Anti-Jewish Writing

Review: Julius Evola’s Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem, Part 2

Review: Julius Evola’s Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem, Part 1 – The Occidental Observer

The Cultural Aspect of the Jewish Problem

Evola opens his treatment of the cultural problem by arguing that Jews have not given up the “instinct for universal domination” contained within Judaism, but “it is just that this deep-rooted instinct disguised itself, assumed tortuous forms and became occult, subterranean activity.” The Jews “created, for the fulfilment of their ideal, an inner united front of deception and treason within all nations.” Two fundamental instruments were employed for this purpose: money and intelligence. Evola explains,

It is not through weapons, but rather through the power of gold on the one hand, and through everything that intelligence can do in terms of spiritual and ethical disintegration, of social and cultural myths generating a revolt against, and a subversion of, the traditional values and institutions of the Aryan peoples and against everything that is connected with the higher part of the human being.

Despite such a strong opening, Evola again pulls back from an ethnic focus. He concedes that the modern era has witnessed “the progressive rise of the Jew to the rank of supranational ruler of the West,” but he then adds that “it would be really superstitious to ascribe” this rise and associated cultural degradation “solely to the Jews.” Rather, argues Evola, “the struggle against the Jew often hides a struggle against general structures prevalent throughout modern civilization.” Jews are said to appear to be at the forefront of decay simply because they are vehicles for three non-personal factors Evola holds primarily accountable for the decline of the West — nomadism, rationalism, and materialism.

In the form of their spirit of nomads, of a scattered people, of stateless persons, the Jews would have introduced into the various peoples, starting with the Roman people, the virus of denationalisation, universalism and internationalism of culture. This is an incessant action of erosion of what is qualitative, differentiated, defined by the boundaries of a tradition and of a blood. This is what, in more recent times, we have seen focused mainly on the social plane, in the form of the lever of socialist revolutions of democratic-Masonic Judaised ideology and of their related humanitarian and internationalist myths.

Evola’s analysis again seems to contradict itself, on the one hand offering a very bloodless and bland view of Jews as passive carriers of culturally damaging trends, while on the other hand mentioning very specific and ethnically self-serving political and cultural movements in which Jews were key operators. Evola’s discussion of the Jewish relationship with rationalism is extremely brief and just as weak, with Evola offering only that Judaism was a “religion in which the relations between man and God were conceived as a self-interested and almost contractual regulation of profit and loss.” That may be so, but Evola doesn’t explain why, above many other worthy points of discussion not approached in this text, he feels this should be mentioned.

I found Evola’s treatment of Jews and materialism, and within that mammonism and pragmatism, one of the more interesting sections of the work. For Evola, the obsession with money, or the “deification of money and wealth” and the development of a “soulless economy and a stateless finance,” are bound up with

Everything that, in modern cultural, literature, art and science, owing to the Jews, distorts, mocks, shows as illusory or unfair what, for us, had an ideal value, bringing out, on the contrary, as if it were the sole reality, what is lower, sensual, and animal in nature.

An obsession with the material, and especially with wealth, is therefore in direct opposition to Aryan ideals. Any culture built around wealth acquisition, or which turns upon an axis of purely financial values (e.g., praising immigrants because they are “taxpayers”), is designed to “instil a sense of spiritual dismay that favors an abandonment to the lowest forces and, finally, gives way to the occult game of the Jew.”

One of the most significant developments of the early twentieth century, argues Evola, was the Judaisation of Western economic attitudes, particularly the development of consumerism and the further refinement of commercial capitalism. Evola clearly detests

Protestant-Puritan glorification of success and profit, the capitalist spirit in general, the evangelist-preacher-entrepeneur, the businessman and the usurer with the name of God on his lips, the humanitarian and pacifist ideology in the service of materialistic praxis. … There are strong grounds for thinking that, as stated by Sombart, America in all its aspects is a structurally Jewish country and that Americanism is nothing other than the Jewish spirit distilled.

Based on precedent within the text I expected Evola to take this cue to once more take the conversation away from an ethnic focus, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that he didn’t. I actually agree with Evola that certain Jewish “ways of seeing” have become endemic in the West, and that the values of our age have fallen a great height from the days of Aryan ideals. And yet the present state of affairs shouldn’t lead to confusion as to how we got here. Evola stresses the question posed to all serious thinkers about this problem:

It is the question of deciding to what extent the Jew can seriously be considered as the determining cause and as the necessary and sufficient element to explain all the disruptions mentioned above, and to what extent the Jew appears on the contrary only as one of the forces at work within a far vaster phenomenon which is impossible to reduce to mere racial relations.

Evola believes that general racial mixing owes more to “internationalism”, but concedes that “to a certain extent, even at the present time, most of the representatives of the internationalist tendency in the worst sense originate in Judaism in the field of culture and literature, and to that extent a general anti-Semitic attitude would be justified.” [emphasis added]

By the same token, while Evola points out that rationalism is not a Jewish phenomenon only (Socrates, medieval nominalists, Descartes, Galileo, Bacon et al., being some of the most important European examples), “one can still speak of a disintegrating Jewish spirit expressing itself through rationalism and calculation, ending up in a world of machines, things, money rather than of persons, traditions, lands.”

The Socio-Economic Aspect

Evola argues that it is in the economic and social planes that “the anti-Semitic argument is at its most legitimate.” Beginning with Jewish art, Evola claims it has a “dissolving effect,” since it manifests a “wish to degrade, to soil and to debase all that is considered great and noble.” He sees in Jewish artistic expression “a certain Jewish instinct to humiliate, degrade and dissolve.”

Evola’s use of the word “instinct” is important because his treatment of the socio-economic aspect is based upon the question of whether Jews “dissolve” the societies around them through their intrinsic nature and way of being in the world, or whether they do it through organized conspiracy. He argues that “motives for anti-Semitism in the political and economic field” follow one of two streams. The first stream he describes as extremist and general, in essence built upon a theory of conspiracy. The second stream he describes as practical and nationalist.

Evola was well-versed with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, having edited an Italian edition of the text, and he viewed it as the quintessential text of the “extremist and general” branch of thought. Evola doesn’t appear to believe in the authenticity of the Protocols as the discovered minutes of a meeting held by global Jewish leaders to plot world domination, but he does see value in the text as a creative exploration of Jewish methodologies for socio-political dominance. He stresses, for example, that “the first thing to be conceded is that the course of social and political history in modern Europe seems in fact to meet the objectives set out in the Protocols.” Evola believed there was “without question, a connection between the Jewish tradition and Freemasonry,” the latter having played a part in the French Revolution and “might very well have obeyed Jewish influences.” Marxism, and socialism in general are also “direct creatures of the Jews and the Jewish spirit.” Finally, adds Evola, “as to the active forms of Jewish subversive intervention, certain facts remain indisputable, such as the Jewish influence that has accompanied almost all modern revolutions.”

Evola was certainly aware of even more far-reaching claims within “Nordic anti-Semitism,” pointing out that

Hitler goes even further: he thinks that the Jews, recognizing the fundamental value of blood and race as creators of true civilization, have proceeded to a systematic project of biological contamination of the non-Jewish races, and particularly of the Aryan Germanic race, in order to dissipate the last strains of pure blood.

Keeping with his suspicion and disregard for “Nordic anti-Semitism,” Evola counters the idea of a “systematic project” by arguing that

The most likely hypothesis is that the action of the Jewish element in all the phenomena that have just been described may be more instinctive and almost unintentional, and thus uncoordinated, rather than being governed by a unitary idea in accordance with a plan and a well thought-out and predetermined technique.

Although he lacked the language to express this idea, I think Evola here is grasping at something approaching a social identity theory of the Jews, or possibly even coming alongside something like the idea of a group evolutionary strategy. In these latter cases, however, there is clearly room for both instinct and, at the smaller level, planning and coordination. In fact, one of the standard features of Jewish social, political, and economic activism is organizational clustering. This clustering may be instinctive, in the sense that Jews engage in ethnic nepotism and feel a strong kinship with one another, but once it has occurred then the planning and development of “systematic projects” becomes undeniable, whether in pursuit of legalistic speech restrictions, opening national borders, or other goals advantageous to Jews. An ethnic conspiracy organized at a global level, as seen in something like the Protocols, is hardly necessary when smaller conspiracies proliferate in a myriad of core issues and across multiple nations.

Evola bridges the gap between conspiracy and instinct when he moves to the “concrete and practical” stream of socio-economic anti-Semitism. He agrees that “there is a sense of solidarity among the Jews,” and adds that “there is a Jewish practice of lies, cunning, hypocrisy, exploitation, a skilfulness in gradually climbing into all the key positions.” The Jewish practice of dual ethics (i.e., having one set of morals for interacting with your own group, and another set for morals for dealing with outsiders) “give to the Jews not the features of a religious community, but a social conspiracy.” Evola believes that anti-Semitism is justified, and the Jewish practice of dual ethics demands that this anti-Semitism should entail some form of reduction in the ‘rights’ of Jews. Because Jews are ethnic freeloaders and do not play the game of life in the same sense as Aryans, “to set Jews free [via equal rights] would mean to dig our own graves. That is why the liberal democratic ideology is, for good reason, so dear to the Jews; it is the one that contributes best to their game.”

Evola pointed to the necessity of quotas, and other restrictions imposed on Jews in the early twentieth century, given the remarkable rise of Jews in leading positions in several nations. While Evola supported National Socialist legislation towards reversing this dominance, he was scathing of the general way in which restrictions on Jews were imposed. For example, Evola supported quotas and restrictions in certain political and cultural roles, but was very critical of Germany’s ban on Jewish doctors. For Evola, the decision was taken without any assessment of whether Jews were taking such positions for “the aims of domination of his race.” If it were not the case—if Germans were simply banning Jews from medicine in order to favor their own race in a competing ethnocentrism, then Evola claims that “the ban of Jews by National-Socialists would be devoid of any serious justification. … This is why we have called such a form of anti-Semitism practical: a spirit of solidarity is opposed in it to another spirit of solidarity.” Evola does not, however, explain why a spirit of solidarity is justified in removing Jews from government and leading positions in culture and education, but suddenly ceases to be justified in other areas. Setting aside the fact that medicine is a lucrative and socially influential field worth ‘taking over,’ it strikes me that ethnic solidarity is, by its nature, all or nothing. If an ethnic group or nation is going to compete with Jewish ethnocentrism and solidarity, then it makes sense that this would be all-encompassing. Evola thus again left me confused and feeling that his analysis is either poorly thought through, or badly and insufficiently expressed.

Evola continues to waver in this final section of this analysis. He writes that Judaism has played a role in a “monstrous omnipotent apparatus that sweeps away peoples and conditions destinies.” As such, and despite his previous critique of the ban on Jewish doctors, he feels that a universal and all-encompassing “struggle against the omnipotent Jew can be an effective symbol.” Almost immediately, however, he advises against waging war “against Judaism solely in a Jewish fashion, that is to say in the name of a racist and particularistic exclusivism modelled, unconsciously, on the racism of which Israel has given the most typical example in history.”

Evola here prefigures Kevin MacDonald’s analysis at the conclusion of the fifth chapter of Separation and Its Discontents (“National Socialism and Judaism as Mirror-Image Group Strategies”), but Evola fails to explain why such an approach is strategically bad. He merely hints that it is not in keeping with a system of Aryan ideals he never fully describes. Evola therefore presents his readers with an inescapable dilemma — to set the Jews free is to dig our own graves, but to restrict them is to act like Jews and sacrifice our Aryan spirit.

What, then, does Evola suggest in terms of a solution to the three aspects of the Jewish problem? He appeals to the memory of the Roman Empire, and writes

Only the restoration of such a Europe, to the point of a complete restoration of classical Roman forms, gives the right point of reference to those who want to oppose, not only the various concrete, partial, apparent aspects of the Jewish danger in the cultural, moral, economic and social fields, which are really conditioned by race, but also the larger phenomena of decay shown by modern civilization in general and originating in an ‘intelligence’ far more concrete than that to which, on the basis of obscure sensations and transposition, anti-Semitism has referred with its myth of the occult conspiracy of Israel.

In other words, after a lengthy text critiquing Nordic particularistic nationalism, Evola claims the solution to the Jewish problem is resurrecting the long dead empire that just so happened to be based in the city he was born, raised and, ultimately, would die in.


Evola’s Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem is an interesting historical artefact from a point in time where Europe was convulsing in a general and widespread reaction against Jewish influence. The period witnessed the publication of many thousands of tracts, pamphlets and monographs purporting to explain and even solve the civilizational question posed by this Jewish influence. Evola’s work on the subject, however, hasn’t aged well, and is significantly weaker than other texts of the period such as Hillaire Belloc’s The Jews, or Henry Ford’s The International Jew. Evola’s work is unnecessarily esoteric and, to make matters worse, is proud of this clumsy esotericism, critiquing the works of others as on the one hand “thoughtless,” and on the other as exemplifying a scientific and rational outlook that is said to be anti-Aryan (!). Beyond echoing Evola’s own fantasies of a resurrected Roman Empire, there are no solutions offered here, and the analysis presented in the volume is almost invariably incomplete, self-contradictory, and over-wrought. It is peppered with a sneering and patronizing anti-Germanism. I came to the work already believing Evola to be a great over-estimated thinker, and I finished it more or less confirmed in that opinion.

Review: Julius Evola’s Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem, Part 1

“As far as we are concerned, we believe that anti-Semitism has every right to exist.”
Julius Evola

Prompted by the rapid rise of the Jews in the West, the early twentieth century witnessed a proliferation of publications intended to expose, explain, or solve ‘the Jewish Problem’ — the acquiring by Jews of excessive influence in host societies and their use of this influence in the pursuit of selfish and destructive goals. Some of these works, such as Henry Ford’s The International Jew, caused an international storm on publication and continue to be well-known. Others, such as Hillaire Belloc’s The Jews (1922), quickly fell into relative obscurity despite representing, in some cases, superior works. One of these more obscure, but thought-provoking contributions, is Julius Evola’s Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (Tre aspetti del problema ebraico), first published in Rome in 1936.

Although not considered a primary thinker in matters relating to the Jews, Evola took the Jewish Question seriously and often referred to it in his works, including a chapter of his 1937 The Myth of the Blood. His references to the publications and speeches of others on the subject would suggest that he read widely and deeply in available contemporary sources, and Evola is known to have edited an Italian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. His tackling of the Jewish Question has remained relatively unexplored by mainstream scholarship, despite the fact Evola’s thought has been rising in prominence since the 1970s, when he was especially influential on the French New Right. Some of the notable texts from that period include Julius Evola le visionnaire foudroyé, (Julius Evola, the Devastating Visionary) (Michel Angebert and Robert de Herte, 1977), Julius Evola e l’affermazione assoluta, (Philippe Baillet, 1978), La Terre de lumière. Le Nord et l’origine (The Earth of Light: The North and the Origin) (Christophe Levalois, 1985), L’Empire Intérieur (The Inner Empire) (Alain de Benoist, 1995), and Enquête sur la Tradition aujourd’hui (Research on the Tradition Today) (Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin, 1996).

This attention from the New Right provoked attention from leftist academics, as evidenced in particular in the work of Thomas Sheehan,[1] Elisabetta Cassina Wolff,[2] Stéphane François,[3] and Franco Ferraresi. Ferraresi described Evola in 1987 as “possibly the most important intellectual figure for the Radical Right in contemporary Europe.”[4] It should probably be added that media hysteria concerning Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election focused for some time on Steve Bannon’s stated admiration for the Italian philosopher. Perhaps surprisingly, with the exception of Wolff, who accused Evola of a “ferocious and destructive anti-Jewish racism,” Evola’s attitudes towards Jews are never raised in these works. My own search of works published in the last two decades shows only one serious journal publication on the subject, Peter Stuadenmaier’s 2020 article in the Journal of Contemporary History, “Racial Ideology between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: Julius Evola and the Aryan Myth, 1933–43.”[5] Stuadenmaier sees Evola as committed to a campaign “to cultivate a closer rapport between Italian and German variants of racism as part of a campaign by committed antisemites to strengthen the bonds uniting the fascist and Nazi cause.”

Was Evola a “committed antisemite”? And what exactly were his views on Jews and the Jewish problem?

Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem

The three aspects of the Jewish problem identified by Evola are spiritual, cultural, and economic/social. Evola opens by first explaining that

In Italy there is little awareness of the Jewish problem. … The latest laws recently inspired by Göring in Germany, which state that not only marriages between Jews and non-Jews are forbidden, but also cohabitation with Jews, and that Jews or those who are already married to Jews are banned from any organization in the National-Socialist state, indicate the extremely high level of these tensions.

Although Italy was not so obviously subject to the same tensions, Evola reminded his readers that such tensions were universal and that “anti-Semitism is a motif that has appeared in almost every stage of Western history.” Evola claimed that Italy’s less strained and direct tensions with Jews presented an opportunity for a more complete and successful attempt to address the Jewish problem. He writes that

The fact that the special circumstances which have caused the most direct and thoughtless forms of anti-Semitism in some countries are not present in Italy allows us to consider the problem with greater calm and greater objectivity.

Such an approach is necessary, argued Evola, because anti-Semitism elsewhere in Europe, is said to lack “a truly general standpoint,” in addition to lacking “the doctrinal and historical premises which are necessary to really justify, through a deductive procedure, any practical, that is to say, social and political, anti-Semitic policies.”

Evola believed in the development and imposition of anti-Semitic policies. He asserts early in the text that he believes “anti-Semitism has every right to exist.” He also, however, believes that the arguments of many contemporary anti-Semites bear the hallmarks of “weakness and confusion” and are hindered further by a “violent partisan spirit.” He worried that this approach would lead impartial observers to think that “it can all be reduced to one-sided and arbitrary attitudes dictated less by sound principles than by practical contingent interests.”

Evola begins from certain premises, namely that

There is at the present time a Jewish peril, particularly perceptible in the financial field and in the economic sphere in general, there is also a Jewish peril in the area of ethics. Finally, as far as spirituality, religion, and a world-outlook are concerned, everything that is connected with Semitism, and above all with Jews, appears as particularly repulsive to the various peoples of the White race.

Readers familiar with Evola’s other works, in particular Revolt Against the Modern World, will not be surprised to find that the spiritual element takes up the majority of Evola’s attention in this work, and it is this element that begins his study.

The Spiritual Aspect of the Jewish Problem

Evola begins by asking if there is, in general, “a typical Jewish world-outlook or view on life and the sacred.” He argues that it is wrong to view the Jews as having a specific outlook, but rather that the Jewish world-outlook is better defined as part of the broader “Semitic” sense of the spiritual. In his words:

We will be deliberately using [‘Semitic’] here because we believe that the ‘Jewish’ element cannot be, purely and simply, separated from the general type of civilization that formerly spread throughout the whole Eastern Mediterranean area from Asia Minor to the borders of Arabia, noteworthy though the differences between Semitic peoples may be.

Evola thus promises, instead of a study of the spiritual problem of the Jews, an “overall study of the Semitic spirit.”

In my view this entire premise has aged poorly, and I almost gave up reading the text at this point given how fundamentally flawed it is. With advances in modern genetic studies since the days of Evola, we now know categorically, for example, that Ashkenazi Jews in particular represent a very distinct ethnic group that has become progressively more homogenous over the last seven centuries, with “Ashkenazim the world over carrying essentially the same collection of DNA sequences.” Studies have also shown that Jews are more genetically similar to groups such as Kurds, Turks, and Armenians than they are to their Semitic language-speaking Arab neighbors. Which prompts the question: On what basis is Evola positing a “Semitic spirit?”

Unencumbered by such important questions, Evola departs into overwrought theorizing on the clash between a “solar” Aryan spirit, and a “lunar” Semitic spirit. Although this will be explained below, it struck me that Evola seemed almost entirely ignorant of the history of the very real and very material antagonism of the Jews against Europeans in the realm of spirituality and religion. In How the West Became Antisemitic: Jews and the Formation of Europe, 800–1500, soon to be published by Princeton University Press by Yale’s Ivan Marcus, it’s very clear that Jews have been very singular and deliberate actors in Western history. Marcus writes that “Jews were capable of doing exactly what infuriated Christian officials.” He explains:

Medieval Jewish historians have recently revised earlier narratives that saw the Jews as the victims of the Christian majority’s enmity and harmful policies. … General historians of medieval Europe who do not work on Jewish history still tend to see the Jews as isolated in ghettos and passive victims of persecution. … Contrary to the widely accepted picture of Jewish history, medieval Jews were assertive agents. The Jews of the Middle Ages were convinced of their chosenness, and Christian rulers inadvertently reinforced Jewish solidarity by recognizing Jews as legal, self-governing communities. … Jews were assertive, not passive, even without having the option of coercive force. … Jews went out of their way, when safe, to insult Christian sancta by making offensive wordplays, … Jews denigrated Christian sancta by engaging in private and public gestures of contempt such as placing Christian images or statues in their latrines.[6]

Rather than tackle this clear ethno-religious hostility, Evola informs us that “Aryan” is a “vague racialist foundation.” We apparently need “to define ‘Aryanity’ as a positive universal idea,” rather than look at direct Jewish spiritual hostility. All of which struck me as mystical nonsense.

In order not to do Evola a great injustice, I will at least summarize his approach to the spiritual problem as he sees it. For Evola, the Aryan spirit is solar and virile, whereas Semitic spirituality is lunar and feminine. The Aryan of ancient times had an “affirmative attitude towards the divine.” Ancient Aryans not only believed in the real existence of super-humanity, of a race of immortals and of divine heroes, but also often attributed to that race a superiority and an irresistible power over the supernatural forces themselves. Aryan spirituality was more royal than sacerdotal; more aristocratic than priestly. It valued heroes over saints, since it was the heroes who accessed the highest and most privileged places of immortality, for example, the Nordic Valhalla. Whereas the Biblical Adam is cursed and damned for having attempted to eat from the divine tree, Aryan myths depict  immortal heroes like Hercules, Jason, Mithras, and Sigurd.

True Aryan spirituality is characterised by the emblem of unchanging light, as opposed to the cycles of death and rebirth often seen in Semitic legends. As regards the corresponding ethnical principles, “what is characteristically Aryan is the principle of freedom and personality on the one hand, of loyalty and honor on the other hand.” The Aryan

enjoys independence and difference and dislikes submergence in a heterogeneous mass, which does not prevent him, however, from obeying in a virile way, acknowledging a leader and being proud to serve him according to a bond that is freely established, his nature being warlike and irreducible to any interest than can be bought and sold or in general expressed in terms of money.

By contrast, what characterises the Semitic spirituality is “the destruction of the Aryan synthesis of spirituality and virility.” Semitic spirituality is “coarsely material, sensual or uncouth … an emasculated spirituality.” It is burdened by “the pathos of sin and expiation,” and beholden to “an impure and uneasy romanticism.” For Evola, “the pathos of the confession of sins distorts the calm purity and the ‘Olympian’ superiority of the Aryan aristocratic ideal.” Judaism was steeped in ‘prophetism,’ and whereas the prophet type had previously been seen as a sick man, he was substituted for the ‘clairvoyant’ type. The spiritual centre shifts to him and his apocalypses.

For Evola, the characteristics of the Jewish instinct in general are deceit, servile hypocrisy, and “devious, persistent, disintegrating infiltration.” He praises the National Socialist philosopher Alfred Rosenberg for his assessment of the Jewish spirit, but also disparages Rosenberg for employing Christian morality or notions of Germanic religion as a method of criticising Judaism. Evola asserts that it is wrong to focus on the immorality contained in Judaism given “dubious morals exhibited by the Germanic gods.” He believes that critiques of the spiritual contents of Judaism contain little more than a “pot-pourri in which pertinent points are intermingled with rather strange ideas.”

Evola is rather unfriendly towards Germanic paganism and towards Protestantism, and although he was far from a devout Catholic, a defensive tone is detectable here. I do agree with his statement that “it is hard to find an anti-Semite more philosemite than [Martin] Luther,” and his argument that many Protestants, like Luther, critiqued Catholicism via the Jews rather than critiquing the Jews more directly. Yet Evola possesses his own biases, promoting a vision of European spirituality that is more Roman than Germanic, more imperial than independent. One sees this in his statement that

The hidden source of Nordic anti-Semitism gives itself away in its anti-universalist and anti-Roman controversialist, in its confusion between universalism as a supranational idea and the universalism which only means this active ferment of cosmopolitanism and national decomposition.

“Nordic anti-Semitism” is therefore presented as something confused, ignorant, somewhat infantile, and definitely inferior to a more Roman, more Catholic, more “supranational” anti-Semitism. “Nordic anti-Semitism” is said to reveal a “mere particularism” which he says is ironically in a Jewish style, for example, “our god, our morals” etc. In other words, Evola is opposed to an anti-Semitism which aims to fight Jewish ethnocentrism with a European ethnocentrism on a continental or national basis. Evola, however, offers no serious argument for why a European ethnocentrism is spiritually or strategically bad, beyond the claim that it is, in his view, “narrow-minded and particularistic.” He claims that to be focussed on “the blood,” in other words to be protective of one’s race, is to adopt a “naturalistic” worldview more suited to the Jews. Evola calls for the adoption of a new Aryan worldview that remains “free from ethnic prejudice” and free from “parochialism.” In other words, Evola seems to assert the opinion that to be an Aryan is something very little connected to matters of biological heritage. He explains

Values must be evoked once again which can seriously be called ‘Aryan,’ and not merely on the basis of vague and one-sided concepts suffused with a sort of biological materialism: values of a solar Olympian spirituality, of a classicism of clarity and controlled force, of a new love for difference and free personality, and, at the same time, for hierarchy and universality.

At the same time, Evola stresses that the “subterranean spirit of obscure incessant agitation, of deep contamination and sudden revolt, is Semitic.”

This section on the spiritual aspect of the Jewish problem then suddenly ends, without any coherent summary or explanation about the relevance of heredity or suggestion for action beyond the adoption of a “solar Olympian spirituality.” Perhaps it’s my Anglo-Scandinavian heritage stunting my appreciation of this kind of philosophizing, but I felt that Evola’s entire discussion of the spiritual element of the Jewish problem was colored by his Italian background (Catholic upbringing; enthusiasm for the Roman Empire) and his resultant antipathy towards any kind of Nordic racialism or national patriotism. Somewhere in the muddle of concepts I do discern the idea of a multi-national Europe embracing a more virile idea of spirituality and world-outlook more naturally hostile to Jews than the Protestant-Capitalist world-outlook he seemed to perceive as dominant. Unfortunately, his definition of the Jewish element of the problem is so loose and poorly thought out that it’s hard to take any of it seriously. Further, Evola’s idea that anti-Semitism shouldn’t be based on a competing ethnocentrism, and his implicit suggestion that Europeans shouldn’t be focused on ‘blood,’ has aged extremely poorly in the context of Jewish involvement in mass non-White migration in White nations, and the demographic crisis facing European-descended peoples more generally. I was therefore glad to move on to what held the potential to be a more interesting treatment — the cultural aspect of the Jewish problem.

Review: Julius Evola’s Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem, Part 2 – The Occidental Observer

[1] Thomas Sheehan, “Myth and Violence: The Fascism of Julius Evola and Alain de Benoist,” Social Research, Vol. 48, No. 1, (Spring 1981), 45-73.

[2] Elisabetta Cassina Wolff, “Apolitìa and Tradition in Julius Evola as Reaction to Nihilism,” European Review, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Ma/y 2014), 258 – 273; and “Evola’s interpretation of fascism and moral responsibility,” Patterns of Prejudice, 50:4-5, 478-494.

[3] Stéphane François, “The Nouvelle Droite and “Tradition””, Journal for the Study of Radicalism, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring 2014), 87-106.

[4] Franco Ferraresi, “Julius Evola : tradition, reaction, and the Radical Right,” European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 28:1 (May 1987), 107 – 151.

[5] Staudenmaier, Peter, “Racial Ideology between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: Julius Evola and the Aryan Myth, 1933–43,” Journal of Contemporary History, 55(3) (2020), 473-491.

[6] I. Marcus, How the West Became Antisemitic: Jews and the Formation of Europe, 800-1500 (Princeton University Press, 2024), pp.2-18.

The Primacy of Anti-Semitism

As I write these words, the death toll in the Gaza massacre (not “war”) has surpassed 28,000, of whom some 70% are women and children.  As I write these words, nothing has evidently changed in Jewish attitudes, of which roughly 80% of American Jews and 95% of Israeli Jews are satisfied with the brutal assault.[1]  As I write these words, nothing has deterred the pro-Israel, pro-Jewish attitude of the Biden administration or of the so-called leaders in Europe—Ursula von der Leyen, Roberta Metsola, Jens Stoltenberg, Olaf Scholz—as they offer all possible aid and assistance to the criminal Jewish state.  These facts are extremely telling, but are unsurprising for those who have long studied the Jewish Question.

Confronted with the stark reality of Gaza, we must be clear and explicit.  We must state the obvious: Israel’s actions are crimes against humanity, out of any proportion to the Hamas attack that nominally instigated it.  As a resistance movement to a 75-year-long occupying power, Hamas is legitimate in its use of force against Israelis.  All those around the world who aid and comfort the Israeli government are themselves criminals and must be held accountable; this includes Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and virtually every national leader in Europe.  Those who refuse to speak up and condemn Israeli atrocities are moral cowards, concerned more about their personal status and personal well-being than mass human suffering.  Such people, especially those in positions of influence, should be identified, labeled, shunned, and punished by the appropriate court of law.

And it’s not just Palestine.  Jewish malfeasance around the world seems worse than ever, and with far greater consequence.  Whether it is pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, the crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, war-mongering leader of the Senate Chuck Schumer, Jewish lunatic Volodymyr Zelensky destroying the nation of Ukraine, or any number of Jewish billionaires who have used their money to corrupt politicians of all parties and all nations—enough is enough.  The time has come to take an unambiguous anti-Jewish stance.  The stakes are simply too high.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and assert here that the vast majority of social problems in America, in Europe, and in the West, are primarily (though not solely) due to Jewish manipulation and corruption.  Things are disintegrating on several fronts around the world: war, migration, economic gyrations, physical and mental illness, environmental degradation, overpopulation, runaway technology.  When things go badly, those in charge must take the blame.  And in the West, those in charge, those who have the most leverage and the greatest control, are predominantly Jews.  This is my thesis; it is well-grounded by empirical evidence.[2]

If this is so, then the overriding concern of the day, and the primary moral imperative, is to be anti-Jewish—that is, to be an anti-Semite.  Every person of conscience needs to stand up and state, unambiguously and proudly, “I am an anti-Semite.” This is not some mindless “hatred of Jews” but rather an informed and rational challenge to Jewish influence—and really their dominant position—of Western socities.  We need to say, in so many words, “Jews are at the heart of the global poly-crisis, and therefore we must, of necessity, be anti-Jewish.”  Anything less is to evade the root cause, and anything less will effectively yield to catastrophe.

This, of course, demands a fundamental change in the social outlook of most people in the West.  As we all know, anyone today who dares challenge mainstream unconditional support for Israel, or who dares to even suggest that “Jews” have anything at all to do with the malign state of the world, is immediately branded an anti-Semite, or worse, a Nazi (or perhaps a “neo-Nazi,” as if that means anything).  Such labels are obviously intended to strike fear by tarring the subject with a hated designation, thus marking them as a racist, as deserving of punishment (loss of livelihood, ‘cancellation’, etc.), and as a generically “bad person.”  They also serve as a deterrent to any potentially like-minded individuals who may be tempted to speak up on behalf of sanity and justice.  By and large, and sadly, they work.

But the time has come for this little linguistic ploy to end.  We can’t stop Jews or their sycophants from dishing out such labels, but we can undermine their effect by—embracing them.  The global situation has now come to the point, I claim, where we can, we need, we must, take a resolutely anti-Jewish attitude, openly and explicitly.  The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain.

But two further points at the outset.  I refer here to Jews as an ethnicity, as a genetic group, and not as a religion.  My concern is with ethnic Jews.[3]  Virtually all religious Jews are also ethnic Jews, but only a minority of ethnic Jews are religious.  The distinction is often exploited by those who would prefer to disguise their identity; it allows your dissembling, ethnically-Jewish English professor to say “I’m not Jewish!”—by which he means he is a secular Jew.

Secondly, I’ll state the following now, only once, simply to get it out of the way:  When I say “Jews” or “the Jews,” I do not mean literally every Jew.  In using such terms, I refer to most Jews, or the most powerful Jews, or the Jewish elite, as the context requires.  If you have a hard time grasping this fact, you need not read any further.

A Bit of Perspective

The Gaza situation is not an anomaly; Zelensky leading the people of Ukraine to slaughter is not an anomaly; American Zionists driving us all into World War Three is not an anomaly.  For centuries, Jews have conducted, assisted, funded, or condoned mass murder when it served their purposes.  For centuries, they have been social corruptors and destroyers of order.  Such realizations have produced countless “anti-Semites” throughout history.  In 220 AD, Cassius Dio wrote that “Jews everywhere were showing signs of hostility to the Romans [during the revolt of 132 AD] … and the whole earth, one might say, was being stirred up over the matter”.[4]  By 1542, Martin Luther believed that Jews had caused so much death and destruction among the Christian population that “we are at fault in not slaying them”.[5]  Voltaire was aghast: “I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race”.[6]

In the early 1770s, the philosopher and polymath Baron d’Holbach published some striking indictments:

[When] we cast our eyes over the history of the Jews…we are forced to acknowledge that this people were at all times the blindest, the stupidest, the most credulous, the most superstitious, and the most puerile that ever appeared on the Earth. …  [By Mosaic Law, the Jews] were kept…in an unsocial and savage aversion for the rest of mankind; in an inveterate hatred of other forms of worship. …  [T]he Jewish people distinguished themselves only by massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies…  [They] lived continually in the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the sport of frightful revolutions.

If we consult Tacitus and many other celebrated historians…we shall see that [the Jews] are considered as a horde of thieves and bandits. … And even now the remainder of this unfortunate nation is looked upon as the vilest and most contemptible of all the Earth…

[The Jewish god Jehovah] is a truly savage god, made for a stupid, cruel, and immoral people; he is always furious, breathes nothing but vengeance, commands carnage, theft, and unsociability.[7]

And of course, German National Socialists were extremely critical—though, again, with considerable justification.  Because of his central role in the major events of the twentieth century, Hitler’s comments on his own evolving view, as recorded in Mein Kampf are highly instructive.[8] In the beginning, like most people today, he had no pre-conceived notions about Jews:

It was not until I was 14 or 15 years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew,’ partly in connection with political controversies.  These references aroused a mild distaste in me, and an uncomfortable feeling always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes.  But at that time, I had no other feelings about the Jewish Question.

There were very few Jews in Linz. … I hadn’t the slightest idea that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.  Then I came to Vienna. … It was then that I came upon the Jewish Question.

In physically encountering Jews, and in absorbing the intense Jewish media of Vienna, many previously inscrutable issues became comprehensible to him.  “My ideas about anti-Semitism changed in the course of time, and this was my most difficult transformation.”  He continues:

What soon gave me cause for serious thought, with a slowly rising insight, were the activities of the Jews in certain fields of life.  Was there any shady undertaking, any form of nastiness—especially in cultural life—in which at least one Jew did not participate?[9]  On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess, one immediately discovers, like a maggot in a rotting corpse, often blinded by the dazzling light: a little Jew.

In my eyes, the charge against Jewry became a grave one the moment I discovered their activities in the press, art, literature, and the theater.  All protests to the contrary were now essentially futile.  … Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected—one worse than the Black Death.  And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed!  Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such artists, the more inexhaustible their fecundity.

Anyone today confronted with Hollywood films, rap music, or network television can likely sympathize with such views.

Hitler was adamant; he was not predisposed to anti-Semitism, but it was thrust upon him by the reality of the world around him.  “Even if my feelings might resist a thousand times, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.  The fact was that 90 percent of all the filthy literature, artistic trash, and theatrical idiocy had to be charged to the account of a people who formed scarcely one percent of the nation.  This fact could not be denied.”

Prostitution, human-trafficking, media corruption, political corruption… eventually, “the scales fell from my eyes.”  He had an epiphany:

I now understood the language of the Jewish people.  I realized that they use language for the purpose of disguising or veiling their thought, so that their real aim cannot be discovered by what they say, but rather only by reading between the lines.  This insight was, for me, the greatest inner revolution that I had yet experienced.  From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan, I became an out-and-out anti-Semite.

In doing so, Hitler effectively joined a long-standing European movement, dating back at least to the late 1800s.  The Ligue Nationale Antisemitique de France (‘French Anti-Semitic League’) was formed in 1889 by Eduard Drumont, and the following year, Otto Böckel founded the Antisemitische Volkspartei (‘Anti-Semitic People’s Party’) in Germany, working with Theodor Fritsch.[10]  People and organizations of that day were openly and explicitly anti-Semitic; Hitler joined them around 1910, well before he could have known what was to come.  Looking back, we now see that Jews played major, perhaps decisive, roles in both World Wars.[11]  If there is a third world war, they will certainly have played a dominant role there as well.  The time for explicit anti-Semitism has come once again.[12]

I can’t leave Hitler without addressing one further issue.  Reader, ask yourself this question: If someone close to you—a sibling, cousin, child, friend—were declared to be a “Nazi,” would your reaction be generally positive or generally negative?  Almost certainly the latter.  Now, ask yourself, “Why is this?”  If you are a Jew, the negativity is understandable, given that “Nazi” is today virtually synonymous with “hated by Jews.”  But since you are most likely among the 98% of readers who are not Jewish, why the negative reaction?  Has a “Nazi” ever threatened you?  Do you even know what a “Nazi” is?  So why the negative reaction?  Could it be that you have been indoctrinated, or cowed, by the Jewish Lobby into making a negative association?  This is worthy of some self-reflection.

In light of the above, one might even graciously accept the mantle of “Nazism.”  (“Excuse me, sir, but the proper term is ‘National Socialist’.”)  If they call you an anti-Semite or a Nazi, at least it means you are having an effect; it is a measure of success.  Wear it proudly.

The Media: Cowardly, Incompetent, or Sold-Out?

How, then, do our brave media handle these issues?  Our media—those intrepid truth-seekers, noble and uncorrupted, “speaking truth to power”—yes, how about them?  Which members of our vast media system are willing to get to root causes, to call a spade a spade, and to “name the Jew”?

I suspect we know the story.  The mainstream media, both left and right, are hopelessly corrupted by Jewish ownership and Jewish management.  I won’t recount the details here, but all five of the major American media conglomerates—Disney, Warner, NBCUniversal, Fox Corp, and Paramount—are dominated by Jewish leaders, or in the case of Fox, by rabid Zionists (and likely crypto-Jews).

Consider a few specifics.  CNN and MSNBC are the most obvious, most craven examples of Jewish compliancy.  Here we see, not investigative journalism or balanced and nuanced opinions, but blatant pro-Israel, pro-Jewish propaganda.  Everything Israeli or Jewish is implicitly good and innocent, and everything Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or even neutral are implicitly evil.  There are few Jewish program hosts—both networks seem to prefer Gentile gays, Blacks, and women—but the guest commentators and analysts are heavily, obscenely Jewish.  If a segment has two guests, at least one is a Jew; if three guests, one or two Jews; if a panel, two or three.  It is a calculated effort to maintain, at all times, a substantial Jewish presence.  Suffice to say that never, ever, would CNN or MSNBC ‘out’ a Jew, blame a Jew as a Jew, or touch on issues of Jewish sensitivity.

Fox News is virtually as bad.  Even as they vehemently disagree with the “liberal” media on virtually every issue, they are lock-step compliant on Jewish-Israeli issues.  The worst are the prime-time hosts:  Sean Hannity, Jesse Waters, and Laura Ingraham.  All three are pathetically, revoltingly pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli.  They could hardly be more fawning if they were paid Mossad agents.  This cannot be a coincidence; again, it must be coordinated from the top of Fox.  Only Tucker Carlson was willing to slightly, barely, touch on criticism of Jews (but never as Jews, unless you count his conflict with the ADL over their hypocrisy on immigration)—and he got fired.

The three main network news channels—ABC, NBC, and CBS—are all but useless.  All three parrot the same talking points, almost as if they had the same scriptwriters.  Their evening “national news” shows are parodies of real news, deliberately designed to grab the viewer’s attention and deflect it from deeper issues.  As above, never, ever, would they criticize Jews or Israel in any serious fashion.

But wait, you say; today, thank God, we have independent news sources on the Internet, ranging from groups like Politico or Buzzfeed or Vox or ProPublica or The Intercept—and there are brave individual journalists and writers.  They, surely, are not frightened by the Jewish Lobby; they, surely, will give us the honest truth.

Sadly, no.  Once again, nearly all such sources rigorously avoid touching the “third rail” of the Jewish Question.  Jews are never named, they are never outed, they are never involved—as Jews—with anything.  Indeed, the word ‘Jew’ almost never appears in such sources, as if it were an evil talisman of some sort.  And this, even in our supposedly brave, hard-hitting, independent journalism.

A sampling of recent reportage is revealing.  Now, of course, I cannot have reviewed every word written by the following individuals; but still, the following essays were obvious candidates for a serious discussion of the role of Jews qua Jews, and yet the subject appears—nowhere.  Consider the following recent examples of an apparently studied refusal to “name the Jew”:

All these men are thoughtful and well-informed on their subjects; so why, then, do they refuse to directly address the Jewish Question?  It is the central aspect of the matters at hand.  Without the Jewish angle, nothing really makes sense.  At best, we have half the story.  Where is the full story?  Are they ignorant of it?  Do they know, and yet willfully avoid it?  Either way, the results are not good.

The last of the above-mentioned articles is particularly instructive.  Patrick Lawrence—former International Herald Tribune reporter, “media critic, author, and lecturer,” and now writer for the “independent” ScheerPost—offers us a trenchant analysis of the decline of that liberal media icon, the New York Times.  But in a 5,000-word essay, the word ‘Jew’ appears precisely once, and then in an apologetic sense.  In the second paragraph, Lawrence writes of the sadistic mockery displayed by the IDF soldiers, “a carnival of racist depravity one would have thought beyond what is worst in humanity—and certainly beyond what any Jew would do to another human being.”  This displays an ignorance of Jewish history; such behavior is certainly not “beyond what any Jew would do,” and in fact, is entirely consistent with Jewish behavior over the centuries.

Lawrence ignores the essential fact that the NYTimes is a thoroughly Jewish institution, and has been since Adolph Ochs bought the paper back in 1896.  The current publisher is a Jew, Arthur Sulzberger, as is the editor-in-chief, Joseph Kahn.  I don’t have exact statistics, but the vast majority of their stories carry at least one Jew in the byline.  If the NYTimes is biased toward Israel (even though it has been lately, and belatedly, calling out Palestinian suffering in the current onslaught), it is clearly and obviously because the organization is owned and run by Jews—this is Fact #1, but Lawrence, like every other media critic, fails to point this out.

Of course, he can’t help but name Jews along the way, but never as Jews; their Jewishness “has nothing to do with it!” as our screaming liberals might say.  Lawrence cites Max Blumenthal, David Leonhardt, Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz, Adam Sella, Joe Kahn, Roger Cohen, Emily Bazelon—almost certainly, all Jews.  (Lawrence’s own ethnicity is unknown.)

Near the end of the piece, Lawrence laments that “we are now face to face with the destructive power of corporate media,” which serves “the policy cliques who run the imperium.”   He quotes Blumenthal to the effect that “these [NYTimes’] lies, fabrications, distortions, half-truths, and exaggerations…need to be called out.”  “Is there a truer way to make the point?” asks Lawrence.  Yes there is—like pointing to the entirely Jewish character of the Times for over a century, and its long history of “lies, fabrications, and distortions” on behalf of Jewish interests.

There is almost no pushback against this sort of journalism, apart from a few outlets, like TOO, with very limited reach—often banned from social media and credit processing. What he have is virtually nothing compared to the constant barrage of poisonous, anti-White messages emanating from the Jewish media empire.

One Solution, and Some Concrete Steps

Speaking of solutions, here is mine (disclaimer: it is not original):  Based on history and extensive empirical evidence, even a small proportion of Jews in a given nation begin to cause serious problems.  There is a threshold, a share of the population, beyond which Jews must not be allowed; and that threshold is very low.  Based on my experience, the figure is about 0.1%.  Once Jews exceed this percentage in any nation, corruption and social disruption ensue.

The USA is a case in point.  Today, we have about 6.5 million Jews in a population of around 330 million, or about 2%.  This is 20 times my proposed threshold, and indeed, we have massive Jewish corruption.  To avoid significant damage, the US would have to restrict its Jewish population to no more than around 300,000, in total.

Hence my solution: Encourage the Jews to leave.  In principle, there are many incentives that could be applied; see below for a few thoughts.  And granted, it is not likely to happen quickly.  Still, there is value in openly and explicitly stating the goal, and to begin working toward it, no matter how long it may take.

“Great idea,” I hear people say, “but what exactly should we do, who will do it, and how?”  There are several things we can do, all of us, to initiate the process.  For now, it must be a grass-roots movement—which has many benefits because it means that every person, in their own way, can take concrete action.  Don’t wait for “leaders” or “parties”; those will come with time.  Act now, as an individual or part of a small, local, face-to-face group.  Here are a few options:

First, get informed.  Become a knowledgeable spokesman on the Jewish Question.  Know your history, and learn what you are up against.  There are a handful of essential texts that go a long way toward self-education.  I myself have edited and published some of these:  Mein Kampf, Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, and Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages.  Two more classic works would include Theodore Fritsch’s Riddle of the Jews’ Success and Henry Ford’s The International Jew.  A few months of effort invested in reading these books would be hugely profitable.

Second, adopt a clear and rational “anti-Semitic” stance.  Avoid emotion and hyperbole.  Be rational and factualIdentify Jews and Jewish crimes as such, and back your statements up with evidence that Jewish identity is important, e.g., by showing that it is a common pattern among Jews.  Speak openly to friends and neighbors about the situation; show them that the situation is far worse than they imagine, and that Jews are at the root of many of our social and political problems.

Third, openly promote the goal of an America free of Jewish influence.  As stated above, the avowed goal should be a nation free of Jewish influence—which, in practice, means many fewer actual Jews. There is no time limit here; stating the goal is what is important now.  And don’t be dissuaded by claims of “that’s unrealistic”; all visionary goals initially seem unrealistic.  Press ahead.

Fourth, emphasize the nonviolent nature of this goal, and the nonviolent means to get there.  The idea is not to cause harm to Jews but rather to make them see that it is in their own best interests to voluntarily leave.  There are many ways to achieve this—starting with a popular movement that simply and openly declares an intent to reduce Jewish influence over the long run.

Individuals can also take action, to the extent possible, to boycott and sanction Jewish enterprises so as to deprive them of profits.  Granted, this can be difficult in the present day, given the difficulty of finding businesses and products without Jewish ties. But small and local businesses often meet this requirement, if only by default.  Encourage local businesses to both stay free of Jewish ties and to impose their own boycott.

Further nonviolent means will become available when the appropriate political environment comes into being—again likely beginning at local levels.  For example, Jewish malfeasance could be compensated by a “Jew tax” of some sort, as was done in the Roman Empire.  And we might consider banning circumcision as a form of male genital mutilation.  Granted, such things would be challenged on constitutional grounds; but who knows what the political climate may be in the future?  Ending dual citizenship with Israel is another obvious action, and would force many Jews to choose their true loyalty.  Non-citizen Jews could be given limited residency permits and then compelled to leave.  Non-citizens implicated in any crimes could be deported to their home countries.

Fifth, in all discussions, press for transparency.  Among our celebrities, governmental figures, and media stars, we need to know who is a Jew (or part-Jew), and we need to expose those non-Jews willing to serve Jewish interests for money or ideology (e.g., Christian Zionism).  On a larger scale, we will eventually need to identify everyone by ethnic origins; we will need both local and national databases to distinguish the White from the non-White population.  (Jews, needless to say, are not White.)  Only in this way can we measure progress on our road to a nation free of Jewish influence.

Political figures should be of particular focus.  Given the primacy of anti-Semitism, the only relevant political question is: How will you tackle the Jewish Question?  For candidates at all levels, we need to be “one-issue” guys, and that issue is attacking Jewish power.  At every candidate forum or local town hall, ask them, straight up, what they will do on this matter; e.g., by asking a question like “What is the role of Jewish influence in our foreign policy establishment?”  And when they cave in or evade the answer, call them out for being moral cowards or Jewish lackeys.

Sixth, start at the small-scale and the local.  Make efforts to create a reasonable assessment of your local Jewish populations (by city, county, or state).  Many such jurisdictions already have very few Jews (i.e. under 0.1%); declare them as such, declare victory, and then build alliances with neighboring or larger jurisdictions.

Seventh, exploit all negative Jewish news stories to the maximum.    For example, Jewish organizations and individuals have been in the forefront of pro-immigration movements—Jews such as Alejandro Mayorkas, who was recently impeached because of his role in the open-borders policy of the Biden Administration but never identified as a Jew in Congressional debates.  The same goes for pro-war movements, such as the leading role of Jews like Bill Kristol in the leadup to the Iraq war and Victoria Nuland in the coup that was directly influential in promoting Russian antagonism in the runup to the war in Ukraine. These people are but rarely, if ever, identified as Jews. Jews are often disproportionately involved in unethical and criminal actions, at all levels of society, from white-collar criminals, child molesters, sex traffickers, to master criminals operating at a global level; such people are not the main prongs of Jewish power but their Jewish identity should not be hidden as it is now. The current Israeli crimes in Gaza are textbook cases of Jewish malevolence and should do much to remove the mantel of ethical superiority and victimhood that Jews have been so adept at promoting.  When talking with friends, be sure to emphasize that these are Jews: not “Israelis,” not “Zionists.”  Call a spade a spade.

Eighth, donate money to bona fide anti-Jewish groups and activities.  As an active writer and publisher, I know how hard it is to get by, and how valuable even small donations can be.  There are good, dedicated people out there, working hard every day to solve the Jewish Problem.  They can always use an extra dollar.

Ninth, avoid all Jewish-run or -funded groups.  Jews are masters of ‘controlled opposition’: of funding or becoming members, or even leaders, of supposedly anti-Jewish groups simply in order to control them and ultimately destroy them.  There are a number of such Jews: Paul Gottfried, Davis Hawke, Laura Loomer, Chaya Raichik, Andrew Auenheimer (aka Weev), Milo Yiannopoulos.  Andrew Breitbart (died 2012) was Jewish, and his Breitbart news remains a thoroughly Jewish enterprise.

In a similar vein, be highly suspicious of individuals or groups who can’t quite bring themselves to criticize Jews by name.  They may well have ulterior motives.

Tenth, get active.  Become a writer, speaker, organizer, teacher, leader.  Everyone has different talents; put them to good use, in service of perhaps the most urgent task facing humanity today.  Each person knows their locality the best: what motivates people, what irritates them, what are their ‘hot buttons.’  Demonstrate to people in your region the primacy of anti-Semitism: its urgency, its necessity, and its effectiveness.

And perhaps a final suggestion:  Refuse to sustain Jewish supremacy.  The USA is a gigantic machine for the creation of Jewish wealth and power.  Everything that serves to benefit America actually benefits the Jews.  For every dollar you earn working for an “American” company, someone, often a Jew, earns ten.  Everything you do as a “patriot” to aid America aids the Jews because of the Jewish role in our current regime.  It takes a tremendous amount of work to sustain and grow the Jew-machine.  Therefore, the obvious course of action is to stop working for it.  Withhold your labor; withhold your wealth; withhold your allegiance.   Invest overseas (but not Western Europe, which, in many cases, has even stronger pro-Jewish laws and governments than we do).  Work for yourself, for a family business, or for a foreign firm.  Bring the Jew-machine to a grinding halt.

A Better World

Imagine, if you will, an America free of Jewish influence.  Imagine a federal government that (a) has very few Jews, and (b) is filled with largely competent, capable, well-meaning people, working in the best interests of this nation.  Imagine a government not given over to Jewish dictates and not flooded with corrupting Jewish money.  Imagine a United States not hell-bent on a Jewish-inspired program of world domination; a US military not raining death and destruction on people around the globe; no 800 military bases in other nations, many against their will; and a military budget closer to $500 billion than $1.5 trillion.

Imagine an America with closed and secure borders, and all illegal immigrants forcibly deported (Jews have always led the charge for open borders); imagine public schools and universities not steadily ramming leftist-liberal ideology down students’ throats (Jews have been in the lead promoting woke ideology); imagine LGBTQ and “trans” issues fading back into relative obscurity (where they were before Jews got involved); imagine corporations prioritizing quality-of-life issues, or environmental sustainability, rather than maximization of profits (Jewish materialism and greed rule today); imagine a stable, rational, and inflation-free economy instead of one acting like a global casino (as Jews prefer); imagine paying no income taxes to the feds (Jews inaugurated mandatory income taxes for everyone in World War II).[14]  Perhaps best of all, imagine a democracy not being synonymous with “rule by the Jews.”

All this is possible, and more.  In fact, more than possible; it is almost certain, should we decide we want to eliminate Jewish influence.

Skeptical, dear reader?  Then put me to the test.  Jews have been disproportionately influential in America for at least 100 years, with their power increasing dramatically after World War II and especially as a result of the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s.[15]  Therefore, let us conduct a fair experiment.  Let us strive for the next 100 years to be a nation free of Jewish influence.  At the end of that new century, let us make a fair assessment of the pros and cons versus the previous 100 years, and make an honest determination which life was better.  Should it be determined that America’s Jewish century was better, so be it; let us welcome the Jews back with open arms.

But should we find that, in fact, our century of America free of Jewish influence was better, perhaps vastly better, let us celebrate our courage and our vision, and be a true inspiration for the world, showing what can be attained with resolve and determination.  It happened before; it can happen again.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics and history. All his works are available at, and at his personal website

[1] See the Peace Index for January 2024 (survey 8th to 15th), in which the use of force in Gaza was described as “appropriate” (51%) or, incredibly, “too little” (43%), yielding 94% of Israeli Jews who are comfortable with the overwhelming use of force against a civilian population.

[2] For a fairly thorough documentation of the facts, see my book The Steep Climb: Essays on the Jewish Question (2023; Clemens & Blair).

[3] Mixed-race Jews—as with Blacks and Hispanics—are a special case and require separate discussion.  In short, I am inclined to count anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent as a Jew.

[4] Roman History 69.13.

[5] On the Jews and their Lies (2020; Clemens & Blair), p. 180.

[6] In A. Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (1968), p. 300.

[7] Ecce Homo, Superstition in All Ages, and Good Sense, respectively.  For details, see T. Dalton, Eternal Strangers (2020; Castle Hill).

[8] The following passages are taken from my 2022 translation of Mein Kampf, volume one, pp. 85-97.

[9] Jews have long been prominent in ethically dubious industries, including usury, slavery, war-profiteering, human trafficking, alcohol, drugs, gambling, and pornography.

[10] Fritsch, incidentally, authored the compelling book The Riddle of the Jews’ Success (1923/2023)—a highly revealing practical study in Jewish tactics.

[11] As explained in my 2019 book, The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Castle Hill).

[12] Ron Unz, incidentally, recently came to the same conclusion: “These days most Westerners claim to regard genocide in a decidedly negative light. So does this not syllogistically require them to embrace and endorse ‘antisemitism’? Surely a visitor from Mars would be very puzzled by this strange dilemma and the philosophical and psychological contortions it seems to require.”

[13] Although a case could be made for the serious Holocaust revisionists; men like Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf, and Juergen Graf are almost completely unknown, even to Holocaust skeptics, so severe has been the censorship of their work.  For the curious, take a look at, and the new revisionist Holocaust Encyclopedia.

[14] See my Steep Climb, chapter entitled “Tax the rich!”

[15] In fact, I have argued for a precise date upon which this nation sold its soul to the Jews: 20 December 1911.  See my Steep Climb, pp. 255-257.

Eugen Dühring on the Jewish Question, Part 2 The Jewish Question

Go to Part 1.

Part 2: The Jewish Question

One of the most important contributions of Dühring’s work to the history of anthropology and culture is the distinction he makes between the Jews and the other Semites so that all the features of the so-called “anti-Semitism” are in fact directed only to the Jews as a specific branch of the Semitic race, “the most vicious minting of the entire Semitic race,” and not to all the members of that race in general.

The Jewish question too is not a religious one but of the inherent and unchangeable character of the Jewish people.[1] Thus, as Dühring puts it,

it lies in the interest of a noble mankind, thus of a true humanity and culture, that this obscurantism of religion which has up to now covered and protected the worst characteristics of the Jews with its darkness be fully re­moved so that the Jew may be revealed to us in his natu­ral and inalienable constitution.[2]

In general, Dühring believes that all official religions are en­crusted with superstition and it would be best to substitute religious dogma with something more genuinely spiritual in social institutions. The point of departure for Dühring’s critique of Jewry is thus an entirely moral one. The chief accusation against the Jews is that they are morally corrupt and therefore thrive most in a society where moral corruption has already set in or has begun to set in.

This is the justification of the appellation of the Jewish race as a parasitical one since it feeds on the moral corruption of the host so­ciety, a corruption either created by it or, if already present to some degree, fostered by it. The dangers of moral corruption through the admixture of Jews into European society have increased particularly after the emancipation of Jewry in the sixties and seventies of the nineteenth century. The source of the Jewish corrupt nature is located by Dühring in their basic lack of conscience and cruelty vis-à-vis the other nations. Exploitation of other nations is their major aim and a genuine sense of human rights is utterly lacking in their commercial, essen­tially usurious, dealings. This lack of a moral sense makes true pol­itics impossible among them and their involvement in all sorts of so-called Socialist movements is only conditioned by their desire to extract advantages for themselves from disturbed social and eco­nomic conditions.

The religious constitution of the Jews is evidenced most clearly in their overarching theocratic ideas of society wherein the Jewish people are enslaved to their Lord God but, in turn, must enslave the rest of mankind to please this sole, jealous monarch of the world.[3] Yahweh is indeed nothing but an embodiment of the Jewish self-inter­est and represents the very opposite of the Indo-European natural pantheon.

Germanic mythology is ruled by concepts of fidelity and na­ture-based spirituality which have unfortunately been obscured by the overlaying of the original German moral character by Christian­ity, a religion which is very closely related to the Jewish racial culture in which it arose as a reaction to the evils of the Jewish nature.[4] The Jewish religion has no truly religious character but, instead, a markedly economic-political one. Given their natural proclivity to prof­it-making, it is not surprising that the Jews have, in their extensive wanderings away from their homeland, curried favor with pow­er-holders in all ages through their financial loans. The Alliance Israelite Universelle based in Paris is in fact a modern confirmation of the operation of the political influence of Jews on an international scope under the cover of an apparently religious organization.

The influence of the Jews on society is more evident in the up­per and middle classes than in the lower, since the former are more exposed to the thoroughly Judaized press and literature of modern times.

The Jews themselves lack all creative power in science as well as in art and merely trade in the ideas of others. The Jewish economist, David Ricardo, for example, derived his famous ground-rent theo­ry from the Scot James Anderson, and the Jewish mathematician, Carl Gustav Jacobi, derived his ideas from the Norwegian Niels Abel. Even the sole distinguished philosopher of the Jewish race, Spinoza, has produced a system which is singularly lacking in all ideals above rational calculation. The neglect of compassion in his Ethics as a feeling-based category to be overcome by rational understanding points to the real cult of intellectual power which lies at the base of his system.[5]

The Jewish talent in literature is always of a hybrid sort displaying even amidst occasional attempts at Germanic sublimity an irresisti­ble proclivity to buffoonery, as in the case of Heine, and to polemics, as in the case of Börne. The Jews have also turned Lessing’s sympa­thetic attitude to the Jews (perhaps, as Dühring maintains, because Lessing was himself originally of Jewish descent) into an exaggerat­ed cult of Lessing as the glory of the German Enlightenment when ­ in fact his works are entirely artificial and lacking in genuine emo­tional power.

The Jews lack all heroism of character required to produce epic or dramat­ic literature and can, at best, attain some weak lyricism as revealed in their ancient Psalms. Like Richard Wagner, Dühring also criticiz­es the unpleasant manner of Jewish chanting in the synagogues and goes even farther than Wagner in his anti-Judaism in maintaining that Wagner himself compromised in the end with the Jews in ac­cepting generous donations from the Jews at Bayreuth and in pur­porting to save those Jews who supported his “music of the future,” rather like a dispenser of indulgences. The general unsuitability of the Jews for artistic enterprise is, in fact, located by Dühring in their lack of “that free and unselfish activity of the mind which alone ad­vances to uninterested truth and beauty”.

The Judaized press, however, constantly ridicules the German as having the nature a simpleton, of the “deutschen Michael.” The Jews have, through their involvement with the political parties of the present, corrupted the concepts of socialism and social democracy. Their aim in the realm of economics has been always, whether it be through Marx or through Lassalle, to foster economic dissatis­faction through terms such as “class-warfare” in order ultimately to achieve a “merging of all nations into a Jewish kingdom.”

The German state was in fact founded originally on the moral quality of loyalty, which was the basis of the feudal system which developed therefrom in the Middle Ages. Loyalty should thus be the source of future German politics as well. Jewish politics, on the other hand, is based on betrayal—of Europeans as well as, occa­sionally, of Jews too by other Jews. The intolerant Jewish ethos can operate only in an exploitative manner and under the enforcement of a terrorism learnt from their fear-inspiring Lord God.

True piety is lacking in their politics as much as in their religion. The Jewish infiltration into the legislative activities of the German state after their emancipation has enabled them to herd the Ger­man people under the thrall of individualistic “freedom” into the ex­ploitative hands of the Jews. In this they have been abetted by the university professors and intelligentsia, since the latter depend for the most part on the Jewish press for their reputation. The advance­ment of Jews from an original pariah status to the leading political positions in the European nations is evidenced by the rise of Gam­betta in France and of Disraeli in England. Gambetta rose to power on the basis of a French political fiasco for which his own people were responsible.[6] Disraeli’s opportunism is manifest in his use of the stock-exchange business to acquire foreign lands.[7] But the true manipulative schemes of the Jew are revealed by Disraeli himself in his fictional writings such as Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred. The very appoint­ment of a Jew like Disraeli as the head of the English aristocracy is a sad sign of the degeneration of the English in recent times.

The solution of the Jewish problem must be an international one if it is to have any lasting effect. One of the major preparatory steps is the elimination of the false idea of tolerance. Tolerance of baseness is a contradiction of the principle of human tolerance itself: “Humane reciprocity will consist in living in peace insofar as the nobler humanity comes together in the good. For the rest, however, precisely battle and destruction will emerge so much more energetically against the inhuman.” Similarly, the principle of equality cannot mean the consideration of that which is unequal as equal. The economic communes and corporations which Dühring suggests in his Socialitarian system thus must reserve the right to exclude harmful economic elements like the Jews.

The political solution of the Jewish problem lies first in the spiritual emancipation of the people from the Jewish mentality and ethos. But individual natures are too weak to carry out this process of reformation of society by themselves and so must be helped by state legislation and administration. The disenfranchisement of the Jews is a sine qua non of all remedial action with regard to the Jewish problem. Their exclusion, internment, and deportation must be encouraged wherever possible.

However, Dühring is too realistic to think that the creation of an independent Israeli state in Palestine and the deportation of the Jews to it would suffice to solve the Jewish problem. For, the Jewish race is an essentially nomadic one and will soon disperse again throughout the world even if it did manage to concentrate itself in Palestine for a while. The nomadic nature of the Jews itself is ex­plained by Dühring as being due to the basically unpleasant nature of the Jews, so that they are repulsive even to themselves when they are alone with themselves and not in the midst of European socie­ty—to whom they are, naturally, far more repugnant.

The specific means to be adopted against the Jews must be un­dertaken in three fields, the political, the economic, and the social. Political representation and occupation of official positions by Jews is to be curtailed immediately in such a way that no Jew can be elect­ed to Parliament any more than any Jew can exercise a right to vote in European elections.

The excess number of Jewish judges must be reduced through forced retirement; the cost of retirement payments incurred hereby would be much less than the damages that are to be anticipated if the Jews continue to distort legislation and justice in the country over a long period of time. The financial measures to be adopted against the Jews should be directed by the knowledge that all Jewish racial economics is based on avarice and the ambition to dominate others. The powerful Jewish financial houses must be nationalized forthwith and placed under official curatorships and state supervision.

This step must be carried out not only in Germany but in every country where the Jews exert such financial power. If we remem­ber Dühring’s identification of the main means by which most of the Jewish finance was acquired by cheating, then we will understand the indispensability of such steps against it. The social means should at first be focused on the chief Jewish agent of social influence, the press, wherewith the Jews turn public opinion into Jewish opinion. Jews must be removed from all ownership as well as editorial positions of newspapers; though, for the cultivation of a public opinion different from the present pre­dominantly Jewish liberal one, radical political changes are neces­sary as well.

Education too should be reoriented in a native Germanic way by the exclusion of Jews from school and university instructorships. If the Jews have succeeded so far in their social endeavours, it is pre­cisely because the university professors have, in their weakness and corruption, encouraged the parasitical activity of the Jews.

Other important social means against the Jews consist in the discouragement of intermarriages between Germans and Jews. He rightly points out that the case where a Jewish woman marries a German man is somewhat better than the reverse since the man is the bearer of the inherited spiritual qualities.

Dühring does not yet[8] think that legislation is necessary for this purpose since the natural aversion that Germans, especially Ger­man women, have to Jews will act as a deterrent. Also, the reduc­tion of the financial power of the Jews and the increasing economic independence of women will make German women less tempted to marry rich Jews for economic reasons. In general, the danger of such mixtures can be successfully reduced only if there is strict legislation regarding the number of Jewish immigrants permitted into a particular territory.

The state’s role in anti-Jewish measures must be supplemented by agitations on the part of the people. The parties themselves are im­potent in their narrow programmes and have too much connection to Jewish agencies to be effective in any way. For example, the meas­ures taken by the German Conservative parties to reduce corrup­tion in society were not specifically limited to the Jews and affected even the better elements engaged in the occupations in question. The Jewish question is first and last a moral question and demands the reestablishment of German loyalty and trust against the frivolity of the Jewish mind and the corruption that creeps under cover of this frivolity.

What is at stake is the very existence, moral and material, of the European peoples, for “if things are not directed, the descendants of traders in old wardrobes, scraps and cattle bones must get to the very bones of the modern peoples after they have pocketed their wealth and lamed their mind through inoculation”. The solution to the Jewish problem must be an international and a continually last­ing one, and Dühring maintains that even the most powerful means cannot be shied away from in the effort to free the better peoples and nations from what he calls their “internal Carthage.”

*   *   *

The social effect of Dühring’s work can be estimated more gener­ally in the anti-Jewish Congresses organized first at Dresden in 1882, and then at Chemnitz in 1883. At the latter, a division occurred on account of the ideological differences between those who favored Dühring’s more uncompromising views and the Christian elements at the meeting. However, a loose confederation of ‘Reformvereine’ sprang up in the 1880s, and by 1890 there were 136 of them. As Pe­ter Pulzer reports,[9] the extreme view, associated with Dühring, pre­dominated in Westphalia, under the leadership of Dr. König.

While the state social legislation of Bismarck served to allay the enthusiasm regarding the Jewish problem somewhat and to disin­tegrate these anti-Jewish organizations, the movement acquired a new impetus from the leadership of Theodor Fritsch in Leipzig who revitalized it according to the extremist point of view. It was Fritsch’s call for an anti-Jewish organization “above the parties”[10] which cre­ated such seminal nationalist societies as the Thule Society and the Germanen Order. It is true that the latter were in fact not so directly influential on the NSDAP itself, which—though created initially by Karl Harrer (along with Anton Drexler) at the suggestion of the Germanen Or­der that several economic ‘Rings’ of the society should be set up all over the country—ultimately proscribed the Germanen Order for its overly Masonic qualities.[11]

However, Alfred Rosenberg, the National Socialist ideologue wrote a work on the Jewish question very similar to Dühring’s called Die Spur des Juden im Wandel der Zeiten (The Track of the Jew Through the Ages) (1920).[12] In it he discusses first the his­torical circumstances of the Jews from their diaspora after the de­struction of Jerusalem to their various interventions in modern Eu­ropean politics. The second section deals with the Jewish mentality as revealed in its religious documents and cultural and economic works. The work ends with a discussion of the Jewish ambition for eco­nomic and political mastery of the world and suggests ways of curb­ing this tendency forthwith in Germany. The points contained in Rosenberg’s anti-Jewish program are in many ways similar to the points of the Nürnberg Laws of 1935.

Thus, even if it may not have had an immediate political con­nection with the programs of the National Socialist regime, the extraordinary value of Dühring’s work on the Jews consists in its prophetic accura­cy. Dühring’s systematic uncovering of the viciousness of the Jewish character and his suggestions for the removal of this evil bear the closest resemblance to the increasing anti-Semitic mood, ideologi­cal as well as popular, and the actual course of anti-Semitic events in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

Starting with the measures to exclude Jews from official positions and the prohibition of intermarriages between Jews and Germans promulgated in the Nürnberg Laws of 1935 and ending with in­creasing irritation with the very presence of Jews on German soil, the anti-Judaic programmes of the National Socialists were anticipated almost to the last detail by the blind philosopher of Berlin. Between the first appearance of Dühring’s work and the first major political measures taken against the Jews by the National Socialist re­gime there had elapsed a rather long period of about sixty years; neither Jews nor Jewish sympathisers can blame the Germans for having been too rash in their dealings with a racial group whose social and cultural influence had been philosophically identified as morally criminal. The claims of George Mosse and Donald Niewyk that the brutal­ization of German politics was spurred by the defeat of 1918[13] is only partially accurate, since the sharp turn of anti-Semitic trends in the Weimar Republic was actually propelled by the blatant arroga­tion of power by those very Jewish elements whom intellectual an­ti-Semites from the start had sought to exclude from German society through more rational social discrimination.

The moral corruption associated with Jewish finance and mores showed no signs of improving since the first publication of Dühring’s work but, rather, it achieved a giddy triumph at the end of World War I in the ill-fated Weimar Republic, which was initially es­tablished as a Socialist republic by Karl Liebknecht, the Jewish agita­tor, and conducted in a markedly Jewish social and political climate. It cannot be very surprising to one who is familiar with Dühring’s analysis of the Jewish ethos and its role in modern Germany that the Germans reacted to this ethos with a populist movement such as National Socialism. Those sections of the population which suffered most from the sense of exploitation at the hands of the Jewish economic and so­cial system naturally supported a German nationalist movement which sought in the end to destroy the Jewish evil at its very roots. As Dühring had foretold, “The German, to be sure, moves his limbs mostly only when the usurpation become too malicious; but if he does that once, then he does that which he undertakes, no matter what, also in a fundamental way.”

In retrospect, therefore, we may consider the National Socialist movement as being in no way an aberration but one which was clearly predicted in advance by philosophical under­standing. Historical discussions of Hitler’s regime which puzzle over the extreme measures taken by it against the Jews and Jewish Bolshe­vism and quickly dismiss them as the products of the monstrous psycho­logical complex of one individual are clearly handicapped by their unfamiliarity with the real philosophic impetuses of an ideological political movement such as National Socialism. Peter Pulzer’s suggestion that Hitler was merely relying on the political effectiveness of anti-Semitism,[14] for instance, seems not to understand that anti-Semitism was in its origins, and throughout its career in the early years of the twentieth century, not a mere tool in German politics (except perhaps in the case of Bismarck) but the very aim of it.[15]

The failure of the National Socialist regime was partly due to its rashness both in internal politics and foreign policy. The hasty foreign political moves made by Hitler at a time when neither the German people nor the remainder of the European nations had yet been forged into a political and cultural unity could not but fail. Be­sides, the powerful influence of the Jewish presence in America and Britain was not reckoned with adequately to forestall the defeat at the hands of the Allies.

The real tragedy of World War II, however, is that the failure of the Nazi movement and the discovery of the National Socialist attempts to eliminate Jewry in Germany have only succeeded in handing over the sympathy of the public to the very elements which formed the pivotal issue of the war. The corruption and degeneration that Dühring and the National Socialists at­tempted to check have proceeded with redoubled vigor after the war, and the enslavement of the European peoples to the Jewish baseness and vulgarity has become almost complete.[16] Dühring’s prophetic philosophical work on the Jewish character thus clearly retains its cautionary significance.

[1] This is in fact borne out by the evidence of Josephus regarding the circumstanc­es of the expulsion of Abraham and his tribe from Chaldea, for he states that the Chaldeans drove him out because he forsook the lofty, astronomically oriented, natural philosophy of the Chaldeans for a more mundane ethics (Jewish Antiq­uities, I, 157; cf. Philo the Jew, De mutation nominum, 72–76, and De migratione Abrahami, 184). This first recorded expulsion of the Jewry from a host country is strengthened by the second, dating from Egyptian antiquity, when, according to Dühring himself, the Jews revealed their avaricious worldly nature in their at­tempt to take as much of the Egyptians’ gold and silver with them as possible when they left Egypt.

[2] All quotations from the Judenfrage are from my translation of the sec­ond edition.

[3] Compare Schopenhauer’s contempt for the Jews which was directed by his rec­ognition of their worldly nature and superficial theism, rationalism, and opti­mism. The references to these characteristics of the Jewish mentality are ubiqui­tous in his works. For instance, in his ‘Fragments for the History of Philosophy’ (Parerga and Paralipomena, I), he declares: “[the religion of the Jews] is, therefore, the crudest and poorest of all religions and consists merely in an absurd and re­volting theism—While all other religions endeavour to explain to the people by symbols and parables the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations”, (cf., Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, Ill, Art.48, IV, Art.59; Parerga, I, ‘On Philosophy at the Universities’; and II, ‘On Religion’).

[4] In Sache, Leben und Feinde, Dühring points out that “The belief which Christ demanded was the belief in his person, the blind subjection to the word of the master and prophet, but not that naturally grown fidelity such as it lies in the nature of the better peoples and characters” (p.288) and both in this work and in the Ersatz as well as in the later editions of the Judenfrage, Dühring maintains that the ascetic ordeal of self-crucifixion exemplified by Christ in his life is valid only for the inferior Jewish flesh, embodying the characteristic Jewish self-interest, and should not apply to the healthy peoples.

[5] In his Kritische Geschichte der Philosophie, Dühring declares: “The concept of so-called virtue coincides with that of power. From the logical affirmation of in­dividual power the symbol of all ethical principles is supposed to be ultimately produced by means of the understanding and higher insight” (3rd. ed., Leipzig, -excha1878, p.306f.).

[6] The 16 May 1877 Crisis that brought down the royalist president Patrice MacMahon.

[7] The acquisition of the Suez Canal for Britain with funds derived from the Roth­schilds is a case in point.

[8] That is, at the time of writing the second edition (1881).

[9] Peter Pulzer, The rise of political anti-Semitism, London: Peter Halban, 1988, 99.

[10] Hammer, XI (1912), 153–58, ‘Vom partei-politischen Antisemitismus’.

[11] See Reginald H. Phelps, “’Before Hitler came’: Thule Society and Germanen order’, Journal of Modern History, 35 (1963), 245–61.

[12]  See my English edition of this work, The Track of the Jew through the Ages, London: Ostara Publications, 2016.

[13] See George Mosse, “Der erste Weltkrieg und die Brutalisierung der Politik: Betrachtungen über die politische Rechte, den Rassismus, und den deutschen Sonderweg”, in Manfred Funke et al. (ed.), Demokratie und Diktatur: Geist und Gestalt in Deutschland und Europa, Düsseldorf, 1987, pp. 127–139 and Donald Niewyk, “Solving the ‘Jewish problem’: continuity and change in German anti­semitism, 1871–1945”, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 35 (1990), p.370.

[14] Peter Pulzer, The rise of political anti-Semitism, London: Peter Halban, 1988, p.202.

[15] Cf., in this context, Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism, London: Pinter Publishers, 1991, where he points out that German Fascism can be explained only in terms of a “palingenetic” effort on the part of the German nation to rid itself of all Jewish forms of social and political life.

[16] See for example Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Press, 1976, Ch.15, p.178f, where he points out that “what is happening today in the United States today is what has been happening through­out much of Western history. The Jews, finding themselves unrestricted and un­curbed in a land rich in resources and labour, are rapidly monopolizing its wealth. It is almost certainly the same historic process that took place in Visigothic, Ar­abic and Catholic Spain, in medieval England, France and Germany—and most recently in twentieth century Germany. Yet no one cares—or dares—to notice it. Those who are so concerned about labour monopolies or business cartels, about the influence of the Roman Catholic Church or the military-industrial complex, about the WASP domination of the big corporations or the international Com­munist conspiracy, seem strangely silent and utterly unconcerned about the activ­ities of an ever more powerful, ever more dominant, supranational ethnocentrism with almost unlimited financial resources at its command”. The reason for the relative silence regarding the Jewish power in America is of course, as Robertson himself shows, the domination of the press and the media in America by the Jews. Not only does this domination help to curtail criticism of the political and com­mercial manipulations of the Jews but it also, more harmfully, forces the Jewish vulgarity in well-nigh irresistible doses onto the gullible masses through the film, television, music, and sports industries financed and administered in large part by the Jews.

Eugen Dühring on the Jewish Question, Part 1: The German Socialism of Eugen Dühring

Part 1: The German Socialism of Eugen Dühring[1]

Eugen Dühring (1833–1921) was born in Berlin the son of a Prussian bureaucrat. He studied law, philosophy and political econ­omy at the University of Berlin. Although he began his career by practicing law (1856–59), he was forced to give up this profession at the age of twenty eight when he was blinded through a congenital defect.

However, Dühring accepted his fate heroically declaring that “[this catastrophe] did not dampen but increased the enthusiasm with which I had sketched out for myself even previously a human vocation of intellectual scope—my goal was my consolation—of all the thoughts that remained remote from me. In my later life it has been up to now the remotest to complain about my blindness.”

Dühring took his doctorate in 1861 at the University of Berlin with a dissertation entitled De Tempore, Spatio, Causalitate atque de Analysis Infinitesimalis Logica (On Time, Space, Causality and on Infinitesimal Logical Analysis). In 1863 he became university lec­turer in philosophy and national economy. His earliest published works were national economic ones influenced by his reading of the German-American economist Friedrich List (1789–1846) and the American Henry Charles Carey (1793–1879) who were both in fa­vour of organic economics with a strong emphasis on protectionism and national interest.

Dühring’s economic doctrines are detailed in Kapital und Ar­beit (Capital and Labor) (Berlin, 1865), Careys Umwälzung der Volkswirtschaftshehre (München, 1865), Kritische Grundlegung der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Berlin, 1866), and Die Verkleinerer Careys (Breslau, 1867). Already the ethical orientation of his economic studies was revealed in his early publication of a work entitled Der Wert des Lebens (Breslau, 1865). Two further philosophical publications (Natürliche Dialektik, Berlin, 1865, and Kritische Geschichte der Philosophie, Berlin, 1869) were followed by yet other works on national economy, the Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie und des Sozialismus (Berlin, 1871), and the Cursus der National- und Sozialökonomie (Berlin, 1873). A fuller elaboration of his philosophical system was presented in the Cursus der Philosophie (Leipzig, 1875).

While Dühring’s lectures were very successful, he adopted from the start a critical attitude to the university and its institutions, and the improbability of his acquiring a professorship as a result of this conflict only sharpened his attacks. Finally, in 1877, under the pres­sure created by his attacks on German universities and their pro­fessors as well as those on Helmholtz in his Kritische Geschichte der allgemeinen Principien der Mechanik, (Berlin, 1873), Dühring was removed from the university.

This dismissal was later attributed by him to the machination of the Jewish elements in the university and of their influential agents in the press. His later publications as a private scholar — including two works on literature, Die Überschätzung Lessings und dessen Anwaltschaft für die Juden (Karlsruhe, 1881) and Die Grössen der modernen Literatur (Leipzig, 1893), as well as Die Judenfrage (Karls­ruhe, 1881), an intellectual autobiography, Sache, Leben und Feinde (Karlsruhe, 1882), and a work on religion, Der Ersatz der Religion durch Volkommeneres (Karlsruhe, 1883) — represent his comprehen­sive treatment of the problem of Jewish involvement in European society. His major interest in social and political economy however is reinforced in his last works, a second edition of Capital und Arbeit entitled Waffen, Capital, Arbeit (Leipzig, 1906) and Soziale Rettung (Leipzig, 1907), which are consolidations of his economic and phil­osophic positions.

Dühring battled for reform in all fields of life, being exceptionally qualified to comment in an expert way on most of them. And it must be noted that, while the Jewish mentality is emphatically located as the root of the evil of society in his later works, his anti-Judaism was evident long before his dismissal from the university, in his earliest economic and philosophical works. His social ideal was based on a moral cultivation of the individual spirit which would liberate the personality from all external and internal hindrances and permit it to form a vital culture. To this end Dühring founded a journal called Der Personalist und Emanzipator in 1899, designed to strengthen the human-individual spirit in its opposition to the external powers of nature as well as to those of exploitative social groups, especially the Jews.

Unlike most of the other philosophical anti-Semites, such as Fichte and Schopenhauer and Chamberlain, Dühring was not an idealist but a realist. He dismissed metaphysics as being one of the sources of the superstitious errors of mankind and his mathemati­cal denial of infinity was reflected in his stern view of human life as being empirically and socially determined. However, even in this realism, Dühring retained a vestige of metaphysics since he posited behind all temporality a “primordial being” from which the universe evolves. Only, for human beings in their terrestrial condition, the actually present is far more valuable than speculations regarding the ulti­mate source of reality.

What takes the place of metaphysical ques­tions in Dühring’s work is the Socratean imperative of morality. For, all life, while materially manifested, is informed with vitality and activity, categories which cannot be reduced to matter. Man-made institutions like religion are to be removed only because they are invariably encrusted with superstitions and act as a stumbling block to the full realization of the human personality.

In economics, the Marxist view of class-warfare is to be similarly considered as a dangerous superstition which obscures in convolut­ed dialectic the real sympathy that should and could exist between employers and workers and which alone forms the basis of a healthy social ethos. In this, Dühring was one with the other ‘German socialists’, in­cluding Oswald Spengler (Preuβentum und Sozialismus) and Wer­ner Sombart (Deutscher Sozialismus) who paved the way for Na­tional Socialist economic theory.

Like the anti-democratic thinkers of the Weimar Republic, both Conservative and Socialist, Dühring considered parliamentarism as an outmoded and dangerous system. The Eng­lish Parliament he characterised as a “Repräsentation des Raub- und Raffsystems” (representation of the system of robbery and money-grubbing), since the Tory and Whig parties were nothing but the representatives of belligerent and colonial robbery and capitalis­tic-commercial rapacity. The French parliament was even more basely bourgeois in its representation of financial and stock-ex­change interests. In Germany, parliamentarism receives its hateful stamp from the swaggering Junker and Hebrew bourgeois elements of the so-called Social Democracy in which “one cannot speak of a real rejection of slavery, but which on the contrary uses the traditional familiarity of the masses to slavery to subject them to a party despotism and an exploitation by the parties.”[2] Parliamentary legislation too must be effectively curtailed in its attacks on the workers and their living conditions. Rather, he pro­posed free associations between the concerned parties that resemble economic communes and corporations.

Unlike Marx, Dühring did not consider the reformation of social relations as something that will arise through dialectical necessity from the increasing weakness of the working classes in an industrial society, for this is tantamount to expecting a miracle from the ex­ploitative tendencies of the capitalists. On the other hand, the workers themselves must strive to strengthen themselves through coalitions so as to achieve self-suffi­ciency. The coalitions or communes formed by workers will guaran­tee access of all to property and means of production. The focus is thus shifted away from the concept of personal property altogether to the personal use of this property. Thus owners of property can only own their property according to their individual capacity to do so and if they avoid all tendency to exploitation.

The precondition for the success of such workers’ coalitions, however, is the direction of all their efforts on behalf of the interests of the whole, of the public as a totality, and this can be effected perfectly only when the state enters in their support. The state must act as the mediator between the several socio-economic interests of the pop­ulation, especially since the latter cannot be adequately represented by political parties, which are not truly democratic at all but oli­garchic groupings in which “a considerable part of the people has a place only as a ruled and mostly anonymous mass.”[3] The leadership of the state can be accomplished only by the prevalence of another sense than that of profit-making such as is directive in the British political economy and in that of its followers on the continent.

The prime consideration of the state must be the totality of the as­pirations of the people. Dühring’s Socialitarian economics therefore is nation-bound and not an international economic one. Dühring commends the protective tariff economics of List and Carey, which, as opposed to free-trade economics, is an organic one and

more compatible with the logical consequences of the so­cialist instinct. The tariff party is conscious everywhere of a national interest; it is conscious of a genuine po­litical economy; it does not break up into atomism and individualism that benefit only exploiting individuals.[4]

The Socialitarian principle is thus essentially the replacement of the egoistic individualism of force with the harmonious operation of the sovereignty of the individual. The remedy of the present deplorable situation can be accom­plished therefore only when society is first revolutionized on an an­ti-egoistic basis.

In his discussion of the Jewish question, Dühring makes clear that this revolution may be identified with a revolution against the Jews, as the racial embodiment of self-interest, and points out that “In the country of origin of the French Revolution, in Judaized France, one hears the declaration that the next Revolution will be one against the Jews.”[5]

The fact that parliamentarism has increasingly been dominated by the influence of the Jews and the socialistic proletariat, that is, of those racial and social elements which are the most egoistic, leads Dühring to call for the overcoming of the “Jewish progress and Jun­ker reaction” which represent the system of avarice and rapacity. This can be accomplished only by a transitional dictatorship which gives political expression to the anger of the people. Dühring con­ceives of the bearer of such a dictatorship as an intellectually and morally outstanding person whose power is consolidated by armed force and by an elite of like-minded persons filled with the same sense of social justice. The task of this regime would be to create a fertile ground for true justice so that, even after its passing, the society may continue to develop itself in future through its purified spirit and will.

Thus, although Dühring began as a student of socialist doc­trines, he later rejected all forms of collectivism and maintained that true progress proceeds only from individual powerful personalities. Even where groups seem to be the bearers of creative activities, in the final analysis it is individuals at the head of those organisations in whom the entire association achieves its characteristic effect.

The state as an association itself is to be valued only as a check on the various economic associations active in society so that none exploits or damages the other. Dühring’s increasing reliance on the individual personality caused him in his later years to identify the classification of society according to property and interest as a result of the differences of opportunities for development of personal ca­pacity and character which are propagated through the generations by tradition and inheritance.

Unlike the socialists, Dühring considered all property related to personal accomplishment as vigorously to be defended against the acquisitive grasp of socialistic measures. All Marxist denials of social classifications are thus utopian, since a conflict of interests is indivisibly linked to the natural differences between man and man. Only one sort of differenti­ation is to be rejected, that based on violence. The Jewish socialist propaganda of class-warfare is only a result of the introduction of injustice into these natural differences. This injustice is concocted, in the final analysis, not from economic sen­timents but from the original opposition between a powerful warri­or nobility and a powerless slave group such as the Jews themselves have always been.  It is not surprising that the Jewish economy transvalues econom­ics through the subordination of the higher to the lower aspirations of the people.

The vital importance of the self-emancipation of the individual is reinforced in Dühring’s doctrine of morality freed from all superstitious religion. Considering the Judaic concept of Yahweh as that of a God of “transcendental terrorism,” Dühring sought to replace the Judeo-Christian ethos by a new social and economic feeling for justice. This entails the rejection first of all of all sorts of exploitation whereby the individual is exposed to harm from the robber-types of the society. The latter are directed by the desire for increasing indi­vidual profit, that is, by the cultivation of a ruthless egoism.

The true concept of justice therefore depends on the substitution of egoism by a radical antiegoism. Only on the ground of this sort of justice can a healthy society and culture develop, a social order in which “entire members would be bound by legal interests and would not aim at basing their own existence and power on the re­duction and destruction of other lives.”[6]

The reform of social justice, however, does not mean the simplis­tic socialist demand of equality for all, since rewards are always directly related to performance; what is to be avoided at all cost, however, are unjust encroachments on personal freedom and in­tegrity which represent the mastery of the exploitative members of the present society.[7] The reform of the “intellectually motivated will” to a better and nobler personal disposition will, in its anti-egoism, be naturally restrained in its inter-personal dealings and its partici­pation in the nexus of economic interests.

That the major representatives of the exploitative economy are Jews Dühring never once doubted. In the Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie und des Sozialismus, he comments on the commer­cial ethos of the present:

It denies in no way its Semitic relationship and, even though the discernment that we have to bring to the settling of the question of egoism is clear, we cannot attribute an understanding of this to those who, by virtue of their unchangeable egoism, seem to have no organ for scientific reason and for nobler motives in this direction.

This “theoretical obtuseness” of the Jews is an intellectual fortifi­cation “behind which has been entrenched up to now the apotheosis of egoism, the glorification of the art of cheating, and, in general, the entire celebration of the celebration of the fine strategy of cunning exploita­tion.”[8]

In his Cursus der Philosophie, he reiterates the commercial and financial role appropriated everywhere by the Jews after the fall of their own state and their parasitical infiltration into other nations. The historically attested “cruelty and crass egoism” of the Jews has thus seeped into the public through the press and even into legis­lation, which have been increasingly dominated by them. Indeed, “even parts of science which are especially ventured into by the Jews on account of their exclusion from others already reveal in many ways the stamp of the new form of business directed to profit.”[9] At first agreeing to a subordinate position in exchange for the privilege of making money through underhanded means, and then gradually currying favour with the power-holders through their increasing fi­nancial advantages, the Jews have inexorably developed a mastery in their host societies. “To be a slave or to make slaves—that is the alternative of the peoples disposed to lack of freedom.” The “slave-form of religion” is thus the characteristic and influential contribu­tion of the Jews to intellectual history.

At the time of writing this work on philosophy, Dühring still be­lieved that socialism itself would be sufficient to counter the egoistic system of the Jews since it is based on the organic sensibility of the people which itself is radically opposed to the alien character of ex­ploitative Jewry. In fact, Dühring still hoped that, when society removed the sup­ports for the material egoism and exploitative activity of the Jews, the latter would be forced to live on their own work and not para­sitically on that of others. Moreover, he thought that, since his form of socialism, or Socialitarianism, would guarantee the economic in­dependence of women as well as men, the former would not enter into marriages of economic convenience with Jewish men any longer since, according to Dühring’s belief, there could be no “personal in­clination” thereto.[10] This would preclude ‘’the danger that the Jewish elements may exert some hateful influence on the physiology of the national character.” The removal of opportunities for the exploitative activity of the Jews would at the same time make possible in the long run “a grad­ual improvement of the ways of thought and feeling” of the Jews and equip them for “functions freed of egoism.”

This generous optimism of 1875 was, however, soon replaced by a more realistic understanding of the impossibility of the ethical im­provement of the Jews. Dühring’s, increasing concentration on the Jewish problem since the first publication of the Judenfrage in 1881 led to an increasing annoyance with the destructive alien element in European society until, in the final editions of the Judenfrage, he clearly maintained that, since the Jewish character was an un­changeable one, the only means that would be effective against them would have to be of a violent nature.

In the last edition of Judenfrage (1901), Dühring even suggested that all the specific social and political remedies proposed by him against the Jewish evil in the earlier editions were bound to be inadequate in the long run and must necessarily be reinforced by stronger means which do not permit the possibility of Jewish existence within European communities any longer. As he explained in Sache, Leben and Feinde, the Jewish mentality is a criminal one and its effect on the rest of society is that “the corruption of the senses and the spirit comes first and the lowering of the feeling for justice paves the way for the material ravaging and devouring. For this reason the answer to the Jewish question belongs not merely to economics but in general to life and to existence, in all contexts.”[11]

He now considered the Jewish question not merely in racial terms but in terms of the question of estates, especially those bearing arms and those those that are derived of them. This included the Junkers as a target of Dühring’s criticism, since they represented a segment of the exploitative population that would naturally have to be overcome: “Junker and priest, Jew and bourgeois, were to be analysed from different viewpoints but still in a similar way. . . . Crime has no right to existence and must be destroyed in its embodiments—that is the axiom from which I start everywhere, thus even in the questions of race and estate.”[12]

His animus against the Junker ruling class is due to his convic­tion that militarism and exploitation are the characteristics of an exploitative stratum that harms the peaceful occupation of the peas­ant: “the real peasant is directed to peace from his occupation it­self and . . . the unjustified belligerent disturbances throughout the world are based primarily on a weapon-bearing estate which has lived throughout history only by the sword, thus on the robbed or forced work of others.”[13]

He naturally concedes that even the working class could become degenerate and unworthy of consideration: “Even a working class that has degenerated in its estate can have forms which forfeit the right to existence as much as any other section.” Dühring’s final effort was to raise his reformatory idea to the status of a world-historical principle. The case of the Jews, however, was the “most serious”[14] since it revolved on “original natural defects and criminal natural creatures.”[15] The Jewish eman­cipation is meaningless since the Jews will never be free, for a

true emancipation worthy of the name is accomplished only where the personal freedom and integrity is established and secured fundamentally and in all contexts, but especially in the individual. Therefore, the emancipation of the Hebrews is the real and decisive one for man­kind; for, to remain exposed to the powers of lies and exploitation, of intellectual and material deception, indeed to fall victim to them to a certain degree through the laws themselves and for the sake of justice, so to speak, means to be not free. . . . To be free or not to be is our solution in all things and for all.[16]

Go to Part 2.

[1] This essay is taken from the Introduction to my edition of Eugen Dühring, The Jewish Question as a racial, moral and cultural question, with a world-historical answer, London: Ostara Publications, 2019.

[2] Waffen, Capital, Arbeit, p. 73.

[3] Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie and des Sozialismus, p.486.

[4] Ibid. p.489.

[5] Die Judenfrage, (posthumous edition, ed. H. Reinhardt), Leipzig: O.R. Reisland, 1930, p.134.

[6] Soziale Rettung, p. 181.

[7] Thus Dühring also occasionally called his Socialitarian system an ‘Antikratic’ one (as opposed to an ‘Anarchic’ system).

[8] Ibid., p. 453.

[9] Ibid., p. 391.

[10] This was of course written a century ago, when the natural sense of the Europe­an peoples was still relatively uncorrupted by liberalistic indoctrination.

[11] Sache, Leben and Feinde, p. 281.

[12] p. 282.

[13] p. 512.

[14] p. 284.

[15] p. 283.

[16] p. 508f.

Jewish Troubles with Uppity Rappers

“[Jews] have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes [their] agenda.”
Kanye West, 2022

“The Jews have a grip on America.”
Professor Griff, Public Enemy, 1989.

The narrator of the opening chapter of William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury is Benjy Compson, a 33-year-old man with an intellectual disability who is very much the embarrassment of his disintegrating family. Compson’s diminished mental capacity, and the ‘stream of consciousness’ manner in which his thoughts and perceptions are presented to the reader, make for an extremely challenging read. The result is that relatively few who embark upon the novel outside of a university setting will persevere and finish it. Those who do finish the novel, and better yet those who re-read it, are however rewarded with the understanding that behind the verbal ‘noise’ of Benjy’s apparent nonsense is an astute and unbiased insight into the motivations and behaviors of many of the novel’s other characters. In other words, despite his limitations, Benjy has some important things to say.

Ye’s Sound and Fury

Faulkner’s difficult novel came to mind during this month’s moral panic, and subsequent attempted financial annihilation, over comments made by Kanye West, now known simply as Ye, on the Jews. West’s comments certainly have a Benjy-esque quality to them, jumping from one observation to another without elaboration or logical progression. It’s probably best recounting them, more or less in the order of utterance:

  • Blacks are the 12 lost tribes of Israel, and therefore the real Jews.
  • It is impossible for West to be described as antisemitic because he is a Jew.
  • Jared Kushner only worked on a peace deal between Israel and Arab nations in order to make money.
  • Ye wished his children had learned about Hannukah instead of “a complicated Kwanzaa,” because Hannukah would at least “come with some financial engineering.”
  • “Jewish people have owned the Black voice. Either it’s through us wearing the Ralph Lauren shirt, or it’s all of us being signed to a record label, or having a Jewish manager, or being signed to a Jewish basketball team, or doing a movie on a Jewish platform like Disney.”
  • “Paparazzi taking a photo of you, you ain’t getting no money off of it. You’re used to getting screwed by the Jewish media. And I’m saying, you poked the bear too fucking long.”
  • “They blocked me out. The Jewish media blocked me out.”
  • “This ain’t a game. Imma use you as an example to show the Jewish people that told you to call me that no one can threaten or influence me. I told you this is war. Now gone get you some business.”
  • “I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE. The funny thing is I actually can’t be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew also. You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.”

While there is a lot of ‘noise’ and nonsense (Blacks as Jews) here, there are also some discernible and perfectly reasonable observations. Through his comments on Kushner and Hannukah, West suggests that Jews have a special relationship with money. Jews have, of course, been at great pains in the many volumes of apologetics and propaganda they have produced for over a century to deny any such relationship. Yet all historical and contemporary sociological data suggest that such a special relationship exists. The fact that Jews worry that widespread understanding of this relationship with money will result in a lowering of their reputation, and possible action to mitigate their success in obtaining and utilizing wealth, does not take away from the truthfulness inherent in the basic fact their privileged position in the West is long-standing, empirically observable, and obvious.

This obviousness is inferred in West’s observation that Jews occupy leading positions in many industries, including the fashion industry, the music industry, sports management and ownership, and the movie industry. West’s claim that “Jewish people have owned the Black voice,” would seem to me not only to refer to Jews profiting from managing Black musicians and seeking their works, but also more subtly to such phenomena as Jews historically taking leading roles in organizations like the NAACP. By far the most glaring comments made by West are those referring to the Jewish power to censor. West talks of “blocking out,” threats and influence against him, and the attempt to “black ball” anyone opposed to Jewish interests.

Whether or not West’s comments are helpful to those wishing for a rise in awareness of these precise issues is a matter for debate. Their presentation in such a ham-fisted and outrageous manner is far from ideal, but this downside may be offset by the fame of people like West (over 31 million followers on Twitter) and, ironically, the fact this kind of communication is relatively well-received and understood by the target audience, the Black population. That being said, few celebrities have come forward to support West. To my knowledge the only person of note is Black comedian Dave Chappelle, who once courted controversy himself for a Netflix special joke about “Space Jews” which jabbed at Jewish brutality against Palestinians. The jury is still out on the utility of West’s comments.

Lessons in Power and Censorship

For me, the biggest takeaway from the Ye outburst and its aftermath is the impressive demonstration of Jewish influence and power, exhibited in the form of censorship. In this regard, it’s important to point out that there have been prior cases of celebrities, and rappers in particular — see the case of Ice Cube, daring to mention the existence of Jewish dominance within the entertainment industry and subsequently being forced into grovelling apologies or, in more extreme cases, into exile. One example worth highlighting, purely because it has so many astonishing parallels with the Ye case, is that of Richard ‘Professor Griff’ Griffin, from the hip hop group Public Enemy, who uttered some controversial remarks in 1989.


In an interview with David Mills of the Washington Times in May 1989, Professor Griff responded to one question by telling Mills he believed “the Jews are wicked,” and that he could prove it. “They have a history of killing black men,” said Griff. “The Jews can come against me. They can send the IRS after me. They can send their faggot little hit men. I mean, that don’t move me. Listen, they have a history of doing this.” Griff supported his comments with references to Henry Ford’s “The International Jew,” and added that he’d obtained his knowledge of Jewish history from the Nation of Islam’s historical research department. Griff, like the other members of Public Enemy, belonged to the Nation of Islam. As the interview with Mills progressed, he further alleged that “The Jews have their hands right around (President) Bush’s throat. He won’t make the wrong move. You understand what I’m saying? The Jews have a grip on America.”

As with Ye’s comments, the emphasis here is on Jewish power and control, over the lives of Black people but more generally over the entire nation. Retribution was swift. Griff was labeled a “stone-cold racist” by Lyor Cohen of Rush Management, perhaps the most influential hip hop manager of the period (Cohen later moved to Warner, but is now YouTube’s Global Head of Music). Although Rush had been founded by Russell Simmons (a Black man whose other ventures involved a close partnership with Jew Rick Rubin), Cohen slowly assumed almost total leadership before handing control of the holding company for all Rush’s entertainment assets to fellow Jew Todd Moscowitz. Cohen’s other protégé within Rush was fellow Jew Julie Greenwald (Cohen was himself the protege of Jewish music moguls Jerry Moss and Herb Alpert). In fact, Cohen was part of a long history of powerful and often exploitative Jewish networking in Black music that has been “whitewashed” in every sense of the term. Take, for example, the following description of Cohen from a 2001 Rolling Stone article:

In these years, he has grown into perhaps the most powerful white executive in an African-American business. The history of rock & roll is, of course, riddled with pioneering white record men who built careers recording and, sometimes, exploiting black artists: Morris Levy, that burly, cigar-smoking product of the Brill Building, allegedly stealing writing credits from Frankie Lyman; Herman Lubinsky, the founder of Savoy Records in Newark, New Jersey, throwing around nickels as if they were manhole covers. But Cohen – Cohen is something different. [emphasis added]

Cohen, Levy, and Lubinsky — just your average “White” guys.

In the immediate aftermath of Professor Griff’s May 1989 comments, Lyor Cohen announced the full disbandment of Public Enemy. A few days later, however, Cohen decided to reinstate the band on condition that Griff be removed. It then fell to another “White” music mogul, Def Jam records publicist Bill Adler, to announce that Griff would be fired from Public Enemy.

Whose body language indicates dominance and submission? Jewish Def Jam Records publicist Bill Adler introduces Rapper Chuck D, left, of Public Enemy, as the latter prepares to bow to pressure and fire bandmate Professor Griff for making anti-Jewish remarks, June 21, 1989.

Not only did band member Chuck D make a grovelling apology on behalf of Professor Griff, but he also made what was presumably a much more acceptable call to arms (at least to his Jewish superiors) when he said that “the problem is the system of white world supremacy.”

In a 2020 interview, Griff explained he felt like he was “thrown under the bus” by Chuck D, and that Chuck D didn’t want him out of Public Enemy but that the heads of Def Jam, in league with “Jewish groups like the ADL,” put pressure on Chuck D to kick him out of the group. Chuck D was reported to have had an angry outburst after the public firing of Griff, and in Public Enemy’s first single after the episode, “Welcome to the Terrordome,” he exorcised his frustrations, drawing more criticism from the ADL, which deemed the lyrics antisemitic: 

Crucifixion ain’t no fiction
So-called chosen frozen
Apology made to whoever pleases
Still they got me like Jesus.

Bill Adler later said of Griff’s comments, “It wasn’t just a PR nightmare. It affected me personally because I’m Jewish and I didn’t like the idea that one of our groups was spouting these anti-Semitic comments. It was upsetting to me.” Adler explained that he called Griff in for a discussion but was dismayed that Griff appealed to “a book written by Henry Ford.” Rather than debunk Ford’s work, Adler began to describe the manner in which Ford had created two Detroit suburbs, one for White workers (Dearborn) and the other (Inkster) for Black workers. In other words, Adler tried to deflect Griff’s animosity away from the Jews, and towards Ford/segregation/Whites, even going so far as to tell Griff “[Ford] would have gladly upholstered his cars with your Black hide as well as my Jewish hide.” Griff replied, “Bill, I can’t help it. It’s in the book.”

Griff’s refusal to bow to Jewish pressure in 1989 led to career annihilation. Public Enemy later quietly attempted to reintroduce him into some form of participation in band activities, but were condemned by then ADL chief Abe Foxman who accused Public Enemy of a “repugnant charade characterized by cynicism and disdain for the public.” Public Enemy responded by releasing a track called “Swindler’s Lust” in 1999 and by forming “Confrontation Camp,” a short-lived spinoff project that put Griff in a starring role. But Griff never fully recovered.

In recent years he’s more or less taken to begging Jews to forgive him. According to an article in The Forward:

Ambassadors from Jewish organizations said in recent interviews that they simply do not think Griff has made the proper admission of guilt required for public forgiveness and re-entry into the world of mass culture. But in a series of conversations over the last several weeks, Griff told me that he is still seeking that cultural passport, and vindication for having his life “destroyed” by being labeled a Jew-hater. He said he would do whatever it takes — but that the Jewish world won’t let him. “I’ll go to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Black Power movement center, the Black Lives Matter, the White House, and I’ll apologize everywhere I need to apologize,” Griff told me. “They will never be fucking satisfied. … You can go fucking do back flips, apologize to until the fucking cows come home. You will always be antisemitic.”

 Jews Fear Black anti-Semitism

While Jews are obviously desirous and capable of snuffing out any and all criticism, they are particularly sensitive to influential examples from the Black population. In Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald identifies the key themes of anti-Semitism as including an understanding that, speaking in general terms, Jews

  • represent a separate and clannish foreign group with their own set of interests;
  • are highly adept at resource competition and have a tendency towards economic domination;
  • tend to engage as cultural actors in order to shape non-Jewish culture to suit Jewish interests;
  • form a cohesive political entity that seeks politically dominant roles in non-Jewish societies;
  • possess negative personality traits, including the pursuance of a system of dual ethics in which non-Jews can be treated badly and exploited;
  • are disloyal to the host nation in all fundamental and meaningful ways

Among Black expressions of animosity toward Jews, the same themes can be observed, arising first from more modest economic conflicts and, as such, having something more in common with the complaints of the early modern European peasantries. Horace Mann Bond, in his own 1965 reflections on “Negro Attitudes Toward Jews,” comments on the fact Jews historically appeared in the African-American environment overwhelmingly as pawnbrokers, as monopolists of the liquor trade (“The Jews have a stranglehold on the liquor stores in this town”), as the primary sellers on credit of clothing and other essential items, and, perhaps most crucial of all, as the slumlord and property dealer (“Some Jews have bought up that urban re-development land and are putting up shoddy apartments they call “Nigger housing” on it”).[1]  In 2016, local news website Patch published a list of the 100 worst slumlords in Harlem, with the top ten including seven Jews (Mark Silber, Adam Stryker, Joel Goldstein, Marc Chemtob, Moshe Deutsch, Solomon Gottlieb, and Jason Green), a representation that has remained roughly constant every year, with Jews persistently claiming top ranking for building violations, rodent infestations, lack of maintenance, exploitative rent, mold, and other forms of building decay injurious to health. Indeed, this situation has at times resulted in considerable embarrassment to Jews.

Indeed, it is the sheer dominance and proximity of the Jews as primary exploiters of Blacks that has often caused a quite radical break in the Black imagination between perceiving wholesale “White oppression,” and the more nuanced understanding that Jews are a distinctive class unto themselves. Moreover, the reality of day-to-day interethnic exploitation leaves little room for abstract apologetic theories of anti-Semitism, since the problem is never that Jews arouse hostility merely on account of their religion or identity, but rather that Jews arouse hostility because of their behavior within certain ecological contexts (i.e., as a dominant clique within the rap scene). As Bond explains,

It is my considered view that Negro attitudes and actions towards Jews that are frequently interpreted as “antisemitic” actually lack the sinister thought-content they are sometimes advertised as holding. The occasional riots against small businessmen and landlords in Harlem — persons who may happen to be Jews — do not, in my opinion, actually possess the “classic” emotional load of aggression against a Jewish “race” or “religion,” that has been considered the essence of antisemitism.

One of the most prominent Jewish strategies when discussing Black anti-Semitism is the attempt to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood, and thus preserve the idea of an alliance against an allegedly oppressive White society. So it was hardly surprising for me to hear that Bill Adler’s first approach to Professor Griff involved a quite ludicrous attempt to turn him against the ‘racist’ Henry Ford.


The very existence of a Black anti-Semitism is highly disruptive to established victim narratives which deny the privileged status of Jews as a wealthy and influential elite within Western society. While White anti-Semitism can still be portrayed (thanks to endless propaganda) as a top-down form of oppression directed against Jews, Black anti-Semitism flips the narrative since a received wisdom of modern culture is that Blacks are the most disadvantaged ethnic group in society. When Blacks “punch up” and the target is Jews, the only available solution to Jews is censorship. Blacks who grovel enough, and with enough sincerity (like Nick Cannon and Ice Cube) will be rehabilitated through Holocaust tours and such, and their apologies will be widely broadcast as a form of propaganda literature in its own right.

But those who don’t, like Professor Griff, will have their careers destroyed and they will vanish from the cultural spotlight. It may even be worse than that. In a remarkable incident covered by Tucker Carlson, Jewish trainer Harley Pasternak even threatened to have Kanye West drugged and institutionalised: “You go back to Zombieland forever.” The future of Kanye ‘Ye’ West is currently uncertain, but will undoubtedly be dictated by the extent to which he apologizes to his masters.

Lyor Cohen and Kanye West

[1] H.M. Bond “Negro Attitudes Towards Jews,” Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, Papers and Proceedings of a Conference on Negro-Jewish Relations in the United States (Jan., 1965), 3-9, p.5.

Igor Shafarevich: “Postscript to ‘The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma'”

Postscript to The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma

Igor Shafarevich


Editor’s note: The following is Rolo Slavski’s translation of Igor Shafarevich’s “Postscript to The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma.” The original citation is: Igor Shafarevich (2009), “Posleslovie k Trekhtysiacheletnei zagadke.Nash sovremennik, No. 11. Nash sovremennik is a Russian literary magazine. Both footnotes were added by the editor.

I re-read my book on Jewish history (The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma) and the feeling I experienced was one of dissatisfaction. Since the author (myself) has taken a stab at shedding light on such a broad historical phenomenon, I thought, he could have made more specific observations that shed light on the current situation and the possible future of the world. That’s what I want, to some extent, to try to make up for here. In this case, all the facts (including quotes) are taken from my book. Naturally, the conclusions I come to, to some extent, repeat the book (or are a refinement of the thoughts expressed there).

First of all, from all the facts collected in my book, it follows that no matter what peoples the Jews live among, they are always considered by these peoples to be dangerous strangers.

Of course, the relationship between the rich man and his debtor, the landowner and the peasant, etc., cause friction and often lead to ethnic conflicts. But it is striking that, along with the Armenian-Azerbaijani contradictions, friction between Russians and Ukrainians, etc. (throughout the entire period from which we have reliably dated sources), this other nation (or religious group? ) comes up. After all, this tension can be observed for about three thousand years! So it should be the subject of serious historical reflection. In periods of drastic change in the conditions of life, the same nation (or religious group?) often participates with unprecedented energy in these changes, and always as part of the more radical camp. (As could be seen in Germany during the “revolutionary situation” in the 1920s, and as happened in our country three times in the twentieth century: during the revolution of 1917 and its intensification, during the period of collectivization around 1930, and during time of “perestroika” in the 1990s). Moreover, as a result of such radical changes in life in our country, many millions of people died each time: peasants who defended their land, or peasants who no longer resisted, or just people (including children) who had not learned to “play by the new rules.”

The presentation of the facts itself can occur on various levels — from statements that are not substantiated and based on nothing (for example, Diodorus Siculus’s[1] and Manetho’s claim that the Jews are Egyptians infected with some kind of skin disease and expelled from Egypt) to a more correct, competent, albeit very cautious, discussion of a particular situation, like Walt and Mearsheimer’s work, The Israel Lobby, but where the same basic question is implied. The “question” is that a small part of the country’s population determines the most important aspects of its life. Actually, a similar point of view is confirmed by the most ancient (from reliably dated) Jewish religious texts. A wide range of means are being used around the world (at different times) to counter discussion of this “issue”: prisons, courts, executions, journalism and the media are used. The fact that the majority of peoples who have encountered Jewry perceive it as a potential source of danger is explained by the words of a contemporary (and published in Russia) author, D. Furman: “Everywhere, all over the world, the role of Jews in progressive and revolutionary movements has always been completely disproportionate to their share in the population. That is (in accordance with the point of view expressed in my book) fundamental changes in society are carried out according to certain general laws, and Jews cannot be considered their initiators in any way. But when the course of history leads to the breakdown of tradition, to a sharp change in life, then “progressive and revolutionary movements” arise, in which the role of the Jews “has always been completely out of proportion to their proportion in the population.”

As the material collected in my book shows, in the last few centuries the influence of Jews around the world has increased dramatically — this, in recent decades, is associated with a process called “globalization.” It seems that the theses of the German publicist W. Marr, who wrote (in the 19th century) in the book The Victory of Jewry over Germanism: “We are subdued, and besides, we are forbidden to talk about it,” seem to have been proven. How will other peoples of the world exist in such a situation? (After all, from many of the facts given in my book, it is clear that vindictiveness is an essential feature of Jewish psychology and their participation in “progressive and revolutionary movements” was often stimulated by the desire for revenge for obstacles to the transformation they desired.) Therefore, it can be assumed that the victory of that “progressive movement,” which is now led by Jews all over the world, will lead the world to terror, similar to that which raged in our country in the 20s and 30s of the last century. It seems that humanity has no strategy to counter this. But it seems to me that such a way is possible. I wanted to talk about it here — this is the main content of this work.

To assess the whole situation, it is important to note that the “Jewish question” existed, as it is explained in my book, about as long ago as can be traced using written sources. More precisely, in the era in which mankind existed in the form of states. (And we are not going to discuss a broader historical epoch.) Thus, a number of ancient authors refer to the Exodus from Egypt, which the Bible tells us about, as “exile”. In any case, that era can be considered the first manifestation of the “Jewish question” recorded in writing. Since then, it was by no means “resolved”, as evidenced by the entire subsequent history of Jewry. Already in our (at least in my) memory, Hitler spoke more than once about the “final solution of the Jewish question,” but what this “final solution” consisted of, as is often the case when discussing Hitler’s plans, was not clear. After all, most of the Jews were then in America, and Hitler could not influence their fate in any way. This is the historical range of the “Jewish question” — the range in which it manifests itself. From this (and other facts collected in my book) we can conclude that the “question” is in principle unsolvable (at least in the era of peoples existing in states). This thesis is discussed in more detail in my book. That is, at least in the coming centuries, we are doomed by history to live with the Jews, and they with us. In other words, the reasonable way out is to learn to live with this question, which, apparently, cannot be “resolved” in the present historical conditions (just as, for example, it is impossible to completely “eradicate crime”, although it is possible to take measures to so that crime does not ruin our lives. The “question” for us then, is how, in this coexistence, we can preserve our national identity.

A hint of a way of dealing with the problem that could satisfy these conditions is contained in a remark by V.V. Rozanov. In an obvious connection with the same “question,” he draws attention to the fact that a similar situation exists in the animal world. Namely, most animals known to us are either herbivores or carnivores. Moreover, as Rozanov notes, herbivores unite in large herds, and the number of carnivores is somehow kept at a relatively low level. This analogy between non-Jewish herbivores and Jewish carnivores is supported by many arguments.

Firstly, this is the argument of the number, as indicated by Rozanov. Indeed, even during the period of enjoying a dominant position in any society (for example, in our country in the 1920s or now in Israel), the Jews, despite their well-known “fertility,” are kept within strict limits by some unknown force, while the surrounding people continue multiplying, although they are in worse material conditions.

Secondly, the fundamental role of carnivores and herbivores in life is quite similar. Actually, it is plants that ensure the existence of all animals, because they turn sunlight into nutrients. Herbivores eat plants, while carnivores eat herbivores. But still, herbivores are part of the process of nutrition, which is used by carnivores and without which they could not exist. In confirmation of the analogy under consideration, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Jews are active and often useful in their activities, but they are only able, so to speak, “to work on an already plowed field.” For example, Mendelssohn, Mahler and Berg were undoubtedly talented musicians. But they were able to express themselves only when Western music was created — by Gabrielli, Schutz, Bach, Haydn, etc. Or, in Russia, Jews were very active in recent centuries (we will not discuss the difficult question of whether it was for good or to the detriment of the natives), but in any case, this became possible only after the country was plowed up and the Russian state was created. And it is the same with any kind of activity, as detailed in my book. But the main contribution to world culture usually attributed to Jewry is the creation of a monotheistic religion. However, this was the direction in which the thought of all mankind was moving to in those centuries! So, Homer often has the expression “Zeus and Fate decided so.” In Plato, instead of the words “Gods” we often meet — “the higher Deity.” Finally, the most radical step towards monotheism was the reform of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, about 1350 BC. It clearly had a decisive influence on the religious thinking of the entire Near East. So here we meet a manifestation of the same feature.

Yes, finally, I myself have come across this phenomenon. I had many Jewish students. And a number of Jews from whom I studied. They were talented and (what is especially important) hardworking mathematicians. But we must not forget that the very physical and mathematical concept of the world, within which we all worked, was created by the Western European (Romano-Germanic) peoples. And representatives of other nations — Jews, Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. — are only continuers of an already established tradition.

The third argument in favor of the aforementioned analogy is that carnivores (predators, for example, cats) can exist and hunt only if they are hardly noticeable. In particular, they must lick themselves all the time, eliminating the smell (this remark belongs to a friend of mine). This can be related to the hostility of the Jews to the discussion of the “Jewish question.” For example, in my book, V. Toporov’s book Double Bottom is quoted several times. In the preface, the author describes his paradoxical position of being “not among his own” in any national group, which gives his observations a peculiar interest. In particular, speaking of the “Jewish type of behavior,” he writes: “among the identifying signs, one must undoubtedly point out a painful reaction to the very formulation of the Jewish question, which is often inherent in people of non-Jewish origin who are married to a Jew or Jewess, especially if there are children.”

There is a direct connection between these comparisons and the real problems that humanity is now facing (or will face in the next century). Let us pay attention to the fact that the influence of Jews throughout the world (in the development of capitalism, in the socialist movement and in the post-socialist era) has become especially noticeable in recent decades, coinciding with the period of dominance of European (or, as it is sometimes called, Western) civilization in the world. But in several of my works (published for the last 10 years) I have made arguments indicating that this civilization is now on the decline. The current economic crisis is just one of the confirmations of these thoughts. Probably, Western civilization will be able to somehow get out of this crisis, but it is only a rehearsal for its global collapse. One might think that the inevitable (as it seems to me) collapse of the dominance of Western civilization over the whole world will provide an opportunity to build relations between Jewry and other peoples in a new way. Actually, the Jews themselves are also interested in this, since other peoples must first “plow the field,” in which, as noted above, the Jews are able to work. But it is unlikely that they themselves are able to realize it. In their “genetic program” there is firmly embedded the belief that they are called to be “teachers of mankind.”

In other words, (only when this change happens) will a change of attitudes become possible. But whether this actually happens depends on our behavior (and the behavior of our descendants). Here comes to mind the thought expressed by Dostoevsky in a rough draft: “All these parliamentarisms, all the civil theories now professed, all the accumulated wealth, banks, sciences, Jews — all this will collapse in an instant and without a trace — except, perhaps, the Jews, who will adapt; what can be done to put them to work?”. (Sobr. soch. M., 1984. Vol. 26, pp. 167–168[2]). This statement now sounds rude due to the use of the word “zhid,” which is currently abusive. But when Dostoevsky wrote, it was not like that. It is worth replacing this word with any synonym in use now, and we will get a strikingly accurate prediction of what really happened in Russia, formulated forty years before the predicted events.

In such a situation, it is natural to recall the discussed analogy. After all, both herbivores and carnivores have existed on Earth for many millions of years. And, using this analogy, one can notice forms of possible coexistence of Jews and other peoples that do not encroach on the national existence of these “other” peoples. After all, one must believe in the lessons of life!

In particular, herbivores exist by grouping together in large herds. Parallel to this, it can be assumed that the peoples of the Earth are able to ensure their autonomous existence in the form of more or less nationally homogeneous states, which is a phenomenon that has been happening throughout history (modern Russia is an example). Nations, united in such states, must develop in themselves the understanding of the phenomenon of the “predator,” which is dangerous for their national existence. Peoples, following the instinct of self-preservation, should strive to push them out of positions that are essential for the life of the nation. They must protect the nation from the penetration of “foreigners.” I came across an example of such behavior when I once walked around the Moscow region (outside the city) in the company of my dog. The dog clearly reminded the cows of a wolf and fit neatly into their “image of the enemy.” Therefore, when they saw her, the cows united in a herd lowered their heads and, putting out their horns, stepped on the dog. Once, as a shepherd I met told me, they even trampled a small dog. This technique seems to be effective — it allows wild herbivores to protect themselves from predators. For example, as zoologists say, wolves rarely attack a deer inside the herd, otherwise they risk being killed by the horns or hooves of the deer. More often, wolves bully a sick deer that has lagged behind the herd.

Thus, a number of techniques developed long ago by nature serve to maintain the number of the herbivore populations at a constant level. These same methods, with appropriate modifications, can serve (and have long served) a similar goal in the social life of mankind. Of course, changes will take place — after all, Homo sapiens has existed for thousands of years in the more developed state of mankind. A difference between modern nations and a herd of cows must have developed in this time!

[1] From Diodorus, Book 34:

King Antiochus besieged Jerusalem. The Jews withstood the siege for some time; but when all their provisions were used up, they were forced to send ambassadors to him, to seek terms for a truce. Many of his friends urged him to storm the city, and to root out the whole nation of the Jews; for they only of all people hated to mix with any other nations, and treated them all as enemies. They suggested to him that the ancestors of the Jews were driven out of Egypt, as impious and hateful to the gods: for seeing that their bodies were infected with white marks and leprosy, by way of expiation the Egyptians gathered them all together, and expelled them out of their county, as profane and wicked wretches. After they were thus expelled, they settled around Jerusalem, and were afterwards united into one nation, called the nation of the Jews; but their hatred of all other men descended with their blood to their posterity. And therefore they made strange laws, and quite different from other people; they never will eat nor drink with any of other nations, or wish them any prosperity. His friends reminded him that Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, after subduing the Jews, entered into the temple of God, into which none was allowed to enter by their law except the priest. When he found in there the image of a man with a long beard, carved in stone sitting upon an ass, he took it to be Moses, who built Jerusalem and brought the nation together, and who established by law all their wicked customs and practices, abounding in hatred and enmity to all other men. Antiochus therefore, abhorring their antagonism to all other people, tried his utmost to abolish their laws. To that end he sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books, by which they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine’s flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine’s flesh.

When Antiochus’ friends had spoken about all these things, they earnestly advised him to root out the whole nation, or at least to abolish their laws, and compel them to change their former manner of living. But the king, being of a generous spirit and mild disposition, received hostages and pardoned the Jews: but he demolished the walls of Jerusalem, and took the tribute that was due.

[2] This refers to a 1984 Russian edition of the complete works of Dostoevsky.