Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew: A Critique [Part Two]

“Sartre almost always swallowed huge quantities of amphetamines when writing non-fiction.”
    John Gerassi, 1989.[1]

Sartre on ‘the Jew’

Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew is divided into four sections, concerned as it is with four actors, or character profiles: the anti-Semite, the democrat, the inauthentic Jew, and the authentic Jew. Existing criticism of the book has almost exclusively concerned Sartre’s treatment of Jews (in Sartre’s jargon, both ‘inauthentic’ and ‘authentic’), while the most highly praised aspect of the book has been his incredibly negative characterization of the anti-Semite. Since Sartre’s comments on ‘the democrat’ are generally regarded as the most meagre and the least consequential, this critique is concerned only with Sartre’s comments on both the Jew and the anti-Semite. We will start with a summary of problems in his theory of Jewishness.

Other than swallowing huge amounts speed, a habit that would ultimately lead to several debilitating strokes, Sartre conducted no preparations before writing Anti-Semite and Jew, telling Benny Levy in 1980: “I wrote without documentation, without reading one book about Jews.”[2] Sartre also failed to conduct any research into the history of anti-Semitism, or to read widely the arguments put forth by anti-Semites. He would later state that his opinions on anti-Semitism had been shaped for the most part by his reaction to reading a handful of contemporary French anti-Semitic pamphlets.[3] It is notable that while Sartre’s lack of research on the history and nature of anti-Semitism hasn’t prevented his commentary on anti-Semitism being portrayed as a “a classic,” his lack of research on Jews and their history has been pointed out as highly problematic. Indeed, from the moment of its publication Jews have been torn between a desire to adopt Sartre’s ‘weapon’ against the anti-Semite, and their unease at Sartre’s treatment of their own sense of identity.

Jewish criticisms of Sartre have for the most part revolved around his Marxist/existentialist interpretation of Jewish identity, and to a large extent these criticism are valid. It was argued in the first section of this essay that Sartre was beholden to an image of Jews and Jewishness as useful allies in his subconscious quest for social and cultural revenge. For Sartre this would necessarily involve denying Jews and their history any specificity which may exclude him. Predictably then, he advanced a theory that ‘the Jew’ was not a member of a rigid ethnic group defined by blood, history, and culture, but was instead a mere abstract compilation of Jewish ‘traits’ — the Jew as ‘intellectual,’ ‘urban,’ ‘social critic,’ ‘marginal,’ and ‘disruptive’—traits which he would himself come to embody, so one might label his book an exercise in narcissism. In his haste to portray Jews as a picture of innocence in relation to the origins of anti-Semitism, Sartre essentially suggested that the Jews themselves didn’t even exist, or if they did, it was in a largely ‘inauthentic’ form. In Anti-Semite and Jew Sartre writes that Jews are neither a national or religious community, but merely “an abstract historical community.”[4] Jews are not united with each other, or made Jews, by their history or religion, but “because they have in common the situation of a Jew, that is, they live in a community which takes them for Jews.”[5] Jews are thus, like Sartre himself, ‘created’ from exclusion and marginalization.

Misrahi summarizes Sartre’s argument as amounting to the contention that

 the Jew was nothing but an unreal image artificially created by anti-Semites. The Jew was produced by anti-Semitism, was nothing more than something invented by anti-Semites and projected onto a person designated as Jew. The Jew was a purely imaginary being.[6]

In some respects, of course, the innocent Jew was a purely imaginary being — entirely in Sartre’s mind. Meanwhile real Jews, comprising one of the globe’s most ethnocentric groups and one which places premium value on its specificity, history, religion, culture and sense of exclusivity, found this aspect of Anti-Semite and Jew more troubling than any other aspect of the text. While Jews were delighted with Sartre’s attack on the anti-Semite (to be explored later in this essay), they were irritated by the apparently rash and dismissive manner in which he referred to Jews. Misrahi notes that some Jews were happy with Sartre’s suggestion of a kind of ‘anonymity’ for Jews, “this negation of all particularity and the affirmation of their egalite vis-à-vis all men.”[7] But the majority “insisted on the recognition of a real and singular Jewish being. … The majority of the community based their lives (livelihood, rites, and values) on the Torah, Jewish law, the fundamental text that Sartre had not taken into consideration in his definition of a Jew.”[8] Michael Walzer accuses Sartre of a “willful and programmatic” ignorance of Judaism, adding that the philosopher “did not stop to read about Jewish history or religion, and the only Jews that he knew were highly assimilated. … He wrote what he thought, describing a world that he knew only in part.”[9] Enzo Traverso argues that Sartre demonstrates a “near-total ignorance of the history, culture, and philosophy of the Jews,” and points out that Hannah Arendt once scoffed that Sartre’s “myth” of Jewish identity was merely a glib fashion of French existentialist circles.[10]

In essence, Sartre fell victim to the suspicion that Jews inevitably feel for all philo-Semites, whether they are religiously or politically motivated. This suspicion is best illustrated in the argument of the Jewish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman that philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism share the same root and bring about largely the same effect by identifying the Jew as ‘Other.’ Bauman even coined the term ‘allosemitism’ as a replacement for both since it “does not unambiguously determine either hatred or love for Jews, but contains the seed of both, and assures that whichever of the two appears, is intense and extreme.”[11] It should be considered an axiom that Jews overwhelmingly prefer socio-cultural ethnic anonymity in all areas of social discourse except those open to claims of exceptional victimhood or exceptional accomplishment. As such, even those non-Jews who posture as arch defenders of Jews will inherently run the risk of suspicion since they have, first of all, noticed that Jews are Jews, marking them out as special or outside the norm. Predictably then, Sartre was not warmly embraced by what he simplistically perceived to be his ‘brothers in marginalization’ (Jews had their own sense of brotherhood and Sartre could never truly be part of it). Instead he was rather awkwardly welcomed for his usefulness and castigated for his more zealous assumptions. The Jewish leftist Wladimir “Rabi” Rabinovitch (1906–81) was particularly scathing of Sartre’s excesses in denying the basis of Jewish identity, opining that Anti-Semite and Jew reduced Jews to mere “objects of Sartre’s generosity.”[12] He also took issue with Sartre’s claim that Jews were little more than a “heterogeneous minority among other peoples”—that Jews were everywhere a scattering of individuals and not a collectivity. Rabi, countering, insisted that Jews are “a people with a common history, a common religion, and a common claim to a special mission.”[13] Others argued that despite his fixation on ‘authenticity,’ Sartre himself had denied the Jews “the very basis for authenticity, namely the history of the Jewish people and their traditions.”[14]

Many of these criticisms are of course perfectly valid. Sartre had by his own admission performed no research on Jewish history, culture, religion, or traditions. Had he done so, and thus inevitably encountered patterns of behavior and networks of influence throughout centuries of Jewish settlement in Europe, he may have come to some very different conclusions. And Sartre’s Jewish critics were, and are, correct in asserting that Jews are a clearly defined ethno-religious group with a distinct history, culture, and sense of peoplehood. One of the most serious flaws of Anti-Semite and Jew (and there are several) is therefore that in failing to recognize Jewish identity, Sartre denies that Jewish agency and Jewish interests play any role in the development of anti-Semitism. Indeed, he states plainly that “it is not the Jewish character that provokes anti-Semitism but, rather, that it is the anti-Semite who creates the Jew.”[15] This flawed thinking would lead to Sartre issuing a number of failed predictions. For example, following his denial of Jewish ethnocentrism, Sartre made predictions that the founding of the State of Israel and ongoing assimilation would lead to the end, or dramatic decline, of the ‘inauthentic’ diaspora existence. Walzer points out that Sartre failed entirely to envisage the ongoing strength of Jewish group identity in the form of “the institutional strength of diaspora Jewish communities, the rise of Jewish Studies in universities throughout the Western world, the revival of religious interest (if not of religious faith), and transnational solidarity that extends across the diaspora as well as binding diaspora Jews to Israel.”[16]

Although it will be discussed and critiqued in more detail in the final section of this essay, it is worth noting here that the denial of Jewish interests is to a large extent built into Marxist theory, at least in its pure economic form (one of the reasons the modern Jewish Left has diluted Marx with Freud, the Frankfurt School being a classic example). Orthodox Marxist interpretations of anti-Semitism have always maintained that it is an exploitable and vile prejudice rather than the result of group conflict. This is of course because Marxists argue that the only genuine conflict is that which occurs between the classes, and that the only genuine interests we possess are class-based. Thus, in strict Marxist interpretations and narratives of anti-Semitism, Jews are necessarily stripped of any sense of agency or interests which may cause direct friction with other populations and, correspondingly, Europeans have been portrayed in Marxist theory as having no genuine or legitimate interest in engaging in hostility against Jews. Anti-Semitism is regarded merely as a side-effect of capitalism; a diversionary tactic of the ruling classes employed in order to release some of the tension of economic failure and maintain the ‘false consciousness’ of the workers. Misrahi summarizes this position as meaning “the Jews were nothing in themselves, though their right to security had to be defended while waiting for the Revolution to suppress anti-Semitism.”[17]

It is perhaps one of the miracles of modern thought that such theories could survive to the present despite well-documented histories replete with demonstrations of the opposite: overwhelming evidence that Jews over the course of thousands of years have very strongly perceived themselves to have specific interests and, moreover, have actively and willingly engaged in exploitative structures as Jews in such a unique historical manner as to essentially comprise a ‘class’ of their own. It should be clear by now that this Marxist theory of anti-Semitism would represent something of a double-edged sword to Jews. The offer of socio-cultural anonymity and blamelessness offered in the strict Marxist analysis would certainly be attractive. But it is also something that, from a Jewish cultural and psychological perspective, would be best kept at arm’s length, and certainly not internalized on a communal level. Jews, for all their vital historical and contemporary associations with the Left, ultimately do not want to give up their interests and specificity in the name of a putative ‘class war.’

At a time when there are ongoing rumblings about “the Left’s problem with anti-Semitism,” it is worth keeping in mind that Jews have also long had a problem with the Left. While fully enamoured with the uses of Leftist ideology, Jews have always felt a deep insecurity about its potential dangers. Nowhere is this more apparent in the modern context than in Leftist attitudes towards Israel. Sartre himself attracted Jewish scorn on precisely this subject when he suggested in 1967 that the creation of Israel represented nothing more than “the establishment of an economy of profit” and the extension of Western imperialism.[18] In 1980 Sartre went even further in suggesting that a post-Revolution world would have no place for a Jewish state, contending that Judaism would be reduced to a kind of “moral option” and “not an institutional reality.”[19] Sartre essentially believed that once the Revolution ended or ‘solved’ anti-Semitism, the existence of an organized Jewish community in any form would be redundant, if not harmful to the Revolution itself. The ‘Jewish people’—to Sartre an imaginary construct—would be permanently dismantled.

As Jews continue to struggle with this more unpredictable and dangerous aspect of radical Left ideology, it isn’t surprising that recent opinion on Sartre’s interpretation of Jewish identity should receive harsh and renewed criticism. Indeed, early suspicions surrounding Sartre’s philo-Semitism have morphed into active quests to discover anti-Semitism in his work. In this area of critique, much attention has been paid to Sartre’s emphasis on Jewish identity as being composed of traits. Sartre’s belief that Jews possessed traits, and those traits he selected as being Jewish, are portrayed as evidence that Sartre was beholden to anti-Semitic tropes. The Brooklyn art critic Harold Rosenberg (1906–1978) accused Sartre of “accepting the anti-Semites’ stereotype of the Jew.”[20] Pierre Birnbaum, perhaps Sartre’s harshest critic from this perspective, argues (with considerable hyperbolic invective) that Anti-Semite and Jew describes Jews “in language belonging to the most extreme anti-Semitic propaganda.”[21] Birnbaum argues that in Sartre’s mind “Jews are always associated with commerce, with the world of business, with money,” and that the Jewish relationship with religion was nothing more than “ceremonial and polite.”[22] The latter is certainly a direct quote from Sartre and is representative of his poor understanding of the power of Jewish tradition and the influence of religion on Jewish ethnocentrism. As a critique of Judaism as lacking in genuine spirituality, it bears close similarly to that advanced by Kant who, in Birnbaum’s formulation, is presumably also guilty of using “language belonging to the most extreme anti-Semitic propaganda.” (Not that such accusations haven’t already been made.) The former assertion attributed to Sartre by Birnbaum is merely a misrepresentation or magnification of Sartre’s (self-evident) assertion that Jews have “a special relationship to money.”[23]

More generally, Birnbaum takes issue with the Sartre’s claim that Jews were forced to flee psychologically from anti-Semitism and, in doing so, developed a specific Jewish personality built on “reflexive behavior, rationalism, denial of the body, lack of tact, universal humanism, a special relationship to money, basic doubling of sensibility, non-metaphysical disquietude.”[24] Perhaps equally problematic for some critics, Sartre also remarked on the social ascent of Jews and their continued psychological existence as Jews: “Thus he moves rapidly and brilliantly up through all social levels, but he remains like a hard kernel in the circles which accept him.”[25] This for Sartre was the quintessential ‘inauthentic Jew,” a figure broadly representative of most Jews throughout history. Again, rather than being the product of extensive socio-historical research, Sartre is likely to have based his conclusions on this Jewish personality, which he presents in thoroughly victimized form, on his own personal encounters among an assimilated Parisian Jewish milieu. The option offered by Sartre of becoming an ‘authentic Jew,’ was no more appealing to critics since it was perceived by some Jews as an ultimatum on Jewish identity—“Jewish authenticity” would require total assimilation or the end of the diaspora.[26]

As stated at the outset of this section, even if one finds fault with the hypocrisy underlying Jewish criticisms of Anti-Semite and Jew when compared with heavy praises for those aspects of the text attacking the anti-Semite, it is undeniable that the majority of these criticisms are valid. Sartre possessed an incredibly weak understanding of Jewish history, culture and religion, and his analysis of the role of the Jew in the origins of anti-Semitism necessarily suffered greatly because of it. If Sartre occasionally fleshes out his largely repetitive argument with shades of accuracy, particularly in relation to some of the traits he ascribes to semi-assimilated or ‘inauthentic’ Jews, then this can be ascribed to the real-life interactions that Sartre experienced in the Parisian Jewish/Leftist milieu. The tension between what Sartre found unappealing in Jews, and the manner in which he psychologically (and later literally) apologized on their behalf is succinctly alluded to by Vincent von Wroblewsky, who found in Sartre’s War Diaries (written four years before Anti-Semite and Jew) “a mixture of unreflected anti-Semitic prejudice and cliches, as well as paternalistic sympathy and irritated disdain.”[27]

Sartre, like all philo-Semites, ultimately struggled with the object of his affections, and they in turn would struggle with him. Ultimately, both were united only in their hatred of the ‘anti-Semite,’ and it is to the critique of this character that we now turn our attention.

[1] Gerassi, Jean-Paul Sartre: Hated Conscience of his Century, Volume 1: Protestant or Protester?, p.3.

[2] Jean-Paul Sartre & Benny Levy, Hope Now: The 1980 Interviews (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996), p.102.

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

[4] Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, p.47.

[5] Ibid, p.48.

[6] Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ p.65.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

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

[10] Traverso, ‘The Blindness of the Intellectuals: Historicizing Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew,’ pp.33-4.

[11] Z. Bauman, “Allosemitism: Premodern, Modern, Postmodern”, in B. Cheyette and L. Marcus (editors), Modernity, Culture, and ‘the Jew’ (Stanford University Press , 1998), p.143.

[12] Sungolowsky, ‘Criticism of Anti-Semite and Jew,’ p.70.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid, p.71.

[15] Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, p.103.

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

[17] Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ p.71.

[18] Ibid, p.68.

[19] Ibid, p.71.

[20] Sungolowsky, ‘Criticism of Anti-Semite and Jew,’ p.70.

[21] Birnbaum, ‘Sorry Afterthoughts on Anti-Semite and Jew,’ p.91.

[22] Ibid, p.95.

[23]Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ p.64.

[24] Ibid, p.65.

[25] Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, p.72.

[26] Misrahi, ‘Sartre and the Jews: A Felicitous Misunderstanding,’ p.66.

[27] V. Von Wroblewsky, ‘The Early Sartre and the Jewish Question,’ Sartre Studies International, Vol.3, No.2 (1997), pp.21-8.

38 replies
  1. Hadrian
    Hadrian says:

    jews and philosemites all share the same traits: dishonesty, hatred, subversiveness, perfidy.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      One can also be a philosemite out of naivety or ignorance. Religious philosemites see Jews still as “God’s Chosen People”, while secular philosemites admire Jews for their intelligence or sympathize with them for their history of persecution. Cosmopolitan intellectuals such as Sartre feel at home among them for their rootlessness.

      It takes some serious study to understand what Jews really are and why they have been hated everywhere they lived. Contrary to superficial prejudice (and Jewish propaganda) the authentic anti-Semite is erudite and intelligent.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      Hadrian, your generalization is conveniently similar to that expressed by Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels, which some people on another TOO thread seem to doubt.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        I would be one of the “some people”. Your generalization of the views expressed by Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels is false. They had no problem with Jews who had assimilated. Jewish author Brian Rigg exposed the falsehood with “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers”, where he noted that there were Jews with a rank as high as Field Marshal and Admiral in the armed forces. Hitler’s personnel physician was allegedly a part Jew, and of Dr. Bloch, he said that if all Jews were like him, there would be no Jewish question. Goering’s “I decide who is a Jew” was NS reality.
        That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have a dim view non assimilated Jews, and the international Jewish bankers in particular.

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          @ Curmudgeon

          The Nazi racial laws did not make exceptions for those who had culturally assimilated, who were often regarded as genetic wolves in sheep’s clothing and therefore possibly more harmful (cf. their views on Heine). Since Nazi ideological view was in fact unrealistic, individual exceptions had to be made.

          The specific curious case of Theodor Morell, reputedly from a part-Jewish family but a Party member, requires a book in itself. This grubby former “expert” on syphilis, a subject that occupies several paragraphs in “Mein Kampf”, administered all sorts of drugs and remedies to Hitler who “swore by him”, but whose competence and real effect on the Fuehrer were an increasing matter of concern to top German physicians and other suspicious members of the inner circles.

  2. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    Sartre was obviously one deluded, mentally confused, liberal/left bird. It’s also clearly plain that he didn’t know didly bop about Jews, and their convoluted Talmudic thought processes either. He was kind of a warped, schizoid, intellectually Judaized, subverter of Western Civilization, in his own errant way.

  3. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Many of your general statements had me mentally nodding, Dr Joyce, this one especially:

    It should be considered an axiom that Jews overwhelmingly prefer socio-cultural ethnic anonymity in all areas of social discourse except those open to claims of exceptional victimhood or exceptional accomplishment. As such, even those non-Jews who posture as arch defenders of Jews will inherently run the risk of suspicion since they have, first of all, noticed that Jews are Jews, marking them out as special or outside the norm.

    Then I remembered something: Jews do boast about ‘the Jewish way of life’ to Gentiles. I have heard many such boasts, like how feast days are observed, the good-husband inclination of Jews, grandparents’ welcoming the newborn with the gift of a bank account, when to say ‘mazzeltoff’, and many more. This cannot be mistaken for anything but an intention to glorify the tribe. That is to call attention to it. And, of course, we hear and read the ‘I’m a proud Jew’ declaration very often. Is it possible that Sartre never came upon this approach of Jew to Gentile? And have you not?

  4. Tom Sunic
    Tom Sunic says:

    The English translation of Sartre’s work “Anti-Semite and Jew” (1948), doesn’t exactly carry the same title of the French original “Réflexions sur la question juive” ( aka “Reflections on the Jewish Question”, 1945). This was Sartre’s hastily written would-be disclaimer, a putative mea-culpa tract, quite in line with the Antifa witch-hunt and purge-ridden cultural climate in France and elsewhere in Europe in 1945-46. These were also years of massive fawning by the Parisian intelligentsia over the eternally suffering and salutary Jew, combined with its mimicry of the pro-communist, pro-Stalinist narrative. (Most of the French left- leaning intelligentsia had historically been anti-Semitic; a large number collaborated with NS Germany in Vichy France, 1940-44).
    Sartre, like hundreds of other literati in post- WWII Europe, had to exercise a great deal of flip-flopping in order to stay alive—and stay in the limelight. Just ten years earlier he had received a scholarship by the Institut français in Berlin, 1933 to 1934, but never bothered to utter a word of disapproval of his early German NS host. Neither was he ever bothered by the NS authorities in German-occupied Paris, 1940-44. Like most of his fellow travelers, writers and artists (A. Camus, P. Picasso etc.), he savored the high life of Parisianism. Later, in late 1944, when the Antifas, aka Western “liberators” took over, he, along with Camus, as a member of “ Le Comité National des écrivains” ( National Writers’ Committee ), specialized in ratting out his former colleagues and rivals, sending quite a few to the Allied-Antifa gallows. BTW. The worst enemies of academics and literati are their own kind—as seen now in present day US academia and the msm. Wait only for the state of emergency –then one can find out soon enough who is who..

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      There is a brief but brilliant critique of this odiferous scribbler, including his ludicrously timed flip-flop-flip over Stalinism, by Paul Johnson in “Intellectuals” (1988/2008). Don’t be put off by the fact that this author is a 90-year old “philosemite” and the book was published by a lifelong Zionist, or that Sartre’s “existentialist” non-fiction is as unintelligible as his play “Huis Clos” (which the Nazi censors passed for performance during the Occupation) is gripping.

      Life can be more complicated than some people imagine, though Robert Brasillach and Drieu La Rochelle had no doubts on that score. Worth noting that Celine is undergoing a sort of revival, though personally I find much of his stuff as unsavory as that of Genet and Huysmans.

      • Michael Wolanski
        Michael Wolanski says:

        ‘Worth noting that Celine is undergoing a sort of revival’

        In France Celine outsells Proust by an order of magnitude and even though his work loses alot in translation (he invented/ used his own type of slang drawn from the destitute patients he had as a doctor) he was hailed as one of the great literary modernists in the thirties in the Anglosphere. He is not so much heard of today because he was apparently quote unquote an ‘antisemite’.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Interesting comments, Mr. Wolanski. Thank you. They jibe with every aspect of my own experience of Céline’s popularity (for lack of a better word) and, not surprisingly, contrast with David Ashton’s.

          Here in the States—at least to the extent that New York City ever had much to do conceptually with the States—the Céline revival came as long ago as the seventies. Greenwich Village bookstores were well stocked with paperbacks of French editions of his works, and mimeo’d copies of laudatory articles from the hipper literary journals were thumbtacked adjacent to the books in the stacks. Undergraduate NYU and Columbia French and Comp Lit majors (at least the boy component of same) were wild about discovering Céline’s stuff, as it afforded them the occasion to talk dirty in a foreign language to the cute pre-feminist coeds they were courting without being written off as crass pursuers of 12-hour relationships.

          Of course, to someone like me, who was then busily consuming and falling in love with stuff by such guys as Giraudoux, Anouilh, Claudel, Ghéon, and Alain-Fournier, Céline held no interest—rather the opposite, in fact. Indeed, the first sympathetic thought for Céline I may ever have had probably came about twenty years ago, when I saw a mention of his name, probably in the Times, accompanied by the epithet “anti-Semitic.”*
          *Oh, my. I suppose this constitutes a frank admission of incipient “virulence” from long ago.

  5. Salam Fouad
    Salam Fouad says:

    What  Jean-Paul Sartre couldn’t understand is that Jews suffered from what is called ‘Minority complex’. Some ethnic and religious minorities can’t accept living as minorities, even if they enjoy full rights. So those minorities live in a state of alienation, hoping someday in the future they will live in a place where they form a majority : either having their own ghetto, or having their own state. This complex applies to Jews as well as muslims minorities living in the west.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      If they want to live in a place where they form a majority or have their own state why emigrate? They already had that. And an immigrant being “uncomfortable” in their new country is hardly a valid reason for the revamping of a society. To address their discomfort in this way is treasonous. Multiculturalism = White genocide

      • Salam Fouad
        Salam Fouad says:

        In the middle ages Jews did not have their own state, so they prefered to live in ghettos. It was the Europeans who forced the Jews to leave their ghettos and integrate in their society. Jews had prob!ems with all the non-Jewish people they lived with. The Jewish problem dates back thousand of years.

    • Michael
      Michael says:

      Even if many Muslims in Europe left Islam, they would still be classified as a minority because they are not Native Europeans and never will be. Just like Jews who have lived in Europe for centuries.

    • GoyGod
      GoyGod says:

      It only makes sense when you look at what their religion says. They see themselves as “missionaries to the gentiles”. Jews are colonizers of Whites.

      Just as Whites colonized the primitive races with the intention of spreading Christianity internationally; Jews colonized Whites by exporting their Christianity to Europe and replacing all the gentiles Gods with their own- a prophecy laid out in their religious texts.

      Jews believe their actions influence the divine. They believe they must destroy the gentiles in order to create a gentile free world, allowing Jews to inherit the world.

      It is pretty simple. Dont go complicating it with made up notions about Jews having a minority complex.

  6. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    By the by, the original title in French was “Reflections on the Jewish Question”. The English version’s title marks a shift in tone.

  7. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    Sartre was preoccupied with denouncing anti-semites who were at the time ‘épurées’ and executed for collaboration to cover his ass. The conditions were not ripe for the total adulation of Jewry that Jews crave. The ‘Holocaust’ cult was not yet worked in all its details.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      He is now criticized for not mentioning the Vichy deportation of Jews, something that really happened.

      • Seraphim
        Seraphim says:

        But now the cult of the ‘Holocaust’ is entrenched. You now must love them ‘with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’.

  8. Tom
    Tom says:

    My father was born in western Europe in the early 1920s. He was neither a philosemite nor an antisemite. He simply recognized that different peoples have different cultural habits when it comes to intermingling. In the America of the 1970s that my father had immigrated to back in the 1950s, he befriended a Jew neighbor and often did painting work for him. And the Jew often allowed my father to freely take some of his unwanted junk after payment had been made for painting services rendered. My father was a Depression-era pack rat who never asked questions if someone wanted to hand free stuff to him. In the Depression era days, one never looked a gift-horse in the mouth. So one day, after completing another painting job for the Jew neighbor, my father asks for a certain payment in currency. The Jew protested a bit however. How could my father demand a certain payment when he (the Jew) had freely given my father so much free stuff in the past, presumably out of the kindness of his heart? Without hesitation, my father responded immediately that the job would cost the Jew such and such an amount, and that he would return all the Jew’s freely-given junk at the same time. And from that moment on, my father’s relation to the Jew turned extremely cool. Moral of the story: discrete peoples with discrete behavioral patterns live happier lives among their own kind. Don’t hate; just separate.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “How could my father demand a certain payment when he (the Jew) had freely given my father so much free stuff in the past, presumably out of the kindness of his heart?”
      You can get an idea of how they think when you go on blogs where they comment eg Breitbart and another place about bias TV I used to go on.

      When I said on the latter that the two times I did business with Orthodox Jews (dressed as such) in Britain, I was cheated on both occasions, ( (1) last 3 weeks over-payment not returned after leaving a rented property (2) arranged rental of a small room in huge property and only at the point of signing after agreeing terms was a service charge added on – 1 room in a property worth millions), the interesting part on these blogs was the reaction of other Jews when you raise such matters to them. I got back the following reaction: (a) A minority acknowledge they are bad representatives of the Jews (b) others actually admired the cheating ways and said ‘that is how to make money’ (c) others just got abusive.

  9. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Interesting Sartre’s collective guilt: “In this situation there is not one of us who is not totally guilty and even criminal; the Jewish blood that the Nazis shed falls on all our heads.” (p.98)


    Matthew 27:24-25
    24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      Neat comparison, Trenchant, and very telling.

      Sound-bites like this: ‘the Jewish blood that the Nazis shed falls on all our heads’ certainly proved to be winners: they are still with us, and far too loud. Was Sartre the progenitor of most of them? (I do not expect to find out, for, having begun just today to read Anti-Semites for the first time, I am already too sickened to go on reading it.)

      Quite a hand at turning a phrase, Sartre might well have been chosen by the Jewish supremos for the job of laying out for Gentiles what is the ‘intellectual’ way to talk about Jews.

      I suggest this because it is difficult to believe that the writer of Being and Nothingness is also the writer of Antisemites. But then in a sense, those works are not the products of the same mind: the one at work on Anti-Semites was the mind of the writer of the pot-boiler:

      It is quite possible, even very likely, that the bakshish he got for Anti-Semites kept him in milk and honey while he concentrated on the one great work of Existentialism — Being and Nothingness, his masterpiece.

  10. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “Meanwhile real Jews, comprising one of the globe’s most ethnocentric groups and one which places premium value on its specificity, history, religion, culture and sense of exclusivity,”
    The arabs also have some of this behaviour, as do the indians and Africans, suggesting that in this respect the Jews have genes that make them like this which they have in common with the arabs. So they are more like arabs genetically than they are to the host countries of the West, in this respect.

    In fact the only people that does not think in an ethocentric way is the West, as their ‘morals’ (wiring) tell them it is wrong. The white West has to choose (a) be ‘immoral’ and discriminate racially (b) be ‘moral’ and get wiped out by races who are very racist/ethoncentric.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ pterodactyl
      The Sephardim were more closely related to Arabs than the Ashkenazim who had a largely Armenid racial basis.

  11. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    Things are rarely as complicated as the Jews like to make them.

    Complication of simple tasks,
    like printing money out of thin air to lend to various entities that cooperate in executing the Jew World Order,
    are what Jews do to confuse the Goyem to the point of exasperation and getting them to give up trying to understand the many acts of depravity carried out by Jews against their targets of usury.

    By the looks of Sartre’s Strabismus Exotropia (one eye looks directly at the object you are viewing, while the other eye is misaligned outward) this is a condition that I would call abnormal among Aryan human beings.
    I could see it as an impediment in playing sports or hunting Jews where depth perception is required.

    Jews usually love to “…befriend..” people with deformities and “…help…” them to achieve equal success outcomes with Aryans.
    More precisely, Jews like to deform Aryans by any means possible (I.e. toxins in food, water, medication and drugs during pregnancy, getting dangerous chemicals passed by food and drug regulatory authorities, etc…) and create the conditions by which the above “…help…” will be a welcomed acts by the victim.
    The recipients are usually grateful to their the unbeknownst Cripplers and are therefor easy to manipulate and will tolerate abuse without objection for fear of being abandoned by their “…helpers…”.

    Nevertheless, even retarded people have personalities.
    One personality aspect exhibited by Jew created Retarded Aryans toward Jewish Helpers,
    after being exposed to prolonged fits of Jewish abuse,
    is the trait of concealed contempt.

    Moreover, its not as if Jews are unaware that this personality trait of concealed contempt lurks under the surface of almost every non-Jew.
    The Talmud even tells the Deformed Jews not to reveal to the Goyem what the Jews are doing to them lest the Goyem lash out in revenge.
    It sounds to me that Sartre is a prime example of the above.

    Donald Trump Jr. is breaking up with his purportedly Jewish wife.
    This is rather predictable as mismatched unions have a tendency to grow apart with time.
    It is quite possible that Ivanka will eventually undergo the same break up with her husband for the same reason.
    From experience, I have seen that most Goyem who
    “…become…” Jews through conversion into the Jewish Racial Syndicate are neither treated like Jews by other Jews and must often endure a lifetime of latent criticism by close relatives of the “…Pure…” Jewish Spouse.

    I suspect that Jews see many of these “bred” Pet Retarded Aryans as childless place holders of nodal career positions, female breeders (Goyem with male children are not sought out) and asset accumulators until such time when they can be replaced with an aspiring “Authentic Deformed Jewish” member of the Syndicate who will streamline the process of Aryan Genocide.

  12. Tono Bungay
    Tono Bungay says:

    Beware of any subject on which you can only express a positive (or a negative) opinion. Today in the USA, nihil nisi bonum is the rule for Jews, blacks and, perhaps to a lesser extent, women. If you say that the Jews are a wonderful people, you are fine. If you say they aren’t, you’re in trouble. Whatever else you might say, this is not a situation that helps anybody figure out what’s true.

  13. Titus
    Titus says:

    Let’s not loose sight of few facts:

    The so called “jewish mission” on earth is no other than destroying and enslaving humanity as it is written in their sacred texts and has been pursued for millenia. The average israelite today knows about his 2800 future slaves and, while some of them will tell you they “wont really be slaves”, “more like gardeners and waiters”, other jews can’t wait for the time they can do onto you all the atrocities they did to the russians in the jewish-communist era, and they do today to the palestinians (shooting playing kids, torturing prisoners, leveling hospitals, and so on), which are genetically so similar to them.

    The jews are the agressors and the ones living out of their place. The original jew is ugly, short, bald, hooked nosed and stupid, a failed branch of humanity that resorts to cheat, lies and deceit to be able to compete in the world. The jews are human parasites and employ many of the same strategies other parasites employ in nature, they produce nothing or very little. The jew doesn’t view the rest of humanity as humans ( the cattle goyim) and you shouldn’t make the mistake of viewing jews as fellow humans.

    The sole purpose of the jew is to be overcomed by the best of humanity, just as organisms mutate and adapt to the threat of a virus or a bacteria so will we evolve to overcome the jew. The same strategies the jew uses to destroy us are also creating resistant elites.

    We don’t need the jews, today we have tools to advance faster, in more humane ways and causing less damage to the enviroment and ourselves. We only need the will to get rid of the jews, that is, to send them to Pissrael and close their borders.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Titus
      The “original [?] jew [lower case, of course] is ugly, short, bald [?], hook nosed and stupid”. Definition? Evidence? Have we referred to Hans Guenther, Fritz Lenz, Eugen Fischer, Otmar von Verschuer, never mind Carleton Coon, John Baker, Raphael Falk, John Glad?

      The Jews are not fellow humans but aggressive parasites, pathogens: a simple self-deception, well expressed by Himmler. We can ignore their work in physics and medical science.

      “The Jew” views humans as “cattle”; a view taken from one sentence in a rabbinical commentary in the Talmud, shared by some religious sects among them: “goyim” means (other) “nations”.

      The “sacred texts” teaching the “average israelite” impatiently to destroy people with atrocities like the atheist Bolsheviks. Sources?

      Anti-communist & anti-Zionist Jews?

      • Titus
        Titus says:

        Don’t you have eyes to see? What other evidence you need, some jewish sources maybe? Maybe i can quote from some jewish authors so we can reach “consensus” like in wikipedia. Go to Pissrael or have a look at the countless videos and photos of the jews you can find on the internet, i will venture to say the jews are the ugliest race on earth (in the broadest sense of the term), both on the outside and the inside. Have a look at the orthodox ashkenazi, the top of the cream jews and the fastest growing group in Pissrael, the “white jews”, they will often look mentally and phisically sick.

        Nice talmudic reasoning there, the jews are indeed human. They dont consider the cattle goyim human, as they have demonstrated through millenia and they demonstrate daily through their behaviour towards palestinians, and you wont convince anyone of the opposite despite all your eforts to split the hair by quoting the “rabbinical commentary in the Talmud”. Since the jews don’t behave towards other peoples as if they were humans why should other peoples consider jews humans at all, shouldn’t they reciprocate? If the rest of humanity treated jews as jews treat the rest of humanity the jews would simply cease to exist, in a bloodshed, overnight, and the jews know this.

        The jew is indeed an aggresive parasite, i must admit this is not an original thought, as it must have appeared on the mind of countless men of all places and all walks of life during all of the ages, this thought also took form on my mind after having contacted and thoughtfully studied the jew.
        All of the most important works of the jews in physics and medical science were achieved within european institutions, often times by half european jews standing in the shoulders of european giants. Let’s not lose sight of how jews now in charge have corrupted the institutions, what mess modern medicine is, which has been turned by the jew into a profit motivated venture that seeks to keep you alive just enough to bleed you dry and modern physics, in which jewish physicians took as good practice to invent a new particle everytime there was a gap in their theory. We shall remember Einstein (the most intelligent man to ever live, or so says the jew), that pacifist during WWI turned warmonger in WWII, who took from everyone but gave credit to noone, and whose famous e=mc^2 had been formulated years before by Olinto De Pretto.
        Often times jews remember us how much they contribute, and they also literally remember us how they could have withhold from humanity all that knowledge and kept it to themselves had they wanted it, but being so magnanimous they shared it. What a base creature the jew is.
        The jew exists primarily to destroy, not to create. We know what we can achieve without the jew, as we can look back as far as Greece and Rome, and even further. Everything was already there, all the bases for modern science and thought, and it was all achieved without the jew. If the jew is needed at all is not for his contributions on “physics and medicine” but for the challenge he represents.

        You seem to make a difference between atheist and religious jews, there is none, they are both jews not because they believe or not in yawhe but because of their blood, they both go to the same synagogue and there they are both told what to vote by their rabbi. And just like countless history records show us, from ancient Greece to modern Russia, to the current state of Pissrael, the will butcher and enslave the goyim wherever they have the upper hand, just as their sacred texts in the Talmud command.

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          Your diatribe is summed up: “The Jew exists primarily to destroy…butcher and enslave the goyim” This is OTT like some other posts on TOO. It is also a total non-starter as a credible argument to persuade normal educated “Gentiles” and a free gift to ADL propaganda.

          Incidentally, I agree that Einstein was overrated. I am also well aware that some modern Jews claimed as great achievers have been disturbers of society, from artistic rubbish to psychoanalytical tripe. However, you are mistaken in dismissing those Jews who have contributed to mathematical, scientific and medical research, which suits their aptitude and tradition, unlike (say) serious philosophy, mechanical engineering, forestry or exploration. See e.g. Richard Lynn, “The Chosen People” (2011).

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        @David Ashton

        Facts :

        1) The Talmud teaches among other immorality a double morality for Jews toward other Jews and Jews toward non-Jews.

        2) The Talmud teaches that only Jews are human, non-Jews are cattle created by God in human form only to better serve Jews.

        3) Jewish mysticism(Qaballah) teaches that Jews have a divine soul (nefesh ha’elokit), while non-Jews have only an animal soul (nefesh habehamit).
        See : The Soul of a Jew and the Soul of a Non-Jew- Hakirah.

        4) This is also the teaching of the influencing Hasidic movement of Chabad.

        5) The behavior of the Israeli judiciary of punishing Jewish crimes toward non-Jews lightly (or not at all), while punishing even light crimes of non-Jews to Jews severely, bears this Jewish double standard out.

        Still wondering why Jews have been hated always and everywhere they lived ?

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          @ Franklin Ryckaert

          You mention the religious sects – to which I also referred.

          You need however to double-check some interpretations that Dilling, Pranaitis and Rosenberg put on various verses; the Talmud contains contradictory opinions. Not all Jews are rabbinical students by a long chalk (no pun intended).

          How many self-identified Jews today actually take the view that all non-Jews are really animals? Some marry out and have their kids – from shtetl khate to the White House, so to speak!

          The reasons for the so-called “longest hatred” in its various historical phases, and in different culture zones, are multiple, and not always identical. The Mishnah & Gemara post-date the Classical era and early Christianity. The emergence of Jews from the medieval ghetto, and then the development of Zionism, and especially the creation of Israel after WW2, created different annoyances to the external non-Jewish world, and different reactions. That many Jews can combine communal arrogance with “victim wailing” has been well observed since the portrait of Shylock, and some Jews admit this in private.

          There is no “wondering” in my case – it is a matter of historical data and sociological analysis, such as Kevin MacDonald has attempted.

          For amiable admissions of Jewish faults, try especially Chaim Bermant, “The Jews” (1978), & Albert Lindemann, “Esau’s Tears” (2010), or go back to Theodor Herzl, “The Jewish State” (2017 eds) & Bernard Lazare, “Antisemitism” (1995 ed).

          The late Rabbi Hugo Gryn once wrote that Jews never felt secure unless they were supreme. This is the paradox of a solution that is the problem, notably in the Middle East today.

Comments are closed.