Featured Articles

My Journey to Racial Consciousness

I grew up In a middle class household where we were told that all humans were equal and that skin color was the only thing made us different. I firmly believed this until I reached my teens and started my path to becoming a race realist. When I was a child, I was the only  White child on a school bus full of Asians. Asians for the most part were very friendly and they had the same drive to succeed as  Whites. I had many Asians friends as a child but learned in my late 20s that they will sacrifice a  White friend to grovel to the negro in order to win his favor. Even a  White friend that you knew since you were a child. I rode this bus full of Asians to a public school full of negros in a Black part of town. That part of town was famous for race riots committed by Blacks in 1960s, and it never recovered . I quickly learned from attending this school that Black children have very filthy mouths and most are illiterate. In elementary school they are already running around calling each other “nigga,” a trait most likely learned by the positive Black role models in their lives. They were also very race conscious for their age, something that I had been taught by my parents that was bad. They never failed to know how to blame the  White children if things did not go their way.

When I reached middle school I started noticing my fellow  White class mates obsession with negro culture. Talking “hood” and listening to rap were never things that appealed to me. From a very young age I saw that hood culture was a culture of ignorance and was not fooled by the idolization that my  White peers held for negro culture. When I transitioned to high-school I ended up going to a school that was 80 percent  White and 20 percent Black. 70 percent of my fellow  White students dressed hood and talked like they were Black. They would often pick fights and terrorize normal  White students to impress their negro friends. Despite their vain attempts to impress the negros they idolized so much they would often get beat up if they dared utter the word ‘nigga’, the word they so often heard their Black idols repeat . After a couple of years of this I slowly began to wonder what had happened to  White people my age that made them hate their own culture while putting the Black culture of ignorance on a pedestal. The trend of illiteracy in Black students that I noticed in elementary school was carried into their high-school years. The Black students would often would run around and cause chaos in the classroom while getting multiple warnings before being disciplined. I noticed that my  White counter parts that did the same thing were immediately punished. I learned that most Black teenagers thought that learning was considered “acting  White”.

It was also at this time that I was the victim of my first hate crime. One night I snuck out of my parents’ house to meet up with a friend, on my way to his house I was approached by a Black man in his late 30s and a group of older Black teens. The Black man asked for a lighter so he could light his cigarette, and I gladly obliged as I was not very street smart at the time and still had the non-judgmental attitude instilled in me by my parents. The Black man proceeded to punch me in the face as he was handing the lighter back to me, his counterparts howling with laughter as I lay on the ground begging for my life. I thought I was going to be murdered, but they walked off howling with laughter as I wondered what I had done to deserve it. And then I dawned on me that this is what the typical negro will do to get even with the  White man. I decided at that moment that I would never beg a negro for my life ever again. Because of this I would learn how to box and later in my adult life get a concealed carry permit for a pistol. Now that I am older, I have become a lot more street savvy and do not trust Black men after dark. I believe it was the Al Sharpton that once said “If I am on a street at night and I encounter a group of  White people I am relieved, if I encounter a group of Black people I start to worry.”

I would go on to work as a mental health outreach clinic after High school. I would see affirmative action at work as in one instance I saw a Black co-worker punch a client in a fit of rage because the client said something that she did not agree with. Working at this clinic also taught me that negros will often try to fake a mental disorder to get a disability check. At this clinic I had many clients but one stuck out the most, an elderly Black man who was mentally retarded and collected a disability check. It so happened that this Black man’s landlord was the payee for his disability check. This typical Black landlord spent the check on herself and my client never saw a dime of it. I was charged with contacting the Social Security Administration to get his payee changed to someone more honorable. I managed to do this, but was forced to drop the case. The elderly Black man came in to my office one day in fear for his life, apparently his landlord had her sons gang up on him and threaten to beat him up if he had his payee changed. This showed me the lengths that negros would go to get government handouts.

I decided to leave this job around the time of the 2016 election. For the first time I was made aware of “The Great Replacement” and how my people were being displaced in the Great Civilization they had created. I felt compelled to become as educated on the plight of my people. This led me to sites like Amren, Vdare and YouTube channels like Red Ice and The Golden One. I am truly grateful that I was introduced to all these wonderful sources before big tech brought down the hammer of censorship. I hope by writing this article I am helping others to awaken their racial consciousness.

The Holocaust of Six Million Jews—in World War I

I take it that the reader is familiar with the basics of the so-called Holocaust: the alleged deaths of some six million Jews, many in gas chambers, at the hands of the Nazis in World War II.  This was, we are told, a deliberate policy of Hitler and his top men, something of highest priority—even above the war effort itself—and a policy of the utmost secrecy.  It was so secret, in fact, that hard documentation and forensic evidence on this catastrophic, world-changing event are almost nonexistent:  no ‘Hitler order’ to kill the Jews, no plans for homicidal gas chambers, no physical remains of gas chambers,[1] no photos of gas chambers or gassed Jews, no autopsies confirming death by gas, no consistent or coherent records of mass shootings that must have totaled over 1.5 million, no evidence of any of the 1 million or so ghetto deaths.  Those ingenious devils, the Nazis, managed to destroy all the evidence—including the physical remains of virtually all six million Jewish corpses—in order to conceal their heinous deed.  They were truly evil geniuses.  Or so we are told.

But this is not my topic for today.  For the full story of the incredible World War II Holocaust, I must refer interested readers to my books The Holocaust: An Introduction (for the concise version), or, for a more detailed discussion, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides (4th ed, 2020).  Also recommended is the book by Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust (2017).  Suffice to say that there are many facts about this notorious event that our friendly ‘Holocaust experts’ would rather have us not know.

Today, though, I want to focus on a related but perhaps more surprising event:  the Jewish “holocaust” of World War I.  (I will use the lower-case ‘holocaust’ for pre-WWII, reserving the upper-case ‘Holocaust’ for WWII itself.)

Wait, you say; World War I?  But didn’t that occur decades before WWII?  Yes.  Wasn’t that years before the Nazi party even existed?  True enough.  Wasn’t Hitler a mere foot soldier in that initial war?  Indeed he was.  Then who committed the crime?  And why?  And how many Jews suffered in that holocaust?

It is truly a remarkable story, one that is too little known.  It has often been said that “history repeats itself.”  But who would have guessed that a monumentally tragic event like a holocaust could repeat itself, inflicted on the same people, in the same region of the world, and in the same numbers, in just three decades?  This amazing occurrence is worth a bit of exploration; the holocaust of WW1 has huge implications for the Holocaust of WWII, and by extension, for Jewish-Gentile relations in the world today.

Context for War

The precursors and causes of WW1 are vast and complicated, and I cannot delve into those here.  But a key factor, and likely decisive, was the action of the global Jewish Lobby of the day, which pushed for war at every possible juncture; I have detailed this aspect in my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and I refer interested readers to it.  The same Jewish Lobby, it turns out, also had a decisive hand in the holocaust narratives.

For the moment, I will have to restrict myself to the basic facts.  World War I, as we recall, began in July 1914 and ran for a bit more than four years, ending on 11 November 1918.  The Triple Entente of the UK, France, and Russia faced off against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, although Italy dropped out of the Alliance in 1915.  The US eventually entered the war (on the side of the Entente) in April 1917.  Russia, torn apart by the Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution, withdrew in March 1918.  Germany held out for another seven months, but eventually, in November 1918, it too succumbed, in part as a result of internal Jewish agitation,.  In the end, the Alliance suffered some 8 million total casualties (military plus civilian), and the Entente around 10 million.  Despite the many complicating factors, a defeated Germany was ultimately assigned full blame for the war—completely overlooking the fact that that nation “did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine…efforts to avert one,” in the words of historian Sidney Fay.[2]  The onerous postwar reparations inflicted on Germany set the stage, in large part, for the later emergence of Hitler and his NSDAP party.

As in all wars, many civilians were caught in the crosshairs; here, the Jews were no exception.  Their suffering, however, had already been ongoing for many years prior to the war.  Or perhaps we should say, selfinflicted suffering.  Jewish behavior, attitudes, actions, and beliefs have been a constant source of conflict throughout the centuries—even through millennia.[3]  Jewish abrasiveness became particularly pressing by the late 18th century, as was noted by many prominent critics, including Kant, Voltaire, Hegel, Fichte, and Herder.  By the mid-19th century, the likes of Schopenhauer and Bruno Bauer were issuing scathing critiques.

A particularly disturbing situation, though, was developing in Russia.  By the late 1800s, Russia had some 5 million Jews within its borders, nearly all of whom lived in the so-called Pale of Settlement in the far west of the country; this represented about half of the global total of around 10 million Jews.  This large Jewish population was a disruptive and agitating force within Russia and hence earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reigned 1825 to 1855) and Alexander II (reigned 1855 to 1881).  By 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could make this observation about the Jews:

This whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people (ein Blutegelvolk), a collective parasite (einzigen fressenden Parasiten), voracious, organized in itself, not only across the frontiers of states but even across all the differences of political opinion—this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and of the Rothschilds on the other. …  Jewish solidarity, that powerful solidarity that has maintained itself through all history, united them [both].[4]

In 1881, a gang of anarchists known as Narodnaya Volya, which included a few Jews, succeeded in assassinating Alexander; this unleashed a series of anti-Jewish pogroms that persisted for decades.

By the late 1880s, American media was beginning to take notice of the Jewish situation in Russia—especially the New York Times.  A brief item from 1889 began with the question “How many Jews are there?” meaning, globally.  At a minimum, “the number of the ubiquitous race [is] 6,000,000.”  It then continues with a reference to Jewish suffering: “With the exception of half a million, they are all in a state of political bondage.”  Furthermore, “in Russia alone there were 4,000,000 of their race whose every step was dogged by that curse, religious hatred and persecution.”[5]  Here we find an early reference to (almost) six million suffering Jews.

Another short piece appeared in 1891 entitled “Russia’s Christianity: Rabbi Gottheil says a word on the persecution of the Jews.”  In a public lecture, Gottheil examined a number of facts “in relation to the treatment of Russia’s 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 Jews by the Christian population.”  Notably, the population of Russian Jews, which was just 4 million two years earlier, was now as high as 6 million.  Gottheil then proceeds to quote a recent article by one E. B. Lanin, who said, “about six millions [sic] persecuted and miserable wretches remain steadfastly faithful to a religion that causes their life to be changed into a fiery furnace.”[6]  Prophetic, indeed.

Nearly a decade later, in June 1900, Rabbis Gottheil and Stephen Wise were the keynote speakers at a “Zionist mass meeting” in New York.  They were anxious to highlight Jewish suffering around the world to help make their case for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  Gottheil spoke generically of the “oppressed in Russia,” but Wise made the point explicit: “There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.”[7]  Within a few years, the pogroms became increasingly intense, eventually leading to small-scale killings.  The so-called “Kishineff (or Kishinev) massacre” of 1903, in which all of 49 Jews were killed, became, for the first time, a “holocaust.”  The NYT quotes from an editorial of the Jewish Chronicle:

We charge the Russian Government with responsibility for the Kishineff massacre.  We say it is steeped to the eyes in the guilt of this holocaust.  (16 May, p. 1)

The editorial goes on to speak of how the Russian Jews are being “slowly annihilated” and subject to “the process of extermination.”  Such words obviously anticipate similar charges that would be leveled against the National Socialists some four decades later.

Two years later, we read that the “holocaust” is still ongoing.  A short item of 1905 is headlined “Simon Wolf asks how long the Russian holocaust is to continue.”[8]  Also that year, the NYT reported, once again, on “our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia.”[9]  The following year, in 1906, we read of “startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews”; it is a “horrifying picture” of “renewed massacres” and “systematic and murderous extermination.”[10]  At this point, one is tempted to ask: What is it about the Jews, such that they are subject to such continual and horrific abuse?  And furthermore, why isn’t the figure of six million, first reported back in 1890, growing any larger?  Is it now, somehow, fixed at six million?  If so, why?

In 1910, we find “Russian Jews in sad plight,” and we are saddened over “the systematic, relentless, quiet grinding down of a people of more than 6,000,000 souls.”[11]  In 1911, the New York Times reported that “the 6,000,000 Jews of Russia are singled out for systematic oppression and for persecution by due process of law.”[12]  And yet things got worse still:

That Russia is pursuing a definite anti-Jewish policy, that the condition of the Jews in Russia is worse now than it ever was before, will be gathered from the following extracts… [T]he restrictive laws now in existence…intensif[y] the oppression of the Jews, and by which it is making the 6,000,000 Jews a people economically exhausted—a people without any rights at all.  (10 December, p. SM8)

We need to remind ourselves that the leading Russians had a very low opinion of the Jews, and felt themselves fully justified in any recrimination.  Sometimes their words were shocking.  Russian prime minister Pyotr Stolypin wrote the following in 1911:

It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures, who cannot enter into our concept of human nature.  We can observe them the way we observe and study animals, we can feel disgust for them or hostility, the way we do for the hyena, the jackal, or the spider, but to speak of hatred for them would raise them to our level. …  Only by disseminating in the popular consciousness the concept that the creature of the Jewish race is not the same as other people, but an imitation of a human, with whom there can be no dealings—only that can gradually heal the national organism and weaken the Jewish nation so it will no longer be able to do harm, or will completely die out.  History knows of many extinct tribes.  Science must put, not the Jewish race, but the character of Jewry into such condition as will make it perish.[13]

Just a few months later, Stolypin was assassinated by a Jewish radical, Dmitri Bogrov.

I emphasize that it was not only the New York Times that was reporting on the six million suffering Hebrews.  Zionist Jews were repeating the same lines to their own people.  Speaking at the 1911 Zionist Congress, Max Nordau said the following:

Virtuous governments…lay the groundwork with their own hands for the destruction of six million persons, and no one except the victims themselves raises his voice against this—even though this, of course, is an infinitely greater crime than any war which as yet has never destroyed six million human lives.[14]

Thus we find repeated linkage, over a period of many years, of “six million,” “extermination,” and “holocaust” with respect to the Jews.  History indeed repeats itself.

Into the Great War

It seems, then, that our holocaust journey is even more intriguing than I indicated above.  The first Jewish holocaust occurred in Russia, running, at a minimum, from the years 1903 through 1911.  We don’t know how many Jews were killed in that period, but it was unquestionably small, given the over-emphasis on relatively minor events in which, for example, 49 were killed (see Andrew Joyce’s “Revisiting the Nineteenth-Century Russian Pogroms”).  Based on scattered reports, the total would have been on the order of a few thousand, at most.  And yet, the figure of 6 million recurred repeatedly, as a kind of token of mass Jewish suffering.  This set the stage for the second holocaust, of World War One, as I am about to explain.  And this, of course, leaves “the” Holocaust of World War II as holocaust number three.  A rather remarkable turn of events, and one not likely to be covered in your local history class.

As I stated above, World War I began in July 1914.  Already in December of that year we were reading accounts of mass suffering of Jews—and we can guess the number.  The New York Times reported as follows:

Appeal for aid for Jews: American Committee tells of Suffering Due to War.  The American Jewish Relief Committee called a conference…to consider the plight of more than 6,000,000 Jews who live within the war zone.  (2 December, p. 12)

The “war zone” in question was the Eastern Front, which ran through parts of present-day Poland, Ukraine, Austria, and Hungary, as well as portions of western Russia.  Just a month later, the Times reported,

In the world today there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the very heart of the war zone; Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are subjected to every manner of sorrow and suffering.  (14 January, p. 3)

A year later, we read that the head of a Jewish aid society has declared that “even the wrongs of the Belgians could not be compared to the outrages heaped upon the Polish Jews. ‘Nearly six million Jews are ruined, in the greatest moral and material misery. … And the world is silent’.”[15]  And in case we had forgotten, the Times would soon remind us that, indeed, this horrific situation constituted…a holocaust.  In October, a Jewish organization—The Joint Distribution Committee of Funds for Jewish War Sufferers—launched a $10 million appeal with these words:

The new campaign is the largest ever undertaken by Jews of the United States. …  Dr. Judah Magnes has been enabled [to ascertain] the present needs of the Jewish people in Europe, who have fallen under the blight of the world holocaust.  (29 October, p. E9)

Into 1917, the war evolved into a sort of stalemate, with the infamous trenches defining much of the front.  Despite growing fatalities on all sides, the number of suffering Jews stayed remarkably constant: “Six millions [sic] of Jews are living in lands where they are oppressed, exploited, crushed, and robbed of every inalienable human right.”[16]  By September of that year, the Times was reporting on an appeal for an aid fund,

to alleviate the suffering of Jews in the European war zones…[whose] suffering is unparalleled [!] in history. … [W]omen, children, and babies must be saved if the Jewish race is to survive the terrible holocaust…  (24 September, p. 20)

Once again, we see the repeated connection between ‘holocaust’ and ‘six million’ suffering Jews.

By mid-October of 1918, it was becoming clear—at least to the crew at the New York Times—that the war was about to end.  Hence they excitedly reported on an astonishing “$1 billion fund to rebuild Jewry” (18 October, p. 12).[17]  As it turns out, of those “six millions” of Jews who were suffering, starving, and dying in the “holocaust”—well, miraculously, all of them survived.  And they needed cash.  “Six million souls will need help to resume normal life when war is ended,” we read.  Send your checks now.

Interwar Holocaust?

No sooner had World War I ended than our ever-industrious Jewish Lobby went to work again, conjuring up yet more Jewish suffering.  In September 1919—less than one year after the war—the New York Times was reporting on renewed mass Jewish suffering, now in Poland and Ukraine.  In a story headlined “Ukrainian Jews Aim to Stop Pogroms,” we read, with by now little surprise, that “6,000,000 are in peril.”  Apparently half of these are in Poland, half in Ukraine, but “all of whom are in need of assistance from America.”  According to the story, President Wilson had recently issued a statement of concern in which he said:

This fact that the population of 6,000,000 souls in Ukrainia and Poland have received notice through action and by word that they are going to be completely exterminated—this fact stands before the whole world as the paramount issue of the day.  (8 September, p. 6)

Assuredly so.

Lest we might forget, this situation was quickly described as, yes, a “holocaust.”  In one of the most craven and pandering articles ever to be penned by a non-Jewish politician, former New York governor Martin Glynn published an essay for American Hebrew in October 1919, titled “The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!”  It reads, in part:

From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread. … With them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. …  In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate. …  Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. …  In this threatened ho­locaust of human life, forgotten are the niceties of philosophical distinction. …  And so in the spirit that turned the poor widow’s votive offering of copper into silver … the people of this country are called upon to sanctify their money by giving $35 million in the name of the humanity of Moses to six million famished men and women.  Six million men and women are dying…  [italics added]

A truly appalling bit of servility, if there ever was one.  Clearly Glynn owed much to his Hebrew supporters.

The very next month, the NYT reported on prominent Jewish banker Felix Warburg, who had recently traveled to Europe to witness the suffering firsthand:

The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the back of European Jewry, and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation, and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population on the earth.  (12 November, p. 7)

The storyline persisted in subsequent years:

*  April 1920:  “Mr. Louis Marshall declared that typhus menaced 6,000,000 Jews of Europe.”[18]

*  May 1920:  “Hunger, cold rags, desolation, disease, death—six million human beings without food, shelter, clothing…”

*  July 1921:  “Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre” (again!).

*  September 1924:  “1,235 Pogroms” in the Soviet Union; “The Jewish population, which number in Russia over 6,000,000, live scattered. …  [Events] have subjected the Jews to greater suffering than any other section of the Russian population.”

And so on.  But the point is proven.  Through a long series of incredible, unbelievable circumstances, six million Jews were perpetually suffering through various incarnations of a “holocaust” for decades prior to World War II.  Such references tapered off through the 1930s, but accelerated again with the approach of the second great war.  Several mentions of the “six million” appeared between 1936 and 1939.  With the onset of war in September 1939, the predictions became explicit.  In June of 1940, leading Zionist Nahum Goldmann was quoted as saying “Six million Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction, if the victory of the Nazis should be final.”[19]  What an astonishing prediction!  How could Goldmann have known, at that early date, of the final death toll?  Jewish foresight never fails to amaze.


The facts here are clear and indisputable.  The reader is strongly encouraged to look up a few of the old New York Times citations that I mentioned, to confirm that the words are really there.  Most any online search engine or a local library research database can find them.  They are highly damning.  Our friends in the Jewish Lobby have no plausible reply, no reasonable defense, no good explanation; they can only stifle the whole discussion.  And this is precisely what they do.

There are clear lessons here for history.  If six million Jews suffered, but very few died, in the first holocaust (Russia), and if another six million suffered, but very few died, in the second holocaust (World War I), then we might reasonably infer, by inductive logic, that perhaps the alleged toll in the third Holocaust (World War II) was—let us say—not quite right.  Especially so, given the facts that I mentioned at the very start of this essay.  We can also plausibly infer that the claimed ‘six million’ figure of World War II did not come from a body count—it didn’t—but rather is a symbolic number, a token, used over many years, to represent mass Jewish suffering.  As an actual death toll, it could be far removed from reality.

And if all this is true, then there are profound consequences.  First, we must significantly rewrite our history of the mid-twentieth-century; second, we have to hold accountable all those historians and politicians, Jewish or otherwise, who foisted upon us a distorted picture of human suffering; and third, we need to recompensate Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and all those who were extorted into paying billions in “reparations” to Israel and global Jewry.  It is not hard to find the money; American Jews alone own or control perhaps $50 trillion in assets, and this would go a long way toward a restorative justice.[20]  We have the means.  We need only muster the will to act.


Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] Those alleged gas chambers that they show to tourists in Auschwitz Main Camp, Majdanek, and Dachau are postwar reconstructions, and could never have functioned as mass killing sites using poison gas.  See my books for details.

[2] As quoted in Fay’s “classic study” of the war, The Origins of the World War (1928), p. 552.

[3] For this story, see my book Eternal Strangers (2020).

[4] Cited in Wheen, Karl Marx (1999), p. 340.

[5] 10 February, p. 14.

[6] 26 January, p. 8.

[7] 11 June, p. 7.  Incidentally, the New York Times was, by this time, formally a Jewish newspaper; Adolph Ochs purchased the firm in 1896.  It has retained Jewish ownership and management ever since.

[8] 10 November, p. 2.

[9] 23 March, p. 7.

[10] 25 March, p. SM6.

[11] 11 April, p. 18.

[12] 31 October, p. 5.

[13] Cited in Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews (1994), p. 6.

[14] Cited in Herzl Year Book, vol. 2 (1959), p. 156.  The chapter author explicitly comments on Nordau’s “astonishing accuracy.”

[15] 28 February, p. 8.

[16] 22 January, p. 6.

[17] In present-day dollars, this would come to almost $20 billion.

[18] Notably, it was typhus that likely produced most Jewish fatalities during WW2.

[19] 25 June, p. 4.

[20] See my essay, “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (2019).  But the situation has become even more extreme due to the Covid pandemic, during which Jewish tech billionaires prospered immensely.  Just the five wealthiest American Jews—Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg—now own over half a trillion dollars.  We need to contemplate this for a moment:  five individual men, five Jews, collectively own more than $500 billion.  When we then consider the total wealth of the six million or so American Jews, it is quite easy to reach $50 trillion, or more.

Domestic Woes in 2022: Inflation and Crime

Domestic Woes

As crime rates soared across the country in 2021, a Fox Business survey conducted at the end of the year found almost 8 in 10 registered voters  (77 percent) are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the surge.

The only issue more pressing than the spike in crime rates in major cities, is inflation (84 percent “extremely” or “very” concerned). Voters are also troubled, to a slightly lesser degree, about taxes (71 percent), the deficit (69 percent), coronavirus (68 percent), and being able to pay bills (63 percent).

The pandemic remains the top concern for Democrats (81 percent) followed by inflation (75 percent) and higher crime rates (67 percent) while for Republicans inflation (91 percent), crime rates (84 percent) and taxes (83 percent) round out their top three.

In this brief article I am going to tell it you straight, limiting my discussion to the top two concerns of Americans: inflation and crime. I promise not to say one word about the Afghan fiasco, Covid 19 and the new strains, China, the broken US border, political corruption, spiraling taxes, supply chain problems, self-inflicted energy shortages, massive propaganda in all levels of American education, or the relentless propaganda from the mainstream “news” media. I don’t want my readers feeling ill or depressed before they finishing reading.

US Economy: Historic Highs in Inflation and Deficit Spending

As James Carville once said “It’s the economy, stupid” – and so it is. Since the Biden election, inflation rates have skyrocketed and are double what the Fed admits, higher than anything in our history (including the Carter years), once recently contrived deceptive inflation rates are re-calculated more honestly.

This means your cost of living has actually gone up about 15-20 percent. In just one year – Depending, of course, on what goods you buy.  For example, if you drive a lot of miles in an average week, your cost of living has shot up dramatically because gas prices are up 50-100% (depending on where you live.)

Recall that the consumer index doesn’t actually measure your cost of living. Rather the CPI is calculated by assigning relative weight to different categories of goods, while excluding important consumer realities, like the price of food and energy, etc. So the CPI rose 9.4% but the price of durable goods jumped 14.9%, the fastest ever going back to 1957.

Also, the CPI sets price adjustments for the US Government which has a definite reason to report a lower number. Bottom line: the CPI does a very bad job of measuring how much it actually costs to live in this country. Rather than relying on a clearly biased, one-size-fits-all index, ask yourself, what does it cost you to live compared to what it cost you a year ago?

Is your inflation really up 20%?  If most of your expenses are gasoline, groceries, new or used housing costs, air travel, rental cars, or new or used cars, then yes. Oh, you want to heat your home, then yes again. Did you want to hire someone? Then yes (if you can find anyone who wants to work). Your inflation depends on what you purchase and where you live and may be different than mine.

Major news sources have reported the following figures since Biden was elected:

Used cars are up 30%, Gas 50-100%, Crude oil 55%, lumber, 35%. home heating oil 115 %, In most states house prices are up over 20%.

Your grocery bill is certainly up double digits. Examples of national averages:

Beef 20-40%, Wheat, 37%. Sugar, 33%. Corn, 39%, Oats 114%, Palm Oil, 43%. Coffee 108%, Bacon 21%, Eggs 8%, & Steak 24.6%.

Here are just a few of the other rising prices under Biden at the end of 2021:

Gas:                +58.1% since Biden took office
Propane:        +34.3%
Furniture:       +11.8%
Used Cars:    +31.4%
Hotels:            +25.5%
Car Rentals: +37.2%

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School Bidenflation will cost families an additional $3,500 this year, impacting low-income families the hardest. In addition we also face widespread shrinkflation, a term economists use for the stealth shrinking of consumer products so that they appear to cost the same as they did, but in fact, do not.

Of course opinions vary on the woes of our current inflation.

From Joe Biden:

On a recent broadcast of NBC’s “Tonight Show,” Biden said that part of the issue with the downward spiral of his approval ratings is that “people are getting so much inaccurate information to them. The truth is, the economy’s growing more than it has at any time in close to 60 years.”

From Tucker Carlson:

“The consumer price index measures the downside of federal economic policy. So let’s say you printed too many U.S. dollars. You wanted to fund useless programs and pay off your donors. Now, if you did that, you would devalue your own currency. You would cause inflation over time. You would impoverish your own population. Those would be the effects. But of course, you would want to hide those effects. You instead want to tell everybody that thanks to you, the economy is great, and the consumer price index allows politicians to do that.”

From the People:

Concerning the economy, 60 percent of voters disapproved of Biden’s management. “On personal economic issues, voters are even more likely to criticize the president. Some 72% disapprove of his handling of the price of everyday goods, while 66% disapprove of his efforts to help their wallets,” (CNBC, 1/3/22)

The Trade Deficit

The U.S. trade deficit, wherein the cost of imported goods exceeds the value of exported goods, “mushroomed to a record in November” and will likely continue for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic.

According to Reuters:

The goods trade deficit widened last month by 17.5% to $97.8 billion from $83.2 billion in October, Census Bureau data showed. That exceeds the previous record deficit set in September of $97 billion. Imports rose by 4.7% with industrial supplies leading the way with an increase of $5.7 billion to $63.2 billion, followed by consumer goods rising by $2.9 billion to just shy of $67 billion as retailers rushed to fill store shelves ahead of Christmas. Both were record highs.

Goods exports, meanwhile, declined 2.1%, with weakness across the board outside of a 4.3% increase in food exports. The drop was led by declines of $1.4 billion in industrial supplies and $1.3 billion in capital goods.


According to Market Watch, the U.S. “is poised to surpass a record set in 2006 and incur its biggest international trade deficit ever.” Economists voiced their discontent with the bleak situation on Twitter, noting the trade deficit will hurt GDP growth.

Economistc Peter Schiff:

The Nov. U.S. merchandise trade deficit surged to $97.8 billion, a new all-time record high. The deficit shattered expectations of $86 billion, and is a 17.5% higher than the prior month. This horrific data proves the U.S. economy is a complete disaster. It has never been weaker!

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) December 29, 2021

Joe Biden:

“We’re ending 2021 with what one analyst described as the strongest first-year economic track record of any president in the last 50 years. Let’s keep the progress going.”

— President Biden (@POTUS) December 29, 2021

Murders, Crime and Violence

As crime rates soared across the country once again in 2020, a Fox Business survey found that almost 8 in 10 registered voters  (77 percent) are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the surge. And for good reason. At least 16 major cities broke homicide records in 2021, according to ABC News, including: Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Baton Rouge, Columbus (OH), Indianapolis, Jackson (MS), Louisville, Macon (GA), Milwaukee, New Haven (CT), Philadelphia, Portland (OR); Rochester (NY), St. Paul, Toledo, Tucson

All of these cities are led by Democratic mayors with crime-prone Black populations unleashed by the current racial reckoning. 

Other major cities like Houston, Oakland, Greensboro (NC), Memphis, and Minneapolis also neared record homicide highs in 2021.

This is the same trend that we saw the previous year when the U.S. murder rate rose 30%, according to FBI data – the largest annual increase on record. At least 12 major US cities broke homicide records in historically bloody 2020.

In 2021, robberies and assaults were also on the rise, and retailers in major cities across the country reported an uptick in organized smash-and-grab crimes during the busy holiday shopping season.

Once peaceful Minneapolis, epicenter of the George Floyd madness, became a significantly more violent and dangerous place to visit and live in 2020.  The spike in violent crime in the 2020 crime statistics can hardly be overstated. It confirms what too many victims and residents already know from personal experience or live in fear of on a daily basis, namely, that they stand a greater chance than ever of becoming one of those statistics.

The numbers from the Minneapolis Police Department show a huge spike in many violent crimes with homicides up from 48 to 82 last year (+70 percent), gunshot wound victims doubling from 269 to 551 (+105 percent) and carjackings rising from 101 to 405 (+300 percent) compared to 2019.

Moreover, these crimes are spilling into Minneapolis’ suburbs, putting the neighborhoods “under attack from mobile criminals,” one local mayor said. “Our town, and our neighboring towns, have had their security and serenity under attack from mobile criminals who are coming into Edina and other nearby communities to steal private property and in some cases injuring people who resist or assist a victim,” Edina Mayor Jim Hovland said in an email to residents of the town Sunday: “Edina residents have become angry and fearful. The peace and tranquility of our community has been disrupted. At a time when we should be celebrating peace in our families, communities and places of worship, we all worry what each day will bring in the way of criminal activity.”

Could all this have anything to do with bail reform, lack of arrests, and fall out from police retirements and resignations following 2020’s nationwide calls to defund the police?

Nah!! Be reasonable!

“Nobody’s getting arrested anymore,” retired chief of detectives for the New York Police Department, Robert Boyce, told ABC News. “People are getting picked up for gun possession and they’re just let out over and over again.”

“America’s most beautiful cities are indeed being ruined by liberal policies,” Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw said on “Fox & Friends” last week of cities experiencing crime surges. “There’s a direct line between death and decay and liberal policies. The criminals laugh in the back of a police car because they know that they are going to be out the next day back to committing crimes.This is a problem for people who actually pay taxes and who live there. And they are absolutely ruining America’s greatest cities, and we should be outraged about it.”

The spikes came after there was a 45% increase in the police retirement rate and a nearly 20% increase in resignations from officers in 2020-2021 compared to the previous year, according to a June survey from the Police Executive Research Forum.

Black Murders Matter

Finally, according to the US Department of Justice, the murder rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with a much larger population of whites 45.3%, and “Other” 2.2%.

Since then murder rates have been increasing for blacks and “others” and decreasing for whites. By 2019 the murder rate for blacks was about 10 times higher than whites. And the ratio keeps increasing …

I have never seen the mainstream media ever report any of this …

My paper on Jewish influence blows up

My paper “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence” has generated considerable controversy. Springer Nature has put up the following statement at the beginning of the article:

04 January 2022 Editor’s Note: The Editor-in-Chief and publisher are aware of concerns raised with the content of this article and are investigating. Editorial action will be taken as appropriate once investigation of the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.

The good news, of course, is that they are saying that I will be able to “respond in full.” This could get very interesting.

Meanwhile, I have come across two media accounts of the controversy. Justin Weinberg’s The Daily Nous, described as “news for and about the philosophy profession, useful information for academic philosophers, links to items of interest elsewhere, and an online space for philosophers to publicly discuss it all. The site is maintained by me, Justin Weinberg, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina.” The article, “Philosophy Journal Hosts Debate on “Jewish Influence” (updated),” by Weinberg, begins with a quote from the hostile Wikipedia article on me where I am labeled an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist,  and evolutionary psychologist.”  Weinberg:

Philosophia is edited by Asa Kasher (Tel Aviv). In response to questions about the publication of these articles, he wrote that the papers were refereed prior to publication, but that it was “a mistake” to publish them, explaining that he was “not aware of the general background of the debate” and that he is “sorry for treating the discussion as an ordinary philosophical debate.” He added that further comments from him may be forthcoming.

Yesterday, Moti Mizrahi (Florida Institute of Technology) who was until last night the associate editor of Philosophiawrote on Twitter: “I had nothing to do with the publication of this [McDonald’s] paper in Philosophia. I’ve asked the EiC to reconsider its publication in Philosophia.” Later in the day, he announced his resignation from the journal.

Weinberg seems particularly interested in publicizing my brief section titled “Should Jews be welcomed in White advocacy?” The idea of White advocacy is so far beyond the pale at this point that such a discussion is sure to anger activist Jews—and so obviously anathema that Weinberg included a screen shot of the section. I knew that the passage would result in anger, and one reviewer suggested I delete it. But Cofnas had argued that it’s no mystery why Jews don’t join White advocate movements that take a dim view of the effects of Jewish activism, so I thought it was important enough to keep in.

There is a sort of irony here because I started out my academic career by majoring in philosophy and then becoming a graduate student in philosophy, both at the University of Wisconsin. At the beginning I loved philosophy but gradually, due to the upheaval of the 1960s and having developed the idea that philosophy was really irrelevant to the contemporary world, I dropped out. A very difficult decision at the time, but probably the right one in the long run because by the time I came back to academia several years later, I had decided that biological, evolutionary perspectives on human behavior were what I was really interested in. Anyway, publishing an article in an academic philosophy journal is kind of a homecoming for me, and I’d have to say that my article is hardly evidence that an article in academic philosophy journal is irrelevant to the real world. Irrelevant articles don’t ignite furious public debate among activists.

It’s interesting that one section of my article discusses my personal experience with the New Left as a philosophy grad student; another discusses the general rise of Jewish academics to positions in elite universities: ‘Hollinger (1996: 160) notes that “One force in this [culture war of the 1940s] was a secular, increasingly Jewish, decidedly left-of-center intelligentsia based largely . . . in the disciplinary communities of philosophy and the social sciences.’ Lipset and Ladd (1971), using survey data of 60,000 academics from 1969, show that the 1960s were a critical period for the rise of Jewish academics in elite universities who were in general well to the left of non-Jewish professors.” The influx of Jewish faculty and the retirement of non-Jewish faculty were certainly obvious at the University of Wisconsin during that period. I can’t find an official history of that period in the department, but I can think of around 10 Jews, including Haskell Fain (my advisor, a good guy!), including most of the younger faculty.

The other article appeared in The Algemeiner, “a global news destination published online and in print, serves as an independent media voice covering the Middle East, Israel and matters of Jewish interest around the world”: “Israeli Philosophy Journal Scolded for ‘Legitimizing’ Notorious White Supremacist by Publishing Article on ‘Jewish Influence.’”

An Israeli academic journal stirred controversy this week after its publication of a paper on “Jewish influence” by notorious white supremacist Kevin MacDonald, prompting the resignation of its associate editor and a condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

On Sunday, the peer-reviewed Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel journal published the essay by MacDonald, a retired California State University-Long Beach professor and a virulently antisemitic figure influential in the US white supremacist movement.

Notice both articles use quotes around the word ‘influence.’ The Algemeinger article also baldly refers to my work as “antisemitic” and, like Weinberg, it emphasizes the section on Jews joining White advocacy movements, as in:

In a lengthy piece defending his earlier antisemitic work, MacDonald called Cofnas’ assessment of Jewish “influence” on US history “inadequate,” arguing among other things that “Jews should be allowed to join [pro-white] movements if they acknowledge the role and the power of the Jewish community in transforming America contrary to white interests and direct their efforts at converting the Jewish community to pro-white advocacy.”

And we hear from the predictably outraged ADL:

The report’s author, ADL Center on Extremism Senior Research Fellow Marilyn Mayo, told The Algemeiner on Tuesday that MacDonald’s body of work was “blatantly antisemitic,” and said that publishing his article was “not a mistake that can just be shirked off.”

“I think it’s disappointing that a journal based in Israel would publish the work of an antisemite,” Mayo said. “Promoting the work of an antisemite in an academic journal legitimizes it.”

But rest assured, the ADL’s attempt to have the article withdrawn is not about censorship. It’s about truth.

“It’s not about censorship, but looking at what someone is saying and whether you’re validating views that are antisemitic or racist or promoting ideas that have proven to be conspiratorial and not true,” she continued.  “Of course, in academia there is understandably a drive to present all different kinds of views, and that’s understandable — but it is also incumbent upon institutions and journals to vet what’s put out there or put it in context.”

The phrase “ideas that have proven to be conspiratorial and not true” is a classic. Which ideas is she referring to? There are literally dozens of ideas discussed in my paper. Is she saying that the activist—c Jewish community didn’t really organize, lead, fund, and perform most of the work of the most important anti-restrictionist organizations active from 1945–1965? Is there no basis to my claim that they recruited prominent non-Jews, such as JFK and Hubert Humphrey, as spokesmen for immigration? Did Jews own the three major television networks and Hollywood studios during that period? Did Jewish academics attempt to shape public views on race? Was the activist Jewish community hopelessly split between different perspectives so that in aggregate they had no influence—or were there virtual consensuses during particular times and places? To name a few.

And something Ms. Mayo should be able to comment on directly. Cofnas claimed that I maintained that Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes re Israel vs the U.S.—concerned about demographic eclipse in Israel if there was a one-state solution, but championing replacement-level immigration in the U.S. In response I noted that the ADL described Tucker Carlson’s claim that White people are being replaced in the U.S. as “antisemitic, racist and toxic,” and noted that Carlson put up a screen shot from the ADL website pointing out that Jews in Israel would be in danger if Jews became a minority. Why was this statement removed from the ADL website? I accessed it on the ADL website at the time Carlson mentioned it, but the link that worked in April, 2021 (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-bi-national-one-state-solution) now says, “You are not authorized to access this page.”

Of course, there is no attempt to dispute my assertions on these matters. Nothing concrete that I could respond to. We’ll see if anyone else does. But rest assured, the vast majority of academics will be intimidated by such pronouncements and will stay inside their safe spaces. Being labeled an “anti-Semite” is the kiss of death for pretty much everyone these days.

I recently posted a blog item on the passing of E.O. Wilson. It was generally laudatory, and notes that he emphasized the roles of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin in the academic attacks on him. But one wonders if he was intimidated from publicly noting that their Jewish identities growing up in a radical Jewish subculture influenced their views, as discussed in  Chapter 2 in The Culture of Critique. I recently came across an interview EOW did for Quillette in 2011 where he elaborates on Gould and Lewontin. He singles out Gould and Lewontin among the many academics who had condemned Sociobiology:

Furious ideologically based opposition had built up in 1978. That opposition had been fanned by a small number of academics including [paleontologist] Stephen Jay Gould and [evolutionary biologist] Richard Lewontin and two or three others on the Harvard faculty who thought this was a very dangerous idea and said so. These people helped organize the so-called “Science for the People” movement, or the branch of it called the “Sociobiology Study Group.” Their purpose was to discredit me personally for having brought up such a dangerous and destructive idea. …

Even before the Internet, there were colleagues I’ve had to watch closely, out of self-defense. Gould and Lewontin could change your identity to evil. Until the end, Gould was continuing to speak out against studies on human genetics and the biological basis of human behavior. At every opportunity, he would put the needle in.

On the ease of academic publishing if you are on the left:

Gould and Lewontin could publish fast and easily. In the early days of forensic DNA analysis, Lewontin came out with a tremendous blast against it and, to my astonishment, he actually had a paper published in Science. He said that since the odds of making a mistake with an African American was greater than making a mistake with whites, forensic DNA analysis was racist and should not be used. He was talking about how the chances of making a false match by chance alone was one in, say, 150 million (I’m just making up numbers here to illustrate his point) in African Americans, while in whites it was something like one in 300 million, so we shouldn’t use the technology. Of course, soon afterwards we saw not people being unjustly convicted, but people being freed when their convictions were overturned, many of whom were African Americans who had been wrongly convicted!

On the other hand, as EOW noted in a 1994 book Naturalist (345), Lewontin imposed the highest scientific rigor on those attempting to publish ideas he disagreed with: “By adopting a narrow criterion of publishable research, Lewontin freed himself to pursue a political agenda unencumbered by science. He adopted the relativist view that accepted truth, unless based on ineluctable fact, is no more than a reflection of dominant ideology and political power.”

Going back to the Quillette interview, EOW on Gould’s Machiavellian personality:

I have a certain cynical feeling towards Gould. Gould was going around attacking racists wherever he found them, especially in the early part of his career. He was the great anti-racism crusader. He acted as though other scientists were all racists or incipient racists. He almost implied that he was the champion who would step out of science as a scientist and fight racism everywhere. He had a technique. I knew him when he was a graduate student following me around. He used to be very polite and solicitous. I watched him develop into a very different kind of person.

So Gould was polite and solicitous as a graduate student and likely as an untenured faculty member, but as soon as he had power and security at an elite academic institution, he became a different person—probably a common phenomenon as second- and third-generation Jews were ascending the ladders to elite status in American society. Indeed, EOW notes “I knew [Gould] well enough to know he sought fame and riches. He sought that out.” Lewontin also enjoyed an upper-middle-class lifestyle:

Here was a guy who was an intense Marxist, who spent so much time rallying on behalf of the proletariat, who was all about the class struggle. And he struck me absolutely as a BMW-driving, Cambridge-living, Romance-language-phrase-dropping snob.

This contrasts with EOW’s description of Ruth Hubbard, another Harvard professor who rejected his work:

I always thought of [Hubbard] as burning with a pure fire. She believed all of this. She was dedicated in an honest way to all of this. She was doing other things, too. She was putting herself into civil rights movement, she was an early environmental activist. She was on the wrong side of the problem that culminated in [Napoleon Chagnon’s] difficulties, but at least she was sincere.

Hubbard seems to have been the sort of WASP idealist discussed extensively in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (Chaps. 6 & 7), but that was definitely not how EOW saw Gould and Lewontin. I am wondering if Wilson ever thought about their Jewish identities and how that impacted their work. He must have known they were Jewish and he must have known about the Jewish radical subculture they grew up in. From Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique:

Gould learned his Marxism “at his Daddy’s knee” (see Gould 1996a, 39), indicating that he grew up as part of the Jewish-Marxist subculture discussed in Chapter 3. In a recent article Gould (1996c) reminisces fondly about the Forward, a politically radical but also ethnically conscious Yiddish newspaper (see Ch. 3), stating that he recalls that many of his relatives bought the newspaper daily. As Arthur Hertzberg (1989, 211–212) notes, “Those who read the Forward knew that the commitment of Jews to remain Jewish was beyond question and discussion.”

Did he think their personalities had something to do with their Judaism? Their political commitments? We’ll never know, but it’s  pretty clear that if he had mentioned these issues, his life would have been turned upside down once again, just like in the 1970s. I very much doubt he wanted to go there.

Jewish History, Jewish Religion: A Review

Jewish History, Jewish Religion
Israel Shahak
Pluto Press, 1994

For a thorough airing of Jewish dirty laundry, one cannot do much better than Israel Shahak’s  Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (JHJR). First published in 1994, JHJR, represents a humanist critique of classical and modern Judaism which extends to the pervasive anti-gentile attitudes of Jews throughout history. Much of Shahak’s critique leads to his condemnation of Israel’s current treatment of the Palestinians, but he also offers the gentile’s perspective whenever discussing historical conflicts between Jews and gentiles. Most importantly, however, Shahak underscores the blatant hypocrisy, the niggling legalism, and the chauvinistic ethnocentrism behind classical Judaism, as expressed in the Talmud and other post-biblical writings. While he focuses his ire on the fanatical rabbis—mostly in Israel—who still adhere to these antiquated doctrines and exert influence in the Israeli military, modern dissidents can implement Shahak’s historical and Talmudic analysis whenever countering the historical complaints Jews continually levy against gentiles, especially the white ones.

Shahak begins by demonstrating how the Jewish state of Israel exists to serve the interests of Jews first and foremost. Jews are protected and encouraged by the law in ways that non-Jews are not, especially when it comes to residency and commercial discrimination. Shahak recognizes that many of these discriminatory laws go unenforced in Israel, but they remain on the books. And some are enforced, or at least were as of the book’s publication. Shahak offers the example of Jews—but not gentiles—being legally allowed to lease an orchard from a Jew for harvest. He also describes the financial incentives Israel provides for its Jewish citizens to return to Israel after they leave, while not making similar offers to its non-Jewish citizens in similar circumstances. Further, Kibbutzes exclude Arabs and require that all non-Jews convert before joining. Underlying these double standards is what Shahak calls “the ideology of redeemed land.” Israeli land is considered “redeemed” when it belongs or is sold to a Jew. The same land in gentile hands would be considered “unredeemed.” The logical extension of this, as Shahak points out, is the ultimate redemption of all Jewish land. As of the 1990s at least there was debate as to how far outside Israeli’s current borders unredeemed Jewish land actually stretches.

Shahak connects this double standard to the closed society many religiously zealous Jews want Israel to be. Despite having great knowledge of Judaism, Shahak laments this, and wishes Israel be an open society. But achieving this will require some painful decisions on the part of Jewish Israelis. The following passage, I think, sums up his intentions with JHJR:

A Jewish state, whether based on its present Jewish ideology or, if it becomes even more Jewish in character than it is now, on the principles of Jewish Orthodoxy, cannot even contain an open society. There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use is nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent on a honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism exist, and on a honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards non-Jews.

And if there are any positive attitudes towards non-Jews in Judaism, Shahak studiously does not mention them.

One of Shahak’s main contentions regarding classical Judaism is its totalitarian nature. He mentions how eighteenth-century Jews burned books, persecuted dissidents, banned non-Jewish education, and were absorbed in mysticism. Tolerance was not part of the equation, and Shahak quite cheekily points out how at times even unfriendly gentile societies were kinder to the Jews than the Jews were to themselves. He states bluntly that when Jews were liberated or emancipated throughout the nineteenth century, they were in many cases freed from “the tyranny of their own religion” rather than from any gentile oppression. He offers as an example the Metternich regime in Austria in the 1840s, which actually enforced laws protecting Jews from being murdered. Shahak makes a similar point regarding Tsar Nicholas I:

Nicholas I of Russia was a notorious anti-Semite and issued many laws against the Jews of his state. But he also strengthened the forces of ‘law and order’ in Russia—not only the secret police but also the regular police and the gendarmerie—with the consequence that it became difficult to murder Jews on the order of their rabbis, whereas in pre-1795 Poland it had been quite easy.

Shahak characterizes pre-emancipated Jewish societies as “sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance” and describes how in the first Hebrew work on geography (published in 1803), the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America. He even cracks a joke about how these classical Jewish societies prohibited the study of secular material—except while on the privy:

One can imagine that those few Jews of that time who – no doubt tempted by Satan—developed an interest in the history of the French kings were constantly complaining to their neighbours about the constipation they were suffering from.

Shahak stresses how official Jewish histories of this period which ignore or deny any of this “bear the unmistakable marks of their origin: deception, apologetics or hostile polemics, indifference or even active hostility to the pursuit of truth.” As evidence of this duplicity, Shahak describes how before emancipation, rabbis continually subverted Christian censorship whenever Christians became aware of virulently anti-gentile passages in the Talmud and other writings. For example, terms such as “non-Jew” or “gentile” would be replaced with seemingly less offensive terms such as “idolator” or “Samaritan” which then served as euphemisms for the goyim. Shahak calls these efforts “a calculated lie” since once the rabbis felt secure enough in Israel centuries later, the original anti-gentile passages reappeared in modern editions of their holy books.

And as for anti-gentile language, there is a lot of it, and not just in the Talmud. The Hebrew word shaqetz refers both to unclean animals and to gentile children. In a work known as The Book of Knowledge, Jews are instructed to exterminate gentiles with their own hands (a passage wholly expunged from the book’s English translations). In the Hasidic text known as Hatanya, gentiles are considered Satanic creatures. The Halakhah, which outlines the legal system of classical Judaism and springs from the Babylonian Talmud, openly approves of war crimes (i.e., the killing of ostensibly good gentile civilians during war). In Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed, Blacks and some other nomadic races are likened to “mute animals” and “are not on the level of human beings.” (In the 1925 American translation, editors obfuscated this embarrassing detail by replacing the Hebrew word Kushim, meaning Blacks, with the nonsensical  “Kushites”). There is a morning prayer in which Jews thank God for not making them gentiles. In another prayer, the worshipper declares, “and may the apostates have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly.” Devout Jews are enjoined to utter a curse whenever passing a gentile cemetery or upon seeing a large gentile population. The fourteenth-century work called The Book of Education reinterprets seemingly universalist verbiage from the Bible into chauvinistic, pro-Jewish exhortations. For example, according to The Book of Knowledge, the verse “Thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself,” really means “Thou shalt love thy fellow Jew as thyself.” Finally, according to the Talmudic Encyclopedia, the intricacy of the law regarding adultery with gentile women reveals that, to devout Jews, all gentile women, even the ones who convert to Judaism, are presumed to be whores.

Keep in mind that while devout Jews were praying for the death of gentiles and while Jewish leaders were fully aware of the hidebound aspects of their own religion, they pressured the Catholic Church during the mid-20th century to remove the line about God forgiving Jews in one its Good Friday prayers; because, of course, to say such a thing would be anti-Semitic.

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of JHJR is how petty and legalistic Shahak reveals Judaism to be. It seems that Judaism, as interpreted and re-interpreted over the centuries in the Talmud and other texts—down to the most trivial details—has provided the evolutionary bottleneck through which the Jews have become the world’s heavyweight champions of lawyers. In some cases, it’s as if God laid down the law in the Torah, and it’s up to His chosen people to find ingenious loopholes around these very laws—as if the All-Powerful Creator of the Universe were too obtuse to notice.

On the proscription against milking cows on the Sabbath, Shahak writes—hilariously—that according to Zionist rabbis:

the forbidden milking becomes permitted provided the milk is not white but dyed blue. This blue Saturday milk is then used exclusively for making cheese, and the dye is washed off into the whey. Non-Zionist rabbis have devised a much subtler scheme (which I personally witnessed operating in a religious kibbutz in 1952). They discovered an old provision which allows the udders of a cow to be emptied on the Sabbath, purely for relieving the suffering caused to the animal by bloated udders, and on the strict condition that the milk runs to waste on the ground. Now, this is what is actually done: on Saturday morning, a pious kibbutznik goes to the cowshed and places pails under the cows. (There is no ban on such work in the whole of the Talmudic literature.) He then goes to the synagogue to pray. Then comes his colleague, whose ‘honest intention’ is to relieve the animal’s pain and let their milk run to the floor. But if, by chance, a pail happens to be standing there, is he under any obligation to remove it? Of course not. He simply ‘ignores’ the pails, fulfills his mission of mercy and goes to the synagogue. Finally a third pious colleague goes into the cowshed and discovers, to his great surprise, the pails full of milk. So he puts them in cold storage and follows his comrades to the synagogue. Now all is well, and there is no need to waste money on blue dye.

This is funny. But when rules are laid down and then interpreted to not only benefit Jews but also to necessarily harm gentiles, it’s not funny. In Chapter Five, “The Laws Against Non-Jews,” Israel Shahak wrote it all down.

According to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, the Talmudic Encyclopedia, and R. Yo’el Sirkis’ Bayit Hadash, Jew-on-Jew murder is a capital sin, but Jew-on-gentile murder is not, and is therefore not punishable by any Jewish court. R. David Halevi declares in his seventeenth-century text Turey Zahav which comments on the Shulhan ‘Arukh that a Jew must not directly harm a gentile, but he allows for indirect harm of gentiles. Maimonides himself proscribes Jewish doctors treating gentiles. Basically, a gentile life must not be saved. For example, a Jew would not be allowed to shove a gentile down a crevice, but if the gentile is already in the crevice, the Jew is under no obligation to pull him out. Indeed, if there is a ladder which could facilitate the gentile’s rescue, the Jew may also remove the ladder.

Unless, of course, such indirect harm would then bring hostility upon the Jews as a whole. Then, and only then, would a Jew not be permitted to indirectly harm a gentile. This, I call “the hostility exception,” and Shahak brings it up a lot. Jews respect power, and this power more than any universal set of values informs their jurisprudence. When gentiles (or heretic Jews) are weak, they are afforded no mercy in the law. However, when gentiles are strong, then Jews are required to do the very minimum to not increase their hostility. One crass and recurring example of this was how Jewish doctors would be encouraged to treat wealthy gentiles, including kings, nobles, lords, and the like. But poor gentiles, never. Obviously, such self-serving codification defies any absolute sense of Right and Wrong—moral particularlism at its most egregious, and is one of the aspects of classical Judaism that Shahak finds so offensive.

This next one might be the worst of them all. According to the virulently anti-gentilic Maimonides in his “Prohibitions on Sexual Intercourse” (emphasis mine):

If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if she is a minor aged only nine years and one day—because he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got in trouble.

Get that? According to one of greatest Jewish scholars of all time, a Jew has license to murder, rape, and molest children as long as the victim is a gentile. And of course, the sanctity of gentile marriages amounts to nothing.

Here are a few more anti-gentilic laws, all of which adhere to the “hostility exception” described above:

  1. Gentiles are forbidden to bear testimony in rabbinical courts, since all gentiles are presumed liars.
  2. Jews must not offer gifts to gentiles.
  3. Jews must exact interest when lending money to gentiles.
  4. Jews must never return items lost by a gentile.
  5. Jews shall not deceive other Jews in business, but may practice “indirect deception” when doing business with a gentile.
  6. Jews shall not steal without violence from anyone, gentiles included. However, there are certain circumstances under which they may steal with violence from gentiles under their control.
  7. Jews are forbidden to sell unmovable property (i.e., structure and land) to gentiles in Israel.

Towards the end of JHJR, Shahak bluntly states something that most counter-Semites know as fact:

It must be emphasized that the explanations quoted above do represent correctly the teaching of the Halakhah. The rabbis and, even worse, the apologetic ‘scholars of Judaism’ know this very well and for this reason they do not try to argue against such views inside the Jewish community; and of course they never mention them outside it. Instead, they vilify any Jew who raises these matters within earshot of Gentiles, and they issue deceitful denials in which the art of equivocation reaches its summit.

Shahak states further that Judaism is imbued with both hatred and ignorance of Christianity, and that this is largely independent of any Christian persecution of the Jews. Thus, he often takes the gentile perspective when reviewing Jewish history in JHJR. He makes it clear that even the poorest Jews were better off than serfs. He also points out that Jews, as agents of kings or nobility, often exploited the peasantry, especially in Poland. He doesn’t deny that European peasants triggered anti-Jewish uprisings throughout history, but he also lists historical peasant uprisings that had nothing to do with Jews. Clearly then, what Jews call “anti-Semitism” is not inherent to European peasants. Shahak says the quiet part out loud when concluding that Jewish influence declines when gentile nations assume a more nationalistic (read: ethno-nationalistic) attitude and have a greater political connection between the rulers and the people—what it now termed populism in American political culture. There is a long history going back at least to the 1930s of Jewish anti-populist writing (Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique)—writing that eventually penetrated American academic and media culture with the rise of Jewish power.

Most damningly, Shahak states:

Before the advent of the modern state the position of the Jews was socially most important, and their internal autonomy greatest, under a regime which was completely retarded to the point of utter degeneracy.

In other words, Jews readily made alliances with oppressive, degenerate non-Jewish elites and participated with these elites in exploiting the non-Jewish population.

Certainly, viewing the Jewish Question through the lens Israel Shahak provides us in JHJR makes things much clearer. He provides cogent reasons why gentiles oppressed Jews in the past or evicted them from their nations. Still, we should remember that Shahak was no fellow traveler of the Dissident Right. Like any good liberal humanist, he opposed all race-based policies, laws, and nations. He opposed ethno-nationalism in toto and often chided Jews (for example, Rabbi Schneurssohn of New York city) for having anti-Black attitudes—the same anti-Black attitudes that many race-realist White dissidents have today. White people founding pro-White nations would have been just as odious to him as the Zionists who had founded Israel. Most questionably, Shahak on multiple occasions in JHJR expresses a high regard for the ideas behind the French Revolution without mentioning any of its concurrent chaos and atrocities. This should give a clear indication of where he stands as a pollical thinker.

Most importantly, we should keep in mind that Jewish History, Jewish Religion does not condemn modern Jews for the overt racism of their classical religion (excluding those instances when classical Judaism informs their treatment of the Palestinians). Nor should it—since no people is without historical sin. However, the best take from this important and fascinating book is the underscoring of the present sin being committed by most Jews today; that is, blaming gentiles, especially the white ones, for bad things in their past, while astutely ignoring similar bad things in the Jewish past.

A critical mass of Jews who stop doing this will do much to lift the burden of three thousand years.

A Critical Look at the Polish ‘Pogroms’ of 1914–1920

“Jewish reports tended toward exaggeration.”
William Hagen, Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914–1920, 173.

“All the methods of malevolent propaganda are a menace from which Poland is a notable sufferer.”
Major General Edgar Jadwin, U.S. Army, 1920

Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914–1920
William W. Hagan
Cambridge University Press, 2018

I recently had the good fortune to read William Hagen’s Cambridge-published Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914–1920, one of the most interesting books I’ve read on Jewish-European relations since John Doyle Klier’s Oxford-published work on the Tsarist pogroms. It’s always refreshing to see scholars of European heritage tackle this subject matter, which has been dominated for too long by Jewish academics offering a one-sided, lachrymose, and propaganda-laden approach. Now eighty years old, Hagen, like Klier before him, has started publishing his most incisive work on the Jews only in the deep twilight of his career. Also echoing Klier’s work on the pogroms, Hagen’s Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland offers an unflinching look at the causes of inter-ethnic friction, often using novel or previously ignored source material, as well as a balanced and careful approach to the true extent of any violence that occurred. The result is a text that doesn’t just attempt to get to the bottom of what exactly happened, but also why it happened. The following essay is a hybrid work involving a partial review of Hagen’s work and some of my own thoughts and research on the subject.


Hagen’s text offers strong support for Kevin MacDonald’s argument in Separation and Its Discontents that anti-Semitism is a reactive phenomenon very closely related to Jewish dominance in certain spheres of public life, especially the economy. In fact, in Separation and Its Discontents MacDonald cites on several occasions Hagen’s only previous work on anti-Semitism, a 1996 prize-winning article published in the Journal of Modern History.[1] The focus on socio-economic factors in both works indicates that Hagen’s understanding of anti-Semitism has been settled for some time.

Hagen’s Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland opens by giving voice to some fascinating Polish contemporaries, opening up an avenue of discussion often closed off in lachrymose Jewish histories which overwhelmingly focus on the putative suffering of the Jews rather than the difficult experiences of those they lived among. One of the more interesting examples is Hagen’s exploration of the works of Jan Słomka, Habsburg Polish mayor of Dzików and author of From Serfdom to Self-Government: Memoirs of a Polish Village Mayor. Słomka’s memoirs offer insight in the origins of Polish antipathy towards the Jews, and depict Jews as “cynical exploiters of Christian villagers’ weaknesses and ignorance.” (11) Mimicking tactics employed under the Russian tavern system, Jewish merchants in Poland often used alcohol to drag peasants into debt and keep them there. Słomka explained how Jews

would begin from harvest-time to buy up provisions from the farmers, mostly paying them with vodka: and these they would sell during the hunger period at huge profit. They would set things out on market days in sacks; and around these sacks would wander a hungry throng … buying grain in pots or quart measures. (13)

Słomka was a teetotaler and castigated his fellow Poles for the reckless drinking and lack of forethought that allowed them to fall into the hands of Jews who were systematically “bankrupting the emancipated peasantry and foreclosing on their minuscule farms.” In his own town of Dzików, Słomka remarked that most of the land had at one time been in Jewish hands and had only been “bought back with a lot of toil.” The Jews, according to Słomka, “have never wanted to till the soil, they have preferred to live by their wits, to profit by trading in the lands peasants have had to pay for [in compensation for receiving post-emancipation freeholds].” For the Jews, of course, it was a very successful strategy. In the 1860s, Słomka looked on as the prestigious houses ringing the central square of his chief market district, Tarnobrzeg, passed into Jewish hands.[2]

Hagen places Słomka’s concerns in the context of a wider Polish discourse on a slow national dispossession carried out by Jews. Słomka is a particularly interesting writer because he focuses as much on Polish weaknesses as on Jewish strategic competence. Słomka, for example, was irate that rural Poles had neglected to develop a keen acumen in business that would enable them to at least compete with Jews on an ethnic level rather than simply acting as prone or passive victims of unanswered economic exploitation. Słomka was later full of praise when such an answer did materialize, in the form of cooperatives that emerged in the 1880s. Due in part to increased assistance from the priesthood and sympathetic aristocrats, the decade witnessed the creation of a significant number of these ethnically based marketing and retail consortiums that defeated the economic strategy of the Jews, often via boycott, and enabled the supply of “villagers with their purchased necessities at Jewish merchants’ loss.”[3] A side-effect of growing awareness among Poles that they were engaged in a multi-front ethnic competition with Jews prompted some to engage in petty violence and robbery, which Słomka condemned as unhelpful. Słomka believed that “the struggle against Jewish capital was a contest … of morality, self-control, and will power.”[4]

Hagen demonstrates the uniformity of Polish thought on the Jews by comparing the relatively uneducated and rural Słomka’s views with those of the more cosmopolitan academic Franciszek Bujak, author of the 1919 pamphlet “The Jewish Question in Poland.” Like Słomka, Bujak argued that Polish anti-Semitism was largely a result of Jewish socio-economic dominance and the exploitation of the lower classes. In fact, Bujak argued that it was wrong to focus on Polish attitudes at all since

we may speak with more truth about Jewish antipolinism than about Polish antisemitism, which is not an aggressive movement displaying itself in consequent deeds, but merely a psychic reaction against damages suffered by the Polish nation from their [Jews] part. (19)

Bujak posited that Jewish clannishness gave them certain advantages over the trusting Poles, and suggested that the resulting exploitation was worsened by the Jews’ biblically based sense of superiority and adherence to a system of dual morality. When Jews did decide to leave the life of the ghetto-dwelling exploiter they invariably assimilated only “in an intruding way” into Polish society, where they “veered toward radicalism and revolution” as a result of their “inclination towards analysis and criticism.”(19) For Bujak, as for Słomka, the solution to Jewish strategic success was for Poles to heighten their sense of ethnocentrism and ethnic co-operation and engage in a process of ethnic exclusion—a social, political, and economic boycott of the Jews. Bujak viewed the prospect of violence as entailing a moral and strategic failure on the part of the Poles.

The only significant dissent from this prevailing view appears in the writings of the linguist and Slavist Jan Baudouin de Courtenay. Baudouin thought that exclusionary efforts were doomed to failure given the deeply embedded nature of Jewish involvement in Polish life, which extended even to the psychological:

I recognise the Jews’ power, i.e., the power of Jewish tradition’s influence on other human groups’ mentality. For at the base of our thinking, our beliefs about fundamental matters, we encounter a Jewish source [the Old and New Testaments]. We are ourselves but ‘modified’ Jews. Principled ‘mercilessness,’ unforgivingness, readiness to exterminate, raised to ideological level — all this we imbibed from literary monuments [the Christian Bible] of Jewish descent. Thanks to the ‘Judaization’ of our thinking even those who rush forward into wholesale attacks on Jews call themselves servants of him born in Bethlehem and profess Jehova, God of Israel. (25)

Baudouin’s proposed solutions couldn’t have been more representative of extremes. On the one hand he suggested an attempt to smother Jews with love and tolerance in the hope they would become excellent allies of the Polish nation. On the other, he mused about the prospects of “extermination, expulsion, starvation.” His ideas were, however, very much in the minority, and the position of the new Polish state was to tacitly permit the slow exclusion of the Jews from their prior positions of influence while condemning any and all instances of violence.

Violence and Exaggeration

Hagen has an excellent section looking at the slow build-up of verbal and physical provocation between the two populations. Unlike Jewish-authored texts on historical anti-Semitism, Hagen isn’t shy when it comes to including information that shatters the myth of the Jews as the passive and innocent victims of irrational European hatred. One hears about Jews taunting Polish villagers with “the streets are yours, the houses ours” and “the keys to the churches will be ours.” (38) With physical violence being an extremely dangerous strategy for a minority population, such taunts are emblematic of the much more common rhetorical, financial, and otherwise abstract character of historical Jewish aggression. Faced with this aggression, Europeans throughout history have often relied on the ease and simplicity of their numerical superiority in the form of varieties of “physical force” responses ranging from pranks and vandalism to boycotts, small-scale evictions, and mass expulsions. Quite where on this spectrum the events of 1914–20 fall is the primary concern of Hagen’s text.

One of Hagen’s central primary sources for his investigation of anti-Jewish violence in Poland between 1914 and 1920 is a rather dubious 1920 book, Poland and Its Minority Races, produced by Arthur Lehman Goodhart, a Jewish academic and lawyer. The origins of the book lay in a series of protests against “wholesale killing of Jews in Poland” organized by Jewish groups in several American cities in 1919. Although the Polish government denied any such atrocities had taken place, and despite the lack of clear objective evidence, American-Jewish agitation was sufficient for President Wilson to appoint a small commission “to ascertain the facts.” A commission was also sent by Great Britain, in the context of similar protests in London, led by the senior diplomat Sir Horace Rumbold. The American commission was composed of Goodhart and Henry Morgenthau (infamous author of the Morgenthau Plan), and of two non-Jews, the U.S. army officer Edgar Jadwin and his colleague Homer H. Johnson. Although not mentioned in detail by Hagen, the ethnic difference between the Jews Goodhart and Morgenthau on the one hand, and the Anglo-Saxons Jadwin and Johnson on the other, resulted in two different reports (the former more or less affirming atrocity propaganda and the latter emphatically denying, or at least heavily qualifying, it) on the return of the group to the United States, with the National Polish Committee of America even publishing “The Jadwin and Johnson Report” as a separate document entirely.[5] Both the Goodhart text and the document produced by the National Polish Committee are available in complete form from archive.org and can be read in full here and here.

From the outset, Hagen is skeptical of contemporary Jewish accounts that alleged spontaneous mass shootings. He opens the book by making it clear the documentary record has “gaps or blindspots” and “doubtless exaggeration occurred … I have sought out multiple accounts so as to minimise bias.”[6] He later argues that “resentment-laden animosity coloured many such [Jewish] reports, which tended, in an atmosphere heavy with collective paranoia and hysteria, to exaggerate Jewish losses.”[7] He even cites one brief but telling remark from Henry Morgenthau himself, who, although promoting atrocity propaganda admitted once that “there is also no question but that some of the Jewish leaders [in Poland] had exaggerated.”[8]

Patterns of Propaganda

In 1920 the National Polish Committee of America published a statement outlining the origins of atrocity propaganda against Poland:

From the very first moment, when at the beginning of November 1918, Poland regained her independence, day after day, month after month, news of dreadful Jewish pogroms were spread over the whole world. … This news found the more credit because nobody contradicted it. And nobody could contradict it. The Polish Government could not, because there was no Polish Government. … And so the news of dreadful ‘pogroms’ penetrated everywhere, spread systematically via Berlin and Vienna, and by special bureaux in Stockholm and Copenhagen, which from day to day furnished Zionist organisations possessing sufficient means and influence to give it a world-wide publication. And the news was frightful. It told of thousands of Jews not only beaten and robbed, but murdered and burned alive. As these facts were confirmed by “eye-witnesses” it is no wonder they aroused general indignation. And when Mr. Israel Cohen, the Secretary of the London Zionist Organisation, after investigating the matter on the spot published in England papers and at a meeting at Queen’s Hall in London that such atrocities had taken place in Poland in 130 towns, indignation meetings and funereal processions began all over the world.[9]

The Chicago Jewish weekly, The Sentinel, reported on July 23 1920 that:

Polish people are crazy with Jew-hatred and are busily engaged in pogroms. … The outrages perpetrated by old Russia against the Jews are child-play in comparison with the appalling crimes perpetrated by the Polish government and the Polish people against the Jews. … The Polish representatives abroad know that even the Spanish Inquisition has not committed so many crimes against the Jews as Poland is committing now. … Poland, born in crime and sin, will go under in a sea of crime and sin.

Newspapers in America were also flooded with lurid tales penned by local Jews claiming to have first-hand knowledge of what was happening in Poland. One “eye-witness” claimed to have counted 2,300 corpses. A “Charles Golosman” had a letter published in the New York Globe on August 18 1920 in which he writes of “massacres of the Jews by the Polish military” and adds:

A bloody pogrom was organised in my own native town, Bobruisk, with every home pillaged and the women ravaged in the open in broad daylight by the blood-thirsty Polish beasts. My own people may have become victims of some Polish assassin’s hands.

This account of the media origins of the pogrom myth, and in fact everything discussed thus far, is remarkably consistent with Klier’s findings regarding the Russian pogroms of the 1880s. As with agitation against Poland, in the 1880s the West was rocked by massive Jewish protests against “the mass killing of Jews” in the Russian empire, and (mirroring Goodhart’s book) the production of books and pamphlets on Russia’s putative ill treatment of the Jews. This followed, in Russia as in Poland, an increasingly assertive peasantry or lower class that began to act against Jewish economic exploitation through cooperatives or other non-violent methods. Atrocity propaganda may therefore be seen as an attempt to avenge or ameliorate a Jewish loss of influence in a given nation. In both cases, Western governments (Britain in the 1880s, America in 1919) sent official delegations to discover the truth of the situation. In both cases (unanimously in the case of Britain, and with divided opinion in the American group) the resulting reports cast great doubt on the Jewish narrative.

After many years of searching archives and reviewing contemporary reports produced by all sides, Klier concluded that Jewish accounts should be treated with “extreme caution,” that some were “flatly contradicted by the archival record,” and that some claims of pogroms are attached to cities where it is certain “there were no significant pogroms and no fatalities.” Klier noted that while the Jewish atrocity narrative dominated cultural discourse via the power of media, almost no government agency took it seriously once it had been investigated. The British government investigation, published as a “Blue Book,” presented, to use its own words, “an account of events at great variance with that offered by The Times.” The most notable aspect of the British Blue Book is the outright denial of mass rape, a prolific propaganda device. In January 1882, investigator Consul-General Stanley objected to all of the details contained within reports published by The Times, mentioning in particular the unfounded “accounts of the violation of women.” He further stated that his own investigations revealed that there had been no incidences of rape during the Berezovka pogrom, that violence was rare, and that much of the disturbance was restricted to property damage. In relation to property damage in Odessa, Stanley estimated it to be around 20,000 rubles, and rejected outright the Jewish claim that damage amounted to over one million rubles.

Vice-Consul Law, another independent investigator, reported that he had visited Kiev and Odessa, and could only conclude that “I should be disinclined to believe in any stories of women having been outraged in those towns.” Another investigator, Colonel Francis Maude, visited Warsaw and said that he could “not attach any importance” to atrocity reports emanating from that city. At Elizavetgrad, instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, it was discovered that a small hut had lost its roof. Accusations of murderous intent among the masses were simply unfounded and unsubstantiated by the evidence.

What Happened in Poland?

Although clear in its expression of skepticism, a crucial weakness of Hagen’s text is that it shows a willingness to attach some credence to flamboyant and discredited Jewish atrocity narratives about mass killings by mobs of Polish peasants or soldiers, and it doesn’t make full use of compelling counter-narratives such as that produced by Jadwin and Johnson, or by the National Polish Committee of America, a group that very studiously compiled and published a variety of independent reports into events in Poland. (Hagen does cite the NPC report twice in his book but otherwise demonstrates little evidence of having actually read it.) Nor does Hagen’s text incorporate other valuable material, such as testimony from Colonel C.A. Gaskill, the U.S. Army’s Relief Administration worker and technical adviser in Poland between 1919 and 1921. Gaskill and Jay P. Moffatt, Secretary of the American Legation in Warsaw, both testified that Jews had been engaged in sniper activity against Polish troops in several key locations and that Polish officers had actually issued orders against retaliating even when Polish casualties resulted from Jewish attacks.[10] I regard it as imperative that Hagen should have noted somewhere in his book that Jews were active in most of the relevant war zones as guerrilla combatants, particularly during the Polish-Soviet war of 1918̶-1921 in which many Polish Jews were Soviet partisans, and that Jadwin and Johnson concluded their own investigations by arguing that Poland was the victim of an international smear campaign orchestrated via the media:

The coloring, the suppression, and the invention of news, the subornation of newspapers by many different methods, and the poisoning by secret influences of the instruments affecting public opinion, in short all the methods of malevolent propaganda are a menace from which Poland is a notable sufferer. This applies to propaganda both at home and from abroad.[11]

Although Morgenthau and Goodhart were quite happy to repeat lurid tales of mass shootings of civilians, Jadwin and Johnson offered a report that has an entirely different feel and, in their own words, offers “conclusions which differ from those of Mr. Morgenthau.” In terms of details, most official accounts seem to agree that only around 348 Jews could be confirmed as having died from violence in relevant areas between 1914 and 1920, but this is clarified further in the official British report on the violence, written by Sir Horace Rumbold. Rumbold pointed out that even if we accepted this figure of 348, only 18 of these deaths would have occurred on actual Polish territory with the rest occurring in established war zones where civilian casualties among all ethnic and national groups were commonplace.[12] In these war zones, according to Jadwin, some shootings were the result of guerrilla tactics by Jewish civilians known to be sympathetic to the Bolsheviks. In one town, entering Polish soldiers were fired upon from a “certain meeting house in which Jews had congregated,” resulting in the execution of five Jewish men.[13] Captain P. Wright, a member of the British investigating team summed up the circumstances of Jewish deaths as involving not Polish prejudice but “only the expression of a mutual animosity,” and that these “excesses have been so small.”[14]

A very modern parallel to the incorporation of these war zone deaths into atrocity propaganda would be declaring a gunshot fatality a “Covid death” so long as the corpse can produce a positive PCR test. In this case we have an “anti-Semitic murder by Poles” simply because a Jew dies violently anywhere near Poland and under any conditions, including active warfare. Goodhart even includes the testimony of one Jewish mother who reported the “anti-Semitic” death of her son to the American commission even though she admitted her son was a member of the Bolshevik militia:

I tried to explain to her that there was a difference between the case of a man murdered in cold blood and the death of her son who had been shot while fighting for the Bolsheviks. She simply could not understand the difference and kept on repeating “He was such a fine boy.”[15]

Since both the British and American missions concluded that violence against Jews was never endorsed or encouraged by Polish authorities, and thus meant it could not technically be classed as a pogrom, it can be said that an international diplomatic crisis and mass propaganda campaign about “mass killings” in 130 towns involving in some cases mass graves of 2,300 corpses, was provoked by the violent deaths of just 18 Jews over a six-year period. Jadwin, moreover, argued that only five Jewish deaths could be confirmed to have resulted from mob violence “since the establishment of a stable government in the Republic.”[16] Captain Wright explicitly stated that “though pogroms in Krakow were reported, this was not the case,” and that any violence targeting Jews in Polish territory was “small and trivial.”[17]


Of course, the campaign was about revenge more generally, and more so in terms of the loss of economic power and influence than the 18 (or 5) deaths. Rumbold himself concluded that violence and antagonism between the groups was probably inevitable given the economic situation of the Jews: “it is only natural that separatism should have manifested itself.” Rumbold noted the relatively recent awareness of the Poles that they could engage in their own ethnically-based economic strategies, and the non-productive nature of the Jewish population, was the real source of animosity: “Competition between the Poles and the Jewish population commenced. … The co-operative movement is becoming very strong and will undoubtedly form an important factor in the development of economic relations in Poland, so that indirectly it will be bound to affect the position of the small Jewish trader.”[18] Jadwin and Johnson were equally insistent that there were economic factors behind any inter-ethnic tension, and they were adamant that religious issues played a negligible role in the development of anti-Jewish attitudes:

We are convinced that religious differences as such play therein a very slight role, and that the Polish nation is disposed to religious tolerance and self-control in religious disagreements. … The relation of the Jew to the eventual political disposition of these territories is still an irritating element. These same problems are to some extent inherent in every other country where the Jewish character and habits develop a racial solidarity, necessarily accompanied by an economic and social intermingling with the other elements of the population.[19]

There are some indications that the atrocity propaganda campaign against Poland was explicitly designed to protect Jewish interests by preventing contested territories from being granted to the Poles (then operating the peasant co-operatives against the Jews) in peace treaties. Goodhart, for example, mentions Jewish leaders in Bialystok who told him that “if Bialystok should be given to the Poles, the Jewish merchants would be ruined, because the Polish boycott would come into force.”[20] Smearing the Polish reputation internationally with accusations of mass murder and mass shootings could thus have been intended to sway the decision of the major international powers in deciding the allocation of disputed territory, potentially preventing Jews from being absorbed into a state where they would be forced to abandon non-productive ethnic economic strategies based on mass exploitation.

Finally, despite enormous economic and religious differences between Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Romania, during the 1930s, it should be noted that all of these countries developed policies in which Jews were excluded from public-sector employment, quotas were placed on Jewish representation in universities and the professions, and government-organized boycotts of Jewish businesses and artisans were staged. From Hagen’s 1996 paper:

[Anti-Semitism was] a broad regional phenomenon rather than . . . [a] set of nationally bounded histories. In this view, modern anti-Semitic ideology and politics in both Germany and Poland figure as pathologies of middle-class formation or, in an alternative formulation, as accompaniments of embourgeoisement in a setting, unlike western and southern Europe, where a relatively large (or very large) and economically very significant urban Jewish population appeared to constitute an impediment to Christian advancement. In both countries, anti-Semitism served to justify assaults on Jewish-owned or Jewish-occupied business enterprises and medical, legal, and other professional practices, as well as bureaucratic positions, which were widely seen to block the path of upward mobility to non-Jewish aspirants to bourgeois respectability and security. In both countries, more or less sporadic anti-Semitic violence fomented by political organizations of the radical right, particularly in the 1930s, elicited considerable popular support or acceptance, reflecting widespread though normally mostly latent hostility to the Jews. . . . Similar policies were also being implemented in Hungary and Romania, the other major homelands of the central European Jews. (Hagen 1996, 360, 361)


The fabricated Polish pogroms of 1914-20 offer a remarkable glimpse into patterns established decades earlier in the Russian empire. The basic pattern appears to be that attempts on the part of a majority population to protect their interests as an ethnic group, especially economically, will result in the utilization of media influence to create a flamboyantly exaggerated atrocity narrative about that state or locality, often involving accusations of mass shootings and mass graves. Because of their entrenchment in popular consciousness via mass communications, these narratives are incredibly difficult to overturn, even with highly critical official government reports. The Russian pogrom myth is an excellent example given that it was repeated during the Polish hoax (The Sentinel: “The outrages perpetrated by old Russia against the Jews are child-play in comparison with the appalling crimes perpetrated by the Polish government and the Polish people against the Jews”). The reality, of course, was that the Russian and Polish ‘atrocities’ were equally baseless and fraudulent. And yet, look hard enough today, and you will certainly see some Jewish Twitter personality inevitably claim a distant relative mass murdered in the Russian pogroms. These are deeply engrained fictions that are internalized by Jews and go some way to generating fear, antipathy, and aggression towards majority White populations who are always said to have the same potential for mass violence.

Atrocity narratives remain an important strategic device, and the tactic is visible even on the small scale in events like Charlottesville. The actual events of Charlottesville are by any consideration, to borrow Captain Wright’s words, “small and trivial,” involving no more petty violence and vandalism than any other major protest of recent years (arguably much less), and one death of ambiguous cause. And yet hasn’t Charlottesville adopted the air of a “Kishinev” in the way it has been transformed, via propaganda, into a kind of pogrom, perpetrated by an angry White mob? Journalist David Greenberg reported on “the siege of a Charlottesville synagogue during the right-wing rampage there in 2017” during an article scaremongering about “America’s Forgotten Pogroms.” But for the presence of modern recording technology, one can easily imagine that tales would have emerged from Charlottesville of all manner of killings and assaults.

As a final note, I should say that we are all perfectly aware of the creeping attempts in all of Europe and the rest of the West to silence any questioning of that ultimate Jewish atrocity narrative. In our attempt to defend the Western position, we could do well to start with the approach of any good defense lawyer — to critique the credibility of the accuser. Looking at the Russian and Polish cases, do we see a record of truth or fabrication? Is there a case for believing such narratives, or asking further questions?

I’ll conclude with remarks made by Rupert Hughes in the New York Times Book Review, July 18 1920:

Has everybody forgotten the procession in New York and in other cities where mourning was worn and dirges were sung for the slaughtered multitudes of the Polish pogroms? Has anyone apologized to Poland for accusing her of rivalling Turkey, in Armenia? I have not seen the apologies.

[1] Hagen, William W. “Before the ‘Final Solution’: Toward a Comparative Analysis of Political Anti-Semitism in Interwar Germany and Poland.” The Journal of Modern History 68, no. 2 (1996): 351–81. MacDonald cites this work on pages 53 and 55 of the paperback edition of SAID.

[2] Hagen (2018), 14.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid, 18.

[5] The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions · Volume 1, National Polish Committee of America, 1920, 11.

[6] Hagen (2018), xvii.

[7] Ibid, 124.

[8] Ibid, 359.

[9] The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions · Volume 1, National Polish Committee of America, 1920, 55.

[10] New York Times, July 2, 1920.

[11] The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions · Volume 1, National Polish Committee of America, 1920, 18.

[12] The Reports of the British Mission, included in The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions · Volume 1, National Polish Committee of America, 1920, 19.

[13] The Jadwin and Johnson Report, The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions · Volume 1, National Polish Committee of America, 1920, 15.

[14] Report of Captain P. Wright in The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions · Volume 1, National Polish Committee of America, 1920, 33.

[15] Goodhart, 52.

[16]The Jews in Poland: Official Reports of the American and British Investigating Missions · Volume 1, National Polish Committee of America, 1920, 10.

[17] Ibid, 47.

[18] Ibid, 20.

[19] Ibid, 13 & 17.

[20] Goodhart (1920), 45.

“The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence”

Nathan Cofnas published a paper in the Israel-based academic journal Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel in February of last year titled “The Anti-Jewish Narrative.” Andrew Joyce wrote a masterful reply, “The Cofnas Problem,” while I decided to try to  publish a response in Philosophia. My paper went through two rounds of peer review and was finally accepted. It was the lead article in the January issue of Philosophia,  and is available as an open-access paper on Springer Nature. I provide a local version due to concerns the article will be pulled by Springer Nature.

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone. I have updated quite a bit of the material, particularly the scholarly writing on Jewish involvement in influencing U.S. immigration policy—Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. I have always felt that Chapter 7 was the most important chapter in the book. Intellectual movements can decline drastically in influence. This was the fate of psychoanalysis—but not Boasian anthropology, and the intellectual descendants of the Frankfurt School remain influential throughout postmodern academia. Moreover, at least in Western democracies, even political movements, as embodied in the Jewish subculture of radical leftism, can be reversed at the ballot box—unless the people against whom the 1965 immigration law was directed are replaced by a new electorate with no attachment to the people and culture of the West. As argued in the paper, this is exactly what the 1965 immigration law was intended to accomplish in the minds of the Jewish activist community that was by far the most influential force in enacting the law.

Besides updating some critical aspects of The Culture of Critique, the paper emphasizes the point that the enactment of the 1965 immigration law did not occur in a vacuum and cannot be understood apart from the wider context of the rise of a new Jewish elite with influence in a wide range of areas. As I note in the article, the rise of this new elite “implies that vital issues of public policy, including immigration, the civil rights of African-Americans, women’s rights, religion in the public square (Hollinger’s “secularization of American society”), the legitimacy of white racial identity and interests, cosmopolitanism [identifying a “citizen of the world”], foreign policy in the Middle East, and many others will be affected by the attitudes and interests of this new elite.” The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America. This new elite exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture” The 1950s saw the decline of the old WASP elite, recounted in Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. By the 1960s this new elite was flexing its muscle, resulting in a cultural and demographic revolution which is ongoing and indeed accelerating. This new, substantially Jewish elite was (and remains) centered in academia and the media, and, because of Jewish wealth, this new elite has been able to have decisive influence in the  political process via donations to political causes.

The abstract:

The role of Jewish activism in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West in recent decades continues to be controversial. Here I respond to several issues putatively related to Jewish influence, particularly the “default hypothesis” that Jewish IQ and urban residency explain Jewish influence and the role of the Jewish community in enacting the 1965 immigration law in the United States; other issues include Jewish ethnocentrism and intermarriage and whether diaspora Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes on immigration to Israel versus the United States. The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture. Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement involved: intellectual movements denying the importance of race in human affairs; establishing, staffing, and funding anti-restrictionist organizations; recruiting prominent non-Jews to anti-restrictionist organizations; rejecting the ethnic status quo as a goal because of fear of a relatively homogeneous white majority; leadership in Congress and the executive branch.