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.

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.

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.