• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Historical Anti-Jewish Writing

Johann von Leers: ‘The legal regulation of the Jewish Question’ (1933)

September 18, 2026/19 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing/by Alexander Jacob PhD

Translated by Alexander Jacob

Johann von Leers (1902–1965) was a National Socialist party member from 1929 and was invited by Goebbels in 1933 to work in the Propaganda Ministry, where he produced several books and booklets until 1945. These works included a study of the Weimar Republic,  14 Jahre Judenrepublik: Die Geschichte eines Rassenkampfes  (14 Years of the Jewish Republic: The History of a Racial Struggle, 1933) and Oswald Spenglers Weltpolitische System und der Nationalsozialismus (1934),[1] as well as books on National Socialism, Adolf Hitler (1933), Entwicklung des Nationalsozialismus von seinem Anfang bis zur Gegenwart (The development of National Socialism from its beginning to the present,1936) and on Jewry, Judentum und Gaunertum (Jewry and the Underworld, 1940), Juden hinter Stalin (Jews behind Stalin, 1941), Die Verbrechernatur der Juden (The criminal nature of the Jews,1944), etc.

14 Jahre Judenrepublik: Die Geschichte eines Rassenkampfes, in two volumes, was one of the first works that Leers wrote while at the Propaganda Ministry. The first volume of Leers’ account of the Jewish Weimar Republic begins with a contrast of the racial ethos of the Indo-Europeans with that of the Semitic Jews. It continues with an account of the rise to power in Germany of the Jewish Marxists. The second volume contains a more detailed record of the corrupt course of the Weimar government from 1919 to 1932. This is followed by the present chapter explaining the laws adopted against Jewry in 1933 by the National Socialist Reich and further chapters outlining the new state structure instituted by the National Socialists and Leers’ counsel to Jewry to cultivate a state of their own instead of exploiting other nations through their international networks.

After the war, Leers fled from Germany to Italy, where he lived for five years. In 1950, he emigrated to Argentina, where he edited a journal called Der Weg. Later, in 1956, Leers emigrated to Egypt accepting an invitation by Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Palestinian mufti who had been supportive of the Third Reich. Under al-Husseini’s influence Leers converted to Islam and called himself Omar Amin.[2] During the last years of his life Leers served as adviser to the Arab League and head of Nasser’s Israeli propaganda unit in Egypt.

*   *   *

Leers’ explanations of the laws adopted in 1933 by the Reich reveal the considerable generosity of the Reich towards Jewry in the early years. Those Jews who had fought for the German Reich, in particular, were spared from the exclusions decreed by these laws. Later in 1933 Jews were barred from owning agricultural land or farming by the Hereditary Farm Law of  September 29, 1933. Shortly after, they were prohibited from joining the Reich Chamber of Culture, and were thus banned from artistic, musical, literary and theatrical activity. The Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 then deprived Jews of German citizenship and prohibited sexual contact between Jews and Germans. In 1936 and 1937 Jews were excluded from all academic and public positions. In April 1938 Jewish assets and businesses were confiscated and ‘Aryanised’. In 1938, shortly after the Anschluss, Adolf Eichmann was put in charge of the Viennese office for expediting Jewish emigration out of the Reich, and he continued these procedures in Prague and Berlin until 1941 — when all Jewish emigration was stopped.[3]

*   *   *

The Laws Adopted against Jewry in 1933 by the National Socialist Reich

After the National Socialist victory, the legal status of the Jews in Germany also had necessarily to be changed. The positions of political power in the administration that the Jews, as the bearers of the Weimar state, had acquired could no longer be left to them and the overrepresentation of the academic professions by Jews — demonstrated in the statistics attached to this book[4] —  could no longer be tolerated, especially since a great part of Jewish doctors and dentists had been in every way preferred by the health insurance systems under Social Democratic directorship. Furthermore, the intolerable proliferation of eastern Jewry in Germany had, in particular, to be stopped. In most cases it was possible to expel the eastern Jews who were living in the country without permits or with expired permits.[5] Many thousands of other eastern Jews, who were personally unreliable, were at first forbidden to do business so that, quite apart from the eastern Jews guilty of numerous crimes and treated all too gently by the old system who could now be imprisoned, quite generally a movement outwards of these harmful and therefore undesirable elements ensued. It was much more difficult in such cases where it was not a question of stateless Jews or those wrongly granted German citizenship by the previous governments but of Jews of Polish, Romanian or Hungarian citizenship. Here, unfortunately, any undertaking was impossible since it was forbidden by international conventions. The statistics attached show how numerous these —  in so many ways —  morally inferior Jews of foreign citizenship are in Berlin alone, where they proliferated to the detriment of the German inhabitants in a really intrusive manner.

The Marxist Jews, who were in the directorship of the press or of the defeated Marxist parties, and in addition the repulsive ‘intelligentsia’ with long hair, horn-rimmed glasses, and blue shaved cheeks that frequented the Berlin Communist cafés and had, from there, railed for years against everything that is German, fled abroad like a swarm of sparrows that had been driven off, in order to continue their ranting from there. Unfortunately, these refugees could not for the most part be caught since, at first, the concerned positions in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior were not yet in the hands of a ‘sharp coachman’ but of a weak German nationalist deputy. In this way both the newspaper Jews Theodor Wolff,[6] Alfred Kerr[7] and Georg Bernhard[8] and the nasty Tucholsky[9] and the Jewish agitator Toller[10] were able to escape abroad. It is also quite particularly lamentable that Bernhard Weiß,[11] the diabolical tormentor of imprisoned SA men in Berlin, was able to flee. If the revenge of the rage of the people had been justified in any case it was in the case of this wicked sadist.

But those who could still be caught in Germany have been, and one tries to conduct them towards useful work even though they may seem incapable of improvement.

At the same time, obviously, all Marxist officials, and among them also Marxist Jews, have been removed from political and communal service, all Marxist teachers from teaching positions, and all Marxist students from the universities and high schools.[12] For the general regulation of the positions of Jews in the bureaucracy —  following the stipulations of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of 7 April 1933 (Reich Legal Gazette I, p.175) and the three implementation decrees of 11 April, 4 May and 6 May (Reich Legal Gazette I, pp.195, 233, 245) —  the following conditions were essentially established that have been supplemented by a ‘Law Amending Regulations in the Area of ​​General Civil Service, Salary, and Pension Law’ of 30 June 1933:

Officials of non-Aryan origin are to be retired, but not such non-Aryan officials who have been regular officials since 1 August 1914. Those could be considered regular officials who, according to the evaluation of the authorities, have, since 1 August 1914, fulfilled all the preconditions for the acquisition of their first regular position, have successfully finished the last required test for this, and also worked in an outstanding manner during their official career.

Further, those non-Aryan officials are not to be retired who fought during the world war on the front for the German Reich or its allies. Here one is considered a front solider who in the world war took part along with the fighting troops in a battle, combat, static battle, or a siege. Here, consequently, those are not considered who, without facing the enemy, remained during the war for service in the war zone, that is, the people in comfortable positions remain unconsidered whereas everyone who was at the front, according to the registrations in the war muster, is considered a front soldier.

This condition has been interpreted on many occasions by Jews as something humiliating as if the Jews who participated in the war went to the battlefield only for the sake of certain advantages and in order to remain bureaucrats later whereas they too wished only to defend the country. This interpretation is erroneous. The regulation in favour of front soldiers takes into account the debt of gratitude that the German nation has towards all those who bore arms and stood at the front for the defence of Germany. In view of this moral obligation of the German nation — which is sacred to it — the principle of the clear separation of Jews from the bureaucracy has also appeared. The experience of the world war is so significant for the German nation that such an exception on account of respect for a comrade who stood in the same uniform at the front seemed compulsory and necessary.

Further, those non-Aryan officials are not retired whose fathers or sons fell in the war. This condition arises from the same reason as the maintenance of Jewish front soldiers in their official positions.

The Central Verein Zeitung (organ of the central association of German citizens of Jewish faith) observes about this law: ‘Jewish war widows who have become professionals (for example, teachers, social welfare workers, etc.) must therefore be retired if the legislator does not exert special consideration in these cases’ (CV Zeitung, 11 May 1933). Here one can safely agree for reasons of justice that Jewish war widows who have in their husbands sacrificed that which they loved most in this world are treated the same way as Jewish front soldiers, thus may remain in their professional positions. A regulation of the legislation in this sense would be harmless and is to be heartily recommended.

On the other hand, there is, regarding such Aryan officials who have on many occasions married Jews for the really worthless motive of money or of relations to the Weimar state, only Art.4, which provides for retirement due to ‘political unreliability’ on the basis of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a definite leverage point. Here perhaps a preliminary evaluation that justifies the retirement of such officials would be a necessary recommendation.

On the basis of the Law Amending Regulations in the Area of ​​General Civil Service, Salary, and Pension Law of 30 June 1933 (Reich Legal Gazette I, p.433), for the new appointment of officials it is established fundamentally that one who is of non-Aryan origin or has married a person of non-Aryan origin cannot be appointed as a Reich official. Reich officials of Aryan origin who enter into marriage with a person of non-Aryan origin are to be dismissed.

Therewith the state administration is fully reacquired by Germans, especially since the same provisions are valid for the civil service law of the provinces, communities, communal associations and other foundations, institutions and corporations of the public law. In this way an idea of Bismarck’s is realized that he expressed in the united state parliament on 15 June 1847:

If, as the representative of the sacred majesty of the King, I think of a Jew whom I should obey, I must confess that I would feel deeply humiliated and oppressed so that the joy and the righteous sense of honour with which I am now concerned to fulfil my duties with regard to the state would abandon me. I share this feeling with the mass of the lower strata of the population and am not ashamed of their company.

The German state in all its branches is an Aryan racial state; it could perhaps include non-German but Aryan racial groups originating from the same Nordic source but can, after its transformation from a liberal state of citizens into an Aryan racial state, no longer make any Jews officials. Thus there lies no unreasonable harshness against Jewry in the total exclusion of any new appointment of Jewish officials but only a consequence of the concept of the state realized by National Socialism.

The regulation of the legal relations of the employees and workers of the public authorities has been ordered in a way similar to the regulation of the legal  relations of the non-Aryan officials. Even here the front soldiers and those non-Aryans whose fathers or sons have fallen in the world war remain in service. Furthermore, in the case of economic enterprises, exceptions can be made when urgent reasons are present. The remaining contracts with non-Aryans are cancelled whereby the existing salaries will be paid to the non-Aryans for three more months. In addition, they will receive three-fourths of the other actionable payments which include, naturally, work income from service-, factory-, or company-contracts.

In the case of lawyers (in Berlin more than 50% Jewish!), likewise, the front soldiers and also those who have lost fathers or sons in the battlefield and those permitted until 1 August 1914 remain permitted. The others lose their powers of representation. Besides, office partnership, and partnership with these excluded lawyers, is forbidden to non-Aryan lawyers.

Important here is again the regulation of the youth, that is, the fact that in the universities it is determined through the Law against overrepresentation in German universities and high schools of 25 April 1933 (Reich Legal Gazette, pp.225,226) that new admissions can include non-Aryans to the limit of only 1.5% of the totality of attendees in every school and for the non-Aryans already in university or high school a numerus clausus[13] of 5 percent is set. The following are not counted as non-Aryans and are also not considered in the calculation of allotments and ratios: ‘Reich Germans of non-Aryan origin whose fathers have fought in the world war at the front for the German Reich or its allies as well as children from marriages that were entered into before this law came into effect if one parent or two grandparents are of Aryan origin. They also remain out of consideration in the calculation of allotments and ratios.’

Therewith even children of Jewish parents, even when both parents are Jewish but not both grandparents, are not to be considered non-Aryans according to this law. This very accommodating regulation — which practically almost overrules the racial principle — has been made, once again, with consideration for the Jews who have been long resident in the country.

In the case of doctors, to whom private practice is generally permitted, an exclusion of Jewish doctors is decreed only for government doctors (Decree of the Reich Labour Minister of 24 April 1933). Only those non-Aryans remain permitted as government doctors who were permitted already before 1 August 1914 or those who have fought at the front in the world war for the German Reich or for its allies or have been active as doctors at the front or in a military hospital at the front. Regarding service as doctors at the front, one will doubtless have to reckon also service in field hospitals and other medical establishments as service at the front where danger through enemy weapons was present but not service in non-dangerous staging hospitals or domestic military hospitals where are present only the customary dangers of the medical profession.

The basic features of the legal concept developed in this legislation, namely, to exclude Jews in general from political and semi-political institutions, while, on the other hand, to protect from exclusion such Jews who were either front soldiers or licensed or were active in their profession before 1 August 1914, or who lost fathers or sons on the battlefield, can be seen as the basic principle of the Jewish legislation in the area of political and semi-political institutions. De lege ferenda,[14] one may also reasonably suggest the same treatment as in the case of those who have lost fathers or sons on the battlefield for Jewish war widows who have lost their husbands on the battlefield.

In the field of scientific education, the law regarding the numerus clausus (Law against the overrepresentation in German universities and high schools) provides a regulation that can be used generally.

The relations are much more difficult in the economic field. Here one thing must be considered: the German state has become an Aryan state. Its basic principle was always German and the acceptance of Jews into its administrative body only a consequence of the erroneous acceptance of Liberalism and the equalization of Germans and Jews as state citizens conditioned by that.

The economic order — if one may indeed talk of one — that National Socialism has taken over is a capitalistic one. Its intellectual source in the Jewish mind and the ghetto of the Middle Ages has been demonstrated here. It has — until a totally National Socialist order supersedes it — been manipulated with the same skill by non-Jews as by Jews. As an economic method it can be wielded by any nation. One therefore does not change anything in it when one merely replaces Jewish bearers of the same with German ones. In the transformation of the position of Jews in this economy it can therefore be a question only of placing certain economic positions important for life under reliable National Socialist leadership but not of replacing ‘black Jews’ with ‘white Jews’, such as misinterpretation motivated by competitive interests would like. In the economy, economic capacity as such should be valid. Thus the Jewish economist, so long as he does not act in a hostile way towards the state or does not finance activity hostile to the state, is to be tolerated. That the National Socialist press does not yield to advertising for Jewish enterprises follows from historical experience and the orientation of the National Socialist movement. But attempts to exclude small Jewish businessmen, the self-employed and such are senseless from the standpoint of wise political considerations. They do not change anything in the real situation and are mostly only pointless severities.

In this question two points of view are to be ascertained. The state is a National Socialist state in which new Jewish immigrants are not tolerated. That is why no new Jewish officials are appointed. In this question steadfast adherence to the principle is ordered.

In the economy, only the ‘senior leaders’  have been brought, or are still being brought, under National Socialist control. A replacement of bearers of the capitalistic mentality of Jewish origin by bearers of the same mentality of non-Jewish origin is essentially absurd. Quite generally the economic activity that is not harmful to the state is not to be kept from Jewry. Since an expulsion of Jews settled for long in Germany, who also in many cases feel historically bound to this country, cannot be considered in practical terms, there is no reason to deprive them of means of subsistence.

On the other hand, with the defeat of the Marxist parties and the fleeing of their Marxist leaders and intelligentsia as well as with the expulsion of a great part of the immigrant eastern Jews, the most unpleasant part of Jewry has been rendered harmless, as it were.

As an old anti-Semite one will not come under the suspicion of a sudden ardent philo-Semitism if one expresses the truism that the Jewish small businessman Rosenbaum or Aron, that the old medical consultant Lewi, that the small Jewish family in some German city have also felt, and still feel, from the separation that has become necessary of Germans from Jews, in many cases, severe emotional suffering that does not serve the new political transformation in any way. The regulation of the Jewish Question has been legally enforced by the highest Führer and will be implemented further where it is still necessary, and the education of the German people about the ‘Hyksos[15] leadership’ that we have overcome has been realized so generally that any attempts of any sort for the renewal of a Jewish rule will meet among the people themselves the most robust resistance (this book too serves the purpose of this education). But it would be pointless and petty to treat the remaining Jews, in personal intercourse, with particular hostility or injurious hatred. That they themselves have acted in this way towards National Socialism is no reason that, after the victory, we as individuals should adopt their methods. The defeated enemy must certainly be prevented to set himself on the offensive once again but to deride him and to wound quite insignificant Jews personally for political purposes would not be commensurate with the greatness of the victory that has been won. Petty resentment, petty hatreds of individuals only smear the image of the great historical racial debate, they are not only harmful but also stupid.

The position of the Jews in Germany can best be compared to the position of the ‘metoikos’[16] in ancient Athens. They have civil rights but absolutely no rights to participation in the conduct of the state (excluding the exceptions for front soldiers, etc.). So long as there is no possibility of a widespread resettlement of Jewry in their own homeland as an international solution to the Jewish problem, a solution that does not come into question for the old Jewish generation in Germany, there is no reason to harass them uselessly in their metoikos position. That is true especially for those Germans who, after the strenuously fought victory of the National Socialist movement, think of bestowing on themselves the reputation of ‘old fighters’[17] through extreme harshness in the matter of the Jewish Question. These people do not see the international significance of the battle of the two races; often they would merely like to do Mr. Cohn’s business themselves! But we did not make the revolution for such people!

Much more important is the task of enabling the German nation in all its life-forms to find its path to its fine instincts in its own way after it had, through its own bad and inferior instincts, sunk so low that it ended up under Jewish leadership. Only when these bad and wicked German instincts – envy, avarice, lack of faith in one’s own worth, the disgraceful lack of ‘civil courage’ – have been overcome would the infiltration of a foreign mentality be eliminated. That the petty businessman Rosenbaum still sells hosiery or is otherwise economically occupied does not improve or worsen anything in this matter. The National Socialist party programme therefore demands also that we fight not only the Jews amongst us but especially the Jewish mentality within us. This is where the great ‘reconstruction of Germany’ under Adolf Hitler has started. But the worst example of a foreign mentality among Germans we find represented quite equally in the Marxist and in the capitalistic mentality. And this mentality continues to exist today in a great part of our people.


[1] See my English edition, Oswald Spengler’s Geopolitical system and National Socialism, Virtus Editions, 2025.

[2] See also my translation of Leers’ article ‘Judaism and Islam as opposites’ (1942) in the Occidental Observer, Sep. 24, 2024.

[3] See my editions of Adolf Eichmann’s Argentine and Jerusalem memoirs, The Eichmann Tapes: My Role in the Final Solution, Black House Publishing, 2015, and False Gods: The Jerusalem Memoirs, Black House Publishing, 2015.

[4] The last seven sections of the second volume of 14 Jahre provide statistics related to Jews in various professions in Germany as well as a catalogue of Socialist Jews in the country.

[5] In July 1933, the Denaturalisation Law (Gesetz über den Widerruf von Einbürgerungen und die Aberkennung der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit) revoked the citizenship of ‘naturalised’ Jews and undesirables. (In the same month was passed the ‘Law for the prevention of offspring with hereditary diseases’ that decreed the sterilization of parents bearing such hereditarily diseases.)

[6] Theodor Wolff (1868-1943) was an influential Jewish journalist who edited the Berliner Tageblatt from 1906 to 1933.

[7] Alfred Kerr (1867-1948) was a Jewish theatre critic and essayist.

[8] Georg Bernhard (1875-1944) was a Jewish journalist who worked in editorial positions at the Berliner Zeitung and the Vossische Zeitung.

[9] Kurt Tucholsky (1890-1935) was a Jewish satirist whose articles in the theatre magazine Die Weltbühne made him a notable figure in the culture of the Weimar Republic.

[10] Ernst Toller (1893-1939) was a Jewish expressionist playwright who served in 1919 as president of the short-lived Bavarian Socialist Republic and head of its army.

[11] Bernhard Weiß (1880-1951) was vice-president of the Berlin police during the Weimar Republic. Cf. my translation of “Joseph Goebbels’ Battle for Berlin: The Beginning (1934)” in the Occidental Observer, June 12, 2022.

[12] See below.

[13] quota

[14] (Lt.) ‘Regarding future legislation’

[15] The Hyksos were foreign rulers of Egypt in the Fifteenth Dynasty (ca.1600 B.C.). They were of Levantine origin.

[16] A metoikos, or metic, in ancient Greece, was a citizen of a polis other than Athens who was granted residency in Athens but no political rights.

[17] One who had joined the National Socialist party during its early years and fought for its eventual success in 1933.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Alexander Jacob PhD https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Alexander Jacob PhD2026-09-18 10:59:072026-09-18 11:05:35Johann von Leers: ‘The legal regulation of the Jewish Question’ (1933)

Marcel Jouhandeau’s ULTIMA VERBA complete

May 16, 2025/9 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing/by Kevin MacDonald

Submitted as comments by Harald

WARNING

I have warned you not to publish these ultima verba until long after my death.

In my little cemetery, I am now safe from the Marchandeau law, the LICA and the killers of the Israeli secret services.

But you, the French of today, your days are numbered. These French days are steadily dwindling, and soon this country of mine, which was once yours, will join the Third World club.

It’s a question of time… it’s a question of Jews or not.

Remember to defend yourselves by all means against those who work to destroy you with their exacerbated racism, their demonic dream of world domination, and above all, never forget that their power only exists through our baseness, our futility and our cowardice.

(Thanks to my faithful friends)

Rueil, April 1972
Marcel Jouhandeau

ULTIMA VERBA

What I published before the war would be absolutely impossible in today’s advanced “democracy”.

National emblems have given way to the Star of David, and we are under its yoke. Already, at the turn of the century, Maurras asserted: “The Jew opens the door to the metèque.” As I predicted in 1938, the “victory” of 1945, i.e., the victory of the Jews, has transformed the Frenchman into a sort of bewildered chatterbox, game for all basenesses, all humiliations, all cowardice, applauding only the Jew, rejoicing only in his own death. Even the instinct for territory, the instinct for self-preservation, has disappeared.

The “Jewish Peril” of 1938 is now, in 1972, well and truly with us, and we’re all going to die from it.

From Christianity to the gas chambers, from Anne Frank’s diary to Chagall, this race has distinguished itself by its incredible imposture and its gift for demolishing non-Jewish souls and complexing them to death. It has to be said that the stupidity of white non-Jews is unfathomable.

Ever since the Diaspora (2,600 years ago), these hysterical people have never integrated into their host countries. And it’s they, the worst racists, who now have the nerve to make us digest millions of immigrants, by-products of over-birth, who hate us and infest France!!!! Cry havoc…!

Right now, this Talmudic spawn is preparing public opinion for an anti-Bolshevik crusade, and do you know why, my little ones? Quite simply because all Eastern European countries are viscerally anti-Semitic. Russians and Poles in particular.

The Bolshevik revolution, 95% Jewish, is no longer Jewish today, any more than it is socialist. The Jewish crusade with Aryan breasts is not over. Israel has set fire to the entire Middle East, and peace will only return after its total destruction, like Carthage.

Now that the Third Reich has become the Soviet Union, the danger of war is the same as in 1938, and for the same reason – the same “crime”:

Not to allow ourselves to be enslaved by the Jews.

HOW I BECAME AN ANTI-SEMITE
Article published in October 1936

At nineteen, when I left my home province, I didn’t know what a Jew was. In the nearly thirty years I’ve been living in Paris, I’ve met many Israelites from all walks of life, and I must confess that I’ve only found sympathy and friendship among them, and only once hostility, which had no effect on me.

So it wasn’t out of self-interest, envy or personal grudge that I came to regard the Jewish people as my country’s worst enemy, the enemy within. It was my patriotism, as dormant as it was, that suddenly alerted me.

I was at a friend’s house, maybe two years ago, when I saw a Jew X walk in, uninvited by the way, hiding behind someone and pretending he’d only come to meet me.

So X approaches me, flatters me (they’re very good at it) and thanks to this maneuver gets in, little by little lets me go and there he is in the foreground with his feet on the table, ham on his knees and up to his hair. X has a lot to say. On his return from America, he triumphantly brings back the good news that France has been banished from the world.

Not content with merely reporting this opinion, he approved of it, and added to it the further comment that, no matter how much he read and reread the history of our country, it was in vain, to his great regret, that he looked for a sympathetic figure, or even the slightest selflessness, a single act of generosity, even the shadow of greatness; that no doubt there was Napoleon, whom he alone admired, but unfortunately Napoleon wasn’t French.

I would have forgotten all about this adventure, had I not met young P. by chance a few weeks ago, and pointed to X, my fat Jew who was approaching, recalling before him with disgust what judgment this gentleman had dared to pass on our story. To my astonishment, young P., without hesitation, replied that he was sorry to upset me, but that he agreed with X, his master, I imagine.

The ugliness of French history made him blush, too, French as he was, and he didn’t even except Napoleon. On the other hand, he had a great admiration for X, he confessed, because X lived on a houseboat.

“As far as I’m concerned,” I replied, “X could live on the Vendôme column, but he wouldn’t interest me. If there’s a piece of bacon hanging in my cellar or attic, I don’t take any notice of it, not going to look for it unless it stinks and the house is full of it, so that I can shove it out the window.

Thus, at the same time as he exalts within himself, to the point of adoration, the esteem of his own blood, as he proves, as soon as one touches his race (he’ll make it clear), the Jew openly teaches the little Frenchman contempt for France, and the latter, docile, not only follows the lesson, he goes beyond it; he not only despises his homeland, he surrenders it to the contempt of the Jew.

Didn’t I hear another young Frenchman, not long ago, say to me sincerely, without wishing to taunt me: “You wouldn’t be proud, Monsieur, to be a Jew?”

Again, I think he would have liked to say, but I don’t know what modesty prevented him from daring: “You wouldn’t be prouder, would you, of being Jewish than French?”

No comment.

However, up until then my emotions had remained mediocre, when I happened to glance at La jeunesse d’un Clerc by the Jew Benda in the NRF (July-August 1936). Now, all things considered, I was obliged to note that Mr. Benda is not as far from X as we thought, and I deduced that Jewish patriotism is not only questionable, but suspect.

The passages I’m about to quote and comment on will prove it. Mr. Benda begins by talking about his ancestors: “And now,” he writes, “I suddenly find myself thinking about them, about my parents‘ parents and my parents’ parents. I see a succession of intelligent, hard-working, ironic Jews, friends of science, while almost everything around them languishes in superstition.”

We’re talking about our French grandfathers, whom Mr. Benda takes the liberty of scorning and humiliating in such an unabashed manner. Let’s lower our heads.

And Mr. Benda turns once again to exalt them at the expense of our own, to his forefathers “agents of human liberation on whom all parties of progress rely”. In truth,” he concludes, ”I’m ashamed to have come so late to feel so proud to be descended from such an elite.”

That’s all there is to it. They are the elite!

Later, a more important confession: “My parents’ patriotism will be of interest to the historian. It was, I believe, that of most French Jews of the time (after 1870), and perhaps even of those of today. My parents had a deep attachment to France (my father had stopped seeing a friend, X’s grandfather no doubt, who always spoke badly of it), but this attachment was above all intellectual: it hardly included any instinctive, carnal, irrational element.”

This is a very judicious analysis of patriotic sentiment, and highly instructive for us, because it explains precisely the fragility, inconsistency and non-existence of the Jew’s love for his adopted homeland.

By Mr. Benda’s own admission, the Jew’s patriotism will always lack what is essential to all love, which is that instinctive, carnal, irrational element (what is an attachment that interests only the intelligence and not the guts? ), which is why I will henceforth be justified in maintaining that it is a serious insult to France and the French to consider a Jew, whoever he may be, as a French citizen, and that it is one of the most profound inconsistencies of the French Revolution to have given Jews the right to live among us.

Mr. Benda continues: “Never did they (my parents), sing me the glory of Du Guesclin or Jean Bart or even Napoleon.”

From Saint-Louis and Joan of Arc, there was no danger, I mean, there would have been too much danger.

“Chauvinism,” he concludes (translate: true patriotism, the patriotism of the French who are not Jews), “seemed to them good for concierges. (Les concierges, c’est nous). What my father really loved in France was French civilization (civilization in general, but not France in particular), the great liberal tradition (he’s getting to that), the Revolution.”

I believe you! What Mr. Benda’s father loved in France was his own self-interest. If it weren’t for the Revolution, the Jews wouldn’t be oppressing France.

Because the Jews oppress us. Monsieur Benda is willing to explain, with his customary candor, how they came to do so. It’s like reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The marvel is that, while the Jews reject the Protocols as apocryphal, Mr. Benda signs his book: “Since the modern state opened every door to us,” he admits, “we had to take advantage of this opportunity, which was finally offered to us, to prove that we were not the inferior race our detractors claimed, but on the contrary, a race of the first order in its working power and gifts. (It’s easy to see why). We had to strive for the top positions. What the entire Jewish bourgeoisie of the time held up as a model for its sons were the three Reinach brothers, who had just won every prize in the general competition. It was only natural that the Jews of the time were so keen to show who they were.”

They show it so well that they occupy all the top places today, indeed. High finance, industry, commerce, agriculture (wheat trafficking), French thought, the Sorbonne, all the Academies belong to them, and Monsieur Blum with all his Israelite sequel is in power. Monsieur Léon Blum is the true successor to Louis XVI. This is what the Revolution did for Israel. It made him King of France. And when Israel is King…

But the Jews don’t just oppress us, they hate us. I still quote Monsieur Benda (NRF, September 1936, p. 448): “Very attached to France, my parents were well aware that, even on my mother’s side, they had not been established in this country for more than three or four generations, and they would never have accepted the comicality of claiming to be part of the French tradition. It is properly (in what they have of universal, of superior to the accidents of time and place), that I learned to respect human virtues.”

So far, so plausible. We’re just a little surprised by so much ingenuity, so many accumulated blunders through which we can discern the very fabric of everything that Mr. Benda’s fellow creatures are so careful to remedy.

But where Mr. Benda unmasks himself a little more, a little too much, and suddenly becomes intolerable, is after confiding to us “his worship for values set in the eternal”, when he expresses to us “his hatred of those who salute them only in the historical.”

Hear that? Just that, his hatred, the hatred of this little Semitic clown, and you know who it’s going to? To you, to me, to us who have traditions and the strength to love and respect them. Although he claims to be a French citizen, not content to repudiate them on his own account, because they disturb not only his own beguiling idealism, but the aims of his race, Mr. Benda forbids us to love our traditions and respect them on pain of being hated by him. Because it has pleased Mr. Benda, as he claims, to get rid of his own, we are no longer free to keep ours, without exposing ourselves to his wrath, to the wrath of this foreign gnome, this intruder whose authority is due only to our patience.

I said foreigner, and indeed for my part I’ve always instinctively felt a thousand times closer to our German ex-enemies, for example, than to all that so-called French Jewish scum, and although I have no personal sympathy for Monsieur Hitler, Monsieur Blum inspires in me a far more profound repugnance.

At least I know where I stand on the Führer’s feelings towards us, and the Führer is at home and master of his house, whereas Blum, Benda and X are not from my house and they are at my house, and what’s stronger, Monsieur Blum is master of my house or about to become so again, when I’ve never known, and no European will ever know, what an Asian thinks (there’s grey and grey matter), and it’s here, and only here, on the logical level, which is only the other side of the physiological level, that the question of race arises and takes on its full importance.

Experience has constantly confirmed my feeling that the principle of identity, for example, does not have the same rigor for the sons of Shem as it does for us, that there is not for the Jew and for us the same distance between YES and NO. When my man says yes, it’s the opposite of no, but all the while the Jew is ironizing, and his smile alone fills the gap.

Is there only a nationalist polemicist by trade and half-Jewish to demand Herriot’s head in a public lecture, while clutching to her heart, like a talisman, the photograph of the Pasionaria, and is there only a Christian Jew who could boast (a Christian back home would never have even suspected it was possible), who could boast, I say, of fooling God every morning at communion. I can still hear him whistling in my ear: “And in the end (after all this pretending), God is fooled.”

No, we have nothing of these conjurers, and if they have succeeded in deceiving us up to this point, we are free to let ourselves be completely annihilated to allow them to further prove their excellence or to react.

As far as I’m concerned (and God knows I’ve been sensitive to their charms, from which I’ve had to defend myself with violence), as much as I’d be willing to escort them with palms and gifts, if they didn’t decide to return to Palestine, I vow here and now to report them to the vindictiveness of my people, as long as there’s a single one left in France who isn’t subject to a special status.

NOTE:

X has claimed since the publication of the above article that he had alluded before me, in condemning it, only to nineteenth-century France. Assuming that my memory has deceived me, which I deny, and that one can feel the deepest disgust for the governments that have led us for a hundred years, these governments are not the country.

The Jew, more than any other, should at least have the discretion to keep quiet on this matter, given that Jewish high finance and Jewish agitators share with Masonry the responsibility for our debacles.

Incidentally, an ethnographer writes to persuade me that we are all of mixed race. He must be worried about his own blood. I’m not worried about mine. All I have to do is look back at my grandparents, and in front of them, I am immediately aware of the something that I don’t know, something horrible for us, which accompanies every Israelite face, gesture and word. The difference is immediately perceptible, obvious, striking: what a paucity, if you don’t have this criterion!

One day, a long time ago, I put a famous Jewish poet face to face with my mother — a humble woman who didn’t know he was a Jew or what a Jew was. Well, the reaction was swift, by which I mean the instinctive repulsion he inspired in her and, as a new convert, when, in an attempt to gain admission, he took out his rosary, Franchise had turned her back on him. “You can tell she was born under the sign of Aries,” he confided. “She defends her door. And what a look she has!”

This is the truth. So I won’t complain that I’ve made as many enemies as there are Jews in France and as many friends as there are Jews in France. I’m only sorry to see how deep the evil is, “gangrene generalized” and “scabies with pleasure doesn’t itch”, as the saying goes.

Because he flatters the worst in us, the Jew triumphs over us. Fortunately, a few others with me retain the pure memory of a provincial corner that allows them to defy the virus. Lonely enough never to love what I love to my heart’s content, of all the fans and admirers I’ve lost, I care as much as the filth left behind by the athlete who’s just got out of the bath.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-05-16 09:05:092025-05-17 08:09:21Marcel Jouhandeau’s ULTIMA VERBA complete

Marcel Jouhandeau

May 15, 2025/in Historical Anti-Jewish Writing/by Francis Goumain

Marcel Jouhandeau (1888–1979) was a French writer. His Wikipedia page discusses his guilt over his homosexual urges, his marriage, and his adopted child, and notes that “in 1938, Jouhandeau published four anti-Semitic articles in a short volume, ‘Le Péril Juif’ (The Jewish Peril). During the Nazi occupation of France, he accepted Goebbels’ invitation to visit Germany.” This is an introduction to his anti-Jewish works written in 1972, translated by Francis Goumin:

DISCLAIMER I’ve asked you not to publish these ultima verba until long after my death. In my little cemetery, I am now safe from the Marchandeau law, the LICA and the killers of the Israeli secret services. But you, the French of today, your days are numbered. These French days are constantly dwindling, and soon this country of mine, which was once yours, will join the Third World club. It’s a matter of time … it’s a matter of Jews or not. Remember to defend yourselves by all means against those who work to destroy you with their exacerbated racism, their demonic dream of world domination, and above all, never forget that their power exists only through our baseness, our futility and our cowardice. (Thanks to my faithful friends)

Rueil, April 1972 Marcel Jouhandeau.

ULTIMA VERBA What I published before the war [1938] would be absolutely impossible in today’s advanced “democracy”.

National emblems have given way to the Star of David, and we’re under its yoke. Already, at the turn of the century, Maurras asserted: “The Jew opens the door to the metèque” [i.e., someone of intermediate status been a citizen and a foreigner]. As I predicted in 1938, the “victory” of 1945, i.e., the victory of the Jews, has transformed the Frenchman into a sort of bewildered chatterbox, a prey to all basenesses, all humiliations, all cowardice, applauding only the Jew, rejoicing only in his own death. Even the instinct for territory, the instinct for self-preservation, has disappeared.

The “Jewish Peril” of 1938 is now, in 1972, well and truly with us, and we’re all going to die of it.

From Christianity to the gas chambers, from Anne Frank’s diary to Chagall, this race is known for its incredible imposture and its ability to demolish non-Jewish souls and complex them to death. It has to be said that the stupidity of white non-Jews is unfathomable.

Since the Diaspora (2,600 years ago), these hysterical people have never integrated into their host countries. And it’s they, the worst racists, who now have the nerve to make us digest millions of immigrants, by-products of over-birth, who hate us and infest France!!!! Au fou… !

Right now, this Talmudic spawn is preparing public opinion for an anti-Bolshevik crusade, and do you know why, my little ones? Quite simply because all Eastern European countries are viscerally anti-Semitic. Russians and Poles in particular.

The complete work, in French: Jouhandeau

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Francis Goumain https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Francis Goumain2025-05-15 07:29:532025-05-15 07:29:53Marcel Jouhandeau

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1

January 16, 2022/8 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing, Jewish Wealth, Jews as An Elite, Jews in Economy/Finance/by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

Editor’s note: This is a repost of a classic Andrew Joyce article from 2012. Never forget!

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
     Charles Mackay, 1841[1]

Shortly after his election to Parliament in 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859), a famous historian and one of Britain’s leading men of letters, took up the cause of removing Jewish “civil disabilities” in Britain. In a succession of speeches, Macaulay was instrumental in pushing the case for permitting Jews to sit in the legislature, and his January 1831 article Civil Disabilities of the Jews had a “significant effect on public opinion.”[2] Professing Jews residing in Britain at that time were unable to take seats in the House of Commons, because prior to sitting in the legislature one was required to declare a Christian oath. In addition, Jews were “excluded from Crown office, from corporations, and from most of the professions, the entrance to which bristled with religious oaths, tests, and declarations.”[3] Even the 1753 Naturalization Act which had granted citizenship to foreign-born Jews had been repealed following widespread popular agitation, and a pervading atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust of Jews generally, and foreign Jews especially.[4] Ursula Henriques states that because of the resolute opposition of the British people to the involvement of Jews in British political life, since their readmission in the 17th century “the Jews had remained quiet.”[5]

However, buoyed by the granting of political emancipation to Protestant Dissenters and Catholics in 1828 and 1829, British Jews began to agitate for their own “emancipation,” and this agitation was augmented and spearheaded to a great extent by Thomas Macauley. Within thirty years the British elite had capitulated; not only had all Christian oaths been abandoned, but six unconverted Jews sat in the House of Commons. Within fifty years, Britain had sixteen Jewish Members of Parliament, and a Jewish Prime Minister who espoused a doctrine of Jewish racial superiority — Benjamin Disraeli; and under Disraeli Britain would pursue a foreign policy dictated to a large extent by what future Prime Minister William Gladstone called “Judaic sympathies.”[6] This foreign policy would include support for the Ottomans who were friendly to Jews and were massacring Christians in Bulgaria. And it would include waging of war on the Boers in a move highly beneficial to Jewish mining operations in South Africa.[7] How and why did such a dramatic change in circumstances occur? And how did the Anglo-Jewish elite repay Britain for its act of ‘justice’?

Let us first return momentarily to Macaulay. An in-depth survey of his life reveals no Jewish ancestry and no clear links to Jews. Son of a Scottish colonial governor and abolitionist, Macaulay seems at first glance to be something of a weak-kneed liberal idealist, and in addition he appears to have had very little knowledge of Jewish history or culture. He saw the Jewish agitation for entry into government as being primarily a religious issue, and perceived Jews as being, in his own words, “victims of intolerance.”[8] Macaulay prided himself on his knowledge of Greek literature,[9] and yet we can but wish he’d spent more time on his Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato who condemned ” those who practise justice through timidity or stupidity,” and opined that “if justice is not good for the just man, moralists who recommend it as a virtue are perpetrating a fraud.”[10]

However, a complete reading of his 1831 article on Civil Disabilities of the Jews would leave us feeling slightly less antagonistic towards this would-be emancipator, and his article reveals much about the extent and nature of Jewish power and influence in Britain at that time. Macaulay, it seems, viewed emancipation as a means of ‘keeping the Jews in check.’ For example, he insisted that “Jews are not now excluded from political power. They possess it; and as long as they are allowed to accumulate property, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made between civil privileges and political power, is a distinction without a difference. Privileges are power.”[11] Macaulay was also aware of the role of finance as the primary force of Jewish power in Britain. He asked: “What power in civilised society is so great as that of creditor over the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power more despotic by far, than that of the King and all his cabinet.”[12] Macaulay further responds to Christian claims that “it would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament” by stating bluntly that “a Jew may make money, and money may make members of Parliament. … [T]he Jew may govern the money market, and the money market may govern the world. … The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper may be worth more than the word of three kings, or the national faith of three new American republics.”[13]

Macaulay’s insights into the nature of Jewish power at that time, and his assertions that Jews had already accumulated political power without the aid of the statute books, are quite profound. Yet his reasoning — that permitting Jews into the legislature would somehow offset this power, or make it accountable — seems pitifully naive and poorly thought out. Nonetheless, I wish to take Macaulay’s article as a starting point. What was it in the nature of British Jewry at that time that so alarmed Macaulay, and provoked such a rash response on his part?

The Cousinhood.

We should first bring the Anglo-Jewish elite, referred to by Macaulay, into sharper focus. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore.[14] At its head “stood the House of Rothschild.”[15] This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood,” and among them “conversion and intermarriage [with non-Jews] was rare.”[16] Todd Endelmann attributes the lack of conversion to the fact that “conversion was not as useful, in general, to English Jews as it was to Jews in Central and Eastern Europe.”[17] The Cousinhood exercised control over the Jewish community through its leadership of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization which would later become one of the chief engines of the move for Jewish emancipation.[18]

The other means through which the Cousinhood maintained control over English Jews was its practice of “systematized philanthropy.” The Cousinhood largely refrained from involvement in Jewish religious life but heavily devoted itself to founding and leading the Anglo-Jewish Association — “the principle arm of Anglo-Jewish political and education aid” to global Jewry.[19] Endelmann notes that these communal institutions “determined the tenor and the agenda of the public side of Jewish life in London.”[20]

To illustrate the extent of blood and financial ties of this network of families, let us consider the following: in 1870, the treasurer of the London Jewish Board of Guardians was Viennese-born Ferdinand de Rothschild (1838–1898). Ferdinand had married his cousin Elvina, who was a niece of the President of the London United Synagogue, Sir Anthony de Rothschild (1810–1876). Meanwhile, the Board of Deputies was at that time headed by Moses Montefiore, whose wife, a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, was related to Nathan Meyer Rothschild. Nathan Meyer Rothschild’s wife was also a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, and thus Montefiore was uncle to the aforementioned Anthony de Rothschild. In addition, Anthony was married to a niece of Montefiore, the daughter of Abraham Montefiore and Henrietta Rothschild[21]…et cetera, et cetera. In financial terms, the houses of Rothschild and Montefiore had united in 1824 to form the Alliance Insurance Company, and most of the families were involved in each other’s stock-brokering and banking concerns. Endelmann notes that in these firms “new recruits were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the family.”[22]

Working tightly within this ethnic and familial network, the Cousinhood amassed huge fortunes, and in the years before World War I, despite comprising less than three tenths of 1% of the population, Jews constituted over 20% of non-landed British millionaires.[23] William Rubinstein notes that of these millionaires, all belonged to the Cousinhood.[24] It is worth noting that this wealth was derived exclusively from the fields of “banking, finance, the stock markets and bullion trading.”[25]

By virtue of this incredible level of wealth, the Cousinhood enjoyed a certain degree of political influence. Endelmann provides evidence that the group had “used its economic power to insinuate itself into the different sectors of the political establishment: the political parties, both Houses of Parliament, and even the government.”[26] Endelmann further states that the  Cousinhood’s influence was wielded in the pursuit of “ethnic sympathies, family tradition, and group self-interest,” and it was this influence that so alarmed Thomas Macaulay.[27]

The Move Into Parliament.

By the mid-1830s, English Jews led by the Cousinhood began to press for the removal of Christian oaths in Parliament and this for their ability to enter the legislature. Between 1830 and 1836 no fewer than four Bills were tabled for the removal of Jewish ‘disabilities,’ and all failed to win the support of elected officials. Frustrated that their influence was proving ineffectual, the Cousinhood decided to directly confront Parliament by putting Lionel de Rothschild up as a Liberal candidate for the City of London constituency, and funding him to an extent that almost ensured victory before the campaign even began. Although the Cousinhood had, as Endelmann noted, backed all parties when it was in their interests, they settled on the Liberals because they were broadly supportive of religious liberty. By framing Jewish interests in a religious context, de Rothschild sought to “bring the issue of Jewish emancipation into the broader Liberal agenda of civil and religious liberty, and he was determined that Liberals should adopt Jewish emancipation as a cause.”[28]

De Rothschild came third in the 1847 General Election but won enough votes to take a seat in Parliament. Lord John Russell, then Whig Prime Minister, immediately set about introducing a Jewish Disabilities Bill which would do away with the Christian oath. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons, but resistance proved strong, and it was thrown out by the Lords twice in 1848, and again in 1849. A remarkable but quite unsurprising detail about this time concerns the complicity of Benjamin Disraeli in lobbying members of the opposition party for support of the Bill. The quintessential ‘damp Jew’, Disraeli had been baptized a Christian at age twelve but never ceased to support Jewish ethnic interests, and became notorious for espousing a repugnant Jewish supremacism in his novels Coningsby (1844), Sybil (1845), and Tancred (1847). Although a member of the Tory party since 1837 — a party which was ostensibly dedicated to supporting Christianity in the form of the Established Church of England — correspondence in the official Rothschild Archive reveals that Disraeli was actively working “behind the scenes” to generate Tory support for the removal of the Christian oath.[29] Even taking into account Barbara Kaplan’s dubious and ill-evidenced claim that while Disraeli “lauded the Jewish people” (an understatement to say the least) he “claimed that Christianity was the superior religion,”[30] we can only conclude that in acting to undermine the Christian oath, for Disraeli Jewish ethnicity trumped any feeling he may have had towards Christianity. In a letter marked “Private”, Disraeli wrote to de Rothschild in December 1847:

My dear Lionel,

I find that 18 men, now Peers, voted against the Jews in the Commons 1833, & only 11 in their favor! I agree with you, therefore, that we must be cautious in publishing the lists of the divisions, & rather give a précis of them, calling attention only to what is in your favor….Writing to Lord John Manners today, I particularly mentioned the anxiety of the Court that the bill should pass, as this will be conveyed to the Duke of Rutland who is a great Courtier….My friend thinks that a good petition from King’s Lynn would nail Jocelyn’s vote for the second reading.

Ever yours faithfully

D

The diaries of Louise de Rothschild, sister-in-law to Lionel, further reveal that Disraeli had become a regular dining companion with members of the Cousinhood, and that during one evening with the Rothschilds in November 1847, Disraeli had argued that “we [my italics] must ask for our rights and privileges, not for concessions.”[31] This bravado proved ineffectual in the House of Lords, where hereditary, non-elected nobles continued to reject the Jewish Disabilities Bills for another decade. This obstruction was only ended in 1858, when a change in government allowed Disraeli himself to become Leader of the House of Commons, a position which allowed him to secure a measure “allowing each House to make its own rules about the form of oath” — thereby side-stepping the second chamber as well as established British democratic precedent altogether.[32] Lionel took his seat at the end of 1858, and was joined by his brother a year later. By 1865 his son also had a seat in the Commons, and numerous relatives began to follow. Just as in business, politics was a family affair.

Go to Part 2.


[1] C. Mackay, Extradordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (London: Bentley, 1841), p.xv.

[2] P. Mendes-Flohr (ed), The Jew in the Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p.136.

[3] U. Henriques, “The Jewish Emancipation Controversy in Nineteenth-Century Britain” Past and Present (1968) 40 (1): 126-146 (p.126).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] R. Quinault, “Gladstone and Disraeli: A Reappraisal of their Relationship” History (2006) 91 (304): 557-576.

[7] C. Hirschfield, “The Anglo-Boer War and Jewish Culpability” Journal of Contemporary History (1980) 15 (4): 619-631 and A. Saab, “Disraeli, Judaism, and the Eastern Question,” The International History Review (1988) 10 (4): 559-578.

[8] M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3 ,pp. 667-75.

[9]  W. Williams (1993). “Reading Greek Like a Man of the World: Macaulay and the Classical Languages” Greece and Rome, 40 (2) , pp 201-216

[10] P. Foot (ed) Theories of Ethics: Oxford Readings in Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.99.

[11] T. Macaulay, “Civil Disabilities of the Jews” in M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3, pp. 667-75.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Politics and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.5.

[15] Ibid.

[16] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), pp.491-526, p.491 & 495.

[17] Ibid, p.514.

[18] Ibid, p.494.

[19] K. Macdonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Lincoln: Writers Club Press, 2002), p.151 & T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p. 495.

[20]Ibid, p.495.

[21] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.496.

[22] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.519.

[23] Ibid, p. 519.

[24] W. Rubinstein, “The Jewish Economic Elite in Britain, 1808-1909,” Jewish Historical Society of England. Available at: http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/21930.

[25] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Economics, Politics, and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.8.

[26] Quoted in Gutwein, The Divided Elite, p.8.

[27] Ibid, p.10.

[28] The Rothschild Archive: Available at: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2aJourney.

[29] http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bDisraeli

[30] B. Kaplan “Disraeli on Jewish Disabilities: Another Look,” Central States Speech Journal, 30 (2), pp.156-163, (p.158).

[31] Lady de Rothschilds Diary: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bLoudiary.

[32] R. Blake, Disraeli (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1966), p.261.

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.2022-01-16 01:24:072022-01-16 10:19:00Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1

Thoughts on Race, Biblical Epics, and Early Jewish History

January 15, 2015/32 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing, Jews and Hollywood/by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

One of many hypocrisies indulged in by organized Jewry and the growing legion of White ethno-masochistic Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) concerns the racial element in motion picture casting. A fairly recent example has been the months of criticism preceding the release of Ridley Scott’s Exodus: Gods and Kings, with most critiques revolving around the theme that the movie is unfaithful to historical racial profiles. Without getting into the debate over which ethnicity built the pyramids, there are probably more than a few aesthetic incongruities in the casting of Moses (if he actually existed) and Ramses II. Welsh-born Christian Bale, cast as Moses, doesn’t look even faintly Semitic. Nor does Joel Edgerton resemble in any way a North African, or Middle Easterner of any description. The rest of the major roles are populated by Anglo-Saxon actors like Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul.

Much to the annoyance of hand-wringing liberal commentators, Black actors feature mainly in the movie as slaves. The Sydney Morning Herald even noted that infuriated SJWs had taken to Twitter in droves to protest at the set, “particularly the nose on the Great Sphinx of Giza, saying it gives the statue a European profile.” Because of these and other creative decisions, criticism had been brewing since the cast was first announced, eventually forcing Scott to address his choices in an interview with Yahoo! Australia:

Egypt was—as it is now—a confluence of cultures, as a result of being a crossroads geographically between Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. We cast major actors from different ethnicities to reflect this diversity of culture, from Iranians to Spaniards to Arabs. There are many different theories about the ethnicity of the Egyptian people, and we had a lot of discussions about how to best represent the culture.

While I view the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians as being of token importance in the modern age and of little value in contemporary debates about race, I do take issue with critiques of the casting of Black actors as slaves. Giving the Exodus tale even some benefit of the doubt, and assuming that there was in fact a clash between the leadership of a proto-Jewish population and the Egyptians during the New Kingdom (c.1560–1070 B.C.), a careful look at the historical record suggests that Black slaves (coming mostly from Nubia) were a common feature of the Egyptian landscape. Indeed, the era of Ramses II has been described as the

most flourishing period of Egyptian slavery. The imperial Egyptian state controlled large parts of what now constitutes Israel, the Sinai, Syria, and the northern Sudan. … Nubia was forced to contribute slaves, and entire lists of captured Nubians from this period have been found. Although certain numbers given in the inscriptions are exceedingly high and might be exaggerations, it is obvious that tens of thousands of slaves were imported to Egypt during the great wars of expansion.[1]

Read more

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.2015-01-15 00:04:572015-08-13 16:26:11Thoughts on Race, Biblical Epics, and Early Jewish History

Schopenhauer on Race Differences in Intelligence and on Judaism

July 14, 2014/30 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing/by Brenton Sanderson

Arthur Schopenhauer is renowned as the philosopher of pessimism. White nationalists certainly have much to be pessimistic about these days, and we might be tempted to seek consolation in the wisdom of a man who undoubtedly possessed one of the most powerful minds in history.  Schopenhauer, who was an atheist, saw human existence as essentially meaningless and a mistake. The life of sentient beings, of which man is the highest form, is one of constantly jangling appetites that can never be sated, and the result is that pain and suffering are the inevitable accompaniments of any life. He concluded that the only way to get beyond the suffering of this world is to renounce life and thereby quell the appetites that constantly assail us — a conclusion he later discovered had also been arrived at by the Hindus and the Buddhists. Read more

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Brenton Sanderson https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Brenton Sanderson2014-07-14 16:10:582015-08-13 20:27:50Schopenhauer on Race Differences in Intelligence and on Judaism

The War on Easter

March 30, 2013/225 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing, Western Culture/by Trudie Pert

German postage stamp, 1933, depicting Parsifal as an Aryan Christ

Editorial Note: This article is a slightly edited version of an article that appeared last year at Easter.

  •  A teaching that does not come out of Nordic blood and carry Nordic spirit cannot spread itself among Nordic races. Since Christianity had become a successful religion for two thousand years only among Nordic races (not among Jews) and Christian ideas were the greatest culturally creative force in human history, it was simply impossible that Christ, the driving force of Christianity could have been a Jew. (From a 1938 issue of the National Socialist newspaper Der Stürmer)[1] 
  • [Kosher Jesus] seeks to offer to Jews and Christians the real story of Jesus, a wholly observant, Pharisaic Rabbi who fought Roman paganism and oppression and was killed for it. . . . As Christians and Jews now come together to love and support the majestic and humane Jewish state, it’s time that Christians rediscover the deep Jewishness and religious Jewish commitment of Jesus, while Jews reexamine a lost son who was murdered by a brutal Roman state who sought to impose Roman culture and rule upon a tiny yet stubborn nation. (Hasidic Rabbi Shmuley Boteach)[2] 

Every year at Easter as we look forward to the great Passion music, we are accustomed to hearing the usual shrill accusations of anti-Semitism. The purpose of such accusations is to force non-Jews to feel shame for a civilization whose art supposedly resulted in atrocities against the ancestors of the Jewish activists. A new twist on Jewish perceptions of Easter can be found in Rabbi Boteach’s book, Kosher Jesus, in which he defends Jesus as one of the tribe’s own, but stops short of accepting Jesus as God or as the Jewish messiah.

What could be a Hasidic rabbi’s motivation for writing a positive portrayal of Jesus? After all, Jews have found the person of Jesus anathema for pretty much the entire history of Christianity. That Rabbi Boteach and other prominent Orthodox Jews now purport to regard Jesus as a welcome racial insider worthy of intense sympathetic study does not portend well. In the following I discuss the Jewish campaign to transform traditional Christianity in a way that serves Jewish interests.  Read more

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Trudie Pert https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Trudie Pert2013-03-30 00:42:282013-04-01 00:33:56The War on Easter
Page 1 of 212
RSS Feed Logo RSS Feed Logo Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • American Free Press
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles Magazine
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Raven's Call: A Reactionary Perspective
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • VDare
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • Link to X
  • Link to Dribbble
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only