If God doesn’t exist, how do you explain cats, peacock feathers, and the prose of P.G. Wodehouse? If the Devil doesn’t exist, how do you explain cats, plague, and the prose of Judith Butler? As you can see, cats turn up on both sides of the ledger: on God’s for their charm, beauty, and mystery; on the Devil’s for their selfishness, cruelty, and painful-by-design teeth and claws.[1]

Strangulation, Satanism and suicide

But I know a human being who turns up on both sides of the ledger too: the English writer Evelyn Waugh (1903-66). He usually wrote like an angel, but sometimes behaved like a devil. Like Wodehouse’s, his books are a joy to read; unlike Wodehouse’s, his books contain very dark and even depraved scenes and themes. Inter alia, there’s a decapitation with “carpenter’s tools” in Decline and Fall (1928); a cannibal feast in Black Mischief (1932); a literary, and literal, enslavement in A Handful of Dust (1934); two suicides and a supremely undignified cremation in The Loved One (1948); and strangulation, Satanism and state-sanctioned suicide in his short stories and novellas.[2]

Prose by the prejudiced: P.G. Wodehouse’s Golf Omnibus and Evelyn Waugh’s Black Mischief

Waugh’s prose always reminds me of Mozart; Waugh’s scenes sometimes remind me of gangsta rap. What unites Wodehouse and Waugh — a pairing we can call Wu-2, if we adopt the name for “W” I proposed in “The World’s Worst Word” — is the beauty of their writing. What separates them is the sunniness of Wodehouse and the satire of Waugh. But something else that unites them is that they both wrote about Jews in what could be called anti-Semitic ways. It’s just that one of these sublime writers was subtle and the other was blatant in that prejudice. Who was which? Well, here are two pieces of blatant anti-Semitism from Waugh’s A Handful of Dust:

“Ben says natives aren’t humans at all really.”

“Ah, but he’s thinking of Negroes, I expect. These are pure Semitic type.”

“What’s that?”

“The same as Jews.”

“Ben says Jews are worse than natives.” (A Handful of Dust, chapter 3, part III)

“This place stinks of Yids,” said Baby.

“I always think that’s the sign of a good hotel, don’t you?” said Tony.

“Like hell,” said Baby. (A Handful of Dust, chapter 4, part II)

Yes, that is blatant anti-Semitism, but it isn’t being espoused by Waugh himself, rather by two of his characters. And their espousal damns them as inferior. The crudity of the prejudice establishes the crudity of the character: Baby is a working-class scold and possibly a prostitute; Ben is a working-class riding instructor whose views are being repeated by a naïve upper-class child. In Waugh’s fiction, speaking about Jews like that is a sure sign of inferiority.

Synagogues and snake-temples

And so, despite his well-established reputation as a curmudgeon and racist, Waugh was not blatant in his anti-Semitism. No, he was subtle. Waugh didn’t think Jews were at the bottom of the racial scale: he thought they were almost at the bottom of the theological scale. There’s enormous significance in the order he gives to various denominations and religions in one passage from his hilarious but highly un-woke novel Black Mischief. To set the scene: a pair of Englishwomen are visiting the African city of Debra Dowa during a “festival of sterility” and have climbed onto the roof of their hotel to escape an incursion of natives, who have been sold tickets to their room by Mr Youkoumian, the hotel’s unscrupulous Armenian proprietor:

[F]rom where they sat the whole city lay very conveniently exposed to their view. They could see the irregular roofs of the palace buildings in their grove of sapling blue gums and before them the still unfinished royal box from which the Emperor proposed to review the procession; small black figures could be observed working on it, tacking up coloured flags, spreading carpets and bobbing up the path with pots of palm and fern. They could see the main street of the city diverge to the barracks on one side and the Christian quarter on the other. They could see the several domes and spires of the Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, Anglican, Nestorian, American Baptist and Mormon places of worship; the minaret of the mosque, the Synagogue and the flat white roof of the Hindu snake temple. (Black Mischief, chapter 6)

Waugh ordered the list by distance from Divine Truth: Catholicism possessed it entirely; then came the Christian denominations in order of their closeness to Catholicism; then came Islam, which at least honored Christ as a virgin-born, miracle-working prophet; last-but-one came Judaism, which had rejected and crucified Christ; and finally, most distant of all from the True Faith, came Hinduism and the absurdities of its animal-worship. Setting Judaism in last-but-one place like that was anti-Semitic by the standards of corrupt and decadent modern Catholicism. But it was perfectly orthodox Catholicism when Black Mischief was published in the 1930s. There was no nonsense about Jews being “elder brothers in the Faith” before the heretical innovations of the Jew-infiltrated Second Vatican Council (1962-5) (see articles on Vat II at TOO). Instead, millions of Catholics around the world prayed every Good Friday for God to lift the “blindness” of the “perfidious Jews.”

Magic but maleficent

It’s true that Waugh speaks earlier in the novel of a “Jewish nihilist from Berlin” throwing a bomb during an imperial coronation, but that’s anti-Semitic only in the sense that it reflected a negative truth about Jews rather than censoring it, as Jews would have preferred. In all likelihood a bomb-throwing nihilist from Berlin would have been Jewish in those days. That’s why I argue that the blatant anti-Semitism of the Wu-2 came not from curmudgeonly Evelyn Waugh, but from cuddly P.G. Wodehouse. However, I’m not talking about the accusation against Wodehouse that he collaborated with the Nazis during World War Two. That accusation was comprehensively refuted by George Orwell in his article “In Defence of P.G. Wodehouse” (1945).

Instead, I’m talking about a little-known Wodehouse story called “The Magic Plus Fours” (1922). It’s a characteristically sunny story, but it’s also as close as Wodehouse ever got to the sinister and supernatural. Narrated by the “Oldest Member” of a golf club, it’s about a dedicated but mediocre golfer called Wallace Chesney, who is always buying bizarre new clubs in a futile quest to improve his game. One day he sees a putter of “pre-eminently lunatic design” in the window-display of “COHEN BROS.,” a firm of Jewish brothers who run a second-hand clothing business but deal in what Wodehouse calls “derelict goods of every description.” Pursuing the putter, Wallace enters the shop:

The shop was full of the Cohen family, sombre-eyed, smileless men with purposeful expressions; and two of these, instantly descending upon Wallace Chesney like leopards, began in swift silence to thrust him into a suit of yellow tweed. Having worked the coat over his shoulders with a shoe-horn, they stood back to watch the effect.

“A beautiful fit,” announced Isidore Cohen.

“A little snug under the arms,” said his brother Irving. “But that’ll give.”

“The warmth of the body will make it give,” said Isidore.

“Or maybe you’ll lose weight in the summer,” said Irving.

Wallace, when he had struggled out of the coat and was able to breathe, said that he had come in to buy a putter. Isidore thereupon sold him the putter, a dog collar, and a set of studs, and Irving sold him a fireman’s helmet: and he was about to leave when their elder brother Lou, who had just finished fitting out another customer, who had come in to buy a cap, with two pairs of trousers and a miniature aquarium for keeping newts in, saw that business was in progress and strolled up. His fathomless eye rested on Wallace, who was toying feebly with the putter.

“You play golf?” asked Lou. “Then looka here!”

He dived into an alleyway of dead clothing, dug for a moment, and emerged with something at the sight of which Wallace Chesney, hardened golfer that he was, blenched and threw up an arm defensively.

“No, no!” he cried.

The object which Lou Cohen was waving insinuatingly before his eyes was a pair of those golfing breeches which are technically known as Plus Fours. A player of two years’ standing, Wallace Chesney was not unfamiliar with Plus Fours — all the club cracks wore them — but he had never seen Plus Fours like these. What might be termed the main motif of the fabric was a curious vivid pink, and with this to work on the architect had let his imagination run free, and had produced so much variety in the way of chessboard squares of white, yellow, violet, and green that the eye swam as it looked upon them.

“These were made to measure for Sandy McHoots, the Open Champion,” said Lou, stroking the left leg lovingly. “But he sent ’em back for some reason or other.”

“Perhaps they frightened the children,” said Wallace, recollecting having heard that Mr. McHoots was a married man.

“They’ll fit you nice,” said Lou.

“Sure they’ll fit him nice,” said Isidore, warmly.

“Why, just take a look at yourself in the glass,” said Irving, “and see if they don’t fit you nice.”

And, as one who wakes from a trance, Wallace discovered that his lower limbs were now encased in the prismatic garment. At what point in the proceedings the brethren had slipped them on him, he could not have said. But he was undeniably in.

Wallace looked in the glass. For a moment, as he eyed his reflection, sheer horror gripped him. Then suddenly, as he gazed, he became aware that his first feelings were changing. The initial shock over, he was becoming calmer. He waggled his right leg with a certain sang-froid.

There is a certain passage in the works of the poet Pope with which you may be familiar [said the Oldest Member to his audience of one]. It runs as follows:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As to be hated needs but to be seen:

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Even so was it with Wallace Chesney and these Plus Fours. At first he had recoiled from them as any decent-minded man would have done. Then, after a while, almost abruptly he found himself in the grip of a new emotion. After an unsuccessful attempt to analyse this, he suddenly got it. Amazing as it may seem, it was pleasure that he felt. He caught his eye in the mirror, and it was smirking. Now that the things were actually on, by Hutchinson, they didn’t look half bad. By Braid, they didn’t. There was a sort of something about them. Take away that expanse of bare leg with its unsightly sock-suspender and substitute a woolly stocking, and you would have the lower section of a golfer. For the first time in his life, he thought, he looked like a man who could play golf. (“The Magic Plus Fours,” 1922)

As the title foretells, the Plus Fours turn out to be magic, but in a maleficent way. Wallace becomes a crack golfer, but he loses his amiable personality in the process and alienates all his friends, including his fiancée Charlotte. To learn how he regains both his old self and his old friendships, you’ll have to read the story for yourself. Indeed, I recommend that any newcomer to Wodehouse read the whole of the Golf Omnibus in which “The Magic Plus Fours” is most conveniently collected.

Semitic stereotypes

After all, I hope the extract above has already shown the uninitiated how well Wodehouse could write.[3] He was called “English literature’s performing flea” in 1941 by the Irish playwright Sean O’Casey; he responded in 1953 by calling one of his own books Performing Flea. He was perfectly content not to be seen as a profound or intellectual writer. You don’t go to Wodehouse for deep or dark themes. Instead, you go for sunshine, light-hearted comedy and beautiful prose. “The Magic Plus Fours” is certainly light-hearted and written in beautiful prose. Nevertheless, it contains undeniable stereotypes about Jewish psychological intensity and dishonesty — and about Jewish predation too. Recall how Wodehouse describes the Cohen brothers “descending upon Wallace Chesney like leopards.”

Passover of Blood (2007), a much-censored study of medieval Jewish sorcery and blood-trading by the Israeli scholar Ariel Toaff (see Ron Unz’s review)

There is also a faint but unmistakable echo of ancient religious anti-Semitism. A garment forced on a goy by Jews proves both magic and maleficent. The Cohen “brethren,” as Wodehouse calls them, are a secularized and softened version of the Jewish black magicians in Christian fables — and in historical fact. As Ron Unz has described in “Oddities of the Jewish Religion,” Jews both practised sorcery and trafficked in real Christian blood during the Middle Ages. The so-called “Blood Libel,” which claimed that Jews kidnapped Christian children and drained their blood, may well have been literal truth, not libellous fantasy. The Cohen brothers of Wodehouse’s story fall into that tradition of Jewish magic and maleficence. They hypnotize Wallace into buying a garment that turns him into a crack golfer at the expense of his friendships and his happiness.

Knockout Trousers Ltd

The goy therefore has to break the garment’s spell, that is, break the spell of Jewish black magic. Accordingly, I think that Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America and the Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain would condemn that story for its anti-Semitic stereotypes and insinuations. In other words, they would condemn its realism, because Jewish salesmen did behave like that. P.G. Wodehouse cast that behavior in a comic light; George Orwell cast it in a hostile light. Orwell was another writer of beautiful prose, although he wasn’t yet writing beautifully in pre-war novels like the depressive and depressing A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935). It tells the story of Dorothy Hare, a clergyman’s genteel daughter who has a nervous breakdown and is submerged in poverty after she runs away from her selfish and exploitative father. Here’s Orwell’s portrait in the novel of another Jewish garment-seller:

The autumn weather, though fine, was growing colder. Each day the sun, fighting his losing battle against the winter, struggled a little later through the mist to dye the house-fronts with pale aquarelle colours. Dorothy was in the streets all day, or in the public library, only going back to “Mary’s” to sleep, and then taking the precaution of dragging her bed across the door. She had grasped by this time that “Mary’s” was — not actually a brothel, for there is hardly such a thing in London, but a well-known refuge of prostitutes. It was for that reason that you paid ten shillings a week for a kennel not worth five. Old “Mary” (she was not the proprietress of the house, merely the manageress) had been a prostitute herself in her day, and looked it. Living in such a place damned you even in the eyes of Lambeth Cut [a lowly district of London]. Women sniffed when you passed them, men took an offensive interest in you. The Jew on the corner, the owner of Knockout Trousers Ltd, was the worst of all. He was a solid young man of about thirty, with bulging red cheeks and curly black hair like astrakhan. For twelve hours a day he stood on the pavement roaring with brazen lungs that you couldn’t get a cheaper pair of trousers in London, and obstructing the passers-by. You had only to halt for a fraction of a second, and he seized you by the arm and bundled you inside the shop by main force. Once he got you there his manner became positively threatening. If you said anything disparaging about his trousers he offered to fight, and weak-minded people bought pairs of trousers in sheer physical terror. But busy though he was, he kept a sharp eye open for the “birds”, as he called them; and Dorothy appeared to fascinate him beyond all other “birds”. He had grasped that she was not a prostitute, but living at “Mary’s”, she must — so he reasoned — be on the very verge of becoming one. The thought made his mouth water. When he saw her coming down the alley he would post himself at the corner, with his massive chest well displayed and one black lecherous eye turned inquiringly upon her (“Are you ready to begin yet?” his eye seemed to be saying), and, as she passed, give her a discreet pinch on the backside. (A Clergyman’s Daughter, chapter 2, part 7)

Again, the ADL and CST would surely condemn that for its anti-Semitic stereotypes, that is, for its realism about Jewish behavior. Like Wodehouse, Orwell had obviously seen Jewish salesmen in action and noted their psychological intensity. Unlike Wodehouse, however, Orwell also noted Jewish lechery. He could have written about Jews even more bigotedly, but no less realistically, by describing their central role in the “white slave trade,” as trafficking in coerced European prostitutes was then called.

Jew-on-Jew predation

But the term “white slave trade” was partly a misnomer, because although the prostitutes were from Europe and were coerced, they were generally Ashkenazi Jewesses rather than White shiksas. That is, Jewish women were being preyed on by Jewish men. You may be surprised to hear that you can find fuller details of this Jew-on-Jew predation at the heavily Judeo-policed Wikipedia. There’s a very interesting article there about a Jewish gang known as the Zwi Migdal, which was allied with the “Jewish Mob” and the “Ashkenazum.” Here are extracts from the article:

The [Zwi Migdal]’s main operation was the trafficking of Jewish women from Central Europe (mainly from Warsaw) into sexual slavery and forced prostitution. The organization, whose operators were Jewish, functioned from its foundation in the 1860s until 1939.

The organisation’s annual turnover was $50 million at the turn of the 20th century. After the First World War, it had 400 members in Argentina, Buenos Aires being its main centre of operations. It had branch offices in Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Santos), the United States (New York City), Poland (Warsaw), South Africa, India and China.

During the 1920s the organisation grew to its largest-ever size. At its height, 430 individuals, acting as pimps and in other criminal roles, oversaw a network of 2,000 brothels and approximately 4,000 women in Argentina alone. The organization’s success stemmed from the fact that its members were bound by rules that were “based on order, discipline, and honesty.” The network was well-organized and members cooperated closely to protect their interests. […]

The organization lured girls and young women from Europe in several ways. [The researcher Tomasz] Pindel describes one ruse in which a well-mannered and elegant-looking man would appear in a poor Jewish village in Poland or Russia. He would advertise his search for young women to work in the homes of wealthy Jews in Argentina by posting an advertisement in the local synagogue. Fearful of pogroms and often in desperate economic circumstances, parents would send their daughters away with the man, hoping that this might offer them a fresh start.

Another popular ruse was to find pretty girls and marry them, usually in a quick wedding ceremony known in Yiddish as a “shtille chupah” [“silent canopy,” in reference to the traditional Jewish wedding-canopy and the absence of any official record of the marriage]. The girls bade their families farewell and boarded ships to Argentina, believing that they were on their way toward a better future. The rape of the girls and abuse as sex slaves often started on the ship. Some of them were married off to local men so that they could obtain entry visas.

Prostitutes who failed to satisfy their clients were beaten, fined, or sent to work in rural houses. Every business transaction was logged. The ruffians held a “meat market” where newly arrived girls were paraded naked in front of traders in places such as Hotel Palestina and Café Parisienne. These activities went on undisrupted because government officials, judges, and journalists frequented the brothels. City officials, politicians, and police officers were bribed. The pimps had powerful connections everywhere. The largest brothels in Buenos Aires housed as many as 60 to 80 sex slaves. Although there were brothels all over Argentina, most were in Buenos Aires, in the Jewish quarter on Junin Street. (“Zwi Migdal” at Wikipedia)

The prose at Wikipedia is rarely or never beautiful, let alone as beautiful as the prose of Wodehouse and Waugh. But weak prose can still convey powerful truths. And powerful truths about Jewish behavior are conveyed in that article at Wikipedia. The article says that the Zwi Migdal lasted from 1867 to 1939, but the central Jewish role in prostitution and pornography has never ceased.

Nowadays, however, the Jewish pimps and pornographers prey much more on shiksas, rather than on women of their own race. The Zwi Migdal might have preferred to prey on shiksas too, but anti-Semitism was stronger in those days and they must have feared a goyish backlash. In other words, gentile realism about Jewish behavior was much stronger in those days. In the 1920s even the amiable and light-hearted P.G. Wodehouse espoused realism about Jews.

A century later, in the 2020s, some of that realism about Jews has returned. The Jewish war on Nazi Germany enabled Jews to silence gentile tongues; the Jewish wars on Gaza and Iran are setting gentile tongues free again. It’s just a shame that we can’t break the ugliness and lies of Jewish control with the beauty and truth found in the prose of White writers like Wodehouse, Waugh and Orwell. John Keats, who wrote sublime poetry, told us that “Beauty is truth” and “truth beauty,” then asseverated that this is “all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” Alas, he was wrong. But it is important to know that Whites like Wodehouse, Waugh, Orwell and Keats have created beauty and spoken truth in a way that Jews never have and never will.

[1]  A bite from a dog can do more much damage, but a bite from a cat can be much more painful. As solitary hunters, cats need to overcome their prey as quickly and efficiently as possible, so I’d suggest that their teeth and claws have evolved both to penetrate far and to be paralyzingly painful.

[2]  The strangulation is in “Mr Loveday’s Little Outing” (1935); the Satanism in “Out of Depth” (1933); and the state-sanctioned suicide in “Love Among the Ruins” (1953). See Waugh’s Collected Stories.

[3]  One example of Wodehouse’s skillful writing in that extract may be his choice of “smileless” in the description of the Cohen brothers. Why did he use that relatively rare word rather than the more common “unsmiling”? Well, try reading the sentence in question aloud using both. You’ll find that “smileless,” with its doubled liquid “l,” takes more effort and seems to last longer, emphasizing the smilelessness of the Cohens.

Before getting into the crux of the matter, it’s important to set the stage by first defining an important term that is often neglected when trying to ascertain facts of the past.

Context

Contextualization is a fundamental ethical and scholarly principle in historical analysis. To understand history, one must analyze events within the moral, intellectual, and social framework of the time. This does not mean endorsing past actions, but rather understanding why intelligent, educated people believed them to be correct. Judging the past exclusively by post-war or today’s standards—a fallacy known as presentism—obscures the reality of how pre-war ideas and events evolved.

In other words, you cannot explore the incendiary topic of Hitler and Germany’s anti-Judaism without first putting the epoch in context and examining the circumstances and situation of the Germans at a time when anti-Judaism became the norm.[1] A complete analysis requires balancing intellectual ideas with the historic, economic, and social pressures that allowed these ideas to flourish.

Confirmation bias

Be careful when you consult anti-German or overtly anti-Jewish sources because they are more likely to be biased for understandable reasons as each one will tend to exaggerate or downplay events according to their interests and core beliefs. Ideally, you must explore neutral sources that don’t have an axe to grind, if that is at all possible, because everybody is influenced in one way or another by their cultural background and experiences.

If you use AI to do research and assess your arguments, you will be turned-off at first by the use of post-war rhetoric that is used to downplay an argument or to demonize Nazis. So, you have to train the AI—if it is truly AI and not just a propaganda prop—you are using to exclude post-war rhetoric or conclusions that are obviously made by people hostile to the Germans and Hitler. Command it to stick to facts and to concentrate on the perspective of the Germans up to the end of the war in 1945. It’s unethical to constantly refer to the Nuremberg trials and post-war rhetoric to judge that period. Which is what the mainstream historians cited herein explicitly do. All their assumptions and pre-suppositions are based on the fallacy of presentism.[2]

Western Context

In the context of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, eugenics and racial Darwinism were widely regarded as the cutting edge of progressive science. Leading institutions, universities, and governments in the United States, Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany embraced these ideas. They were seen as the logical application of Charles Darwin’s theories to human society—a way to use science to improve the human race, eliminate disease, and reduce social costs.[3]

The purpose of eugenics was to create a superior Nordic race by applying the same principles used to breed cattle and corn. The movement targeted all mankind and eventually spread to Germany where it caught Hitler’s attention. As Jewish author Edwin Black asserts in his book War Against the Weak, “The Nazi principle of Nordic superiority was not hatched in Germany but on Long Island decades earlier, and then actively transplanted to the Third Reich.”[4]

These ideas are the backdrop of anti-Judaism in Hitler’s Germany. They were championed by respected figures such as H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, E. H. Hariman, and Margaret Sanger. To them, sterilization laws and racial hierarchies were rational, humanitarian policies designed to create a healthier, more efficient society.[5]

United States: By the 1920s, 32 states had enacted forced sterilization laws for the “feeble-minded” and “socially undesirable” resulting in over 60,000 sterilizations. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld these laws in Buck v. Bell (1927), and American eugenicists such as Harry Laughlin and Charles Davenport were honored by German universities for their scientific leadership.[6]

Scandinavia: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland all passed comprehensive sterilization laws between 1923 and 1941, targeting the mentally ill and disabled.  These programs were viewed as progressive social hygiene measures based on the best genetic science of the day. [7]

Jewish Context

In the 19^th century, anthropology classified the Jews as a race. They described Jews not just as a religious group, but as a distinct biological race or “people” with immutable characteristics. Jewish intellectuals and leaders accepted the “race science” of the day.[8]

The founders of Zionism such as Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), Max Nordau (1849-1923), and Arthur Ruppin (1876-1943), for example, explicitly utilized racial theories. They shared an ideological framework rooted in late 19th-century race science, Social Darwinism, and the belief in a distinct Jewish racial identity. [9]

They argued that Jews possessed a unique biological constitution that had degenerated in the Diaspora and could only be “regenerated” or “normalized” through a return to the land and physical labor in Palestine. They prioritized Ashkenazi Europeans and expressed discriminatory views toward non-European Sephardic Jews, whom they considered less capable. [10]

Jabotinsky, Nordau, and Ruppin were key architects of the Zionist settlement, more important than Theodor Herzl, even though Herzl is considered to this day the primary founder and iconic figure of Zionism.[11]

German Context

Global ideas on race, eugenism, genetic determinism, and anti-Judaism were integrated into state policy as Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene). Leading German scientists (e.g., Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, Ernst Rüdin) were internationally respected. Their work on heredity and race was considered cutting-edge biology.[12]

When the National Socialists came to power in 1933, they adopted these existing scientific concepts into a central state principle. The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (1933) was explicitly modeled on American laws and supported by the German medical establishment.[13]

High level intellectuals such as philosopher Martin Heidegger, jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt, theologian Gerhard Kittel, biologist and future Nobel prize winner (1973) Konrad Lorenz were all enthusiastic adepts of the national socialist ideology on eugenics, race, and genetic determinism.[14]

Within this framework, racism was viewed as a biological necessity. Jews and other races were classified as distinct, alien races, whose presence threatened the genetic health of the Volkskörper (national body). This made their exclusion and removal a matter of public health and national survival in the eyes of the regime and its scientific and intellectual supporters. In the Nazi worldview, behavior of these races was irrelevant to their fate.[15]

Shift from Cultural to Racial nationalism

The shift from cultural to racial nationalism in Germany began in the late 19th century and solidified in the early 20th century. It was driven by the völkisch movement, which emerged in the 1880s–1890s and redefined the German Volk (people) not by shared language or culture, but by “blood and soil” (Blut und Boden), an organic, biologically determined community.

Influenced by thinkers like Paul de Lagarde and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, this ideology rejected Enlightenment values and liberalism, viewing other races as biologically alien and threatening to the racial purity of the Volkskörper (national body). The rise of Social Darwinism and eugenics provided a scientific framework, transforming racism from a religious or cultural prejudice into a biological imperative for national survival. This racial worldview became central to Nazi ideology and state policy after 1933.[16]

With the transition from a cultural-nationalist identity to a biological-racial one (völkisch ideology), other races were no longer welcome in Germany and every excuse was made to push them out. As such, this shift in ideology made it impossible for other races to ever be considered “true” Germans again, regardless of their assimilation or patriotism.

Anti-Judaism in European Countries

Several Western countries exhibited significant anti-Judaism during the 1920s and 1930s.

United States

Widespread anti-Judaism included social exclusion, employment discrimination, and quotas in elite universities. Harvard, Yale, and others imposed informal limits on Jewish enrollment (e.g., Harvard’s president proposed a 15% cap in 1922). Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent propagated the “International Jew” which catalogued Jewish aggressive behavior against White, Christian society. [17]

The United States implemented strict immigration quotas based on national origin, heavily influenced by the eugenics movement. The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act) established a quota system that:

• Severely restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe (countries like Italy, as well as Poland, and Russia, where most Jews lived).
• Favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe where the Nordic race was prevalent (Britain, Germany, Scandinavia).
• Used the 1890 census (when fewer Southern/Eastern Europeans were in the U.S.) to set quotas, effectively reducing Jewish immigration from 190,000 in 1920 to 7,000 in 1926. [18]

Immigration quotas were explicitly supported by eugenicists, who believed in a hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” races, aiming to preserve a “homogeneous” America. This system remained in place until 1965 when the Hart-Cellar policy on immigration was voted into law and the flooding of the country by Third-World populations initiated.[19]

Poland

The government and far-right National Democrats (Endeks) promoted anti-Judaism. Policies included economic boycotts, restrictions on Jewish businesses and professions, and the implementation of numerus clauses in universities, drastically reducing Jewish enrollment from 25% in 1921 to 8% by 1939.[20]

Romania

Authorities pursued harsh anti-Jewish policies, particularly against Jews in border regions, associating them with Soviet communism. The fascist Iron Guard gained significant support with its platform of removing Jews from power and expelling them.[21]

Britain

While not state-sponsored like in Germany, anti-Judaism existed socially and politically, but the English establishment was thoroughly Judaized.[22]

Germany

While racial anti-Judaism (viewing Jews as a distinct, inferior, and dangerous biological race) became dominant in Nazi Germany, it built upon centuries of other forms of anti-Judaism:

• Religious Anti-Judaism: The origin of intellectual religious anti-Judaism is primarily from a critique of Talmudic law by authors such as Martin Luther in The Jews and Their Lies and Johann Eisenmenger in Judaism Unveiled. Both Martin Luther and Johann Eisenmenger viewed the Talmud as a malicious, anti-Christian corruption of divine law that justified Jewish hostility toward Gentiles. Luther condemned the Talmud as a repository of “idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy,” specifically stating it taught Jews that killing or stealing from non-Jews was a religious duty and that they were superior “masters” while Christians were mere “cattle.” Similarly, Eisenmenger systematically compiled Talmudic passages to argue that Judaism doctrinally mandated deception, the murder of converts, and the testing of poisons on Christians, portraying the text not as holy scripture but as a manual for ethical dualism and a global conspiracy against Christianity. [23]
• Economic Anti-Judaism: During medieval times, Jews were banned from many professional trade associations and Christians were not allowed to charge interest. Hence, few Jews had “normal” professions, but went into trade and finance instead, leading to stereotypes of Jewish greed and control of money.
• Political/Nationalist Anti-Judaism: In the 19th century, Jews were accused of being disloyal citizens and a threat to the nation-state, especially as they gained emancipation and entered politics, academia, and the professions. As it is written in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, Jews are loyal to no nation other than their own. The entire political Antisemitismusstreit in Germany in the 1880s and 1890s centered around the immoral Jewish laws contained in these books.

The Nazi ideology fused these older ideas with modern scientific racism, making Jewishness an inescapable biological condition. These ideas radicalized the rejection of Jews, but the roots were multifaceted. And propaganda was not the major influence on the outcome.[24] It did play a role, but as American maverick Eric Hoffer says,

[t]he truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates into minds already open, and rather than instill opinions, it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. He echoes in their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to behave only in what they already “know.”[25]

As such, Joseph Goebbels did not invent racial antisemitism; he amplified it. Indeed, research indicates that indoctrination was particularly effective in regions where antisemitic beliefs were already widespread, suggesting a “confirmation bias” where propaganda intensified latent prejudices rather than creating them from scratch.[26]

Other Targeted Races and Groups in Germany

Jews were not the only ones targeted. From the contemporary perspective of the Nazi state (1933–1945), the focus was also on implementing biological policies on the following races and groups:

Sinti and Roma:

They were categorized as “asocial” and “racially alien,” subject to deportation and sterilization laws similar to Jews. However, as was the case for Jews, the pre-war regime did not describe their removal as “extermination.”

Homosexuals: Homosexuals were not targeted beyond what other nations did to them. Homosexuality was a crime in Germany under certain circumstances, as it was in many countries. It was so until the 1960s. Targeted were pimps, pedophiles, male prostitutes etc., but not homosexuals acting privately.[27]

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refused to serve in the army were imprisoned as was anyone else refusing to serve, so the practice was not directed at them as a group. In the U.S. during the war era, Jehovah’s Witnesses were subjected to severe mob violence including documented incidents of castration, beatings, and being tarred and feathered.[28]

Political Opponents: The first inmates of Dachau, the first concentration camp established in March 1933, were predominantly Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unionists. Their imprisonment in concentration camps was presented as protective custody (Schutzhaft) to safeguard national security, not as systematic persecution based on identity. The Nazi ideology posited that “Judeo-Bolshevism” was an existential threat, leading to the conclusion that a Jewish Bolshevik was not merely a political opponent to be re-educated, but a racial enemy. However, according to contrarian sources, Jewish Bolsheviks were not treated differently than non-Jewish Bolsheviks.[29]

Slavic Peoples: “Subhuman” (Untermenschen) propaganda was directed against Soviet Jews and on rarer occasions against Asians (Mongols). Ethnic replacement in the Warthegau and other Lebensraum policies was not based on inferiority, but on pure imperialism of the moment. Interactions with Ukrainians were extremely close and cordial on all levels. Slavic workers in Germany enjoyed the same worker’s rights as Germans, the most advanced social-welfare system in the world; in 1941–43, Germany invested billions into reviving political, cultural, social and economic life in the East devastated by Soviet scorched-earth politics.[30]

“Common law” criminals: Particularly “habitual” or “professional” offenders, were targeted as threats to the Volksgemeinschaft (national community). The Law against Dangerous Habitual Criminals (1933) introduced Sicherungsverwahrung (preventive detention), allowing for indefinite imprisonment after a sentence was served. The Criminal Police (Kripo) used “preventive arrest” (Vorbeugungshaft) to detain individuals deemed likely to reoffend, often sending them directly to concentration camps without trial. While not targeted for expulsion based on race, they were subject to harsh treatment, forced labor, and sterilization under the regime’s eugenic policies. Preventive detention exists to this day in Germany, but only for violent felonies (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.), and frequently with court review. [31]

All these groups had identification colours and their identification number tattooed on their forearm when they entered a camp:

• Red: Political prisoners
• Green: Criminals
• Purple: Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to serve
• Pink: Homosexual men
• Black: “Asocials” (vagrants, paupers, beggars, etc.)
• Brown: Sinti and Roma (later addition)
• Blue: Emigrants and foreign forced laborers
• Yellow: Jews (worn as a Star of David, often combined with another color)

In summary, here are the major points, from a German perspective:

• All races, including the Jewish race, believed in Darwinism, racial reality, and genetic determinism; it was the norm in all civilized countries.
• Eugenics at the time was not a pseudoscience. It was pervasive among elites on the left and the right, and was not considered an ethical failure.
• The Nazi government—and all Western governments for that matter—viewed eugenic policies as rational, scientific, and necessary measures for national health and security;
• The idea of a Master Nordic Race was not a German invention; it was widespread in all Western countries; the champion of this idea was the United States; it was first promoted by people such as Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
• Anti-Judaism reflected centuries of anti-Jewish sentiment and was based on actual Jewish behavior.
• Germans were not the only ones to dislike or hate Jews; all European countries had important laws or social customs targeting Jews; they had been expelled repeatedly from many countries across history.
• Jews were not the only ones targeted.

GO TO PART 2

[1] Because 90% to 95% of Semites are Arabs, the term “anti-Judaism” is used instead of “anti-Semitism.”

[2] An assumption is a belief accepted as true without proof, often serving as a premise in an argument. A presupposition is a background belief or condition that must be true for a statement or question to even make sense; it is implicitly accepted before the argument begins.

[3] Edwin Black, War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Dialog Press, 2012. Documents the American institutional roots (foundations, universities, laws) that influenced global eugenics, including Germany. It focuses on institutional responsibility.

[4] Ibid., p. xviii.

[5] Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, 1985. Documents the American institutional roots (foundations, universities, laws) that influenced global eugenics, including Germany. It focuses on institutional responsibility.

[6] Edwin Black, book cited.

[7] Ibid.

[8] John M. Efron, Defenders of the Race. Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin de Siècle Europe, Yale University Press, 1994.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] “Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism,” Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

[12] Claudia Koonz, “Allies in the Academy,” The Nazi Conscience, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Robert N. Proctor, “Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis,” Harvard University Press, 1988.

[16] George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, 1964. Traces the völkisch movement and Romantic nationalism in Germany from the 19th century. It explains how German intellectuals fused Darwinism with folklore and nationalism to create a unique worldview where Jews were seen as an “alien” element disrupting the organic national community.

[17] John Higham, “The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century,” Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925, ‎ Rutgers University Press. 2002 (first published in 1920).

[18] Ibid.

[19] Kevin MacDonald, PhD, “Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy,” The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 3^rd Edition, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2025, pp. 481-545.

[20] Michael R. Marrus, The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, 1985.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Anthony M. Ludivici, The Jews, and the Jews in England, Ostara Publications, 2021 (first published in 1938 under the pseudonym “Corbett.”

[23] Information obtained from LEO AI of the BRAVE navigator.

[24] Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.

[25] Eric Hoffer, The True Believer. Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper & Row, 1951, p. 105.

[26] Information obtained from Leo AI of the Brave Navigator.

[27] Jack Wikoff, “The Myth of the Extermination of Homosexuals by the Third Reich. On the Making of a Propaganda Figure,” Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, June 27, 2023.

[28] Shawn Francis Peters, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution, 2000.

[29] Paul Rassinier, The Drama of European Jewry, Stepping Stones Publications, 1975. A French Communist survivor of the camps, who downplayed racial targeting. Major revisionists such as Arthur Butz, Ernst Zundel, and the Institute for Historical Reviews claim that Jews were treated the same way as any other prisoners.

[30] Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, “Foreign Workers in the Third Reich,” Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, August 1, 2003.

[31] The Institute for Historical Reviews claims that the “green triangle” (criminal) and “black triangle” (asocial) prisoners were treated according to standard penal logic of the time. The distinction between “punishment” and “protection” in Nazi law was similar to modern preventive detention, just applied more broadly due to the wartime emergency. They frequently cited the existence of modern Sicherungsverwahrung to argue that the Nazi laws were not unique or inherently genocidal.

The name of Alphonse Toussenel is conspicuously absent from the modern leftist canon; a silence that serves as a deliberate erasure of a foundational intellectual tradition. While contemporary socialist discourse has been sanitized by decades of Jewish institutional hegemony, the reality remains that the radical origins of Western socialism were deeply intertwined with a sophisticated understanding of Jewish power. To recover the revolutionary potential of the past, one must move beyond the current stifling consensus and revisit the work of thinkers like Toussenel, whose unflinching critique of financial parasitism once united those who recognized the existential threat that organized Jewry posed to their civilization.

Alphonse Toussenel was born on March 17, 1803, in Montreuil-Bellay, near Angers, and died in Paris on April 30, 1885. A devoted disciple of Charles Fourier, the utopian socialist philosopher who envisioned an alternative society organized around cooperative “phalansteries,” Toussenel embedded himself in the most radical currents of early 19^th-century French socialism. He settled in Paris in 1836 and the following year became editor-in-chief of the newspaper La Paix — notably a publication firmly on the Right, not a socialist one — before joining the Fourierist movement and co-editing the journal La Phalange from 1839 to 1843. He then co-founded the newspaper La Démocratie pacifique alongside Victor Considerant. In 1841, he took up a post as civil commissioner in Boufarik, Algeria, resigning the following year following a conflict with the military authority.

What makes Toussenel a figure of enduring historical importance was not his editorial career but a single book that poured the intellectual currents of socialist antisemitism into a vessel so potent it would still be poisoning European politics four decades after his death.

It is his 1845 two-volume work Les Juifs, rois de l’époque, subtitled Histoire de la féodalité financière — “The Jews, Kings of the Epoch: A History of Financial Feudalism” — for which Toussenel is remembered. The Encyclopaedia Judaica calls it “one of the most resounding attacks on the Jews published in France” before the appearance of Édouard Drumont’s La France juive, and scholars from Robert Byrnes to Zvi Jonathan Kaplan have identified it as a foundational text of modern antisemitism that directly shaped French antisemitic literature for the 4 decades that followed.

The French Revolution of 1789 had not destroyed feudalism but only changed its form, Toussenel argued as his central thesis. The old aristocracy of birth had been supplanted, in his view, by an aristocracy of money — bankers, speculators, and railway financiers who now effectively controlled the French state, its parliament, its courts, and even its king. He was particularly focused on James de Rothschild — whom he called in the book’s own text “the king of finance, a Jew ennobled by a very Christian king” — whose expected acquisition of the chemin de fer du Nord (the Northern Railway running from Paris to Belgium) Toussenel used as his central exhibit. Railway concessions, state debts, and stock market speculation were, in his telling, all instruments through which Jewish bankers had effectively replaced the French state as the true sovereign over the country’s wealth and labor.

Toussenel’s critique was as much about semantics as it was about steel rails and high finance. Toussenel made explicit that his use of the word “Jew” was not confined to practitioners of Judaism. “I wish to point out to the reader that this word will generally be used here in the popular sense of Jew: banker, usurer,” he wrote. This rhetorical device allowed Toussenel to claim he was not attacking the Jewish people as such while in practice fusing Jewish identity with finance capital. The effect was to make antisemitism palatable across the political spectrum by positioning it as an anti-capitalist force rather than a form of racial prejudice. Nevertheless, Toussenel issued explicit calls for revolutionary action against organized Jewry, most notoriously declaring: “Power to the strong! Death to parasitism! War on the Jews! That is the motto of the new revolution!”

Toussenel’s hostility extended well beyond Jews. He was a fervent Anglophobe, viewing Britain as the archetypal nation of predatory capitalism, merchants, and “birds of prey.” He declared in a phrase that became notorious: “Who says Jew says Protestant” — lumping England, the Netherlands, and Switzerland into his category of exploitative alien finance. He depicted “Londres-Juda” — London-Judea — as “an insatiable vampire sucking the lifeblood of France,” depicting the English and the Jews as twin external and internal threats to French national identity. Accordingly, the Protestant nations of Europe — the English, the Dutch, and the Swiss — were, like the Jews, “merchants and birds of prey,” in Toussenel’s views.

Toussenel’s impact on subsequent antisemitism was enormous. Drumont, the most influential antisemitic journalist in late 19^th-century France and author of La France Juive from 1886, drew on Toussenel’s framework and helped ensure his legacy endured. A second edition of Les Juifs, rois de l’époque appeared in 1847. The book was reprinted in 1886 and 1888, becoming a foundational text for the late 19^th-century antisemitic movement. Toussenel’s “embittered antisemitic, anti-foreign, and anti-Protestant tirades,” as the Encyclopaedia Judaica notes, “later provided ample inspiration for the anti-Dreyfusards” — the faction that defended the 1894 treason conviction of Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus, whose decade-long legal ordeal split France. As Zvi Jonathan Kaplan concluded in Jewish History: “Although Toussenel died in 1885, his work helped to legitimize the forces that led to the Dreyfus Affair.”

Toussenel’s death in 1885 did not end his influence. The antisemitic worldview he popularized gained momentum with Drumont’s 1886 publication of La France Juive, then exploded into national crisis during the Dreyfus Affair a decade later.

Toussenel serves as a bridge, inviting us to see past the manufactured illusions of the current political order. His synthesis of social justice and racial survival stands as an indictment of the modern left and a challenge to the timid, controlled right—both ideological strains that have been tarred by Jewish subversion. As we witness the ongoing displacement of Whites across the globe, the need to reintegrate these suppressed, hard-edged truths into our discourse is paramount. Outmaneuvering the Jewish masters of our age requires us to master the lessons of the past. Toussenel recognized the ‘Kings of the Epoch’ for the parasites they are; now, we must sharpen his legacy into a cohesive political strategy to secure the survival and freedom of the West.