Is Antisemitism Dead? A Philosophical Consideration


Around six months ago, the influential Oxford Handbooks series published a print and online entry on “The Radical Right and Antisemitism.” The author of the entry is Ruth Wodak, a Jewish academic in Critical Discourse Studies at England’s Lancaster University. I have to confess to having never before heard of this discipline. Unsurprisingly, however, it appears to be a variant of Frankfurt School thought, and, in several respects, continues that philosophical outlook’s obsession with anti-Semitism. Some of Wodak’s most recent publications concern “hate tweets,” and she is especially vexed by popular discourse about “elites” or “traitors,” because she believes, probably with some merit, these are veiled discussions of Jews. Biographical details aside, the reason I found Wodak’s entry for Oxford Handbooks to be interesting and worth sharing here is that it effectively acts as an obituary for antisemitism. Although I don’t agree with much of what Wodak argues, some of the points raised are food for thought, and the products of my own thoughts on the current state of anti-Jewish thought (and its implications for our movement) are presented here.

Wodak opens by considering “the question of whether antisemitism today should be regarded as a genuine structural feature of contemporary society or rather as a relic of an old but now overcome European ideology.” She continues by outlining the scholarly consensus:

Many scholars in the area of right-wing populism believe that antisemitism has practically vanished from the political arena and become a “dead prejudice” (Langenbacher and Schellenberg 2011; Beer 2011; Betz 2013; Botsch et al. 2010; Albrecht 2015; Rensmann 2013; Stögner 2012, 2014) or that anti-Muslim beliefs and Islamophobia have more or less completely replaced it (Bunzl 2007; Fine 2009, 2012; Kotzin 2013; Wodak 2015a, 2016). … The British sociologist Robert Fine critically observes, “Antisemitism is tucked away safely in Europe’s past, overcome by the defeat of fascism and the development of the European Union. . . . Antisemitism is remembered, but only as a residual trauma or a museum piece” (Fine 2009, 463).

Some of these scholars I am unfamiliar with, but Lars Rensmann’s work is well known to me. Rensmann is a particularly sad case. Still under 50 years of age, he’s a classic case of a guilt-ridden German preoccupied with the Jewish experience during World War II. As early as Rensmann’s teenage years, he was obsessively reading the works of the Frankfurt School. When he was 22, he travelled to the United States to meet the last living member of the original Frankfurt gang — the then 91 year old Leo Löwenthal. In his most recent work, a celebration of the Frankfurt School’s work on antisemitism [The Politics of Unreason: The Frankfurt School and the Origins of Antisemitism (2017), Free PDF here], Rensmann recalls the meeting (p. viii) in such a fashion as to evoke the impression he was fully in thrall to the “Jewish guru” phenomenon:

Responding to a letter I had written to him, Leo was so incredibly generous to invite me, the twenty-two-year- old student, to come to visit him, the ninety-one-year- old professor, in Berkeley—where he taught sociology at the University of California since 1956—and to stay at his home. So I did, and we spent days talking about Critical Theory—an experience I will never forget. In my conversations with Leo, for the first time I fully grasped the Frankfurt School’s rich historical and philosophical trajectories and Critical Theory’s potential as a living tradition that can be relevant in the contemporary world. Leo Löwenthal passed away just half a year later, before I could visit him again. But much of my academic work is inspired by him, from my first theoretical musings to my later work on the Frankfurt School, political sociology, the radical right, and authoritarian politics of resentment; and so is this book in particular—in which Leo’s academic research and theorizing play a major role. In this study, Löwenthal’s contribution to the Frankfurt School’s thinking about the “antisemitic question” is attributed the central place in the scholarly canon it thoroughly deserves. For him, as he told me then, the problem of antisemitism remained a pressing concern of our time. The book is, like my first one almost two decades ago, dedicated to the memory of Löwenthal, one of the great intellectuals of the twentieth century.

Rensmann’s 600-page The Politics of Unreason, like Wodak’s entry for Oxford Handbooks, is a kind of intellectual poking through the embers, where, in between a panegyric to his Jewish intellectual fathers, Rensmann declares antisemtism (p.398) “a phenomenon of the past.” Antisemitism is treated, much as Fine suggested it be treated, as a museum piece — a force that was more or less demolished by Löwenthal et al., and has left nothing but occasionally problematic fragments.

The Death of Antisemitism?

The question of antisemitism’s death is necessarily comparative. It implies that aspects of modern antisemitism that were once “alive” are no longer so. These aspects are easily identified. “Political antisemitism,” which probably began in the 1870s, more or less ceased to exist in 1945 in the sense that explicitly anti-Jewish elements vanished from lobby groups, political parties, and public policy throughout the West. Key facets of political antisemitism such as the management and exclusion of Jews in areas of public life (for example, via voting restrictions and educational quotas) are no longer in place in any Western country, and it is currently unthinkable for anyone to even suggest such policies. Another once-lively aspect of modern antisemitism that is now dead is “anti-Semitic discourse.” The historical presence of anti-Jewish thought in Western literature and its broader culture are today distorted and exaggerated by Jewish academics and those eager for grants.

It is undeniable, however, that a mainly negative discourse about Jews was extant in all areas of Western art and culture prior to the 1950s, and this discourse was a powerful force in energizing and disseminating knowledge about Jews. Linked with cultural discourse was popular journalism. Anti-Jewish newspapers, with mainstream or near-mainstream circulation, were once relatively common in the West. Some editors, such as the Frenchman Édouard Drumont, even rose to public (and electoral) prominence. Again, it is quite unthinkable for something of this nature to happen today.

Perhaps more important than the vanishing of any of these aspects, is the relative disappearance of knowledge of Jews among the Western masses. Indeed, there has been the almost total transformation in what the mass of the public “knows” about Jews. The transformation has been a dramatic shift from objective to subjective knowledge. For example, ask a random member of the public today what they know about Jews, and they would very likely respond by regurgitating a series of banal, media-derived tropes: Jews are good actors/directors/comedians; Jews are harmless and very smart/talented; Jews are a historically downtrodden and victimised group. This is essentially “junk” knowledge; entirely subjective, and more or less useless to forming a meaningful opinion on matters involving Jews — or worse, this “knowledge” is actually obstructive to forming a meaningful opinion on matters involving Jews. The contemporary situation contrasts sharply with the knowledge earlier generations possessed about Jews (derived from politics, journalism, and anti-Semitic discourse), and with the knowledge possessed by those today classed as anti-Semites. This knowledge includes objective facts: population statistics of Jews and their relative wealth; the prevalence of actual positions of influence occupied by Jews, particularly in the media and in the political process (e.g., the Israel Lobby, donors to political candidates); the contents of Jewish intellectual efforts (from the Talmud to the Frankfurt School and beyond); the prevalence of Jews in White Collar crime; the reality of the Jewish relationship with moneylending/usury; the extent and nature of Jewish involvement in the pornography industry; and the manner in which Jews view non-Jews.

An intellectual gulf lies between these two forms and levels of knowledge, and the latter is overwhelmingly stifled by the former. Equally important is the fact that, even when the masses are “educated” on ostensibly objective themes, their educators are likely to be Jewish academics, Jewish authors, or Jewish presenters of Jewish-produced television documentaries. Any account or interpretation of the history of Jewish-European interactions rooted in the perspective or interests of their ancestors is almost non-existent. Thus, in the absence of meaningful contemporary knowledge, Jews have an effective monopoly on historical or historiographical perceptions of their group — something unprecedented for any minority group in world history.

This brings us to the reasons for the “death of antisemitism,” or at least those aspects outlined above. Lars Rensmann is probably correct when he writes (p.2) that the Frankfurt School

has had a significant and lasting impact on the social sciences and humanities. It has influenced and partly shaped various fields and subfields, from modern philosophy, social and political research, social psychology, cultural studies, to critical legal studies, international relations, and global political theory.

Rensmann is correct, not in the sense that the Frankfurt School was successful in “debunking” antisemitism as a symptom of an authoritarian syndrome, or as a structural problem of modernity, but in the sense that this clique of Jewish intellectuals was very successful in creating a set of ideas that penetrated all areas of socio-political life, and especially those channels via which a culture converses with itself about itself. These ideas helped to break down Western nations, or at least make them more malleable to Jewish interests. A key part of this effort was the pathologization of ethnic interests among Whites, a move that certainly made increasing censorship of the expression of such interests more palatable and acceptable to the mainstream. In tandem with “Holocaust education,” which was strongly advocated by the Frankfurt School as a kind of prophylactic against what they termed “secondary antisemitism,” the portrayal of anti-Jewish attitudes as quasi-criminal and somehow associated with mental illness undoubtedly had a devastating effect on political, cultural, and journalistic modes of anti-Jewish expression.

Jews have also developed increased capacities for censorship. Censorship has taken both overt and covert forms. Covert forms included gaining decisive influence over key industries, or branches of industries, and setting their agenda. Hollywood and major news outlets are excellent examples of soft, covert censorship, where the public is delivered copious amounts of information with key omissions. The softer side of overt censorship comes in the form of organized boycotts, the deprivation of advertising, and the lobbying of opposition. Hard overt censorship includes the firing and de-platforming of dissenters on social media and, at the extreme end, the criminalization of dissent via “Holocaust denial” and “hate speech” legislation.

Crucially, after effectively killing the “Jewish Question” as a discourse within Western culture, the same intellectuals planted new and, for Whites, self-recriminating ideas in its place. The process was very simple. The starting point of Frankfurt School thought was to deny the existence of a “Jewish Question,” and to posit instead the “antisemitic question.” This was a deft rhetorical manoeuvre that acknowledged the reality of a malfunction in the relationship between Jews and host populations but shifted the role of antagonist away from the Jews. In this scheme of thought, Jews were repeatedly targeted because of neuroses in the societies around them. Identifying Western civilisation as especially pathological, the “antisemitic question” slowly morphed into the “Western civilisation problem.” From there, it was a short distance to assuming there was something wrong about how Westerners (Whites) viewed themselves in relation to the world. Critical theory thus arrived at the “Whiteness problem.” Ironically, or perhaps cynically, for all their dismissals of antisemitism as a crude and pathological “world explanation” for one’s individual problems, the Frankfurt School (particularly in Dialectic of Enlightenment and their works on the “authoritarian personality/syndrome”) laid the groundwork for a new Question — the “Whiteness Question.” Indeed, Whiteness, more or less interchangeable for Western culture in the eyes of Jewish intellectuals and their academic co-conspirators, can today be held responsible for an array of putative social ills (e.g. sexism, racism, colonialism, toxic masculinity, poor health, crime, the excesses of capitalism, social alienation, poverty, war) that far exceeds any charges laid at the feet of the Jews by people now deemed “paranoids,” “failures,” and “obsessives.”

What Remains?

As a consequence of the developments described above, antisemitism is undeniably a marginal element of thought and activism on what is regarded as the Right. There simply isn’t enough room here to go into a discussion of how genuinely “Right” the contemporary “Right” is, but it can probably be agreed that contemporary political conservatism (exemplified by the GOP in the U.S. and by the Conservative party in the U.K.) and most so-called “populist” groups or parties (AfD, UKIP, Dutch Party for Freedom, etc.) are to the right of those groups self-identifying with the political Left. It’s a fact that antisemitism has almost totally vanished from the platforms of every one of these groups, and in many cases these groups profess gushing admiration of both Jews and Israel based on the kinds of “subjective knowledge tropes” discussed above. For many of these organizations, Jews are viewed as a model minority, especially when compared with Muslim immigrants.

Wodak cites the work of Damir Skenderovic who argues in The Radical Right in Switzerland: Continuity and Change, 1945–2000 (2009):

after the Second World War, overt statements of modern antisemitism, making use of blunt categorisations, have largely vanished from the public sphere and have become confined to marginal extreme right groups..

Wodak continues: “Skenderovic … implies that a coherent antisemitic ideology has vanished.” It has been argued by most scholars, including Wodak and Rensmann, as well as organizations like the ADL, that a kind of fossil antisemitism [Skenderovic terms it “post-Holocaust” or “post-fascist” antisemitism] has now taken the place of a coherent antisemitic ideology and associated trappings, and they argue the case for a subliminal, tertiary, highly coded form of antisemitism that relies on faint echoes of the old discourse. Thus, in this New Books in Critical Theory podcast Lars Rensmann accuses Donald Trump of employing coded anti-Semitism in his closing campaign ad, in which George Soros, Federal Reserve head Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, all of whom are Jewish, appear onscreen as Trump discusses his ambitions to challenge “levers of power in Washington” and “global special interests.” Similarly, Wodak spends a great deal of time analyzing the contents of statements from Jobbik politicians in Hungary, including this one:

If, after the fifty years of your communism, there had remained in us even a speck of the ancient Hungarian prowess, then after the so-called change of regime your kind would not have unpacked your legendary suitcases, which were supposedly on standby. No. You would have left promptly with your suitcases! You would have voluntarily moved out of your stolen . . . villas, and . . . you would not have been able to put your grubby hands on the Hungarian people’s property, our factories, our industrial plants, our hospitals. . . . We shall take back our homeland from those who have taken it hostage! (“A Magukfajták ideje lejárt: Morvai Krisztina reagál az Élet és Irodalom cikkére in Barikad,Alfahír, November 12, 2008)

It could be reasonably argued that these are indeed subliminal messages that appeal, intentionally or otherwise, to half-forgotten discourses.

Two qualifications are, however, required. The first is that Jews unquestionably occupy elite positions within the social-political-cultural status quo and use these positions mainly to advocate for leftist social policies including mass immigration. Conservative, anti-establishment, and anti-immigration parties will necessarily and eventually come into conflict with Jews simply by identifying some of their opponents. In other words, a political party can (in theory) portray Jewish individuals, or a number of Jewish individuals, as opponents in propaganda without possessing a sophisticated level of objective knowledge about Jews, or a systematic and coherent antisemitic ideology. A good example is George Soros, the target of a very public campaign by the Hungarian government to abolish the influence of foreign-funded NGOs. The second qualification is that, even if antisemitic messages were in fact intentionally and subliminally present, they are almost certainly too subtle and can no longer resonate usefully with a corresponding broader discourse in society. In this sense, even if these are “dog whistles,” it’s the social/propaganda equivalent of using a dog whistle in an area 99.9% occupied by cats. The message simply isn’t going to be received.

Not Dead Yet.

Kevin MacDonald has noted, “the remarkable thing about anti-Semitism is that there is an overwhelming similarity in the complaints made about Jews in different places and over very long periods of historical time.”[1] At the core of these complaints are conflicts of interests between Jews and surrounding populations. That being said, attitudes and discourses concerning Jews have occasionally shed outer ideological skins and adopted more novel and sophisticated forms. These changes occurred mainly due to, first, the decline of religion, and second, the rise of science. The biggest change in outward forms of anti-Jewish attitudes, occurring between the 18th and 19th centuries, thus concerned the shift away from religious explanations of Jewish behavior, and towards racial/biological/ethnic/cultural explanations. The changes necessarily entailed the development of new forms of knowledge about Jews, and new discourses.

This is important, because I believe we are in a position where the onus is on us to develop and further a discourse in which our objective knowledge concerning Jews is once again brought to bear on the mainstream and thus create an atmosphere in which “dog whistles,” when they genuinely occur, resonate more deeply and successfully. It is a call to “revival.” There is no doubt that our demographic and political context has changed sufficiently for us to abandon older forms. By this I refer to the relative contemporary (un)usefulness of attempting to teach members of the general public about the Rothschilds, Jewish diamond monopolies in the nineteenth century, or even the origins of Bolshevism. These are areas of history that are vitally important to research and build a body of work on (even if only for ourselves — and I myself have contributed to this form of knowledge), but I have my doubts about their effectiveness of creating a vital and growing contemporary discourse about Jews.

Whether we are conscious of it or not, our attitudes towards Jews are already significantly different from those termed “anti-Semites” in the past; these changes in attitude are probably occurring “naturally.” To begin with, our attitudes are infused with new concerns and elements. Jewish activism in breaking down immigration control, promoting mass immigration, building and implementing so-called hate speech legislation, and the White guilt industry are just some of the major concerns we are now confronted with that simply weren’t present in earlier eras. Economic matters, a mainstay of anti-Jewish critique for centuries, are now more or less subsumed within other areas of focus simply because of the great diffusion of economic responsibility in the postmodern era. My series of essays on contemporary Jewish moneylending was, in many respects, a detective work in which I was forced to follow the chain of endless companies operating under endless names in order to find who actually owned and operated the world’s exploitative payday loan businesses. This is a radical change from being able to point to a Rothschild or an Oppenheimer, or from a local Jewish credit merchant in rural Russia or 1910s’ Chicago.

Rather than being “dead,” I believe antisemitism is seeing these new elements cohere into a new discourse orbiting an Identitarian form of anti-Jewish critique that is based on a sophisticated level of objective knowledge about Jews, underpinned by a coherent anti-Jewish ideology. I believe we already have what we need in terms of foundational texts, most obviously in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique series, as well as some of my own essays, and those of other great contributors at this crucially important website, like Brenton Sanderson and Edmund Connelly. One of the great weaknesses of “scholarship” produced by those like Wodak and Rensmann is that they have failed to see this development and take into account how influential it has been on the formation of new political movements like the Alt-Right and, via meme culture, among the young. The task remains, of course, to further the discourse in the face of overwhelming Jewish censorship. This is no easy task, but we might benefit from seeing “the obstacle as they way” — by further drawing out our opponents and then incorporating Jewish censorship itself into the discourse.

Regardless of form, I get the distinct impression we should turn the volume up and let them know that rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated.


[1] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, (First Paperpack Edition, 2004), 38.

37 replies
      • Earl Oill
        Earl Oill says:

        “Our people.” Are we reduced to the level of the Algonquins or something? White people are still a majority in the West, and we might get somewhere if we didn’t frame our disputes as between whites and the totality of nonwhites. That plays into their “Rainbow Coalition” strategy — “let’s all gang up on the white bigot.”

        Reply
  1. coinherence
    coinherence says:

    Another way to approach the issues to which Mr Lowden refers is to simply acknowledge that “the Jews” have an overwhelmingly more powerful and pervasive influence on the contemporary West than at any time in the past.

    Reply
  2. m
    m says:

    Antisemitism is not a goyim problem. It is a Jewish problem. And it will always exist as long as Jews behave like Jews. Nowhere within the mainstream “respectable” debate does anyone ever ask the question, “What have Jews done to make people so dislike them?” Likewise, you will never hear the true answer to that question, at least via mainstream channels, because of Jewish media control.

    Whether men of European descent will be capable of counteracting this pernicious propaganda is a big question. But there are always larger forces at work, and rectification can be expected. It could even come in unexpected ways.

    If countervalence does not arise from a European soul, if Europeans are too weak to survive, then another race will provide the means. The black race can be discounted; blacks are too disorganized, and have never demonstrated an ability (i.e., they are incapable) of either creating or sustaining order. In fact, their mode is typically that of physical destruction.

    The yellow races (Chinese and Japanese) are different. They cannot succumb to the antisemitism slander because of their history: first, being more or less geographically and linguistically self-isolated; secondly, by not participating in the strictly European portion of the WWII slaughter (along with the subsequent Jewish creation of a Holocaust legend). For their part, Japanese suffered their own mass destruction via American A-Bombs, and Chinese fought outside of Europe.

    Even so, once Chinese (and Japanese, if they throw off the American yoke) begin to deal closely with Jews, it is expected that they will become antisemitic in the natural way that Europeans used to be, and ought to be now. How will Jews react? Unfortunately for them, they are at a disadvantage among the yellow races, for many reasons:

    1) Jews are not able to disguise themselves among East Asians.

    2) Chinese (and Japanese) are at least as tribal as Jews, and like Jews, they have their own business-intelligence networks.

    3) Chinese are as materialistic as Jews, but at the same time have a deep spiritual metaphysical ground that Jews don’t (in spite of all that Old Testament stuff, Jews remain mostly materialists). Indeed, Jews are barren spiritually. Not so for Chinese.

    4) Politically, Chinese abandoned Jewish Bolshevism, replacing it with Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. In fine, they have essentially reverted back to their traditional, pre-communist “yin-yang” contract dealings–dealings hearkening back to triads and syndicates.

    5) Finally, and most importantly, Chinese and Japanese have demonstrated an ability to create and sustain an indigenous high culture, something Jews cannot do. Jews, for their part, survive within a host culture, eventually destroying any remaining semblance of their host’s high culture.

    Therefore, if Europeans do not rise up to the “antisemitic” task, others will. I am not ready to write off any possibilities. Today we witness the beginnings of an antisemitic reaction in Russia, Hungary, Poland and Italy. Against them, the US and Britain will not be much help in recovering European normalcy. Both British and US policy are under Judaic control. At the same time, Britain is rapidly collapsing, socially. The US has not degenerated quite as far, and I think that perhaps there is a slim possibility it could recover.

    It certainly appears that the Anglo-American-Jewish empire is falling apart both internally and externally. How long this situation can continue to devolve is anyone’s guess. How will it be for antisemitism? Soon Jews and their running dogs will have to play their hand. Not sure they hold all the good cards, like they used to. The bluff may be called.

    Reply
    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      The Chinese have the moniker “The Jews of Asia” which they appear to be proud of…https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4924549,00.html
      Asians appear to have the same distaste for Chinese as many Westerners have for Jews…https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/10/07/commentary/world-commentary/chinese-tourists-badly-behaved/#.W5qVT-hKiUk
      Like Jews, and unlike Europeans, Chinese are not creative…https://youtu.be/tO6A7G1TwOI
      Also like Jews, they are distrustful of the citizenry…https://youtu.be/_yKga54tx6U
      The Chinese and the Jews do not believe in freedom…https://youtu.be/lneoqhgcvuU
      Only Western men can save the West.

      Reply
      • m
        m says:

        “Like Jews, and unlike Europeans, Chinese are not creative…”

        Do not conflate technology with creativity, in its broader and higher sense. The ability to create and sustain an indigenous high culture is different (and more valuable) than the ability to simply create useful and clever artifacts. The former is spiritual, the latter material. Also, both traditional Chinese and Japanese culture are based upon stability. Technological “progress” is most often disruptive to both social harmony and stability. For a suitable Western oriented analysis of this, one can look to Spengler for important insights.

        “The Chinese and the Jews do not believe in freedom…”

        You must define “freedom.” If you are talking about a modernist, Enlightenment based idea, that is true. However, a traditional spiritual-oriented notion of freedom manifests in ‘freedom from’ the passions. That is, freedom of the mind. If one is under the control of passions, how is one free (regardless of how much political democracy one has)? The Jewish notion of freedom, at least as I can figure it, is a ‘freedom to engage in passions, and then to profit off of it’. The former, freedom from one’s passions, is highlighted within certain strains of Greek philosophy, the Christian view represented by Augustine, and in the Aryan-Buddhist ascesis, the latter discussed by Italian philosopher Julius Evola. Freedom from is, by the way, much more difficult to attain than freedom to.

        “Only Western men can save the West.”

        Does anyone disagree? When I mentioned the possible rise of an Eastern countervailing power to Jewish dominance, I was not thinking that its purpose would be to “save” the West. How silly would that be? My purpose was simply to highlight, within a larger historical logic, one possible method of displacing Western Jewish-oriented influence.

        Reply
      • Earl Oill
        Earl Oill says:

        The late George Kennan is reputed to have said that the Asians lack a sense of pity. Interestingly, Nietzsche criticized Christianity for its promotion of pity. I’m a Christian and I would like to see us recover our Christian civilization, minus the bit about burning heretics (how on earth did they square that with Jesus’ teachings?)
        For what it’s worth I think keeping the internet open and merely keeping anonymous speech viable might be sufficient, though reducing the role of money in politics would also help. But it would be nice if someday we didn’t have to hide behind anonymity.

        Reply
    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      The Japan Times piece I referred to above, written by David Volodzko who I suspect is Jewish, overrides the Asian dislike of the Chinese with “Chinese residents enrich and enliven not only ciities but the societies in which they live.” This statement is reminiscent of Marshall McCluhans’ in Canada Needs More Jews, where he claimed that “the importation of two million Jews might liven the place up.”

      Reply
      • m
        m says:

        “This statement is reminiscent of Marshall McLuhan…”

        I think McLuhan said that as a half-joke. I guess he didn’t believe Jesuits could provide the needed stimulus necessary in order to inject Canada with some life. At the same time, he is reported in a biography to have recognized certain typical undesirable aspects of Jewish personality/behavior.

        There was in McLuhan’s thinking an ambiguity, a seeming contradiction. He categorically stated how he was not in favor of social innovation, but rather would he prefer stability. Yet social stability was not in his time’s historical cards, so to speak.

        An interesting man, raised in a Protestant family, influenced by GK Chesterton, and finally a Catholic convert. He became intellectually aligned with Jesuit priest Walter Ong (re: the latter’s works on the development of oral v written language), and also the Canadian economic historian, Harold Innes (a Protestant).

        In a larger sense McLuhan became their popularizer, unfortunately lapsing into self-parody within the very pop media he claimed to both champion and despise. I don’t think he was happy how that ended for him, as an advertising prop, even as he appeared in neurotic (and, as we later found out, sexual pervert) Woody Allen’s film.

        A year or so before he died I had a chance to meet him. He appeared ill, possibly medicated. Maybe it was exhaustion and the effects of age. He was soon to have a stroke. I don’t know that he ever thought of Jews in the way it is discussed here. His analysis of culture was not racial, but rather based upon the way men communicate (oral, print, electric, etc).

        Reply
        • rerevisionist
          rerevisionist says:

          McLuhan was heavily influenced by Toynbee, for what that’s worth.
          .
          The last hundred years or so has seen a number of world histories. I think it’s fair to say none has treated Jews as anything other than another group with a few peculiarities. The idea that Jews have evolved with instincts and emotions which are parasitic seems to be new, related to such things as more detailed research into the natural world and genetics and parasitisms, and discoveries about the biochemistry of perceptions and reactions to them, which needed biochemistry to begin to understand. I suspect this sort of thing will be part of the decline and fall of ‘Jews’, and that they are aware of it.

          Reply
  3. Anthony Clifton
    Anthony Clifton says:

    What percent of modern day so-called “Jews” are actually “Semitic”..?

    how may non-Jews are there on Earth ?

    https://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2018/09/woke-goyims-what-is-this-epidemic-of.html

    how do “Jewish” lies make the truth go away…?

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-moves-to-force-white-house-to-fill-vacant-anti-semitism-envoy-post/

    Six million “JEWS” in the ovens…and not one Hebrew…sad.

    Jesus told the truth @ John 8:44…and at that time there were no
    “JEWS” since the word did not exist…{{{THEY}}} were the
    Mass Murder for filthy lucre ….truth and justice hating
    “TERRORISTS”…just getting started

    Reply
  4. Right man for the job
    Right man for the job says:

    The ever evolving history of “anti-Semitism”:] according to Jew historians:

    1700s: Christ killers
    1800s: Business cheats and defrauders
    1900s: Telling lies about Jews
    2000s: Telling the truth about Jews

    Reply
  5. Chip Harrington
    Chip Harrington says:

    I have talked to people about the JQ. There is a real taboo there-a real mental block. One of the things that I think will change is that with the third world coming into the west (unfortunately but useful in this respect) is that common or garden anti-semitism (I hate that word it implies a passive semitism that is acted upon- if Jews are anything it is a people with agency) will increase again to the levels found in traditional western society. Jews will try to buffer this by playing blacks and browns against Whites but ultimately the freedom granted by common social opinion just to recognise Jews as alien will be vital to our cause. I spoke with someone close to me about Jews and that person was horrified. A few weeks later this person was remarking about the security around Jewish schools and other institutions being a sign of bad faith (sort of like what did they have to hide). This is the power of common social speech to lift (even only slightly) deeply ingrained mental taboos.

    One thing that I have come to realise that any non-jew who is 100% pro -jewish (I don’t just mean the soppy cliches I mean people who actually try and defend Jews) are generally either crypto Jews or mischlings with the latter being far more common. Real Jewish assimilation is rare. What effect in total these people will have on discourse in the long run I do not know but I know their effect now is chilling. I would not be comfortable making remarks critical of Jews unless I knew 100% that everybody in the room was not one of these people and it is extremely difficult.

    Reply
  6. JR
    JR says:

    Curious where the author’s works appears? He mentions his work on Jewish money lending, but a web search didn’t turn up anything even though there are links to others. Maybe his work is all on the OCQ and I should get a subscription. Do you have any pointers/links to his work — or is he protecting his identity and he publishes as an academic? He only has one other article at TOO.

    Reply
    • JM
      JM says:

      @Luke J
      This is the real story not reported by the BBC:
      “After two years of research, the head of the German task force, Ingeborg Berggreen-Merkel, presented the final report on Thursday.

      She said that only five pieces had been confirmed as stolen Nazi art, although 499 were determined to have a questionable history.

      Of the five, four were returned to heirs of their owners, including Max Liebermann’s Two Riders on a Beach and Henri Matisse’s Seated Woman.

      The three additional works proved to be looted were by German artists Carl Spitzweg and Adolph Menzel, and Impressionist master Camille Pissarro.

      The announcement drew sharp criticism from Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress. He issued a statement on Thursday calling the results ‘meager and not satisfactory’.”
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3399931/Five-works-Gurlitt-art-trove-looted-Nazis-task-force-finds.html

      Reply
    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Why should anyone of good intentions want to comment, other than to heap praise on Mr. Dalton. He cut through the bulldada presenting a concise and honest definition of ‘nazism’. It’s heartbreaking that the indoctrinated majority may never know this truth.

      Reply
      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        A lot of commenting here does only heap praise and then perhaps add information or links to videos, etc. So the reason cannot be that the subject is so fully handled by Dalton that nothing more can be said.

        I would like to agree with you that TD is as clear as a bell, which is why he is one of my very favorite writers and I was glad to see this piece by him published here. I wanted to say that, and when I found I couldn’t, it felt like censorship. Since I am allowed to say it in this space, it isn’t censorship … but … I think it is a mistake to avoid a confrontation with terms like Nazi, racist, xenophobe, and whether they signify something bad or not. This is the weakness the alt-right is showing, imo. It contributes to “the indoctrinated majority not knowing the truth.”

        Reply
        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Carolyn, some objections to this article, in lieu of the absent comment section, which I hope are not premature, not having read the book.

          01 Germany itself did not exist prior to Bismarck’s war on the French in 1871. Therefore, Hitler’s understanding of nationalism, included the whole German nation UNITED, which had previously looked at itself in a particularist way.

          Recall his uniformed soldiers, shoulder to shoulder, proudly announcing on film, that they are from Prussia, Bavaria, etc., etc., with the clear intent that that all lies in the past: that henceforth there is only one Germany. An accentuation not required by other nationalisms.

          02 Dalton’s description of Hitler’s military adventures is disingenuous. Whereas Lebensraum initially was part of the ideology, it was completely superseded by the utter necessity of Barbarossa, as amply documented since then.

          03 ” Strength through Joy “, might have deserved mention, with its subsidized luxury liner cruises: as might GB’s underhanded method in preventing them from docking in London, since its own exploited public appears to have shown a too great interest in this NS operation benefitting the commoner.

          04 And what of making property owners of the impecunious, with preferential mortgage rates and subsidies for the newly weds ? The entire new districts of new housing, with each house having its own green backyard.

          [ My own aunt lived in such a 30s house, where I loved to visit from Canada, after she moved there from Berlin-Mitte { Center} Grosse Hamburgerstrasse, a block from Berlin’s largest extant synagogue serving the Jews of Mitte: unharmed by Kristallnacht, but subsequently fire-bombed by Allied air raids, and since reconstructed and re-consecrated.

          One afternoon her Communist East Berlin street suddenly had more US cars than Gopher Junction, Iowa. All US government, black cars with State Department plates, and those of a multitude of press people, accompanying Billy Graham, who was speaking in a sizeable church down her street.

          After I returned from gawking, she told me, that she walked daily past this church on her way to work in a munitions factory near Alexander Platz, but, that then it was a Jewish home for the aged, with the usual traffic.

          Well into the War, on the following morning all traffic had stopped, it had been hermetically sealed. Two days later the occupants threw addressed and stamped letters out of their windows, with the plea to please post them. At some risk to herself, she did so: repeatedly: at least until they were all gone. I don’t know whether Graham knew the history of the place he was preaching in.

          We justifiably complain bitterly about their incessant lies, extortions and exaggerations and the specter of their innumerable Spectres.
          But I wonder whether, AT LEAST IN PART, emulating their methodology will ultimately save us, or indeed make us worthy of saving. ]

          05 What of the Third Reich being the first nation to establish a Cancer Research Institute in Berlin ?

          Reply
          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Charles,
            Thank you. As far as I can see, the Dalton article was not based on his or any book, only on two questions: 1) What exactly is a ‘Nazi’? and 2) Why are they ‘bad’? … as perceived in today’s social/political milieu. This is what he addressed in the article, and his conclusion was summed up in these words: “In the end, National Socialism, or Nazism, was really only bad for one small group of people: the Jews.”

            It is not meant to be a general apologia for Hitler’s National Socialist state, which has been done many times without making a dent in the current social-political verdict which is entirely negative. And why? Because National Socialism was openly antisemitic, which Jews interpret as anti-humanity. Jews are more influential than anyone else.

            Your 2nd point refers to one sentence at the end of the essay, “Had he not over-reached in his military aims, Germany might well have gone on to become a true leading light in the world.” The ‘over-reaching’ can be debated but it’s not what the article is about. In it, Dalton sticks with defining Nazi (NAtional SoZIialist) before all the lies dreamed up because of the war. I agree with you that Hitler had little choice because it was the Allies who wanted, provoked and forced war. But Hitler was not a pacifist, as everyone pretends they are today. The only reason we’re against war is because all our wars are fought for Israel’s interests, not our own. If we fought for our own interests, it would be seen very differently.

            Since you put forth the idea of ’emulating the Jews methodology’ we could start by supporting Adolf Hitler unconditionally the way Jews support Begin, Shamir, Sharon and all those other fake-named Polish-Russian terrorist Jews who carved out Israel. That doesn’t mean wearing uniforms or forming clubs. It simply means saying so, not running away.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            @ Carolyn.

            01 Lebensraum necessarily took a back seat to save not only Germany, but all of Europe. In THE CHIEF CULPRIT, the overqualified Suvorov convincingly argues, that Stalin was coming for Germany on May 15, as corroborated by released documented speeches to his Military Academies, internal memos and published memoirs.

            The Wehrmacht’s intelligence service, Gen.Gehlen’s Foreign Armies East, took note of their offensive-styled deployment close to their common border, including thousands of paratroopers, unsuitable for defense.

            But Hess flew to GB, motivating Stalin to await that outcome, fearing a Western alliance, and he postponed his planned attack to the middle of July. Barbarossa commenced on June 22, beating Stalin by a mere three weeks and we have been paying reputationally ever since for this ” dastardly, unprovoked Ueberfall ” , with its strong connotation of bushwhacking.

            ” Overreaching ” – my butt ! High time for Dalton to read Suvorov, the highly placed Military Main Intelligence Administration talent, who defected to GB in 78 [?]

            02 And now, to descend to serious pettiness. I believe, that the pronunciation of Nazi does not come from National and Sozialismus together. The ‘ t ‘ in National is pronounced like the Tz in Tzar [ Czar ], i.e. he is a Natzionalsozialist, or just Nazi. Its intended meaning would come from the context it was used in: negative – neutral – positive.

            03 My “… at least until they were all gone ” was not meant in the way of good riddance, but rather commiseratively. It did happen, irrespective of numbers, method or venue.

            It was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, domiciled in Standard Oil’s old digs in Manhattan, who coined the word and concept of ” useless eaters “. And in food-strapped Europe, the fate of these aged, ‘ useless eaters ‘ need not be speculated.

            What I apparently expressed insufficiently, is that while they use their characteristic underhandedness and vile methodology, we, even in part, should refrain from emulating them, lest we become them.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      There is a working definition to the question “What is a Nazi?” that is more and more being accepted in Alt-Right circles and that is : “A Nazi is someone like Carolyn Yeager.”

      Reply
  7. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    I think the best hope for catalyzing a new and effective anti-semitism is to base the critique of the Jews on a scientific foundation – as Dr. MacDonald has done. Science, in part due to the recession of religious faith, and in part to its explanatory power and its indispensable role in the profusion of technology, enjoys a prestige in society that is nearly unmatched. What it lacks in spiritual appeal could be augmented by a Jew-wise Christianity that would not alienate the traditional and conservative. This could be a way to build a White coalition that encompasses the more secular young with older conservative Christians. As ever, a common enemy is an aid to solidarity.

    Reply
    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      I don’t think there’s much chance of “scientific” anti-Semitism getting mainstream acceptability. If a Jewish difference is ever recognized it will be obligatory to depict it in complimentary terms. The power of Jewish pressure groups largely derives from the Rainbow Coalition strategy by which Jews are able to lump all forms of anti-minority politics together as repulsive, atavistic bigotry. The antidote is to wedge the coalition apart, by showing that the interests and sensibilities of the groups do not always coincide with those of Jews or each other. For example, black net worth has made zero progress while single-parent families and the incarceration rate are up since the sexual revolution. Hispanics are Catholics and might not share the Jewish view on school prayer, abortion, or gay marriage. Asians are underrepresented at Harvard and other top schools while Jews are over-represented. Muslims are unlikely to approve of middle-eastern policy designed to benefit Israel at the expense of Muslim countries. Poor whites are not in love with bailouts of investment bankers or losing jobs to H1B visas or illegal aliens. Even “soccer mom” WASPs are increasingly fed up with Israel kicking around the Palestinians. The Rainbow Coalition strategy gives minorities a degree of freedom to speak on their own behalf, so if some of them end up squabbling with Jews that could weaken the taboo enough that one day we whitebread types could chip in our grievances.
      We also need to do a better job of using the opportunities we’re given. The recent proposed law against “support for” the BDS movement is flagrantly unconstitutional as is the SC law against supporting BDS on campus. Why aren’t we testing these laws, thereby publicizing an unattractive tendency to trample the First Amendment and censor critics of Israel?

      Reply
  8. T. Jones
    T. Jones says:

    The reason that all discussion about the Jewish question is not discussed at all today and is forbidden from being discussed is they totally control the media. Top to bottom, left to right. It has been that way since the end of WW2. They already controlled huge portions of it prior to WW2 but not totally. Now they control it all. TV, newspapers, magazines, advertising and film studios. And they are busily working on the internet.

    I recently got banned for 15 days from a right wing web site for pointing out that the Jews do indeed control the media. There was nothing hateful about it. Here is the graphic:

    https://imgur.com/czwWboB

    The information on the graphic is current. The moderator banned me and I quote “for implying that the Jews do control the media”. Pretending its not true doesn’t change the fact that it is true. But apparently you noticing the truth is forbidden.

    What is driving them insane now is the Internet, as they don’t control it. There are tons of web sites stating the truth. Thats what this “fake” news nonsense is about. They do however control Google, Facebook, Twitter and others. Which is where a lot of people get their news.

    The one thing I can say is even though the Jewish controlled media and academia work overtime on their agenda there is more antisemitism in the general population than people think. People don’t say it because of fear of what might happen to them. But they are thinking it. You would be shocked at how many people are thinking it and sometimes it slips out. I have heard it even from so-called liberals. It never goes away.

    Reply
    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      If you have to hide it then you can’t spread the word or act on it very easily. It’s clear we need to protect the Internet from censorship. We also need to unseat the taboo against any honest discussion of Jewish politics. The only way to unseat a taboo is to break it. But what we say in off-off-Broadway venues has little effect on the larger public. The right has no concept of forming a plan and acting on it, or, indeed, even going past the whining stage. That needs to change.

      Reply
  9. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    “Anti-Semitism” is a pseudo-scientific misnomer, because it is not about hostility towards “Semites” but towards Jews. All Jews are Semites (at least if we don’t accept the Khazar hypothesis), but not all Semites are Jews.

    If “hostility” is the essence of this attitude, then the correct term would be “anti-iudaeism”, from the Latin word iudaeus for “Jew”.

    But I don’t think a term that implies “hostility” is adequate. That would suggest that “hate” towards Jews is wholly irrational and unfounded, which is the usual line of Jewish defense. A better term would be “Judeo-critique”, i.e. criticism of Jews. If one believes in free speech, then criticism of anything, including the mentality and behavior of ethnic and religious groups should be allowed. Thus Judeo-critique should belong to the accepted subjects of public discourse. This would shift the debate from the legality of criticism of Jews to the content of it. As such, criticism of Jews and Judaism should be as much acceptable as the present debate about Muslims and Islam, which ironically is much promoted by Jews themselves.

    If criticism of Jewish mentality and behavior never crosses the line of proposals of incarceration or genocide, then any such criticism should be allowed. Proposals of Jewish repatriation to Israel however should be as much acceptable as proposals of repatriation of Muslims to their countries of origin. Insoluble inter-ethnic conflicts should find territorial solutions.

    So let’s go forward from “Anti-Semitism” to Judeo-critique !

    Reply
    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Franklin, as much as I like Albrecht’s statements, I agree with the Moderator’s admonition, redacting four expressions in one comment, in order ” to keep the Good Ship TOO afloat “.

      I would like to ask the Moderator, whether KM, he and colleagues would consider publishing a sort of Manifesto on this site; along the lines of ” shut it down – the goyim know “; listing our grievances across all spheres, completely, yet briefly and certainly succinctly, but also respectfully in order to attain and maintain credibility among the cognoscenti.

      In other words go on the offensive factually, unwaveringly and mannerly. I have a beautiful, black-haired Holodomor girl in mind, to compare to Anne Frank. Beautiful, deeply sorrowful eyes with the all but spoken out accusation of ‘ why did you do this to me !’ Instead of describing the ample meals of the Frank family, she is emaciated beyond repair. A well-formed head on a scaffold of bones: barely able to stand up for the photo; clinging to a door frame. Yes, there was Himmler, but let’s also ” cope ” [ as they demand of the Germans ] with the Kaganovich brothers and the remainder of the 85% of their 1917-1950s leadership.

      TOO could open a page to permit all interested parties to work on a draft.

      ——-

      (Mod. Note: Charles, this Mod. appreciates that you understand. For the record, I have in the past and even now, approved comments that are possibly “over the line”, largely due to my propensity to “Let Everyone Have Their Say”. It also keeps this place lively! Dr. MacDonald doesn’t “Rule with an Iron Fist” regarding comment policy, but there are limits based on the fact that this journal (and comments) strive to “take the high road” in terms of language use and the overall “flavor” of discourse. The “target audience” of TOO is the well-educated and intelligent among Our People, and that sets the desired tone. With that said, I will FORWARD your comment above to Dr. MacDonald, just in case he doesn’t catch your comment directly. He’s a busy man, and may not read each and every comment. Thanks.)

      Reply
      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Ditto and thanks for your good offices in passing it on, since it’s a weighty policy decision. If approved, such Manifesto [ for the present lack of a better word ] should be widely disseminated, which would certainly elicit severe critique, but also announce our arrival and that we are not going to take a one-sided imposed narrative any longer.

        Neither side is likely to make converts on the holocaust, and I’m not suggesting for a minute, that we should regurgitate that sphere.

        Theology, beyond a certain point, leaves me cold, though I deeply believe; engendered by the fact that my family of five was blessed, on many occasions, to keep a few meters ahead of Ehrenburg, though embedded deeply in his murderous milieu for several months in 45.

        Therefore, please forgive me if I were to be mistaken with my next statement; for lack of consultation with someone like our Pierre.

        I recall many photos of three Rabbis making their visitations on the Vatican, demanding it change its catechism regarding the Jews; [ even assuming that is the correct term ].

        It’s time we openly demand the same: commencing with their immediate post-pagan discriminating, exceedingly racist, denigrating, homicidal, sex with toddlers – founded on self-regenerating hymen, ” Christ boiling in excrement ” garbage about us Christians.

        Typical and certain denial can be destroyed by video of the father of the present Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, [ depicted here very recently ] with his serious, denigrating, CRIMINALLY HATEFUL, also published remarks regarding the sole usefulness of the goyim to the Jews, ” who must be cared for as a Jew would care for his draft donkey, so the goyim can plow and harvest and feed the Jew, who sits there like an effendi and eats !!! ” Aerial photos corroborate, that a reported 500,000 + attended this Halacha-extending, wise man’s funeral.

        According to Haaretz 56% of all Israelis believe, that they are a Chosen People, while 79% of their right believe it: and the vast, polled international majority believes it is the most imminent danger to world peace.

        All argumentation on their side, that these less kind sentiments and dictates of the Talmud have long since been disregarded, should be countered by my favorite CNN clip, showing a dime-store attired Jewish senior female exclaim, right into the camera, while Bernie is led off in handcuffs five feet behind her, ” imagine him STEALING FROM HIS
        O W N PEOPLE ! ” [ I.e. CONTRARY TO THE TALMUD; alive, well and demonstrably adhered to right now ].

        In my opinion, there is no greater expert on the Talmud, than Michael Hoffmann; as demonstrated by his numerous videos. Between KM and him, were he to be agreeable, KM’s repeated disputes with Cofnas, et al, would, by comparison, appear like a sandbox fight over the dinky-toy fire truck.

        You want a real fire-fight ? Try on this suggested, challenging and timely Manifesto for size, duration and world-wide attention; with the potential to maintain our culture.

        [ I’m most interested in any feedback from our commentariat ].

        ——

        (Mod. Note: Charles, Dr. MacDonald appreciated your comment, but also said he’s got his hands too full of other projects to embark on a “manifesto” at TOO. He didn’t ask me to inform you, as a response to your comment, but I thought you’d like to know of his appreciation.)

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.