Featured Articles

Organizing in the Face of Adversity: Lessons from History—Part One: The Pre-Civil War Theory of States Rights

The most pressing problem that our movement faces is that of organization. It is absolutely imperative that White advocates begin to geographically concentrate and procreate; we must reverse the White fertility crisis. Not only is there physical strength in numbers, but spiritual strength; if we can build continuous communities, the social ostracism that we are tormented with would dissolve away and lose its sting. No longer would we be vulnerable in isolation, ripe for the picking. No longer would we be browbeaten, told that we are the root of all evil. The twin scourges of opioids, responsible for 770,000 deaths in less than a decade, and suicide, up forty percent in seventeen years, might finally subside and fade away. Our enemies know this; Virginia Democrats are in the process of ensuring that no White neighborhoods will be allowed. Gregory Hood’s proposal of a White Tithe could go far in building our capacity to congregate. —

Yet when we contemplate the problem of organization, it can appear insurmountable. For example, as Samuel Francis has pointed out, are we really willing to surrender any of the physical integrity of our country? It seems clear that we already are territorially compromised; California and the Southwest have essentially been subsumed into Aztlan. Ignoring the litany of practical obstacles to the establishment of our ethnostate, we must remember the fate of the Confederate States of America. While we do not desire violence in any form, it certainly seems safe to say that a White ethnostate will not be established without violence, and that even if this were accomplished peacefully, the enemy would not, in fact could not, abide our existence. But how can we even begin to organize in the strength necessary to build physical communities? Our movement should be immune to O’Sullivan’s law: “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.” But how can we avoid the inevitable infiltration and entrapment (see the film The Standoff at Sparrow Creek)? I propose no solutions here, but merely hope to inspire practical meditation and discussion.

Not all is dark; we have much to give us hope. Leftism is a castle of sand, a house of cards that must eventually collapse under the inexorably expanding weight of its contradictions with objective reality. Our people are awakening; they are not yet necessarily pro-White, but they are anti-anti-White. As our enemies drop their masks further and further, as their cries grow shriller, and as the consequences of “minority” rule worsen, greater numbers of our people will take their stand. As our forever wars in the Middle East continue, as our military becomes ever more clearly a mercenary force for Israel and international finance, consciousness of the Jewish Question will take deeper root. Each lie that we expose begs the question, “What else have I been lied to about?” The election of President Donald Trump and the spontaneous Trump rally chant of “send her back” are certainly clear expressions of White identity. Yet even in this hope, we must debate the merits and demerits of accelerationism; if we are going to take our stand, shouldn’t it be sooner rather than later, so that there are still enough of us left to claim victory, let alone survive?

I am inclined to the conclusion that 2016 was our last chance at a political solution within the current system. The massive (and unabated) demographic invasion, alongside the many concurrent proposals to expand the electorate and impose majoritarian democracy, make it increasingly unlikely that Whites have a future within the electoral system. If a critical mass of our people comes to believe that the outcomes of elections do not matter, that we are cornered into our final refuge, that there is no hope left within the political system, we can be sure to expect a sharp increase in public violence. In fact, our nation is already on an inexorable path toward increased political violence as the demographic situation deteriorates. However, a variety of peaceful political strategies may still remain for us, not the least of which are devolution and, if need be, secession. Secession, however, must be race-based and enforced. With the right leaders, we may still assert the doctrine of interposition, nullification, and state sovereignty against the tyrannical kritarchy and administrative state that currently reigns in our nation. The doctrine of states’ rights and reserved sovereignty is clearly set forth throughout the entire structure of the Constitution, as well as specifically manifested in the Tenth Amendment, but it is elucidated further in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1789, written in response to the (eerily reminiscent of the modern American Left) Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Theory of States’ Rights in Antebellum America

The Virginia Resolution, written by James Madison, an author of the Constitution, aptly describes the nature of our constitutional republic: “…the powers of the federal government [result] from the compact, to which the states are parties…[and are] no further valid [than] that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. …A spirit has…been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration…and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into…a monarchy.”

In the Kentucky Resolution, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence (which was eventually distorted by Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to announce the American Founding as a singular United States, rather than a compact of plural independent States), carries the doctrine further: “if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence. … The several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

South Carolinian Senator John C. Calhoun, however, most fully expounded upon the doctrine. In his second speech on the admission of the state of Michigan in 1837, Calhoun beautifully explains his position, careful to distinguish between nullification and anarchical revolution: “Because I am conservative I am a State rights man. … In the rights of the States are to be found the only effectual means of checking the overaction of this Government; to resist its tendency to concentrate all power here, and to prevent a departure from the constitution; or, in case of one, to restore the Government to its original simplicity and purity. State interposition, or, to express it more fully, the right of a State to interpose her sovereign voice as one of the parties to our constitutional compact, against the encroachments of this Government, is the only means of sufficient potency to effect all this.”[i]

In Calhoun’s 1831 Fort Hill Address, he further clarifies: “The general Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community. … The Constitution of the United States is in fact a compact, to which each State is a party. … The several States or parties have a right to judge of its infractions … . This right of interposition…be it called what it may, State right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain, as our Revolution itself. … Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail. Let it never be forgotten that where the majority rules the minority is the subject; and that if we should absurdly attribute to the former, the exclusive right of construing the Constitution, there would be in fact between the sovereign and subject, under such a government, no Constitution.”[ii]

The foundations of our kritarchy were laid in the early days of the Republic. Chief Justice John Marshall established the doctrine of judicial review in his 1803 Marbury v. Madison opinion, declaring that it is for the judiciary “to say what the law is.” Sixteen years later, the Marshall Court abrogated the Tenth Amendment entirely, thereby vitiating state sovereignty, in McCulloch v. Maryland by the oxymoronic creation of “implied enumeration” out of whole cloth. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause of Article I, Section VIII, was interpreted so as to loosely construe the word “necessary” to be expansive, rather than restrictive. The Court took it upon itself to determine what could be treated as the “necessary” means of constitutional execution, ruling that the Constitution was simply an adaptable “framework.”

President Andrew Jackson famously resisted judicial usurpation; in the aftermath of Worcester v. Georgia (wherein Chief Justice Marshall laid the nonsensical foundation of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, describing Indian tribes as sovereign “nations” free from state criminal jurisdiction), Jackson remarked, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Perhaps remembering Alexander Hamilton’s assurance in Federalist 78 that the judiciary was to be the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,” Jackson further utilized the constitutional fact of state sovereignty and rebutted Marshall’s bastardization of the “Necessary and Proper” Clause in his 1832 veto message, blocking the re-chartering of the second Bank of the United States: “Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered well settled. … The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. … Thus may our own powers and the rights of the States, which we cannot directly curtail or invade, be frittered away and extinguished in the use of means employed by us to execute other powers. … There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils only exist in its abuses. … Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves—in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.”

White Activism Short of Secession

In this vein, we can begin to formulate local and state resistance that is short of secession. In a piece in, of all outlets, The Federalist, ‘Bill Kilgore’ proposes exactly that for pro-life resistance to the infanticide that Roe v. Wade unconstitutionally enshrined. In summary, we can simply refuse to obey the capricious dictates of unelected bureaucrats and kritarchs. All that we need to do, provided that we have a unified governor and state legislature, is stop listening to them. They have no enforcement power whatsoever; Leftist-controlled jurisdictions regularly nullify federal law, with drug legalization, immigration, and infringements on the Second Amendment only the most recent examples. It is only when men of the Right pass laws unsatisfactory to the ruling class that the judiciary intervenes. Judicial review is not judicial supremacy; courts may say whatever they wish to, but they cannot act.

By forcing a constitutional crisis on any issue of White identity, we win; either the federal government will stand down or drop the mask to send in troops a la Eisenhower in Little Rock, provoking whatever resistance there would ever be. Moreover, the judiciary has no jurisdiction over political questions. To enshrine this principle further, Congress can strip federal jurisdiction over any category of cases it pleases, leaving them to state courts. The life tenure of judges may also be assailed, as their reign of terror and contravention of the will of the people are certainly not “good behavior.” If we can elect leaders with the requisite will, we can accomplish much; enforcing universal E-Verify, stringent voter identification requirements, taxing remittances, ending public services for illegal aliens, mass deportation, the declaration of English as our official language, prosecuting Leftist “charities” violating our laws, ending affirmative action and diversity quotas, eliminating hate crimes, exercising state legislative control over public school and university curriculums, validating the right of free association, and ending anarcho-tyrannical policies favoring criminals are but a smattering of the possibilities.

Of course, all this is much easier said than done. In Part 2 I discuss some of the obstacles.

Go to Part 2.


1 Wilson, Clyde N. (Ed.). The Essential Calhoun (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2012).

2 Wilson, Clyde N. (Ed.). The Essential Calhoun (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2012).

 

More Deceit and Double-Think from Mark Steyn and Company

Do parallel universes exist where history has taken an entirely different course? It’s been a big unanswered question in physics and philosophy for a long time, but I’ve started to wonder whether the Canadian neo-conservative Mark Steyn holds the key. His writing appears in this universe, but he himself appears to be living some or all of the time in an entirely different universe.

Mark Steyn is an important figure in American conservatism — a regular guest on Tucker Carlson and the favorite stand-in both for Carlson and for Rush Limbaugh. As will be obvious in the following, Steyn represents a segment of Jewry opposed to Muslim immigration (and only Muslim immigration) because of Muslim attitudes on Jews and Israel, while at the same time ignoring the much more powerful mainstream Jewish community that is in large part responsible for importing Muslims.

Another example is Stephen Steinlight, a former ADL operative and now a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. Steinlight opposes Muslim immigration because of his concern with Jewish interests. Steinlight believes that present immigration policy no longer serves Jewish interests because the new immigrants are less likely to be sympathetic to Israel and because they are more likely to view Jews as the wealthiest and most powerful group in the U.S. — and thus a potential enemy — rather than as victims of the Holocaust. His animosity toward the restrictionism of 1924–1965 shines through clearly. This “pause” in immigration is perceived as a moral catastrophe. He describes it as “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” Jewish interests are his only consideration, while the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans are described as a “thoughtless mob” because they advocate a complete moratorium on immigration (here, p. v).

One can only hope that Steyn does not inherit Limbaugh’s huge radio audience if, as seems quite possible, Limbaugh is unable to continue due to his cancer diagnosis. Again, like the rest of the mainstream Jewish community, Steyn appears to have no qualms about immigration in general. Africans would be fine. Only Muslim immigration is dubious. Because all that matters is what’s good for the Jews.

Jews as powerless opponents of Muslim immigration

That Steyn is living in an alternate, very Jewish universe can be concluded from his confident false assertions about modern Western history. In one interview from 2015 with the highly irritating “Jewish Mother” Laura Rosen Cohen, he used the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz to muse on the mistaken policies of powerful European gentiles:

I think they [i.e., the Euro-goyim] drew the wrong conclusion from “Never Again”. The Jews were sort of peripheral to the meaning of that. I think what “Never Again” means to a Continental European is never again, as they saw it, the nationalism that led to war. So their response to 1939—1945 was to undermine their own nationalism. At the time of the European Constitution, so-called, a decade ago, you had these apparatchiks from the European Commission standing up and warning the Dutch and the French that if they didn’t sign on to this Euro-superstate they would be on the path to Belsen and Auschwitz.

In other words, it’s one or the other. You’ve the European Union or you’ve got ovens. That was the lesson they drew — that nationalism was bad, that nation states were bad, that national identity was bad. And, as part of that, they imported the next generation of anti-Semites to Europe. (Remembrance and Appropriation, 30th January 2020, SteynOnline)

In Mark Steyn’s parallel universe, Jews have stood by helplessly as Euro-goyim have misappropriated the Holocaust and used it as an excuse to “import the next generation of anti-Semites to Europe.” Steyn means that Euro-goyim have imported Muslims, of course, and in his universe Jews are obviously horrified but powerless opponents of Muslim immigration.

In the real universe, on the other hand, Jews are highly enthusiastic supporters of Muslim immigration and passionate believers in a Judeo-Islamic alliance against White Christian hate. Here are a few examples of this Jewish enthusiasm for Muslim immigration and the anti-White alliance Jews believe it will create in the West:

In Mark Steyn’s universe it appears that such headlines don’t exist. No, in the Steyniverse, Jews are “peripheral,” with no say in immigration policy and no political influence. That must be part of why Steyn announced in January 2020 that “I have a semi-official policy of sitting out Holocaust Memorial Day, on the grounds that in Europe formal veneration of dead Jews grows ever more fulsome in direct proportion to formal indifference to living Jews, and the extinguishing of what remains of Jewish life on the Continent.”

The highest decoration in France

That’s in “the Continent” of the Steyniverse, of course. In “the Continent” of this universe, real Jews like Dr Moshe Kantor don’t suffer “formal indifference” but receive the very highest state honours:

Powerless Dr Moshe Kantor is honoured by François Hollande 

Dr. Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress (EJC), was awarded the Officier de la Légion d’Honneur (Officer of the Legion of Honour) by the President of France François Hollande [in June 2015]. The award is the highest decoration in France, established by Napoleon Bonaparte. For two centuries, it has been presented on behalf of the Head of State to reward the most deserving citizens in all fields of activity.

The award was bestowed on Dr. Kantor at the Elysée Palace by President Hollande for leading the fight against Antisemitism, racism, intolerance and xenophobia, promoting interfaith relations and a more tolerant Europe in his roles at the European Jewish Congress, the democratically-elected umbrella organization representing European Jewry. President Hollande called Dr. Kantor “a man of peace, a man of culture, a friend, and a friend of France.”

“You are an inspiring person in the Jewish world, a great figure of the Jewish People in Europe, heading a major institution, the European Jewish Congress, which today represents 42 communities,” President Hollande said before bestowing the award. “You and the EJC are promoting Jewish culture, interfaith dialogue and tolerance, fighting Antisemitism and racism and preserving the memory of the Holocaust. Because all of these reasons, all of these values — your fight against Antisemitism and for peace, and for your love of France — we honor you here today.” (Dr. Moshe Kantor Awarded Legion of Honour by President Hollande, European Jewish Congress, 30th June 2015)

In the Steyniverse, Moshe Kantor is presumably an unrecognized and unhonoured nobody. In this universe, he receives “the highest decoration in France,” heads the European Jewish Congress, and runs an Orwellian organization called the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) “to monitor tolerance in Europe.” The ECTR, which works hard to crush “xenophobia, antisemitism and racial discrimination,” is a big fan of Muslim immigration but not of free speech. And Moshe Kantor, ignored by important European politicians in the Steyniverse, has their full support in the real universe: the ECTR has recruited the former President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski, the former Prime Minister of Spain José María Aznar, the former Prime Minister of Sweden Göran Persson, the former Speaker of the German Bundestag Rita Süssmuth, and many others.

As I asked in “Moshe Is Monitoring You,” what do European politicians see in this Russian-born billionaire? Mark Steyn sees nothing in Kantor and to the best of my knowledge has never referred to him or his dedicated campaigning for Muslim immigration and against free speech. Like all other Jews in the Steyniverse, Kantor is a nebbish wringing his hands futilely on the margins as he watches goyim make bad decisions that harm Jewish welfare.

A golden scientific opportunity

So come on, physicists and philosophers: what are you waiting for? Mark Steyn appears to hold the key to the question of parallel universes. He should be interviewed closely and, if he gives his permission, become the subject of detailed neurological examination. His writing strongly suggests that he is living in a parallel universe where history has taken an entirely different turn. In his universe, Jews have been powerless bystanders as powerful gentiles have brought Muslims flooding into Europe to be “the next generation of antisemites.” In our universe, by contrast, Jews have overseen and enthusiastically supported the flood, whilst repeatedly hailing Muslims as their “natural allies” against White Christian hate.

But there are two other explanations for Steyn’s writing, of course. He might be living in a parallel mental universe rather than a parallel physical one. That is, he might be crazy or deluded. Or he might simply be a liar whose statements are governed not by any regard for truth or historical accuracy but by the age-old principle of “What’s good for the Jews?” It’s not good for the Jews to admit their central role in the immigration disaster and destruction of Western civilization, so Steyn pretends that they are the victims rather than the villains.

Truth and Integrity or Fame and Success?

I go for the third explanation myself: Mark Steyn is a liar and confidence-trickster operating on the age-old principle of “What’s good for the Jews?” And also on the principle of “What’s good for Mark Steyn?” If he were honest about the Jewish role, he would lose his exalted position among so-called “conservative” pundits. The Jewish writer Larry Auster never had that exalted position precisely because he wasn’t dishonest. Auster admitted the Jewish role in immigration and multiculturalism, and was a severe critic of Steyn’s defeatism, shape-shifting and trickery. Auster chose truth and integrity over success and fame. Steyn has chosen the reverse. So has his side-kick Laura Rosen Cohen, the “Jewish Mother” who contributes a regular commentary to Steyn’s website and who seems determined to embody as strongly as possible the traits identified by Kevin MacDonald as central to Jewish activism — she is aggressive, psychologically intense and highly ethnocentric.

And when I say “ethnocentric,” I mean it. There is one consistently funny thing amid Cohen’s constant failed attempts to be amusing: the way she keeps a special section devoted to “Israel and the Jews,” despite often devoting half or more of the other sections to Jewish topics. And she’s always ready with a would-be amusing put-down for those obsessive and evil anti-Semites who dare to suggest that Jews have any negative influence on the world:

The next round [of Jewish festivities] is not until December, so the plan is to lose the Rosh Hashanah and Sukkot weight in advance of the Chanukah latke and jelly donut season — and well before Passover when, let’s be honest, those delicious and tender gentile children baked into the matzos can really pack on the pounds! (Putting the Infidel in Infidelity (Laura’s Links), 24th October 2019, SteynOnline)

Cohen is referring to the infamous “Blood Libel,” the hate-filled Christian conspiracy theory that Jews kidnapped, tortured and murdered gentile children to use their blood in ritual meals. That’s the sort of ridiculous thing that anti-Semites believe, you see (and I too dismissed the “Blood Libel” as baseless until I read Ron Unz’s fascinating review of work on medieval Jewish occultism by the Israeli-Jewish scholar Dr Ariel Toaff). But as we’ll see below, Cohen herself sometimes echoes fundamental “anti-Semitic” ideas.

“Disgusting, Jew-hating France”

Most of the time, however, she imitates Mark Steyn by either living in a parallel universe or being entirely unconcerned with the truth. In January this year she said “France is a disgusting, Jew-hating, sharia hell hole,”  because the Muslim murderer of an elderly Jewish woman was found insane rather than guilty of murder. Contra Cohen, Jews have enormous power in France and were central to the creation of its ever-growing Muslim population, which inflicts murder, rape and economic parasitism mainly on Whites, not on Jews. As we saw above, France gave Dr Moshe Kantor its “highest decoration.” Other members of the small Jewish minority occupy the highest positions in government, media and academia. If France is a “Jew-hating” nation, it’s difficult to imagine what a “Jew-loving” nation would look like.

But Laura Rosen Cohen doesn’t lie only about France. In November 2019 she was “Kvellin’ Around The Christmas Tree” and commenting that “German Chancellor Angela Merkel goes to Auschwitz probably to get more ideas about how to ruin her country with anti-Semitic poison.” Contra Cohen, Angela Merkel opened Germany’s borders to Muslims in 2015 with the full support of Jews in Germany, which is why she was given the highest of honours by the World Jewish Congress in 2019:

World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder on 28 October honored Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Angela Merkel with the 2019 WJC Theodor Herzl Award, which recognizes outstanding individuals who work to promote Herzl’s ideals for a safer, more tolerant world for the Jewish people. The award ceremony was held at the Jewish community center in Munich, co-hosted by President of the Jewish Community of Munich and Upper Bavaria & WJC Commissioner for Holocaust Memory Dr. Charlotte Knobloch.

Thanking WJC President Lauder, Chancellor Merkel expressed her heartfelt gratitude for the honor of being chosen as the recipient of this award, saying: “It is humbling for me that I, as a German chancellor, can receive the Theodor Herzl Award today. Jewish life in Germany must be supported — and protected.” (WJC honors German Chancellor Angela Merkel with 2019 WJC Theodor Herzl Award, October 2019)

The righteous shiksa: Angela Merkel is honoured by the World Jewish Congress

Laura Rosen Cohen pretends that Merkel is trying to “ruin her country with anti-Semitic poison,” but the World Jewish Congress knows the truth: Merkel is promoting Theodor Herzl’s “ideals for a safer, more tolerant world for the Jewish people.” When White Christian nations are atomized by Muslim immigration, Jews feel a sense both of relief and of revenge, as I pointed out in “Roche’s Revenge,” a discussion of the highly Islamophilic Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche.

Immigration-fans Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill

But that’s the reality of Jewish behaviour and Laura Rosen Cohen prefers to avoid discussing that. In January 2020 she was kvetching that “Best and brightest immigrant to America from Albania (‘ISIS wannabe’) has his own version of the American dream: beheading infidels with chainsaws. How lovely and patriotic. You know the schmaltzy poem on the statue right, give us your poor, your expert headchoppers, etc.” But who wrote the “schmaltzy poem” attached to the Statue of Liberty? Why, it was the ethnocentric Jewish poet Emma Lazarus (1849-87), who joined the ethnocentric Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill (1864-1926) in the highly successful Jewish campaign to falsely portray America as a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors.

“Columbia’s Unwelcome Guests”: a non-schmaltzy view of immigration by the American cartoonist Frank Beard (1842–1905)

“The Stranger at Our Gate”: another non-schmaltzy view of immigration by Frank Beard

But let’s give Laura Rosen Cohen her due. She does very occasionally admit some of the truth about Jewish behaviour. After CNN reported that “The ‘OK’ hand gesture is now a hate symbol, according to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League [ADL],” Cohen commented: “My Idiot People. I just can’t. Nutcases. You are nutcases, ADL OK?? OK????”

I beg to differ. The ADL are not “nutcases.” Instead, they are very successful and ruthless defenders and extenders of Jewish power. And that, of course, includes welcoming Muslims as “natural allies.” When Donald Trump proposed a “Muslim registry” in 2016, the ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt announced: “If one day Muslim Americans will be forced to register their identities, then that is the day that this proud Jew will register as a Muslim.”

Not a nutcase: ruthless Jewish supremacist Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL

Cohen was also wrong when Jewish Democrats in America claimed that in November 2019 “Donald Trump is the biggest threat to American Jews.” She responded with “Stupid Jews gotta keep on stupiding.

Again, no, it’s not stupidity: it’s standard Jewish hostility towards any politician whose rhetoric (if not his actions) promised to defend White interests rather than harm White interests. Cohen plugged the “stupid line” again in December 2019:


President Worst Hitler Ever appears at Israeli-American event, gets completely and utterly love-bombed by Jews, kibbitzes around the whole night, hugs disabled Israeli performers from the Shalva band, has a grand, festive and meaningful Chanukah party at the White House, signs an Executive Order protecting Jewish students from rabid anti-Semitism… and still gets savaged by idiot lefty Jews who just cannot stop stupiding. (A Nickel in the Change Purse, 17th December 2019, SteynOnline)

In fact, “lefty Jews” can’t stop being hostile to White interests and to a president who might potentially advance them. They’re not being stupid: they’re being Jewish. Mark Steyn and Laura Rosen Cohen don’t want to admit this, because the truth is “not good for Jews.” When Steyn quoted from his interview with Cohen in January this year, there was earnest discussion among members of the Mark Steyn fan-club about the causes of anti-Semitism (“Why so often has it been the Jews on the receiving end?”).

Easy to understand, impossible to accept

Of course, no-one suggested that Jews might bear any responsibility for creating anti-Semitism. But someone did say that Jews will always rise again, thanks to their “love of life.” Steyn and Cohen prove that love of lying is also central to Jewish culture. Indeed, the two loves are intimately related. Deceit and manipulation are central aspects of biology precisely because they promote survival. But Jewish lies promote Jewish survival and success at the expense of Whites. And so anyone interested in White survival should find Jewish lies both easy to understand and impossible to accept.

Vulture Capitalism, Jews — and Hollywood, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

The Big Short. Did things get any better in 2015 when the star-studded film The Big Short came out? Definitely not. Here we had Brad Pitt, Steve Carell, Christian Bale and Ryan Gosling — goys to a man — acting out the script of the book of the same name by best-selling author Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Blind Side). And that script would be about how the subprime mortgage industry was slated for a big fall, with our main characters devising ways to place bets on such a fall. To them, there was a serious housing bubble and they meant to

collect when the collapse of the bubble came.

Ryan Gosling

This time, however, Hollywood alone cannot be faulted for seriously downplaying Jewish identity because gentile author Lewis already did that for them, thank you very much.

I had high hopes for Lewis’s book revolving around Jewish identity and was encouraged when I read the second sentence of Chapter One: “[Steve Eisman had] grown up in New York City, gone to yeshiva schools, graduated from the University of Pennsylvania magna cum laude, and then with honors from Harvard Law School.” Yes, I thought, this book was going to openly discuss Jewish identity on Wall Street.

A few pages later, Lewis describes Eisman’s wife and her mother talking about the United Jewish Appeal, as well as how the young Eisman studied the Talmud to find its internal inconsistencies, so I thought we might have a Jewish tale on par with Jordan Belfort’s The Wolf of Wall Street. Alas, that was the last we heard of anything explicitly related to Jews or Jewishness. What a pity, since the subprime mortgage bond collapse was in fact an intensely Jewish affair.

We could have read about Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg of AIG, Sandy Weill of Citigroup, Dick Fuld of bankrupt Lehman Brothers, or Alan Schwartz of the failed Bear Sterns—and many, many other Jewish players on Wall Street. Most remarkably, we read nary a word on the real powers in finance, people like those “The Three Apostles,” Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin or his successor Larry Summers. Nor do we read more than passing reference to two-term Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, who oversaw the entire life of the subprime mortgage fiasco, serving from 2006 to 2014.

Worse, we never read about the larger narrative surrounding the financial crisis of those years. (This review of then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s account of the crisis gives a suitable feel for how tremendously dangerous the period was.)

In The Big Short, Lewis follows previously mentioned Steve Eisman, as well as a gentile California neurologist-turned hedge fund manager, Michael Burry.  Also featured in the book is Greg Lippmann, head subprime manager at Deutsche Bank, but Lewis never once refers to Lippmann as Jewish. This just isn’t the story Lewis wants to tell, so it’s no surprise that Hollywood screenwriters also left out this important Jewish angle.

Turning now to the 2015 film version of The Big Short, we see that director and co-screenwriter Adam McKay, who is married to the Jewish Shira Piven, does, to his credit, faithfully show the scene where the young Eisman is in a synagogue with his rabbi. But my feeling is that this is done so much in passing that it will be lost on most gentile viewers. More to the point, however, is that actor Steve Carell simply doesn’t come across in any way as Jewish.


Steve Carell should have been Jewish

Now that we’ve looked at visual issues and identity in The Big Short, let’s consider some of the big dollar figures at stake. “Million” hardly has meaning in the debacle, with “billion” being a far more common term (and “trillion” popping up now and again). Despite the impression readers and viewers might have, the four main characters featured in book and movie were hardly the biggest players in the subprime mortgage game, though neurologist Michael Burry certainly did well, as this excerpt from a Vanity Fair article Lewis did in March 2010 shows:

It was precisely the moment he had told his investors, back in the summer of 2005, that they only needed to wait for. Crappy mortgages worth nearly $400 billion were resetting from their teaser rates to new, higher rates. By the end of July his marks were moving rapidly in his favor — and he was reading about the genius of people like John Paulson, who had come to the trade a year after he had. The Bloomberg News service ran an article about the few people who appeared to have seen the catastrophe coming. Only one worked as a bond trader inside a big Wall Street firm: a formerly obscure asset-backed-bond trader at Deutsche Bank named Greg Lippmann. The investor most conspicuously absent from the Bloomberg News article — one who had made $100 million for himself and $725 million for his investors — sat alone in his office, in Cupertino, California. By June 30, 2008, any investor who had stuck with Scion Capital from its beginning, on November 1, 2000, had a gain, after fees and expenses, of 489.34 percent. (The gross gain of the fund had been 726 percent.) Over the same period the S&P 500 returned just a bit more than 2 percent.

A far bigger winner was John Paulson, who appears briefly in the article, having spoken to Lewis for the book. Personally, what I’d like to have read about is Paulson’s bets on subprime mortgages. While Burry made just shy of a billion dollars, Paulson made history by earning $4 billion for himself in 2007, followed by $5 billion three years later. “Paulson, bucking the trends and the advice of other investors, gambled that the mortgage market would collapse. His bet paid off immensely. In 2007, the funds run by Paulson were up $15 billion — a staggering investment return rate of nearly 600%.” Of course, for career reasons, I can see why Lewis didn’t dwell on Paulson in the book, and naturally Hollywood was happy to let it go unmentioned.

Paulson’s mother was Jewish, and Paulson has worked in a highly Jewish milieu during his education and career, beginning with a Sidney Weinberg/Goldman Sachs scholarship. Later, he worked with Leon Levy at Odyssey Partners, then moved to Bear Stearns. His older sister, Theodora Bar-El, is an Israeli biologist. Perhaps I should read Gregory Zuckerman’s 2009 book The Greatest Trade Ever: The Behind-the-Scenes Story of How John Paulson Defied Wall Street and Made Financial History to fill in the missing gaps in this story. (And as far as I know, Hollywood has yet to make a film from Zuckerman’s book.)

Zooming out, we read in The Big Short that in total, according to an IMF estimation, about $1 trillion dollars was lost due to the subprime crisis. (Oddly, at the end of the film, we read: “When the dust settled from the collapse, 5 trillion dollars in pension money, real estate value, 401k, savings, and bonds had disappeared.” I can’t account for this large discrepancy.)

Let’s stick with the IMF’s estimate of $1 trillion. That’s a lot of billions in there, far, far more than Paulson’s money alone. So where did the money go?  More to the point, who is responsible? Lewis allows his characters to blame stupid investment banks, but others point directly to those in charge of America’s finances: “The Three (Jewish) Apostles — Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers,” as well as Greenspan’s successor, Bernanke.

Time Magazine’s Entry in the “Most Ironic Story of the Year” Category

Just as when you throw a rock in the air at a Wall Street soiree you’ll almost certainly hit someone guilty, one can turn to practically any source on Greenspan et al.’s roles and find many suspicious characters. For instance, let’s consider this unlikely source for suspicion about what The Three Apostles and other high-placed Jews were up to — Clyde Prestowitz’s 2010 The Betrayal of American Prosperity. Here, Prestowitz notes how in 1989 and 1993, financial instruments that later played a central role in the meltdown of 2008–9 were exempted from government oversight. For instance, Greenspan was adamant about getting the government out of the way. “In fact, Greenspan largely halted the Fed’s active oversight of the banking industry.” Joined by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and subsequent Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, “the three mounted an aggressive campaign to halt any efforts to regulate trading of new derivative instruments.”

When measures to impose constraints on these risky trades were being considered, Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers pointedly blocked them. Also, when Brooksley Born, Chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to do her job, Summers aggressively attacked her actions. Right on cue, Greenspan, Rubin and Arthur Levitt of the Securities and Exchange Commission pressured Congress to straightjacket Born. (I thought of the beleaguered Ms. Born when in the film version of The Big Short, Georgia Hale, an employee at Standard & Poor’s Financial Services, was grilled by a visiting Mark Baum [Steve Eisman].)

This bullying of Born persisted into 2000, as Greenspan continued to insist that Wall Street should be trusted and left to its own devices. “With those assurances, Congress went ahead and stripped the CFTC of responsibility for derivatives, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in December 2000.” Meanwhile, Ms. Born quietly left government service.

Money Monster. The last money movie I dissected was Money Monster (2016), starring two more big names: George Clooney and Julia Roberts. Clooney plays Lee Gates, the slick and jaded host of a TV financial advice show of the same name. Gates plugs a company which mysteriously loses $800 million, and many investors are ruined — including one who arrives at the studio and takes Gates hostage with an explosive vest.

The hostage taker is one Kyle Budwell (played by Anglo-Irish actor Jack O’Connell). Budwell is mentally challenged, as shown by his speech and childish behavior. For example, when his mother died and left him $60,000, he invested the whole amount in a company named IBIS, after Gates on a previous show highly recommended the stock. Budwell aims for revenge against Gates for his poor advice and against the CEO of IBIS, Walt Camby.

In the film people are busy behind the scenes finding out where corrupt CEO Camby is. It turns out that he made a secret trip to South Africa to advance his scheme to temporarily employ $800 million from his company to make a killing on a certain mining stock. The deal, unfortunately, falls through and the money is gone. This is then blamed on a “computer glitch” linked to sophisticated trading algorithms, but terrorist Budwell isn’t buying it. For that matter, Grant is becoming suspicious, as well as the head of PR at IBIS.

Emotions evolve. Even though enraged swindled invester Kyle Budwell has laced Grant with an explosive necklace, Grant has begun to feel growing sympathy for Budwell, and eventually we learn of another huge financial crime committed by the fictitious CEO Walt Camby. But of course, if you are going to have a financial criminal, he will have to be cast as not possibly Jewish. Wikipedia informs us that Dominic West, who plays CEO Camby, “was … the sixth of seven siblings … in a Roman Catholic family, largely of Irish descent.” So Jewish he ain’t.


Dominic West

Still, despite its obvious deception, Money Monster is instructive in a way. For those who understand which group is really culpable, a soliloquy by Budwell explains some of that group’s offenses:

I want everyone to know something. I might be the one with the gun here, but I’m not the real criminal. It’s people like these guys! [pointing to Grant and the set crew]. They’re stealing everything from us and they’re getting away with it, too. Nobody’s asking how. Nobody’s asking why.

You got to open your eyes out there. … the government’s no help. How they just look the other way, since after they’re done stealing our money, they barely even have to pay any taxes on it!  I’m telling you, it’s rigged. The whole goddamn thing. They’re stealing the country out from under us. Not the Muslims. Not the Chinese. Them.

It’s all fixed. They like how the math adds up, so they got to keep rewriting the equation. Which means, the one time you finally get a little extra money, you try and be smart about it, you turn on the TV. Boom. That’s how they fucking take it. They take it so fast they don’t even have to explain it! They literally own the airwaves. They literally control the information.

That is very good: “Not the Muslims. Not the Chinese. Them.” Ah, yes. Budwell is blaming people like Grant, CEO Camby and those like them. But if you replace “they” and “them” with “Jews,” his speech is instructive indeed. Is it rigged? Well, anyone reading accounts of the trading patterns of Goldman Sachs, for one, will agree with that. Just Google it — you’ll get about 800,000 hits.

Also informative about Goldman Sachs is Budwell’s claim, “They take it so fast they don’t even have to explain it!” Many of us still remember the charges laid against Goldman in this respect. In brief:

While the SEC is busy investigating Goldman Sachs, it might want to look into another Goldman-dominated fraud: computerized front running using high-frequency trading programs. . . .

[Called] High Frequency Trading (HFT) or “black box trading,” automated program trading uses high-speed computers governed by complex algorithms (instructions to the computer) to analyze data and transact orders in massive quantities at very high speeds. Like the poker player peeking in a mirror to see his opponent’s cards, HFT allows the program trader to peek at major incoming orders and jump in front of them to skim profits off the top. And these large institutional orders are our money — our pension funds, mutual funds, and 401Ks.

Sort of like how the Kosher tax skims money off the food industry. I think what made the most pointed sense to me was Budwell’s linking of financial deceit with the power to create the (un)reality we see and hear: “They literally own the airwaves. They literally control the information.” This has been a key point others and I at TOO have made for years: Jews have immense media control throughout the West — and it’s killing us.

White societies throughout the world have been and continue to be subverted culturally, diluted through scandalous levels of non-White immigration, and drained of wealth and treasure, which Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents summed up so accurately:

Jews, of course, more than any other people, are aware of the necessary conditions of collective survival. They are concerned to secure these conditions for their own people even as they deny them to us. The obvious conclusion is that they mean for us not to survive as a people. America is being corrupted, exploited, degraded, and murdered by the organized Jewish community.

Johnson later added another idea relevant to my article here: “White Nationalism is an intellectual movement. We are a vast online educational project.” Indeed, TOO lives only on the Internet.

(I confess I was miffed when I read recently the following lines from Andrew Anglin in an otherwise good entry: “The grounds are fertile and the time has come for an open discussion about Jews in society. What we need now is an unironic, non-humorous take on the Jewish problem from serious people who are able to speak seriously about this serious problem.” Has TOO not been a leading source of serious discussion of this topic for two decades?)

Strike Through the Mask!

To recap, I’ll repeat the reasons for linking financial scandals with Hollywood: First, Jews run Hollywood. It is indeed an empire of their own. Second, Jews throughout modern history have been involved in immense financial scandals, reaching truly astonishing proportions in the last half century. Third, Jews use their Hollywood propaganda machine to obscure these facts. Case in point: This is the sixth major film I’ve featured that advances the deception about the Jewish role in financial skullduggery. As I’ve said, this is an explicit disinformation campaign.

 

Again plugging the recent TOO article from “Publius,” we see how the author has gone through volumes of evidence of interlocking Jewish financial and political activity. He then adds a nice literary touch when he quotes this, then expounds further:

“So you see, my dear Coningsby,” the Jewish Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his novel Coningsby, “that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” It is my goal — and if I may be so bold as to speak for others, that of the other writers at the Occidental Observer and other dissident voices I’m sure — to shoulder our way into the conversation and show plainly the architects of this modern horror show. With any luck, figures like Steyer and Bloomberg will continue to drop the mask and show the public who they really are, making our job that much easier. To combat the pernicious agenda of the globalist establishment, we must first understand it. We must know the what’s, the when’s, the where’s, the who’s, the why’s, and the how’s and proceed accordingly. [emphasis added]

I’m glad Publius saw fit to mention the word mask, for that has been a driving theme of this essay. Joyce uses it by demanding that we “Strike through the mask!” and later explains how “these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by hiding behind the mask.”

I’ve tried desperately for years to help others see through this mask, in large part by examining the products Hollywood has inundated us with since the advent of moving pictures. My appeal to you is captured by Publius’s plea: “Do you see how all this works? This is how a decadent ruling class operates — governing for its own benefit and, for the preponderance of Jews, that of its tribe” [emphasis again added].

The half-dozen or so Hollywood films I’ve examined here at TOO play a central role in covering up what is so stunningly obvious. We need to understand these propaganda techniques and somehow teach others to see them as well. Otherwise, organized Jewry will continue to siphon off vast sums of money from the greater economy and employ it against the whole of the goyische world.

In closing, I’ll say that after “striking through the mask,” we must follow an observation from leading unmasker of Jewish behavior, E. Michael Jones, where he concludes a recent video with these simple but profound words: “Consciousness is the beginning of change.” MacDonald, Joyce, “Publius” — and, yes, Edmund Connelly — are doing everything humanly possible to “strike through the mask.”

Vulture Capitalism, Jews — and Hollywood, Part 1

August 1996 Cover of Moment Magazine

Just before Christmas, TOO contributor Andrew Joyce came out with a very courageous and informative account of the damage various Jews have done through their activities at the upper end of the Western economic system in an area often labeled “vulture capitalism.” I will build on Joyce’s insights in this essay with a simple goal in mind: To further expose Jewish practices that enrich them while causing great harm to a huge number of non-Jews. I will do this by repeating many things I have written about already on this site, some of which are now over a dozen years old, which is ancient by Internet standards. Hopefully, my analysis will enlighten new readers or those just catching on to the Jewish Question. Most hopefully, my examples will allow TOO readers to spread this message to the masses of non-Jews thus far ignorant of the grave threats in our midst. And I will do this through the painless way of using Hollywood hit films to show how Jews hide their economic malfeasance right in plain sight.

After all, what can be plainer than Hollywood blockbusters starring the likes of George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Leonardo DiCaprio, John Travolta, Brad Pitt, Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Jeremy Irons, Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito, Gregory Peck, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale and Steve Carell? All of these stars have been pawns brought in to conceal the facts about massive Jewish involvement in Wall Street finance — including immense malfeasance and endless instances of shady practices. Not only does Hollywood conceal these facts, it also projects them onto innocent Whites. And the tactic appears to work, which is why we TOO writers can never rest.

Joyce in his article aims to describe the “scavenging and parasitic nature” of these Jewish practices, labeling them “vulture funds” practicing “vulture capitalism,” thus explaining the essay’s title and use of a photo of a vulture:

Vulture Capitalism is Jewish Capitalism (December 18, 2019)

As good as Joyce’s metaphor is, however, there is a competing one: the vampire sucking the lifeblood out of all it touches. Recall that course on Marxism you may have taken in the 1970s or 80s, where Marx wrote in Volume I, Ch. 10 of Capital that “Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.”


Vampire Squid

That apt quote was updated for modern sensibilities when Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi gave us this priceless quip in “The Great American Bubble Machine,” his essay on the 2008 market meltdown,

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. 

Damn, I love that quote.

It’s justified, too, just like Joyce’s use of the term “vulture capitalism.” See how Joyce does not mince words here:

That’s because it’s Jewish enterprise — exploitative, inorganic, and attached to socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property. This might not be the free enterprise [Tucker] Carlson learned about, but it’s clearly the free enterprise Jews learn about — as illustrated in their extraordinary over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.

 

This issue of Jewish economic power mixed with morally questionable practices in gaining immense wealth has been an enduring theme I’ve written about for TOO, so I will use the present essay to resurrect some of my older writing likely long since forgotten. While I will add to the valuable information Joyce shared with us last December, as well as the follow-up article by “John Q. Publius” called Hedging their Bets (Who Really Decides Elections), where he notes that “Jewish hedge fund managers and plutocrats decide under what guise the neo-liberal machine will continue to operate, for it is in fact all window dressing,” my primary contribution will be to show how Jews in Hollywood create a deceitful medley of films that prevents the mass of goyim from ever connecting Jews to financial manipulation and theft.

In short, I aim to answer part of the question posed in the purple cover story posted above following the main title “Jews Run Hollywood.” The question I will work on is “So What?” The short answer is that in fact it matters a lot that Jews run Hollywood, from promoting diversity and holocaust guilt—subjects for another time, to erecting a mask that hides Jewish involvement in financial crime. Our task is to get behind the mask.

The Money Films

Wall Street. Although I haven’t reviewed it previously, I’ll start with Oliver Stone’s 1987 Wall Street, where (half-Jewish) director Stone was at pains to avoid portraying any of the leading characters as Jewish, despite the fact that the 1980s were famous for the rise of Jewish financiers on both sides of legality — Boesky, Milken, et al. The first book to read on this subject is Connie Bruck’s The Predators’ Ball: The Inside Story of Drexel Burnham and the Rise of the Junk Bond Traders. The book is a convincing account of Jewish financial mischief — that it is pervasive and has a massively negative effect on the greater non-Jewish world.

An even better book is James B. Stewart’s Den of Thieves, in which Stewart chronicles the misdeeds of Ivan Boesky, Martin Siegel, Dennis Levine (who wrote his own book, Inside Out: The Dennis Levine Story), and most of all, Michael Milken, the mastermind behind it all. Simply by describing all the Jews involved, Stewart makes it clear that it was a cabal of Jews that pillaged and destroyed some of the most well-known corporations in America at the time by inventing and peddling “junk bonds” as an “advance in capitalism” which enabled hostile takeovers of corporations while typically saddling them with huge debt and enriching themselves. A must-have book. (Intriguingly, the obituary of Stewart’s mother notes that her son James’ “spouse” is one Benjamin Weil, who is Jewish.)

Predictably, Den of Thieves was attacked as “anti-Semitic.” Jewish activist Alan Dershowitz called Den of Thieves an “anti-Semitic screed” and attacked a review by Michael M. Thomas in the New York Times Book Review because of his “gratuitous descriptions by religious stereotypes.”  Thomas’s review contained the following passage:

James B. Stewart . . . charts the way through a virtual solar system of peculation, past planets large and small, from a metaphorical Mercury representing the penny-ante takings of Dennis B. Levine’s small fry, past the middling ($10 million in inside-trading profits) Mars of Mr. Levine himself, along the multiple rings of Saturn — Ivan F. Boesky, his confederate Martin A. Siegel of Kidder, Peabody, and Mr. Siegel’s confederate Robert Freeman of Goldman, Sachs — and finally back to great Jupiter: Michael R. Milken, the greedy billion-dollar junk-bond kingdom in which some of the nation’s greatest names in industry and finance would find themselves entrapped and corrupted.

Thomas was attacked as an anti-Semite simply for mentioning so many Jewish names all in one paragraph. His defense was to note that “If I point out that nine out of 10 people involved in street crimes are black, that’s an interesting sociological observation. If I point out that nine out of 10 people involved in securities indictments are Jewish, that is an anti-Semitic slur. I cannot sort out the difference.”

Other People’s Money. While not the first film I parsed regarding Jews and money, Other People’s Money, released in 1991, follows most closely the famous 1987 film Wall Street. The former film stars Gregory Peck in his last major performance, pitted against Danny DeVito as the peripatetic Wall Street takeover artist Lawrence Garfield. As I showed in my review, the movie is fully cleansed of Jewish identity, instead giving us the diminutive Italian-American DeVito outsmarting the more WASPy figure played by Peck.

Remarkably, this thirty-year-old film represents the exact same topic that Andrew Joyce started with in his Vulture Capitalism essay where he cited a recent Tucker Carlson segment called “Hedge Funds Are Destroying Rural America.” Joyce’s link to this segment describes it:

Tucker Carlson is perhaps the only major media figure in America willing to attack across party lines to make his point. On Tuesday night he went after Republican mega-donor Paul Singer in a withering 10-minute special segment on how Singer destroyed a small town in Nebraska in a hostile takeover of the sporting goods retailer Cabela’s.

Now watch the opening of Other People’s Money, with DeVito’s stark “I Love Money” soliloquy.  Which ethnic stereotype does that fit?  (Hint: think of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, whose main character’s name starts with “Sh” and rhymes with “High Rock.”)

The genesis of Other People’s Money is important, for it began as a play of the same name by Bronx-born Jerry Sterner. The original play’s protagonist, “a Jewish corporate takeover artist, was named Larry Garfinkle, not Garfield.” And stage actor Kevin Conway played him as a very Jewish character, to the point that “some critics and audiences … found Conway’s performance to be larger-than-life — uncomfortably so. Some reviewers called Conway’s Garfinkle a Wall Street Jackie Mason — a performance more akin to stand-up comedy than straight theater, one that emphasized the character’s ethnicity and loaded Sterner’s play with potentially anti-Semitic ‘Merchant of Venice’ overtones.”

Sterner worried about this, as he related in an interview with the New York Times, saying “I did not want the play to become controversial about what it is not about. It’s not about Garfinkle’s being Jewish, it’s about his doing good or not.” Because of his discomfort with Conway’s portrayal of the explicitly Jewish Garfinkle, Sterner added a “cautionary postscript” to the play’s published text: “The character of Garfinkle can be played in many ways. The one way he should not be played is overly, coarsely, ‘ethnic.’”

Even with this controversy, when the play moved to Hollywood, the script retained the name Larry Garfinkle, but it was crossed out and changed to “Garfield.” Director Normal Jewison (by most sources, not Jewish) admitted that he changed it.  “It’s not important that Larry Garfinkle is Jewish. Boone Pickens isn’t Jewish. Jimmy Goldsmith is, as are nine out of the 12 top corporate raiders in America, but there are three others that aren’t. What does it matter, anyway? This isn’t about religion.”

Yeah, what does it matter? (Sigh)

In short, here’s the message: Jorgenson (played by Peck) and his family are the old America, captured nicely in a touching recreation of Norman Rockwell’s Thanksgiving Day feast. But the sad reality is that Jorgenson loses his factory, the workers are thrown out of work, and the man who loves money has won. Clearly, the impression is that White America has become a very different place, a place led by those like Larry Garfield — or Paul Singer, as in Tucker Carlson’s updated account from small-town Nebraska.

The Taking of Pelham 123. Jump ahead to the year 2009 and we find a remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, featuring the “Always-Better-Than-Whites” Denzel Washington up against John Travolta as a Wall Street mastermind who has first committed massive fraud, then gone insane.

In this version, Travolta’s character is a New York ethnic Catholic very prone to guilt. He was also a high-rolling Wall Streeter who skimmed millions of dollars until he was caught and sent to prison. Upon his release, he concocts a scheme to make a killing on stocks when he induces panic in the city with a subway hijacking. Return to James Stewart’s account of the 1980s savings and loan swindles in Den of Thieves and you’ll find out that the thieves were ethnic New Yorkers all right, but they sure weren’t Catholic. Clearly, this deceit is part of a concerted media effort to blame others for Jewish (mega) misdeeds.

Just to crosspollinate, the Tribe that year called on Israel-born Hanna Rosin to fill out a cover story for the December 2009 Atlantic Monthly. Coming a year after mind-boggling economic swindles and bailouts that used up a significant portion of the universe’s zeroes, who gets blamed? Christians. Now that’s why Jews are so often credited with chutzpah.

Margin Call. Two years later, we come to the film Margin Call, starring Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons. J.C. Chandor’s 2011 film tells a story that loosely mirrors the fall of Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers. Even for Hollywood, however, the deception in this movie is staggering, and it occurs on many levels. It terrifies me to think that the masses likely swallowed this tale, particularly the images that have such a powerful subliminal impact.

Now picture this: The Margin Call premise is that a group of WASPs and a Catholic or two run a leading investment bank on Wall Street. Things turn sour, however, and the firm is looking at bankruptcy unless they can pull off a miracle.

Obviously, such a scenario makes little real-world sense. In the real world, Wall Street is heavily Jewish, especially the investment banks. This is so obvious that Wiki has a special segment called Jewish investment banks.

Lehman Brothers was a classic Jewish investment bank. For those wishing to find more explicit discussion about the Jewish origins and uninterrupted Jewish roots of Lehman Brothers, see the following indispensable books:

  • Stephen Birmingham: Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of New York(Harper and Row, 1967) and The Rest of Us: The Rise of America’s Eastern European Jews (Little, Brown & Company, 1984);
  • Jean Baer’s The Self-Chosen: “Our Crowd” is Dead — Long Live Our Crowd(Arbor House, 1982);
  • Richard L. Zweigenhaft and G. William Domhoff’s, Jews in the Protestant Establishment(Praeger Publishers, 1982);
  • Gerald Krefetz, Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality(Ticknor and Fields, 1982).

Of particular note, however, is The New Crowd: The Changing of the Jewish Guard on Wall Street (HarperPerennial, 1989), by Judith Ramsey Ehrlich and Barry J. Rehfeld. The authors interviewed many of the Jewish participants under discussion here. They also fill in the background on Lehman partners and traders, contrasting, for example, “Our Crowd’s” Bobbie Lehman with the coarse and brash Lewis Glucksman. After reading this book, return to Margin Call to see how you have been lied to.

Margin Call sure was a deception sandwich. The head of the trading floor, Sam Rogers, is played by Kevin Spacey, who looks, acts and talks exactly like the middle-class White man he played in American Beauty. In Margin Call there is not even an attempt to give him a Brooklyn accent or exaggerated mannerisms.


Kevin Spacey in Margin Call

Most egregiously, however, is the fact that the part of Lehman Bros. CEO is played by none other than the arch-British actor Jeremy Irons.


Jeremy Irons as the CEO of Lehman Bros.

Arbitrage. A year later, the lying continued as Richard Gere starred opposite aging beauty Susan Sarandon and Tim Roth in Arbitrage. Gere plays a Wall Street character quite willing to bend and break all kinds of rules.  As in the other Wall Street films just mentioned, the mission of Arbitrage is to mask the Jew and project the blame onto gentiles. It really is breathtaking.

The film’s opening solidly sets up the identity of Robert Miller (Gere) and his clan as thoroughly White and Christian. In an interview, millionaire Miller attributes his innate pessimism about events to his parents, who had grown up with the Depression, Pearl Harbor and The Bomb. His everyman Christian American background is confirmed by a comment that his father was a welder in the Navy and his mother worked for the Veteran’s Administration.

Soon after, he returns home to a surprise birthday party, where he is surrounded by a large extended family. His wife, played by Sarandon, is clearly European-American, as is his daughter Brooke and each and every child running about the room. There is not one hint that Miller, his family, or anything in his home could be anything other than gentile American.

Soon Miller gets himself in trouble and ends up short of cash, so he manipulates $412 million to paper things over. Along the way he also gets his mistress killed and burned to a crisp when he crashes a car after a few drinks. (Naturally, he flees the scene and tries to pin it on a young African American; those rich WASPs are really horrible people.)

The finale of the film lays it on thick: Rich gentiles are thoroughly corrupt when it comes to money. In the last fifteen minutes, we see how Miller is able to deviously escape the suspicions about him, even though his wife has connected the dots and figured out how guilty her husband is. Crushed by his infidelity and the suffering he has put their daughter Brooke through, she responds — by coldly blackmailing him. Either he coughs up a significant sum of money for her favorite charity, or she divorces him and walks away with perhaps far more.

Next, we cut to a scene with the man who bought Miller’s firm, James Mayfield (who may as well have been named James Mayflower, given his mien and surroundings), who is shown riding in his limousine to the “Benefit Gala in honor of The Miller Oncology Center.”  He then exits the limo and ascends the stairs to the goy gala — the entire affair is sheer goy hypocrisy. The money for the new center is tainted, and everyone in attendance pretends that everything is honorable. Miller is all smiles, his wife smiles, even his disillusioned daughter goes along, cynically but without conviction feting her father: “A dedicated businessman, a family man, a philanthropist, and an all-around humanitarian. A man I am very lucky to call my mentor, my friend, and my father.” The message: behind America’s most sterling institutions and leaders lie deceit and insincerity — gentile deceit and insincerity, of course.

The reality, we know, is different, as TOO writers Joyce et al. have shown, along with others. Former Counter-Currents writer Andrew Hamilton, for instance, showed four years ago what real hedge fund managers were doing and who they were:

More often than not the privileged Jews turn around and use [their] vast wealth … to advance anti-White, pro-Jewish, and Left-wing causes, thereby harming America and the world in two ways — economically through callous and shortsighted market operations, and politically through their “philanthropy” and lavish political donations. George Soros has done enormous harm to Whites worldwide in this manner. . . .

Hamilton specifically notes the shocking wealth concentrated in such hands, referring to Forbes Magazine’s recent ranking of the richest hedge fund managers in the United States by estimated personal net worth: “Twenty-four of the 32 names on the list (75%) are Jewish. Of the 10 wealthiest, 8 (80%) are Jewish.” He further adds that “Despite their social and economic power and privilege the names of hedge fund managers are virtually unknown even to educated and informed people, never mind the general public.” In good part, we can thank Hollywood for this.

The Wolf of Wall Street. Thus far, I’ve been a good sport about reviewing these deceptive Wall Street films, but 2013 saw a blockbuster that left me speechless. Here was a film with one of Hollywood’s biggest goy actors, directed by one of Hollywood’s top maker of Mafia films, and based on the autobiography of a convicted Jewish Wall Street swindler who positively reveled in his Jewish identity and that of his cohorts. Yet the film completed whitewashed this.

Here’s the howler: As the bantam Jewish stock fraudster Jordan Belfort, director Martin Scorsese chose none other than six-foot-tall, (sometimes) blond-haired Leonardo DiCaprio to bleach the story of anything Semitic. This has to go down as one of the most egregious miscastings in Hollywood history.

Why did it happen?

My view is that this is a classic case of Hollywood deceiving the public, and I have plenty of evidence for this.

In the film, at exactly five minutes into the story — just after DiCaprio’s character has snorted cocaine with a hundred dollar bill and done a little trick by making us think “this shit” (cocaine) will make you invincible, when it fact he means the money he is using as a straw — he launches into a speech as he enters his busy trading floor:

See, money doesn’t just buy you a better life — better food, better cars, better pussy — it also makes you a better person. You can give generously to the church, or political party of your choice. Save the fuckin’ spotted owl with money (italics added).

“To the church.” I like that. In his memoir from which the film springs, Belfort is refreshingly forthright that he is Jewish — and that, with one exception, all of his close associates are Jewish — as are the majority of his traders. Now in the film — which “happened” to open on Christmas Day 2013 — we are informed that rich people like DiCaprio’s Belfort can give “to the church,” not synagogue or ADL or a Jewish think tank. It is this kind of subtle deception that would, in my view, prevent the vast, vast majority of Gentile viewers from understanding that these financial criminals are Jewish at all.

Back in 2007, the convicted trader Jordan Belfort released his autobiography that engendered the later film. In this book, The Wolf of Wall Street, Jewish themes are front and center, beginning with the conflation of Jews and money. Belfort founded the trading firm of Stratton Oakmont (a very British-sounding name) and went on to amass a fortune. His descriptions of his escapades spending that money are hilarious, along the lines of Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I honestly loved Belfort’s book.

Lust for the “shiksa goddess” is another main theme, as Belfort is absolutely smitten with the gentile woman he manages to marry. If one wants an initiation into Jewish attitudes toward ethnicity, Jewish and otherwise, this is the book to start with. The real fascination surrounding Jewish characters comes with Belfort’s descriptions of his comrades, beginning with his right-hand man, Danny Porush. Danny, Belfort begins, “was a Jew of the ultrasavage variety.” With “steel-blue eyes,” Porush did not appear to be “a member of the Tribe,” a situation Porush himself helped along by dressing and acting like a Gentile.  Like many other Jews, “Danny burned with the secret desire to be mistaken for a WASP and did everything possible to cloak himself in complete and utter WASPiness.”

Stratton Oakmont’s head of the finance department, Andy Greene, however, would never pass as a WASP, beginning with the fact that he had “the worst toupee this side of the Iron Curtain.” To Belfort, Greene’s toupee “looked like someone had taken a withered donkey’s tail and slapped it onto his egg-shaped Jewish skull, poured shellac over it, stuck a cereal bowl over the shellac, and then placed a twenty-pound plate of depleted uranium over the cereal bowl and let it sit for a while.”

When discussing another Greene who worked for him — this time Kenny “the Blockhead” Greene — Belfort describes Greene’s mother Gladys: “Starting from the very top of her crown, where a beehive of pineapple blond hair rose up a good six inches above her broad Jewish skull, and all the way down to the thick callused balls of her size-twelve feet, Gladys Greene was big.”

She was also quite willing to break the law, beginning with evasion of taxes on the cigarettes she and the adolescent Kenny smuggled into New Jersey. When Kenny turned fifteen and began smoking pot, his mother immediately became a pot dealer, providing her son “with finance, encouragement, a safe haven to ply his trade, and, of course protection, which was her specialty.” And because cocaine “offered too high a profit margin for ardent capitalists like Gladys and the Blockhead to resist,” they were soon enough plying that trade on Long Island, too.

One gets the feeling that for Belfort, the descriptor “savage” has a redeeming quality to it, as he describes many Jews that way, such as “the most savage young Jews anywhere on Long Island,” those from the towns of Jericho and Syosset. Then there is the Wall Street legend, J. Morton Davis, “a savage Jew,” and even Belfort himself, “the most savage Jew of all.” And don’t forget the “Quaalude-addicted, potbellied savage Jew with a thousand-watt social smile and a secret life’s mission to be mistaken for a WASP” who ripped Belfort off when selling him horses. Belfort’s book unashamedly celebrates Jews.

The film, however, cannot be more different, for reasons stated above. I positively scoured this film and found next to nothing — and it’s nearly a three-hour film. Here’s about all I could find: When one character demands that another come pick up millions in elicit earnings, the latter is insulted and says “I’m not fuckin’ schvartze.” How many caught that one?

One more example that will surely crop up concerns Belfort’s father Max — and the character who plays him, Rob Reiner. In this case, it again comes down to insider/outsider interpretations. Those who know that Reiner is himself Jewish and know that the real Belfort is Jewish will get it. Others, probably not. Back in the early ‘70s, did American viewers see “All In the Family” character Michael “Meathead” Stivic as Jewish? Same actor. Same ethnic undermining without the goyim knowing about it, either.

Go to Part 2 of 2

Jewish Reactions to Black anti-Semitism

“Jews often become convenient stand-ins as the purveyors of the structures of systemic racism that continue to plague Black America.”
Tema Smith, The Forward, 2019

As remarked in “Aspects of Black anti-Semitism,” it’s clear that visible and occasionally violent Black hostility towards Jews presents the latter with an objective problem in terms of their (publicly expressed) self-concept as a people and the received wisdom regarding the nature of anti-Semitism (now given quasi-legal standing in many countries via the IHRA definition). In general terms, Jews have tended to avoid any sense of responsibility for anti-Semitism by creating and promoting narratives in which they are passive victims of a phenomenon that is the result of fundamentally irrational bigotry. This is often accompanied by the insistence that anti-Semitism has its origins in what are seen as pathological elements in European Christianity and that anti-Semitism is little more than a set of ideas that act as a viral psychosis among Whites.

Since the early twentieth century, this understanding has been augmented with a variety of modifications, many derived from Marxism and psychoanalysis, but the essential argument that anti-Semitism is a White pathology has survived, and has been very widely disseminated in Western cultural, political, and educational spheres. In fact, it has been challenged in significant terms only by the rise of anti-Jewish hostility in the Middle East, but even in that instance it has been characterized by Jewish historians like Bernard Lewis as being influenced by Europeans. Within the West, and omitting anti-Semitism among Muslim immigrants, the periodic spike in anti-Jewish hostility among American Blacks represents perhaps the only persistent Western challenge to the received wisdom that anti-Semitism is a White problem, rather than a problem that originates with Jewish behavior. Black anti-Semitism also problematizes notions that Jews have been selfless and valuable allies to Blacks and other minorities, something that has been a key aspect of Jewish propaganda campaigns for pluralism in Western nations. As such, Jewish rhetorical and legal responses to Black anti-Semitism are of interest to White advocates, and to all peoples concerned with Jewish/Zionist group influence and behavior.

Victims of White Systems

One of the most prominent Jewish strategies when discussing Black anti-Semitism is the attempt to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood, and thus preserve the idea of an alliance against an allegedly oppressive White society. On the most basic level, this strategy involves denying any specificity to Black complaints against Jews and essentially involves an entrenchment of the idea that anti-Semitism is a White pathology. Black socio-economic grievances are radically downplayed or even ignored entirely in this framework, and the locus of all discussion tends to be on vague, putative historical contexts of Jewish victimhood (e.g. “This is another sorry chapter in the history of the Longest Hatred”), rather than on serious thinking about perpetrator motivation.

An excellent example in this regard is Tema Smith’s Forward article “How to talk about Black anti-Semitism.” Smith attempts to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood by arguing that “Jews often become convenient stand-ins as the purveyors of the structures of systemic racism that continue to plague Black America.” This is really a fascinating statement given that it comes in the aftermath of Black attacks on Jews involving everything from “fists and stones to machetes, automatic weapons, and explosive devices.” Despite very clear dynamics of targeted hostility, the victimhood of both peoples is preserved and asserted since the putatively passive Jews are merely “convenient stand-ins,” and Blacks are themselves “plagued” by “the structures of systemic racism.” In other words, antagonistic Jewish behaviors are either non-existent or ultimately irrelevant, while Blacks can’t be fully condemned for their attitudes and behavior because they’ve essentially been fooled by an exploitative racist system. Thus, in a context in which a disproportionately vast numbers of Hasidic Jews exploit their tenants and accumulate hundreds of building violations through sheer greed and disdain for those living in their properties, and in the process making life hell for many Blacks, the real villain of the story is somehow the White man — a figure, curiously enough, that is almost totally absent from all “Worst Landlord” lists.

In this reaction, therefore, Jews and their behaviors dissolve into the abstraction of imagined social systems—specifically “racist” systems that are part of a putative White power structure. Smith continues:

What is remarkable, though, is that a single factor underlies every attempt to diagnose a unique form of Black anti-Semitism: systemic racism. In analysis after analysis, antisemitism in the Black community is shown to be the symptom of the structures of racism in the United States—housing insecurity, lack of access to quality education, food deserts, access to political capital, discriminatory policing, and on and on. Ultimately, the conversation about Black anti-Semitism is not actually about Blacks and Jews. [emphasis added]

This is a capable use of persuasive language, but what is truly remarkable is that Smith fails to identify the true “single factor” underlying attempts to diagnose Black anti-Semitism — the stunning avoidance of any significant confrontation with the worst aspects of Jewish behavior in Black districts. Whether or not housing insecurity, lack of access to quality education, food deserts, access to political capital, or discriminatory policing have anything to do with the specific issue of Black anti-Semitism is up for debate, but what is clearly contributing to Black anti-Semitism is the decades-old prevalence of Jews as the very worst of ghetto slumlords, pawn brokers, loan merchants, and political hypocrites. Smith doesn’t provide a single reference or footnote to any of the examples of “analysis after analysis” allegedly proving a thesis that conveniently absolves Jews of provoking Black aggression because these analyses are almost non-existent outside the ridiculous offerings of the Jewish power structure’s own self-defense bodies. In fact, when serious unbiased scholarly studies are made of Black anti-Semitism they tend to overwhelmingly conclude, in the words of Ronald Tsukashima and Darrel Montero, that “economic mistreatment [by Jews] is strongly related to heightened antipathy toward Jews.”[1]

One study that concedes economic mistreatment of Blacks by Jews, but insists that Whites and their “racist system” are still responsible for the situation, is the ADL-sponsored Anti-Semitism in America (1979) by Harold Quinley and Charles Glock. In the fourth chapter of this text, “Anti-Semitism Among Black Americans,” the authors concede their findings “are consistent with a theory that black anti-Semitism is economically based,” and that having business contacts with Jews “was associated with a sharp rise in anti-Semitic responses.”[2] In particular, it was found that Jewish credit practices were one of the “principle areas in which blacks are exploited. They often end up paying exorbitant prices for inferior goods.”[3] Remarkably, however, in summarising their conclusions the authors move away radically from the specificities of Black-Jewish interactions, instead abstracting into discussion of systems of racism. In essence, they replicate the process of Jews dissolving into Whiteness. For example, they assert that “it is largely as members of the oppressive white majority that blacks seem to react to Jews.”[4] This is followed by what amounts to absolution of both Blacks and Jews, and a condemnation of Whites:

Prejudice should be deplored wherever it exists and for whatever reason. At the same time, prejudice toward the oppressor is not to be equated with prejudice toward the oppressed. The prejudice of blacks is in part a response to circumstances which white-dominated culture has imposed on them. The opposite does not apply with respect to the prejudice of whites.

The rhetorical pattern is thus replicated that negative Jewish behavior is either non-existent or irrelevant, that, in a sense, Black violence is excusable, and that the real enemy of both is White people and their culture.

The Judeo-Bolshevik Inflection

Part of the “system’s” apologetic, but worthy of analysis in its own right, is the Jewish-Marxist treatment of Black anti-Semitism. A good example of this approach was published last month at Jacobin, in the form of Aaron Freedman’s article “To Defeat Antisemitism, We Must Defeat Capitalism.” It’s long been my opinion that a significant element of historical Jewish support for Marxism is that Marxism is itself a kind of “escape into systems.” Jews have for centuries been noted as particularly negative forces within capitalism, and it would appear that Jews have much to gain by advancing the idea that it is the system of capitalism, rather than Judaism and Jewish approaches to capitalism, that is inherently bad. It is indeed a curio of history and contemporary economics that Jews have heavily accumulated, and often dominated, in those economic areas widely seen as exemplifying the worst of capitalism: usury/high interest loans, including the modern payday loan; sub-prime mortgages; tax farming; vulture funds; monopoly; fraud; Ponzi schemes; slumlordism; tax avoidance; internet gambling; and malicious bankruptcy. I’ve tackled the Marxist critique of anti-Semitism in great detail in relation to the ideas of Slavoj Zizek (who later referenced the “true anti-Semitism” of my essay at RT but—rather tellingly—offered no rebuttal, refusing even to answer the question he quotes). But here I want to discuss it specifically with reference to the issue of Black anti-Semitism.

Aaron Freedman, who lives in Brooklyn and should therefore know better, is quite unabashed in asserting that “Antisemitism endures because capitalist oppression needs a scapegoat,” which is really no more than a rephrasing of Tema Smith’s claim that Jews are merely “convenient stand-ins” for the real problem — the racist structure of White society. Freedman admits that there has been a sudden increase in Black attacks on Jews, but his first attempt at explanation can only be described as nothing less than remarkable: “A surge in white-nationalist activity since Donald Trump’s election is surely the main part of the story.”

Inserting “surely” into a sentence is a nice effort at persuasive writing, but the logical gap is so great in this instance that it resembles the rhetorical equivalent of putting a band-aid on the hull of a sinking ship. Freedman qualifies his astonishing claim only by adding “But Trump’s victory alone does not explain the spate of incidents in New York, committed in many cases by black individuals in both planned assaults and apparently random street encounters.” The confusion unfortunately escalates from there, with Freedman commenting “The Right obviously does not have an answer.” The problem here is that we obviously do have an answer for the causes of Black anti-Semitism, and like all great theses it can be summed up in a single, short sentence: “Jews have been behaving badly again.” Freedman dodges any hint at such an explanation, moving into his own breakdown of why Blacks have been attacking Jews: Capitalism.

Like all Marxist interpretations of anti-Semitism, Freedman asserts that “Its roots in the United States, by way of Europe, come from Christian discrimination against “Christ killers,” dating as far back as the 2nd century CE.”  This is, quite frankly, a nonsensical oversimplification, and the dating of the origins of anti-Semitism from medieval Christendom, rather than the ancient world, is an depressingly common feature of Jewish apologetics, a tactic that typically owes much of its development to the convenience of placing the blame for anti-Semitism on early Christianity. Most significantly, it is based on the theories of Gavin Langmuir, a philosemitic scholar who by his own admission dated his discussion of the origins of anti-Semitism to the medieval period because, “I am respectably knowledgeable only about the history of the West since the fall of the Roman Empire and am most at home in the Middle Ages.” Compounding Freedman’s gross errors, the Jacobin journalist states with brazen duplicity that Jewish financial activities in the Middle Ages were “far less oppressive” than that of other peoples (again, see my commentary on the ideas of Slavoj Zizek for historical sources contradicting such assertions), and that they were only quaintly engaged in “petty bourgeois profit-seeking.” No mention of Jewish elite status. No discussion of Jewish tax-farming. No inclusion of peasant revolts against the unusually oppressive nature of Jewish finance. Jews appear in Freedman’s narrative only as “a religious other,” picked on because they were “also very vulnerable.” So vulnerable they typically had royal protection? So vulnerable that most of the oldest residential houses in England were built for Jews, their thick stone standing the test of centuries and countless reactions from the goyim?

If by now, like me, you’re wondering what Freedman has to say specifically on the matter of Black anti-Semitism, then also, like me, you’ll be frustrated with the fact he finishes the piece without mentioning anything at all about Black anti-Jewish hostility in Brooklyn. In a grand piece of diversionary nonsense, he merely recounts the standard Judeo-Bolshevik narrative of anti-Semitism, declaring Black anti-Semitism to be inconsequential to the greater story: “the specific threat of white-nationalist organizations remains the paramount one,” and “in any society in which the few rule over the many, racist and antisemitic victim-blaming will thrive.” The message is therefore more or less identical to that offered by Tema Smith — when Blacks attack Jews it has nothing to do with either Blacks or Jews, and everything to do with Whites. The situation thus presents itself that Jewish slumlords abuse and exploit their Black tenants, Blacks react by assaulting Jews, and Whites are encouraged to chastise themselves for causing it all through their evil desire for private property.

Pleading Ignorance

In “Aspects of Black anti-Semitism,” I noted that,

A fascinating feature of coverage of the Winter 2019/2020 attacks on Jews by Blacks in New York has been the total absence of media enquiry into why the assaults took place. Like so much historiography on European anti-Semitism, there is simply no room for the question Why? As in Kiev, or Odessa, or the Rhine Valley, or Lincoln, or Aragon, or Galicia, the assaults on Jews in Brooklyn apparently emerged from the ether, motivated by some miasmic combination of insanity and demonic aggression. NBC New York reported bluntly on a “spree of hate,” but had nothing in the way of analysis of context other than a condemnation of “possible hate-based attacks” — one of the most remarkably opaque pieces of analytical nomenclature I’ve ever come across.

Mirroring media neglect of context, some Jewish reactions have consisted of feigned ignorance and bafflement at what might have caused Black anti-Semitism. In a December 2019 article for the Daily Beast, Brooklyn-based Jay Michaelson attempts to explain “What’s Behind the New Wave of Anti-Semitic Hate?” What his article in facts consists of is a series of mystifications of what is really a fairly straightforward story. For Michaelson, “speaking as a Jewish parent who lives in Brooklyn, I can tell you that it’s terrifying. It is also confusing. [emphasis added]” The only thing Michaelson seems sure of is that “hate” is involved, but he courageously probes deeper by asking: “Hate, yes, but what kind of hate?” His conclusion? “The answer is not simple.” Michaelson does concede that some of the anti-Jewish actions of recent decades contain “glimmers of ideology” — “the Crown Heights riot of 1991 was in part about city resources, housing, gentrification, policing and political power”—but he follows this by insisting that “These attacks say nothing about African-Americans or anti-Semitism in black communities. … To eradicate anti-Semitism, we must understand it—and right now, when it comes to this devastating new wave of attacks, we don’t.”

Other than blank confusion, then, does Michaelson suggest that anyone at all is blameworthy for the recent outbreaks of Black anti-Semitism? After much confusion, the fog settles and the real perpetrator comes into Michaelson’s view: Donald Trump. Michaelson unveils the villain of the story as follows:

While conspiracy-mongering exists on the left and the right, there is no left-wing or African-American equivalent of President Trump, who has freely traded in anti-Semitic stereotypes, sometimes in a joking way. … Indeed, Trump’s contribution to our conspiracy-fevered culture is broader than specifically anti-Semitic conspiracies. For example, regarding the 2016 election alone, Trump has claimed, baselessly, that it was rigged (even though he won anyway), that millions of people voted illegally in it, that Ukraine (not Russia) interfered with it, and that there are still important email servers floating around out there that we have to get our hands on. When you play with fire like this, vulnerable populations get burned. Especially Jews.

The real reason for Black attacks on Jews is thus unveiled with crystal clarity. According to Michaelson, it all began when Donald Trump made some jokes that some Jews perceived to refer to “canards” about Jews and money. The situation was compounded further when Trump complained about Hillary Clinton keeping state business on a private email server. Unable to control themselves in light of Trump’s jokes, and rendered paranoid by talk of Ukrainian meddling and the security protocols of email servers, the Blacks of Brooklyn rose up in violence against the “vulnerable population” in their midst—the entirely innocent, passive and wealthy Hasidic landlords who owned their slums and debts. Right.

Some things never change: Covers of Commentary from 1963 and 2018.

The Material Reaction

It often pays to observe what Jews do rather than what they say. Steven Gold, writing on the Jewish response to growing Black anti-Semitism in 1940s Harlem, comments:

Being well organized, Jewish communal associations took note when Jewish merchants were accused of inappropriate behavior. When African-American journalists or activists complained about the exploitative behavior of ghetto merchants, Jewish spokesmen often resisted accepting responsibility and instead labeled accusers as anti-Semites for referring to the merchants’ religion. Contending that Jewish merchants treated Blacks no worse than other Whites did, they objected to being singled out.[5]

Resisting accepting responsibility for exploitative and inappropriate behavior has long been the favored option of Jews, even when confronted with quite extreme and violent manifestations of anti-Semitism. In fact, one of the obvious themes of Jewish history is the persistence of negative behaviors amidst ever-intensifying efforts to entrench within the host society, often via radically increased security and associated privileges (e.g. restricted freedoms for non-Jews, harsh penalties for anti-Semitism). A constant of Jewish history is that in general Jews do not change behavior that is seen negatively by non-Jews; rather, they find ways to continue to engage in the behavior but avoid the consequences—a facet of aggression as a background trait of Jewish behavior (p. 26ff). As such, one would expect that Black anti-Semitism will not significantly change patterns of Jewish behavior in Black areas, and that we will instead witness Jewish communities enjoying very high levels of police protection and the promotion of the idea that Jews are a vulnerable, passive, and special people entirely deserving of special treatment. Additionally, despite Jewish rhetoric blaming Black anti-Semitism on Whites, one would expect a high level of suspicion of Blacks among Jews, and subtle attempts by Jews to punish Blacks for their aggressions.

Security for Jews has already vastly increased since December 2019, with the Guardian reporting that police have stepped up patrols in “Borough Park, Midwood, Crown Heights, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Williamsburg, as well as establishing community-based neighborhood safety coalitions overseen by the Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes. In addition, the city announced an increased NYPD presence at houses of worship and during local events. Six new surveillance towers and additional security cameras will be installed throughout the neighborhoods.” As well as increasing security on the ground, Jewish leaders last week successfully lobbied Attorney General William Barr to announce a “zero tolerance” policy for anti-Semitism at federal level. The new, harsher approach to crimes against Jews will get its first trial in the case of Tiffany Harris, a Brooklyn-based Black woman of dubious mental health who slapped three Jewish women and now, on the orders of Barr, will face federal hate crime charges which carry a maximum of 30 years in prison.

The issue of Jewish security has also called into question the putatively selfless Jewish interest in “social justice.” Having previously backed New York’s “no bail” criminal justice reforms, ostensibly intended to stop the injustice of those in poverty (mainly Blacks) spending more time in jail than those with the funds to bail their way out (mainly Whites), Jews are now rapidly turning on the policy change and demanding that “hate crime” exemptions be considered. In other words, Jews want subtle protections and subtle punishments. The Forward reports:

People are panicking, people feel frightened,” said Chaim Deutsch, a New York City councilman who represents a Brooklyn district with a large Hasidic population. “When they see someone like Tiffany Harris is released on bail, and got released only to go assault someone again, it sends the wrong message.” Deutsch is circulating an open letter to Cuomo criticizing the new criminal justice reforms. Simcha Eichenstein, a state assemblyman who also represents a Brooklyn district, plans to introduce legislation that would remove all hate crime charges from the list of crimes that judges cannot set bail for. Deutsch told the Forward he supports Eichenstein’s legislation. Concern for the repercussions of the bail reforms is growing among politicians. Cuomo has said he wants to reconsider the rules. Even progressives like Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the New York State Senate majority leader, has signaled her willingness to look at the rules again.

A policy change that has been the cause célèbre of liberal multiculturalists for years is thus forced into sharp revision solely because it has been deemed to negatively impact Jewish security.

This is the true Jewish reaction to Black anti-Semitism, devoid of rhetorical smoke and mirrors, and steeped in centuries of tradition: Deny Responsibility; Entrench in the Society; Continue and Intensify Existing Behaviors; Increase Privileges and Protections; Punish Opponents.

What a vicious and endless circle.


[1] Ronald Tadao Tsukashima, Darrel Montero, “The Contact Hypothesis: Social and Economic Contact and Generational Changes in the Study of Black Anti-Semitism,” Social Forces, Volume 55, Issue 1, September 1976, 149–165. Although more ambiguous in their representation of findings, see also, Gary T. Marx, Protest  and Prejudice: A Study of Belief in the Black Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1967) and Harold Quinley and Charles Glock, Antisemitism in America (New York: Free Press, 1979).

[2] Harold Quinley and Charles Glock, Antisemitism in America (New York: Free Press, 1979), 57.

[3] Ibid., 66.

[4] Ibid., 72.

[5] S. Gold, The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 75.

Aspects of Black anti-Semitism

“[Jews] infiltrate the Negro neighborhood with stores, and they exploit the Negro more than any other White group — housing, food, clothing — controlling the three basic things Negroes need. They claim to be friendly with Negroes but, when pushed to the wall, they are more injurious, more ruthless, than other Whites.”
Jeremiah X, 1965.[1]

Speaking to the Black historian Horace Mann Bond in 1965, Jeremiah X, then leader of the Atlanta Mosque of the Nation of Islam, argued that “the Jews are the Negro’s worst enemy among whites.” The reason Jews were particularly dangerous, explained Jeremiah, was the fact they “make it a practice to study Negroes; thus they are able to get next to him better than the other whites. He uses the knowledge thus obtained to get close to the Negro, thereby being in a position to stab him with a knife.” This metaphorical knife was both economic and socio-cultural. As well as acting as slumlord, pawnbroker, and merchant, the Jew of the Black world was also a manipulative political actor: “Through their control of the press and of other mass media they are able to make the public feel sorry for Jews. It is so bad today that anybody who speaks out against Jews is immediately clobbered as ‘anti-Semitic.’ They have made the Negroes to believe their sufferings have been greater than those of the Negro in America.”

This is an interesting perspective, to say the least, and for as long as I’ve been interested in anti-Semitism, I’ve been intrigued by the expression of hostility towards Jews among non-Whites. My reasons should be obvious. As I’ve written previously, concerning anti-Semitism in South Korea,

One of the most fundamental positions for White advocates concerned with Jewish influence must be the conviction that antagonism against Jews lies in Jewish behavior rather than solely the cultural pathology or psychological tendencies of non-Jews. A major testing ground for this position is the necessity for anti-Jewish attitudes to be present among geographically, racially, and culturally diverse peoples, and for the reasons behind this antagonism to be fairly uniform.

Black anti-Semitism in the United States is especially interesting in its own right for historical and contemporary cultural, economic, social, and political reasons. From at least the time of the Civil War, Jews, Blacks, and Whites have existed in a fateful racial triad, and Black anti-Semitism has much to tell us about all three groups, the relations between them, and the very nature of anti-Semitism itself. Black anti-Semitism has also maintained a constant, though often low-key, quality, with sporadic violent outbreaks since at least the first decade of the twentieth century, the most recent being the spate of assaults in December 2019. Of equal importance to the reasons behind this hostility is the Jewish response, and how that response molds Jewish understandings of anti-Semitism and determines the character of Jewish apologetics for their own antagonistic behaviors. The Jewish response to Black anti-Semitism will be the subject of a follow-up article, but this essay is primarily intended to provide an overview of some of the main aspects of Black anti-Semitism and its meaning and value to White advocacy. As such, it should be seen as complimenting and extending Kevin MacDonald’s essay “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” included in the 2007 volume Cultural Insurrections.

NBC News caption: Members of a Jewish Orthodox emergency response team work alongside police at the scene of a shooting at a kosher supermarket in Jersey City, N.J., on Dec. 11, 2019.

Features of Black anti-Semitism

In Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald identifies the key themes of anti-Semitism as including an understanding that, speaking in general terms, Jews

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

Among the factors mitigating anti-Semitism, one of the most crucial contemporary elements has been the Jewish promotion of multi-ethnic, pluralist societies. As MacDonald explains, “A multicultural society in which Jew are simply one of many tolerated groups is likely to meet Jewish interests, because there is a diffusion of power among a variety of groups and it becomes impossible to develop homogeneous gentile in-groups arrayed against Jews as a highly conspicuous group.”[2] Of particular interest, then, is the extent to which the key themes of anti-Semitism manifest among Blacks, how they manifest, and how the Black position of being a celebrated component feature of pluralism (rather than, as in the case of Whites, being the majority  population subjected to pluralism) impacts the mitigation of anti-Semitism.

Common sense would suggest that each ethnic group will inflect the themes of anti-Semitism according the context and precise nature of their own interaction with Jews. In South Korea, organised anti-Jewish hostility was built around the understanding that Jewish financiers, mainly American, with a history of highly exploitative behaviors, were attempting to gain strongholds in South Korean companies like Samsung. As such, the primary theme of anti-Semitism in South Korea has been the understanding that Jews are dangerously adept at resource competition, are financially ruthless and exploitative, are highly ethnocentric, and are powerful in the media and in politics at the highest levels. During the early stages of an attempted expansion of influence by the almost entirely Jewish vulture fund “Elliot Associates,” Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed “Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless.” This was soon followed by the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon, expressing his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, “The scary thing about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies. Their network is tight-knit beyond one’s imagination.” A day later, cable news channel YTN aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, airing the opinion that “it is a fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born.”

Among Blacks, the same themes have been inflected in less elevated terms, arising first from more modest economic conflicts and, as such, having something more in common with the complaints of the early modern European peasantries. Horace Mann Bond, in his own 1965 reflections on “Negro Attitudes Toward Jews,” comments on the fact Jews historically appeared in the African-American environment overwhelmingly as pawnbrokers, as monopolists of the liquor trade (“The Jews have a stranglehold on the liquor stores in this town”), as the primary sellers on credit of clothing and other essential items, and, perhaps most crucial of all, as the slumlord and property dealer (“Some Jews have bought up that urban re-development land and are putting up shoddy apartments they call “Nigger housing” on it”).[3] In 2016, local news website Patch published a list of the 100 worst slumlords in Harlem, with the top ten including seven Jews (Mark Silber, Adam Stryker, Joel Goldstein, Marc Chemtob, Moshe Deutsch, Solomon Gottlieb, and Jason Green), a representation that has remained roughly constant every year, with Jews persistently claiming top ranking for building violations, rodent infestations, lack of maintenance, exploitative rent, mold, and other forms of building decay injurious to health. Indeed, this situation has at times resulted in considerable embarrassment to Jews.

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

It is my considered view that Negro attitudes and actions towards Jews that are frequently interpreted as “antisemitic” actually lack the sinister thought-content they are sometimes advertised as holding. The occasional riots against small businessmen and landlords in Harlem — persons who may happen to be Jews — do not, in my opinion, actually possess the “classic” emotional load of aggression against a Jewish “race” or “religion,” that has been considered the essence of antisemitism.[4]

I think Bond, in this instance, waters down the specificity of anti-Jewish hostility that eventually develops, because it’s more or less inevitable in the context of social identity theory that if someone is negatively confronted on enough occasions with “persons who may happen to be Jews” then they will eventually be forced to make an evaluation of Jews as a group. Bond, however, is of course accurate in pointing out that it’s perfectly possible for anti-Jewish actions to occur without the “sinister thought-content” often theorized and expounded upon in Jewish apologetics. Reading between the lines, Bond clearly interprets small-scale violence against these particular Jews as ad hoc reactions to local financial exploitation, an interpretive framework that by contrast has only been employed at the smallest of levels, and with the most minimum impact, when discussing anti-Jewish riots in the European past. Of further value is Bond’s doubting of the putative essence of anti-Semitism, “the classic emotional load of aggression” on the basis of race or religion, which again has only served to distance understandings of anti-Semitism from the realities of antagonistic Jewish group behaviors.

A lot of what has been discussed above is clearly resource-oriented, and economic competition between Blacks and Jews, devastatingly one-sided to be sure, goes right back to the arrival of the African in the Americas. Writing in a 1977 edition of Negro History Bulletin, Oscar R. Williams comments,

The presence of the southern Jews complemented the system of slavery; their mercantilist interest made slavery a more effective labor system. While most Jews were not to be found on plantations, their activities made the plantation a self-sufficient unit. What was not produced on the plantation was delivered by Jewish merchants. The southern Jew has as much, if not more, to gain from the system of maintaining slavery as any other white segment within the South. During the Civil War Jews defended the system which insured them acceptance and success in the South. Neither the Civil War nor Reconstruction changed the southern Jews’ perception of Blacks as an animal to be used and exploited.[5]

While some initial divergence of opinion on race could be found between northern and southern Jews, the advent of the New South, and then the mass migration of Jews to the United States from Eastern Europe in 1880s, provoked a coalescence of Jewish behaviors in relation to Blacks. Williams continues,

Often in the New South, success of Jewish merchants depended on winning Black trade. Jewish merchants appeared more courteous and obviously spent more time with Black customers than fellow white merchants. Blacks were often victims of sales pressure when Jews refused to accept no-sale for an answer. No became the signal for the ritual to begin. Merchants would insist that the potential buyer try-on the item. After this came what Blacks call “Jewing Down,” in which naive Blacks were led to believe that Jewish merchant had allowed himself to be beaten on the price.

The post-Civil War movement of Blacks to the northern cities coincided with the mass migration of East European Jews into the same urban centers. Boasting centuries of experience in the economic exploitation of the lowest classes, Jews quickly set about the establishment of pawn shops, credit sales, and other methods of lending small-to-medium amounts of cash at interest.

Such was the scale of Jewish exploitation of urban Blacks in some areas that W.E.B. Du Bois was moved in 1903 to declare “The Jew is heir to the slavebaron.”[6] And yet, growing alongside this exploitation was something hinted at by Williams. The Jews did in fact appear more courteous than whites, even if their behavior didn’t quite match the outward courtesy. And Jews did obviously spend more time with Black customers than with white merchants. The Black could be “Jewed Down” into believing he’d won himself a bargain, and he could also be “Jewed Down” into the belief that he had a friend and a helper in the form of the Jew, even if this illusion could last only for a short period, and all while the interest clock kept on ticking. Writing in Commentary in 1945, Kenneth B. Clark recounted how Blacks in Baltimore were pointing out that,

Jewish merchants own and control the major downtown department stores. … Some Negro domestics assert that Jewish housewives who employ them are unreasonable and brazenly exploitative. A Negro actor states in bitter terms that he is being flagrantly underpaid by a Jewish producer. A Negro entertainer is antagonistic to his Jewish agent who he is convinced is exploiting him. … Antagonism toward the “Jewish landlord” is so common as to have become almost an integral aspect of the folk culture of the northern urban Negro.[7]

It is indeed a curious feature of American history that the growth of the Black-Jewish civil rights alliance should have coincided with the intensification of Jewish exploitation of Blacks. During the 1920s, the same decade that the mostly Jewish-run NAACP began a serious escalation in agitation for “civil rights,” Jews were invading Black areas in northern cities, using their growing political influence to engage in the exploitation of Blacks and the suppression of their local businesses. In Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition (2012), Marni Davis comments on the Harlem newspaper The Age which complained throughout the early 1920s about Jews who

had bought the police, fouled Harlem with their liquor, and were now poisoning the locals (sometimes literally) and siphoning away the neighbourhood’s hard-earned capital. … The Age noted that many of the stores in question had the name “Hyman” attached to them. They all turned out to be owned by Hyman Kassel [other liquor traders in Harlem included Izzy Einstein, Connie Immerman, and Dutch Schultz], a well-known bootlegger and numbers runner. … “Hebrew Operators Control Lenox Avenue Places,” blared one headline. … The accusations levelled by the Age resembled nativist claims that Jews were economic parasites and moral defilers.[8]

Davis comments that Jews “regarded the anti-alcohol movement as politically wrong-headed — even repulsive — and certainly as inimical to the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution,” but such explanations for Jewish opposition to the temperance movement (conservative, Christian, family-oriented) are glaring in their avoidance of the fact Jews possessed centuries of experience in exploiting the sale of liquor to the lowest classes in Eastern Europe in order to obtain and maintain political, social, and economic advancement and control (see Glenn Dynner’s 2014 Princeton-published Yankel’s Tavern: Jews, Liquor, and Life in the Kingdom of Poland). In other words, the argument that Jews pursued the often harmful sale of liquor purely out of abstract concern for “rights” and freedoms is a rather convenient way of side-stepping obvious, and often criminal, self-interest.

During the 1930s and 1940s, Jewish dominance of the trade in furniture, household items, and other essentials in the Black sections of northern cities led to the development of the idea among Blacks in several cities that Jews “only posed as friends.” These decades witnessed “rent strikes, business boycotts, and other forms of economic pressure,” as well as riots that were “tinged with anti-Semitic feeling,” all of which very closely resembled actions in Eastern Europe around 50 years earlier that had been characterized in contemporary propaganda as irrational and barbaric pogroms.[9] In fact, the causes of both sets of actions are almost entirely identical, with Steven Gold remarking in his fascinating 2010 The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict that between the 1930s and 1960s Jews “owned many of the largest businesses in ghettos, including department stores, hardware stores, and furniture stores.”[10] Even as Jews moved into the suburbs, unlike other ethnic groups they retained as much economic influence in Black areas as possible, resulting in their becoming “out-group entrepreneurs and absentee landlords.”[11] John Bracey comments,

No other group paid [the Black] the slightest attention: not the Germans, nor the Irish, nor the Poles, nor the Italians, not the Hungarians, nor the Slovaks; only the Jew established a line of communication, albeit a line of communication in trade and credit merchandising. True, the Jew had an advantage. To him the American Negro was no different from the Gentile peasants among whom he lived and with whom he dealt in the towns and villages of Russia, Galicia, Hungary, and Poland.[12]

Everywhere in these areas, remarks Gold, Jews and Blacks existed within a framework of “power and control,” and “The context within which African American women were hired and then supervised in Jewish homes was especially humiliating. At least in New York, this practice came to be known as the “Bronx Slave Market.” After public complaints, the La Guardia administration (1934-1945) created employment offices to provide black domestic workers with an additional measure of security and dignity.”[13]

The period 1945–1960s is often presented in mainstream historiography and social science as involving a Black-Jewish alliance in the pursuit of civil rights for African-Americans. Kevin MacDonald’s theory that this alliance was essentially an almost-entirely Jewish-operated venture in pursuit of Jewish goals and interests (the breaking up, via legislation and cultural change, of notions of America as a White country) has been maligned as itself anti-Semitic, despite the fact such interpretations are present even among Jewish scholars in the academic mainstream. Seymour Weisman, for example, writing in a 1980 edition of the Routledge journal Patterns of Prejudice, comments that “there was an obvious Jewish self-interest to promote legislation and initiate judicial actions” that would broaden the ethnic nature of the United States.[14]

The issue of Jewish self-interest is important because of the obvious implication of rhetorical insincerity. Much like apologetic narratives arguing that Jews traded in liquor, often via monopoly, because they believed in individual rights and freedoms, there are certainly grounds for doubting Jewish claims that they engage in “social justice” work out of sincere belief in the equality of Man. A particularly interesting case in this regard is related by Jeffrey Gurock in his The Jews of Harlem: The Rise, Decline, and Revival of a Jewish Community, where he recounts the great disillusionment of Blacks in the Bronx in the late 1950s on discovering that despite copious public Jewish rhetoric on racial equality, when a predominantly Jewish school in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood (and with a Jewish principal) “accepted five classes of Negroes” from a nearby school, they “isolated them on a separate floor.”[15]

Seymour Weisman claimed in 1981 that it was something of a great mystery that “the breakdown of Black-Jewish relations” should have occurred “at that precise moment in history when the civil rights legislative battle had been won.”[16] In truth, the breakdown only takes on a mysterious aspect if one firstly believes the Black-Jewish alliance to have been sincere in the first place, and, secondly, that if one believes that Jews were sincere in the putative concern for the welfare and well-being of Blacks as a matter of “social justice.” Historical data would instead suggest that Jews were prominent exploiters of Blacks who rather expertly and skillfully created an image of themselves as friends and allies of Blacks. It goes without saying that once Jewish goals in pursuing such a masquerade had been accomplished, the Jewish effort in sustaining the positive but illusory aspects of such a relationship would dramatically decline. In the absence of rhetorical smoke and mirrors, all that remained was the constant of mundane economic, social, and political exploitation in the Black heartlands. This is what has simmered since the 1960s, and this is what bubbled to the surface once again in November 2019.

A fascinating feature of coverage of the Winter 2019/2020 attacks on Jews by Blacks in New York has been the total absence of media enquiry into why the assaults took place. Like so much historiography on European anti-Semitism, there is simply no room for the question Why? As in Kiev, or Odessa, or the Rhine Valley, or Lincoln, or Aragon, or Galicia, the assaults on Jews in Brooklyn apparently emerged from the ether, motivated by some miasmic combination of insanity and demonic aggression. NBC New York reported bluntly on a “spree of hate,” but had nothing in the way of analysis of context other than a condemnation of “possible hate-based attacks” — one of the most remarkably opaque pieces of analytical nomenclature I’ve ever come across. Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind has said “The attacks against Jews are out of control, and we must have a concrete strategy to address the rise of these attacks,” but how he can develop a strategy to address something that apparently does not yet have an explanation is another question left unanswered.

What is clear is that Black anti-Semitism presents Jews with an objective problem in terms of their (publicly-expressed) self-concept as a people and the received wisdom regarding the nature of anti-Semitism (now given quasi-legal standing in many countries via the IHRA definition). The multiple ways in which Jews have sought to deal with this challenge will be addressed in a forthcoming follow-up essay, but it should suffice here to close with the remarks of Steven Gold on the Jewish response to growing Black anti-Semitism in 1940s Harlem:

Being well organized, Jewish communal associations took note when Jewish merchants were accused of inappropriate behavior. When African-American journalists or activists complained about the exploitative behavior of ghetto merchants, Jewish spokesmen often resisted accepting responsibility and instead labeled accusers as anti-Semites for referring to the merchants’ religion. Contending that Jewish merchants treated Blacks no worse than other Whites did, they objected to being singled out.[17]

An age-old pattern had thus been employed with a 20th century twist. Denials of responsibility and accusations of blind and unfair bigotry had been honed to perfection for centuries in Europe, but now came the masterful flourish of the pluralist culture — to dissolve into “Whiteness” at will and direct Black anger at that mask instead. After all, isn’t the Jew the best friend a Black could ask for?


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

[2] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of anti-Semitism (1st Books, 2004), 87.

[3] Bond “Negro Attitudes Towards Jews,” 5.

[4] Ibid,. 7.

[5] O. Williams (1977). “Historical Impressions of Black-Jewish Relations Prior to World War II”. Negro History Bulletin, 40(4), 728-731.

[6] M. Adams (ed) Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 18.

[7] K. B. Clark, “Candor about Jewish-Negro Relations,” Commentary, Vol. 1, Dec. 1 1945, 8.

[8] M. Davis, Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition (New York: NYU Press, 2012), 163.

[9] C. Rottenberg, Black Harlem and the Jewish Lower East Side: Narratives Out of Time (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 128.

[10] S. Gold, The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 73.

[11] Ibid., 74.

[12] J. Bracey (ed), Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 571.

[13] Ibid.

[14] S. S. Weisman (1980) “Black‐Jewish relations in the USA—I: One year after the Andrew young affair,” Patterns of Prejudice, 14:4, 18-28.

[15] J. Gurock, The Jews of Harlem: The Rise, Decline, and Revival of a Jewish Community (New York: NYU Press, 2016), 213.

[16] S. S. Weisman (1981) “Black‐Jewish relations in the USA—II,” Patterns of Prejudice, 15:1, 45-52.

[17] Gold, 75.

The Hollow Cult: Sins of Omission in the Rhetoric of the Holocaust

Suppose a hungry donkey was placed exactly midway between two identical piles of hay. Could it choose one of the piles to eat or would it hesitate, growing ever weaker, until it starved to death? This was the question posed in the medieval problem of Buridan’s ass.

“And so on…”

It might seem an esoteric situation, but you can sometimes see human beings frozen like Buridan’s ass between two equally compelling alternatives. Here, for example, is the Canadian-born Jewish journalist Barbara Kay writing at Quillette in praise of the recently deceased English philosopher Roger Scruton:

Scruton did eventually get some recognition in his home country. He received a knighthood in 2016. But then in his last year, Scruton fell victim to the scourge of “cancel culture.” A few words, taken out of context in an interview, and then mendaciously twisted by the New Statesman, brought on a mobbing of the kind we are all too familiar with, with accusations flung at this gentleman of harbouring “white supremacist” views.

As the night follows day in this feckless new world, Scruton was stripped of a recent government appointment, and there were demands that he lose his knighthood, too, on account of his homophobia, Islamophobia and so on — all complete fabrications. (Remembering Roger Scruton, Defender of Reason in a World of Postmodern Jackals, Quillette, 14th January 2020)

The strongly pro-Zionist Barbara Kay behaved like Buridan’s ass in the final sentence, when she wrote “and so on.” She had a choice, you see, between being completely honest and being completely dishonest. If she’d chosen to be completely dishonest, she would have written simply “on account of his homophobia and Islamophobia.” If she’d chosen to be completely honest, she’d have written “on account of his homophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.”

The Board of Deputies is satisfied

As you can see, Barbara couldn’t bring herself either to admit the truth or to entirely suppress it, so she hid the uncomfortable truth beneath “and so on.” Unfortunately for her, she was still being dishonest. As I described in “A Philosopher Falls,” Scruton was accused of anti-Semitism by Luciana Berger, a prominent Jewish MP in Britain, and was removed from a government committee after intervention by the Jewish Board of Deputies, Britain’s most important and powerful Jewish organization. The Board of Deputies then self-importantly announced: “As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard. We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.”

It’s obvious, then, why Barbara Kay felt unable to mention the accusations of anti-Semitism against Scruton, who had criticized the subversive Jewish financier George Soros and mentioned the influence of Jews in Eastern Europe. Like the accusations of homophobia and Islamophobia, these accusations were “complete fabrications” and “mendaciously twisted.” But Zionists like Kay do not want to admit that accusations of anti-Semitism can be fabricated and mendacious. And Zionists like Kay are even less willing to criticize the Zionist Board of Deputies and Zionist MPs like Luciana Berger. The central Jewish role in censorship, identity politics and “cancel culture” is a can of worms that Barbara Kay and Quillette want to leave strictly alone. In other words, they don’t actually want to fight effectively against those pernicious things. Not if that means challenging what is truly important to them: Jewish power and Jewish victimhood.

No hints of a bigger story

But Barbara Kay did at least hint – “and so on” – at something more in the Scruton story. There were no hints of a bigger story in the propaganda issued by the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (NHCM) before this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain:

Leading football players and managers have taken part in a video to be shown at fourth-round FA Cup matches this weekend urging people to stand up against hatred and discrimination.

The two-minute video, marking Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January, features Harry Kane, the England men’s captain, Steph Houghton, the England women’s captain, Frank Lampard, the Chelsea manager, Jürgen Klopp, the Liverpool manager, and the Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker alongside two dozen others.

Close-ups of their faces are cut with images from the Holocaust as they deliver an uncompromising message directed at football fans and others who fail to call out racism and discrimination.

“We remember those who stood by, those who did nothing, those that shook their heads. … We remember those who turned away, who watched the deeds of others but did nothing. We remember the good people, the decent people, all the regular people who didn’t hate but encouraged and supported hatred through the power of their silence,” they say.

Against images of antisemitic graffiti, Islamophobia and a lesbian couple abused on a London bus, they continue: “When we see racism, antisemitism, discrimination or hatred, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant … we mustn’t stand by, we need to stand up, we need to stand together.”

The video – made by the National Holocaust Centre and Museum – will be shared on social media by clubs and players on Holocaust Memorial Day, which this year also marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in German-occupied Poland. (Top footballers to mark Holocaust Memorial Day with anti-racism video, 24th January 2020)

Is the message of the video sincere or insincere? Let’s suppose it’s sincere and see where that leads us. The National Holocaust Centre and Museum (NHCM) are telling us that we mustn’t stand by and allow evil to triumph. And in recent years, the United Kingdom has been shaken again and again by scandals about the authorities standing by and allowing evil to triumph, even though they were fully aware that it was taking place. From Rotherham in the north to Oxford in the south, from Manchester in the west to Newcastle in the east, we’ve heard about girls and young women being raped, prostituted, tortured and sometimes murdered by gangs of brutal, misogynist men.

The early stages of genocide

Worse still, the brutal men and their victims come from different racial and religious groups, and the men have often used racially and religiously abusive terms against their victims. The horrible crimes therefore fit neatly into “The Ten Stages of Genocide” laid out by the organization Genocide Watch: “Mass rapes of women have become a characteristic of all modern genocides. Rape is used as a means to genetically alter and destroy the victim group.” Therefore, if the NHCM had been sincere in its message about combating evil, it would have mentioned those horrible stories about misogynist rape-gangs and their many thousands of victims.

But the NHCM didn’t say a word. It found “antisemitic graffiti, Islamophobia and a lesbian couple abused on a London bus” worthy of mention, but not the stabbing and drowning of an abused 17-year-old girl by two men who described her as a “kaffir [i.e., infidel] bitch” or the incineration of an abused 16-year-old girl with her mother and sister by another of the men’s co-religionists. And those are only two examples of the murder, sexual violence and psychological suffering visited for many decades on one racial and religious group in Britain by another racial and religious group. So why did the National Holocaust Centre and Museum not mention any of it?

Safeguarding and extending Jewish power

The answer is quite simple. The Holocaust Cult in Britain does not exist to combat evil or defend the vulnerable, but to safeguard and extend Jewish power. It does this by insisting on a series of lies and by suppressing historical facts that contradict those lies. The scandals I mentioned above are, of course, about non-White Muslim men abusing White girls from at least historically Christian backgrounds. This contradicts a central lie of the Holocaust Cult: that the majority is always the aggressor and minorities are always the helpless victims of the majority. It also contradicts another lie of the Holocaust Cult: that it’s always Christians who attack Jews and Muslims, never vice versa. For Jews, Muslims are “natural allies” against the White British, so any evils inflicted by them on the White British or other Christians are simply omitted from their account.

For example, on the website of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust you can find some brief discussion of how “the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire were systematically persecuted, deported from their homes and murdered.” This followed “a period of deterioration in relations between ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire.” But if you want further details, you won’t get them from the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. You will not be told that the Armenians were Christian or that their genocidal oppressors were Muslim and possibly also a crypto-Jewish group called the Domneh. That does not fit the propaganda of the Holocaust Cult at all! In the Holocaust Cult, Muslims are like Jews: a saintly minority who must be defended against the hate of the White Christian majority.

Jews as oppressors and mass-murderers

And of course the Holocaust Cult does not even mention communist atrocities, like the genocide committed against the Ukrainian people in 1932–3, which is estimated to have claimed between 7 and 10 million lives. Again, communist atrocities contradict the lie that minorities are always helpless victims. The Ukrainian Holodomor, or “death by hunger,” was directed and enforced by a heavily disproportionate number of Jews, from figures at the top like the little-known Lazar Kaganovich, who oversaw the genocide in Ukraine, to the ordinary, hard-working Jewish police, executioners and torturers who followed his orders. The Soviet communist party as a whole was disproportionately ruled and staffed by minorities like Jews, Georgians and Latvians who held historic grudges against the Russian and Ukrainian majorities. That was at the beginning of the twentieth century, but minority tyranny has not gone away. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we can see the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, which consists of an Alawite minority elite tyrannizing a Sunni majority after a prolonged period in which they were victimized by the Sunnis.

It is not true that minorities are always victims and that majorities are always victimizers. But the Holocaust Cult can’t admit this glaring historical fact, because the Holocaust Cult is a vehicle for the interests of Jews — the very same minority that supplied so many commissars, executioners and torturers to communist parties in Eastern Europe. And Jews believe that it is in their interests to flood Western nations with Muslims — the very same group that committed the Armenian genocide and another genocide in Bangladesh in the early 1970s. Once Muslims are in the West, the Holocaust Cult simultaneously works to suppress discussion about their predation on the White majority and to incite them to increased hatred of the White majority.

Working for genocide

In other words, the Holocaust Cult is working to promote evil and increase the risk of genocide. The Cult laments the civil war and genocide that took place in the marvellously diverse former Yugoslavia when an authoritarian regime collapsed and separate groups turned on each other. At the same time, the Cult is working to turn all Western nations into new versions of Yugoslavia and new potential sites of civil war and genocide. As Chateau Heartiste has often pointed out: “Diversity + Proximity = War.” But that doesn’t bother the Jewish proprietors of the Holocaust Cult, because they think they can stay on top and avoid harm themselves this time. The impending chaos can be managed from the top, and they will emerge unscathed.

The Holocaust Cult is a Hollow Cult because it isn’t sincere and isn’t interested in truth and historical objectivity. But its hollowness doesn’t render it harmless. The Trojan horse was also hollow and not what it pretended to be on the outside. And the Trojan horse succeeded perfectly in bringing down a great civilization. The Hollow Cult of the Holocaust is trying to do the same to Western civilization.

The Chief Rabbi speaks

Roger Scruton was supposedly a doughty defender of Western civilization. But he never criticized and condemned the Holocaust Cult. That’s one reason I can’t join the Zionist Barbara Kay in singing his praises. Then again, if Scruton had criticized the Holocaust Cult, Barbara Kay would never have sung his praises. Nor would Mark Steyn. Or Douglas Murray. Or any of the countless other admirers of Scruton who turn a stern eye on Muslim claims of Islamophobia and on transgender lunacies while ignoring the central Jewish role in censorship and identity politics. But surprisingly enough, if you do want the truth about that central Jewish role, it was supplied thirteen years ago by Jonathan Sacks, the then Chief Rabbi of Britain:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)

The Holocaust Cult is at the heart of the “culture of victimhood” described so well by Rabbi Sacks. It is being used to drive the West towards tyranny, social collapse and civil war, which leaves us with a simple choice. Either we destroy the Holocaust Cult or it destroys us.