Are “The Jews” Really Genocidal Psychopaths?

When should we call a spade a spade?  That is, when should the niceties and the euphemisms end, and the straight truth be told?  This, of course, is a judgement call, to be decided based on how urgent and pressing the matter at hand is, and also on the consequences of the blunt truth versus a more conventional, polite approach.  Few people enjoy being deliberately provocative, but when soft, accommodating language fails to have its intended effect, then other, stronger, more explicit words are called for.

When it comes to Israel, Palestine, and the Jewish Lobby generally, I think the time has come for straight talk.  For example, for years, we were told that one could never utter the phrase “the Jews” because, well, it just…wasn’t…done.  To refer to “the Jews” somehow recalled the bad old days of pogroms, expulsions, and various other nasty deeds inflicted on an innocent Jewish people.  “The Jews” referred to a demonized, faceless mass that was always the scapegoat, always unjustly persecuted; the phrase was previously uttered only by the most vehement anti-Semites, and since no one wants to be called an anti-Semite today, one could simply not use the dreaded phrase.

If one pressed the issue, one was likely told more explicitly that the phrase “the Jews” lumped all Jews into a single category, and since there is a vast array of views and opinions among Jewish people, that it was simply incorrect to group them all together like that—in essence, it was technically wrong to use such a phrase.  If one was inclined to say something like “the Jews are rich” or “the Jews are obnoxious” or “the Jews are powerful,” this was technically incorrect because, obviously, not all Jews are rich, or obnoxious, or powerful.  And since any such discussion of the form “the Jews are X” or “the Jews do X” was technically false, that one should never use the phrase.  Only a “bad person” would persist in using such belligerent, antagonistic, and offensive language.

Of course, this proscription strikes any thinking person as odd, if only because we use similar phrases all the time in other contexts without issue.  If someone says “the Americans are friendly,” or “the Germans are punctual,” or “the Palestinians are suffering,” no one raises as much as an eyebrow, even though obviously not all Americans are friendly and not all Germans are punctual and not all Palestinians are suffering.  When it is understood that a vast majority of a given group are asserted to have some particular characteristic, then it is entirely appropriate to use the feared definite article ‘the’—at least, for every group except…the Jews.  Somehow, a double standard is firmly in place, where normal and natural English language must be altered in deference to those of the Hebrew persuasion.

Elections in Israel

Let me be specific.  Consider the recent elections in Israel.  There, the citizens had an opportunity to vote for the leadership and guiding policies of their nation.  Israel currently has about 10.3 million residents, of whom some 7.3 million are eligible voters.  Most of these people are Jews, of course, but not all; some 77% are Jewish, about 21% are Arabs, and the remaining 2% or so are foreign residents of various nationalities.

In Israel, they vote not for individual people, as in the United States, but rather for a “list”: basically, a party or platform that holds a particular ideological viewpoint and that promises to implement certain policies.  In the recent election, there were over 15 lists on the ballot, covering a range of views and appealing to different sectors of the Israeli population.  By law, any list earning more than 3.5% of the popular vote would be granted a place in parliament (the Knesset); the more votes, the more seats.

As it happened, 11 lists crossed the threshold and earned a place in the Knesset.  The following table shows each list, its popular vote count, percent of total votes, and seats won:

Of these 11, two are “Arab lists” (Joint List and Ra’am); these combined 837,000 votes came almost exclusively from Israeli Arabs, not Jews.  Naturally enough, both lists are anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian.  The other nine lists are split between “Netanyahu” and “Eisenkot” factions: Likud and the bottom four lists (Otzma, UTJ, Shas, and RZP) align with Netanyahu, whereas Yashar, Together, Democrats, and Yisrael align with Gadi Eisenkot.

If we run the totals for each of the three factions, we find the following:

Thus we see, first of all, that no faction earned the 61 seats necessary for an outright governing majority.  Netanyahu’s group did, however, earn the most total votes and the most seats.  Normally, he would then be tasked with forming a governing coalition, but owing to extensive problems with his leadership—from personal corruption charges to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack to the disastrous Iran war—the Israeli president Isaac Herzog decided to give Eisenkot the mandate; he now has a few weeks to construct a 61-seat coalition or attempt to rule as a minority faction.  It is far from clear that either of these options are viable, but time will tell.

Of course, either Eisenkot or Netanyahu could surpass the 61-seat requirement by inviting in one or both of the Arab lists, but since both men are avowed racists and Jewish supremacists, that won’t be likely.  Both men and their corresponding factions are committed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank, and both are committed to expanding the boundaries of Greater Israel by whatever means necessary.  The main difference is that Netanyahu acts via threats and blunt force, whereas Eisenkot prefers to operate behind a veneer of diplomacy.  The end goals for each, though, are the same.  Both men are more than willing to continue genocidal actions against the Palestinians, regardless of the human cost.  And both want to destroy or subjugate the nation of Iran, perhaps even to the point of using nuclear weapons.

Americans and others around the world who have witnessed the crimes in Palestine and the brutal bombing campaign against Iran may wonder, then, about the degree of public support in Israel for such heinous policies.  To what extent, we may ask, do ordinary Israelis support these terrible, criminal actions of the Israeli state?

The numbers are telling.  The above 11 lists garnered a total of 5.4 million votes; of these, nearly 4.6 million were Jews who voted for genocide, either in the guise of Netanyahu (2.4 million) or Eisenkot (2.2 million).  In other words, the nine Zionist (non-Arab) lists all support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, with any non-Jewish residents relegated to second-class status.  All support absorbing Gaza and the West Bank into Greater Israel—minus Palestinians.  Even so-called moderate lists, such as the left-leaning “Democrats,” have chosen to ally with the genocidal Eisenkot.  In effect, virtually every Jewish vote—4.6 million of them—went to a list that was tolerant of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Furthermore, to the 4.6 million figure, we must add those Jews who voted for right-wing, Zionist, genocidal lists that failed to reach the 3.5% threshold and thus are not included above.  Those are: “Reservists” (155,000 Jewish votes), “Amcha Yisrael” (95,000), “Tzeva Shahor” (11,000), and “HaTzibur” (10,000), yielding another 271,000 Jewish votes for genocide.

In sum, then, we have around 4.9 million Jews who voted for some form of genocide, war, or mass murder.

Now, there are only around 5.6 million Jews eligible to vote in Israel.  Thus, we can be sure that at least 88% (4.9 million / 5.6 million) of Isra*el Jews are in favor of genocide.  Of the remaining 700,000 Jews who did not vote, we can conservatively estimate that at least half support either Netanyahu or Eisenkot factions, which adds another 350,000 to our total.  Therefore, we can plausibly argue that around 95% of Israeli Jews are pro-genocide, support the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and are fine with the destruction of Iran.

Now, for me, 95% is close enough to “all” that I am more than willing to state that “the Jews” of Israel are unquestionably genocidal fanatics who are willing to inflict mass casualties on innocent people to achieve their political aims.  But does this rise to a state of psychopathology?  In other words, are the Jews psychopaths?

According to standard usage, a psychopath is anyone characterized by “a persistent lack of empathy, a severe shortage of remorse or guilt, superficial charm, grandiosity, and manipulative or antisocial behavior” (Google AI).  Anyone supportive of genocide, of relentless bombing of women and children, certainly lacks empathy.  The election results furthermore show that Israeli Jews are utterly lacking in remorse or guilt over events in Gaza or Iran.  The ever-present air of Jewish supremacism obviously counts as ‘grandiosity,’ and if we allow that “superficial charm” and “manipulative behavior” have been defining hallmarks of Jews for centuries, then yes, we have virtually 100% agreement: Jews meet all the requirements of psychopathology.  The Jews are psychopaths—and genocidal ones at that.

Meanwhile in America…

So much for Israel and Israeli Jews.  What about in America?  Here, we have (we are told) around 7 million more Jews, depending on how we count them.  According to survey data, about 16% support Netanyahu and around 57% support the Eisenkot faction, which gives a total of some 73% in favor of explicit genocide.  The remaining quarter of American Jews claim to have no opinion or are neutral on Israeli politics, but this is hard to believe; again, it is likely that at least half of these are ideologically aligned with either Netanyahu or Eisenkot but are unwilling to admit it.  Thus, we can plausibly state that at least 85% of American Jews are supportive of genocide, war, and mass murder, as long as such things benefit Israel or Jews generally.

Such a figure accords with prior data showing American Jews generally supportive of Israel despite its standing as an apartheid state, as an international pariah, and as engaged in ethnic cleansing since its inception in 1948.  A 2019 survey showed that 95% of Jews had “favorable views” of Israel, even with Netanyahu at the helm.  A 2020 survey found that 80% of Jews considered it “important for Israel to be a Jewish state”—meaning, realistically, a state where Jews are full citizens and any other residents are second- or third-class, i.e. an apartheid state.  The same survey showed that nearly 90% of Jews considered it “important for Israel to be a [permanent] refuge for the Jewish people”—meaning, that all Jews everywhere are de facto citizens, and thus that dual-citizenship is entirely appropriate for them.  Combine all this with my estimate of 85% of American Jews supporting genocide, and we get a fairly complete picture of the Jewish mindset.

Normally, such views would be called “Zionist,” but when asked, only around 40% of American Jews describe themselves this way.  To me, this shows that nearly all Jews hold Zionist views while avoiding the label because it has acquired such an evil connotation over the past decade or two.  As such, this constitutes more Jewish deception: adopt reprehensible views but then deny holding them!

Coming back to my title question, I would have to say once again that, yes, “the Jews” of America are genocidal psychopaths.  Certainly 80% to 90% fit the definitions, and most of the remainder probably hold such views but will deny doing so.

Not that this is new news: It has long been asserted by critics of the Hebrews that they are uniformly contemptible—and uniformly dangerous.  A notable example: In a 1771 essay, Voltaire wrote the following: “[The Jews] are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and Germans are born with blond hair.”  Not some of them, or most of them, but “all of them.”  And not because of their religion or opinions, but because they were born that way.  Voltaire continues: “I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race.”[1]  An amazingly prescient statement.

Finally, we may ask: How did all this play out in the recent US midterm elections?  The electorate clearly and definitively rebelled against Trump and his policies, both among Democrats and his own supporters.  As to why, we need merely look at J. D. Vance’s now-infamous tweet of November 4, summarizing four demands of disaffected Republicans:  “1) End the war 2) Focus on cost of living/inflation 3) Put America First 4) Change our relationship to Israel.”  This is a nice summary of the whole situation, and concisely explains why Republicans lost so badly.

In fact, this short summary is more revealing than perhaps Vance even realized.  When we look at each point, we see that each is a supplication to Jewish interests: (1) End the Iran war, which is a war for the Jews; (2) inflation is largely due (at least in 2026) to rising energy costs attributable to the Iran war, again for the Jews; (3) putting America first is in contrast to Trump’s reality of putting Israel first; and (4) we can only meaningfully “change” the relationship to Israel by curtailing or severing it.  Hence, Vance’s four demands could have been reduced to one:  “Stop pandering to the Jews!”

For what it’s worth, I think that Vance is among the smarter people in MAGA circles, and he seems to actually understand how things really work in DC.  And I suspect that he is truly upset by it, but has had to subsume his personal feelings in order to serve Trump and the larger MAGA cause.  This suggests that he may now begin to press his own views, including, apparently, a severe drawdown of Jewish pandering.  Vance is smart enough to realize that if he could only offer up something like “MAGA without the Jew,” that he would stand a great chance of succeeding in 2028.  In other words, implement all the good things about MAGA—close the borders, expel all illegals, end DEI, support the daily needs of real Americans—but without pandering to Israel, Jews, or Jewish interests.  This would mean, for example: 1) end all military and financial aid to Israel, 2) sever all corporate ties, 3) end dual-citizenship possibilities, 4) make peace with Russia, Iran, and the Palestinians, 5) remove all Jews from leading positions in federal agencies, and 6) insure no Jews among the Presidential Cabinet.  If Vance could offer this as a presidential candidate, he would win in a landslide, not to mention earning a place as a truly great American hero.

But even if, by some miracle, this occurred, we would still have a huge problem on our hands: what to do about 7 million Jews, virtually all genocidal psychopaths.  We have to ask ourselves: Why do we allow such people in our country at all?  What are they doing for America, other than enriching themselves, corrupting government, subverting culture, and giving our country a terrible reputation globally?  Seriously—why are they here?  Citizenship involves not only rights but duties, and these duties must aim at the general welfare and betterment of all Americans, not just a 2% subset of the population.  If the Jews fail at the most basic level of civic duty, and furthermore serve as a potent psychopathological element in our midst, then…why are they here?

We can do better.  Republicans can do better.  It is no secret, no mystery.  We know what needs to be done; we need only the courage and the vision to do it.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2^nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

[1] Lettres de Memmius á Ciceron, in Oeuvres complètes XXVIII, pp. 439–440. Cited in Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (1968), p. 300.