M. R. James and Saki: Two Literary Greats and their Anti-Semitism

Megalomaniacs dream of ruling the world. Philosophers dream of understanding it — ideally from an armchair. Armchair-understanding is what I’m going to attempt in this article. After all, armchairs are good places for reading. I want to take two short stories by famous English writers and use them to address an important question: Do Jews seek to control gentile societies for their own ends?

Serpents and Waspes

This is also a dangerous question. Any Westerner who answers it in the affirmative will certainly lose his reputation and might lose his income and liberty too. These negative consequences prove the wickedness of the proposition, of course, and not its truth. Or do they? The writers M.R. James (1862–1936) and Saki, born Hector Hugh Munro (1870–1916), might have said otherwise. Each of them was responsible for poisoning the well of English literature with doses of anti-Semitism, which is sometimes called the Longest Hatred.

Painting by Burne-Jones for “The Prioress’s Tale”

It’s called that with good reason: the well had already been poisoned for centuries when those two writers were born. Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1342–1400) is known as the “Father of English Literature” and was the author of The Canterbury Tales, which dates from about 1380. He wrote in “The Prioress’s Tale” of a pious Christian child ritually murdered by Jews at the instigation of “the serpent Sathanas,/That hath in Jewes herte his waspes nest … .” (see modern version) In the tale, a miracle reveals the crime to the grieving mother and the Jews responsible are hanged. Chaucer concludes his hate-narrative with a prayer to “yonge Hugh of Lyncoln, slayn also/With cursed Jewes.”

Montague’s Malice

Six centuries later, the same anti-Semitism was festering in the work of the Christian scholar Montague Rhodes James, better known as M.R. James and acknowledged today as one of the world’s greatest writers of ghost-stories. He combined both scholarship and subtlety to conjure some of the most memorable and unpleasant spooks and phantasms ever to chill the spine of an armchair-reader. “The Uncommon Prayer-Book” (1921) is not one of his best or most famous stories, but is one of his most interesting. It describes an antiquary called Mr. Davidson who discovers a unique set of prayer-books at a remote country-house called Brockstone Court. The books were printed clandestinely during the despotism of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), who had banned the Anglican rites they contain, and now lie in an unused but regularly cleaned chapel.

M.R. James (1862-1936)

However, year after year the countrywoman who cleans the chapel has found the books mysteriously opened to “Psalm CIX.” It seems to happen on 25th April when the chapel is locked and deserted, so she cannot understand what is going on. Mr Davidson recognizes that this “savage psalm” is “a very odd and wholly unauthorized addition to the text.” After all, it’s a Jewish malediction that sits uncomfortably with the forgiveness and forbearance preached by Christianity:

109:2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
109:3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause. …
109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
109:7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
109:9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
109:10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
109:11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
109:12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
109:13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. (Psalm CIX
in the King James Bible)

Furthermore, April 25th is Oliver Cromwell’s birthday and Brockstone Court was owned in his day by a fervent royalist called Lady Sadleir. Davidson wonders what “curious evil service” was being celebrated there during Cromwell’s reign. He resolves to return the following year on the date and investigate the mystery further.

Meet Mr. Homberger

But when he does so, accompanied by a friend, he finds that the prayer-books have been stolen since his previous visit. What has happened? Well, on that visit, Mr. Davidson stayed in a hotel and met “a small man in a fur coat,” “black-haired and pale-faced, with a little pointed beard, and gold pince-nez.” The man also has “a rather yapping foreign accent” and turns out to be a dealer in rare books:

[T]he dealer, whose name was Homberger, admitted that he was interested in books, and thought there might be in these old country-house libraries something to repay a journey. “For,” said he, “we English have always this marvellous talent for accumulating rarities in the most unexpected places, ain’t it?”

And in the course of the evening he was most interesting on the subject of finds made by himself and others. “I shall take the occasion after this sale to look round the district a bit; perhaps you could inform me of some likely spots, Mr. Davidson?”

But Mr. Davidson, though he had seen some very tempting locked-up book-cases at Brockstone Court, kept his counsel. He did not really like Mr. Homberger.

The Bibliophile Bit

Mr. Davidson’s instincts were right: Mr. Homberger is a thief and was responsible for stealing the uncommon prayer-books, having recognized their great value and tricked the woman who looks after the chapel. And Homberger isn’t his real name: he is in fact called Poschwitz. But he doesn’t profit from his crime. The same supernatural force that opened the books every year in the chapel is capable of much worse in Poschwitz’s London office, as the police find when they are called in after a sudden tragedy. Poschwitz has dropped dead in his office in the very act of opening the safe in which he was storing the stolen prayer-books. And although he was alone at the time, the death was certainly not natural or self-inflicted:

“Well,” said one of the inspectors, when they were left alone; and “Well?” said the other inspector; and, after a pause, “What’s the surgeon’s report again? You’ve got it there. Yes. Effect on the blood like the worst kind of snake-bite; death almost instantaneous. I’m glad of that, for his sake; he was a nasty sight.”

Friend of Israel Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658)

The words “Jew” and “Jewish” are never used in “The Uncommon Prayer-Book,” but James is clearly writing about a crooked Jew suffering supernatural retribution for preying on a naïve gentile. However, more is going on in the story than might be immediately apparent. James is being even more anti-Semitic than some might suppose, because Oliver Cromwell is not in the story by accident. Following his victory in the English Civil War, Cromwell gave the Jews permission to return safely to Britain for the first time since their expulsion by Edward I in 1290. How could he bring about his revolution? Some say that he was financed by Jewish bankers in Amsterdam. It is even possible that the execution of Charles II was, in part, an act of Jewish revenge on the English royal family, like the execution of Czar Nicholas II, a notorious anti-Semite, and his family after the Bolshevik Revolution.

M.R. James appears to have disapproved of Cromwell’s action and of the renewed Jewish presence in Britain. “The Uncommon Prayer-Book” contains an anti-Semitic revenge-fantasy, lightly disguised but unmistakeable. Furthermore, the anti-Semitism is given a specifically Christian context. A dishonest Jew dies because he steals Christian prayer-books and the name “Davidson” suggests not merely wise King Solomon, the son of David, but Jesus Christ too, who is also “the son of David” (see Matthew 1:1).

Hugh’s Hate

Christianity and anti-Semitism are similarly mingled in Saki’s “The Unrest-Cure,” which was first collected in The Chronicles of Clovis in 1911. However, unlike M.R. James, Saki was not a practising Christian and was probably agnostic or atheist. He uses Christianity merely for black comedy in the story. It begins when Saki’s young hero Clovis Sangrail is aboard a train and overhears a middle-aged man called J.P. Huddle being advised to take “an Unrest-cure” to shake himself out of “overmuch repose and placidity.” Clovis is en route to stay with an “elderly relative at Slowborough” and decides to entertain himself by supplying the “Unrest-cure.”

Saki (Hector Hugh Munro) (1870–1916)

Having noted Huddle’s address from a luggage label, he sends him a fake telegram, warning of an imminent visit by the local bishop. He then appears at Huddle’s house in the guise of the bishop’s “confidential secretary.” Clovis is a “thunderbolt” in the placid domestic routine to which Huddle and his sister are accustomed. But that’s the point: Clovis is supplying their Unrest-cure. Wrapping himself in mystery, he soon tricks Huddle into believing that the bishop has arrived:

“He is in the library with Alberti.”
“But why wasn’t I told? I never knew he had come!” exclaimed Huddle.
“No one knows he is here,” said Clovis; “the quieter we can keep matters the better. And on no account disturb him in the library. Those are his orders.”
“But what is all this mystery about? And who is Alberti? And isn’t the Bishop going to have tea?”
“The Bishop is out for blood, not tea.”
“Blood!” gasped Huddle, who did not find that the thunderbolt improved on acquaintance.
“To-night is going to be a great night in the history of Christendom,” said Clovis. “We are going to massacre every Jew in the neighbourhood.”
“To massacre the Jews!” said Huddle indignantly. “Do you mean to tell me there’s a general rising against them?”
“No, it’s the Bishop’s own idea. He’s in there arranging all the details now.”
“But — the Bishop is such a tolerant, humane man.”
“That is precisely what will heighten the effect of his action. The sensation will be enormous.” (“The Unrest-Cure”)

A Blot on the Century

Clovis next tells the horrified Huddle that the massacre will be performed at the house itself, whose garden, he warns, is already full of hidden and heavily armed men. They’re not really there, of course, but real local Jews soon are, having been summoned by further telegrams from Clovis. Huddle bundles them upstairs, frantically trying to think of ways to save their lives. When he protests to Clovis that the proposed massacre will place “a blot on the Twentieth Century!”, Clovis calmly replies:

And your house will be the blotting-pad. Have you realized that half the papers of Europe and the United States will publish pictures of it? By the way, I’ve sent some photographs of you and your sister, that I found in the library, to the Matin [i.e, Morning, a French newspaper] and Die Woche [i.e., The Week, a German magazine]; I hope you don’t mind. Also a sketch of the staircase; most of the killing will probably be done on the staircase.

Having horrified Huddle and his sister, filled their house with puzzled Jews and set the scene for an appalling massacre, Clovis slips away from the house and is never seen again. He reflects that Huddle will probably not be “in the least grateful for the Unrest-cure.”

Jews’ Shoes

And many early readers were surely “not in the least grateful” for the story when it was published before World War I. They must have been shocked by Saki’s attempt to wring humour from murderous anti-Semitism. It’s even worse today, after World War II, for the story is now read in the long and horrible shadow of public perceptions of the Holocaust. Modern readers who find it funny are plainly in urgent need of psychiatric help.

Accordingly, I hope that the National Security Agency and its British collaborator GCHQ are monitoring the reactions of all gentiles who visit web-pages that host it. But what about the reactions of Jews themselves to stories like “The Unrest-Cure” and “The Uncommon Prayer-Book”? What should we gentiles feel when we place ourselves in Jews’ shoes? “Disturbed” is the simple answer. Saki and M.R. James are highly intelligent, highly educated and highly sophisticated writers, minor but brilliant jewels in the crown of English literature. Yet both could write with apparent approval of a highly obnoxious prejudice: anti-Semitism, the Longest Hatred.

A suburb of Jerusalem

Indeed, Saki sinned elsewhere, describing the British empire as a “suburb of Jerusalem” in “Reginald at the Theatre” and basing a cruel practical joke in “A Touch of Realism” on the medieval expulsion of Jews from Spain. Worse still, Saki was a homosexual and well aware of the savage laws against his own kind. If Jews cannot trust a writer from a fellow persecuted minority, which gentiles can they trust?

None at all, it appears. Jews should be suspicious of all goyim. As the former Labour Member of Parliament Eric Moonan says: “I must admit, like most Jews, I see dangers everywhere.” The Jewish view of history is simple: for millennia, blameless Jews have been persecuted, massacred and expelled by Christian and pagan gentiles who are driven by nothing but irrational prejudice and malice. How, then, should they react to these omnipresent dangers?

There seem to be two solutions: Jews should either remove themselves from gentile societies or seek to control those societies and weaken the forces that underlie anti-Semitism. However, these solutions are not mutually exclusive: at present, Jews not only have their own nation, Israel, but also wield enormous power and influence in gentile-majority nations like America, Britain and France.

Motive, Means and Malice

But are they indeed seeking to control Western nations for their own ends? Or is that a hateful conspiracy-theory? It might be, but that doesn’t mean it’s false. It would surely be highly remiss of Jews not to seek control for their own ends. After all, the clear lesson of Jewish history is that gentiles are untrustworthy, irrational and murderous. If the Jewish version of history is true, then M.R. James and Saki must have based their hateful stories on fantasies about Jews, not on actual Jewish behaviour. How would you feel if, as a Jew, you saw malign fantasists like those two being rewarded with fame and riches by other gentiles? Would you not feel the urgent need to protect yourself?

But it’s noticeable, as the late Joseph Sobran pointed out, that every time Jews have been expelled from a Christian nation, they have immediately set about getting back in. Edward I officially expelled Jews from England, but they returned in secret and worked to rescind the expulsion. Oliver Cromwell duly obliged and let them back in, having been helped by Jewish money to win the English Civil War. That Jewish help raises an important point. It’s not enough for Jews to have the motive to control gentiles: they must also have the means to do so. Their higher average intelligence and financial acumen supply those means. It follows by simple logic that Jews should use their intelligence and wealth to counter gentile malice. Ethnically homogeneous Christian nations, with long histories of irrational anti-Semitism, are highly dangerous places for Jews.

Anti-Semitism and Jewish behaviour

Jews will naturally conclude that such nations should be made less ethnically homogeneous and less Christian. Merely by sitting in an armchair and reading M.R. James and Saki, one can see a plain motive for Jews to control and subvert the gentile societies that surround them. The question is whether they actually do so.

That question remains even if we discard the assumption that anti-Semitism is wholly disconnected from Jewish behaviour. Did M.R. James and Saki, so intelligent and sophisticated in other ways, really surrender to irrational, baseless hate on this single topic? Have gentiles always been malicious bigots and Jews always been blameless victims? As a great admirer of both M.R. James and Saki, I suggest that the truth might be much less simple than that.

27 replies
  1. Ecoute Sauvage
    Ecoute Sauvage says:

    The answer has been known at least since 1941, when the then editor of The Atlantic attempted to warn readers of what he termed danger of antisemitism. (Part II of II).

    “The conditions of our problem become clearer when we fix in our minds the fact that the Jews are the only Oriental people who ever settled in an Occidental civilization in any large numbers and took any active part in Occidental life.
    [..]
    A Jewish writer says that towards the end of the Middle Ages ‘the Jew became a European.’ He did, but only by residence; by nature he did not become an Occidental; he could not possibly have done so. Hence, while he became acceptable in various parts of the Occident, it was not on the same terms of acceptability as would have been accorded to another Occidental people.”
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1941/07/the-jewish-problem-in-america/306269/

    The identical problem – this time not involving Jews, which makes it clearer – is evident in our days as well. Europe’s “refugee crisis”, Brexit, president Trump’s wall – are all due to the same underlying cause, massive importation of non-Westerners in Western nations. Jews are only involved via their peculiar habit of supporting “open borders”.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “Jews are only involved via their peculiar habit of supporting “open borders”.”
      In the end people like Trump must reach the stage where one day they realise this is what is happening. But they also know that it would end their careers if they mentioned it. And I am not blaming those like Trump who keep silent, assuming he has reached that stage. But the number of ‘resentful silent’ must be quite large, and getting larger now that immign is the number one problem for whites, so that when the tide turns against them, it will immediately become a massive wave. And then they will act all innocent and say the hostility to them is completely irrational and has no cause, just as they were completely innocent in Germany pre WWII and were picked on for absolutely no reason

  2. Manuel Sotil
    Manuel Sotil says:

    There must be some law of inevitability that Britain will produce men like Cromwell, Churchill, Blair, to name but three of the more destructive leaders in its history.

  3. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “Following his victory in the English Civil War, Cromwell gave the Jews permission to return safely to Britain for the first time since their expulsion by Edward I in 1290. ”

    I wonder if the financial reason mentioned in the article is mentioned in history syllabuses? ie Jewish money controlling politics.

    ————

    ” Ethnically homogeneous Christian nations, with long histories of irrational anti-Semitism, are highly dangerous places for Jews. Jews will naturally conclude that such nations should be made less ethnically homogeneous and less Christian.”

    I doubt that reason would suggest to them that it is a good idea to bring down Western countries that treat them fairly and let them amass great wealth and influence. They can easily and clearly see that they are better off on a stable, rich France, with much of the wealth flowing to them, compared with the current state of France with loads of mslms – and if they could not see that before they can now that many Jews are being driven out. But seeing how they are worse off now in France today does NOT stop them supporting immigration into the West – and logic would stop them doing this.

    It cannot be self-interest or logic that they support the downfall of the West – anyone can see the collapse of the West equals the collapse of their wealth and protection.

    It must be something else. Are there any other groups that also hate the West? Maybe if we could find their motive, it might be the same/similar/connected?

    Well, the anti-white whites hate the West, ie the white Left. And they are certainly not trying to bring down their own countries out of logic or self-interest – they are trying to sink the luxury liner that provides them with wealth and safety (with the help of the Js), although when the liner sinks they will try and get the best lifeboats, but they will still be worse off than if they had never sunk the ship.

    Clearly the white left want to do to their own countries the same as they did to w S Africa – hand their country over to the 3rd world. Clearly self-interest plays no part. They and their children will certainly be worse off.
    So the left are HIGHLY MOTIVATED (devoting their lives to it often) but they are not doing it from self interest or money or power – they are willing for their country to become islamic and to have zero wealth and power. They would be very happy with this outcome, just as they were happy with the outcome in Zimbabwe & S Africa when the whites were brought down (and blacks too were made worse off) .

    So the ONLY motive left is hate. Hate is stronger than self interest. A couple divorcing will often have one in the couple who wants to give all the money to the lawyers rather than share it 50/50 showing that their motive too is hate not self-interest – one of them would rather each have zero than each have 100,000.

    So if the white Left do it from hate ie hostility, where does this hate come from? Maybe it is in the genes. Just a manifestation of human behaviour, animal behaviour in the wiring. After all, this wiring governs us, as it governs all animals, not logic. If logic governed humans, blacks would not seek to oust whites from S.Africa. Was WWII based on logic? No, animal behaviour instincts were activated. No volunteer lining up to enlist studied maps & borders to see who was right and wrong.

    The only task is to explain in animal behaviour terms why a human animal would be wired to hate another group. The wolf spends 90% of its time and thoughts on ‘loving’ their own pack and ‘hating’ the other packs.
    That is occupying your dog’s thoughts on the walk – who is friend or foe, with the labrador more wired for seeing friend and the pitbul more for foe.. Every wolf will one day be killed by other wolves in the wild – most likely in their own pack from hierarchy struggles. Their own type are their best friends and worst enemies. Same with humans – the biggest protector and killer of humans is other humans. Humans kill more humans than predators kill us.

    All social animals are highly wired to hate/love other members of their own species. Using the term loosely. Love/hate is the same as friendly/hostile or fight together/ seek to kill others

    Perhaps the Jews just have arab type genes that confer a much stronger hostility to other tribes than white ppl have, and that is all it is to explain most of their hostility. You do not need a logical reason, animal behaviour wiring from the past is sufficient.

    Perhaps the lefty hatred in the genes of some whites has its origin in the human grouping behaviour as it certainly can be a viable lifestyle in prehistoric times in particular – ie being wired to want to hate and take. You cannot just have urges to take without the hate – imagine such a tribe ‘let’s go and rape and pillage and steal, then feel terrible about it afterwards’ No, it is ‘let’s rape and pillage and our extra hate gene makes us feel GOOD about it’.

    The gene of hate has to go hand in hand with the gene of take (it is not really one gene), as otherwise the gene of take is impotent. The gene of hate in the left makes them hate anyone who is better. You need this gene to remove your inhibitions about taking/stealing what others have. It is easier to steal from someone you hate. So they just hate the better (the makers, as opposed to themselves, the takers) and do not know why, but it controls them and drives them. It also makes them love the opposite of the better/ the superior – hence lefties love the inferior, ie the third world & criminals as well as hating superior people. We all know they hate the word ‘superior’ more than any other word. Just imagine a student in university writing the line ‘The West is superior to the third world’ in an essay. We can imagine the effects in the class! And lefties still hate the superior even if personally they are clever, socially successful and rich – a description of most lefty politicians – it makes no difference. I refer of course to the true left and not to the naive left or young people going through a lefty phase.

    So maybe the Jews are merely acting on their wiring, and so are the Left. Both seek to sink the luxury liner that provides them with wealth & security – ie the West / or white people – and they do not know why they feel these urges or what the origin is.

    • ArayanZ
      ArayanZ says:

      Only it would make perfect sense to loot the wealth of the west and sink the luxury liner so to speak, especially if one could then move themselves to their OWN nation with all their wealth and control ALL of the nations of the world.

      The REASON for wiping out Whites AFTER finally gaining control of their nations & all their wealth of simple. Whites have this habit of rebelling. They do not enslave well and would inevitably attempt to challenge the Jews for supremacy – repeatedly. White people DO have the intelligence to get it done as well. After all, they certainly can’t take the chance of a Hitler 2.0 now can they?
      The Jews want no challengers to their rule once they FINALLY get full 100% control of the entire world.
      White people gotta go.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        ArayanZ – re the Hitler 2.0 – the other way to avoid this would be to cease hostilities themselves, then there would be no reaction. This is what LOGIC would suggest to them if they were acting logically and in self-interest.

        The alternative plan that you outline is more risky for them and far more likely to make Hitler 2.0, in fact guaranteed to do so. So it is not in self-interest. So they must be compelled by their genes to do it, as if it is their destiny. I really cannot accept that self-interest would include war and destruction of the host. It would include co-operation and peace, not a love of conflict and turmoil that they seem to like. We can see the situation in the world building up now and they do not seek to calm it down, they seek to escalate the trouble.

        In fact western people seek peace, which is why they keep appeasing everyone who is hostile to them. But it is foolish to use this tactic of tolerance and appeasement while you are strong, and your enemy, though threatening, is actually very much weaker than you are.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      Extremely interesting thesis.
      It sort of dovetails with a hunch I have been having lately that tribe is actually crazy. Over the millennia it has been driven nuts by this insanely ethnocentric idea that Jews are THE Chosen by God. This idea may have been functional back in the day when it might have helped to organize a bunch of desert wanderers but after a thousand or so years it rotted out their capacity to deal with reality but in a unique way.. It
      enables them to succeed disproportionately but then causes them to self destruct. This is why they always eventually go over the top in manipulating and exploiting the particular societies to which they attach. Which is what, as you say is happening now. Anyway this particularly idiosyncratic nuttiness would be passed on genetically.

      Enjoyed reading your piece. Assuming you don’t write professionally, you should

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Achilles Wannabe – thank you for the comment.
        “when it might have helped to organize a bunch of desert wanderers”

        I think you are thinking along the same lines as I am, ie that (a) the hostility is genetic (b) that at one time, in a different desert setting, it might have been an advantage to feel a strong inner hostility to other tribes (c) in a modern setting away from the desert, it will just end badly for them in the long run.

        This is different to how many readers of TOO see the situation, as most assume the J’s have some sort of plan in which they will end up with some kind of advantage or gain from what they do. In other words, readers assume that they are serving self-interest. In my opinion they are actually acting against their own long-term interests, but cannot change their behaviour and ultimately it will cause them to, as you say, ‘self destruct’.

        If a race has bad features, and these are in the genes, there is no simple mechanism to remove these features from the race. The only solution for other tribes is to try and protect themselves by geographical separation

        • Achilles Wannabe
          Achilles Wannabe says:

          Yes, I don’t think Jews need to “plan” They just need to “Be”. No gathering in smoke free rooms is necessary. Small conspiracies are going on but mostly they just need to let their Jewishness flow and they will behave like a middle eastern tribe – albeit idiosyncratic – encamped in the West. In turn Westerners will behave like Westerners always eventually do and throw them out.
          The thing to so is to make the occidental ruling class more afraid of us than they are dependent on the Jews.
          That is how it always goes down Could take awhile

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      Extremely interesting thesis.
      It sort of dovetails with a hunch I have been having lately that tribe is actually crazy. Over the millennia it has been driven nuts by this insanely ethnocentric idea that Jews are THE Chosen by God. This idea may have been functional back in the day when it might have helped to organize a bunch of desert wanderers but after a thousand or so years it rotted out their capacity to deal with reality but in a unique way.. It
      enables them to succeed disproportionately but then causes them to self destruct. This is why they always eventually go over the top in manipulating and exploiting the particular societies to which they attach. Which is what, as you say is happening now. Anyway this particularly idiosyncratic nuttiness would be passed on genetically.

  4. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    … it’s noticeable, as the late Joseph Sobran pointed out, that every time Jews have been expelled from a Christian nation, they have immediately set about getting back in. Edward I officially expelled Jews from England, but they returned in secret and worked to rescind the expulsion.

    This is arguably the money quote in an overall splendid article. Given the endless Jewish prattling about how afraid they are, the perennial activity described above ineluctably leads to the terrifying conclusion that among Jews, hate and the will to dominate and to destroy regularly trump fear. Can anyone think of a parallel in human history for this degeneracy? I can’t.

    On a lighter note, a year or two ago I remarked to a friend that I’d observed that virtually every time a new biography or study of an established literary figure was published, its capsule description chez Bezos and elsewhere went like this: “Critics are awestruck by this new and cutting-edge bio of Fezziwig, which reveals for the first time his contempt for friends and family and his secret but all-consuming and utterly virulent anti-Semitism.”

    Whether the subject is Chaucer, M. R. James, George Herbert, Samuel Johnson, or E. E. Cummings, anti-Semitism is the madwoman in the attic struggling to break into the open. In her release, our (((Establishment))) finds its favorite aphrodisiac.

  5. Richard Foland
    Richard Foland says:

    You mention Jews being on average more intelligent than gentiles. That’s politically incorrect, and therefore wrong and hateful. How dare you sir!

  6. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    Tobias Langdon wrote:
    “… Edward I officially expelled Jews from England, but they returned in secret and worked to rescind the expulsion. Oliver Cromwell duly obliged and let them back in, having been helped by Jewish money to win the English Civil War.”

    A parallel is when ‘Lord’ Balfour 250 or so years later promised the Jews British support in gaining their Jewish state in Palestine (double-crossing the Arabs) in return for Jews’ bringing the USA into the war as a belligerent to prevent Britain from losing. Balfour was no better than Cromwell.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Carolyn – re Balfour – the difference is that creating a Jewish homeland leads to Jews emigrating from the West, not immigrating. The equivalent would be Cromwell encouraging the Jews to go to Israel instead of back to Britain.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Picky, picky, pterodactyl. Both men were giving the Jews as a group (nation) what they wanted, what they were asking for, in exchange for help in winning a war. And both times underhandedly, against the long-term interests of their own nation. This out-weighs “where” they wanted to go.
        And just because Jews wanted a homeland to go to, most didn’t intend to go there, did they? It was the Zionist Jews from Eastern Europe who wanted Palestine. The assimilated English, American and German Jews didn’t. Balfour was an expert on the Middle East and certainly knew that much.
        It was a dumb decision for short-term gain that brought long-term pain … very typical of the overrated English.
        It just struck me that perhaps we could call the English brilliant tacticians, but lousy strategists?

  7. Tim Stadler
    Tim Stadler says:

    There is a great deal of misinformation on “THE JEWISH QUESTION”, I highly recommend unz.com
    The Unz Review where Ron Unz who is a theoretical physicist by training, (with a reported IQ of some 200) has created a platform where academics, intellectuals, professors, ex CIA, scientists, etx, can voice opinions on an array of topics that the average reader would have great difficulty in sourcing on his own. Mr Unz who is of Jewish heritage has written a series of essays on the history of his faith and its aftermath that are truly astonishing and very well researched. He is totally mainstream and active in politics and has nothing to gain, (other than intellectual integrity) and much to lose for his very political incorrect essays.

    A snippet

    As a further illustration of the seething hatred traditional Judaism radiates towards all those of a different background, saving the life of a non-Jew is generally considered improper or even prohibited, and taking any such action on the Sabbath would be an absolute violation of religious edict. Such dogmas are certainly ironic given the widespread presence of Jews in the medical profession during recent centuries, but they came to the fore in Israel when a religiously-minded military doctor took them to heart and his position was supported by the country’s highest religious authorities.

    And while religious Judaism has a decidedly negative view towards all non-Jews, Christianity in particular is regarded as a total abomination, which must be wiped from the face of the earth.

    Whereas pious Muslims consider Jesus as the holy prophet of God and Muhammed’s immediate predecessor, according to the Jewish Talmud, Jesus is perhaps the vilest being who ever lived, condemned to spend eternity in the bottommost pit of Hell, immersed in a boiling vat of excrement. Religious Jews regard the Muslim Quran as just another book, though a totally mistaken one, but the Christian Bible represents purest evil, and if circumstances permit, burning Bibles is a very praiseworthy act. Pious Jews are also enjoined to always spit three times at any cross or church they encounter, and direct a curse at all Christian cemeteries. Indeed, many deeply religious Jews utter a prayer each and every day for the immediate extermination of all Christians.

    Full Article American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion

    Below is a link to another websites, both websites deal with a multitude of topics and for Jewish specific just search Jewish Question.

    I feel sorry for the Jews that are not part of the problem but feel they are the only ones that can fix the problem by being honest about their history and making the others come to terms with the issue.

    It’s Time to Drop the Jew Taboo

    another site of interest INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW

    • Amy Armadillo
      Amy Armadillo says:

      Without question Unz kicks ass. His only blind spot is his embrace of illegal immigration, an affliction he’s embraced his entire political life. If Juan hasn’t murdered anybody today, it’s all good in Paradise.

      I’m not entirely blaming Ron … as a Jew, it’s his biological imperative. Da boy can’t help it.

  8. Loren R
    Loren R says:

    Too many people know. Too many people are ANGRY. Good thing they can move to their homeland in perfect peace.

  9. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “There seem to be two solutions: Jews should either remove themselves from gentile societies or seek to control those societies and weaken the forces that underlie anti-Semitism.”

    The last part of that sentence could easily be rewritten to read, “and weaken the forces that obstruct Jewish Supremacy.”

    Just as “Diversity” is a code-word for Anti-White, so too is “Antisemitism” a code-word for Jewish Supremacy.

    They simply have to project their character defects onto their victims to conceal their criminality and justify and validate what to them in their delusional state is moral superiority, but to us is obviously criminal psychopathology.

    This is the real reason behind their tenacious resistance to open discussion about IQ and Race.

    I recall coming across a study done 100+years ago about Jewish criminal pathology. This was during the early days of the Internet and I regret to say I can’t share a link. Perhaps someone here knows of such a study. In any event, it pretty much laid it bare. As I recall the study was conducted in response to the wave of immigrants 100+years ago and included Italians, Irish, and Blacks. It was a very well done study and certainly very convincing. And I say this as an Irishman.

    This also explains why they never choose the first solution. Criminals need victims. This is why, for whatever faults one may find with him, I see Nicholas Hassim Taleb’s work, especially Skin In The Game as a kind of coded and urgent plea for us to wake up to Jewish criminality, since they feature so prominently in the examples he provides for people who wreak havoc at the expense of others because they’ve found a way to place themselves above criticism. For the most part they live in a consequence-free world.

    “the clear lesson of Jewish history is that gentiles are untrustworthy, irrational and murderous.”

    Again, this could be rewritten to say, ” the clear lesson of the history of Jewish behavior is that they are untrustworthy, irrational and murderous.”

    People are waking up all over. For a reason.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      And none of the waking up would be taking place without the internet. They are trying to control the narrative (Breitbart) but are failing. I found out about this site via a single comment on Breitbart: ‘Kevin MacDonald gets it’. This shows how effective comments on social media can be in waking people up.

      In the end the survival of the West could pivot on whether the left & the Js are able to inhibit free speech on the internet. They are succeeding in Germany and Sweden to a large extent, where control is very tight, with the full collusion of facebook. In Britain they jailed Andrew Emery for 2 years for facebook rants about muslims. So they certainly are trying their best, but it is a huge challenge for the left & Js, like trying to stop the tide coming in.

  10. Mark
    Mark says:

    The Unz Review frequently republishes articles from The Occidental Observer, including Kevin MacDonald’s.

    “bear seats” doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Ditto for “Amy Armadillo”.

  11. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “Their higher average intelligence and financial acumen supply those means. It follows by simple logic that Jews should use their intelligence and wealth to counter gentile malice.”

    Again, can’t resist another rewrite:

    “Their higher average intelligence, financial acumen, and lack of moral conscience supply those means. It follows by simple logic that Jews should use their intelligence, wealth and lack of conscience to conceal their malice and criminality so as to counter gentile resistence to Jewish Supremacy.” .

    “Have gentiles always been malicious bigots and Jews always been blameless victims? As a great admirer of both M.R. James and Saki, I suggest that the truth might be much less simple than that.”

    Rewritten:

    “Gentiles, though certainly guilty of an almost incredible gullibility, have never been malicious bigots. Not only do Jews know this only too well, it’s what they started with. Otherwise, they would never attempt to re-enter after expulsion. As a great admirer, and part of, the great culture and civilzation Jews have longed to destroy and are destroying now, I state unequivocally and without hesitation that just the opposite is true.”

  12. Stogumber
    Stogumber says:

    I’ve read M.R. James for a long time, and his remarks about Mr. Poschwitz are at best interpreted in the sense of Dickens on one side and Belloc/Chesterton on the other.
    Dickens made clear that there was a Jewish criminal class and criminal subculture.
    Belloc/Chesterton made clear that even Jews who didn’t belong to that subculture tended to be dishonest about their identity, posing as hyper-Englishmen (but without the genuine loyalty to their alleged compatriots one would expect).
    These were real faults, or sins, but neither of them was seen as an inevitable part of Jewishness. Jews might perhaps live it down.
    As for Saki, he mostly looked for “shocking” motives around which to compose his stories (épater le bourgeois).
    Mr. Langdon has done a lot of good historical work, but this is sloppy.

Comments are closed.