“The Necessity of Anti-Semitism”

“There has always been an abyss between Europeans and Semites, since the time when Tacitus complained about the odium generis humani.”
Heinrich von Treitschke, Ein Wort über unser Judenthum, 1879.

In 1989, the Jewish screenwriter and journalist Frederic Raphael was invited to deliver the 25th Anniversary Lecture at the University of Southampton’s Parkes Institute for the study of Jewish/non-Jewish relations. Founded by Rev Dr James Parkes (1896–1981), a neurotic Church of England minister who made a career out of the promotion of philo-Semitism in Christianity and the promotion of guilt narratives among Christians (in 1935 he was both celebrated by Jews and targeted for assassination by National Socialists), the Institute quickly became a hub for the production of scholarly-appearing pro-Jewish propaganda. Rather than offering objective analyses of Jewish/non-Jewish relations, the Institute furthered the familiar narrative that Jews were the blameless and catastrophic victims of an entirely irrational European hatred. Raphael, given the honor of addressing the 25th anniversary of this project, opted on the appointed evening to be a witty gadfly, choosing “The Necessity of Anti-Semitism” as the title of his address. It could be the title of a book, said Raphael, one that could sit in the Parkes Institute library but for the fact it had never been written, and did not exist.

In the meandering speech that followed, Raphael explored the putative contents of this imaginary book, suggesting its potential arguments, and what they might say about the author and about European culture. Confirming the opinions of everyone present, Raphael offered the assurance that although this ghostly and ghastly book did not exist, such a haunting product would not be out of place on a continent where anti-Semitism is “a constant and essential working part of Europe’s somber and unreformed logic.”^[1] For Raphael and his smug audience, “The Necessity of Anti-Semitism” lay only in its utility in salving the pathological European mind. Anti-Semitism was in fact extremely illogical and, in a moral sense, completely unnecessary.

Since reading Raphael’s speech several years ago, The Necessity of Anti-Semitism has, in a sense, haunted me too. As a single book, of course, it does not exist. But it perhaps has existed, after a fashion, in the thousands of tracts, pamphlets and books on the Jewish Question that have been written by Europeans over many centuries. In this collected body of anti-Semitic apologetics, one finds The Necessity of Anti-Semitism inflected in varying religious, political, and social hues. But what would the book look like if it was in fact written today? How could any author distill the various aspects of the Jewish Question into a single volume? In the essay that follows, part literary experiment, part historiography, I want us to join Raphael in imagining that this spectral book exists, even if our approach is rather different.

I imagine our author to introduce his volume with the broad case for The Necessity of Anti-Semitism, namely the presence of Jews and their influence in the four primary cultures of White decline: the Culture of Critique, the Culture of Tolerance, the Culture of Sterility, and the Culture of Usury.

The Culture of Critique

The section titled ‘Culture of Critique’ is a both a nod to the work of Kevin MacDonald, and an expansion upon the same. Setting out this section, our author might recall the notorious remark of the Jewish historian Louis Namier (1888–1960) when asked why he did not deal with Jewish history: “The Jews do not have a history, they have a martyrology.” It is this martyrology that lies at the heart of the Culture of Critique. Whereas almost every nation possesses a history that is in most respects objective, the Jews alone possess a mere quasi-history, riddled with mythic and esoteric self-deceptions that give psychological permission for the most clannish and subversive of social behaviors and the most hostile of attitudes towards other peoples. The Culture of Critique, a kind of cultural revenge inspired by the Jewish martyrology, is the clearest expression of the corrosive nature of the disastrous Jewish/non-Jewish relations so mourned by the woefully misguided Rev James Parkes.

In the Jewish mind, the corrosive nature of their interactions with European peoples has always taken on a heroic aspect. The ruse is played out, for themselves and us, that in these interactions we see a unique and virtuous questioning by ‘insiders/outsiders’ uniquely and helpfully placed to show Western culture its own flaws. Jews believe themselves to possess special talents in this respect, and maybe in a perverse sense they do, but in any case, in their great charade they break us down to “benefit” us. David Dresser and Lester Friedman, Jewish scholars of the media, maintain the position that Jewish filmmakers have a unique, untainted objectivity because of their Jewishness. They write that “Jewish artists’ marginality allows them a vantage point denied other, more culturally absorbed, creative thinkers.”^[2] This compares remarkably well with a writer in the Times of Israel who, commenting on the activities of the Jewish politician Alan Shatter in destroying the legal supports of the family in Ireland, has argued that Shatter’s Jewishness “appeared to put him at an advantage, freeing him from the baggage that weighed on his Catholic counterparts.” Just like the Frankfurt School, these cultural heroes know us better than we know ourselves, which allows them to help us see that we are irrational and evil, bigoted and in need of Jewish redemption. We are constantly and warmly assured by our Jewish helpers that this process is undertaken for the West’s own good. They free us from our “baggage.”

In truth, this process is undertaken for our destruction. The Critique, having no coherent objectives beyond the will to decay, never ends. It never ceases the search for novel and unsullied corners of Western culture to drag through the mud. The ‘Rabbi’s Speech’ from Hermann Goedsche’s Biarritz (1868) is a work of fiction, but it drew on a multitude of facts and instincts. In the Jewish cemetery of Prague, Goedsche’s Rabbi addresses a secret nocturnal meeting of thirteen Jewish elders, promising they shall “extirpate all belief and faith in everything that our enemies the Christians have venerated up to the present and, using the allurements of the passions as our weapon, we shall declare open war on everything that people respect and venerate.”

The direction here is accurate, but Goedsche didn’t get everything right. There are no clandestine midnight meetings, no gatherings of Elders of Zion, but instead a shared instinct defending shared interests in a spirit of bitterness and, in reality, the Culture of Critique is not a declaration of open war, but the pursuance of war disguised as friendship, as medicine, as liberation. Boas tore down Western cultural confidence while claiming to set Westerners free from the errors and burdens of chauvinism. Freud perverted everything that was sacred about sex and marriage, and called it a cure. Marx called on the workers of the world to unite, and unite them he did — in the lines for food, in the gulags, and in the mass graves of a starved Ukraine. War has been noisily and bloodily waged, but it has been only silently and subversively declared.

And still they wage it, even if they’ve already toppled “everything that people respect and venerate.” The churches are infiltrated, vanquished, mocked and disdained. The history of Christianity has been put through the Jewish intellectual meat grinder, and emerges today only as a tale of persecutions and slavery. It is a shell, co-opted for endless tolerance. Even discounting religion, no notable Western historical figure has survived the Culture of Critique. And when our uniquely insightful Jewish helpers tired of toppling reputations, they used their ethnic proxies to start toppling statues, removing names, and burning portraits. No aspect of Western culture was to be left standing. Its science, philosophy and moral systems were mocked, derided, and savaged, with every sonnet, concerto, and technological innovation leading obscurely but somehow definitely to a World War II camp in Poland where to this day, we are earnestly told, no birds sing.

Except that I’ve visited what remains of this camp, and the birds do sing. There is no magic there. Time does not stand still. The children, forced to be there by their schools, laugh and scrawl graffiti on old bunks and doors, while adults, clearly worried that someone is watching them, do their best to appear solemn and moved rather than cold and bored.

Our author might concur, pointing out in The Necessity of Anti-Semitism that this particular camp is the jewel in the crown of the Jewish martyrology, and perhaps even the engine of the most advanced form of the Culture of Critique. Almost 55 years after it was written, Jerzy Kosiński’s The Painted Bird is now back in the news. It’s a memoir about his experiences around this same notorious wartime Polish camp, and it is replete with child-rape, bestiality, and pornographic depictions of violence including the feeding of a man’s eyes to pet cats. It’s also a long-exposed fraud, a fanciful pastiche of Kosiński’s own psychosexual fantasies. This hasn’t stopped it recently being made into a film that is being roundly applauded by critics, nor has the fact it has induced viewers to vomit, faint, and remove themselves from movie theaters. Perhaps, in the age of the Culture of Critique, many Whites have learned to love being told how evil they are towards Jews, taking each condemnation like a dose of welcome medicine. Joanna Siedlecka, a journalist and author of writers’ biographies, studied the life of Kosiński and concluded “[The Painted Bird] has nothing to do with Kosiński’s real childhood; he invented those horrors, while he himself experienced only good, while the villagers took the risk to hide his whole family. (…) Kosiński is still treated as a victim, even though we now know a lot more about his biography. We know Poles didn’t torment him.”

Our author might point out in The Necessity of Anti-Semitism that the example of Kosiński and the Poles is wholly commensurate to the historical relationship between Jews and Europeans. A biographer of these two peoples can attempt to show the reality of the situation, but the Jew “is still treated as a victim.” And this “victim” elevates himself to the position of moral arbiter and arch critic. Armed with their very own sadomasochistic historical pastiche, Jewish activists direct the Critique into action for what one assumes to be a Racial Endgame. They deny this, of course, and call it a wicked conspiracy theory. But in reality, they are like the proverbial Irishman who denies he stole the bucket, adding the indignant criticism that it had a hole in it anyway. The Jews vigorously deny any role in the decline of Western culture, adding indignantly that Western culture is rotten, sick, racist, bigoted, and irrational anyway. Their denial is a form of admission. This is the essence of the Culture of Critique.

The Culture of Tolerance

This section might open with the remark that the Culture of Tolerance is itself a child of the Culture of Critique. When did Jews first start calling for Whites to abolish themselves in their own lands? Our author might argue that they began right at the first Jewish entry into European culture — not European lands, but European culture. Isn’t it Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) who is often held up as the first “assimilated” Jew, the first real Jewish intellectual who wanted to be ‘part of German culture’ and who advocated for “tolerance”? Well, what did Mendelssohn, the first “German of the Jewish faith,” actually ask Europeans to do? That much is clear, and a matter of historical record. He impudently and impatiently asked, “For how long, for how many millennia, must this distinction between the owners of the land and the stranger continue? Would it not be better for mankind and culture to obliterate this distinction?”^[3] [emphasis added].

And there we have it —  the very first Jewish intrusion into Western culture was accompanied by a call for the obliteration of borders and the migration and settlement rights of “the stranger.”

From the very beginning of Jewish activism in Western culture, it was in the interest of Jews to undermine the position of the owners of the land and to promote “tolerance.” It was Mendelssohn’s 1781 work, On the Civil Amelioration of the Condition of the Jews, that is said to have played a significant part in the rise of “tolerance” in Western culture. But tolerance, despite all the glowing propaganda, is a curious word. Place it in a medical context, and tolerance means “the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific toxin or other foreign substance which induces an immune response in the body, especially the production of antibodies.”

And isn’t this exactly what Mendelssohn prescribed almost two and half centuries ago— that the owners of the land should be “unresponsive,” suppressing all natural “immune responses” even in the face of intruding toxins? We have to ask ourselves how tolerance ever became regarded as a virtue. The answer is that it became a virtue in the context of the Jewish intrusion into Western culture.

The Culture of Tolerance is now more than two centuries old. It matured slowly, but there can be little doubt that it has now come of age. Kevin MacDonald’s work has conclusively demonstrated that Jewish groups organized, funded and performed most of the work aimed at combating America’s 1924 immigration law, toppling it finally in 1965. Brenton Sanderson has shown that Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism were pivotal in ending the White Australia policy — a policy change opposed by the vast majority of the Australian population. I have written on how Jews were conspicuous in the dramatic changes in Britain’s citizenship, race, and speech laws from the 1950s to the 1980s. A Jewish Minister for Justice transformed Ireland’s citizenship process, opening the country up to Africans and Pakistanis. Today, Jews dominate the mass migration NGO scene, demonstrably holding executive roles at the International Rescue Committee, International Refugee Assistance Project, the Immigrant’s Rights division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Immigration Justice Center, Equal Justice Works, The Immigrant Defense Project, National Immigration Law Center, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, the Asylum Advocacy Project, Refugee Council USA, the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, The Immigrant Learning Center, the Open Avenues Foundation, the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project, Central American Legal Assistance, Halifax Refugee Clinic, and the UK Refugee Law Initiative. The migration policy advisor for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is not a Catholic, but a Jewish woman.

Third World mass migration into Europe and the West is a Jewish project. It has been curated by Jews, promoted by Jews, explained and excused by Jews. It is driven by a Jewish need, as old as Mendelssohn’s tract and perhaps older, to dispossess the owners of the land and open up that land to the stranger in the name of tolerance.

Much like the Culture of Critique, Jews offer us the Culture of Tolerance in the guise of friendship. With broad grins and mellifluous tones, they assure us that we are doomed if we don’t obliterate “the distinction between owners of the land and the stranger.” After all, haven’t we been helpfully informed that our own culture is worthless, bigoted, illusory, tainted, and morally bankrupt? Why not import an array of new, vibrant cultures? That way we can experience a more exciting life and, what’s more, it would go some way to proving ourselves morally acceptable to our Jewish friends, the innocent martyrs of humanity. And we should listen to them primarily because their advice makes perfect sense. After all, we need unemployable Africans to fund our pensions, Islamic terrorists to care for our ageing populations, and millions more people in our countries in order to solve our housing crises. We need floods of cheap labor to increase our wages. We need poorly trained foreign sex criminals to staff our hospitals, perform our surgeries, and nurse us back to health. We need to tolerate the burqa to demonstrate how profoundly feminist we’ve become as a society. We need to express our patriotism by denying we exist as a people. We need more speech-gagging laws to ensure freedom. And, most importantly of all, we need to become a less racist society by eliminating Whites everywhere.

Our helpful friends deliver these messages to us in a number of ways. When they are feeling generous, they simply bombard us with screen garbage, portraying multiculturalism on film in a manner entirely divergent from the way it plays out in reality. Jewish cinematic magic is a form of cultural alchemy. Take Black crime and low academic achievement, dip it in Hollywood, and muggers and rapists are transformed into educated Black “love interests” fawned over by nubile blondes. Or, take the stability and tranquility of the White middle-class family, dip it in Hollywood, and what now emerges is a claustrophobic den of neuroticism, control and bigotry.

When our Jewish friends are feeling less generous, they force their way into your child’s school curriculum, and when they are angered they remove your right to free speech and imprison you. On the other hand, if you try to impede Jewish particularism by, for example, banning one of their tribal rites such as circumcision, the lesson of the ADL’s threats to the sovereign nation of Iceland shows that blackmail, slander, and unrelenting economic warfare are equally deployable tools in their armory. In this example, of course, we’re back to the Irishman and the bucket. The Jews deny they have outsized influence, adding that if you make that accusation again, their little club in New York will bring your entire country to its knees.

While the Culture of Tolerance is in full swing, one lingering problem is that White babies, for now, keep coming. Here our author might begin the third section of his book.

The Culture of Sterility

Jews are everywhere in the Culture of Sterility, an appropriate term for what the world’s leading scholars have described as the “rapid increase” in “levels of childlessness in most European countries.”^[4] Our author could start with the fact the oral contraceptive was invented by the Jew Gregory Goodwin Pincus, but really Jews have everywhere in the West been, to use the Jewish historian Howard Sachar’s own words, “pioneers in the underground contraceptives industry.”^[5] By plan, co-ordination, or raw instinct, Jews have accumulated in those areas toxic to the White birth rate — contraception, abortion, divorce laws, and the promotion of pornography, homosexuality, gender confusion, and promiscuity.

The pioneers of abortion clinics, birth control literature for couples, and birth control policy measures in America were, according to one scholar, “Anna Samuelson in the Bronx; Olga Ginzburg and Rachelle Yarros in Chicago; Sarah Marcus in Cleveland; Nadine Kavinoky and Rochelle Seletz in Los Angeles; Esther Cohen and Golda Nobel in Philadelphia; Hannah Stone, Marie Warner, Cheri Appel, Anna Spielgeman, Naomi Yarmolinsky, Bessie Moses in Baltimore, Elizabeth Kleinman in Boston, and Lena Levine in New York, Hannah Seitzwick-Robbins in Trenton, and Lucile Lord-Heinstein in Massachusetts.”^[6] All of these women were Jews. Stone was particularly influential, working closely with Sanger and producing key birth control texts like Contraceptive Methods of Choice (1926), Therapeutic Contraception (1928), Contraception and Mental Hygiene (1933), and Birth Control: A Practical Survey (1937).

In the 1920s and 1930s, the primary lawyer for Margaret Sanger, the non-Jewish public face of the pro-abortion and birth-control movement in New York, was the Jew Morris Ernst. And when Sanger decided to move for Federal birth control legislation, she wrote to Rabbi Stephen Wise in 1931 asking him to use Jewish political influence and his own extensive list of political contacts to help make it happen, a request he happily obliged.^[7] Of course, Sanger had married a Jew, and according to one biographer “surrounded herself with Jewish colleagues and friends.”^[8]

In fact, Jewish influence is so tightly bound up with the origins of abortion in America that historian Daniel K. Williams has characterized the abortion debate of the 1930s as a “religious conflict because nearly all the doctors speaking out against abortion were Catholic while the most vocal proponents of abortion legalization were Jewish.”^[9] Williams adds the fact “Reform Jewish rabbis also became early leaders in the abortion law liberalisation movement.”^[10] The link between Jewish organizations and the more sordid (and often Jewish-dominated) corners of the medical profession came into stark relief during investigations into illegal abortions in the 1940s and 1950s, when the crossover was such that, according to historian Leslie J. Reagan, local authorities in New York, found “pro-birth control and Jewish organisations of particular interest.”^[11] By the time Pincus developed the Pill, he was sufficiently aware of the potential for birth control and Jewish activism to be linked in the popular mind that he deliberately selected John Rock, a Catholic, rather than Abraham Stone and Alan Guttmacher, long-term colleagues and leaders of the birth control movement, to develop a contraceptive regimen in women, in order to avoid “anti-Semitic stigma.”^[12]

The same pattern has been repeated in every other Western nation. Alan Shatter may have acted as chief propagandist for birth control legislation in Ireland in the 1970s, but even a century before Shatter’s actions a member of the Irish clergy reported:

There arrived in town a Jew with a lorry [ … ] and he started selling contraceptives made up as pencil holders . … Someone told the parish priest about the traffic . …  He notified the police who could do nothing. He then set up a court of his own and tried him and fined him £10. The Jew paid £10 and cleared out.^[13]

In New York, Jews like Moses Jacobi and Morris Glattstine were particularly influential and conspicuous in the sale of illicit contraceptives and in the underground abortion scene as early as the 1870s.^[14] Similarly, during the late nineteenth century, “Jews were among the leaders of the revolution in birth control in southern Germany.”^[15] In interwar Germany, according to scholar Harriet Freidenreich, “Jewish women physicians played a very prominent role in the campaign to legalise abortion. … Jewish women physicians were disproportionately involved in the sex reform movement that promoted more widespread availability of birth control. They were very visible in the dissemination of contraceptive devices.”^[16]

In the Polish Second Republic, the central pioneer of sexual education, contraception, the promotion of homosexuality, and abortion was Irena Krzywicka (née Goldberg). As well as founding Liga Reformy Obyczajów (The League to Reform Mores), Krzywicka wrote for the influential journal Wiadomosci literackie (Literary News) where she argued the case for civil unions, easy divorce, easily accessible contraception, female “sexual liberation,” and abortion.^[17] In his Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland, historian Robert Blobaum points out that the “anti-Semitic press” in Poland made the link between Jews and “the spread of birth control literature” as well as pornography, but is notably shy of discussing Krzywicka’s career or that of her many Jewish colleagues.^[18] Ronald Modras notes that even the Polish birth control movement’s non-Jewish leaders stood out for their “philosemitism.”^[19]

In France, the main body behind the legalization of contraception and abortion was Choisir (To Choose), founded by the Jewish lawyer Gisèle Halimi, and the relevant legislation was finally passed by the Jewish Minister of Health Simone Veil (born Simone Jacob).^[20] In the United States, of course, Roe v. Wade was effectively the product of activism by the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, founded by the Jew Bernard Nathanson. Nathanson worked closely on abortion legislation activism with Jewish feminist Betty Friedan, until he experienced an apparently legitimate crisis of conscience in the late 1970s and subsequently converted to Catholicism. By that date, he had personally performed more than 60,000 abortions, later explaining in an interview: “We fed a line of deceit, of dishonesty, of fabrication of statistics and figures; we coddled, caressed, and stroked the press. … We were calling ourselves pro-abortionists and pro-choice. In fact we were abortifiers: those who like abortion.” And Jews certainly like abortion. According to Pew data, Jews have a higher rate of support for abortion than any other religious group in America. In fact, Jews enjoy limiting the fertility of other populations so much that in 2013 Israel admitted giving birth control to incoming Ethiopian migrants without their consent.

Our author might linger on the subject of birth control and abortion only because the prevalence of Jews in other areas of the Culture of Sterility is now so well-documented. Jewish involvement in early sexology, through influential figures like Albert Moll, Iwan Bloch, Magnus Hirschfeld, Albert Eulenberg, Hermann Joseph Lowenstein, Julius Wolf, Max Marcuse, and Eduard Bernstein, was universally concerned with the need for “tolerance” and social pluralism. What they in fact promoted were pathological sexual aberrations, distant from reproduction and toxic to social cohesion. Hirschfeld, probably the originator of “Love is Love” propaganda, had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.^[21]

Here it is worth stressing that Jews have not accumulated in the promotion of “tolerance” for homosexuals, gender-benders, abortion-seekers, and transvestites because they genuinely believe in the “rights” or “worth” of these people. Rather, Jews see in these people traits that it wishes to promote in the population at large and recruit them to the Culture of Tolerance. Society never really accepted homosexuality and transgenderism, but rather society itself first became ‘homosexual’ in its traits before it could tolerate actual homosexuals and transgenders. As the West became progressively more childless, promiscuous, hedonistic, and brimming with delusional self-confidence, the differences between the normal and the abnormal narrowed, and there appeared fewer reasons to continue to deny ‘equality.’ Societies with demographic concerns will have harsh penalties for both homosexuality and abortion/infanticide. The West, celebrating both, is in demographic free fall but, ignorant of the profound implications of this racial death, its people are actually in the process of indulging a culture cultivated for their demographic assassination. Homosexuality has never been more tolerated. Abortion has never been easier and less stigmatized. And Whites have never been closer to leaving the stage of history.

Promiscuity has replaced the pushchair. A glance at the modern generation of Whites of child-bearing age is sobering. Rates of sexually transmitted disease in America have never been higher. According to senior physicians, the U.K. is heading for a “sexual health crisis.” The same phenomenon has been reported in Australia, Canada, Ireland, France, and Germany. Meanwhile, the Gatestone Institute reports that: “Abortion has recently assumed epic proportions in countries such as Sweden or France. In France, there are 200,000 abortions a year. To put things in perspective, there are in France around 750,000 births a year. France, therefore, is aborting 20% of its babies/fetuses/embryos/cell clusters — choose according to your personal convictions — each year.” You can be sure it isn’t French Muslims who are aborting their babies by the hundred thousand, and this perhaps explains why they’ve been telling the Archbishop of Strasbourg that “France will be theirs one day.”

In The Population Bomb (1968), the Jewish biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote that the best method to reduce population is the legalization of abortion. That was without considering the effect of birth control or the broader Culture of Sterility that glorifies perverted, empty, childless visions of “love.” When Europeans began to legalize both birth control and abortion 40 years ago, a few years after Roe vs. Wade (1973), the Catholic Church warned of the risk of Europe entering into a “morbid civilization.” This is what we now inhabit.

The Culture of Usury

In a West gone wildly materialistic, it can be difficult to see the extent of Jewish usury. When you mention Jewish moneylenders to most people, the response normally relates to the Middle Ages. But Jewish usury is alive and well in modernity, and entire countries are in debt to Jewish financiers, who then pass on some of their wealth to Jewish organizations dedicated to the promotion of the three other cultures of White decline (Critique, Tolerance, Sterility). Paul Singer, of the Jewish “investment fund” has been described by Bloomberg as “The World’s Most Feared Investor,” but really he’s the world’s most feared exploiter of debt. The Democratic Republic of Congo owes Singer and his Jewish colleagues $90 million, Panama owes him $57 million, Peru owes him $58 million, and Argentina owes him $1.5 billion. When payments have been late, Singer seized and detained the flagship of the Argentinian Navy, and when South Korea put up a fight to prevent him getting control of Samsung, he drove the nation’s President to impeachment and imprisonment.

While these activities may appear very high-level, and distant from the reality of day-to-day life (unless you are a citizen of the Congo and Singer is blackmailing you for payment by withholding essential work on your water supply), Singer and his Jewish financial clique have a hand in almost every purchase you make, and every war your country wages. Singer, his son Gordin, and their colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and have a stake in every company you’re likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar stores. With the profits of exploitation, they fund the Culture of Sterility, boost Zionist politics, invest millions in security for Jews, and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican, and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom’s Watch. Another key Singer project was the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in 2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S. policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from Singer.

Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics (“Paul Singer represents amnesty and he represents illegal immigration pouring into the country”), Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews—Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money. In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of Singer’s firm, Elliott Management, were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the Senate’s most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a “retaliatory strike” against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put it, “These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect a return on their investment in Trump’s GOP.” When Adelson and Singer first made overtures to Marco Rubio, Trump tweeted that Rubio would be their “puppet.” Trump has now taken money from the same puppetmasters, but has thus far refused to go “all the way” with their demands, even firing John Bolton, a favorite of the Jewish triad. How the latter will proceed in the face of Trump’s defiance on the matter remains to be seen.

The Intersection of the Culture of Usury and the Culture of Zio-Wars: Paul Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson

The Jewish triad behind Trump is a perfect example of the role of Jewish finance and the Culture of Usury in sustaining and advancing Jewish power and influence in contemporary society. Singer embodies usury and vulture capitalism, while Bernard “Home Depot” Marcus is symptomatic of bloated consumerism, and Adelson represents the sordid commercial exploitation of vice (gambling). There is nothing productive in the economic activity of any of these figures, their vast accumulations arising from sociopathic parasitism, ethnic nepotism, and the will to cultural decay.

We feel this decay lower down the scale, since we live in a society of conspicuous consumption, funded by ever-escalating household debt. Everywhere, people buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have. Household debt is rising yet again in the United States. According to the New York Federal Reserve, Americans owe $13.86 trillion in household debt, slightly higher than the total amount right before the 2008 financial crisis. In Australia, the household debt to income ratio is above 190%, among the highest in the developed world. The same situation is seen in the U.K. Jews, of course, were involved disproportionately in the development of department stores, the fashion industry, retailing business, and other aspects of the consumer society.^[22] Jews in late nineteenth-century Germany, as they did in several other Western countries, initiated the “consumer revolution,” and “held, or at least started, the overwhelming majority of department stores and clothing and fashion houses throughout the country.”^[23] Werner Sombart remarked at the time that department stores were the herald of a new, degenerative economic culture, typified by “the anonymous, objectifying forces of capitalism and marketing.” Contemporary anti-Semites saw these centers of the economic culture as “a consuming temple in two senses, as both a temple of consumption and a temple that consumes — that is, a place of destruction, a Moloch even, that greedily devours vulnerable customers and neighbouring businesses.”^[24]

Today, largely worthless “branded” consumer products are overwhelmingly Jewish, are promoted via Jewish dominance of the advertising industry, and their purchase by consumers is funded by Jewish financiers. Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Kenneth Cole, Max Factor, Estée Lauder, and Marc Jacobs are just some of the Jews whose very names have become synonymous with debt-fueled consumer culture and the subscribing to carefully cultivated fashion fads, while Jewish-owned companies like Starbucks, Macy’s, the Gap, American Apparel, Costco, Staples, Home Depot, Ben & Jerry’s, Timberland, Snapple, Häagen-Dazs, Dunkin’ Donuts, Monster Beverages, Mattel, and Toys “R” Us have come to epitomize the endless and superfluous production of garbage for mass consumption on credit.

The consuming temple of debt-fueled consumerism is also linked to the cultures of Critique, Tolerance, and Sterility. So-called anti-racism, support for gender confusion, and the celebration of mass migration and multiculturalism have become mainstays of modern advertising as the Racial Endgame nears its conclusion and the West commences its death rattle.

You might ask what tortilla chips have to do with sodomy, but that’s only because you’re suffering from a tolerance deficiency, and the best way to correct that is to admit White privilege, buy a
Starbucks, and go try on a new pair of $200 jeans at Macy’s.

Conclusion

Critique, Tolerance, Sterility and Usury have converged. This is the necessity of anti-Semitism. As much as The Necessity of Anti-Semitism has haunted me, so too has the image of Goedsche’s Rabbi addressing the graveyard meeting of thirteen elders. It haunts me because it appears so antiquated and naive, as if the situation could ever have been so simple. The reality has always been much more profound, and infinitely more dangerous. The Jewish Question, such as it might exist for Jews, has always amounted to “Is it good for the Jews?” For Whites, it should always have been “Are the Jews good for us?” An answer might be found in their accumulation in their four aspects of White decline. Our opposition to this accumulation and its associated activities is perfectly logical, and morally necessary.

^[1] F. Raphael, The Necessity of Anti-Semitism (London: Carcanet, 1997), 49.

^[2] D. Dresser and L. Friedman, American Jewish Filmmakers (University of Illinois, 2004), 7.

^[3] M. Mendelssohn, “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden,” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367.

^[4] M. Kreyenfeld Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences (Cham: SpringerOpen, 2017), v.

^[5] Cited in T. Russell, A Renegade History of the United States (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).

^[6] M. R. Klapper Ballots, Babies, and Banners of Peace: American Jewish Women’s Activism, 1890-1940 (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 151.

^[7] Ibid, 159.

^[8] E. Chesler Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007), 51.

^[9] D. K. Williams Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v Wade (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 27.

^[10] Ibid, 66.

^[11] L. J. Reagan When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 173.

^[12] J. Reed The Birth Control Movement and American Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 351.

^[13] M. P. Leone Atlantic Crossings in the Wake of Frederick Douglass (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 111.

^[14] J. F. Brodie Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-century America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 234.

^[15] A. C. Crombie (ed) History of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 371.

^[16] H. P. Freidenreich Female, Jewish, and Educated: The Lives of Central European University Women (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), 154.

^[17] Y. Hashamova (ed) Transgressive Women in Modern Russian and East European Cultures: From the Bad to the Blasphemous (New York: Routledge, 2017), 16.

^[18] R. Blobaum, Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), 87.

^[19] R. Modras The Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-39 (New York: Routledge, 2004), 62.

^[20] N. Las Jewish Voices in Feminism: Transnational Perspectives (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2015), 91.

^[21] E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 7.

^[22] G. Reuveni, Consumer Culture and the Making of Modern Jewish Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), xiii.

^[23] P. Lerner, The Consuming Temple: Jews, Department Stores, and the Consumer Revolution in Germany, 1880-1940 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015), 5.

^[24] Ibid, 9.