. You say ‘genocide’ and mean ‘murder.’ Hitler said ausrotten or vernichtung and meant removal. To the Jews, removal from Europe or murder was all the same, as you should know.

          • Henry
            Henry says:

            @Franklin

            Yes, I’m familiar with that video however, you will notice that Hitler pauses as the applause breaks out. Hitler then continues the paragraph with the adverb “thus” and modifies his warning with another 112 words that seldom get a mention.

            I’m copying to here the missing part which I’ve taken from my own copy of Hitler’s speeches complete in four volumes.

            I’ve placed the missing modifier “thus” in bold.

            Hitler said:

            “Once again I will be a prophet: should the international Jewry of finance (Finanzjudentum) succeed, both within and beyond Europe, in plungin mankind into yet another world war, then the result will not be a Bolshevization of the earth and the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation (Vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe. Thus, the days of propagandist impotence of the non-Jewish peoples are over. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy possess institutions which, if necessary, permit opening the eyes of the world to the true nature of this problem. Many a people is instinctively aware of this, albeit not scientifically versed in it. At this moment, the Jews are still propagating their campaign of hatred in certain states under the cover of press, film, radio, theatre, and literature, which are all in their hands. Should indeed this one Volk attain its goal of prodding masses of millions from other peoples to enter into a war devoid of all sense for them, and serving the interests of the Jews exclusively, then the effectiveness of an enlightenment will once more display its might. Within Germany, this enlightenment conquered Jewry utterly in the span of a few years.

            Peoples desire not to perish on the battlefield just so that this rootless, internationalist race can profit financially from this war and thereby gratify its lust for vengeance derived from the Old Testament. The Jewish watchword “Proletarians of the world, unite!” will be conquered by a far more lofty realization, namely: “Creative men of all nations, recognize your common foe!”

            January 30, 1939.

            Max Domarus:Hitler’s Complete Speeches, pp,1449-1450

            As for the removal of the Jews from Europe I believe this to be the case because I have post-Wannsee documents from the archives wherein the question of what to do with the part-Jews who are still fertile and capable of reproducing is under consideration by those who were present at Wannsee. The important question is are they to be given the same treatment as the full Jews which, though not fully detailed, is clearly considered to be very harsh. However, that treatment can only have been some process of deportation, as the concern is: if the part-Jews receive the same treatment as the full Jews then they might mix their blood together outside the Reich, thereby creating a powerful force that would grow to cause great damage to Germany’s future generations at some later date. It follows then, that if the Jews were being (or were to be) exterminated and the fertile part-Jews also received the same treatment, then it would be impossible for them to give birth to this dreaded hybrid and have it exact its terrible revenge on Germans still unborn. With this consideration It was finally decided to offer the part-Jews sterilisation and permanent citizenship as an alternative to what was being forced on the Jews.

            Franklin, I won’t produce the reference details for that document here for reasons that should be understandable at this time. When websites are being closed down faster than they can be counted, entry to government and NGO archives and access to the documents within will certainly be restricted when signalled out as potentially ‘problematic’ to those who want us to believe only what they want us to believe.

  18. Dave Bowman
    Dave Bowman says:

    I don’t remember ever actually seeing a photo of Sartre before. There can’t be that many still around. With that face – and especially with the wealth of research about his character and mindset provided by Dr Joyce’s brilliant, word-perfect article – it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to learn that, indeed, Sartre had Jew in his blood just a few direct generations before – in all probability, all grand- or great-grandparents, not just some. As others here have pointed out, those lips – let alone the chronic Strabismus and deathly pale, sallow, unhealthy, weakling look – really are a giveaway. Woody Allen, anyone ?

    Naturally, Jews have always had all sorts of reasons down through the ages to disguise – or often completely jettison – their true identity, to better fit in socially and racially with their host nation. In a White-built world of high social trust, honesty and openness this has always proved very easy for those who are determined to conceal who and what they really are. I suspect Sartre knew his own hidden Jewish roots very well.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        That’s not necessarily true.

        – Suppose he was not aware of his Jewish blood?
        – Suppose he was afraid to reveal his Jewish blood?

        His extreme philosemitism is a very strong indication he believed he was Jewish.

        • Dave Bowman
          Dave Bowman says:

          Undoubtedly correct.

          —–

          (Mod. Note: “Dave”, at first I trashed this. Why? There is a statement of approval by you, but approval of WHAT ??? TOO comments are NOT like a “chat room”. Comments posted here need to have a clear reference to what you are trying to say, included in the comment. I look for a free-standing substantial thought or statement. If that’s not present, and obviously so, it doesn’t belong here. This mod. won’t waste time digging up what you are trying to refer to, but will instead just trash “dangling comments” such as this one. Got it?)

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        Has anyone ever made the claim that all Whites are good, and all jews evil?

        We look at group tendencies. Whites are, on average, very good, and jews are the opposite. . .

  19. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    The essay is so contemporary (almost too much so). Perhaps for our we needs we should return to Gaston Bachelard and Gaston Roupnel to realize what is truly French; doing so might help us find ideas that actually motivate European men and women to be more aggressive in pursuit of our genetic continuance.

  20. JB
    JB says:

    Of course, Louis-Ferdinand Céline drew a vituperative – but accurate – portrait of :John the Baptist Sartre” in his pamphlet, “À l’agité du bocal”. Unfortunately not available in English for you plebs AFAIK.

  21. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    This article confirms my belief that this person was of no worth to civilization, sick of mind, full of casuistry and sophistry. Like so much is Western philosophy and it’s various “schools”. Paths to nowhere.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Did you read Dr. Joyces’ essay? Jean Paul Sartre was hardly a representative of Western philosophy. He was an early torch bearer of the envious and insecure subversive elements that have been poisoning the great Western tradition exemplified by Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Lucretius, Aurelius, St. Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger. And those illustrious thinkers are but a tiny sampling of the massive contributions made in philosophy, art and sciences by European men for the benefit of a base humanity that resents their achievements, that resents their heroic attempts to raise mankind upwards. No other race or culture can has even attempted let alone achieved the heights strived for by white European men.

  22. slaughtz
    slaughtz says:

    Sartre was what’s colloquially referred to as an ‘atheist’, but is nothing but Satanist. A real atheist, one who might come close, is Heidegger.

  23. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Carolyn Yeager has indulged in personal abuse and aspersions about me, and now David Irving. My summary of Hitler’s relevant “racial” sentences in “Mein Kampf” come from the James Murphy and Ralph Manheim translations. Search and ye shall find them all.

    There is no doubt about meaning of “Vernichtung” or “Ausrottung”, as Arthur Butz pointed out. The issue is what Hitler had in mind with the ambiguous word “Judentum”. The initial plan to use Madagascar as a sort of giant Alcatraz was superseded by notions of mass deportation somewhere in the East. Nevertheless, Jews who resisted the German invasion and/or were associated with communism were shot, including some of their children; the documentation on this cannot all be forged.

    My analysis of Hitler’s general position is that Jewish and other deportees were put to war work, but many unable to do so died: the wartime racial balance, as he reportedly explained to Henny von Schirach. Goebbels and Himmler are quoted as endorsing their leader’s policy.

    To portray all Jews as swarms of disease-spreading rats, in a totally vicious and by no means factually accurate movie, may be approved even by some of “our dear readers” here today, but what do you do about vermin? I live in a small town near farmland and we actually had a rat infestation again a few months ago. The pest controller did not recommend giving them somewhere else to live. He killed as many as possible.

    My point stands, even if one accepts every argument re “gas-chambers” from Carlo Mattogno (e.g. over the T4 personnel) and Germar Rudolf (e.g. over the Bad Arolson statistics).

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      What point? The point I’ve been making is that your ‘point’ shifts and changes with every comment or reply you make. So what is your point now? All you’ve said here is that the German plan was to force disloyal Jews to do war work and those who resisted/refused were shot, including communists/bolsheviks whose assignment was to kill Germans at the front (children included). So far, that’s not much.

      Or that the German propaganda portrayed Jews as rats hiding in the darkness. That to you means Germans wanted to exterminate “as many as possible.” We all know what the British propaganda was – much worse, and it targeted Germans, not Jews.

      If this is all your point amounts to, then all the conclusions you draw from it are greatly exaggerated. You want us to believe Germans were evil mass murderers of Jews, nd further, the British were right to declare war on Hitler’s regime and to do everything in their power to destroy it (for the protection of Jews?), and the Nuremberg Tribunals were just!

      Why not come right out and put it in plain language. Your style is to throw out some innuendo, then hide from it, come back later with another one, a little bit different, and duck from that also. You try to sound knowledgeable by name-dropping, but no hard evidence, ever.

      P.S. I have the Murphy translation (read it twice) and did not get the impression that you have relayed here. Mannheim is a Jew (one of those Jews who takes a German place name for his surname – something Germans don’t do).

  24. Seth A Halpern
    Seth A Halpern says:

    Interesting and informative. I did not know Sartre was so neurotic. I did know that he defined Jewishness almost exclusively as a form of “otherness,” so it stands to reason in hindsight that he would feel a personal affinity to Jews as he imagined them to be, or as perhaps the narrow slice of Jewry he was personally acquainted with actually were.

    Of course he did a gross disservice to actual religious Jews, if inadvertently, by perpetuating the notion that Jews function simply as a civilizational negative or antagonist. That was a post religious but pre Zionist artifact of the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. Although, naturally for people whose idea of civilization excluded Jews a priori, it made sense.

Comments are closed.