Jewish Reactions to Black anti-Semitism

“Jews often become convenient stand-ins as the purveyors of the structures of systemic racism that continue to plague Black America.”
Tema Smith, The Forward, 2019

As remarked in “Aspects of Black anti-Semitism,” it’s clear that visible and occasionally violent Black hostility towards Jews presents the latter with an objective problem in terms of their (publicly expressed) self-concept as a people and the received wisdom regarding the nature of anti-Semitism (now given quasi-legal standing in many countries via the IHRA definition). In general terms, Jews have tended to avoid any sense of responsibility for anti-Semitism by creating and promoting narratives in which they are passive victims of a phenomenon that is the result of fundamentally irrational bigotry. This is often accompanied by the insistence that anti-Semitism has its origins in what are seen as pathological elements in European Christianity and that anti-Semitism is little more than a set of ideas that act as a viral psychosis among Whites.

Since the early twentieth century, this understanding has been augmented with a variety of modifications, many derived from Marxism and psychoanalysis, but the essential argument that anti-Semitism is a White pathology has survived, and has been very widely disseminated in Western cultural, political, and educational spheres. In fact, it has been challenged in significant terms only by the rise of anti-Jewish hostility in the Middle East, but even in that instance it has been characterized by Jewish historians like Bernard Lewis as being influenced by Europeans. Within the West, and omitting anti-Semitism among Muslim immigrants, the periodic spike in anti-Jewish hostility among American Blacks represents perhaps the only persistent Western challenge to the received wisdom that anti-Semitism is a White problem, rather than a problem that originates with Jewish behavior. Black anti-Semitism also problematizes notions that Jews have been selfless and valuable allies to Blacks and other minorities, something that has been a key aspect of Jewish propaganda campaigns for pluralism in Western nations. As such, Jewish rhetorical and legal responses to Black anti-Semitism are of interest to White advocates, and to all peoples concerned with Jewish/Zionist group influence and behavior.

Victims of White Systems

One of the most prominent Jewish strategies when discussing Black anti-Semitism is the attempt to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood, and thus preserve the idea of an alliance against an allegedly oppressive White society. On the most basic level, this strategy involves denying any specificity to Black complaints against Jews and essentially involves an entrenchment of the idea that anti-Semitism is a White pathology. Black socio-economic grievances are radically downplayed or even ignored entirely in this framework, and the locus of all discussion tends to be on vague, putative historical contexts of Jewish victimhood (e.g. “This is another sorry chapter in the history of the Longest Hatred”), rather than on serious thinking about perpetrator motivation.

An excellent example in this regard is Tema Smith’s Forward article “How to talk about Black anti-Semitism.” Smith attempts to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood by arguing that “Jews often become convenient stand-ins as the purveyors of the structures of systemic racism that continue to plague Black America.” This is really a fascinating statement given that it comes in the aftermath of Black attacks on Jews involving everything from “fists and stones to machetes, automatic weapons, and explosive devices.” Despite very clear dynamics of targeted hostility, the victimhood of both peoples is preserved and asserted since the putatively passive Jews are merely “convenient stand-ins,” and Blacks are themselves “plagued” by “the structures of systemic racism.” In other words, antagonistic Jewish behaviors are either non-existent or ultimately irrelevant, while Blacks can’t be fully condemned for their attitudes and behavior because they’ve essentially been fooled by an exploitative racist system. Thus, in a context in which a disproportionately vast numbers of Hasidic Jews exploit their tenants and accumulate hundreds of building violations through sheer greed and disdain for those living in their properties, and in the process making life hell for many Blacks, the real villain of the story is somehow the White man — a figure, curiously enough, that is almost totally absent from all “Worst Landlord” lists.

In this reaction, therefore, Jews and their behaviors dissolve into the abstraction of imagined social systems—specifically “racist” systems that are part of a putative White power structure. Smith continues:

What is remarkable, though, is that a single factor underlies every attempt to diagnose a unique form of Black anti-Semitism: systemic racism. In analysis after analysis, antisemitism in the Black community is shown to be the symptom of the structures of racism in the United States—housing insecurity, lack of access to quality education, food deserts, access to political capital, discriminatory policing, and on and on. Ultimately, the conversation about Black anti-Semitism is not actually about Blacks and Jews. [emphasis added]

This is a capable use of persuasive language, but what is truly remarkable is that Smith fails to identify the true “single factor” underlying attempts to diagnose Black anti-Semitism — the stunning avoidance of any significant confrontation with the worst aspects of Jewish behavior in Black districts. Whether or not housing insecurity, lack of access to quality education, food deserts, access to political capital, or discriminatory policing have anything to do with the specific issue of Black anti-Semitism is up for debate, but what is clearly contributing to Black anti-Semitism is the decades-old prevalence of Jews as the very worst of ghetto slumlords, pawn brokers, loan merchants, and political hypocrites. Smith doesn’t provide a single reference or footnote to any of the examples of “analysis after analysis” allegedly proving a thesis that conveniently absolves Jews of provoking Black aggression because these analyses are almost non-existent outside the ridiculous offerings of the Jewish power structure’s own self-defense bodies. In fact, when serious unbiased scholarly studies are made of Black anti-Semitism they tend to overwhelmingly conclude, in the words of Ronald Tsukashima and Darrel Montero, that “economic mistreatment [by Jews] is strongly related to heightened antipathy toward Jews.”[1]

One study that concedes economic mistreatment of Blacks by Jews, but insists that Whites and their “racist system” are still responsible for the situation, is the ADL-sponsored Anti-Semitism in America (1979) by Harold Quinley and Charles Glock. In the fourth chapter of this text, “Anti-Semitism Among Black Americans,” the authors concede their findings “are consistent with a theory that black anti-Semitism is economically based,” and that having business contacts with Jews “was associated with a sharp rise in anti-Semitic responses.”[2] In particular, it was found that Jewish credit practices were one of the “principle areas in which blacks are exploited. They often end up paying exorbitant prices for inferior goods.”[3] Remarkably, however, in summarising their conclusions the authors move away radically from the specificities of Black-Jewish interactions, instead abstracting into discussion of systems of racism. In essence, they replicate the process of Jews dissolving into Whiteness. For example, they assert that “it is largely as members of the oppressive white majority that blacks seem to react to Jews.”[4] This is followed by what amounts to absolution of both Blacks and Jews, and a condemnation of Whites:

Prejudice should be deplored wherever it exists and for whatever reason. At the same time, prejudice toward the oppressor is not to be equated with prejudice toward the oppressed. The prejudice of blacks is in part a response to circumstances which white-dominated culture has imposed on them. The opposite does not apply with respect to the prejudice of whites.

The rhetorical pattern is thus replicated that negative Jewish behavior is either non-existent or irrelevant, that, in a sense, Black violence is excusable, and that the real enemy of both is White people and their culture.

The Judeo-Bolshevik Inflection

Part of the “system’s” apologetic, but worthy of analysis in its own right, is the Jewish-Marxist treatment of Black anti-Semitism. A good example of this approach was published last month at Jacobin, in the form of Aaron Freedman’s article “To Defeat Antisemitism, We Must Defeat Capitalism.” It’s long been my opinion that a significant element of historical Jewish support for Marxism is that Marxism is itself a kind of “escape into systems.” Jews have for centuries been noted as particularly negative forces within capitalism, and it would appear that Jews have much to gain by advancing the idea that it is the system of capitalism, rather than Judaism and Jewish approaches to capitalism, that is inherently bad. It is indeed a curio of history and contemporary economics that Jews have heavily accumulated, and often dominated, in those economic areas widely seen as exemplifying the worst of capitalism: usury/high interest loans, including the modern payday loan; sub-prime mortgages; tax farming; vulture funds; monopoly; fraud; Ponzi schemes; slumlordism; tax avoidance; internet gambling; and malicious bankruptcy. I’ve tackled the Marxist critique of anti-Semitism in great detail in relation to the ideas of Slavoj Zizek (who later referenced the “true anti-Semitism” of my essay at RT but—rather tellingly—offered no rebuttal, refusing even to answer the question he quotes). But here I want to discuss it specifically with reference to the issue of Black anti-Semitism.

Aaron Freedman, who lives in Brooklyn and should therefore know better, is quite unabashed in asserting that “Antisemitism endures because capitalist oppression needs a scapegoat,” which is really no more than a rephrasing of Tema Smith’s claim that Jews are merely “convenient stand-ins” for the real problem — the racist structure of White society. Freedman admits that there has been a sudden increase in Black attacks on Jews, but his first attempt at explanation can only be described as nothing less than remarkable: “A surge in white-nationalist activity since Donald Trump’s election is surely the main part of the story.”

Inserting “surely” into a sentence is a nice effort at persuasive writing, but the logical gap is so great in this instance that it resembles the rhetorical equivalent of putting a band-aid on the hull of a sinking ship. Freedman qualifies his astonishing claim only by adding “But Trump’s victory alone does not explain the spate of incidents in New York, committed in many cases by black individuals in both planned assaults and apparently random street encounters.” The confusion unfortunately escalates from there, with Freedman commenting “The Right obviously does not have an answer.” The problem here is that we obviously do have an answer for the causes of Black anti-Semitism, and like all great theses it can be summed up in a single, short sentence: “Jews have been behaving badly again.” Freedman dodges any hint at such an explanation, moving into his own breakdown of why Blacks have been attacking Jews: Capitalism.

Like all Marxist interpretations of anti-Semitism, Freedman asserts that “Its roots in the United States, by way of Europe, come from Christian discrimination against “Christ killers,” dating as far back as the 2nd century CE.”  This is, quite frankly, a nonsensical oversimplification, and the dating of the origins of anti-Semitism from medieval Christendom, rather than the ancient world, is an depressingly common feature of Jewish apologetics, a tactic that typically owes much of its development to the convenience of placing the blame for anti-Semitism on early Christianity. Most significantly, it is based on the theories of Gavin Langmuir, a philosemitic scholar who by his own admission dated his discussion of the origins of anti-Semitism to the medieval period because, “I am respectably knowledgeable only about the history of the West since the fall of the Roman Empire and am most at home in the Middle Ages.” Compounding Freedman’s gross errors, the Jacobin journalist states with brazen duplicity that Jewish financial activities in the Middle Ages were “far less oppressive” than that of other peoples (again, see my commentary on the ideas of Slavoj Zizek for historical sources contradicting such assertions), and that they were only quaintly engaged in “petty bourgeois profit-seeking.” No mention of Jewish elite status. No discussion of Jewish tax-farming. No inclusion of peasant revolts against the unusually oppressive nature of Jewish finance. Jews appear in Freedman’s narrative only as “a religious other,” picked on because they were “also very vulnerable.” So vulnerable they typically had royal protection? So vulnerable that most of the oldest residential houses in England were built for Jews, their thick stone standing the test of centuries and countless reactions from the goyim?

If by now, like me, you’re wondering what Freedman has to say specifically on the matter of Black anti-Semitism, then also, like me, you’ll be frustrated with the fact he finishes the piece without mentioning anything at all about Black anti-Jewish hostility in Brooklyn. In a grand piece of diversionary nonsense, he merely recounts the standard Judeo-Bolshevik narrative of anti-Semitism, declaring Black anti-Semitism to be inconsequential to the greater story: “the specific threat of white-nationalist organizations remains the paramount one,” and “in any society in which the few rule over the many, racist and antisemitic victim-blaming will thrive.” The message is therefore more or less identical to that offered by Tema Smith — when Blacks attack Jews it has nothing to do with either Blacks or Jews, and everything to do with Whites. The situation thus presents itself that Jewish slumlords abuse and exploit their Black tenants, Blacks react by assaulting Jews, and Whites are encouraged to chastise themselves for causing it all through their evil desire for private property.

Pleading Ignorance

In “Aspects of Black anti-Semitism,” I noted that,

A fascinating feature of coverage of the Winter 2019/2020 attacks on Jews by Blacks in New York has been the total absence of media enquiry into why the assaults took place. Like so much historiography on European anti-Semitism, there is simply no room for the question Why? As in Kiev, or Odessa, or the Rhine Valley, or Lincoln, or Aragon, or Galicia, the assaults on Jews in Brooklyn apparently emerged from the ether, motivated by some miasmic combination of insanity and demonic aggression. NBC New York reported bluntly on a “spree of hate,” but had nothing in the way of analysis of context other than a condemnation of “possible hate-based attacks” — one of the most remarkably opaque pieces of analytical nomenclature I’ve ever come across.

Mirroring media neglect of context, some Jewish reactions have consisted of feigned ignorance and bafflement at what might have caused Black anti-Semitism. In a December 2019 article for the Daily Beast, Brooklyn-based Jay Michaelson attempts to explain “What’s Behind the New Wave of Anti-Semitic Hate?” What his article in facts consists of is a series of mystifications of what is really a fairly straightforward story. For Michaelson, “speaking as a Jewish parent who lives in Brooklyn, I can tell you that it’s terrifying. It is also confusing. [emphasis added]” The only thing Michaelson seems sure of is that “hate” is involved, but he courageously probes deeper by asking: “Hate, yes, but what kind of hate?” His conclusion? “The answer is not simple.” Michaelson does concede that some of the anti-Jewish actions of recent decades contain “glimmers of ideology” — “the Crown Heights riot of 1991 was in part about city resources, housing, gentrification, policing and political power”—but he follows this by insisting that “These attacks say nothing about African-Americans or anti-Semitism in black communities. … To eradicate anti-Semitism, we must understand it—and right now, when it comes to this devastating new wave of attacks, we don’t.”

Other than blank confusion, then, does Michaelson suggest that anyone at all is blameworthy for the recent outbreaks of Black anti-Semitism? After much confusion, the fog settles and the real perpetrator comes into Michaelson’s view: Donald Trump. Michaelson unveils the villain of the story as follows:

While conspiracy-mongering exists on the left and the right, there is no left-wing or African-American equivalent of President Trump, who has freely traded in anti-Semitic stereotypes, sometimes in a joking way. … Indeed, Trump’s contribution to our conspiracy-fevered culture is broader than specifically anti-Semitic conspiracies. For example, regarding the 2016 election alone, Trump has claimed, baselessly, that it was rigged (even though he won anyway), that millions of people voted illegally in it, that Ukraine (not Russia) interfered with it, and that there are still important email servers floating around out there that we have to get our hands on. When you play with fire like this, vulnerable populations get burned. Especially Jews.

The real reason for Black attacks on Jews is thus unveiled with crystal clarity. According to Michaelson, it all began when Donald Trump made some jokes that some Jews perceived to refer to “canards” about Jews and money. The situation was compounded further when Trump complained about Hillary Clinton keeping state business on a private email server. Unable to control themselves in light of Trump’s jokes, and rendered paranoid by talk of Ukrainian meddling and the security protocols of email servers, the Blacks of Brooklyn rose up in violence against the “vulnerable population” in their midst—the entirely innocent, passive and wealthy Hasidic landlords who owned their slums and debts. Right.

Some things never change: Covers of Commentary from 1963 and 2018.

The Material Reaction

It often pays to observe what Jews do rather than what they say. Steven Gold, writing on the Jewish response to growing Black anti-Semitism in 1940s Harlem, comments:

Being well organized, Jewish communal associations took note when Jewish merchants were accused of inappropriate behavior. When African-American journalists or activists complained about the exploitative behavior of ghetto merchants, Jewish spokesmen often resisted accepting responsibility and instead labeled accusers as anti-Semites for referring to the merchants’ religion. Contending that Jewish merchants treated Blacks no worse than other Whites did, they objected to being singled out.[5]

Resisting accepting responsibility for exploitative and inappropriate behavior has long been the favored option of Jews, even when confronted with quite extreme and violent manifestations of anti-Semitism. In fact, one of the obvious themes of Jewish history is the persistence of negative behaviors amidst ever-intensifying efforts to entrench within the host society, often via radically increased security and associated privileges (e.g. restricted freedoms for non-Jews, harsh penalties for anti-Semitism). A constant of Jewish history is that in general Jews do not change behavior that is seen negatively by non-Jews; rather, they find ways to continue to engage in the behavior but avoid the consequences—a facet of aggression as a background trait of Jewish behavior (p. 26ff). As such, one would expect that Black anti-Semitism will not significantly change patterns of Jewish behavior in Black areas, and that we will instead witness Jewish communities enjoying very high levels of police protection and the promotion of the idea that Jews are a vulnerable, passive, and special people entirely deserving of special treatment. Additionally, despite Jewish rhetoric blaming Black anti-Semitism on Whites, one would expect a high level of suspicion of Blacks among Jews, and subtle attempts by Jews to punish Blacks for their aggressions.

Security for Jews has already vastly increased since December 2019, with the Guardian reporting that police have stepped up patrols in “Borough Park, Midwood, Crown Heights, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Williamsburg, as well as establishing community-based neighborhood safety coalitions overseen by the Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes. In addition, the city announced an increased NYPD presence at houses of worship and during local events. Six new surveillance towers and additional security cameras will be installed throughout the neighborhoods.” As well as increasing security on the ground, Jewish leaders last week successfully lobbied Attorney General William Barr to announce a “zero tolerance” policy for anti-Semitism at federal level. The new, harsher approach to crimes against Jews will get its first trial in the case of Tiffany Harris, a Brooklyn-based Black woman of dubious mental health who slapped three Jewish women and now, on the orders of Barr, will face federal hate crime charges which carry a maximum of 30 years in prison.

The issue of Jewish security has also called into question the putatively selfless Jewish interest in “social justice.” Having previously backed New York’s “no bail” criminal justice reforms, ostensibly intended to stop the injustice of those in poverty (mainly Blacks) spending more time in jail than those with the funds to bail their way out (mainly Whites), Jews are now rapidly turning on the policy change and demanding that “hate crime” exemptions be considered. In other words, Jews want subtle protections and subtle punishments. The Forward reports:

People are panicking, people feel frightened,” said Chaim Deutsch, a New York City councilman who represents a Brooklyn district with a large Hasidic population. “When they see someone like Tiffany Harris is released on bail, and got released only to go assault someone again, it sends the wrong message.” Deutsch is circulating an open letter to Cuomo criticizing the new criminal justice reforms. Simcha Eichenstein, a state assemblyman who also represents a Brooklyn district, plans to introduce legislation that would remove all hate crime charges from the list of crimes that judges cannot set bail for. Deutsch told the Forward he supports Eichenstein’s legislation. Concern for the repercussions of the bail reforms is growing among politicians. Cuomo has said he wants to reconsider the rules. Even progressives like Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the New York State Senate majority leader, has signaled her willingness to look at the rules again.

A policy change that has been the cause célèbre of liberal multiculturalists for years is thus forced into sharp revision solely because it has been deemed to negatively impact Jewish security.

This is the true Jewish reaction to Black anti-Semitism, devoid of rhetorical smoke and mirrors, and steeped in centuries of tradition: Deny Responsibility; Entrench in the Society; Continue and Intensify Existing Behaviors; Increase Privileges and Protections; Punish Opponents.

What a vicious and endless circle.

[1] Ronald Tadao Tsukashima, Darrel Montero, “The Contact Hypothesis: Social and Economic Contact and Generational Changes in the Study of Black Anti-Semitism,” Social Forces, Volume 55, Issue 1, September 1976, 149–165. Although more ambiguous in their representation of findings, see also, Gary T. Marx, Protest  and Prejudice: A Study of Belief in the Black Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1967) and Harold Quinley and Charles Glock, Antisemitism in America (New York: Free Press, 1979).

[2] Harold Quinley and Charles Glock, Antisemitism in America (New York: Free Press, 1979), 57.

[3] Ibid., 66.

[4] Ibid., 72.

[5] S. Gold, The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 75.

42 replies
  1. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    I came of age during the first so-called “civil-rights” movement and saw for myself the underhanded dealings, the demonization of decent, law-abiding whites, and in general, the deterioration of civil society.

    Almost all of the “civil-rights” workers and demonstration “handlers” were of one persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true “civil rights”, but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (who were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate government and society–a favorite communist tactic).

    These New York-based “carpetbaggers” fomented their hate and discontent, only to become future “civil-rights” attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists…and the ADL and $PLC being invented.

    Those of us whites who were in the middle of this “civil-rights” revolution had a saying: “Behind every negro, there is a jew”. No truer words were spoken.

    Let’s not forget their infestation of the nation’s education and entertainment systems, (which continues to the present day), in which they can spread their jewish supremacist poison.

    The so-called “non-violent civil-rights demonstrations” were anything but “non-violent”. Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts were common, but never reported, as even the “mainstream media” was “in on the game” and conveniently turned off their cameras during the acts of violence. You see, even then,”creating crises” was a part of the agenda.

    The “beginning of the end” of America was the use of federal troops against white Americans, which, in itself was a violation of “posse comitatus”–the prohibition on the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement purposes. As most whites were (and still are) law-abiding, they (we) were “steamrollered” by the use of federal troops to crush honest dissent. We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from there…

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      One of the most on target comments I’ve ever read at TOO.

      I grew up during those times and, like many, just didn’t get what it all meant until much later.

      I still insist that their victory is Pyrrhic, at best.

      But, yes, there’s no question that once the troops showed up it was all over for the America that could have been and almost was.

      Barring a miracle, and it would take one, the streamrolling will continue.

  2. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    ” Jews have tended to avoid any sense of responsibility for anti-Semitism by creating and promoting narratives in which they are passive victims of a phenomenon that is the result of fundamentally irrational bigotry. This is often accompanied by the insistence that anti-Semitism has its origins in what are seen as pathological elements in European Christianity and that anti-Semitism is little more than a set of ideas that act as a viral psychosis among Whites.”

    My response to this is to simply turn the tables while staying grounded in reality.

    I refer to it as The Myth Of Innocence (MOI).

    That they demand that the world believes this impossible to believe in myth is all the proof anyone would need that THEY are the ones with the pathology, and that accusing us is just a matter of psychological projection.

    It’s positively psychotic. Literally.

    A psychotic person, or group, generates the same response no matter what the situation.

    I don’t think it would be asking too much of most people, throughout the world, to accept the fact that

    Life Is Dynamic, Not Static

    and that

    Human Beings Are Imperfect, Not Perfect.

    But Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI) is essentially demanding that we believe, like them, in their perfection!

    And if not, well, you know.

    THAT is insane.

    Not us!

    And, since it is clearly insane, that they have the power they do over us, the power of the purse and the sword, means they are nothing less than a threat to the human race.

    Also, since psychotics are extremely resistant to exposure, projection is routine with them.

    Hence Noel Ignatiev’s statement that “treason against Whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”

    Obviously, just the opposite is true.

    Treason against JSI is loyalty to humanity.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      It’s amazing that it’s almost 30 years since The Crown Heights Riots.

      Remember how that one started?

      Anyway, I remember going out one evening to have a beer with a friend who was, well, one of us, and both of us sharing a laugh, with the bartender, at the TCH debacle (it was an Irish bar).

      But, we all just as quickly agreed that both sides would soon kiss and make up and get back to business as usual. And, of course, they did.

      Don’t have to explain to TOO and its readers what “business as usual” means.

      I actually kept in touch with my buddy and the bartender, who was also a friend. It took each one of us years to scrape the money together to get out of there. Each on his own and some longer than others. But we all did it. We got out of there.

      I’m sure today, somewhere in NYC, there are a group of guys going through the same thing, ie; sharing a laugh at the latest debacle only to remind each other that, sooner than later, it’ll be back to the world and business as usual.

      Hope they get out.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      “…It’s positively psychotic…”…”clearly insane”.

      It’s neither. It’s very strictly defined and on a mental health chart you could check off the symptoms one by one and get a complete diagnosis in minutes. It’s psychopathic. There’s one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There’s a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud “great enlightenment” basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they’re Jews and their lives don’t matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

      They’ve been thrown out of every single country that they’ve been to in any numbers. Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don’t have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

      Start over.

      Even if it’s wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew’s behavior will make sense.

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        It’s more than psychopathy:

        Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a mental illness characterized by paranoid delusions, and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. People with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily insulted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. They are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, potentially not appreciating other interpretations or evidence.[1]

        They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their reduced capacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience.[2][verification needed] People with PPD may have a tendency to bear grudges, suspiciousness, tendency to interpret others’ actions as hostile, persistent tendency to self-reference, or a tenacious sense of personal right.[3] Patients with this disorder can also have significant comorbidity with other personality disorders (such as schizotypal, schizoid, narcissistic, avoidant and borderline).

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        “It’s neither.”

        Actually, it’s both.

        Two common attributes of both psychosis and psychopathology are a flight from reality and resistance to exposure.

        It’s true that they both involve different aspects of mental health issues.

        Psychopathology being more an anti-social personality trait and Psychosis a matter of other conditions having to do with responses to the world around them.

        In any event, attributes common to both can be found in the patterns of Jewish behavior, especially in relation to non-Jews. A point that you touched on and articulated very well in your comment.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        ” Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. ”
        This is the nub of the problem for the West. We assume other races think as we do. The person with empathy for others goes around falsely assuming that others also have empathy for others. He has no concept of those who, for genetic reasons, have zero empathy, and only think of their group.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Funny you should bring this item up. I distinctly recall this particular finding of the Kerner Commission and the reaction to it, at least here in New York City. As the supplementary report contained too much of general interest to the Times and the rest of the Establishment press to escape public notice, this part of the report was actually addressed rather than suppressed entirely, as the Jews prefer such matters to be.

      Because of the commission’s prestige, the responses from the usual Jewish sources were, as I recall, less abusive than they otherwise might have been. Instead, condescension was the stand-in for abuse, and all the hackneyed, timeworn expressions of Jewish annoyance with those who spot their grift—”very shortsighted judgments,” “a disappointing analysis from this respected source,” plus of course the ever-reliable references to “anti-Semitic canards”—took center stage.

      Within a month or so, however, the report had been buried so deep that Larry is to be congratulated and thanked for having the energy and enterprise to exhume even this nervously scanty account of it.

  3. tadzio
    tadzio says:

    The Commentary header says it all: African Americans vs. American Jews. The primary identification of our Negro population is the noun Americans modified by the adjective African. The opposite is true for the Commentary publishers and readers. The primary identification is the noun Jews and the modifying adjective is American.

    Commentary is proclaiming that Jews are not here to be part of our society something that Negroes are constantly trying to attain as recognized by the adjective-noun alignment. Jews are here as aliens in a parasitic program to exploit. One can be sure the Jewish readers understand and absorb this clever, subtle message as an inspiration to usury and slum landlord investment. White Christians see it not so much. Except here.

    • Tedesco
      Tedesco says:

      Good observation. Whites and Blacks have a common enemy, the Jews. And Commentary admits this on its cover.

      NOI has a new book out, proving that Jews profited most from the slave trade. “Jews Selling Blacks” by the NOI RESEARCH GROUP

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Right, the Jews in Germany have an organization called Central Council of Jews in Germany ( “Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland”). Mind you, not of “Jewish-Germans” or even “German Jews”, but of “Jews in Germany”. Its former president Charlotte Knobloch was also vice-president of the European Jewish Congress and of the World Jewish Congress. We can never accuse the Jews of loyalty to the country they happen to reside in. All their loyalty is to themselves, locally and internationally.

    • Pierre Simon
      Pierre Simon says:

      It’s all about the holohoax, which acts as both a shield and a sword against antisemitism. It gives them extra super super victim status, and with it a lot of power, in fact, as much power as they want. They are fully protected. The next best thing for them would be the death penalty for all antisemites, like in the good old days of the bolshevik revolution.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        See e.g. Dan Cohn-Sherbok, “The Paradox of Anti-Semitism” (2007).

        “We are a suitcase people” (Simon Schama) – but a few more suitcase people will be useful in the West Bank. Remember the USSR “refuseniks”? As Hannah Arendt commented, (benefiting from) Antisemitism is the “dark secret” of Zionism.

  4. Tedesco
    Tedesco says:

    Another good article by Andrew Joyce. I have learned a lot from this one, and the one from two days ago – Reactions to Black anti-Semitism.

    Anti-Semitism is a reasonable and necessary response to Jewish behavior. They deserve it and expect it. And they always have their excuses ready. Through history, Jewish behavior has been disloyal, criminal and extremely exploitative.

    As always, Jews claim to be the victims, entirely blameless for the reactions that they provoke. They try to explain anti-Semitism as a kind of psychological problem of White people. However, it’s not only Whites who react against Jewish aggression. It’s Blacks, too. And Koreans

    For example, in South Korea, the Koreans reacted against Jewish exploitative and criminal behavior. Therefore, they too are now guilty of “anti-Semitism.”

    Here is a long quote from Andrew Joyce’s earlier article –
    “Common sense would suggest that each ethnic group will inflect the themes of anti-Semitism according the context and precise nature of their own interaction with Jews. In South Korea, organised anti-Jewish hostility was built around the understanding that Jewish financiers, mainly American, with a history of highly exploitative behaviors, were attempting to gain strongholds in South Korean companies like Samsung. As such, the primary theme of anti-Semitism in South Korea has been the understanding that Jews are dangerously adept at resource competition, are financially ruthless and exploitative, are highly ethnocentric, and are powerful in the media and in politics at the highest levels. During the early stages of an attempted expansion of influence by the almost entirely Jewish vulture fund “Elliot Associates,” Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed “Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless.” This was soon followed by the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon, expressing his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, “The scary thing about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies. Their network is tight-knit beyond one’s imagination.” A day later, cable news channel YTN aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, airing the opinion that “it is a fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born.”

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “As such, the primary theme of anti-Semitism in South Korea has been the understanding that Jews are dangerously adept at resource competition, are financially ruthless and exploitative, are highly ethnocentric”
      Whilst initially going in as ‘white Americans’ and to the S.Koreans there will be no visible differences, and neither will they recognise Jewish names.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “As always, Jews claim to be the victims, entirely blameless for the reactions that they provoke.”

      In the end, what it boils down to, is that Jews look and speak like other white people in Western countries and are bankers, lawyers, media people etc, and the difference seems to be that we are very racist and they are not racist in the slightest, and furthermore – judging by the complete absence of any comment anywhere in mainstream to the contrary – they are also without fault or blame in anything, anytime in history or geography, whilst all other whites are full of faults and hatred. This is the official version, and the H underpins it all. All of this ridiculous statement above is simply a summary of the mainstream narrative, ie it is the summary of the current accepted narrative of the current culture in the West.

      If it is true then we would have saints living amongst us, persecuted saints.

      Although blacks also are blameless and eternal victims, so when they clash with the Jews, the way out of it is to blame white people of course for this conflict, and with Trump and ‘white nationalism’ at the centre of the blame.

      And our supposed intellectual elite who are in our universities training for three years to think critically are expected to just accept all this – and they do. It is all so bizarre and shameful that whites are able to accept this without a murmur, as it is a form of submission, in which they consent to agree to obvious falsehoods. Surely being forced into intellectual dishonesty is a humiliation. Of course 15% (or whatever) of the whites are only too happy for all this and they police the rest of the whites. So if there are 5 students in a seminar including 1 black and 1 Jew and 3 whites, it is accepted by all in the room that the Jew and black have zero hate or racism and the 3 whites are likely to have some. An embarrassing situation when you think about it apart from anything else. And they cannot see the obvious racism of this bizarre scenario, which is that they are judging people on the colour of the skin and victimising some based only on skin colour..

  5. Loren R
    Loren R says:

    I have told many black people that whites are not their enemy and that jews only pretend to be white when they want to excuse themselves of bad behavior.
    I don’t know any white people that are interested in exploited black people like the jews do.
    On another note, I continue to reel from the extreme propaganda that has set itself firmly in the minds of many of my former Anglo friends.
    They want absolutely nothing to do with history, the truth or any type of solution to the things I have heard them complain about for years.
    It is so bizarre to have these seemingly intelligent people blindly support a group of people who want to destroy them and their families. They would rather die than say one cross word or listen to one fact filled argument. The brainwashing is VERY effective.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Just to add that the brainwashing that Loren R accurately describes is only effective on the white European race, as other races do not respond to accusations of racism by collapsing in submission. If you speak of Jewish landlord behaviour to a black person they will not shrivel up with terror at the prospect that they are in the presence of a person who is uttering negative thoughts about Jews. This confirms K MacDonald’s assertion that races are different in behaviour for genetic reasons, as one race responds in this way and other races do not care.

      However, I disagree with the conclusion that many whites come to that whites are like this (revulsion to racism) for ‘moral reasons’ although they tell themselves this is the reason. Unless we define ‘moral’ in a strange way, then certainly they are like this for moral reasons, if you define moral as being so righteous, so ‘puritan’, so virtuous, so ‘caring’, so ‘concerned’ that because of your ‘high morals’ you are willing to:

      (1) Destroy your own wealth and security and peaceful life and advanced medical care and a legal system that protects the people from criminals, all in the cause of ‘revulsion to white racism’)
      (2) Destroy your children’s …all the above in (1)…
      (3) Destroy the system that provides blacks and other 3rd world minorities in host countries such as the US with …all the above in (1)…
      (4) Destroy the system that generates food and technology including medicine for the 3rd world living in the 3rd world.

      So the morals of these self-righteous white people who are repelled by racism are so strong that they are prepared to destroy not only their own standard of living and their children’s, but also those of the blacks/3rd world living in their countries and also destroy the wealth-creating system that provides medicine and technology such as transport & water purifiers for the 3rd world.

      So they are prepared to harm themselves, their children, and the 3rd world that they claim to be wanting to help.

      This shows that these are not true morals at all. This shows that ‘pathological altruism’ of whites is not the full picture, as this implies harming yourself *to help others* and the puritan whites are harming themselves and not helping others, except in a short-term and temporary sense for a few decades longer until our countries end up being like the 3rd world – in the way that the host provides great things for the parasite until it is killed by the parasite. And even knowing the full picture, that overall they are doing bad, this does not dent the enthusiasm of the righteous whites.

      This connects with a comment by K MacDonald that the Puritan drive for the American Civil War was so ‘righteous’ that they were willing to accept tens of thousands of deaths of their own people to end slavery, with nothing to gain for themselves.

  6. amenhotep sene
    amenhotep sene says:

    as malcolm x said jews are the biggest profiteers of slums and black folks inner city economics,liquor stores tobacco,cheap furnitures,bad and junk food, substandard services and housing and banking,financial extortion predatory loans,loan sharking,vices of all kind drugs prostitution,addictions ,gambling each days and evenings taking loads of money out of the black community to put and launder back in their safe immaculate neigborhoods

    • ChilledBee
      ChilledBee says:

      Indeed. Which is why it was/is imperative that they get to control the media.
      When was the last time any of us heard these words of Malcolm X being broadcast anywhere? However, the holocaust story is with us on a daily basis.

      You can guarantee no matter what the day or hour that you can watch a programme about the Nazis on many of the cable channels in the UK. I am ashamed to admit that I had never heard of the Holomodor until I reached my 40’s. However, I remember seeing many programmes about the holocaust from the age of 5.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        … re the H just imagine the fallout if a critical number no longer believe it so it collapses. A main factor keeping it going is that the generation that has memories of the War (middle aged people who were born after the War are also part of this group as their parent’s generation were always talking about it, so they picked up the commitment to the War from them) – the commitment to the righteousness of the War and the evil of Hitler resides in the middle aged and older. But the next generation has no such commitment, all they have is the MSM narrative, which is not as powerful as feeling you are actual connected to the War, as old people and their grown-up children now are. It was more powerful being connected to the War than just hearing the MSM narrative as happens now. So the collapse could happen in the future, whereas it has no chance to collapse when everyone around has full commitment to the government version of the War and want to believe it.

  7. bruno/bronek
    bruno/bronek says:

    Mr. Anarchyst, here we always enjoy your commentary. A few biker friends and I were touring the South when the “civil rights” were painting the map of Amdom. Yeah, like you, we saw the NY Zs being behind every anti-majority ploy. Then, skipping to around 2010, I was at Bike week (FL) sitting in a hotel when a major TelAviza program came on. Millions saw how the Zs had come from NY to help against hateful Southerners. Here, I should mention that lots of iron hoss riders are doctors, lawyers and sharp cookies. However, the majority are regular folks. Asking a few about the TV docudrama, most took -hoop, line and sinker- what TelAviza had told them.

    Well, this was, indeed, another decent article by Andrew. We here in Kevin’s TOO family comprehend the molding of Z-induced laws. It’s unfortunate, that 8 or 9 out of 10 Americans, Canadians or Western Europeans would be lost reading what’s composed in today’s TOO. As this is being typed little children from around the country will be ambulating in a Holycause museum… Mr. Anarchyst, if only we had more like you.

    These New York-based “carpetbaggers” fomented their hate and discontent, only to become future “civil-rights” attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists…and the ADL and $PLC being invented.

  8. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    If I understand the logic of Jay Michaelson, Trump is Auntie Shem-itic, because he does anything the (((lobby))) could possibly ask him to do, without them actually asking, thereby enraging Blacks, who are reacting to Trump’s acceding the White supremacists demands to stop illegal immigration.
    That’s about as credible as the Nazi peddle driven brain bashing machine at Sachsenhausen.

  9. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    “It’s long been my opinion that a significant element of historical Jewish support for Marxism is that Marxism is itself a kind of “escape into systems.”

    Gods, isn’t that the truth. I can’t tell you how many debates I’ve had with jews where I point out the disproportionate amount of jews involved in systems like Bolshevism, Communism, Marxism, etc., only to be repeatedly rebuffed with the canard that it is these systems themselves that are evil, and the sheer amount of jews that adhere to and promote them is just a coincidence. As if these systems sprang forth from the foul earth on their own, and people randomly got caught up in them unawares. It’s never the fault of people that they exist, or that they continue to be rebranded and resold generation after generation, and it *certainly* isn’t the fault of poor, helpless jews that they just so happen to be a rather large percentage of the participants in these ideologies. Again, don’t notice trends. Trends don’t exist, and you’re racist for noticing them.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      I recommend watching the video.

      It shows how Jews just won’t accept responsibility for their bad behavior. All their techniques of evasion and deflection are on full display.

  10. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “The message is therefore more or less identical to that offered by Tema Smith — when Blacks attack Jews it has nothing to do with either Blacks or Jews, and everything to do with Whites. ”

    Jews slot in and out of being white people themselves:

    * if you say a banker/media person is Jewish they take great offence, as if there is no difference, and you must be hateful to distinguish them from other whites.
    * on Breitbart if you question their loyalty to the host country they immediately claim to be no different from everyone else in the host country.
    * Their claim to be white is what gets the white Republicans to support Israel as these whites think the Jews are the just the same as other whites, like Ben Shapiro.

    But on other occasions they make the distinction and there are ‘Jews’ and ‘whites’ – a distinction that they can make freely but if we make the same distinction, it is usually a ‘hate crime’.

    In other words, Jews are a special type of white person that has a racism level of zero compared with the very high racism level of the other type of white, the rest of us.

    This is seriously what we are supposed to accept (and in a spirit of contrition and submission, and reparations for the H), as proved by the observation you will *never* see a single word in any mainstream media or book to the contrary.

    What level of self-deception have we sunk to, to go along with such a ridiculous concept?

  11. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    Another excellent, well researched article by Andrew; thank you sir. Most of the comments here are incisive as well. Loren, I feel your pain. The intellectual poisoning of our people is indeed wide and deep. Jewry controls the narrative, and unfortunately most clueless Whites are mentally enslaved to it

  12. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    For Michaelson, “speaking as a Jewish parent who lives in Brooklyn, I can tell you that it’s terrifying. It is also confusing. [emphasis added]”

    I cannot but think of the moles that have grown skin that fully enclose their eyes such that they are not impediments to the subterranean mode of life they lead. The Jews have evolved an equivalent self awareness blind spot that enables them to be unencumbered by guilt that would undermine their mode of life; much like the fear and loathing of Whites which is probably a keystone to their survival strategy; without which they would disappear into the host population through interbreeding.

  13. anon truthfacts
    anon truthfacts says:

    Jews have managed to shift the guilt of Black Slavery in America onto the white people. Thus American Black young school children are brought up to hate the Whites because of the supposed white guilt for Black Slavery.
    Black American youth are taught to hate all Whites for all their short comings in society. Blacks believe that the Whites are keeping them down because of the color of their skin. Fact of the matter is that whites played a very minor role in the slave trade or for that actually owned Black slaves. The whites to this day are smeared and burdened with the guilt of the past crimes perpetrated against African Blacks. Blacks are ignorant of the fact that Jews ran and profited from the African slave trade for over 300 years. England took it upon themselves to end the slave trade. American whites fought for the ending of slavery in the USA where over 500,000 gave their lives to end slavery in America.

  14. anon truthfacts
    anon truthfacts says:

    On the topic of the discussion about the Holocaust I am curious as to why the research studies by Ephraim Kaye, a director at Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel is not permitted to see the light of day in the Corrupt Controlled Main Street Media?
    Ephraim Kaye of Yad Vashem (Israel’s Holocaust Museum) says killing your own labour force doesn’t make sense. Technion Published on May 3, 2012 Ephraim Kaye
    Ephraim Kaye of Yad Vashem (Israel’s Holocaust Museum) says killing your own labour force doesn’t make sense. Technion Published on May 3, 2012 Ephraim Kaye
    Ephraim Kaye, a director at Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel confirms there’s no physical evidence of the holocaust
    Ephraim Kaye, a director at Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel confirms there’s no physical evidence of the holocaust. See Full Video here
    Ephraim Kaye of Yad Vashem (Israel’s Holocaust Museum) confirms that the testimony of Adolf Eichmann is not evidence and that Eichmann who was kidnapped and taken to Israel
    What is anti-Semitism today, two generations after the Holocaust? In his continuing exploration of modern Israeli life, director Yoav Shamir travels the world in search of the most truth.

Comments are closed.