Translated by Alexander JacobErnst von Wolzogen (1855-1934) was an Austrian nobleman who wrote several humorous novels as well as the libretto for Richard Strauss’ second opera, Feuersnot (1901). He was also one of the founders of cabaret in Germany. In the following essay published in 1933, Wolzogen summarises the causes of anti-Semitism as being due to the natural aversion that Aryans feel for Jews, the opposition of Christianity to Judaism, and the commercial appropriation of German culture by the Jews for their profit and mastery over German society. He also recounts the personal distress that he suffered at the hands of the Jewish press and artistic managements of his day. Wolzogen’s personal experiences of the Jews in German artistic circles a century ago indeed possess more than a passing relevance to contemporary Western cultural sociology.

 *   *   *

The former General Superintendent² Dr. Ketzler called attention in 1930 to quite forgotten late Roman evidence regarding the aversion of the Western world to the Jews. A contemporary of Stilicho,³ the Roman senator Claudius Rutilius Namatianus,⁴ still a pagan, undertook a coastal voyage in 416 to Galilee in order to ascertain if his landed property there had suffered damage through the invasion of the Gothic troops of Alarich.⁵ He described this voyage in verse under the title De reditu suo and the manuscript has been preserved in some Roman archive. This Namatianus had leased one of his properties to a Jew. And he describes, partly with moral indignation, partly with malicious scorn, how he was received and treated by this lessee. The orthodox Pharisee did not let him take part in a kosher meal but had a meal cooked really badly specially for him and handed a steep bill to him for this hospitality. Besides this, he raised a loud racket about the improper water usage of the senator and his travel companions. And on the Sabbath he did not deign to do any service for his guest. Namatianus laughs thoroughly at the Jewish god who, after the strenuous work of creation of six days, is himself exhausted and must therefore rest for a day. He traces the cold-heartedness that struck him in all Jews to the senselessly strict prescriptions of the Sabbath holiday. He writes that the Jew treated him and his companions as cattle whereas the ridiculous arrogance and the blind obedience to prescriptions of religious law that had long become senseless appeared to him and the Romans as unworthy of human beings. At the end of his observations he breaks into the complaint,

Oh, if only Judaea had never been subjugated by the wars of Pompeius⁶ and the military force of Titus!⁷ Now from out of the broken breeding ground of pestilence creeps the contagion so much more widely and the conquered nation burdens their conquerors.

This groan of Namantianus relates to the fact that already in his time the Jews were felt to be blood-suckers in the dying Roman Empire. They had taken control everywhere of the financial business and brokerage, they constituted a state within the state and transferred their taxes to the secret leaders in Jerusalem more punctually than the state taxes to the Roman financial ministry. The former financial wealth of Rome had flowed mostly into their pockets. And Jerusalem was, along with Alexandria, the biggest stock-exchange of the world of that time. We see therefore from this eloquent document that, already at the time of Alarich, the aversion of the Aryan world to Jewry was the same as that today and had the same reasons. What has appeared recently is only the disastrous influence that they have exercised through the press for some hundred years.

Of course, whether Europe would have been preserved from the Jewish pestilence if Titus had not destroyed Jerusalem and had driven the inhabitants out may justifiably be doubted. The Jews tend even today to maintain that only with the diaspora were they forced to the exclusive occupation with trade and usury because the cruel hard-heartedness of their host nations had denied them the acquisition of land, naturalization in the cities, and equality in mechanical and intellectual activities. But in reality the entire history of Jewry, even that written by themselves, shows that, from the most ancient times, they were only exploiters of the work of others, parasites, vexatious appropriators of foreign cultural works, traders and speculators. Under the late Roman emperors they enjoyed the greatest freedom, indeed even privilege. They had ample opportunity to develop their intellectual gifts in creative activities in the centuries up to the Christianisation under Constantine, if they were inclined to do so. But they preferred the predatory business activities. They had a second favourable opportunity to live freely in mediaeval Spain, especially under the Moorish rule. And there they succeeded in crystallising out of themselves a sort of noble race, the so-called Sephardim. Their scientifically disposed minds showed a special preference for medicine, mathematics, philosophy and, later, also for poetry and music.⁸ We may gladly grant them the fame that in these fields they have accomplished competent works, in individual cases even outstanding ones, and for some centuries offered to the West perhaps the best doctors. But it would have indeed been a wonder if affluence and peace had not brought forth scholars and artists even in an intellectually active nation of traders. Art and science flourish always in times of peace and affluence. If the original nomad and desert bandit develops, once he becomes sedentary, into traders and usurers and finally, under careful greenhouse cultivation, also brings forth forms alien to their nature such as philosophers and poets that is not more surprising than if the descendants of long series of generations of farmers, soldiers, handicraftsmen and tradesmen in peaceful times also strike out of their mould and begin to engage in arts and sciences. That the Jews in all circumstances, even if their state had not been destroyed, would have spread over the world as traders is due to the fact that to them even today sedentary life is little valued. They indeed gather in a mass where there is a good business to be made and leave the place as soon as they have plundered it. One may just recall the mass immigration of Galician Jews into Vienna at the collapse of the Hapsburg Empire and the mass emigration of the same Jews to Berlin and Paris when the German inflation and the collapse of the French frank offered new shining opportunities to fish in troubled waters. Where there is no business to be made the average Jew will not stay long – nor even the most enthusiastic Zionist in the praised land of their ancestors newly gifted by the grace of England.

The reasons for the aversion of almost all peoples of the entire world against Jewry are of different sorts. Among the Aryan peoples it is based primarily in a blood hostility. The most recent scientific research has indeed demonstrated that the Aryan and Jewish corpuscles repel one another in a polarized way. From this perhaps is the inborn repugnance in all Aryans who are still racially conscious to some degree, which however is not expressed against all members of the Semitic race but only against the specifically Jewish type with a negroid element as is especially frequent among the Ashkenazim, the eastern Jews. This racial instinct can therefore perhaps be fully inactive with regard to such Jews who have already for generations willingly accepted Western intellectual culture and as a result of that have more or less obliterated the external stamp of the Jewish soul.

The aversion to Jewry for religious reasons, which operated in a very essential manner in the Jewish persecutions of the Middle Ages, is today hardly of significance. The Christian churches themselves have indeed taken care to see that the consciousness of the essential difference between the Jewish tribal god Jehova and the creator of Nature and the loving father of all human children taught by Jesus became increasingly weak. The acknowledgement of the Old Testament as ‘Holy Scripture’ even for the Christians, the opinion that Jesus was the Messiah promised by the Israelite prophets finally produced the sheer grotesque belief that we had to see in the Jews the worthy fathers of Christianity. Inwardly we regretted the obduracy not only of the contemporary members of the chosen people who did not wish to be redeemed by their divinely chosen Saviour; we became, and are still, eager Jewish missionaries who believe that we can change the Jewish spirit through baptism and win them over to our character!

This false belief operated totally catastrophically in English Puritanism. The English Puritans returned in sinister enthusiasm to the ‘old covenant’, worshipped Jehova and considered it the highest honour to be the descendants of the two tribes of Israel that had disappeared without a trace that, according to the legend, were cast away on the British Isles. They felt themselves also conveniently obliged to fulfil the command of Jehova which meant they had to ‘devour’ all the nations and exercise loyalty and faith, justice and love of one’s neighbour only with regard to one’s own religious comrades. Only in recent times has the knowledge become the property of all mankind that Jesus the Galilean – whether he was pure Jewish blood or not – stood from the start in his entire thought and feeling in sheerest opposition to Judaism. Indeed, he is, according to a rabbinical legend, the son of a Jewish hairdresser in Jerusalem and a Roman, therefore perhaps Aryan, officer who later became a captain in Capernaum. (This would explain the friendship between Jesus and the house of this captain evidenced by the evangelists.)

The same rabbinical legend emphasizes most strongly that the hatred of the orthodox against the young rabbi Jeshua ben Jusuf, who, during his long sojourn in Egypt, sat at the feet of the Jewish religious philosopher Philo of Alexandria⁹ and there filled his mind with Platonic ideas, and therefore records that this renegade half-Jew had defiantly set himself beyond the strict prescriptions that strictly forbade the entry of bastards into the inner sanctuary of the Temple. What the raging hatred of the Pharisees conceived against the bold Galilean – who called them the children of the Devil – seems to me to have greater probability than the desperate efforts of our modern wild Aryans who would like make Galileans Gauls and cannot imagine the carpenter’s son from Nazareth other than as blue-eyed and with blond locks. Then necessarily even Gautama Buddha, who raged against the Indian pantheon, must have been a descendant of the Atlanteans! I mean that one can proceed very well without such violent constructions, by simply explaining the personality of Jesus as a good fortune or as a divine act of mercy that granted to the Jewish people a religious genius. It cannot at all appear as a wonder that a race that brought forth so many passionate and even poetically gifted preachers of atonement and prophets finally gave birth to a religious revolutionary.

As such, Jesus had naturally to come to the understanding that the Pharisaic orthodoxy had nothing to do with real religion. Even the knowledge that the pure teaching of Jesus was disastrously falsified by Paul, and especially through his smuggling in of the Jewish concept of sin, has become the common possession of all thinking and perceptive Christians only in recent times. Even if now the most ingenuous church-going Christians hardly hate Jewry because their forefathers killed the Saviour on the cross, all really religious men, no matter if they belong to a church or not, must reject the Yahweh religion for the simple reason that it educates its adherents to the exploitation and destruction of all other nations.

The present-day liberal Jews declare with great decisiveness, and presumably also through sincere conviction, that in their conscience they no longer feel bound to the Mosaic law and its Talmudic interpretation. That may indeed be believed of them; the cultivated Reform Jew of today has in fact not read the Schulchan Aruch and the Talmud, and perhaps does not even understand Hebrew any longer. But unknown to himself his thought and feeling move even today on the tracks that were laid out to their forefathers. It is still only a few Jews who have lived with our Aryan concept of honour, especially our entire attitude to God and our fellowmen, to such a degree that it has become as natural to them as to us.

We always shake our head in uncomprehending astonishment when even Jews who are intellectually and morally superior Jews and who, as doubtlessly honourable men, enjoy the respect of their host peoples, take into their protection Jewish criminals of the worst sort and confront our justified moral indignation with the accusation of anti-Semitic persecution.

The crudest cases of this sort are indeed still in recent memory so that one does not need to go into them in greater detail. We were told that we should take as a model this unconditional support of blood brothers ‘through thick and thin’. But we are fully incapable of doing that. Our conception of honour and justice forbids us to turn black into white in order to help a racial comrade out of difficulty. And when a criminal of our blood receives his punishment we say with satisfaction that he deserved it. We are just to the point of weakness, for we have, for example, let the Aryan Social Democrat Crispien¹⁰ declare in the German parliament that he does not recognize any fatherland that is called Germany without throwing him out of the window! One may evaluate our concept of honour, our conception of noble humanity, our categorical imperative, in whatever way one wishes but it is essentially different from the Jewish conception, in most cases even directly opposed to it.

A third reason – in present-day Germany decidedly the most important – for the rejection of the Jews is their presumption of bringing not only the economy but also the entire cultural affairs of our nation under its sway. Anti-Semitism has simply become a defensive weapon. Ever since press freedom was declared to nr constitutional, the Jewish intelligentsia rushed to the newspaper industry and their money enabled them to establish daily newspapers, weekly and monthly journals and to provide a circulation for these that exceeded by far the circulation figures of the German publications. From that time on, thus for the last two decades of the previous century, the influence of the Jewish spirit has become considerable. The mass of harmless German readers did not notice anything. They believed what was written and allowed themselves to be blinded and dazed by the skilled presentation. They learned to laugh at what they had once respected. They became ever more unsure in their natural instincts. Indeed, they learned even to think, to a certain degree, in a Jewish manner! Only a few Germans had worried thoughts about the fact that increasingly more teaching positions in sciences were occupied by Jewish lecturers, increasingly more stages directed by Jews, the commercial mediation between artists and the public, the publishing houses, the art trade increasingly fell into Jewish hands. The innocent people shrugged their shoulders: ‘Well, why not! They are an intelligent people, they present much to minds occupied with the sciences, excellent musicians, actors, singers, directors, conductors, and even very remarkable poets and brilliant writers. And if they take part in the competition with German gifts only sheer envy could deny them their success.’ The speculation on the inborn German love of justice succeeded brilliantly: Already in 1906 a Dr. [Moritz] Goldstein declared, in a questionnaire in Kunstwart¹¹ that intellectual Jewry felt called to take over the administration of German cultural matters.12 That meant therefore: the tame Germans may write poetry, compose, paint, sculpt, think and invent as much as they want, but insofar as there is a business to be made of their intellectual products the Jew would make it. That is indeed his right for the German does not understand anything about business. And with this decision at least the entire German readership happily gave itself up to the Jewish and Jewish-influenced newspapers.

I may perhaps bring in, for example, my personal experiences in this context. I came from Weimar to Berlin at the beginning of the eighties unsuspectingly, that is, from the incense-filled church of classical tradition and from the magical circle of the living personality of Liszt.¹² But hardly had I achieved my first modest successes as a humorous writer and dramatist than I saw myself trapped by the Jewish cultural administrators ruling even at that time. I soon moved in almost exclusively Jewish circles. I was not seldom the sole Gentile in the company of prominent oriental persons. I did not think there was anything bad in that. Only, I thought afterwards that I did not wish in any case to enter into a friendly relationship with any of these many witty and amiable foreign men. Then, in 1901, I unfortunately allowed myself to be tempted to realise in Germany the idea of the small stage, of the artistic music hall, brought by Aryans, the French cabaretists, the Dane Holder Drachmann,¹³ the Swede Sven Scholander¹⁴ and the Germans Bierbaum¹⁵ and Wedekind.¹⁶ In 1920 I had acquired the necessary distance from the miserable experiences of 1901-1905 to be able to represent them in my memoirs not only truthfully but already with the wistful smile of self-irony. These memoirs appeared under the title ‘How I killed myself’ in Westermann’s monthly journal. But since they lasted until the Überbrettl cabaret period, delegates of the Jewish cultural community demanded of the publisher the immediate stop of further publication and intensified this demand with the threat that in case of refusal to do so all Jewish subscribers would stop subscribing to the monthly journal. The publisher did not allow himself to be intimidated and the monthly journals prosper today more strongly than ever before. But henceforth almost all German stages remained closed to me – and indeed not only those managed by Jews. Naturally also all my other artistic undertakings as well as my books were maliciously criticized or fully ignored by the entire Jewish-influenced press. And why was that? Because I had made clear in the case of the establishment of my own theatres how well Jewry is able to lay their cuckoo eggs in our German nest. The first Jew that I employed in my undertaking soon brought a racial comrade with him and, before I knew it, my secretary and my office assistant were the sole Aryans in the entire undertaking! So long as a large crowd of Jews earned highly from my affairs the Jewish press trumpeted my fame full-throatedly all over the country. The few German artists that I dared to employ, to save face, were thrashed or at best tolerated with a shrug of the shoulders. Before the end of a year my playwrights were no longer called Dehmel,¹⁷ Liliencron,¹⁸ Bierbaum, Falke,¹⁹ Thoma,²⁰ Wedekind but Leipziger, Krakauer, Warschauer and so on. How that could happen, how they paralysed my will and demeaned my name as a signpost for a purely Jewish business, one may read in my memoirs, which later appeared as the first volume of a five-volume edition of selections of my works at Westermann Publishers in Braunschweig. But I had, already before the composition of the memoirs, tried to shape my experiences with the Jewish cultural politics in a literary form, but then left the work lie because I did not find any artistically satisfactory conclusion. Only in 1923 did I take up the manuscript again and attempted to salvage those successful humorous-satirical chapters that dealt with my experiences by appending them to a newly invented story with a political background. That was not a happy idea, for the secret league of the valuable opposition of the German aristocracy against Wilhelm II with allusions to the Eulenburg affair²¹ (whose real background was at that time still unknown to me) did not agree with the playful cockiness from my cabaret period. The book appeared under the title Sem, der Mitbürger at the Brunnen Publishing House in Berlin. The editor of the Central Verein Zeitung newspaper for defence against anti-Semitism, Fritz Engel, went into a frenzy about that. He referred me urgently to the public prosecutor, and if he were to refuse, to a psychiatrist.

I may interpret this paroxysm as a sure proof of the fact that I had hit the mark with my mockery of the Jewish character, which was nevertheless good-humored and strictly truthful. As is well-known, only Jews may permit themselves to mock Jews. And I had indeed gone too far in representing a prominent Jew as rather dim-witted. Consequently I was punished with death. The German literary historian Soergel²² took over almost word for word Engel’s judgement, without knowing the work, and recorded it forever in his Deutsche Literaturgeschichte.²³

Thereafter the boycott screw was tightened even further. The director of a south German city theatre, who had accepted a new play of mine, was quite publicly threatened that the press would ruin him if he dared to perform my play. All booksellers were forbidden to place my books in their windows. And it was even reported to me by an acquaintance that he had asked for a book of mine in a German shop, whereupon the owner sharply winked at him and only when the other customers had left the shop did he confess to him in whispers that he indeed wished to sell him the book but had to request him not to speak of it to anybody else because otherwise his competitor on the same street would certainly report him to the Jews and would ruin his business. When I report these things to respectable Jews they shake their heads in disbelief and assure me that they know nothing of such machinations. Maybe. But one who has any relationship with the Chawrusse²⁴ or the great Cabal, knows about it precisely – no matter whether he dwells in Berlin between Koch Street and Jerusalem Street or in New York or in Jaffa. – It is entirely the same in the case of politics: one must just ask which one of our people our enemies hate the most – it is the men who have understood them most deeply and who are therefore most to be feared. If the street boys shout Hep! Hep!, if wild Teutonicists declare without any hesitation that every man that they dislike is a Jew, and narrow-minded racial fanatics reject completely all Jewish accomplishments, that does not disturb their sleep; but woe to the incautious person who, through his own sharp observation, has recognized the true visage of Jewry and who attempts to use his knowledge to enlighten people!

I think that such a personal experience – and all who have dared to associate with our culture-administering Jews will have similar things to report – illustrates more glaringly the impossible situation than the most detailed observations could. We simply cannot tolerate any longer the presumption of these foreigners, who make up hardly one percent of our population, this violation of our mind. In the meantime, most of the Germans capable of thought have, thank God, perceived how remarkably stupid the phrase was that anti-Semitism is a cultural shame. The young Germany of today, with its new ideals and its fervent capacity for enthusiasm, will certainly proceed beyond this condition of self-defence and move to attack. Only when the Jew will never be a German citizen of Jewish faith but only a foreigner tolerated in a friendly manner would the poison fangs of anti-Semitism be broken, then one can let the guests of a foreign race ply their trades peacefully and utilize their many-sided gifts.

For, if they then misuse their freedom to harm our economy through usury and cut-throat competition or morally undermine our intellectual disposition, then we would know how to make them harmless through expulsion. Those among them who no longer make a good business in the new conditions will soon look for other places of refuge, and that will perhaps include the worst and most dangerous elements among them. With a sifted Jewry there will perhaps be a rather middling income. It is possible that the German Jews will then develop into a better variety, such as the Sephardim once were in Spain, and that then the intellectual Germanisation would succeed more often than hitherto. In any case, the indispensable precondition for the solution of the Jewish Question remains that we stop feeling like besieged people in our own house threatened with starvation and gas poisoning, that we learn once again to exercise our proprietary rights as proud free people.

---

1. ‘Grundsätzliches und Persönliches zur Judenfrage’, published in the collection of essays, Das neue Deutschland und die Judenfrage, Lepizig: Rüdiger Verlag, 1933.

2. A church administrator.

3. Stilicho (ca.359-408) was a military commander in the Roman army who rose to political prominence in the Western Roman Empire.

4. Namatianus was a Roman poet of Gallic origin who composed a poem De reditu suo in two books, of which only about seven hundred lines are still extant.

5. Alarich I (ca.370-411) was the first king of the Visigoths

6. Pompeius magnus (106-48 B.C.) was a Roman general – and rival of Julius Caesar – who annexed Syria in 64 B.C. and made Judaea a client kingdom shortly after.

7. Titus Vespianus (39-81) was a Roman Emperor who captured Jerusalem in 70 and destroyed the Second Temple.

8. Wolzogen is referring to the so-called ‘Golden Age of Jewish culture’ in Muslim Spain in the 10^th and 11^th centuries.

9. Philo Judaeus (ca 20 B.C.-50) was a Jewish philosopher in Alexandria who attempted to interpret Judaism in the light of Platonic philosophy.

10. Arthur Crispien (1875-1946) was a Social Democratic member of parliament.

11. From Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 8:  Jewish cultural domination was a theme of anti-Semitism, but in 1912 when Zionist author [Moritz] Goldstein made his famous comment that Jews should contemplate the implications of the fact that the German cultural heritage was now largely in Jewish hands, the reaction was self-deception:  The unexpected frankness with which a Jew who eschewed self-delusion thus broke a taboo which otherwise had only been violated by anti-Semites with malicious tendencies, illuminated with lightning clarity the prevailing socio-political tensions. And perhaps more illuminating was the embittered reaction of most of the Jewish participants . . . who repudiated the thesis as such, declared the ventilation of the question to be improper, and tried with all their might to efface the divisions thus exposed. (Scholem 1979, 30)  Goldstein was a Zionist, and his essay was greeted with hostility by liberal Jewish organizations who assailed the “excessive nationalism” and “racial semitism” of the Zionists (see Field 1981, 248). As Field (1981, 248) points out, another aspect of Jewish self-deception revealed by this incident was that these liberal Jewish critics never confronted the central problem raised by Goldstein when he noted that anti-Semites such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were “the best spirits, clever, truth-loving men who, however, as soon as they speak of Jews, fall into a blind, almost rabid hatred.” The credibility of the anti-Semites, not Moritz Goldstein, was the fundamental problem for German Jews.

12. Liszt was the famous composer and pianist Kunstwart was a German arts periodical that was published from 1887 to 1937.

13. Holder Drachmann (1846-1908) was a Danish poet and dramatist.

14. Sven Scholander (1860-1936) was a Swedish musician and sculptor.

15. Otto Bierbaum (1865-1910) was a journalist and writer whose novel Stilpe inspired Wolzogen to establish the first cabaret, the ‘Überbrettl’, in Berlin in 1901.

16. Franklin Wedekind (1864-1918) was a German playwright who contributed to the formation of the Communistic ‘epic theatre’ of Erwin Piscator and Bertolt Brecht.

17. Richard Dehmel (1863-1920) was a German poet whose poems were set to music by numerous composers including Strauss and Schoenberg.

18. Detlev von Liliencron (1844-1909) was a German poet and novelist.

19. Gustav Falke (1853-1916) was a German poet based in Hamburg.

20. Ludwig Thoma (1867-1921) was a German author and publisher whose novels satirise Bavarian rural life.

21. The Eulenburg affair was a scandal involving Kaiser Wilhelm II’s court. It began when the Jewish journalist Maximilian Harden accused Philip, Prince of Eulenburg, in 1907, of having a homosexual affair with General Kuno von Moltke.

22. Albert Soergel (1880-1958) was a German literary historian:

23. Soergel’s literary history, Dichtung und Dichter der Zeit, eine Schilderung der deutschen Literatur der letzten Jahrzehnte, was published in 1911.

24. A term for the Jewish mafia of Berlin.

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.

Conclusion

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.

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”:

• Mike Whitney: Are the Houthis Being Punished for Doing the Right Thing?
• Chris Hedges: The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse
• Richard Falk (Jewish): In Gaza, the West Is Enabling the Most Transparent Genocide in Human History
• Pepe Escobar: How the West Was Defeated
• Jonathan Cook: Western Racism Laid the Foundations for Israel’s Genocide in Gaza
• Larry Johnson: The United States and Europe Are Hell Bent on Sparking World War III
• Alastair Crooke: Gut Feelings Make for Strategic Errors
• Patrick Lawrence: The Crisis at the New York Times

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 factual.  Identify 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 www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

---

[1] See the Peace Index for January 2024 (survey 8^th to 15^th), 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 www.armreg.co.uk, 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.