Is Jewish Leftism a ‘Reform Problem’?

“What Reform did not do, any more than the ‘Science of Judaism,’ was to solve the Jewish problem.” Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1987.

Sparked by Tucker Carlson’s remarkable move towards the Jewish Question, the recent condemnation of the ADL issued by 1,500 rabbis associated with the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV) has once more raised the question as to whether destructive activity perpetrated by Jewish activists in America is a matter of denomination rather than ethnicity. For several years now, but increasing during the early Trump years, there’s been a quiet but growing argument from self-styled ‘right-wing Jews’ that Jewish leftist activists are anathema to Judaism, or that as adherents of the Reform movement or Liberal Judaism they are a variety of heretical neo-Frankists unrepresentative of “true Jews.” Underlying these arguments is the implication that anti-Semitic theories involving Jews as an ethnic group, perceived as uniform, rely on weak generalizations that do not take into account the political and cultural nuances of American Jews, and therefore that such theories are illogical and irrational. In the course of almost a decade of writing about anti-Semitism and historical and contemporary Jewish behavior among Europeans, I’ve addressed this issue of political nuance more or less directly in a number of essays, especially my discussion of Jewish attitudes to Brexit and Jewish Leftist activism in children’s fiction. Given the quite dramatic nature of this most recent intervention from a signification number of rabbis against one of the world’s most prominent Jewish organizations, however, I think it’s an appropriate time to tackle the subject directly.

Before beginning, it’s worth reflecting on the context of the initial contention made by self-styled right-wing Jews. These Jews, one of the most prominent being Nathan Cofnas, make the argument that Jewish involvement in the advancement of Leftism in the West is both limited (in the sense that the advancement of Leftism also involves massive numbers of Whites and other ethnic groups), and is a predominantly Reform affair, whereas Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews have a different socio-political direction entirely. In regards to the first element, the ‘limits’ of Jewish involvement, there are few, if any, anti-Jewish theories in circulation which ascribe to Jews sole responsibility for the entirety of contemporary leftist activism. What does exist, however, is a substantial volume of evidence demonstrating that individuals who self-identify as Jews have been over-represented as innovators, leaders, and funders of the modern Left, and this evidence has led to the logical and tactical adoption of an anti-Jewish political position by many conservative Europeans and those of European ancestry. To put it simply, Jews don’t need to be orchestrating a kind of solo conspiracy against the West for an anti-Semitic political position to make theoretical sense and be supported by the data, or for Jewish influence to be a reasonable and rational topic of public discussion.

In regards to the second element of the ‘right-wing Jewish’ contention, it should be understood that the trajectory of the argument is essentially diversionary. When I first read the “not all Jews” argument being employed by Cofnas against Kevin MacDonald, for example, I was immediately reminded of the historical framework of prior debates in which minor concessions on the Jewish Question appear to be made, but are then narrowed and finally diverted. Relevant examples can be found in the public debates between Christian Wilhelm Von Dohm and Moses Mendelssohn[1], and between Karl Marx and Bruno Bauer.[2] In both cases, which concerned the question of Jewish political emancipation, and the undesirability of such an event in the context of negative Jewish group behavior, the Jewish participants attempted to rhetorically carve off elements of the Jewish population, scapegoating them temporarily in order that broader Jewish goals (social, political, or economic) might be achieved. Both Mendelssohn and Marx conceded that harms were being wrought by Jews, but added that this was the result of historical mistreatment that produced a class of renegade Jews (crooks and usurers for Mendelssohn; arch-capitalists for Marx). The fundamental goal of these rhetorical strategies was to defuse and weaken the anti-Semitic reaction, with both Mendelssohn and Marx keen to ease the Jewish path to full civic equality in Europe.

The modern version of these strategies appears to be the insistence that historical treatment (exclusion from the Right[3]) and contemporary circumstances (tendencies in Western liberalism) have created a Frankenstein’s monster in the form of a radical left Reform Judaism. While right-wing Jews are comfortable, to an extent, in condemning these radical Reform Jews, they insist that the host population should remain tolerant of the Jewish ethnic group as a whole and to continue to support Israel. The crucial point here is that, because of its diversionary nature, and its quite obvious side-stepping of the cost-benefit implications of philo-Semitic tolerance (as if European problems with Jews and Judaism have ever been limited to postmodern Leftism), it is inherently political to ask if Jewish Leftism is a Reform problem. It is nevertheless interesting to ask, given that it interrogates the framing of anti-Semitism and opens up valid questions about the Jewish relationship to the Left, and about the nature of the Jewish-European conflict more generally. Most pertinently we should ask, even if Jewish Leftism is a Reform problem, does it ultimately matter?

Gaining conclusive and detailed insight into the socio-political leanings of contemporary American Jews is difficult. Part of this difficulty lies in historical Jewish evasiveness when it comes to, for example, being counted in national censuses, and more general suspicions that data collected on Jews will inevitably be used against them by the host population.[4] When Jewish organizations conduct their own surveys of political, social, or cultural attitudes, the direction of analysis is overwhelmingly against the host population. In fact, surveys of alleged anti-Semitism in the host population are extremely common, if not the most common type of social survey conducted by Jewish groups.[5] Scholars have pointed out that in those instances where Jewish groups engage in surveys among their own people, these surveys are overwhelmingly concerned with population size and Jewish identity, and are often loaded with agendas, biases, and goals such as the boosting of Jewish fertility and the reduction of intermarriage rates.[6] Furthermore, in those instances when Jews have conducted social research on themselves as a means of ‘explaining’ themselves to host peoples, this has also been warped by ulterior and often apologetic motives. Hebrew University’s Sergio Della Pergola, for example, has argued that “Jewish social research was never the mere exercise of human curiosity or analytical skill. Rather it was a means of advancing specific theses regarding the nature of the Jews vis-a-vis world society.”[7] All of which is to say that survey data and social research concerning Jews should be treated with an appropriate level of caution.

It’s nevertheless clear that gaining some kind of reliable insight into the political positions and divisions of American and Western Jewry is important, if not crucial, for host nations. Since their earliest arrival in Europe, Jews have been noted as influential political actors in Western nations, and in recent decades this influence has extended even to the manipulation of the demography of those countries. Della Pergola, for example, has argued that Jewish populations “may significantly influence national population trends in order to advance their own corporate interests — for example, by advocating particular policy interventions.”[8] Della Pergola notes that Jewish populations can often be divided into at least two categories: the core Jewish population of strongly-identified, full-blooded, and often religious, Jews; and the ‘enlarged Jewish population’ which embraces all those with at least some Jewish ethnic heritage that they have consciously embraced, as well as those full-blooded Jews of a less religious inclination but who see themselves as part of a Jewish peoplehood. It’s important to stress at this stage that both divisions are fully capable of formulating and pursuing ideas of what constitutes “corporate interests,” even differing ideas, since the ultimate corporate body in both divisions is not Judaism as such but the Jewish people or even merely the idea of the Jewish people and its putative destiny.

One of the weaknesses of Della Pergola’s division of contemporary Jewry is its lack of utility in the religious sense. Orthodox and Reform Jews can only be roughly mapped onto “core” and “enlarged” categories because, in an American context in which Reform Jews are certainly an influential demographic majority, it makes little sense to argue that they are not in fact the “core” of the American Jewish community. This is where the argument of the self-styled right-wing Jews encounters its first major stumbling block, because the attempt to defend Jews in toto by scapegoating Reform Jews misses the point that Reform, for all intents and purposes, is American Jewry and will remain so demographically far into the future.[9]

The “core” and “enlarged” categories are, however, of some interest and utility when discussing survey data on Jewish political attitudes. It’s been noted that most exit polls will collect reasonably accurate data on “core” Jews because they capture “Jews by Religion” (JBR) when asking if voters are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc. The “core” Jewish population is more likely to include the more religiously identified Orthodox Jews, but it’s interesting that most recent exit polls (conducted by Pew Research) continue to show that even in the JBR category the party split was 68 percent Democratic, 7 percent Independent, and 25 percent Republican. Figures for “Jews of No Religion” (JNR) were 78 percent, 10 percent, and 12 percent. More than 40 percent of JBRs described themselves as liberal, while only 22 percent described themselves as conservative. The rest indicated only that they were moderate, which is open to any number of interpretations. Herbert Weisberg, writing in The Annual Jewish Year Book 2019 explained the figures as indicating that “Jews should be considered to be more Democratic and more liberal than media surveys and exit polls typically show.”[10] This would seem to be indicated also by a number of J Street exit polls which showed that Orthodox Jews are more liberal than ‘right-wing’ Jewish diversionists would have us believe. More than half of Orthodox Jews (59 percent), for example, voted for Obama in 2012, and a similar proportion (56 percent) voted for Clinton in 2016.[11] Even among the Ultra-Orthodox, normally viewed as overwhelmingly hawkish and likely to vote along with the flamboyant Zionism of the GOP, more than a third of respondents (35 percent) to one poll described themselves as Democrats.[12]

It’s important to note that the Jewish political profile is unique. While attempts have been made, by diversionists like Cofnas, to explain Jewish liberalism as an aspect of their higher educational attainment or their likelihood to be more urban-dwelling, serious scholars of Jewish demography and politics have long noted that “studies consistently find that Jews are significantly more Democratic than non-Jews with similar socio-demographic characteristics … Indeed, Wald’s calculations show they are more Democratic than the non-Jew who is their closest match on demographics and economic status.”[13] Wald and Weisberg instead argue that all Jews, whether Orthodox or Reform, “core” or “enlarged,” will vote or engage politically as part of a reaction to “the greatest perceived threat to their interests.”[14] In other words, Jewish political behavior is best explained by Jewish agency and perceptions of Jewish interests rather than cultural context.

It’s arguable that two of the most important Jewish interests are in the form of socio-economic dominance and multiculturalism, and here the unique pattern of Jewish political activity continues and amplifies. It’s extremely interesting that Jews very heavily support non-economic forms of Leftism, and are very much in favor of the expansion of government power, but are much more reluctant to back purely economic forms of socialism. In this regard they differ significantly from non-Jewish Leftists who embrace and emphasize economic socialism within their worldview. A 2012 survey found that a majority of Jews were not willing to pay more taxes in order to help the poor, were not likely to support a government health scheme, and were generally not supportive of government economic guarantees.[15] Jews have also been noted in the past as strong opponents of affirmative action, with even the ADL and the American Jewish Committee filing briefs against it.[16] This can be easily interpreted not as a method of opposing race politics, but as a means of preventing incursion into, or a breaking up of, established Jewish dominance within the professions. This would indicate that Jerry Muller’s theory that Jews have long had a “special relationship” with capitalism,[17] continues to have resonance despite the leadership of Jews in the onward march of purely cultural and political forms of Leftism—now championed by large swaths of other elite sectors of America, including large corporations.[18] The general image that emerges is one in which Jews act politically to create socially and culturally fluid societies where a façade of social justice and equality is promoted and celebrated, and in which a pseudo-elite (Whites) is attacked, but in which no real threat to Jewish privileges and socio-economic dominance is present.

Jews also quite obviously have a special relationship with multiculturalism, being Europe’s first significant minority and the passive or active cause of most of the continent’s earliest legislation on tolerance and migration. It’s an unfortunate commonplace that many of those who have criticized Kevin MacDonald for suggesting that Jews promote multiculturalism in order to feel more secure, are completely ignorant of the fact that several of his ideas are in some form or another slowly becoming fairly mainstream in the sociological study of contemporary Jews. Historian Diana Pinto, a Jewish Harvard graduate, Fulbright Fellow, and board member for the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, has argued that, within a multicultural context, “Jews are no longer perceived as the only ‘diasporic’ people, or as the most significant ‘other’ in the society,” and that this “relieves Jews of burden.”[19] Any scenario in which the pluralistic principles of the host nation are fundamentally challenged, or in which demographic change could return Jews to a position of ‘burden,’ would therefore quite obviously represent a perceived threat to Jewish interests along the lines discussed by Wald and Weisberg, and the question of immigration and associated laws would be an area of political activity that one would expect to see high levels of Jewish participation. Jewish opinions on threat level can of course vary, with some Jews feeling content and secure with moderate levels of pluralism while others would feel secure only when the demographic dominance of the host population is completely undermined. If a proportion of the immigrating demographic is itself a perceived threat to Jews, for example in the case of Muslim migration to France and other parts of Europe, further division and divergence would be expected. The most important aspect of the topic, however, remains that Jews have a fundamental interest in preserving the pluralistic principles of the host nation and avoiding a return of the Jews to a position of being a salient ‘other,’ and therefore a ‘burden.’ In this respect, much as with the nature of Jewish Leftism in relation to economic and social questions, the Jewish relationship to multiculturalism is unique, and involves a blurring of the standard Left-Rright political categories that can be more crudely applied to non-Jewish political activity.

The apparent clash between the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV) over Tucker Carlson presents an interesting case in which fundamental agreement on Jewish interests can be overlaid with disagreement between fringe cliques of Jews and the great majority of the Jewish population on how to best achieve those interests. The first point worth stressing is that the incident is not a straightforward case of Orthodox versus Reform. The Coalition for Jewish Values is, as far as I am aware, exclusively staffed by Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who can be usefully described as “core” Jews. The ADL, however, cannot be neatly categorized as a Reform organization, because its most recent Directors have been Orthodox (Abe Foxman, Director 1987–2015) and Conservative (Jonathan Greenblatt, Director 2015–present), and because its behavior since its founding can be most accurately described as an expression of the “enlarged” Jewish population rather than any specific denomination within that. Further, the motivations and past actions of the CJV map comfortably within a reasonable conception of Jewish interests rather than being a novel break from them. And finally, in all such cases of division within the Jewish community, it’s important to assess where the power lies if one is attempting to discern relative influence on the wider society. The ADL, representing the interests of the “enlarged” Jewish population, is far more powerful and influential than CJV.

Even aside from the fact that they emerged from the momentum of Trumpist Zionism, it’s interesting that the CJV has rationalized its more socially conservative positions via the lens of Jewish interests. When the group filed an amicus brief in support of Christian groups fighting to keep a large cross placed on public grounds in Pensacola, Florida, for example, the CJV claimed that ruling against the right to place a cross would also “encourage the erasure of minority religions from public life.” In other words, they viewed their actions primarily as protecting Judaism and pluralistic principles in the host society, even if this commitment to pluralistic principles has not extended, as in the case of the “enlarged Jewish community,” to gays and transsexuals. The CJV may also be a response of sorts to increasing awareness among conservative Whites (like Tucker Carlson) that Jews occupy a very unique and prominent role in American Leftism. This increasing visibility would obviously be perceived as a threat by Jews. Yaakov Menken, the CJV’s managing director, has recalled a conversation with a Christian pro-Israel leader who told him: “I can’t tell you how often people ask me “‘why are you devoting so much time to supporting the Jews and Israel when Jews oppose us on our core issues?’” The potential collapse of Christian Zionism and philo-Semitism in America would obviously have significant consequences for Jewish influence globally, and it should therefore come as no surprise that an effort to heighten the visibility of a “right-wing Judaism” would be made, no matter how superficial or self-interested.

Concluding Remarks

Is Jewish leftism a Reform problem? No. The Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox have their own history of endorsing and supporting Leftism if it suited Jewish interests, motivated by their attempting to avoid or lessen perceived threats. Moreover, even if Jewish Leftism was a Reform problem, the broader causes of anti-Semitism wouldn’t evaporate with the disappearance of that denomination. The Reform movement, we should recall, began in the nineteenth century — around 2,000 years after the earliest writings against the Jewish people. Many of the major historical provocations of anti-Semitic attitudes such as high levels of Jewish ethnocentrism, Jewish economic domination and exploitation, and the special political relationship between Jews and elites, cross denominational lines and precede by centuries the emergence of the modern Left. Some aspects of problematic contemporary Jewish behavior such as slumlordism, fraud, and white-collar crime are actually found in higher numbers among the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox than among Reform Jews.[20]

In short, the case for an ethnic interpretation of Jewish behavior far outweighs that for a denominational perspective. In the end, the diversionary argument of the self-styled Right-wing Jews can only gain traction among those whose worldview is simplistic and without nuance, and who perceive all of contemporary politics under the basic rubric of Left versus Right. Among such people, it’s perfectly possible to look at the handful of anti-transsexual or anti-ADL statements of the CJV and conclude that one has an ideological brother. Among the more sophisticated, however, in which a definite sense of ethnic interests is foremost, a more nuanced approach emerges, along with a new question altogether: For how long will the politics of my nation turn on the axis of Jewish interests?

[1] Crouter, Richard. “Emancipation Discourse in the Late 18th Century: Christian Wilhelm von Dohm on the Jews (1781)” Journal for the History of Modern Theology, vol. 13, no. 2, 2006, pp. 161-178. For translated primary sources on the debate between the two intellectuals see Mendes-Flohr, Paul R. (ed) The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 27-43.

[2] See on this topic, Peled, Yoav. “From theology to sociology: Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx on the question of Jewish emancipation.” History of Political Thought 13, no. 3 (1992): 463-485; Blanchard, William H. “Karl Marx and the Jewish question.” Political Psychology (1984): 365-374; Leopold, David. “The Hegelian Antisemitism of Bruno Bauer.” History of European ideas 25, no. 4 (1999): 179-206.

[3] Although ‘right-wing’ Jews like Cofnas seem unaware of it, they’re actually regurgitating an old-fashioned and now more or less discredited theory of Jewish liberalism. See, for example, the work of Werner Cohn in the late 1950s, where he often argued that Jews had been ‘pushed’ to the left by the association of the right with anti-Semitism.

[4] For a more detailed discussion of these difficulties see Della Pergola, Sergio, “Jewish Demography: Fundamentals of the Research Field,” in Rebhun, Uzi, The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Also of interest in the same volume is Saxe, Leonard et al, “Measuring the Size and Characteristics of American Jewry: A New Paradigm for an Ancient People.”

[5] Smith, Tom W. “A Review: Actual Trends or Measurement Artifacts? A Review of Three Studies of Anti-Semitism.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 57, no. 3 (1993): 380-93.

[6] Della Pergola, Sergio, “Jewish Demography: Fundamentals of the Research Field”, 10 & 23. Such studies can, for example, be designed to “greatly exaggerate” notions of Jewish population decline in order to promote endogamy and increase Jewish fertility.

[7] Ibid., 15.

[8] Ibid., 17.

[9] Although having a higher birth rate, Orthodox Jews comprise only around 10 percent of American Jewry, and around 10 percent of Orthodox youth eventually drift into more liberal Jewish milieus or forms of Judaism. The decline of the Reform population via intermarriage has rightly been described as “greatly exaggerated” by Calvin Goldscheider. See Goldscheider, Calvin, Studying the Jewish Future (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004).

[10] Weisberg, Herbert. F. “The Presidential Voting of American Jews,” in Sheskin, Ira (ed), American Jewish Yearbook 2019 (New York: Springer, 2020), 43.

[11] Ibid., 82.

[12] Ibid., 77.

[13] Ibid., 73.

[14] Ibid., 46.

[15] Weisberg, Herbert F. The Politics of American Jews (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2019),127-128.

[16] Van Horne, Winston A. Ethnicity in the Work Force (Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 56.

[17] See Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).

[18] Jack Dalton, “’Be Brave, Do Something’: Ashley Rae Goldenberg’s List of Corporations that Support the Riots asnd Want You Dead,” VDare (June 6, 2020).

[19] Quoted in Hartman, Harriet, “Studies of Jewish Identity and Continuity: Competing, Complementary, and Comparative Perspectives,” in Rebhun, Uzi, The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 93.

[20] See, for example, Rosen, Michael, “God Will Not Provide: Hasidic Jews and Fraud.” Journal of Law & Social Deviance 3 (2012): 245.

53 replies
  1. Peter London
    Peter London says:

    Left and Right in the Zohar.
    The Zohar contains numerous references to the Left and the Right as opposing forces in human affairs. The Right is the side of law and order, justice, progress; the Left is the side of chaos and evil. Reading this it seems surprising to then find the Jews of modern times ranging themselves so persistently and noisily “on the Left”, as they would say. In fact it is not surprising or contradictory at all. The following quote from the Sperling edition of the Zohar may help clarify things:

    “So Israel come from the side of the right and do not attach themselves to the left or mingle with it. Sometimes, however, through their sins they cause the Right to be weakened and the Left to be aroused, with all those that belong to it.” Zohar 4, p396.

    What this means in practice is that Jews are naturally on the Right, but if the host nation doesn’t treat them with sufficient respect – and of course it never does, not enough to satisfy the Jews at any rate – then the holy people will raise up the forces of the Left in the service of “our God of Vengeance”. This raises many questions about all those ‘Left-wing’ Jews. Are they sincere friends of the working class or of the various racial and sexual minorities whose causes they so noisily espouse, and do they even have any respect at all for their gentile comrades? I doubt it.

      • Peter London
        Peter London says:

        The Zohar passage is not a set of instructions. It reveals the spirit of the faith. Jews don’t have to know the Zohar to have that spirit.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          @ Peter London
          It is the supreme example of specialist complex Jewish mysticism largely in Aramaic and requiring careful study. Maimonides and recent rabbis were unhappy with its influence.

          How do most Jews absorb its “spirit”? From routine synagogue attendance, or from a diet of chicken soup and matzoh? How many in the USA even believe in God? Their main religion seems to consist of Shoah and Israel, not the Kabbalah or the Torah.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          @ Peter London
          It is the supreme example of specialist complex Jewish mysticism largely in Aramaic and requiring careful study. Maimonides and recent rabbis were unhappy with its influence.

          How do most Jews absorb its “spirit”? From routine synagogue attendance, or from a diet of chicken soup and matzoh? How many in the USA even believe in God? Their main religion seems to consist of Shoah and Israel, not the Kabbalah or the Torah.

  2. nesta
    nesta says:

    I think you are right to use the word “perceived” when talking about the difference between the CJV and the ADL, the US is shifting towards the Communist model faster than a 1917 Revolution, and it isn’t Norwegian’s with the brake on free speech.

  3. Jonathan Carter
    Jonathan Carter says:

    But jews aren’t really an ethnical group.

    It’s a group of WHITES stuck in the middle east.

    As all groups in areas with many ethnical groups they mix over time. Therefore these days 75 % of jews have middle easter background while 25 % (like the original Israelites back in the days of the Old Testament) does not have any middle eastern DNA.

    Many of them, actually more than the ones who mixed with middle easterners also have african subsharian mixture although to a smaller degree.

    Who knows these days if there are a lot of 100 % WHITE “jews” left, probably some but most likely not a great percentage.

    Therefore one may speak of a jewish cultural group or people but to bundle them down to ONE ethnical group is simply wrong from a scientific DNA perspective.

    One may argue that the averege jew is mixed with different ethnical group and therefore or combined with historic events, the history of the “people” or cultural group as such, this mixture could make the average jew’s political views, attitude towards Christian Whites or even hatred and manipulation and lies towards what they se as “others” may differ at large when compared to other people.

    But should one let this reflect negatively on 100 % White jews that are pro White and does not work for massimmigration or forced multiculturalism or cultural domination of non white culture and race mixing? I certainly don’t think so.

    This does not mean however that the subject should not be studied. Race-mixed socalled “jews” have been a hugely destructive force in western societies especially after ww2, but certainly to a degree before that also.

    I also think WHITE jews or WHITER ones have many geniouses and they have probably to a larger degree married Christian WHITES to keep it white which is a natural instinct and hence a natural event as such and that these most likely have contributed greatly to Western and European civilization or WHITE civilization as such.

    This does not mean the averege “jew” is not an issue.

    If we look at the pushing of the other aka non whites in culture and music, there was a shift before Donald Trump was elected. This was probably by a decision at the world jewish congress. Anyway I didi read an article by a “jew” from NYC where he wrote: “It is no longer necessary to paint the multicultural society (aka non whites) in a positive light”.

    Hence the agreement at the World Jewish Congress was most likely before that to: “paint multiculturalism (aka non whites) in a positive light” in order to have massimmigration, racial mixture and the like. And that this was NECESSARY, hence in effect an order to all jews from the highest decision organ of that so called “people”.

    Once they had enough non whites in formerly white territory, whites under 18 years old a minority, they thought they could relax.

    But then probably Trump made enough of them affraid so that now they have backtracked and from jews we now see the propaganda for race-mixing in ads, music and the like.

    The total replacement of WHITE culture by their ownership of media and other channels for culture, Hollywood and the like.

    And the increased immigration of non whites aswell as anti white legislation, a subsaharian leader of the military (secretary of defence). It is now total warfare and the gloves have come off.

    I do think if a new formulation and approach has been in effect decided at later World Jewish Congresses in some way.

    But regardless of how “bland” or “soft” a policy is stated as such an assembly there seems to be enough hostile anti WHITE jews around for such an anti white establishment and culture and politics to arise and be kept in place.

    This is certainly a great danger for WhITES as it is causing a holocaust on whites. But also a great danger for jews because the WHITE populations may rise against them.

    This seems to be a fault in how many jews think, they do not seem to grasp that what creates anti jewish sentiments is most often policies adopted by jews with power ower media and politics. Such as working for massimmigration, race-mixing (ads music, culture in general), “affirmitive action”, “hate speech laws” (aka anti free speech which most whites want), combatting exclusion (forced bussing of subsaharian africans to formerly WHITE schools), surveilance of the internet and massrveilance in general.

    These are all policies that has been supported by a majority of jews and in effect put in place by rich people that are jews and their organizations and people working from a jewish perspective and being jews.

    This is the case with the UN legislation against racism that was put into place in the 60’s after increased “anti-semitism”. And nothing summons the troops so to speak of enough jews as “anti-semitism”. Which is a funny word, because “jews” weren’t even semites initially.

    But is the awerege jew even aware of such things? Probably not. These decisions are done over their head and spoken about quietly within jewish organizations and probably distributed to leaders / owners in certain fields such as the media and advertising.

      • Jonathan Carter
        Jonathan Carter says:

        Firstly I wrote jews used to be WHITE in the days of the old testament. 75 % of jews are part middle eastern, leaving only 25 % with no such background.

        Jews are like 40 % Italian on the female side hence around 20 % Italian.

        Like the averege spaniard is part arab also bit to a lesser extent but I think only about 30 % of spaniards are actually part arabs.

        So there is a difference between what the average persons background is within a people and then looking at what percentage

        The averege jew is 8 % arab and 4 % subsaharian african. There are however jews and there used to be to a larger degree jews that are neither part arab nor subsaharian african.

        But then most Italians in southern Italy are also mixed, same with southern Spain. It’s also not uncommon in many Easter European countries although to a much smaller percentage. So do you consider them WHITE? Where would you draw the line, it is an interesting question especially these days with heritage / dna tests and the like…

        Jews have very high IQ compared to arabs and subsaharians. They tend to have lighter skin. Lighter skin than many Italians and Makedonians or whatever. There used to be WHITES in the middle east and northern Africa, see pharaohs and DNA test for starters.

        The wikipedia article is inaccurate and out of date on the subject.

        The jewish kings used to hate subsaharian africans most of them, there were laws against race mixing. An Israelite who killed an Israelite that married an arab woman and that woman was hailed a hero and became a high priest.

        Yet they did mix to a large degree I do think it is also stated as such in the Bible that it did take place.

        Why would a non white population have laws against race-mixing, makes no sense.

        • the watcher
          the watcher says:

          Don’t backtrack fella, you mentioned 100% White Jews – there is no such thing. As for ancient Whites in North Africa and the Mid East: i know, i posted a link about the Phoenicians the other day! Re. Jews: are you trying to muddy the waters by claiming Jews can be White? Most Jews don’t even claim that lol!

        • Tom
          Tom says:

          YOU’RE mixed:

          “The most striking finding is a clear signal of admixture into northern Europe . . . related to present-day populations of northeast Asia and the Americas.”

          Ancient Admixture in Human History
          GENETICS November 1, 2012 vol. 192 no. 3 1065-1093

          • Jonathan Carter
            Jonathan Carter says:

            All WHITES are mixed with asians from northern Russia, there are 700 of them left and the Japanes are also related to them.

            But yes Nordic people are a bit more mixed with them than say the French or Brittish people and also Scotts are a bit more so than the averege Britt but less so than the averege Norwegian.

            Norwegians are the mots Yamanya people also they came from the north there, more yamanya than Russians.

            But there are Italians that are WHITE and not mixed with arabs or subsaharian African.

            There are Spaniards that are WHITE and not mixed with arabs or subsaharian African. But the averege Spaniard is a bit mixed with these groups, but I think only 30 % of the actually are or was it 70 % can’t remember.

            There are jews that are WHITE and not mixed with subsaharian africans or middle easterners. Hence WHITE. But most of them are mixed indeed around 75 % of them have middle easter background and even mor have subsaharian african background. So yes, the averege jew is mixed. So is the average italian from Sicily. This does not mean all of them are mixed, just like not all Italians or Spaniards are mixed. How many jews are not mixed hence white what do I know maybe 20 % maybe 10 maybe 5 % I couldn’t care less.

    • Fenria
      Fenria says:

      Ashkenazic jews aren’t white. They’re Turkic leftovers from the Hun empire. They have some ratio of Caucasian DNA admixture, but are not European whites by any stretch. They are an ethnic group when it suits them to be one, and not an ethnic group when it doesn’t suit them. They are shape shifters, and are always hiding their true intentions. They are jews when accolades are being handed out, and “whites” when scorn is being cast. They are as tribal as any other old world group, and move as a bloc in all things, tossing out the red herring of “right” or “left” jews as so much fodder for silly goyim to occupy themselves chewing on. Parsing jews into different groups is exactly what jews want you to do. The last thing a jew wants is to be known or seen as a jew and as part of a special interest group that works for its own benefit in all things.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        @ Fenria
        There are complicated aspects to this question, including definition, DNA linkage, facial appearance, historical migration; see e.g. the discussion on the (regrettably Evolist) “Thuletide” website.
        Silly goyim include those who make excessive generalizations about Jewish activities; e.g. it is well known that many Jews utilize the ambiguity of “race” and “religion” when it suits them, but in the UK their prominent spokesmen now like to identify themselves as another ethnic group with its own “peoplehood”. Their conversion-averse faith is of course linked to maternal descent, and has its resemblance to traditional Zoroastrianism, less so to Shinto and Sikhism. It is far-fetched, however, to assert that “the last thing a jew [sic] wants is to be known or seen as a jew”. Exclusive Jewish interest organizations are multiple and public. Problems arise primarily from the pressure they assert on government policy, especially in the Middle East; e.g. the reference to the Friends of Israel in the diaries of the UK politician Alan Duncan, and the hue-and-cry against Jeremy Corbyn.

  4. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    “For how long will the politics of my nation turn on the axis of Jewish interests?” Well put.

    I suggest keeping in mind the below words from “The Jew as a Criminal” by J. Keller and Hanns Andersen (1937):

    “For each of us, the concept ‘right’ is a portentous and thoroughly vital one. Our laws are — taken as a whole — the expression of that which we feel as ‘the right.’ Even the law-breaker, insofar as he is not a professional criminal and thus an enemy of the people, feels it and knows that he has injured justice.

    The Jew, on the other had, has neither understanding nor feeling for what we call right. In our laws, he sees only an alien, formal, incomprehensible force, which breaks what the Jew feels as his ‘right,’ which must be combatted and outwitted. What we call ‘crime’ is for the Jew only the attempt to evade the grasp of an alien power. He is delighted and feels conceit when he succeeds in getting around, bending, or breaking the law.“

    • Stoffel Makwassie
      Stoffel Makwassie says:

      Well spoken. For the last generation, however, they have even succeeded in gaining the support of certain groups of Gentiles to embrace the same sentiment. “Minorities” (be they feminists, homosexuals, atheists) nowadays also simply pursue the “break down” of what is “right”, as they pedal their deconstructivist rhetoric. In this sense, the shabbas goyim fulfill the exact same role as the imported foreigners to White countries. Now, in stark contrast to a century ago, they have managed to create allies wrested from the folds of their enemy itself.

  5. Ted Heller
    Ted Heller says:

    The Orthodox do not rule the media, academia, finance, and government……obviously these control points
    have been captured by ultra left Jews.

  6. One Tribe
    One Tribe says:

    Dr. Joyce, thank you bringing this information, especially the impeccably citated exceptional analysis (no pun, initially intended).

    As we are wall on the way towards a new perceptual paradigm, driven by the order-of-magnitude increase in human information-management capability, these legacy parsing ‘memes’ like, left v. right (in particular) are utterly meaningless.

    With specific purview upon ‘the problem’ or euphemistically, ‘the issue’, it should be noted: likely the greatest existential threat to humanity and the biosphere in its entirety that the world has ever been confronted with, parsing overlooks the critical behaviour-driving criteria, overweening association and ultimately support, with/for the group.

    This factor somewhat undermines the entire discussion.
    The discussion, in essence, is ‘multi-variate approaches by the group, towards a common endpoint (which is exceedingly well-documented for those of emancipated thought).

    It is this common endpoint objective, which is, in-effect, the overwhelmingly primary commonality binding this pernicious trans-national supremacist affiliation (effectively a cult of self-idolization of the social/collective-human entity), domination or scorched-earth.

    The high level determinants remain:
    1. reciprocal identification with the group/collective
    2. (the therefore inherent) discrimination against all out-of-group people
    3. psychotic obsession with domination (to minimize the cognitive dissonance caused by systemic empathic dysfunction resulting from the damage resulting from the required psychological conditioning to maintain each individual human’s overweening adherence to the collective) and scorched-earth policy as the only ultimate alternative

    I feel that advancement of the project to preserve the biosphere and (at least all the good things from) human civilization, should focus more specifically on exposing the fundamental extremist aspects of the ideology of this group to the entire population (including in-group members), with the ultimately goal of eradication of such cultural norms, and incorporation of these individual cult members back into the humanity, to which they have been tortured to hate.

    Just to be perfectly clear to those who would find ‘objectionable material’ for exploitation purposes:
    1. at an individual level, humans are humans, and human empathetic actions should be extended to all
    2. however, the ideology of hatred against humanity is intolerable, since it will ultimately lead to suicide by genocide for the affiliates (which wouldn’t be so objectionable, if they didn’t take out all of humanity first!), MUST be eradicated for the survival of the biosphere.

    The primary task now is to find a method to break through the monumental array of censoring mechanism and communicate the historical and contemporary facts of this collective’s activities on a whole, revealing the obsession with promoting the power of the collective at any cost.

  7. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    “The potential collapse of Christian Zionism and philo-Semitism in America would obviously have significant consequences for Jewish influence globally, and it should therefore come as no surprise that an effort to heighten the visibility of a “right-wing Judaism” would be made, no matter how superficial or self-interested.”

    Wow, I’d say that is the important significant statement right there! I’d however, add the collapse of Freemasonry also and voila you’d see the end of:

    “the politics of my nation turn on the axis of Jewish interests?”

    I should write an essay for this blog on Chiliasm and how the Church Fathers were wrong to condemn it. The book exists though which unfortunately I titled wrong. Lies, all Lies by Gerry Fox should have been titled Chiliasm True or False?

    As for Jewish politics I find it strange that a nation called by God and was a theocracy is today a Democracy? Nothing short of a divine being is going to save what is happening in the Middle East and O, the clamoring for a messiah and some actually think a third world war is needed to bring that into being? The dissemination of this has to stop and immediately so!!!

  8. Mulgravia
    Mulgravia says:

    Jonathan Greenblatt is a member of an Asian activist group formed in response to the currently publicised Asian attacks. Of course whites have long been the target of black attacks, but Asian attacks can be used to ignore attacks on Whites, avoid Asians uniting cause with Whites and possibly allowing TPTB a cover for cracking down on the violence without it being seen as a defence of White victims. I imagine Jewish groups will be very busy persuading Asians to avoid combining their causes with White issues such as being squeezed from elite spaces that Jews want for themselves. It appears that a certain number of Asians seem to be falling for these tricks but that may simply be the impression Jews are crafting for persuasion purposes. It is instructive to see them applying their control techniques to a different rival group rather than a group like blacks that are used as a “golem”.

  9. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    Some Jews oppose some Leftists including some Jews, because they are religious and/or sympathetic to capitalism and/or enthusiasts for Israel and/or supportive of libertarianism; e.g. David Horowitz, Colin Shindler, Jamie Glazov.
    “Where there are four Jews, there are five opinions.” “Jews only unite when they feel collectively threatened as Jews.”
    A shortlist of miscellaneous Jews sooner or later critical of Marxism and/or communist regimes: Max Beloff, M.M. Bober, Irving Brown, Abraham Brumberg, David Dallin, Bern Dibner, Paul Hollander, Ben Gitlow, Joseph Josten, Alfred Kohlberg, Isaac Don Levine, Oscar Levy, Marx Lewis, Eugene Lyons, Adolphe Menjou, Ludwig von Mises, Richard Pipes, Karl Popper, Herbert Romerstein, Murray Rothbard, Morrie Ryskind, Ben Schultz, Alfred Sherman, Avraham Shifrin, Michel Solomon, Tibor Szamuely; I don’t know for certain about Suzanne Labin or Alexander Yakovlev.
    TOO readers may be interested in e.g. Sharman Kadish, “Bolsheviks & British Jews” (2013) & James Lindsay, “Critical Race Theory’s Jewish Problem,” Aquila Report, November 5, 2020, online.

  10. Michael F. Archer
    Michael F. Archer says:

    It is almost as if socalled race-mixed “jews” used the working class and liberals for their interest.

    It is almost as if race-mixed socalled “jews” used capitalism and it’s mechanism to rule the world and gain capital.

    But wait a minute, those systems were at the core created by “jews” hence they know the mechanisms and cab use them for their purposes.

    Communism, created by Marx, was totallitarian controll and the jews thought that through communism they could controll the world and it’s resources. And no more inventive goim making money on their hated inventions and art, now jews will control the state and all the money through communism and in the Soviet I think jews could keep their religion while Christians couldn’t. With communism noone could have an opinion that did not suit jews were their plan. And since generally it has been WHITES that invent things and the averege jew is racially mixed alyjough probably to a small degree they tend to be innovative on the averege, not inventors. Do they hate what they on the averege don’t do? Probably. And in communism, inventive people, geniouses (which jews do have but to a lesser degree due to the mixing with non whites and them being a small people) are not valuated they aren’t allowed to shine so to speak. But then they lost power over communism.

    So now they hijacked the parties ment to represent the working class to be all about criticak race theory, making things better for non whites and less good for whites. All about changing words anti white work laws are called “affirmitive action” and used en masse also at universities (most often by jews presumably). They made the left about race-mixing and pushing that (school bussing, n-word music and so on).

    As for capitalism, it is an effective system but probably at it’s core developed to benefit “jews”. It’s focus on nothing but profits. The focus on fast money on the stock market and through funds and the like. The large industry around that.

    Also it leads combined with massimmigration to a shortage of houses and apartments and higher and higher rents and less and less areas whites starting companies, white inventors, white artists and working class can live in hence less invention come out (suits them), less whites can make all that white art. Makes more whites wage slaves of big corporations which they think they (race-mixed socalled “jews”) can control through getting their people as CEO’s and infiltrating the owner families.

    And with racism against whites at universities, that also means less rich WHITE people, suits them.

    Now leftism is increasingly about n-word subsaharian africans and latinos and the created new “opressed” than working class whites. Wokeness has to a degree replaced the interest of the working class. And this was probably started with the frankfurt school, but the ideas were there before, with Baruch Levi’s letter to Karl Marx in 1929 and the Israel Cohen “racial plan” as well as the Rabbi Rabbinnovich plan presented in 1952.

    The end goal with all these strategies is of course to race-mix the WHITE race away. Which could suit the average jew. Less competition, no threat of a racist anti jewish regime, and the average socalled “jew” is racially mixed why would they not want all others to be that also.

    Many racially mixed people are obsessed in making everyone else racially mixed because they fear being thrown out of formerly WHITE territory or singled out or declared a lower value so to speak due to their racial background. See former primeminister of Sweden Fredrik Reinfeld (part n-word subsaharian african) that was obsessed with more massimmigration and subsaharian africans. See also Kalergi and the Kalergi plan for race-mixing. Why would the averege “jew” be any different.

    See here is an subsaharian african with the same attitude that many jews have.

  11. anonym
    anonym says:

    Most right-wing Jews seem to fall into two categories:

    Biblical old school Jews, filled with superstitious paranoia about everything (sex, science, the human body, women, animals, music, normal instincts, independent thoughts, goyim in general…) who demand that we all join their delusion and follow their insane regulations.

    The usurer/merchant Jews, who see everyone as a potential rube, ready for exploitation and rape, who turns every nation they inhabit into a whorehouse were everything is for sale. The psychopathic mindset expressed in a political agenda, where compassion, altruism and fidelity is laughed at, and where only vain ego trips and carnal sensations holds any value.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      That’s just not true. People should avoid crude antisemitism, as it’s unethical and unnecessary. It’s like making crude jokes about black IQ. Why? Maybe it’s understandable but not laudable. The truth, carefully presented as MacDonald and Joyce et al do, is damning enough. I know some extremely impressive and rightwing Jews (and in the good sense: prowhite and pro-Occidentalist). It’s vulgar to sweep them up with the Marxs, Marcuses, Sartres, Derridas, Friedans, Sanderses, Kristols, etc ad nauseam.

      While never failing to uncover Judeo-antiwhite perfidy, we should be seeking to cultivate an attitude of objectivity and contrition among salvageable Jews. Many are highly intelligent, and at least some could be made to see the error of their leftist ideologies. Also, that weakening white power – given that we are, at bottom, their protectors – is very much not in their or their children’s long term interests.

      • anonym
        anonym says:

        I agree that we should avoid vulgar attacks on Jews – not make fun of their noses, and perhaps be gentle when pointing out their psychiatric issues – but if there´s ever one group, or “tribe”, where generalizations are in order, it´s the Jews.

        I wrote “most Jews”, and of course there are the occasional odd Jew who has a normal european world view, but most of the important, prominent Jews, who initiate their intellectual movements, come off as bizarre to me.

        The nationalist right wingers seems to appreciate Murray Rothbard and Lawrence Auster, who, I suppose, could see the obvious flaws in the Jewish left wing insanity, but who at the same time were, what I consider, advocates for the harmful individualist Jewish “right wing” movement. A neo-liberal movement rooted in a paranoid fear of white unity, and a sense of home for white people.

        Hence all their individualists proposals – privatize everything, do away with the social safety net, destroy the unions, and let everyone fend for themselves.

      • Anonym
        Anonym says:

        Goldstein, Goldman, Silverstein, Silverman, Diamond, Rubin, Rubenstein, Feinstein, Goldfarb, Gold, Rich, Richman…

        I wonder why all the Soviet communist Jews changed their names…

  12. Cindy Levin-Brown
    Cindy Levin-Brown says:

    Yeah, it’s not really about left wing jews vs. right wing jews.
    It’s about jews against the rest of the world. The very few right wing jews
    are filthy neocons and they promote liberal domestic policies. And basically jewish money funds
    both of the stupid parties in America, and the media supports/promotes jewish interests as well.
    They have painted us into a corner, and this is generally not a very smart thing to do.

  13. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    @ Michael F. Archer
    You have to raise the game. The Baruch Levy letter to Marx (46 years after his death) and the Israel Cohen “racial plan”, the usual familiar faked quotes from silly pamphlets, when the real information comes from authentic sources (e.g. the biographical studies from Julius Braunthal, Rosa Luxemburg, Armand Hammer, Betram Wolfe, Michael Futrell, Robert Payne, Stefan Possony, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Boris Lifschits, &c).

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      PS. Bertram D Wolfe, not Betram, spelling correction.
      I forgot to include Raymond Aron and Lawrence Auster among the anti-communist Jews.
      Whether Jews are “white” is both a complicated and a simple matter. There are four main groups (Richard Lynn) with both phenotypic differences and genotypic links. If one regards the western subdivisions, Mediterranid and Armenid (Baker), as”white” then that would include most Jews (Guenther, Coon, DNA data). What matters politically is whether a Jew or anyone else is supportive of the cultural and biological survival of those in Europe, America and elsewhere who are “white”. This is the ultimate test, whatever the numbers or influence or motivation.

  14. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    When I was young, I worked in a large open air market in a part of Los Angeles with a very large population of jews. We had a long row of dumpsters in the parking lot to be used by the businesses in the market. Orthodox jews, who are in no way reform jews, but who are pretty much the most right wing jews that exist, would come by the Station-wagon car load around closing time and descend upon these dumpsters to dig through them for any “valuables” that businesses had thrown away. They refused to speak to any employees who asked them not to do this and would spit at you if you got too close. They would do this presumably for hours after closing time because we’d return the next day to find trash absolutely everywhere in the parking lot and blowing all over the inside of the market. It got to the point where the market administration had to lock the dumpsters and give keys to businesses.

    These were not reform jews. These were jews who refused to assimilate to anything even barely resembling prevailing American culture and behaved in such an egregiously outsider fashion as to prompt employees of all different races who were never racially inclined otherwise to label them, “dirty ass jews”. The locks only temporarily stopped them as they ended up cutting the locks after hours or rummaging through the dumpsters during working hours when they were open, not realizing or caring that their bizarre, rude, un-assimilating behavior was fueling dislike amongst people who were never raised to dislike them. They were either far too tone deaf to notice, or didn’t care. My guess is a bit of both. If a violent reaction of some sort had befallen them, not once would they attribute it to their own behavior, but would piously whinge that evil goyim simply hated them for existing and nothing more. The jew will always tell you what happened to him, but never why, and this goes for all of them, “right” or “left” alike.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      This trait of defensive self-righteousness that “explains antisemitism” simply and solely on the evil hostlity of others is well described as “political autism” and is unfortunately widespread in public policy. It has a few plausible elements, but cannot account for similarity in observations across time and space.

      However, there are several mostly marginal and diverse exceptions, often dismissed as self-haters; for example, Bernard Lazare, Otto Weininger, Theodor Herzl, Hannah Arendt, Albert Lindemann, Noam Chomsky, Gilad Atzmon; TOO readers will not thank me for including Disraeli and Marx in the list – incidentally, the Wikipedia entry “Self-hating Jew” is quite illuminating (if perhaps unintentionally). Jewish joke anthologies are also instructive.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          @ Trenchant.
          Out-and-out means “absolute, in every respect”.
          Readers can search “Chomsky on Israel” (and on “international finance”) for his books, articles, debates and videos on this subject, and decide for themselves whether your comment is correct.

        • OSCAR WILSON
          OSCAR WILSON says:

          Chomsky is a leftist intellectual of a particular sort, hostile to US/western imperialism, of which Israel is seen largely as an adjunct. Because he is neither a racial antisemite nor an advocate of the total elimination of Israelis, he is regarded by those who take one or both positions as being a very clever Zionist, cunningly supporting Zionism by books which ostensibly criticise Zionists and Israelis – like Stalin was a clever advocate of British Capitalism, and Roosevelt a cunning supporter of Hitler’s Nazism. Chomsky’s leftism, and “what-about-ism”, have been attacked by Jews and non-Jews alike; likewise his linguistic theories.
          Admittedly, the only political books by Chomsky on my own shelves are “Failed States” and “Deterring Democracy” which criticise America, but hardly do Israel’s reputation much good either. I note that Old Mother Lipstadt attacks him for providing “substantial support” for the finding that the Holocaust is fraudulent (“Denial”, p.304); Norman Finkelstein states that the ADL “spearheaded” public campaigns against him (“Holocaust Industry”, 2003 ed., p.20); Edward Said called him “a lone voice” against the pro-Israel domination of US media and academic communities (The Question of Palestine, 1992 ed., p.41).
          Of course, there is no pleasing anyone who thinks that the Omnipotent Joo is “behind” everything unpleasant from earache in Ecuador to rainstorms in Romania, and anyone with more nuanced historical causation is either a shabbos goy or an Evil Joo himself.

        • OSCAR WILSON
          OSCAR WILSON says:

          9/11 – external not internal cause (Chomsky interim view)
          Chomsky supporting “Holocaust” as debatable or fraudulent (Lipstadt)
          Chomsky targeted by ADL (Finkelstein)
          Chomsky virtually lone Jewish voice against US media & adademy pro-Israel Zionism (Edward Said)

        • OSCAR WILSON
          OSCAR WILSON says:

          See Chomsky’s comments about Israel on the Truthout website, May 12, 2021. Some apologia!

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          On 9/11 I think Chomsky’s comments were superficial and later bolstered by his notorious egotism, not that he was in the pay of Mossad or a gatekeeper or anything especially devious.

  15. OMGDwayne
    OMGDwayne says:

    Jews cannot and should not be trusted by Whites at all. As a people, a race, they are not Whites, and they have been the devoted enemies of Whites for centuries. They are always a parasitic drag, and are unprincipled liars, cheaters and thieves. They see it as a cultural virtue.
    And worse, radical Leftist tyranny is a Jewish invention that huge numbers of Jews automatically accept as a weapon against Whites.
    Part of Leftist tyranny was codified by the Frankfort Group in which the destruction of White civilization was deemed necessary.
    Negro worship is a Jewish invention in which the ugliest, stupidest, most violent, most immoral, most parasitic race is held up to be morally-superior promethean heroes. The Jews tell us that only these savages can redeem Whites and “save us” from ourselves.
    We don’t need Jews (or other nonWhites). They have declared themselves our enemies. Some of them will attempt to ride White Nationalism for their own gain; again as parasites.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      Negro Worship – not by Michael Levin, Michael Hart, John Perazzo, Jonathan Tobin, Ilana Mercer, Mary Lefkowitz, Richard Herrstein, Nathaniel Weyl, Seymour Itzkoff, &c. As Critical Race leftists have started to attack Zionism, Jews have begun to publish articles and books against them, and to campaign for campus free speech. The “Jewish street” is not so keen on “Schwarzers” – for reasons see e.g. “Blacks keep attacking and killing whites and Jews,” The Red Elephants, September 29, 2019, online.

  16. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    @ Peter London
    It is the supreme example of specialist complex Jewish mysticism largely in Aramaic and requiring careful study. Maimonides and recent rabbis were unhappy with its influence.

    How do most Jews absorb its “spirit”? From routine synagogue attendance, or from a diet of chicken soup and matzoh? How many in the USA even believe in God? Their main religion seems to consist of Shoah and Israel, not the Kabbalah or the Torah.

Comments are closed.