On Hemingway, Jews, and Masculinity

“Why not make the Jew a bounder in literature as well as in life? Do Jews always have to be so splendid in writing?”
Ernest Hemingway to Max Perkins, Dec. 21, 1926.

Having previously written about the early twentieth-century writers T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, and Robinson Jeffers, I felt it was high time that I addressed the work and thought of an altogether more controversial and ambiguous literary figure of the same period — the inimitable Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway may seem an odd choice to profile for a White advocacy site and, moreover, in his last and only appearance at The Occidental Observer, now some three years ago, he proved very controversial and divisive indeed. He was a supporter of the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War, and, in For Whom the Bell Tolls, the novel based on his experiences in Spain, one senses that Hemingway is ventriloquizing when one of his characters responds to the question “Are you a Communist?” with the reply “No, I am an anti-fascist.” Most sensationally however, at least one 2017 text written by a former CIA officer has made the claim that Hemingway was recruited as a Soviet agent in 1940 by two of the top NKVD agents then operational in the United States — the Jew Jacob Golos and the Soviet Jewish spy king Abram Osipovich Einhorn. Both men had in turn provided leadership and support to the notorious spying cell run by Julius Rosenberg. Returning to the title of the last TOO article on the man, we have to once more ask who is the “real” Ernest Hemingway? Was he, as one critic responded to the last piece, “not a great White man”? Or is he, as Robert S. Griffin insists, “an exemplary white historical figure”?

The ambiguity, and even hostility, surrounding Hemingway is not without reason. Even setting aside the “enemy agent” accusations, Hemingway was, in several respects, intellectually of what might be termed ‘the Old Left,’ in the sense that he tended towards support for economic socialism, pursued ideological comradeship with blue collar workers and veterans, and had many friends with similar political tastes. His alcoholism, confrontational character, philandering, and final descent into mental illness and suicide could lead some to perceive the author as little more than a debauched degenerate. This behavior was in all likelihood rooted in genetic causes — and almost certainly reverberated flamboyantly in his son Gregory, an alcoholic transvestite who occasionally called himself Gloria, had surgery to create one “breast,” and finally died in the Miami-Dade Womens Detention Center a day after being arrested for indecent exposure.

In other respects, however, before his final decline, Hemingway was perhaps the quintessential, unreformed White rogue, a kind of throwback to the ancient, uncivilised Indo-European who defies strictly moralistic explanations. He was a rank individualist, antagonistic to all forms of authority and authoritarian government, Stalin’s included. Of course, his third wife, Martha Gellhorn, was Jewish, and yet he publicly explained his decision not to have children with her as being due to his aversion to having children with Jewish genes.1 He embraced the lifestyle of the masculine bon vivant, had a strong distaste for what he called “queers” “fairies” and “faggots,” enjoyed his experience observing colonialism in Africa, and loved nature and outdoor pursuits. On a more personal level, he wrote one of my favourite short novels, The Old Man and the Sea, a literary masterpiece on the themes of masculine endurance and stoicism, and influenced two of my favourite twentieth-century modernist writers, William Faulkner and Cormac McCarthy. Hemingway remains, if nothing else, as enigmatic as ever. As we are now just couple of years away from the 60th anniversary of his death, is there anything in Hemingway’s life and work that retains value for the White man of today?

I. Hemingway on Jews

Hemingway’s thoughts and writings on Jews, despite being rare and sometimes inconsistent, are extremely telling both in terms of his own attitudes and about the real nature of anti-Semitism; they are ultimately difficult to square with Nicholas Reynolds’s allegations of participation in Jewish-led Soviet activism in the early 1940s. Some enlightenment might be gleaned from his posthumous legacy on the Left, where he is either claimed with great unease or, in a rapidly growing trend, totally rejected.2 It’s now common knowledge, both from depictions of Jews in his fiction, and his discussions of Jews in letters and private papers,3 that Ernest Hemingway was highly suspicious of Jews, and frequently hostile to them. Most of this antagonism appears to have been based not on irrational or inherited prejudice, but on a series of exploitative relationships in which Hemingway’s work was pirated by Jewish publishers, situations where Hemingway was not adequately renumerated for his work by Jewish employers, or simply the fact that almost every Jew Hemingway met was in possession of an insufferable personality. In a letter written in Paris in November 1926 to Scribner editor Maxwell Perkins, Hemingway describes how his work and that of James Joyce was being systematically pirated by Jewish publisher and pornographer Samuel Roth:

Everything I publish over here is stolen by Samuel Roth who has never had my permission to publish one word and pirates everything that appears here as fast as it comes out and has never paid me a cent. … Joyce is all broken up about it. Roth has stolen his Ulysses without permission, never paid Joyce a cent, is publishing Ulysses in monthly installments and expurgating it. … Joyce is in absolute despair. … It is a horrible and discouraging business, and does not make one love the Jews any better. … Isn’t there some national organization that can blacklist the advertising of crooks? Life seems quite complicated today.4

Hemingway was also rather astute regarding the manner in which Jews protect themselves from criticism by using accusations of anti-Semitism against critics. Writing to one friend on the Bronx-born Jewish playwright Irwin Shaw, Hemingway explained that he felt Shaw was “a jerk and a good short-story writer. But if Id say he was a bad playwright (which he is), he would say I was anti-Semitic.

The majority of allegations of anti-Semitism against Hemingway concern his depiction of the character Robert Cohn in his Roman à clef The Sun Also Rises, with Cohn now widely acknowledged to have been based on the American Jewish writer Harold Loeb, with whom Hemingway spent some time in Paris in the 1920s. In a previous discussion of Jewish criticism of English literature I remarked that Jewish intellectual activists frequently direct “their antagonism towards anything but positive reflections of Jews in literature. … Their efforts have the dual function of staining the legacy of the English literary past, and shackling authors in the present, who would feel constrained to avoid having a negatively portrayed Jewish character in their works.” I argue that Hemingway, much like T. S. Eliot in Gerontion and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Meyer Wolfsheim in The Great Gatsby, provides an important late example of a top-level writer who not only continued to depict Jews in his work, but was bold enough to include negative Jewish characters. In fact, Hemingway’s 1926 retort to criticism of his depiction of Cohn/Loeb should be regarded as a classic: “Why not make the Jew a bounder in literature as well as in life? Do Jews always have to be so splendid in writing?”5 Loeb, whom Hemingway observed having a number of affairs with European women, appears to have left such an impression on Hemingway that the former became the benchmark for intolerable Jewishness. Writing to Perkins in 1932 from Key West on a new mutual associate named “Klein,” Hemingway remarks: “Only thing about Klein is that name — Does Clark say if he’s one of those Kleins — Germans are swell — kikes not so good — We don’t want him to turn out to be Harold Loeb.”6

Harold Loeb

Whether or not Hemingway’s depiction of Cohn/Loeb was meant to refer to Jews as a group, the narrative is damning enough. Cohn, who is one of a group of several Americans in Spain for the running of the bulls, is described as a talentless failed novelist who nevertheless acquires considerable influence in literary circles due to inherited Jewish wealth. According to the introductory pages of the text, Cohn became race-conscious for the first time when he arrived to study at Princeton: “No one had ever made him feel he was a Jew, and hence any different from anybody else, until he went to Princeton.” While Princeton gives Cohn a chip on his shoulder (“it made him bitter”), it also provides him with his first method of crypsis when a bout at the college boxing club flattens his nose — an event described by Hemingway as an “improvement” on its earlier state. Thereafter, Cohn awkwardly embraces an identity as a kind of crypto-Jewish almost-WASP, a highly aggressive ethnic outsider who pursues his own ends under an altered face that acts, we surmise, as a mask.

It’s very interesting that Jews seized on Cohn very early on as a metaphor for the Jewish people as a whole, something that may of course reveal more about Jewish psychologies and sensitivities than Hemingway’s actual intentions. Jewish literary scholars Phyllis Lassner and Lara Trubowitz have described The Sun Also Rises quite sensationally as a “nasal study in exile and alienation” in which Hemingway warns that “Cohn — and other outsiders — will seduce, impregnate, and therefore pollute the Anglo-Saxon stream, while the pure-bred Anglo-Saxon protagonist, Jake Barnes, is wounded, impotent, and incapable of reproducing his stock.”7

While such an observation could be linked to Hemingway’s strong distaste for the sexual dalliances of the real-life Harold Loeb among English and American women in Spain, Lassner and Trubowitz ultimately perceive a much grander, even political, indictment of the Jews. They conclude that: “The Sun Also Rises suggests then, that letting Jews go to college is indeed a dangerous business. Once Robert Cohn [and other Jews] gain entry to the Ivy institution, they pose a collective threat not only to the character of the American university, but to the very purity of the American family.”8 If such an allegory was indeed intentional, it represents an important contribution from Hemingway to one of the more simmering political debates current at the time of the book’s publication (1926). Between the 1910s and the mid-1930s, Jewish representation at Ivy League colleges tumbled as successive elite colleges imposed a numerus clausus, and a large number of subtle tests designed to weed out Jews from the admissions process, limiting the vast majority of places to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Allegations of bigotry and anti-Semitism have played a prominent role in attempts to have Hemingway censored, the earliest example being the efforts of Bantam Press in 1949 to remove all uses of the terms “kike,” “Jewish,” “Jew,” and “Jews,” from The Sun Also Rises, effectively deleting all references to the ethnic background of Robert Cohn and the role played by this background in forming the personality of that character. Moreover, the edition was shamelessly advertised as “the complete text of the original edition — not one word has been changed or omitted.”9 And yet, this being a production of the ambiguous and enigmatic Hemingway, the book was also banned by reactionary and traditional elements for its cruder and more sensual aspects. It was banned in Boston by conservative elements in 1930; burned by the German National Socialists in 1933; and outlawed in Ireland in 1953. In 1960 it was banned from schools in San Jose and Riverside, California. With its wide capacity to offend, it remains today at number 18 on the American Library Associations banned classics list.

II. Hemingway on Masculinity.

Aside from accusations of anti-Semitism, Hemingway’s most enduring legacy on the Left has been as an exemplar of “toxic masculinity.” I was first drawn into material on this aspect of Hemingway criticism, while conducting research on Jewish activism in postwar literature, especially the Jewish promotion of pluralism in fiction. A major text for anyone interested in this subject is Leah Garrett’s Young Lions: How Jewish Authors Reinvented the American War Novel (2015). Garrett’s thesis is that prior to the 1940s, American heroes in fiction were “Hemingwayesque” in that they were “stoic, tough, laconic,” with Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms (1929) providing a classic example. To use Garrett’s own terminology, Hemingway’s depiction of the ideal American male was “subverted” by a series of Jewish writers who presented new heroes with weaknesses and self-doubts, and introduced a slew of new themes. Garrett, an academic at Monash University, explains:

Racism and anti-Semitism were also major themes of the Jewish war novels. … What most of these authors tried to do was assert the idea that a basic American value was pluralism, and that all communities, including blacks, Jews, homosexuals and Mexicans, needed to be valued in postwar life. Jewish war novels shaped the understanding of postwar America about the events that had just happened in the conflict, along with suggesting how the country should treat Jews and others in the coming era. [emphasis added]

In summary, depictions of warfare in literature became less about masculine qualities that had been the focus of the Western canon since The Iliad, and more about how sensitive troops should be to the diversity in their platoon. The Jewish novelists included Norman Mailer (The Naked and the Dead), Irwin Shaw (The Young Lions), Ira Wolfert (An Act of Love), Merle Miller (That Winter) and Stefan Heym (The Crusaders). It’s particularly interesting that while all of these books received middling to poor reviews from serious critics, they all sold extremely well due to advertising and promotion, with the result that all five of these Jewish war novels, and thus their ideas, “dominated the New York Times bestseller list of 1948.” A sixth book about a Jewish soldier that also sold very well that year was, ironically, Point of No Return, written by Hemingway’s wife Martha Gellhorn. A further feature of these works was their unanimous effort as Holocaust propaganda. Garrett writes that these “Jewish writers argued in their novels that the Holocaust was the central, rather than an ancillary aspect of the war experience.”10

Reading about the Jewish subversion of the ‘Hemingwayesque’ hero, now some several months ago, I was led to ponder what exactly the substance of this term might mean on a deep level, beyond the caricature that was Hemingway’s own lifestyle. Perhaps the most valuable and lasting legacy of Hemingway’s contribution to masculinity was not his personal bravado but in fact one of his most sensitive texts, The Old Man and the Sea. This remarkable short fable (less than 100 pages) tells the story of Santiago, an old fisherman of unstated but very advanced age, who has gone 84 days without taking a fish. Santiago depends on his catch for his existence, and the novel opens with him half-starved and living, bare-footed, in squalor. He has gone so long without taking a fish that others in the village have declared him salao, “which is the worst form of unlucky.” No-one will help him or accompany him while fishing. His only occasional companion is a young man he trained many years ago, who visits sporadically with old newspapers and a little food.

The Old Man and the Sea is ultimately, a strongly anti-socialist and fiercely masculine novel, and Santiago, despite his decrepitude, is a true hero. Despite his circumstances, the old man never engages in self-pity. He never asks for charity. Having failed on 84 successive attempts, the story begins on the day he starts his 85th. He is resilient, and he is relentless, operating on will and instinct alone. On this day, with meagre resources, Santiago sets sail, going further from shore than any other vessels in search of prey. And he finds it in the form of the largest Marlin he has ever seen. The novel comes into its own when Santiago finds and then battles against the fish and his own failing body. As he battles the gigantic marlin, his chest hurts, he sees spots in his vision, his hands bleed, and one of them seizes. He succeeds in catching the Marlin, using every last gasp of his body, collapsing finally in victory. The victory, however, is short-lived, as successive waves of sharks attack the great dead fish tied to the side of Santiago’s boat, stripping away more of the precious, valuable, and hard-won flesh in each ferocious raid. The old man’s war with the sharks as he makes his return to shore is both moving and inspiring. Despite the overwhelming personal tragedy of the situation, the old man is neither self-pitying nor bitter. He acknowledges that he is, in the end, not all that different from the sharks, and that there is nothing moral or unjust in the struggle for survival. I won’t spoil the ending of the book for those who haven’t read it, but it should suffice to state that we are left with the impression that Santiago remains unbroken, and perhaps unbreakable.

Art and the artist are intimately linked but never identical. Hemingway was himself unable to become a Santiago, ending his own life with a shotgun at the age of 61. And yet his ideal remains, the age-old concept that masculinity is achieved, heightened and perfected through trial and tribulation. It is this concept that is nowadays declared “toxic,” and discussions of “toxic masculinity” invariably invoke the “Hemingwayesque” while lauding new types of “heroes” such as that offered by the Jewish novelists mentioned above. None of this is surprising, of course, since the current downward trajectory of Western civilisation can only continue in the absence of White men who persist, who endure, and who are unbreakable. One Leftist essay on Hemingway and masculinity ends with deadly sincerity on the note that “the most destructive words someone can say to a young boy are be a man’, presumably because it is more empowering to a young boy to tell him to “be a girl,” “be a homosexual,” or “be a unicorn.”

III. Discussion.

So where does all this leave us in relation to the questions asked at the outset of the essay? I turn first to the issue of Hemingway and the Jews. Much as I am an admirer of Hemingway’s fiction, I do not perceive the author as possessing unusual prescience on Jewish matters. Hemingway’s antipathy for Jews was instinctive and natural, even jocular (he had occasionally gone by the nickname “Hemingstein” since youth), and quite common during the period. I am inclined to view some of the hysterical Jewish interpretations of his work as just that — hysterical products of highly ethnocentric minds. I do believe that the character of Robert Cohn was driven by Hemingway’s particular distaste for a particular Jew, and that the character probably came to embody some of the generally Jewish traits that Hemingway found most appalling. But there is simply not enough evidence within, or outside, the text of The Sun Also Rises to conclude that the novel is a riff on Jewish penetration of White society, or on the dangers of Jewish entry to elite colleges. These subjects appear nowhere in Hemingway’s papers, letters, or reported conversations. Moreover, if Hemingway truly believed, as he wrote of Cohn, that Jews possess no sense of ethnocentrism until White rejection provides them with racial consciousness, then this is a woefully naive and ultimately useless understanding of Jewish identity. I can only conclude in this respect that if Hemingway has any relevance or value to White identity today, it bears no relation to specific issues of race and ethnicity.

It is perhaps only in the area of what it means to be a White man that Hemingway has something to offer — both as embodied warning and as promoter of an ideal. Hemingway places us in a quandary because he portrayed measured, stoic heroes while living the life of a bar-room brawler. He showed us dignity in the suffering of age, and then shot himself to escape suffering at the age of 61. He wrote female characters debauched and degraded by feminism, while bedding successive real life examples of the same. His best work is essentially based on themes of self-reliance and perseverance, and yet he dallied with Communists in Cuba. One almost hears him screaming: “Do as I say, not as I do!”

In Under Kilimanjaro, published posthumously for the first time in 2005, Hemingway wrote that his ideal afterlife was the “Happy Hunting Grounds,” a Paradise in Africa where there would be “no white men … no … missionaries nor settlers.” His comment, as one academic has pointed out, suggests Hemingway’s “discomfort with white imperialism, in general, and the white man in Africa, in particular. After all, it is difficult, to say the least, not to acknowledge the politically subversive potential of Hemingway’s half-serious indictment that “it always seemed stupid to be white in Africa.”11 The comments certainly speak of a lack of ethnic feeling, even if I doubt that they were subversive in intent.

My conclusion is that I must respectfully disagree with Robert S. Griffin’s assertion that Ernest Hemingway was an “exemplary White historical figure,” and that I tend to agree with the contention that he was “not a great White man.” This does not, I feel, detract from the respect I have for him as a novelist, or the great love I have for The Old Man and the Sea. But this writer of heroes was no hero.

1 M. Reynolds, Hemingway: The Final Years, (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), p. 208.

2 See, for example, C. Sigal “The Nasty Stuff,” in Hemingway Lives!: Why Reading Ernest Hemingway Matters Today (New York: OR Books, 2013), pp. 179-184.

3 See C. Baker, Ernest Hemingway: Selected Letters, 1917-1961 (New York: Scribner, 2003).

4 Ibid, p. 225.

5 Ibid, p. 240.

6 Ibid, p.353.

7 P. Lassner & L. Trubowitz Antisemitism and Philosemitism in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries: Representing Jews, Jewishness, and Modern Culture (Cranbury: Associated University Presses, 2008), p. 142.

8 Ibid.

9 A. Waldhorn, A Reader’s Guide to Ernest Hemingway (Syracuse University Press, 2002), p.239.

10 L. Garrett, ‘Young Lions: Jewish American War Fiction of 1948,’ Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, (Winter 2012), pp.70-99, (p.70).

11 J. M. Armengol-Carrera, (2011). ‘Race-ing Hemingway: Revisions of Masculinity and/as Whiteness in Ernest Hemingways Green Hills of Africa and Under Kilimanjaro.’ The Hemingway Review, 31(1), 43–61, p.61.

21 replies
  1. Bill Colohan
    Bill Colohan says:

    I agree with you. He was no hero. I was enthralled with Hemingway’s novels when I was much younger and read the Big 3 and many of his short stories. I liked his writing style but as I got older it seemed over the top, affected and pompous. He was an exhibitionist. I suspect if you met him you wouldn’t like him much. Like so many many celebrated personalities then and today, these people seek attention. They live big. They want to show you how big they live. I would imagine when Hemingway felt he could no longer maintain the facade was when he took his life. One more unbearable hangover.

  2. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    ‘ “the most destructive words someone can say to a young boy are ‘be a man’,” presumably because it is more empowering to a young boy to tell him to “be a girl,” “be a homosexual,” or “be a unicorn.” ‘

    Of course it is more enpowering, Dr Joyce, especially if the young boy is told all three of these things often! Image what a genderless-race-is-a-social-construct wonder he can then become: veritably a one-person diversity in one pair of flip-flops.

    Loved this piece! You are the best of yourself in it, Sir! Thank you.

    • Alan
      Alan says:

      Sophie Johnson,
      I just want to let you know that I enjoyed immensely your Hungarian joke on the Jew in London!

  3. JoeFour
    JoeFour says:

    “His alcoholism, confrontational character, philandering, and final descent into mental illness and suicide could lead some to perceive the author as little more than a debauched degenerate. This behavior was in all likelihood rooted in genetic causes…”

    Genetic? Most likely…here is a link to an article discussing Hemingway’s inherited illness and its effects on his health and consequent behavior:


    • Andy
      Andy says:

      Thank you very much for posting that link! Yes, a horrible genetic condition to have.. which explains an awful lot about H’s behaviour deteriorating and the death by suicide of his grandfather, father, brother, and sister.

      Thankfully haemochromatosis can be relieved in measure by giving blood to reduce the volume of excess iron. Apparently with this condition heavy alcohol consumption really does not help. It’s a great pity that H’s condition was not diagnosed early in his life and a means to manage it.

      Haemochromatosis – Causes – NHS

  4. Gnome Chompsky
    Gnome Chompsky says:

    I don’t have much to say here, Dr. Joyce, Ernest in later life was a mess, it seems.

    However, his writing at its best always makes it alright. Even in For whom the Bell Tolls, he expresses, in several passages, deep admiration and respect for his adversaries.

    As for Cohen in The Sun also Rises, it is all pretty funny, Cohen or whatever his real name is, deserves it.

    Lately, I have been reading a lot of of O. Henry short fiction, unlike Fitzgerald and Hemmingway, he is never direct, but in many of his tales, it is clear from name and business or behaviour.

    The references are there. Never as blunt as by Fitzgerald or Hemingway, but present in names and behaviour.

  5. Bill
    Bill says:

    In a discussion on books, Mr. Otto Scott made the following comments to RJ Rushdoony regarding both Hemingway and The Sun Also Rises:

    [Rushdoony] The other great disappointment was Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls. The students were walking around when that was published with it under their arm reading it at every spare moment. It was the in-book. It really was phenomenal in its impact on the students.

    Well, I picked up a used copy. I didn’t care much for it, but I stopped reading it, as I have told you before, when I got to the point where Pilar and I forget the man’s name were having sex on the ground and they went through this hocus pocus and they felt the earth shake under them. It was so cosmic an event.

    [Otto Scott] It moved the earth.

    [Rushdoony] At that point I tossed the book aside. I thought that was the silliest thing I ever read.

    [Otto Scott] Well, it was taken more seriously in New York. It was long awaited. Hemingway went over there and the loyalists, as they call themselves, gave him a chauffeur. He met Martha Gellhorn there. He had a big red carpet all over the place, took him anywhere and showed him everything. And terrible things were going on which Orwell wrote about later: where the equivalent of the KGB was there, the Russians were there, they were executing their own people.

    I had friends in the Lincoln brigade and I knew an awful lot of party people at that time in New York and they expected great things from Hemingway. He was a sympathizer. He was a fellow traveler. He was very much a part of that whole collective business. And he wrote what, in effect, was a Hollywood soap opera.

    There wasn’t a single thing about the issues or the realities of the war at all. It was catastrophic disappointment to me because I greatly admired his style, the directness of it, the simplicity of it, which cut through. I have always liked direct writing. I cannot stand flowery writing. And Hemingway destroyed himself in my eyes with that terrible book. And it was fulsomely reviewed everywhere by professors, by the tabloids, up and down.

    [Rushdoony] I never read a thing of his after that.

    [Scott] I think I read one To Have and to Hold which was very bad, very bad. In fact, his career was a long deterioration. He was an interesting example of what happens to you — I think he began as an artist — when success happens. Success is a great challenge. Many, many men fail the challenge of success and he was spectacular at failure in that regard.

    The books discussion can be found here:


    Some of Otto Scott’s books:

    Background on Otto Scott




  6. TJ
    TJ says:

    “it always seemed stupid to be white in Africa.”

    It’s more stupid to be black in Africa. . .

  7. JRM
    JRM says:

    A beautifully written article. Thank you. I think it may be a bit anachronistic to evaluate Hemingway against what we might term a 21st century White standard of awareness about Jews and multiculturalism.

    It seems clear that Hemingway possessed the very common, almost passive form of cultural anti-Semitism that was, indeed, exemplary of “College Men” of that era. This mostly consisted of a vague awareness of the crass materialism of the typical Jew, a suspicion of their clannish ways, a disdain for their physical homeliness and weakness, and a certain sense of a spiritual difference between the Aryan and the Semite.

    Another issue that this article put me in mind of, was the alienation of the WASP type from the image of National Socialist collectivity. The prevailing sense in the ‘thirties and ‘forties that Germans were submitting their will and very identity to the man leading them, and being reduced to interchangeable units in a smooth-running Fascist machine probably blinded men like Hemingway to the value of the White preservation elements of the Third Reich.

    In retrospect, it seems clear that men like Hemmingway would never have condoned the Cultural Marxist conformity of the modern American Empire. But back in the ‘thirties and ‘forties, America was mythologized as a land of independent mavericks and rugged men who bowed to no one. Heroes like Humphrey Bogart portrayed were suspicious of the cult of personality that informed Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and National Socialist Germany. Those countries were about massed displays of subordinate bodies; America was about individual reliance and self-control.

    The hard-drinking macho types like Hemingway were worshipers of individualism. This aesthetic dependence on lone-wolf heroics made the US propaganda of American wartime troops as temporary collectives resonate. Peopled by relentlessly individual types, usually including a Negro, and often a Jew amongst various ethnicities, overcoming differences to form effective fighting units; the platoon was sort of an United Nations in microcosm.

    The unfortunate result of years of exploitation of this individualist romanticism is obvious as our multi-cult society comes unraveled a little more each day. Occasionally, you will still hear “thanks to our troops, we’re not speaking German right now” sentiments, but I notice you hear them a lot less now than you did thirty years ago. It’s beginning to dawn on us that we were seduced by the “lone defender of the weak” tropes into giving our culture away.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “Occasionally, you will still hear ‘thanks to our troops, we’re not speaking German right now’ sentiments,”

      It’s interesting the way “speaking German” is considered a terrible fate, even though we are “speaking English” and so very many of us are not English. There is no language called American, although of course we do speak American English. But if we spoke German it would be an American German.

      I have been noticing that news items of the British Royal Family are exceedingly numerous on all American-based online news sites. It is like the Windsors are OUR Royal family too, and we need to know every little thing about them. What they are is great public relations for the UK, so it is a form of British propaganda. The attention around Meghan Markle’s baby is unrelenting. The English always wanted to rule the world and I think they’re doing it. No one seems to mind.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        If you spent less time compulsively sneering at Englishmen for not reflexively sharing your uncritical love of Hitler, perhaps you’d awaken to the fact that the “news” you seem addicted to reading is a product of (((press lords))) who are not themselves English and hate the English even more than you do.

        As (((they))) hate the Germans, too, need I add—and you into the bargain!—what prompts you to waste your time reading their intentionally deceptive stuff and to waste ours with your uninformative account of the same? One might be forgiven for wondering whether your aim isn’t actually to subvert any movement toward a present and future white consciousness and unity by resort to endless reminders of past internecine quarrels.

  8. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    “[The Sun Also Rises] was banned in Boston by conservative elements in 1930; burned by the German National Socialists in 1933; and outlawed in Ireland in 1953.”

    No books were burned by “the German National Socialists.” How about “SOME German National Socialists”? You should specify just who did any book burning in 1933. I notice you have no source for this, as you do for other claims.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      What kind of person with two residual IQ points to rub together could possibly differentiate between book burning and the banning of books, while making others mandatory school reading through state legislation of the AIPAC & Co. variety ?

      Thousands of British pensioners demonstrated against grand larcenist and celebrated Israel benefactor Maxwell [ Hoch ] son of a Czech live- and not-so-live cattle dealer, with placards of ” Vee vont our money “, after he emptied their pension funds. [ His model was twice tolerated subsequently by the now senile Parliament, despite their promises. Expensive yachts, moored well offshore played a common role ].

      As one of his 400+ firms, he owned Macmillan Publishing, which had published Professor Doctor Carrol Quigley’s TRAGEDY AND HOPE, in which too many secrets were published, pursuant to his unfettered access to private papers.

      Macmillan pulled all its exemplars off their and others’ shelves
      and went so far as to destroy the very printing plates.

      I obtained a fine photo copy edition for 50+ from a California dealer: you can too.

      Yes, Nazis burned books: after all we have a single photograph of a bunch of students in Berlin. And an entire book on evidenced documentary and photographic fabrications. My favorite among them: the train at Berlin’s Grunewald station, en route to Poland; in reality a proven post-War photo of a train at the Hamburg Central Railway station.

      Nazis burned books – yawn ! In the so-called democracies you can’t even procure them in order to burn them. That’s the liberal reigning monarchs’ difference: themselves imposed on us all by manipulated default !

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Lovely to see your name here again, Charles. I’m sure I am not the only one who has missed you and your ever-informative comments.

        Although I was an employee of three of Macmillan’s divisions during the years of Maxwell’s ownership, any tales worth the telling would be inexcusably off-topic; so till another day …

        Decidedly on-topic, however, is a dismissive opinion of Hemingway, with specific reference to the novel “Death in the Afternoon,” from the pen of his contemporary E. E. Cummings (who riffs off Longfellow in the process). It’s worth noting, too, that, unlike Hemingway’s, Cummings’s self-reliance and manliness were not confined to the printed page.

        what does little Ernest croon
        in his death at afternoon?
        (kow dow r 2 bul retoinis
        wus de woids uf lil Oinis

  9. Robert Griffin
    Robert Griffin says:

    My congratulations go to Andrew Joyce for this impressively researched and argued article. It superbly responds to my assertion in a 2016 TOO article that Hemingway merits being a respected figure in whites’ racial heritage. I learned so much from reading Andrew’s article. I’m better for having read it. I respect it greatly. Robert S. Griffin

  10. Bill Karenin
    Bill Karenin says:

    Sir Walter Scott describes Hemingway types very well:

    Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
    Who never to himself hath said,
    This is my own, my native land!
    Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
    As home his footsteps he hath turn’d
    From wandering on a foreign strand!
    If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
    For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
    High though his titles, proud his name,
    Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
    Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
    The wretch, concentred all in self,
    Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
    And, doubly dying, shall go down
    To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
    Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

    Sir Walter Scott

  11. Allyn71
    Allyn71 says:

    “It’s now common knowledge, both from depictions of Jews in his fiction, and his discussions of Jews in letters and private papers, that Ernest Hemingway was highly suspicious of Jews…”

    Common knowledge? There needs to be citations here for the “less learned”. Assuming that he was improperly paid for his work, he would assuredly draw his ire toward that group. Moreover, given the fact that Hemingway was narcissistic, it is other than surprising that he would judge people he met by his own self-inflated standards. And given that he was also “insufferable” by most accounts, he would naturally attribute his own flaws to those around him, Jew or non-Jew.

    “Jewish war novels shaped the understanding of postwar America about the events that had just happened in the conflict, along with suggesting how the country should treat Jews and others in the coming era. [emphasis added]”

    Which has little to do with masculinity, but one of group character.

    “He wrote female characters debauched and degraded by feminism, while bedding successive real life examples of the same.”

    A defense mechanism on his part, given his own fears of strong womanhood growing up, as well as his in-born tendency to pull in and push back the women of his life.

    In summary, depictions of warfare in literature became less about masculine qualities that had been the focus of the Western canon since The Iliad, and more about how sensitive troops should be to the diversity in their platoon.

  12. Chris M
    Chris M says:

    ” given the fact that Hemingway was narcissistic”

    That’s a fact? Where’s your evidence?

    “it is other than surprising that he would judge people he met by his own self-inflated standards.”

    What were his standards exactly, and how were they self-inflated?

    “And given that he was also “insufferable” by most accounts…”

    It’s a given he was insufferable? By whose accounts?
    Do we have anything definitive as to whether or not those accusing him of being insufferable weren’t themselves insufferable?

    “he would naturally attribute his own flaws to those around him, Jew or non-Jew.”

    Is it only natural for Hemingway? Couldn’t the same be said about you?

    And, by the way, isn’t the sort of projection you’re talking about the kind accusation justifiably attributed to Jews?

    Where’s your evidence of his fears of strong womanhood while growing up?

    And, if he really was a narcissist, which you state as fact based on no evidence whatsoever (thereby undermining your own argument), are you aware that narcissistic sons are the product of narcissistic mothers? Is narcissism your definition of strong womanhood?

    In any event, speaking of “growing up.”

    Your comment proves one thing. TOO has been infiltrated and contaminated by JIDF Trolls. And if you’re not one, you might as well be.

  13. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    I like both Andrew Joyce and Hemingway for different reasons. One as an artist, the other as a scholar. And for some of the same reasons too. They both write well, have something to say, and are powers of example for us. One implicit, the other explicit.

    On the other hand, probably the least interesting thing anyone can say about a writer, whether of fiction or nonfiction, is that they’re good or bad, or that they like them or don’t.
    We can justify our taste if we want. But we can’t use it to prove anything.

    But that’s not all that can be said about either one. Put in question form one could ask in regard to both

    Are they relevant and useful to European culture (which includes its geographical extensions), and its sense of meaning, value, and identity?

    And my answer to that question is a simple, Yes!

    Of course, it’s not quite that simple. But it’ll have to do for now.

    Hemingway was an artist, not a White advocate.
    And, as Nietzsche once said, every artist is a whore to his art. That might be a regrettable from the perspective of White advocacy, but it’s idle to complain about it.

    And, from an historical perspective, exactly who was advocating for Whites while Hemingway was alive? He and many others were living breathing powers of example of what European culture is capable of. Even if they chose not to take the path of Ezra Pound.

    Speaking of history. European culture has been in a state of crisis for 200+years now. From that point of view Hemingway was unquestionably one of our heroes of a culture crisis, just as Dr. Joyce, KM, Mr. Langdon are today. Not to mention the many others of us out there living day to day.

    Right now, to live as proud descendents of European culture is to turn one’s life into a heroic going against the grain. We need all the heroes we can get. And we have many. Hemingway is one of them.

    With our enemies working 24/7 to deprive us of our heroes, which is to deprive us of examples that give us a sense of meaning, value, and identity, three things without which life is unbearable, why on earth would we want to help them?

  14. charlie
    charlie says:

    When Hemingway was asked why he was always seen in the company of brown women he replied:
    “American women (white women) are not happy unlessl their man is unhappy”. Even though I’d never do a brown woman I agree 100% with his characterization of White women. White women are raised by corrosive man hating feminist monsters. They can not be happy until a White man’s spirit is broken like a breaking the will of a wild mustang. White women are now encouraged to fornicate with the black boyz because they beat a White woman until she is pulp and then she puts out and produces wiglet nappy monkeys for him. White women are traitors to their race and must be dealt with if the White race is to continue. White women prefer convicts, dopers, drunkards and any other piece of trash they can dredge up and then blame (#MeAlsoBecuzImaMonster) decent White men for their mental illness and monthly menstruation cycle.

  15. jenne aakster
    jenne aakster says:

    Times are changeable, and men with it, I like him, he is a men, as my father wash, who fought in Spain, on the end he wash not himself, and took his live, my father died not old, half of his intestine he lost in Spain, he had the same feeling about Yews, well lots of critic on Hemingway thank you R.I.P., but some of his books, I would not have mis them in my live, I am 82 now, maby time to go fishing !

Comments are closed.