“For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.”
Shylock, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1 Scene 3.

The lives of William Shakespeare and Sir Oswald Mosley are separated by more than three centuries, but they exist simultaneously in those corners of the Jewish mind where time, fact, and fiction are entirely relative. The Jews, it must be admitted, are a talented people. The strangest of these talents is the capacity to engrave into shared cultural memory a pantheon of grievances against individuals and events, many of which never existed. These shared fictions encourage ethnocentrism, tribal affiliation, and aggression towards perceived enemies. Take the Exodus story, for example. There is absolutely no evidence for any such event taking place in Egyptian history, and yet as the historian Paul Johnson remarked, Exodus, a kind of proto-victimhood narrative, “became an overwhelming memory” and “gradually replaced the creation itself as the central, determining event in Jewish history.”^[1] Now, just in time for Purim, a festival celebrating victimhood under, and victory over, Haman, yet another imaginary enemy, a new production of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice will be set in 1930s London. What has been revealed about the play thus far suggests that it will be staged in such a fashion as to represent a revenge on both Shakespeare and Sir Oswald Mosley, Englishmen who stand side by side in the burgeoning pantheon of Jewish hatred.

The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) isn’t what it used to be. This year it plans to stage a play “exposing the blithe injustice of empire,” while another, Cowbois, promises a “rollicking queer cowboy show” and “a western like you’ve never seen it before”. It’s about a bandit whose arrival in a sleepy frontier town “inspires a gender revolution and starts a fire under the petticoat of every one of its repressed inhabitants.”

As well as producing such stunning and brave works as this, the RSC has helped produce The Merchant of Venice 1936. In this iteration of Shakespeare’s classic, the Jewish actress Tracy-Ann Oberman plays Shylock, “a widowed survivor of antisemitic pogroms in Russia,” who runs a pawnbroking business in London’s Cable Street, where Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists plans to march. Antonio, the merchant, and Portia, are British aristocratic followers of Mosley. The official advertisement for the play explains:

It is London in 1936 — fascism is sweeping across Europe, and Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists is threatening to march through the Jewish East End. Shylock (Tracy-Ann Oberman) is a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. A widow, she runs a small business from her dark and cramped terraced house in Cable Street, hoping to give daughter Jessica a better future. When aristocratic anti-semite Antonio desperately needs a loan, he makes a dangerous bargain with this woman he has spat on in the street.  Will Shylock, bitter from a life plagued by racism and abuse, take her revenge? A vivid evocation of our history, and a warning for our times.

Note: This is an adaptation of the original text, which contains themes of racism, including anti-Semitism.

Framed in this way, the play acts as a salvo against two of the primary Jewish obsessions in the British context — the presence of perceived anti-Semitism in the English literary canon, and the largely mythical Jewish understanding of an event in English history known as the Battle of Cable Street.

The Merchant of Venice

It’s now ten years since I explored Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora, a huge and deeply compromised text exploring the history of a putative English anti-Semitism. For Julius, a literary scholar, English literature poses a special challenge for Jews, and Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice occupies a particularly heinous role in the origins of English anti-Semitism. For Julius, and many other Jewish literary scholars, representations of Jews in English literature are unique because they represent part of a “persecutory discourse” which “puts Jews on trial” and fosters a “predisposition to think ill of Jews.” Julius complained that English “literary anti-Semitism has its own mode of existence. It has its own internal history…its own inner laws, its own distinct properties.” Julius blamed English works of literature, in particular Chaucer’s The Prioress’s Tale, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, and Dickens’ Oliver Twist, for the very fact that “literary anti-Semitism came into existence.”

Julius’s analysis of Shakespeare’s play is worth briefly considering again, in light of the new ‘1936’ production, because it encapsulates the way in which Jews ignore certain aspects of the play in order to maintain that it’s inherently prejudiced and anti-Semitic. Having done so, Jews are then forced to ‘deal’ with the play, normally through unconventional methods of staging it or by clever additions which cultivate more sympathy for Shylock (the 2004 movie starring Al Pacino is a good example).

Julius states that the play has been used through the centuries “to promote ignoble elation at the spectacle of a Jew’s humiliation.” The play is said to “show a bad Jew; it encourages us to think badly of him; it encourages us to regard him as broadly representative of all Jews, it encourages us therefore to think badly of all Jews; further, it encourages us to think badly of Judaism.” Julius doesn’t elaborate upon or justify this logically tendentious syllogism. Instead, in a section intended to enlighten us on the English reception of the play, he quotes a German, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, as saying that he could detect “a light touch of Judaism” in everything Shylock says and does. Hardly damning.

The problem with this citation isn’t limited to the referencing of a German who never set foot in England. In fact, that is the least of the problems. More serious is the fact Julius deliberately misleads his readers by selecting and cropping quotes. The quote in question is derived and cited as being from Jonathan Bate’s The Romantics on Shakespeare. I own the book, and the reference to “a light touch of Judaism” is only the latter part of a full sentence, the former being at odds with Julius’ thesis that the character is meant to be broadly representative of all Jews. It reads: “Shylock, however, is everything but a common Jew: he possesses a strongly-marked and original individuality.”

The slippery Mr Julius doesn’t quote the English Romantics whose comments on The Merchant of Venice are freely available in the same chapter because his thesis stands condemned by their analysis. William Hazlitt pronounced that Shakespeare’s “Jew is more than half Christian. Certainly our sympathies are much oftener with him than with his enemies.” Heinrich Heine, who watched a performance in London, had this to say: “When I saw the play acted at Drury Lane, a beautiful pale Englishwoman standing beside me burst into tears at the end of the fourth act, crying out several times, ‘the poor man is wronged.’ She had a classical face and large dark eyes which I could not forget, for they had wept for Shylock.”

Shakespeare’s play is in fact a complex work with much to say about morality and revenge. To reduce it to the level of simply being about, or against, Jews, is to ignore much of its worthwhile content. And yet Jews, for a number of reasons, have approached it purely as a kind of ur-text of anti-Semitism.

Jews only really discovered Shakespeare, in any significant way, in the 1890s, following the large-scale westward migration from Russia and other areas of eastern Europe. The first Yiddish translation of the play appears in 1894, in New York. From the beginning, Shylock was staged by Jews as a kind of Jewish hero, and the first Yiddish translation isn’t titled The Merchant of Venice, but rather, in Yiddish, Shylock the Moneylender.

After deeper study, the second, English-speaking, generation of Jews in the West began to realize the subtle implications of the play. They worried about its capacity for shaping ‘ways of seeing,’ and the cultural knowledge it imparted about Jews (involvement in finance, tribal affiliation, and concepts of tribal revenge). There’s an argument to be made that the play was the first subject of a ‘cancel culture.’ The first major censorship efforts began in the 1920s in the United States, then spread to the UK. This persisted through the 1980s, when the ADL started to peak in its power, with a rash of activity to ban it in schools across the United States. It was banned in schools in Midland, Michigan in 1980. In Canada it was banned in several schools in Ontario in 1986. And in 1988 it was banned in several school districts in New York. The play continues to be subject to strategic omission. For example, Michael Morpurgo, one of the most successful children’s authors of Britain, recently released a collection of Shakespeare’s plays rewritten for a nine- or ten-year old audience. The only play that was left out was The Merchant of Venice. Morpurgo, who claims a Jewish step-father, explained his reasons as being that the play was anti-Semitic.

What is the Play Really About?

The Merchant of Venice actually falls within the category of comedy. It does have tragic elements, but it’s predominantly a comedy. It’s an example of what’s called “New Comedy.” In ancient Greek times they had a form of play known as “Old Comedy,” for example the plays by Aristophanes, and these were satirical and heavily political. Aristophanes is understood to have been succeeded by a playwright called Menander. Menander initiates “New Comedy,” which orbits a fixed set of tropes. One of these tropes is the idea of young lovers outwitting their parents, and seeking “a happily ever after.” New comedy is something that Shakespeare was particularly attracted to. We see it most clearly in Romeo and Juliet, but we see it also in The Merchant of Venice. Although there is the antagonism between Antonio and Shylock, the primary narrative aside from this is a love story. It’s a love story between Bassanio who is Antonio’s friend, and Portia, a wealthy heiress, or princess, that Bassanio is desperate to be able to become a suitor for. In order to be a suitor, he requires funds from Antonio, his best friend.

Antonio is a wealthy and successful merchant, but all of his ships are out at sea. And when they’re out at sea they’re vulnerable. As Shylock himself ponders in the play, they’re vulnerable to storms that may destroy the vessels, and to rats that may devour their cargo. Of course, the play opens with Antonio himself sitting in church brooding over his wealth and its vulnerability, and although The Merchant of Venice has been viewed and decried by Jews as a riff on ‘Jewish greed,’ the play is a much broader meditation on avarice.

Since ‘New Comedy’ plays always have a ‘bad guy’ and in this case that person is a Jewish moneylender, this creative choice alone seems sufficient to trigger centuries of Jewish antagonism towards Shakespeare’s work. Primarily, the problem with Shylock is that he’s a Jew portrayed in a massively popular example of literary genius, as a villain and a moneylender. Moneylending is a huge part of the socio-economic history of the Jews that Jewish intellectuals have invested a lot of energy into rewriting. Furthermore, the play is understood by Jews to offer echoes of the so-called Blood Libel. The locus here is Shylock’s demand that the loan offered to Antonio will be secured with a pound of Antonio’s own flesh. And yet the apparently bloodthirsty pledge is not what it first appears. When Antonio asks for the loan, Shylock replies,

“O father Abram, what these Christians are.
Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect the thoughts of others!
Pray you tell me this; If he should break his day what should I gain by the exaction of the forfeiture.
A pound of man’s flesh taken from a man is not so estimable, profitable neither.
As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say to buy his favour I extend this friendship.
If he will not take it so; if not, adieu;
And for my love, I pray you wrong me not.”

Even within the creative confines of the play it’s a purposefully unrealistic request, at least at first. Shylock only becomes obsessive about getting the pound of flesh once he realizes that Antonio has definitely defaulted. At that point he’s become so embittered that his daughter, Jessica, seems to have eloped with a Christian boy that he falls into a blood frenzy. At first, however, it seems that Shylock sets the bar so high because it’s a kind of hyperbolic peace offering. Even Antonio seems to perceive it that way, because he replies, “Hie thee gentle jew.” And once Shylock leaves, he says: “The Hebrew will turn Christian: He grows kind.” Antonio clearly interprets the demand for a pound of flesh not as a Jewish lust for blood, but as an olive branch in the conflict between the two. Later, of course, this is utterly destroyed, because after an important sequence of events Shylock reveals himself to be bloodthirsty. He reveals himself to be greedy for revenge, more so than for money. And this issue of revenge comes to the fore in the most famous speech in the play. Setting it up, Antonio confronts Shylock and asks him why he wants the pound of flesh. Shylock replies:

If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.
He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason?
I am a Jew.
Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge.
If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example?
Why, revenge.
The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

What Shylock is essentially saying here is: “There’s an antagonism that’s mutual between Jews and Christians, and for every time a Christian comes against me, I, the Jew, will pay him back even harder.”

In my view, this monologue encapsulates much of the dynamic of the Jewish-European interaction for the last 1,000 years, because it’s a pendulum. There’s Jewish action, followed by a European reaction, and so on. There is a constant to and fro between the two populations, even if it is rarely acknowledged, or permitted to be acknowledged, today.

Shakespeare is of course also saying here that Jews are human, and that their humanity does not detract from the fact that they can be at fault for their wrongs. This contrasts with Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, where Barabas the villain is a kind of two-dimensional, cartoonish, evil Jew. What Shakespeare is doing here, possibly as a direct response to Marlowe’s work, is saying that a caricature like that does not really have much moral agency or responsibility. You can impart more moral responsibility and agency to someone when you acknowledge their humanity. In other words, we understand that they have the same faculties as us, and yet have chosen, as an act of their own corrupt will, to undertake negative actions.

The fuel for this pendulum-like dynamic is a sense of tribal hurt and a consequent hunger for vengeance. Shylock uses the terms “my tribe” or “my nation” on several occasions to discuss the offense that he feels that Antonio has caused. Shylock’s tribe has been offended, and, nominated by fate as their representative, he will have his revenge on one of the city’s most prominent Christians on their behalf. He wants it to be painful, and he wants to literally take a piece of the man who slighted his people.

In Jewish understandings and stagings of the play, this pendulum dynamic is entirely lost. Shylock exists only as the passive victim of Christian aggression, forced into bitterness by relentless, unprovoked, and unfair persecution. Consider again the description of the upcoming staging of The Merchant of Venice 1936. Shylock is “a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. A widow, she runs a small business from her dark and cramped terraced house in Cable Street, hoping to give daughter Jessica a better future. When aristocratic anti-Semite Antonio desperately needs a loan, he makes a dangerous bargain with this woman he has spat on in the street.  Will Shylock, bitter from a life plagued by racism and abuse, take her revenge?” [emphasis added]

This is the reverse of Marlowe’s Barabas. Whereas Barabas is cartoonishly evil, we now have cartoonish innocence: a survivor of unprovoked pogroms; a widow; the operator of a small business; living in humble surroundings; who just wants to provide for her child; and who has led a life “plagued” by “racism and abuse.” The three-dimensional character created by Shakespeare in completely lost, replaced by pure propaganda.

The Battle of Cable Street

Matching this new, false, Shylock is the equally neurotic staging of the play in the context of the so-called “Battle of Cable Street.” The Battle of Cable Street was a series of clashes that took place at several locations in the inner East End of London on October 4^th, 1936. It was a clash between the Metropolitan Police, sent to protect a march by members of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) led by Oswald Mosley, and a motley group of anti-fascist demonstrators, including local trade unionists, communists, anarchists, Jews, and socialists. Mosley’s march had been publicly advertised, prompting the Jewish People’s Council to organize a petition objecting to it. The petition was then forwarded to the Home Secretary, John Simon, who declined to ban the march. In the build-up to October 4th, there was a blanket of propaganda depicting the BUF as violent terrorists. The anti-Fascist demonstration was sufficiently large, and the ensuing chaos so great, that the march was abandoned. The event has since gone down in anti-fascist and Jewish memory as a great triumph over a dangerous enemy. It’s use as the context for the latest staging of The Merchant of Venice is therefore full of political and cultural meaning.

In recent years, however, scholarship has revised the idea of the BUF as violent thugs who preyed on innocent minorities. If anything, the BUF has emerged as having been consistently victimized by Jewish-Communist violence and public relations tactics. Nigel Copsey, the foremost British expert on British anti-fascism, points out that “violence was instigated more frequently by anti-fascists than fascists.” Jews and Communists used the BUF’s reactive violence as a method of “denying the BUF political and social respectability.” In other words, simply by attacking BUF members and their demonstrations, anti-fascists were attaching violence to the BUF in the public mind, even if none of it was caused or initiated by the BUF themselves. This process was furthered by “deliberately overstating the extent of BUF violence.” Copsey explains:

Stephen Cullen has argued that one such occasion was the response to Mosley’s meeting at Oxford Town Hall in November 1933. At a protest meeting called by prominent Oxford dons to expose the violence used by the Blackshirts at Oxford Town Hall, anti-fascists alleged that fascist stewards thrust fingers up noses wearing gloves with metal rings and knuckledusters. There were also, as David Shermer notes, stories ‘told of needles being driven into the testicles of hecklers and of castor oil being forced down recalcitrant throats.’ As Cullen points out however, a local police report in the Home Office files makes no mention of any fascist stewards wearing knuckledusters, and where this report remained private, the anti-fascist version of events was heard publicly in a crowded meeting and was reported in the press.^[2]

The Battle of Cable Street, of course, wasn’t a battle between anti-fascists and fascists, but between anti-fascists and the police. The riot resulted in 73 injured police officers, and 80 arrested anti-fascists. Nor was it a triumph over the BUF, who very quickly returned to the area within days and held a number of successful mass gatherings. As one article in Haaretz concedes, “The Battle of Cable Street was not the great victory over British fascism as left mythologizers portrayed it. Membership of the BUF in London nearly doubled afterwards and a week later 200 black-shirts attacked Jews and burnt shops not far from Cable Street in what became known as the ‘Mile End Pogrom.’”

*****

It’s difficult to see The Merchant of Venice 1936 as anything other than a crude expression of Jewish neuroticism and propaganda directed against those who, as Shylock exclaims, have “scorned my nation.” Shakespeare’s crime was to paint a portrait of a Jewish character using negative colors, sufficient in itself, in Jewish eyes, to place the text on a par with Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What we’re seeing is a kind of revenge upon the play. And since the play is fundamentally about unhinged tribal vengeance, I think if Shakespeare could see this production, he’d smirk at the propensity for life to imitate art.

^[1] P. Johnson, A History of the Jews (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987), p.26.

^[2] N. Copsey, Anti-Fascism in Britain (London: Routledge, 2017), 15.

Many Jews are in positions of overt power and influence, such as those placed throughout the current Biden Administration, or those on the Board of Trustees of the globalist hub World Economic Forum. They have names with which we are familiar, such as Larry Fink, Anthony Blinken, Rachel/Richard Levine, Merrick Garland, Janet Yellen, Alejandro Mayorkas, Jeff Zients (Chief of Staff for the mentally disabled Biden; he recently replaced Ron Klain), David Rubenstein, Mark Benioff and many others.

Other Jews however are not as prominent, and we are not likely to know their names. Their power and influence may nevertheless be considerable, and so a careful study of their identities and activities may serve to inform our self-defense. These Jews may not be considered Crypto-Jews in the classic sense, since they are not intentionally hiding their Jewish identity, nor particularly self-suppressing their presence as Jews in our society. In a lesser way their lack of prominence can act as a cover for their harmful influence among unsuspecting people. Exposing them can only help our cause.

 Early Influences and Training for an Anti-White “Hate” Expert

One such Jew who has and is wielding considerable influence in key areas is Kenneth Stern. He is the current Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, part of the Human Rights Project at Bard College in New York, from which Stern graduated in 1975. Let us examine the extraordinary career trajectory of this Jewish “expert” on hate, extremism, intolerance, anti-Semitism, holocaust denial—with never a focus upon abuses of Jewish power.

Stern graduated with a law degree from the Willamette University College of Law in Oregon in 1979 and immediately became managing director of his law firm, Rose and Stern until 1985. His most notable case during this time was as trial and appellate counsel for Dennis Banks, co-founder of the American Indian Movement. We may suppose Jews supported the American Indian Movement for the same reasons they organized and funded the NAACP, or today’s Black Lives Matter: using racial minorities as cannon fodder against White Christian society. Genuine concern for the struggles of American Indians would be far from Stern’s mind. Other notable cases included defending Portland Oregon’s homeless population against an anti-camping ordinance, and representing plaintiffs Jack and Micky Scott in a $7 million defamation suit against heiress to the William Randolph Hearst media fortune Patricia Hearst. Stern had high-profile cases at the beginning of his career.

Stern was Director of the National Organization Against Terrorism in Brooklyn during 1985–1986. During the period from 1979–1988, during which Stern was Director, all recording of terrorist attacks on Americans stated the perpetrators were “militant Islamic extremists.” This included Israel’s enemies Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, the Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iran. According to the timeline, the Israeli Mossad, Shin Bet and IDF committed no acts of terrorism during this period.

For the next two years Stern was the environmental enforcement counsel of New York City’s Department of Sanitation. Private commercial waste removal in New York City has long been a notorious operation of the Mafia or “Cosa Nostra,” increasingly including the Jewish Mafia. An extensive report addressing such organized crime by the New York State Environmental Conservation Committee was published in 1987, during Stern’s time as counsel to the City’s Sanitation Department.

Stern was a member of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists from 1983 to 1988. He married Marjory Slome, a Rabbi, in 1989. Thereafter, Stern’s career as an expert on anti-Semitism, hate and holocaust denial blossomed.

“Hate” and “Anti-Semitism” Expert

From 1989 to 2014 Stern was a specialist on anti-Semitism & extremism of the American Jewish Committee in New York City. He was expert on anti-Semitism, extremism, and hate groups, and was a spokesperson.

The “About Us” section of the New York Chapter of the AJC states:

In advancing the goals of the American Jewish Committee in New York City, the New York Chapter works to support the State of Israel; combat anti-Semitism; and build bridges both within the New York Jewish community and with outside partners, including diplomats, government officials, and leaders of other ethnic and religious communities. Our objective is to promote mutual respect and understanding, as well as advocate for communal and public policies that safeguard the Jewish people and advance the causes of civil rights and social justice.

During this 25-year period of Stern’s advocacy, he testified to Congress, appeared at the White House Conference on Hate Crimes in 1997 during the philo-Semitic Presidency of Bill Clinton, and studied and reported on the “militia movement,” “bigotry” on campus, “hate speech” on radio and internet, and was instrumental in making such concepts familiarized in society.

At the Conference on Hate Crimes, Clinton said “As part of our preparation for the new century, it is time for us to mount an all-out assault on hate crimes, to punish them swiftly and severely.” The Conference attempted to define “hate crime”: “A hate crime is the embodiment of intolerance — an act of violence against a person or property based on the victim’s race, color, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.” While no specific mention is made of Jews, nevertheless “Participants attended a closing reception at the United States Holocaust Museum.”

Stern appeared on Face the Nation, Crossfire, Nightline, Dateline, Good Morning America, CBS Evening News, and National Public Radio, among others. (We must not confuse him with the Ken Stern who worked at National Public Radio from 1999–2008, becoming CEO until ousted in 2008; he appears to be German.) I could find no transcripts or video archives of Stern’s statements on these major media outlets, but we can know his views from other sources.

Author of the “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism”

In 2004 Kenneth Stern was the “lead drafter” of the “working definition of anti-semitism,” according to Stern’s own essay in the Guardian of December 2019. Analysis by Peter Ullrich’s “Expert Opinion On The ‘Working Definition Of Antisemitism’ Of The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance  “reveals severe deficits.” It is “inconsistent, contradictory and formulated very vaguely. It therefore does not satisfy the requirements of a good definition.” Stern’s definition states:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

So, “hatred toward Jews” is anti-Semitism. Or “non-Jewish individuals” too. Vague indeed. An anti-Semite used to mean someone who hated Jews, but Stern has helped make it mean someone whom Jews hate. The greatest criticism of the definition is of the eleven examples that accompany it. Seven of the eleven examples relate to the nation of Israel, criticism of which on a number of key points is to be considered “anti-semitism.” Let us consider all eleven examples:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Ample criticism and denunciation of these examples makes it unnecessary for us to denounce them here, except to say Kenneth Stern was central to their formulation and application. Obviously they confer special protective status to certain Jews and all Jews generally, and to the nation of Israel, exonerating it from its ongoing heinous crimes against humanity. The British Labour Party’s refusal to accept the full definition and examples created an immense scandal, and eventually the Labour Party collapsed under its own Semitophobia and adopted the definition. If there was one man responsible for the great furor and fuss that erupted when the new definition was introduced in 2005, it was Kenneth Stern.

Holocaust Promotion, Holocaust Protection

As is evident, two of the examples address that epitome of Jewish suffering and specialness, the holocaust. They amount to “holocaust denial” and accusing Jews of lying about it. Stern acted in vigorous defense of the holocaust when he wrote in the preface to his 1993 book Holocaust Denial (“one of the first to target holocaust denial”):

The history of anti-semitism emblazons one truth above all others: lies that promote Jew-hatred must never be ignored. Holocaust denial, though ridiculed today [1993!], has the attributes to become a potent form of anti-semitism. (p. xi)

It also had the attributes to be a potent form of truth, but Stern has worked to distort and subvert that truth over the decades since Holocaust Denial was published. To Stern, truth is dangerous to Jews, and he is a staunch defender of Jewry. “Holocaust denial is not about historical truth. It is about anti-Jewish hatred as part of a political agenda—and must be confronted as such.” (p. xii) Strategically it is advantageous for Stern and holocaust promoters to steer the debate away from historical truth. Here we may not plunge once again into debate over the veracity of the holocaust story, so to conclude this aspect of Stern’s influence, we will consider why holocaust promoters such as Stern avoid debate:

First, Jews, historians and others of goodwill have to make clear why we will not debate deniers [hint: it is not because they will lose]. Second, we have to expose the disingenuousness of the deniers’ insistence on debate. Professional deniers are not holocaust scholars, but anti-semitic imposters with a neo-Nazi political agenda… (p. 59)   

Essentially, don’t engage in scholarly debate, but dismiss with ad hominem attacks. Of note, Stern’s book release was timed to the opening of the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C. Stern says his book is intended to “increase awareness of the Memorial’s lesson: that genocide is always possible if people are complacent about hatred.” (p. xii) At the time Stern was Program Specialist on Anti-Semitism and Extremism at the American Jewish Committee.

International Influence

By 2000 Stern entered into wider prominence internationally through his role as special advisor to the defense in the David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt trial. This was the most high profile holocaust case since the Ernst Zundel trial in Canada in 1988, and would supposedly determine not just the truth or falsehood of the holocaust story. And it would also be a landmark case about whether it could even be debated into the future. Irving chose to represent himself without professional counsel, and to his great misfortune (literally bankrupted by the $2 million award against him), and the misfortune of all revisionist historians thereafter, he lost.

Deborah Lipstadt, defendant, went on to become today’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism at the U.S. Department of State. Irving continues to publish his magnificent works of history, particularly regarding the Third Reich and National Socialist leaders, but struggles with poverty and marginalization, his speaking events held in virtual secrecy before small committed audiences to avoid violent protests, and infiltrated by monitors to ensure Irving’s self-censorship. Kenneth Stern’s “special advice” to the defendants helped ensure this sad and tragic verdict.

In 2001 Stern was appointed to the United States delegation to the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance. These forums began in 2000 and went through 2004. The first forum was titled “Education, Remembrance and Research on the Holocaust.” One compelling reason to hold the forums was a Swedish study which showed “that knowledge among young people of the Holocaust was deficient and that a large number of teenagers were not even certain that it had taken place.” The first forum established the general predominance of Jews as the primary victims of “intolerance,” a theme that was realized in a book summarizing all four forums, titled Beyond the ‘Never Agains’. The 2001 forum which Stern attended was titled “Combating Intolerance” and focused on contemporary issues, especially “anti-semitism” in the modern world. This forum .”..aimed to increase collaboration between individuals and organisations at all levels of interaction — local and national, as well as regional and international.” Stern’s influence thus went international.

The 2001 forum, which occurred in late January, many months before 9-11, issued a Declaration with 10 points of commitment. All are worth considering in the context of today’s anti-White, “woke,” multi-racial world, but number 10 will suffice:

As we begin the new Millennium, we offer our support to those affected by and vulnerable to all forms of intolerance. The memory of those killed by violent racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance will remain vivid in our minds as we make a world where intolerance has no place, where all human beings are respected and equal in dignity, and where all societies are inclusive. In the name of justice, humanity and respect for human dignity we pledge to continue combating all forms of intolerance and to do all we can to bring about a world of inclusive societies speedily in our day.

Whatever contribution Stern had to this commitment statement, it is consistent with Jewish ingroup strategies to create multi-racial societies where Jews can more freely extend Jewish power at the expense of Whites. One wonders if the 2003 forum was canceled because “Neo-con” Jews and Zionists were preparing to launch the war on Iraq on behalf of Israel though fought primarily by the U.S. military. Jewish intolerance of Arab Iraqis killed by violent Zionist racism would violate their commitment to the forum’s #10 statement. “All human beings are respected and equal in dignity,” would still apply to Iraqis lying in pools of blood shredded by U.S. drone strikes instigated by Zionist Jewish “Neo-cons.” So would IDF strikes on helpless Palestinians in their open air prison of Gaza. Thus perhaps it was inauspicious to hold a forum in 2003.

Publications on “Hate” and “Antisemitism” by the “Expert”

By 2006 Stern published Antisemitism Today: How It Is the Same, How It Is Different and How to Fight It. He concludes his Foreward:

This book is an effort, not necessarily to provide the right answers, but more urgently to help ensure that those who care about combating antisemitism are asking intelligent and relevant questions, and not defaulting into comfortable but too often unproved and perhaps ineffective answers. (p. viii)

This book will inevitably provide the wrong answers by asking foolish and irrelevant questions about the supposed psychopathology and reactionaryism of non-Jews, instead of providing proven and effective answers about the predatory, corrupting, impoverishing and damaging behavior of Jews in non-Jewish societies. Never will Stern consider that the primary reason for anti-Semitism is Jewish behavior itself. All efforts to “combat” antisemitism must depict Jews as innocent victims, and non-Jews as maniacal irrational haters. This—taking a combative approach to reducing antisemitism—of course only increases it. Given the history of Jewish anti-semitism, it would not be a surprise if that is Stern’s actual goal.

Stern wrote earlier books Loud Hawk: The United States vs. the American Indian Movement (1994) and A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate (1996). Stern admits that what is good for pro-Indian causes is good for Jewish causes too:

Antisemitism thrives best in climates that tolerate other prejudices as well. I try to do all I can through my work to educate people about anti-Indian prejudice. I am proud that the American Jewish Committee is increasingly reaching out to Indian country, to support Indian religious freedoms and to combat anti-Indian bigotry. Dennis (Banks) once commented to me that all his lawyers over the years were Jewish. Neither of us thought that was a coincidence. (Epilogue, p. 353)

Neither do any of us. As far back as 1994 Jews were using other racial groups in America in their war on Whites, especially White Christians. So highly motivated, “Stern, a law student at the time, volunteered his services to the defense attorneys and remained with the case until its resolution,” though “The case did not end until 1988, after thirteen years of pretrial litigaion (sic). It stands as the longest pretrial case in U.S. history.”

Also in his book’s Epilogue, Stern presents the list of weapons and bombs the American Indian Movement wrote down in a notebook, one of the government’s exhibits against them. Stern also tells of a map he found in an AIM trailer after the sentencing, which showed 17 U.S. cities covering a span of one year from 1975–76. These were cities visited by the Bicentennial Freedom Train exhibit. Stern says “Nineteenth-century trains had brought subjugation to Indian people.” (p. 351) He fails to note that Jewish bankers such as the Rothschilds and others profited immensely from such rail infrastructure they financed. This evidence of weapons and bombs plus a list of target cities has striking similarities to the charges against the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia Trial. The ANC and Mandela were also advised and funded by Jews. (The print version, Ostara Publications, updated 2018, contains an Appendix 2, “Mandela’s Jews: Jewish Involvement in the Rivonia Plot,” pp. 170–73)

In A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate, Stern admits in regard to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995:

Nine days before the blast I had issued a lengthy report on the militia movement for the American Jewish Committee. … In early April I had written that people connected with militias were poised to attack government officials, possibly on April 19, 1995, the second anniversary of the fiery end of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. (p. 11)

This is an astoundingly accurate prediction, to the exact day, even for such a long-time “expert” on hate  as Kenneth Stern. Jews have displayed advance knowledge of false flag attacks at other times, such as the “Five Dancing Israelis” before 9-11, who were sent by the Israeli Mossad to “document the event.”  Stern does not redirect the blame to “Islamic terrorists” but to White American militias. Does Stern also condemn the similar bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem when 91 people, Arab and British administrators and hotel staff including 17 Israeli Jews were killed by other Israeli Irgun Jews disguised as Arabs?

A damning review of A Force upon the Plain by David B. Kopel (no militia supporter, having been a monthly donor to the Southern Poverty Law Center for 10 years) denounces Stern’s book for lacking any footnotes, describes the link between militias and the Oklahoma City bombing as “tenuous,” and notes that “the Southern Poverty Law Center’s data show that militia members perpetrate violent crimes at a per capita rate far below that of the U.S. population as a whole.” Essentially reversing Stern’s criticism of a documentary about Waco, Kopel describes Stern’s book as “a model of conspiratorial ‘logic’ designed to grab audiences who, if they accepted the premises and did not question the sleight-of-hand, easily could [be] convinced.” Those educated on the Jewish Issue are much harder to convince.

Stern’s latest book is The Conflict Over The Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate (2020). Stern was undoubtedly aware of the rising anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian boycott/divestment/sanction movement on campuses led by Students for Justice in Palestine. His book advocates for open debate on the issue:

But (a college) must not shield its students from examining ideas, even clearly hateful ones. After all, if thousands or millions of people believe certain ideas, how do we learn how to combat them if we don’t study them?

Stern’s strategy here is to expose the pro-Palestine side of the debate as “hateful,” and “combat” their views in the open arena of ideas on campus. To provide perspective, Stern says:

I also recommended full-semester interdisciplinary courses on antisemitism. From my experience teaching such a course, even students who have markedly different views on Israel/Palestine, by the time we reach the sections on Israel and Zionism, have a framework for discussing their different perspectives reasonably.

This “framework” is of course sympathy for innocent, suffering, victimized Jews, making students subject to this indoctrination less able to take the Palestinian side. Stern recommends no counter-balancing “full-semester interdisciplinary courses” on anti-Arabism. But doesn’t anti-Semitism also include anti-Arabism, since Arabs are Semites too? Not to Stern. Anti-Semitism means only one thing, and that is hate of Jews just for being Jewish.

Hate for Haters: Recent and Current Endeavors

From 2014 through 2018, Stern was executive director of the Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation.

The Justus and Karin Rosenberg Foundation supports – through gifts and direct engagement of the Rosenberg Foundation staff – efforts to combat antisemitism and anti-Israel activity on campus, antisemitic hate crimes, Holocaust denial, antisemitic discourse, state-sponsored antisemitism, and other issues that have a direct impact on the growth of antisemitism.

Under Program Areas, Stern was working hard to indoctrinate college students with his hate obsession. They seem opposed to standard capitalization:

The Foundation provided support to four bard college [sic. students?] through this program in 2018, and the program’s executive director had significant involvement… in this program by (i) helping students identify and secure placements at appropriate ngos, (ii) meeting and regularly corresponding, via email and phone, with the students individually to share his knowledge of relevant issues and to provide contacts in the field in order to prepare each student for his or her internship; (iii) organizing and leading a two-day text study with the interns about hate…

Stern was working hard in other related areas to spread his message of hate, antisemitism and extremism.

The foundation’s executive director provided assistance to other organizations and individuals on issues relating to the Foundation’s mission, including: (I) the committee on the judiciary of the united states house of representatives (tesimony) [sic]; (ii) faculty, administrators and students regarding constructive ways to respond to hatred and antisemitism on various campuses; (iii) leaders of the Foundation for individual rights in education, j street, j street u, academic engagement network, the american association of jewish lawyers and jurists, open hillel, secure community network, and ameinu; (iv) the staff of the u.s. Holocaust memorial museum’s committee on holocaust denial and state-sponsored antisemitism (the executive director serves on this committee); (v) the institue [sic] for hate studies at gonzaga university regarding future programs (the executive director services [sic] on the advisory aboard for the institue) [sic]; (vi) the executive committee of the alliance for academic freedom…

Stern was very active with influences far beyond college campuses, reaching throughout mainstream society:

The Foundation’s executive director helped to educate the public on the Foundation’s mission by participating in educational conferences and writing opinion pieces in national publications; specifically the executive director wrote or co-authored opinion pieces that appeared in the forward (about antisemitism and about white supremacy and about academic freedom), cnn online (about a proposed neo-nazi march), inside higher education (about academic freedom and antisemitism), academe blog (about academic freedom and antisemitism), the richmond times (about academic freedom and antisemitism), post & courier (about academic freedom and antisemitism), and ther la (sic?) jewish journal (about white supremacy). The executive director also spoke before the american association of jewish lawyers and jurists, congrtation (sic) kehalath jesurun. The 92nd street y, the academic engagement network, the national jewish student journalism conference, nyu, congregation beth elohim, friends semnary (sic)…

The Justus and Karin Rosenberg Foundation closed in 2018, but in its final year it granted almost a million dollars to Bard College “To Support the Foundation’s Mission of Working To Combat And To Increase the Serious Study of hatred and Antisemitism.” Since Stern is also director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, for him as director of the Foundation to donate this money to another organization he directs is a flagrant example of conflict of interest and Jewish nepotism. Stern was paid almost $70,000 in 2018 as director of the Foundation.

As Foundation director in 2017, Stern submitted a 17-page testimony with three appendices to the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses.

In late 2019, President Trump signed an executive order that “affords protection to Jewish students under title VI of the Civil Rights Act.” In his Guardian essay “I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it,” Stern complains that “rightwing” Jews were using the executive order to protect the Jewish state of Israel from criticism and denunciation, especially from Students for Justice in Palestine. And to Stern’s outrage, they were using his definition of antisemitism with its examples regarding Israel as a reference. Stern claims, “This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.”

This is not another expression of Jewish Antisemitism, but a example of Jewish in-fighting, in this case between rightwing and leftwing Jews regarding Israel. Stern is leftwing, and cannot condone rightwing Zionist Jews protecting the rightwing government of Israel in this way. He wants open discussion, not over the right of Israel to exist, but over whether a rightwing or leftwing government will lead it.

Today, as noted, Stern “is director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, a program of the Human Rights Project at Bard College.” He is motivated to expand the study of hate world-wide:

Stern is also active in the effort to establish an interdisciplinary academic field of Hate Studies. He previously served on the director’s advisory board for the Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies, and he remains on the editorial board of the Journal of Hate Studies.

Conclusion

Jewish Professor, spokesman and advocate Kenneth Stern has worked hard through a long and distinguished career to gain mastery of the complex topics of hate, extremism and antisemitism, and spread his knowledge to large masses of people on campus and throughout and wherever Jews reside. In Stern’s advocacy, the heinous traits he studies exist only in non-Jews, never Jews themselves. Stern maintains the long-standing position that Jews are only innocent victims of hate, extremism and antisemitism, never responsible in any way for the hate that is directed toward them. In other words, to Stern there exists no legitimate anti-Semitism. The remedy to this intolerable situation is never for Jews to change their behavior toward non-Jews, but to “combat” antisemitism and hate with indoctrination, intimidation, lawsuits, imprisonment and fear of Jewish power.

Let us close our examination of Quasi Crytpo-Jew Kenneth Stern with solutions he proposed in his 2007 essay “Holocaust education won’t stop hate,” which too few of us have ever seen:

There are many things that can and are being done to combat today’s hatred of Jews. Human rights organizations must be challenged when they do not sufficiently assert that freedom from anti-Semitism is a human right.

Governments must be engaged to ensure that they investigate and prosecute anti-Semitic hate crimes fully. Monitoring groups must catalog not only the old-fashioned forms of religious and racial anti-Semitism, but also the more contemporary forms which treat the Jewish state in the same bigoted manner that traditional anti-Semitism regards the individual Jew.

A Jew such as Stern is obviously highly intelligent. How is it possible that Stern can never see that among the “many things that can be done to combat today’s hatred of Jews” must include Jews changing their destructive behavior toward non-Jews? Hate is not the problem, Jewish behavior is. Everyone experiences hate, and the biggest problem comes from those who do not embrace their own, but project it onto others. Stern only contributes to hatred of Jews with all his hate-mongering, extremism tracking and hyper vigilance for antisemitism. It is difficult to conceive of a more hateful object than a hysterical Jew who has contributed to the ruin of White Christian Patriotic America with an immense blind spot running around pointing fingers at other haters.

Now we know.