Anti-Semitism

Tucker is now officially an anti-Semite

/1 Comment/in , /by

Welcome to the club.

JTA: Heritage Foundation president stands by Tucker Carlson after host platforms antisemitism

The president of the Heritage Foundation, the leading conservative think tank, defended right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson and said the group would not cut ties with him days after Carlson hosted an interview with antisemitic influencer Nick Fuentes.

Kevin Roberts also said in a video on the social network X that Christians should reject calls not to criticize Israel, which he said were coming from a “venomous coalition” of “bad actors,” and that conservatives should further refrain from “canceling” Fuentes.

“We will always defend truth, we will always defend America and we will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda,” Roberts said. “That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and, as I have said before, always will be, a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.”

He warned Carlson’s critics: “Their attempt to cancel him will fail.”

Fuentes has mounted an outside bid for influence within the larger right-wing movement, using overt antisemitism as his main flank. His chummy conversation with Carlson, who agreed with the provocateur on many issues including Israel, was seen as a further mainstreaming of antisemitic views within the right.

Roberts, however, saw it as embodying the conservative ideals of free debate.

“I disagree with, and even abhor, things that Nick Fuentes says,” Roberts said, without elaborating. “But canceling him is not the answer, either. When we disagree with a person’s thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas in debate. And we have seen success in this approach as we continue to dismantle the vile ideas of the left.”

Framing Carlson’s critics as dissatisfied online, Roberts continued, “The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians. And we won’t start doing that now. We don’t take direction from comments on X.”

Elsewhere, the Heritage head staked out a position that was critical of Israel, at a time when once-sacrosanct support for the country on the right is diminishing.

“Christians can critique the state of Israel without being antisemitic. And of course, antisemitism should be condemned,” he said. “My loyalty as a Christian and as an American is to Christ first, and America always. When it serves the interests of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so, with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn’t, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington.”

The term “globalist” has a history of being used as an antisemitic dog whistle.

Roberts’s remarks on only supporting Israel when it suits the United States echoed similar statements made by Vice President JD Vance in Mississippi Wednesday evening — at an event in which Vance, too, was criticized for failing to condemn a question laced with antisemitism. In his video, Roberts also called Vance a friend and positively referenced his comments.

On X, some conservative Jews criticized Roberts.

“There can be no respectful debate with people who have said the things that Fuentes and Tucker have said about Jews,” replied Mike Ginsberg, a Jewish Virginia Republican. “Regarding Jews, neither Tucker nor Fuentes have taken rational political positions one can debate honestly … Choosing to associate with them — consciously, knowing what they have said about Jews — is a choice.”

One person thankful for Roberts’s remarks was Fuentes himself.

“Thank you for your courage in standing up for open discourse and defending Tucker against the Israel First Woke Right,” he wrote to Roberts on X.

Esau’s Tears

/5 Comments/in , , /by

 

2794 Words

Many of the great works of counter-Semitism from the past fifty years are splendid attacking books. They lay out their cases against Jewish power and subversion and let the reader decide how to respond. Some of the most famous of these, of course, are Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together, Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion, and Igor Shafarevich’s Russophobia. Less common are defensive works of counter-Semitism, ones that exonerate White gentiles from the demonization often found in Jewish historiography. Albert Lindemann’s 1997 book Esau’s Tears is once such work since it shields European peoples from the collective guilt with which leftist historians—many of whom are Jews—continually smear them. Lindemann also humanizes many notable anti-Semites from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, thus clearing their names and the names of the people who followed them.

This is not to say that Lindemann champions anti-Semitism or makes apologies for it; rather, he strives to make two major points. One, that many ideas and episodes from history which today would be labeled anti-Semitic were in fact perfectly reasonable, based in truth, and the result of demonstrably bad Jewish behavior. Lindemann never fails to present Jews of the past feeling this way as well, thereby qualifying them as anti-Semites by today’s utopian standards. And two, that such pushback against the Jews did not and does not inexorably lead to mass murder. This is the thesis which many leftist historians wish us to swallow, and Lindemann strikes out against it:

How we interpret history is always powerfully influenced by the concerns and values of our own age, but it is finally misleading and unjust to single out and indignantly describe, for example, the racism of nineteenth-century Germans (“proto-Nazis”) without recognizing how much beliefs in ethnic or racial determinism were the norm in most countries and were to be found among oppressed minorities, Jews included, as much as oppressive majorities – how they were, in short, part of a shared intellectual world, a zeitgeist – but did not lead to mass murder in every country.

Jewish historian Salo Baron coined the term “lachrymose theory” to describe “the eternal self-pity characteristic of Jewish historiography.” In German, this is known as Leidensgeschichte (“suffering history”), and is often employed not to present a balanced, disinterested narrative of past events but to prevent future suffering by ignoring Jewish culpability and vilifying gentiles. This “denunciatory theory” of Jewish historiography could easily walk hand-in-hand with Baron’s “lachrymose theory,” since it brands gentiles with the stigma of eternal guilt (the absolution of which can only be achieved of course through philo-Semitism). Resisting both theories is the hill upon which Lindemann makes his stand. In his sights are three popular volumes of Jewish history from three Jewish polemicists—The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowcz (1975), Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (1991) by Robert Wistrich, and Hitler’s Willing Executioners (1996) by Daniel Goldhagen. These works, as Lindemann rather politely puts it, have “a tendency to a colorful and indignant narrative, accompanied by weak, sometimes tendentious analysis.” In dispelling the blatant anti-gentilism of these authors, however, Lindemann never wishes to exclude Jews from his readership. He never explicitly ceases to strive for rapprochement. A major theme in Esau’s Tears emerges which warns Jews that a hostile, polemical, and frankly dishonest approach to history will only give real anti-Semites more ammunition to hurl at Jews.

Lindemann’s central conceit springs from the Book of Genesis. Twin brothers Esau and Jacob vie for their father Isaac’s affections, which Jacob—the younger of the pair—deceitfully swindles from Esau. Enraged and heartbroken, Esau forces Jacob to flee into Mesopotamia, where he gives rise to the Jewish people. Esau, on the other hand, gives rise to gentiles. It is said that anti-Semitism will cease only when Esau’s tears stop flowing. I don’t think Lindemann—who himself is not Jewish—could have selected a better title for a work which counteracts the “lachrymose theory” of Jewish historiography. Gentiles have tears too, and as with their innocent Old Testament forebear, they often spring not from fantasies or psychoses, but from the palpable misdeeds of Jews. An eye for an eye, a tear for a tear.

Lindemann proceeds by disclosing one inconvenient fact after another to underscore his point. Jews in history were not relegated to ghettos; they lived there on their own accord to keep apart from gentiles. Jews in history were not forced into usury, liquor trades, and criminal activity because no other vocations were open to them; they did such things because they wanted to and didn’t care so much about the harm they caused peasant gentiles. And yes, even in Russia, they were able to own land, they just chose not to work the soil themselves. Often, Jews in history were poor because the overwhelming majority of gentiles around them were also poor. And the ancient and medieval ones were not so innocent. Lindemann gives us examples of ancient Jewish oppression of Christians and pagans, as well as some frankly hateful language from the Talmud (for example, “The best among the gentiles should be slain”). The Book of Deuteronomy, Lindemann points out, can reasonably be seen as sanctioning genocide, and many Jewish thinkers throughout history expressed views which today would seem racist, supremacist, or chauvinistic. In comparison, Jews were treated better in official Church doctrine than were Muslims or heretics. Lindemann never lets gentiles off the hook for their bad behavior, but simultaneously never ceases to remind the reader of the many long periods during which Jews and gentiles got along reasonably well.

Esau’s Tears offers a brief history of the Enlightenment, which, due to the premium it placed on egalitarianism and fraternity, got the ball rolling for Jewish emancipation in Europe. Not surprisingly, many Enlightenment thinkers, most famously Voltaire, were irked by Jewish intolerance and separatism. That the Ashkenazi Jews in France were rude and lacked manners didn’t help (the Sephardim, on the other hand, were much better behaved and so faced fewer obstacles to citizenship). Also not surprisingly, those Frenchmen who had the most experience with Jews—such as the National Assembly delegates from Alsace—were the ones most bitterly opposed to granting them equal rights. In an ironic twist, Lindemann reports that after the Jews won their equality . . .

[m]any Alsatians insisted that Jewish vices, far from disappearing under the new laws, had actually gotten worse in their province. Jews had not taken the opportunity to assume honest physical labor but had pursued with even greater success their old ways of usury and exploitation.

In another ironic twist, Sephardic leaders in France often staunchly resisted equal rights for the Ashkenazim “due to their low moral character.” This is one of many instances in Esau’s Tears of Jews behaving anti-Semitically and having good reason to do so. Most commonly, it sprang from the embarrassment and discomfiture many assimilated Jews in Western Europe felt when confronted with their Eastern European brethren whose morality, hygiene, and manners left much to be desired.

In eastern Europe things were much worse due to the millions of Jews that had recently become subjects of the Tsar by the mid-nineteenth century. These teeming Ostjuden (eastern Jews) comprised by far the largest concentration of Jews in the world and put Russia in a state of crisis almost right away with their exploitive relationships with the peasants. Lindemann pre-dates John Klier in exonerating the Tsarist government regarding the pogroms of the early 1880s. And when discussing the more violent pogroms which occurred in places like Kishinev in the early twentieth century, Lindemann mordantly recalls that Jewish revolutionaries had been disproportionately responsible for the assassination of leading Russian officials and police officers leading up to those events, including that of Vyacheslav von Plehve, the Russian Minister of the Interior. Lindemann touches on the Jewish tendency to exaggerate atrocity, such as when Ukrainian insurrectionist Bogdan Chmielnicki rose up against the Poles in 1648, and targeted not only Jews, but Polish nobility and the Catholic Church. Jewish Leidensgeschichte has it that at least 100,000 Jews were massacred, but modern historians, including Paul Johnson in The History of the Jews (1987), seriously doubt this. Lindemann also points out that while this was going on, Europe was embroiled in equally brutal wars, and it “is open to serious question if Jews suffered in substantially larger numbers than others caught up in the raging battles.” And in a drily humorous moment, for those who complain about Jews being cooped up in the Russian Pale of Settlement during this time, Lindemann reminds us that the Pale was forty times larger than the modern state of Israel.

No review of Esau’s Tears would be complete without addressing the mileage Lindemann gets out of Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish novelist and British Prime Minister from the late nineteenth century. The zeitgeist of the age was, in effect, race- or ethnic-realism. Very few people—least of all Jews—denied that different peoples had differing ingrained capabilities and temperaments, both negative and positive. (Linemann thankfully does not deny it either.) Anyone who offers nineteenth-century racial determinism as exhibit A in favor of the inevitability of Nazism will have to come to grips with Disraeli, whom Lindemann describes as “the most influential propagator of the concept of race in the nineteenth century”:

In his novel Coningsby, Disraeli depicted a vast and secret power of Jews, bent on dominating the world. His noble Jewish character, Sidonia (whom Disraeli let it be known was based on Lionel Rothschild), describes race as a supremely important determinant (“all is race; there is no other truth”). Race, he argued, had always been a central factor in the rise of civilization, and western civilization could not have flourished without the Jewish race.

Lindemann even quotes a Rothschild who in private correspondence flatly blamed anti-Semitism on Jewish “arrogance, vanity, and unspeakable insolence.” A paragon of such insolence is nineteenth-century Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz who despised Germany despite living there. He once claimed that Jews who convert to Christianity are “like combatants who, putting on the uniform of the enemy, can all the more easily strike and annihilate him.” Lindemann makes it plain that such destructive attitudes were not terribly unusual among prominent Jews and that the oft-exaggerated notion of Jews as culture destroyers “reflected an undeniable reality.” Lindemann reports how Jews often weaponized the press against Christians or goyim in general while taking great umbrage at even the slightest criticism of Jews. And then there’s all the scams and boondoggles Jews have been involved in, epitomized by the Panama Canal scandal which occupied French headlines in the 1880s and early 1890s.

Investigation into the activities of the Panama Company revealed widespread bribery of parliamentary officials to assure support of loans to continue work on the Panama Canal—work that had been slowed by endless technical and administrative difficulties. Here was a modern project that involved large sums of French capital and threatened national prestige. The intermediaries between the Panama Company and parliament were almost exclusively Jews, with German names and backgrounds, some of whom tried to blackmail one another.

The fiasco caused thousands of small investors to lose their fortunes, to say nothing of the 5,000 Frenchmen and 20,000 Afro-Caribbean laborers who lost their lives in the tropical heat for nothing.

So, the anti-Semites were often correct, or at least were not thrashing about in fantasies, when they accused Jews of clandestine misdeeds or bad behavior. And the more Ostjuden there were in a particular region, the more misdeeds and bad behavior there were to complain about—usually. The bulk of Esau’s Tears covers these as well as the anti-Semites who used their powers of analysis and pattern recognition to call attention to them. Most importantly, Lindemann humanizes these individuals, warts and all, and in almost all cases exonerates them from the blood guilt with which the denunciatory school of Jewish history wishes to stamp them. For a history of anti-Semitism from 1870 to 1939, one can do no better than Esau’s Tears.

Lindemann goes high and low, and far and wide, in his assessment of anti-Semitism. In the 18th century, Johann Gottfried von Herder established the idea of volkgeist, or, spirit of the people, which famed composer Richard Wagner made use of in the next century when discussing Jews in music. French researcher, Paul Broca was a man of the Left whose data forced him to conclude that racial differences exist, quite against his intentions. Where zealots such as Wilhelm Marr—the man who coined the term anti-Semitism—and Georg Ritter von Schönerer saw Jews through a racial lens, religious men such as Adolf Stoekel and Baron Karl von Vogelsang saw the behavior of Jews as a threat to Christianity. Otto Böckel, a popular demagogue known as “the peasant king,” tirelessly spoke out on behalf of the German lower classes, who often suffered as a result of Jewish predations. Meanwhile, anti-capitalist theoretician Eugen Dühring wrote about the “cosmic evil” in Jews. Above them all were top-flight intellects such as Heinrich von Treitschke and Houston Stewart Chamberlain who lent great credibility to anti-Semitism and were respected by Jews and non-Jews alike.

Then of course there was Karl Lueger, the immensely popular anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna prior to the First World War. Lindemann refuses to defend Lueger on all accounts, but points out that his anti-Semitism was often little more than red meat for his base and may not have been entirely genuine. Vienna’s Jews were not materially harmed during his tenure and in fact thrived when this supposed enemy of the Jews ruled the roost—as did many others. The only notable anti-Semite that Lindemann discredits is Edouard Drumont whose popular writings he dismisses as “inconsistent scribblings.” Still, Lindemann credits Drumont as the muck raking journalist who exposed the Jewish role in the Panama Canal scandal.

Lindemann concedes that the historical record is filled with vulgar no-accounts and charlatans who climbed aboard the anti-Semitism bandwagon after failing in other endeavors. But for over a century, the anti-Semites with talent, energy, convictions, and discipline had reacted rationally to real problems and were by no means drawing a straight line to the Nazis. Indeed, Lindemann points out how the diversity of nineteenth-century anti-Semitism makes drawing such a line very difficult. After all, there were plenty of racists who were not anti-Semitic, and quite a few anti-racists who were. And what to make of anti-Semites who assailed Jews from the standpoint of religion or socialism or conservatism? Furthermore, Lindemann demonstrates that despite the breathtaking variety anti-Semitic thought and policy prior to the Nazi era, there were two aspects in which there was almost no diversity at all. One, from the leadership of all anti-Semitic movements outside of Russia or Romania, there were no calls to violence against Jews. And two, all of them, with the possible exception of Lueger, rarely succeeded in making anti-Semitism stick with the people. Before the First World War, anti-Semitism never gained much of a foothold in Western or Southern Europe, or in Hungary. Yes, its presence was stronger in Germany and Austria due to their larger Jewish populations. But even in these places it never enjoyed prolonged mainstream popularity. It was only in Romania and Russia where it was so common that it did not need demagogues or ideologues to prop it up. According to my reading of Lindemann, the tepid success of anti-Semitism resulted not only from European forbearance, but also because assimilated Jews and the Sephardim were in general better behaved and more respectful of their gentile hosts than were the pushy, ill-mannered Ashkenazic Ostjuden who often ruthlessly pursued money or revolution.

In his first chapter, Lindemann suggests that “the notion of the anti-Semite as underdog is one that needs to be given serious analysis.” This is because the highly influential historians of the Jewish denunciatory school continually dehumanize and demonize the anti-Semites of history as if framing a case of first-degree murder in a court of law, with the victim, of course, being the martyred six million. Exculpatory evidence is downplayed or ignored, and goals other than the impartial search for the truth are pursued. In the latter chapters of Esau’s Tears Lindemann condemns Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, of course, but still humanizes the man. He points out what so many of us know today—that Hitler and the Nazis were in large part a reaction to the widespread atrocities of the Soviets, a people that the denunciatory school of Jewish history rarely smears with the same vigor it exerts when smearing the Nazis and their innocent anti-Semitic predecessors. Perhaps this is because a highly disproportionate number of these Soviet criminals were Jews themselves.

If Esau’s Tears tells us anything, it’s that nothing good can come out of this, except for perhaps more anti-Semitism.

Zio-Populism: The New Alliance Between Israel and Europe’s Nationalists

/10 Comments/in , , /by

The present populist era is rife with all manner of odd realignments.

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt recently faced sharp criticism from its ex-director Abraham Foxman over his initial plan to speak at the Israeli Diaspora Ministry’s International Conference on Combating Antisemitism in Jerusalem. For Foxman, the current ADL chief’s decision to share the stage with European populist figures was a bridge too far.

This conference counted on the presence of Jordan Bardella, the leader of France’s National Rally party; member of the European Parliament Hermann Tertsch of Spain’s Vox party; MEP Charlie Weimers of the Sweden Democrats party; MEP Marion Maréchal, granddaughter of National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen; and MEP Kinga Gál, of Hungary’s governing Fidesz party.

“Neither the left nor the right are friends of Israel and the Jewish people,” said Abraham Foxman, who led the ADL for nearly three decades. “Since the explosion of left-inspired antisemitism and anti-Israel hate in the last several years, the pseudo-Fascist right is trying to use the Jewish community as a platform, to demonstrate how legitimate and tolerant they are. Israel and the Jewish community should not give them legitimacy.”

Foxman is correct. Parties like the AfD and National Rally gain legitimacy by being slavishly pro-Israel—an excellent marker of the power of Jews in Western societies.

The presence of these controversial figures prompted a backlash from the ruling liberal establishment of the West. Felix Klein, Germany’s commissioner for combating antisemitism, canceled his appearance, citing his shock at the participation of populist politicians. Likewise, French-Jewish intellectual and ardent Zionist Bernard-Henri Lévy withdrew from his keynote address after learning Bardella would be speaking at the conference. Greenblatt, himself, eventually bowed out as speaker.

Bardella was particularly vehement in his comments on anti-Semitism:

“Since Oct. 7 [2023] in particular, France and Europe are witnessing a deadly honeymoon between Islamists and the far left,” Bardella said. “One provides the fanatics, the other institutionalizes the evil … We have to face anti-Jewish action head on … We have a solemn commitment in France to fight antisemitism everywhere at all times in all of its forms, whether from radical Islamists and the far left or the far right and their delirious plots. None of this hatred has any place in France or Europe.”

Bardella linked “the rise of Islamism, resurgence of antisemitism and the migratory phenomenon tearing apart all Western societies,” and said that the “National Rally is the best shield for the Jews in France.”

In contrast with his party’s founder, Bardella noted that he visited Yad Vashem and spoke of “the unspeakable horrors” of the Holocaust.

Despite the controversy surrounding the Israeli-sponsored conference, it proceeded without issue.  Overall, it reflects a notable shift in Israeli foreign relations, spearheaded by Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli of the Likud Party. Even before the Israeli government officially abandoned its policy of avoiding cooperation with right-wing populist parties in Europe, Chikli had been engaging with European populists.

He made appearances at conservative gatherings such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, where he praised President Donald Trump for his efforts to combat antisemitism. Chikli also spoke last year at Europa Viva 24, a gathering hosted by Spain’s Vox party, where he shared a platform with Marine Le Pen.

This growing closeness between Israel’s current leadership and European nationalist parties has stirred controversy both at home and abroad. Chikli’s vocal support for Le Pen during France’s recent elections drew criticism from diplomats in both countries. Last month, he and several Likud colleagues attended CPAC Hungary. In Western capitals, Hungary has been increasingly treated as a pariah for its unconventional foreign policy of treating NATO rivals such as China and Russia as normal countries and for its defense of traditional values and opposition to mass migration.

To those who have a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish influence in Western politics, the notion of Jewish groups aligning themselves with the populist would be almost unheard of. However, for seasoned observers of Jewish political behavior, these Jewish overtures to the European right are another classic case of the “Kosher Sandwich.” The strategy is quite simple: Jews take advantage, or sometimes even create a pressing social issue — immigration in this case. They subsequently insert themselves and their associates into both sides of the debate. But the Jewish interest in this case is to twist and exploit the issue for their own interests. Political newcomers, unaware of the deception, accept the Jew as an ally, convinced they are united in a common cause — only to be misled in the end.

One can see this in the “counter-Jihad” movement. Anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson, who has a history of receiving funding from the pro-Israel Middle East Forum and Jewish tech billionaire Robert Shillman, has been one of the most useful front goys for Jewish interests. While he has valid critiques about Islam’s corrosive influence in the United Kingdom and other West countries, Robinson has no issue with the UK importing millions of Hindus and Sikhs from the Indian subcontinent.

In effect, Robinson serves Jewish interests by promoting a Zionist-approved form of immigration restriction. Certain non-Whites — Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia — are demonized and barred from entering Western countries while other non-Whites less hostile, or at least apathetic, to Jewish political machinations continue flooding the Old Continent by the millions. West.

Jewish co-optation of European populist parties is a multi-decade project. Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán, who has otherwise sensible views on immigration and foreign policy, has a blindspot for Israel. This is largely due to his connection to Jewish Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein—one of the key architects of Orbán’s and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral successes.

As a result of this Jewish connection, Orbán has been one of Israel’s strongest diplomatic allies in Europe, especially in the post-October 7 world. Despite his positive overtures to the Israeli government, the Hungarian Prime Minister continues to be demonized for being antisemitic by Western liberal institutions.

Such Jewish penetration of the populist Right has also been present in Italy. Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s right-wing Lega party, has cultivated strong ties with Israel, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. Salvini has visited Israel multiple times, including in 2018 when he met Netanyahu, who called him a “great friend of Israel.” During these visits, Salvini expressed support for Israeli policies and criticized the EU’s stance on Israel.

A similar trend has occurred in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, the founder and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) has a long-standing, personal connection to Israel, having lived and volunteered there as a young man and visited the country dozens of times. He firmly believes that Israel should have dominion over the entire land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, and has openly advocated for moving the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem. Wilders has met with Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, and other high-ranking officials. He has been welcomed as a “true friend of Israel” by Netanyahu and has attended official events in Israel.

With prominent French populist leader Marine Le Pen being convicted for embezzling European Union funds, Israel now sees an opening for outreach in the French populist scene. It has invited Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally (RN), and Marion Maréchal (Le Pen’s niece), to official conferences in Jerusalem, including the aforementioned government-organized antisemitism conference attended by the Netanyahu government.

Both Le Pen and Bardella have sought to rebrand the National Rally as a party amicable to Zionism, emphasizing support for the Jewish state’s security and opposition to “Islamist ideology.” Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Chikli publicly endorsed Le Pen, calling her “excellent for Israel” due to her anti-immigration and anti-Islamist positions.

The linking of right-wing populism with Zionist-friendly causes has also been pursued by political strategists and intellectuals like Steve Bannon and Yoram Hazony since the 2010s. Their distinctive approaches—Bannon’s political organizing versus Hazony’s think tank-building—represent two avenues that the American conservative movement has taken to make the world safe for Zionism in the populist era.

All things considered, what’s unfolding here appears to be a part of a backup plan for international Jewry to preserve itself in a 21st century marked by significant geopolitical upheaval. In a world where the United States can’t always be counted on to slavishly defend Israel, Jewish interest groups will strive to have all their bases covered by buying off populist parties abroad. As more and more voters in the West grow disillusioned with the post-World War II order, populist parties are well-positioned to upend traditional conservative and liberal parties and assume the levers of power.

As a result, the shiftiest elements of the transnational Jewish community will make attempts to insinuate themselves in these populist parties to ensure that they don’t become explicitly anti-Israel, much less antisemitic. Europe’s natural tendency, as evidenced by the scores of mass expulsions of the Jews across the Old Continent over two millennia of recorded history, is one of directly confronting the excesses of Jewish economic and political machinations.

To prevent this persistent element of European politics from making a comeback, Jewish interest groups have made it a point to defang White political power on both sides of the pond since the end of World II. In a post-liberal order, where the United States is no longer the unipolar power and its NGO appendages have lost their credibility, the Jewish diaspora will continue its subversive agenda albeit with a few tweaks in its strategy. Enter kosher populism—the only form of White grievance politics allowed in Jewish-dominated polities.

White advocates would be wise to not fall for the glossy exterior of regime-approved “populist” movements. While they may appear to be anti-system, their flaws with respect to challenging Jewish influence, ruin whatever positives they bring to the table. A hardened political cynic would view philosemitic populist organizations as containment vehicles designed to deradicalize Whites and prepare them for their eventual replacement by millions of foreign interlopers. Under normal circumstances, the White segment of the electorate would be gravitating towards nationalist parties that confront Jewish political power head on.

It can’t be stressed enough that European ethnic nationalism and strong anti-Zionist political movements are not permitted in the West. By leveraging hate speech laws, enforcing deplatforming across social media and financial sectors, and promoting controlled opposition groups, the Jewish lobby has thoroughly shaped the discourse in a way that prevents a friend-enemy distinction from ever materializing—the critical factor in undermining the Jewish supremacist projects.

Thanks to the Talmudic sleight of hand a certain faction of Jews has employed in their infiltration of nationalist groups, they ensure that Whites become cognitively polluted by Judaized talking points and expend vast resources and political energy in futile causes. In the meantime, the transnational criminal enterprise that is the Jewish global network continues to act with impunity—be it in the Middle East through the further consolidation of Israel’s geopolitical standing or by accelerating the demographic annihilation of the West via mass migration.

A strict policy of social distancing from institutions that are committed to preserving the Judeo-American Empire is of the essence. Given the demographic crises facing so many Western countries, it makes little sense to strike a Faustian pact with the Jewish institutions responsible for these developments.

As they say, with the Jews you lose.

Bernard Bachrach’s “Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe”

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe
Bernard Bachrach
University of Minnesota Press, 1977 (Available online at Archive.org)

2910 Words

The term “lachrymose” should be in the lexicon of all modern dissidents. According the first entry in my 1984 Webster’s II dictionary, it means, “Weeping, or given to weeping: tearful.” This term gained prominence regarding the Jewish Question in the late 1920s when historian Salo Baron coined the “lachrymose theory” of Jewish history, which describes “the eternal self-pity characteristic of Jewish historiography.” Such an approach, as many of us know, amounts to dishonestly politicizing history by exaggerating both the innocence and suffering of Jews as well the power and malevolence of White gentiles. The point, of course, is not to increase our knowledge of days gone by but to cynically promote the ethnic interests of Jews in the here and now.

Bernard Bachrach successfully challenges this mindset in his brief 1977 volume Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe, wherein he demonstrates how the lachrymose approach falls short when held against historical data. In his preface, he writes:

Such treatments of early medieval Jewish policy have generally been presented in conjunction with a view of barbarian Europe that depicts Christian secular rulers as powerful and religiously oriented, the Church as the dominant institution in society with immense influence over the political process, and the Jews as very few in number, powerless, and easily victimized though innocent. This picture of strong monarchs, a powerful church, and an insignificant Jewry, however, does not fit the evidence for early medieval conditions.

Although the work is technically one of history, really it is a reflection on historiography and, if writ large, a repudiation of the infusion of politics into the study of Jewish history. In his notes, Bachrach mentions how Jewish scholars had attacked Baron’s lachrymose theory “for providing ammunition with which the anti-Semites can attack Jews.” Thankfully, Bachrach places himself above such concerns (regardless of his personal sympathies). The result is both useful and interesting since in most cases when kings or Church magnates acted against Jews, they were in fact being reasonable.

Bachrach begins with the Visigoths, who were the post-Roman Germanic rulers of the Iberian Peninsula. Their Jewish-policy baseline sprang from the old Roman law which established that Jews were to be . . .

  • left alone to practice their religion
  • given judicial autonomy within their communities
  • prohibited from holding public office wherein they could inflict punishment on Christians
  • prohibited from converting non-Jews to Judaism
  • prohibited from owning Christian slaves

Yet, as Bachrach mentions repeatedly, just because a law was on the books does not mean that it was respected or enforced. King Theodoric the Great, the Ostrogoth who reigned over the Visigoths during the early sixth century, for example, had ignored many of the laws which limited Jewish activity. The Visigothic monarch Reccared I, who reigned a half-century later, has been considered anti-Jewish since he decreed that children of Jewish and Christian parents be baptized. Some modern scholars viewed this as forced conversion. Bachrach, on the other hand, reveals that the Visigothic Jews themselves would not have objected to this given that, according to Jewish law at the time, a Jewish woman married to a non-Jew deserved to be stoned to death and that a child born of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother wasn’t even a Jew. Bachrach exonerates not only Reccared but also the Church leaders for being “concerned about the spiritual and material well-being” of such children. Further, Reccared removed the death penalty for Jews who proselytize and even ignored a missive from Pope Gregory I, which entreated him to punish Jews who were illegally dealing in Christian slaves in Narbonne.

In Visigothic Spain a rough pattern then emerges over the next two centuries:

  1. Jews are given wide freedom by pro-Jewish kings, which they then abuse, typically through bribery, proselytization, dealing in Christian slaves, and forcibly circumcising them.
  2. In response, anti-Jewish kings replace the pro-Jewish ones (often with the support of the Church) and enact laws meant to protect Christians and Christianity from Jews.
  3. Jews do not like this, and subsequently lend their financial and military influence to viable enemies of the crown until the anti-Jewish king is deposed or dead.
  4. Rinse and repeat.

This is a good early medieval example of Jewish aggressiveness against the host society and willingness to exploit non-Jews.

Sisebut in 612 was the first of these supposedly anti-Jewish kings. He reversed many of Reccared’s pro-Jewish policies and attempted to enforce the extant laws about Jews owning and converting Christian slaves. Later in his reign he offered the Jews of Spain an ultimatum, conversion or exile—something that even the anti-Jewish Church officials opposed. This may sound harsh to modern ears, but Bachrach shoots down any interpretations that Sisebut was acting out of greed, fanaticism, or malice. Simply put, the Jews of Spain had opposed Sisebut’s ascension to the throne, and he was understandably trying to hamstring their political influence in response. In any event, his anti-Jewish decrees went largely ignored.

Things then ping-pong between pro- and anti-Jewish monarchs over the following decades. One pro-Jewish king, Chindasuinth was in fact much harder on his fellow Christians than he was on his Jewish subjects. After Chindasuinth’s successor Reccesuinth reinstated Sisebut’s anti-Jewish legislation, Reccesuinth’s successor Wamba had to crush a Jewish revolt in Narbonne. Wamba then banished all Jews from the city. Yet, as with most anti-Jewish actions in Visigothic Spain, it didn’t last.

Wamba, however, was not a religious fanatic, and his appreciation of the power of the Jewish community apparently led him to a rapprochement with them. The Jews of Narbonne were allowed to return to their city where for a long time they continued to be a dominant force. Wamba, in addition, did not enforce the existing anti-Jewish laws, and at the councils which met during his reign the Jewish question was not discussed.

Bachrach also states bluntly that “as late as 694 Jews still owned Christian slaves and carried on business as usual.” This was during the reign of Egica, who also tried to weaken the economic base of the Jews in order to rid his political enemies of their financial strength. He went to so far as to order that all Jews in his kingdom “be stripped of their property and be made slaves.” As in the past, such legislation was an abject failure because most of the leadership in Visigothic Spain was either openly tolerant of Jews or susceptible to their bribes. Still, Bachrach shockingly defends Egica’s decision as rational since the Jews had indeed schemed against him:

Had not refugae sought foreign aid to help rebel causes throughout much of the seventh century? Had not the Jews actively participated in military operations against Wamba? Were not Jews sufficiently disadvantaged as a result of Egica’s politics that would benefit by opposing him actively?

Historian Edward Thompson defines refugae as “men who went to foreign powers with a view to launching attacks on Spain from abroad.” Thus, it can be inferred from Bachrach’s text that many of these traitorous individuals were in fact exiled Jews. This becomes an important point in the early eighth century when, as Egica’s grandson Achila in the north, the upstart Visigothic king Roderic in the south, the Byzantines, and the Arab Muslims were all vying for control of the Iberian Peninsula. In the ensuing chaos the Spanish Jews repaid the Goths for two centuries of prosperity, freedom, and tolerance by allying with the Muslims and seizing a number of cities in Spain—and prospering thereafter.

Although Bachrach does not state this explicitly, it seems that the Visigoths would have benefited greatly had they actually followed through on the anti-Jewish legislation with which scholars of the lachrymose tradition so keenly besmirch them.

In Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe, Bernard Bachrach saves the best for first, with the remainder of his treatise lacking much of the punch and parry found in his chapter on the Visigoths. This is not Bachrach’s fault since the history itself is not quite as compelling vis-à-vis Jews. Basically, the Ostrogoths, the Byzantines, the Merovingians, and the Carolingians were pro-Jewish and rarely wavered from that. These Europeans also ignored the mildly anti-Jewish Roman laws as well as pressure from Church magnates to penalize Jews when proselytizing or abusing the flock. From the sixth to the ninth centuries, the Jews of Western and Southern Europe enjoyed a golden age of tolerance and prosperity.

Indeed, in an earlier work Bachrach suggests that the Jews were so wealthy, powerful, and aggressive that until around the middle of the fifth century the government viewed a strong anti-Jewish policy as not politically viable, even though it was continually being pressured in this direction by the Church.[1] The rather limited anti-Jewish actions of the government during the 150 years following the Edict of Toleration of 313 are interpreted “as attempts to protect Christians from a vigorous, powerful, and often aggressive Jewish gens” (408). The Jews themselves were perceived by the emperors, the government, and the Church fathers as “an aggressive, well-organized, wealthy, and powerful minority” (p. 408). Particularly revealing are the suggestion that the solvency of the municipalities depended on Jews paying their taxes and the fear that offending the Jews could set off widespread and costly revolts, such as the one led by Patricius in 351.

Of the early-sixth-century Ostrogothic monarch Theodoric, Bachrach writes:

It seems, however, that Theodoric pursued a clearly defined pro-Jewish policy that called for the recognition and enforcement of their privilegia. At the same time he managed to ignore old imperial legislation the restricted the activities of Jews. Those who harmed Jews were effectively and severely punished; alleged or potential Jewish wrongdoing was investigated, admonished, and even threatened with “royal displeasure”; but at no time is there evidence of punishments having been meted out or of anti-Jewish laws having been enforced.

Bachrach points out that the Jews of Italy at the time provided many educated men for public service as well an even greater number of armed fighting men loyal to the crown. So why wouldn’t Theodoric want to pursue pro-Jewish policies? In the late sixth century, Pope Gregory I also had a hand in protecting Jewish interests, especially when he made allowances for Jewish slave traders who may have “accidentally” found themselves owning Christian slaves. Despite Gregory’s professed “horror and loathing” of Jews, he continually relied upon the relatively lenient Theodosian Code rather than the stricter Justinian Code when dealing with Jewish matters.

Compared to such a standard, the medieval leaders whom the lachrymose school considers anti-Jewish really weren’t. For example, the Byzantine emperor Justinian did confiscate synagogues in North Africa in 535, but this was in response to North African Jews having supported the Vandals in their war against the Byzantine Empire. Another historical hiccup can be found in how Byzantine emperor Heraclitus decreed in 632 that Jews convert to Christianity. Bachrach reveals that this was merely a stratagem to entice potentially disloyal Byzantine Jews to support the Empire’s wars against the Persians and Muslims. As it turned out, the Jews called the emperor’s bluff and refused their support, and Heraclitus still did not enforce the decree. Byzantine Jews later repaid their emperor’s tolerance by rioting in Constantinople in 641 and attacking the Hagia Sophia in 661.

Then, of course, there was the famously pro-Jewish king Charlemagne who did everything he could to promote Jewish mercantile and scholarly activity. In particular, he encouraged the Jewish group known as the Radanites to trade far and wide across Europe, the Muslims world, and beyond. Bachrach even speculates that it is partially because of Charlemagne that Jews became so dominant in international trade to begin with. Despite this beneficence, however, Jews still found ways to abuse the system. For example, they forced Charlemagne to ban Jewish mint masters from operating out of their homes so to cut down on fraud. He also had to prohibit Jewish moneylenders from accepting “the persons of free Christians” as collateral.

As for controlling his kingdom’s economy, Charlemagne

emphasized the importance of the local market where his officials could oversee weights and measures, collect taxes, and monitor prices. Some Jews in the Carolingian realm seemed to have found it more profitable to do business from their homes away from the government’s watchful eye. Charlemagne therefore issued an administrative order forbidding Jews from storing commodities intended for sale such as grain and wine in their homes and thus hoped to stop business from being done outside of the market place.

Bachrach often makes the point that many of the acts of monarchs deemed by lachrymose scholars as anti-Jewish were in fact either sheer bluffs, toothless edicts, retributive fair play, or rational responses to Jewish malfeasance. Charlemagne’s actions above are a great example of this last type of behavior.

The most persistent opponents (I hesitate to use the term “enemy”) of the Jews during the early Medieval period were the Church magnates. They were naturally most concerned about Jewish intermarriage and proselytization as well as the continued Jewish practice of owning and circumcising—thereby converting—Christian slaves. Since Church leaders, at least on paper, had little to gain from the economic benefits that unfettered Jewish activity brought to the table, they were quick to rail against the gross injustices associated with this activity. Of the Carolingian times, Bachrach writes (emphasis mine):

Thus there are contemporary reports that Jews purchased Christian slaves from Christian owners and sold the former to the Muslims in Spain. Jews also apparently castrated some slaves especially for the foreign market and even kidnapped Christian youths for sale abroad.

The growing Jewish trade in pagan Slavs was also a problem. Obnoxious behavior such as Jews entering convents to have “secret dealings” with nuns further offended the ecclesiastics.

Incidentally, in his Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton University Press, 1993), Louis Feldman points out that the circumcision of slaves well into the sixth century was a Jewish religious law at least partly for ritual reasons (circumcision enabled slaves to perform their duties, such as handling food, in a manner consistent with Jewish religious law) but undergoing this procedure did not mean that the slaves had been converted to Judaism. Like Bachrach, Feldman also emphasizes Jewish wealth and prosperity and their alliances with wealthy, powerful non-Jews.

The strongest and most notable anti-Jewish Church presence during this period was Bishop Agobard of Lyons (see also Andrew Joyce’s “Agobard of Lyon and The Origins of the Hostile Elite”). During the reign of Charlemagne’s son Louis in the early ninth century, Agobard actively campaigned against Jewish criminal excesses and constantly pressured the crown to enforce the anti-Jewish laws which had been on the books since Roman times. Further, he promoted a general segregation of Jews and gentiles and strongly opposed the ongoing Judaization of Western Europe. If Agobard had his way, Christians would be banned from purchasing wine and meat processed by Jews. Clearly, all of this would have severely limited Jewish economic strength in the nascent Holy Roman Empire, and was something that Louis—who was even more pro-Jewish than his father—would not have allowed.

Things came to a head around 822 when Agobard and a Jewish slaveowner faced each other in imperial court. Essentially, Agobard had absconded with one of the Jew’s slaves, a former pagan who had been converted to Judaism (willingly or not, Bachrach does not say) and later baptized by Agobard. The judge found in favor of the slaveowner, and Louis added insult to injury by peremptorily dismissing Agobard from the court. Bachrach then rationalizes Agobard’s actions and essentially asks the reader to sympathize with him rather than with the king, the court, or the Jews. After mentioning how various supporters of Agobard had to go into hiding or were punished by imperial officials after the trial, Bachrach writes:

He [Agobard] seems to have believed, and he was correct, that compromise with the militant, aggressive, and powerful Jews of Lyonnais would have meant defeat for the Church. As a religious churchman deeply committed to the spiritual health of his flock he had little choice in his course of action; he fought and lost.

That the greatest anti-Jewish advocate of the era met with total defeat is a powerful blow against the lachrymose school of Jewish historiography. Bachrach makes this point several times throughout his volume, and he is quite convincing. He also makes plain that such an approach not only selectively remembers anti-Jewish actions among gentiles and downplays their pro-Jewish behavior, it also exaggerates the power of monarchs and their willingness to enforce anti-Jewish laws. Bachrach essentially accuses lachrymose scholars of exaggerating Jewish suffering during the early Medieval period in Western Europe.

This then leads us to the next question: if the Jews are exaggerating historical events during this period, what other historical events are they exaggerating? It’s a fair question, and one which exceeds the scope of Bachrach’s study. Nevertheless, Bachrach, to his credit, leaves the door open for its pursuit.

We should remember that Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe is more a commentary on historiography than a work of history per se. It’s too thin to be otherwise. Readers shouldn’t look to it for many “gotcha” moments whereby Jewish historical sins are revealed and historic anti-Semitism exonerated. Yes, there is some of that, but one would be better served viewing American Krogan’s excellent 6-part video series entitled The Visigoths and the Jews for this sort of thing. For his part, Bachrach remains evenhanded by presenting the positive side of the equation. He often depicts Jewish-Christian interaction as voluntary and mutually beneficial. He’s also quick to point out the good Jews can do, such as in 793 when the Jews of Narbonne—the same place where they had been illegally trading in Christian slaves—defended their city and the Carolingian realm against Muslim invaders.

It gets to the point where we begin to wonder if these are even Jews that Bachrach is writing about. His depictions appear strange compared to the Jews that Europeans have known so well since the Middle Ages. Yes, the vigor, venality, economic proficiency, and internationalism will ring a few bells. But one does not find much zealous proselytizing or military prowess among Jewish diasporas these days. Further, Bachrach makes little mention of usury and almost no mention of economic exploitation or cultural degeneracy. Anything resembling the Jewish revolutionary spirit which caused so much damage in the twentieth century also does not make an appearance. Could it be that such stereotypically Jewish traits were less common back then in that part of the world than they are today? Perhaps one reason why Western European Jews and Christians got along relatively well during this period was because these Jews were somehow genetically different than modern Jews? Bachrach never mentions whether he was writing about the Sephardim or the Ashkenazim. Perhaps the evidence from that period was too murky in 1977 to make such distinctions?

In any event, with Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe Bernard Bachrach has given us a highly useful work with which to refute the pervasive lachrymose school of Jewish historiography.

[1] Bernard S. Bachrach, “The Jewish community in the Later Roman Empire as seen in the Codex Theodosianus,” in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner & E. S. Frerichs (Scholars Press).

Yamakazi Jews: They Hate Whites More than They Love Themselves

/27 Comments/in , /by

During war it is often appropriate to attack despite putting oneself in great danger by doing so. If one can score a knockout blow, thereby ending the hostilities, the risk becomes justified. In such circumstances, victory is everything, and second place is not an option—even though it is obviously the only other one.

But what if there is no war? What if there are no men in uniform shooting each other, no airplanes or drones dropping deadly fire from the sky, no ships or submarines outmaneuvering each other on the high seas—and still there’s a subset of a population bent on attacking another, even when it is against their interests to do so? This encapsulates much of the Jewish Question, and what European Whites have been forced to deal with since their Jewish minorities had been emancipated in the late nineteenth century.

Before the formation of Israel, it could have been argued that the Jewish diaspora was acting in its best interests by opposing gentile nativism in America and many parts of Europe. Maybe. These days, however, with Jews being the per-capita wealthiest minority in the United States and with a nuclear-armed Israel thriving and receiving billions in free aid, this is no longer the case. To hurt America and to contribute to its decline through illegal immigration and openly anti-White policies, is to risk ultimately harming the successful Jewish diaspora. Yet the Jewish elite continues to do this very thing through its unwavering support of the Democrat Party.

I have a name for such suicidal/genocidal Jews: Yamakazis. Such Jews ignore or downplay the often vicious anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism of their non-White allies in order to press the attack upon their ultimate bête noir—or bête blanch, if you will—White people.

It’s as if they hate White people more than they love themselves. They must feel that they are at war with Whites—despite Whites not being at war with them. I’m reminded of how Jewish Avant garde composer Arnold Schoenberg eschewed having his atonal works performed during the First World War, given how detested they were by the Czech public. But peacetime was another matter. In a letter, he once wrote [emphasis mine]:

. . .surely, it isn’t cowardly if I now try to avoid that sort of thing. In peace-time—which means war-time for me—I am quite prepared to go back to being everyone’s whipping boy, and everyone who is accounted indispensable today will be welcome to lash out at whatever bit of me he thinks most vulnerable. But for the present—more than ever—I should like to keep out of the limelight.[1]

More apropos might be what Jewish banker and Bolshevik financier Jacob Schiff once said after his 1911 meeting with President William Taft in which he attempted to persuade Taft to abrogate a trade agreement with Russia. Schiff wanted to punish Russia for its discriminatory treatment of Jews. When Taft refused, Schiff reportedly declared to one of his allies—in classic Daffy Duck fashion—“This means war!”

Such all-consuming truculence was on display recently during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago when members of the Jewish political elite, such as New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff, stood in front of cameras and proclaimed their loyalty to a political party which is growing as anti-Semitic as it already is anti-White. They made nary a mention of Israel’s war in Gaza and the violent backlash Jews have been facing over it from the Left—especially the Muslim Left. During the proceedings in Chicago, however, this was made impossible to ignore.

According to the Washington Free Beacon:

On Tuesday, pro-Hamas agitators disrupted a DNC event with hostage families hosted by Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group. The protesters shouted, “Zionism has got to fall” and “Shame on you” at attendees. Dozens of anti-Israel protesters were also arrested after clashing with police near the convention Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, it was see no evil and hear no evil from the Jewish elite, as represented by Schumer, who pointed to his blue lapel pin and claimed he was wearing it to “stand up to antisemitism.” But, of course, he was looking in the wrong direction. Outside, a mob of incensed anti-Semites was practically screaming bloody murder against Israel and Jews, yet Schumer would rather vent his wrath at affirmed Israel ally and philo-Semite Donald Trump:

As the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in American history, I want my grandkids and all grandkids to never, never face discrimination because of who they are. But Donald Trump—this is a guy who peddled antisemitic stereotypes. He even invited a White supremacist to Mar-a-Lago.

And according to Daniel Greenfield of Front Page, no one at the DNC denounced the unruly Jew haters, either for being unruly or for hating Jews. Joe Biden even admitted they had a point. The American Free Thinker also made the most of Schumer’s hypocrisy when whining about anti-Semitism while remaining on excellent terms with noted anti-Semite Al Sharpton.

As if this weren’t remarkable enough, however, something unheard of occurred at this year’s DNC: Jews had to meet in secret for their own security. That is how dangerous it has gotten for them in the political party they fund and pull leftward, always leftward. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Jewish groups acting on the periphery of the DNC had to act very carefully indeed:

The Jewish Democratic Council of America held panel discussions with former U.S. ambassador to Spain Alan Solomont and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), but attendees were required to register before receiving the location. Private security and metal detectors were present at both events.

The Israeli-American Council only disclosed the location for its “Hostage Square” discussion to attendees a few hours before it started, the Times of Israel reported on Wednesday.

So let’s get this straight: actual anti-Semitism is happening at the 2024 DNC which forces Jews to meet in secret to avoid violent encounters with anti-Semites to whom their own party openly caters, and the highest ranking Jew in the US government can’t find anything better to complain about than how Donald Trump once had a dinner at his home crashed by a supposed “White supremacist.” In other words, I, Spencer J. Quinn, by virtue of writing this essay for this website, am a greater threat to world Jewry than people who are willing to go jail for violently protesting the very fact that Israel exists. The internal consistency of my arguments, the amount of verifiable evidence I bring to the table, the fact that I am arguing in good faith—all mean nothing to people like Schumer.

There is zero credibility here, as usual. But this past DNC has taken it to a whole other level. Never before has the suicidal nature of the Jewish diaspora elite been in starker focus.

Chuck Schumer is a kamikaze Jew. He is a Yamakazi. He only knows one thing: to attack, regardless of what this will do to his own people. When it comes down to the aleph and tau of the Jewish Question, people like Shumer care little about real anti-Semitism—just as they care little about the welfare of other Jews. First and foremost, they care about hating White people. And since Donald Trump has become the avatar of White America, they unload all their ammo at him.

After all, this is what you do during a war.

But this is a cowardly, undeclared war. I wonder if Chuck Schumer proudly stands up to antisemitism on the Right only because that is where it is indeed weakest. But where it is strongest, that is, on the Left and right under his hooked nose, he keeps as quiet as a mouse.

There’s a lesson in here somewhere, folks.

Jewish Troubles with Uppity Rappers

/57 Comments/in , , /by

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

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

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

Ye’s Sound and Fury

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons in Power and Censorship

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Jews Fear Black anti-Semitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

Lyor Cohen and Kanye West

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

How to become an Anti-Semite?

/88 Comments/in , /by

Critical or laudatory writings about Jews seem to be an inexhaustible subject although it often turns into a repetitive rant. Over the last two thousand years tons of books and articles have been published either praising Jewish soul-improvers and their apostate apostles to the heavens, or describing their early Judaic brethren as the scum of the earth. Along with each historical surge in Jewish influence, there follows, as can be witnessed anew in the USA today, the inevitable upsurge in antisemitism – whatever this word means, or whomever this generic label with many meanings may apply to. Any objective account about Jews is a coincidentia oppositorum, or simply put, a conceptual tension resulting from the co-existence of two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other and presupposing each other. Objectively speaking every book and every remark in favor or against Jews depend on the self-avowed objectivity of a cited author. Carl Schmitt, a prominent German conservative legal scholar, now a household name for the Alt-Right and New Right in Europe and the US, shortly after the National-Socialist takeover, wrote in a chief German legal journal of that time:

The necessary task of bibliography is very difficult given that it is undoubtedly necessary that we determine as accurately as possible who is a Jew and who is not.[i]

However, the most important thing, coming to light these days, is the clear and definite understanding that Jewish opinions cannot be put on the same level in their intellectual content with the opinions of German or other non-Jewish authors. [ii]

In order to prevent any critical inquiry into the Jewish question, carried out by numerous German anthropologists, biologists, psychiatrists and legal scholars in Weimar Germany and later on in National-Socialist Germany (see here) many Jewish and many left-leaning authors, immediately after the end of WWII, began to inundate the educational and political markets with demonizing treaties not only about “ugly Nazis,” but also about the forever lurking White Gentile threat. One of the harshest critics of antisemitism, quite in line with the re-educational ukases of his coreligionists and coethnics of the newly reestablished Frankfurt School, wrote: “Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.” [iii]  The prime purpose of the newly launched academic field of psychoanalysis, which later gave birth to critical race theory, and later on to a bizarre “French Theory” curriculum, was to pathologize Whites into perpetual feelings of guilt. It spread in the 1950’s like a wild fire, particularly in American colleges. Soon, the entire social science curriculum in the West turned into courses of demonology with labels such as “antisemite” and “Nazi” becoming the symbols of Absolute Evil. It follows that is impossible to converse with Absolute Evil. With humans labeled as extraterrestrial monsters or subterranean demons, one cannot negotiate; legal provisions of human rights cannot apply to species declared as non-humans beforehand. They need to be destroyed. Such a Manichean view, based on criminalization of the adversary, soon became the foundation of US foreign policy with its latest offshoot now being observed in the US demonizing attitude toward its former WWII Russian ally. Soviet-Russian soldiers, after their liberation of Auschwitz in January 27, 1945, were crucial in cementing the post-WWII liberal and communist antifascist narrative; today, by contrast, their Russian offspring must be excluded from the protections of international law.

Many Jews are well aware that works critical of their behavior, and especially works published by German scholars prior and during WWII, were not all, and not always, products of aberrant minds. Some of those works contain unsettling truths about Jews.  Hence the reason that the first step initiated by the Allies in ravaged Europe, following WWII, was to destroy or make inaccessible thousands of books deemed to be dangerous to the establishment of the post-WWII world order.[iv] (see also here).

Early French communist and antifascist author Jean Paul Sartre, was among the first to provide the script for demonizing political adversaries, based more on his personal vendetta than on his true concern for French Jewry. As the German troops were preparing their retreat from France in the late summer of 1944, he drafted a short  book in which he commiserated with the French Jewry, comparing their plight to the hero in the Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial,  “who  knows that he is considered guilty; judgment is continually put off — for a week, two weeks… [v] .  Very likely Sartre rushed to publish this little Judeophile manifesto of his in order to better adjust himself to the spirt of the vindictive antifascist times in Europe, but also to distract his audience from the fact that in the early 1930’s he benefited from the scholarship in a nascent National-Socialist Germany. The pro-German Vichy government in France, from 1940–44, had never bothered him, leaving the performance of his dramas unscathed. This did not prevent Sartre, however, by the end of 1944, along with a bunch of his communist fellow travelers, and with the little help of American occupying powers, to launch a large-scale operation of intellectual inquisition against thousands of French anticommunist authors, artists and wrong-thinkers — the process to be known decades later in America under the name of cancel culture:

Of all professional categories, journalists and writers were hit the hardest. This underlines the ideological character of the conflict and the ensuing purges. The proportion of writers and journalists who were shot, imprisoned, and barred from their profession surpasses all other professional categories. Do we need to be reminded of the assassination of Albert Clément, Philippe Henriot, Robert Denoël, of the suicide of Drieu La Rochelle, of the death of Paul Allard in prison prior to court hearings and of the executions of Georges Suarez, Robert Brasillach, Jean Luchaire […] [or] the death sentence pronounced in absentia or a commuted prison sentence for Lucien Rebatet, Pierre-Antoine Cousteau, etc.?” [vi]

If one agrees for a minute that antisemitism is indeed a form of mental disorder necessitating the banishment of all antisemitic authors from the public domain, or having them dispatched to psychiatric wards, then one must just as well conclude that hundreds of books critical of Jews, from antiquity  to modernity, also need a similar treatment in retrospect:  from Tacitus to Treitschke, from Dickens to Dostoyevsky from Voltaire to Vacher de Lapouge. The alphabetical list of authors who have made critical remarks about Jews goes off to infinity.

The degree of antisemitism is difficult to gauge, only confirming time and again that this word has an extensive capacity for diverse meanings. There are latent antisemites who limit themselves to mild criticism of Israel in the hopes of avoiding public rebuke, and there are also those who use explicit and often gross words for the portrayal of Jews. There is a huge difference in antisemitic syntax between the well-mannered Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc and the folkish writer Louis Ferdinand Céline, who, other than writing his antisemitic pamphlets (still banned in France), is considered the best French novelist of the twentieth century.  Belloc, by contrast, prefers pussyfooting around the Jewish question, using convoluted sentences devoid of hyperbolic Jew-baiting words, always watching nervously not to cross the line, while putting it diplomatically:

It has unfortunately now become a habit for so many generations, that it has almost passed into an instinct throughout the Jewish body, to rely upon the weapon of secrecy. Secret societies, a language kept as far as possible secret, the use of false names in order to hide secret movements, secret relations between various parts of the Jewish body…[vii]

Céline, by contrast, seems to be focused in his lengthy unhinged antisemitic prose way too often on Jewish anal tracts and Jewish genitals.  In his peculiar lingo, often difficult to translate even into the crassest American slang, he notes:

The fucked up Masonic Republic, supposedly French is at the mercy of secret societies and Jewish Banks (Rothschild, Lazare, Barush etc…) it’s in agony. [viii]

Or even more:

The Kikes that rule the Universe, they understand them, those secrets of public opinion. Hidden in the corners, they have all of the wires in their hands. Propaganda, gold, advertising, radio, press, the cinema. From Hollywood the Jewess, to Moscow the Yid, same boutique, same telephone, same agencies, same Kikes manning the lookout, the cash drawer, the business affairs.[ix]

Rare are contemporary academics who would dare tackle critically, studiously, yet dispassionately,  the most explosive  taboo topic of our times: the Jewish question. For his groundbreaking work on Jews and their role in shaping academic and public discourse in the US Kevin MacDonald was bound to receive a kiss of death from his fellow American academics. The entire political communication after WWII  throughout the West has been based on fake Gentile Judeophile mimicry on the one hand, and hidden Gentile resentment of the Jews on the other. A French author writing under pseudonym notes:

From 1945 onwards, there is no longer any Jewish question, antisemitism  ceasing to be an opinion and becoming  a criminal offence instead; it’s rare to find those daring to defy this taboo. [x]

Modern German politicians are a case in point. Over the last several decades the have not even  pretended  to engage in a make-believe Judeophile mimicry; their veneration of Jews is hyperreal, if not surreal, with the existence of the state of Israeli serving as Germany’s stated raison d’état.  Every new German chancellor, when sworn in, forces himself/herself to embark on multiple pilgrimages to Tel Aviv where he or she states unambiguously, as the former Chancellor Angela Merkel did on several occasions, that  “ Israel’s right to exist is the Germany’s reason of state”.  [xi]

Jews as Gentile Doppelgangers 

Atonement rituals of US and European politicians vis-á-vis Jews can be compared to faked citizenship behavior in the former communist Eastern Europe where critical comments about the communist ruling class could only be made in private and behind bolted  doors. In a similar vein, the Jewish question today is critically discussed in America and Europe only in closely-knit circles of like-minded people. However much the so-called Western democracies like to brag on all frequencies about free speech and free academic inquiry, any critical comment about Jews must stay off limits.  With any tiny critical remark on Jews, if uttered in public, either deadly silence sets in, or all hell breaks loose in the media. Censorship in communist states was surely well described by some sharp American observers; self-censorship, by contrast, which reigns  supreme in academic and governmental  circles in America and the  EU, hasn’t as of today been critically  examined.

Surely, the System, along with its friendly scribes is overjoyed when observing the proliferation of diverse antisemitic sects and multiple “White Power” or “Hollywood Nazi” cults, or internet Jew-baiters. There are two reasons for that:  Firstly, self-declared Jew-haters are always welcome by the System given that they provide the System with necessary legal fodder further bolstering its worn-out mantra that “Western democracies extend free speech to all — even to their enemies.” And secondly, any hostile insult against Jews always comes in handy to the System’s thought police which can easily set up decoys and charge antisemitic suspects with having a master plan for a terrorist act against the Jews.

Another parallel is in order. Former communist apparatchiks in Eastern Europe used Marxist dialectics very adeptly. In the beginning of their bloody reign, dialectics was a tool to justify the physical destruction of their anticommunist critics. After the breakup of communism, they resorted to the same dialectics in order to rebrand themselves as Western liberals and exorcise themselves from accusations of having committed gigantic crimes in their recent communist past. Likewise, many Jewish scholars resort to similar dialectical invocations about “rising tide of anti-Semitism,” which serves them as a tool for further strengthening the national and racial  identity of millions of Jews and lining the coffers of Jewish organizations. One could raise a rhetorical question:  how long would Jewish identity thrive without generating its antithesis in the Absolute Evil incarnated nowadays in the so-called White Supremacist and his fellow traveler, the Antisemite?  If one assumes that all antisemites in America and Europe simply vanished into thin air, the System would likely resuscitate and reconstruct a new brand of antisemites out of the blue. Just like the System in the ex-communist Soviet Union and Eastern Europe drew its negative legitimacy by constantly reinventing the boogeyman of counterrevolutionary Fascism and Nazism, so do many Jewish agencies and pro-Jewish lobbies in the US, along with countless left-leaning social science professors, build their identity, or better yet shield their tenure, by nurturing their evil household darling Hitler and by evoking the danger of his postmodern sidekicks, the proverbial  “White Supremacist” and the “Neo-Nazi.”

In passing it must be stated over and over again that the pejorative word “Nazism”, although not legally banned in private communications, was never used officially in even one document in National-Socialist Germany. The term “Nazi” was first coined by early Spartacists, i.e.,  early German Moscow-steered Bolsheviks in Weimar Germany, later to be used massively in the  Soviet Union, before it comfortably settled during the 1950s in American academic and media vernacular.  Its derogatory equivalent would be “commie” for a communist, although not a single academic paper in the US or EU would accept a paper where a word “commie” is used as a synonym for a communist.  In addition, the compound noun  National-Socialism includes the noun ‘Socialism’, written with a capital S, a word which  had a very good reputation among all nationalists all over German-friendly countries in   Europe, prior and during WWII:  from Germany to Spain, from Croatia to Finland.[xii] Soviets and their  latter-day modern Western offspring, the  antifas, also like to adorn themselves with the word “socialism” yet cannot tolerate that the “Nazis” could also be socialists.  The two-syllable word “Nazi” sounds more demonic, hence more acceptable in the mainstream media.

In a similar vein, mainly due to the willful ignorance of the German language and German cultural history many modern self-proclaimed experts on National-Socialism refer to it as an “ideology.”  Again, not a single National-Socialist government document, not a single academic  paper in in Germany, from 1933-45 used the term Ideologie; the  official name being  Germany’s National-Socialist “Weltanschauung” (worldview). However, neither does the English word “worldview” reflect best the German word “Anschauung”, a word which has a nuanced philosophical meaning, carrying a notion of perception, imagination, figurative thinking, or pictorial apprehension. (see here)

One could also reverse the antisemitic Anschauung and pose another rhetorical question regarding the wishful thinking about the tentative disappearance of Jewish influence in the West. If Jews were suddenly to depart, as many White Christian antisemites secretly yearn – there would still remain countless of millions of US evangelicals, Christian-Zionists, millions of White  traditional Catholics in Europe, all hoping in chorus to become themselves verus Israel, i.e., more Jewish than the Jews and thus await their  turn for chosenness.  Hating or loving Jews and Judaism, yet quoting every Sunday their scripts and bowing down to their jealous god Yahweh, is surely a form — if not of the White paranoid mind, then at least a serious form of White Gentile split identity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credo quia Absurdum (“I believe because it is absurd”)

Penile and anal analogies that many antisemites often resort to when describing the Jews were also trademarks of the chief Jewish psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud. His obsession with Oedipus complex projected on his would-be incestuous and parricide gentile clients reflected very likely his own concealed sexual disorders.  Nonetheless Freud deserves big credit when describing Christian antisemitism as a hidden “neurosis” in his best and last book   Moses and Monotheism.[xiii]

The hatred for Judaism is at bottom hatred for Christianity, and it is not surprising that in the German National-Socialist revolution this close connection of the two monotheistic religions finds such clear expression in the hostile treatment of both.

It is no accident that the intellectual and cultural foundations of Fascism and National-Socialism can be traced to central Europe and northern Italy known historically for their strong Catholic traditions yet retaining strong pagan undercurrents which the Vatican willy-nilly had to put up with over centuries, at least until the Second Vatican Council in 1962–65. Many German scholars in the footsteps of Friedrich Nietzsche and sympathetic to early National Socialism wrote hundreds of articles and books linking Judeo-Christianity to the rise of early Bolshevism.  “The Jewry, in its single-minded pursuit of the world domination through the Bolshevik deception of mankind, has had its strongest ally in the disruptive Biblical faith.”[xiv]

On the other hand it is also no accident that in WASP America Jews have had a  far better proliferating turf than  in Europe, while continuing to thrive with their overreaching zeal, especially in framing the modern American social-juridical narrative. As I wrote some time ago many Jewish scholars (J. Auerbach, M. Konvitz, J.L. Talmon) rightly acknowledged deep theological links between the American idea and Judaism. Many American traditional conservatives and White Nationalists may be correct in denouncing secular myths, such as Freudianism, Marxism and neo-liberalism, which they see as ideologies doctored up by  Jewish and pro-Jewish writers and politicians. They fail, however, to go a step further and examine the Judaic origins of Christianity and the proximity of these two monotheist religions. Or to put it into a more up to date verbiage: How can one dismiss the self-evident Holocaust story yet at the same time embrace the self-evident story of the Jew Jesus Christ or the immaculate conception of the Jewess Virgin Mary? [xv]

Putting all Jews in one basket is also a serious error given that some of them have shown strong antisemitic feelings themselves, such as the so-called “self-hating” Jews. These Jewish antisemites have simply grouped together Jewish apostates who have critically addressed  the Jewish monotheist mindset in all its religious or secular modalities. Arthur Trebitsch, Otto Weininger, Gilad Atzmon, let alone the modern Holocaust revisionist scholar, Gerard  Menuhin, are just some of the Jewish names that are wisely avoided in social science studies, both  in US and EU colleges today. Long ago a left-leaning French Jew Bernard Lazar, after publishing his classic, came under fire from both the left and the right for his criticism of his coethnicists:

The general causes of antisemitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it. This does not mean that justice was always on the side of Israel’s persecutors, or that they did not indulge in all the extremes born of hatred; it is merely asserted that the Jews were themselves, in part, at least, the cause of their own ills.[xvi]

It would be a waste of time trying to debate endlessly about the looks of Jesus Christ. Was his phenotype similar to that of Turco-Khazarian Bob Dylan, or to that of the Sephardic-Maghrebian  Enrico  Macias? Was he the son of God, or a son of a prostitute and her Gentile partner? The discussion about his heavenly or his racial origin will likely continue for another millennium. The true believer, however, always knows the right answer. Jesus certainly didn’t carry the facial features of a blond-haired Nordic superhero that we observe on crucifixes of all churches from Manila, Mexico or Munich, nor did he look like Jim Caviezel.  Moreover, his historicity has been hotly and violently debated for over two  thousand years by Christians and non-Christians alike. During the early Roman Empire his name was never mentioned anywhere in the works of Roman historians, except for the fact  that the Roman high society and the educated Romans, until the beginning of  second century AD considered Jews  (Iudeai)  and Christians (Chrestianos) as the one and the same sect. Therefore, the  expression “Judeo-Christian” is by no means an oxymoron or a deliberate verbal corruption of a single religious denomination.  Early evangelists were not Europeans; all early Christian scribes and missionaries were almost all of north African and Levantine origins, including Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, Origen. In his latest and thickest book, containing over one thousand pages and several thousand quotes from various often conflicting sources, Alain de Benoist writes:

In fact, Jesus never polemicized against Judaism, but rather within it. He never wanted to create a new religion, nor to establish a “Church”. At the most, he wanted to reform from within the Judean religion, this being his only objective.[xvii]

Neither has the Church, over the last decades, lagged behind in its Judeophile statements despite its own serious legacy of persecutions of Jews throughout  history. One cannot forever deny one’s own founding myths.

On November 17, 1980, in Mainz, Pope John Paul II spoke of “the people of God of the Old Covenant who have never been revoked by God.” In June 2006, Benedict XVI recalled in his turn the “inseparable relationship which binds Christianity to the Jewish religion as to its eternally living and valid matrix”.[xviii]

De Benoist writes further:

In other words, at its very beginning, Judeo-Christianity was not a form of Christianity, but rather a form of Judaism. This is the reason why, rather than speaking of Judeo-Christianity, it would be far better to speak of Christian Judaism.[xix]

But at some point, twin brothers must seek for a divorce and violent wars — which became much later a mutual trademark of all Christians beliefs during the early and late medieval period in Europe.  But first the Jewish founding father had to be removed.

The break-up between the “Jews” and the “Christians” was therefore part of a much longer process than previously thought, since it was only in the fourth century that the two systems definitively separated from each other. This was a decisive turning point, given that at this time, in 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea was held, and thereafter, in 380 AD, Christianity was declared by Theodosius the state religion. [xx]

However awful this may ring in the ears of many devout modern Christian anticommunists and many White Nationalists, Christ may qualify as an early paleo-Bolshevik of Antiquity  and his apostles dubbed as early crypto-commissars. Christians and communists, after the lengthy process of secularization throughout the period of the Enlightenment did, however, turn into mortal enemies in the first half of the twentieth century. This was to be expected as both the Communist and the Christian preachers had vied differently for the salvation of their sheep. Their underlying, allegedly pacifying dogma, has remained however the same despite the usage of different signifiers respectively: multiracialism, multiculturalism, ecumenism, i.e., communism and globalism. Next to modern-day Antifa rabble rousers and various Jewish agencies, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), along with the German  Bischofskonferenz (DBK)  is today the most vocal spokesman for non-White migrations to the West, known by now under the name of  the Great Replacement.

Notes:

[i] Carl Schmitt. „Die deutsche Rechtwissenschaft im Kampf gegen den jüdischen Geist“, Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung (München und Berlin: C.H Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlunog; vol.20/41, 1936), p.1194.

[ii] Ibid, p. 1196.

[iii] Rudolph M. Loewenstein, Christians and Jews; A Psychoanalytic Study (NY: International Universities Press, Inc., 1951), p. 15.

[iv] Liste der auszusondernden Literatur (Berlin: Zentralverlag, 1946).

[v]  Jean Paul Sartre,  Antisemite and Jew,  trans. Georg J. Becker (1948 NY: Schocken books, 1976). p.63

[vi] Dominique  Venner, Histoire de la Collaboration (Paris: Pygmalion, 200p),  p. 515-516.

[vii] Hilaire Belloc, The Jews (London: Constable & Company, Ltd, 1922), p. 100.

[viii] Louis Ferdinand Céline, School for Corpses, transl. Szandoer Kuragin (First published in French in 1938). https://schoolforcorpses.wordpress.com/

[ix] L.F. Céline, Trifles for a Massacre, by Translator Anonymous (AAARGH, Publishing House, Internet, 2006), p. 37.  (First  published  in French, 1937). https://aaargh.vho.org/fran/livres6/CELINEtrif.pdf

[x] Henry Boulade, “Petit inventaire de l’antisémitisme”, in Écrits de Paris, n° 656 (July 2003), pp. 29-37.

[xi] Thorsten Schmitz, „Das neue Israel“,  Süddeutsche Zeitung, May 17, 2010.

[xii] Nikica Mihaljević, Ustaški put u socijalizam : U teoriji i praksi NDH : Zbirka rasprava i članaka nikad objavljenih poslije 1945. (Zagreb: Nakladnik: Naklada Pavičić, 2016).

[xiii]  Sigmund Freud,  transl. by K. Jones,  Moses and Monotheism  (London: Published by the Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1939),  p.148.

[xiv]  Hans Hauptmann, Bolschewismus in der Bibel (A. Klein Verlag, Archiv Edition 1937), p.117-118.

[xv] T. Sunic, preface by K.MacDonald, Homo americanus; Child of the Postmodern Age (London; Arktos media, 2018), p. 120 and passim.

[xvi] Bernard Lazare,  Antisemitism, Its History and Causes  (New York; The International Library Publishing Co., 1903) p. 8.

[xvii] Alain de Benoist,  L’Homme qui n’avait pas de père (Paris: Krisis, 2021), p. 44.

[xviii] Ibid., p. 55.

[xix] Ibid., p.  873.

[xx] Ibid., p. 933.