Jewish Ethnic Networking

Review: The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews — Part Two

/27 Comments/in , , /by

Everard Mercurian (1514-1580)

“Being children of this world, pompous, cunning, fake, self-seeking, etc., it is certain that they fit religious life very badly and that it is impossible to maintain union with them. If those of this blood are made superiors, they employ almost all their government in external things: they promote genuine mortification and solid virtues very little, and seem to be merchants, seeking first seats and being called rabbis; they are hardly eager to seek perfection that is described in the parts 5 and 6 of the Constitutions; and readily admit others of the same blood who are very unworthy.”
Manuel Rodrigues, Jesuit curia in Rome.

Go to Part 1.

The Racial Struggle for the Jesuit Order

The complaints of native Spanish members of the Society of Jesus, regarding the crypto-Jewish Jesuit elite, are remarkably uniform. Predominant among their concerns was the Jewish tendency towards monopoly, nepotism, arrogance, aggressive ambition, and an air of insincerity in the practice of Christianity. Of particular concern was the fact that the Spanish Jesuit Order was becoming an exclusive enclave of influential Jews that stretched out even into the heart of Rome.

The epigraph above, from Manuel Rodrigues, highlights all of these themes, some of which have been empirically demonstrated. For example, the body of research compiled by Maryks and other scholars, and discussed in Part 1, more than provides sufficient evidence in support of the accusation that crypto-Jews were “readily admitting others of the same blood.” Moreover, Benedetto Palmio, an Italian assistant to two native European Jesuit Superior Generals (Francisco de Borja and Everard Mercurian), complained of the “multitude and insolence of Spanish neophytes,” whom he described as a “pestilence (133).” Stressing that “where a New Christian was found, it was impossible to live in peace,” he added that “those who governed in Rome were almost all neophytes. … This sort of people and almost no other were being admitted in Spain (133).” King Phillip II of Spain had by the 1570s taken to describing the Jesuits as a “Synagogue of Hebrews.” (133)

The method of leadership employed by this crypto-Jewish elite was further described by Palmio as despotic. The crypto-Jewish elite in Rome was behaving “not as fathers but as masters (135).” Reflecting age-old Jewish ethnic networking, there were gross ethnic disparities in promotions to high office, with Palmio stressing that “the neophytes want to dominate everywhere and this is why the Society is agitated by the tempest of discords and acrimonies (138).” Conversos were “overly ambitious, insolent, Janus-faced, pretentious, despotic, astute, terrible, greedy for power, and infamous.” (142) Lorenzo Maggio, an Italian Jesuit curia in Rome, complained that “those from the circumcision subverted the entire house of the Society.” (117) Read more

Review: How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism, Part One of Two

/40 Comments/in , /by

At the close of my review of the late David Cesarani’s Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933–1949, I remarked that “the Holocaust,” as a cultural concept, had performed one of the greatest vanishing acts in history — the disappearance of the Jews as active participants during World War II.[1] Faced with an almost blanket portrayal of Jewish victimhood and passivity during the period, I commented: “Examining the thousands upon thousands of histories of World War II, one would get the impression that there was not only one war, but also only one aggressor. Quite how and why “the Jews” leave the historical stage as belligerents in 1939, when the preceding six years had witnessed them engaging in international propaganda wars, political maneuvering, and targeted assassinations in several European countries, has been surprisingly overlooked.” Benjamin Ginsberg’s relatively short but efficient work, How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013, First Paperback 2016), may be considered a significant exception to this overwhelming omission, offering an argument that Jews played “a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.”[2]

In the introduction to his text, Ginsberg, a Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, outlines the structure of his argument along with his definition of Jewish resistance to the advance of National Socialism in Europe. Ginsberg’s definition of Jewish resistance is important because it differs significantly, in terms of its discursive parameters, from those generally employed in Holocaust historiography and its offshoots. For those interested in a more detailed exploration of the issue of Jewish resistance during World War II, as a subject of historiographical debate, The Holocaust in History by Michael R. Marrus (Penguin, 1989) and Histories of the Holocaust by Dan Stone (Oxford University Press, 2010) are perhaps the best and most succinct introductions to the most pertinent themes. However, in brief, historiographical argument prior to the 2010s was limited to two strands of thought, each biased and deeply flawed. The first strand of ‘resistance’ historiography was the negation of the idea of Jewish resistance. This involved lachrymose assertions that Jews offered no opposition to an unprovoked and irrational German hostility, and were led to sensationalized forms of mass murder like ‘lambs to the slaughter.’ A prime example within this strand is Martin Gilbert’s The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy (Harper Collins, 1986), and is also strongly associated with Raul Hilberg’s assessment that “the reaction pattern of the Jews is characterised by almost complete lack of resistance.” This first strand of argument was particularly popular in the diaspora, and in the United States and Great Britain in particular. The Holocaust developed as a cultural trope in these countries in tandem with the development of this lachrymose strand of historiography. Read more

Jewish Influence and Ethnic Networking in France: In Their Own Words . . .

/31 Comments/in , , /by

It is often difficult for ordinary people to understand how small groups can achieve such a preponderant influence in the life of a country. But such influence should not be surprising: Modern societies have a highly complex division of labor leading to enormous power asymmetries, with huge amounts of power being concentrated in the hands of the tiny elites making up the media, top oligarchs, and the political class—as the Donald Trump candidacy in the United States is bringing into stark relief.

This is a world of chummy networks and mutual back-scratching, one where even small ethnocentric elite networks can have a decisive impact. And, concerning Jewish ethnic networks, I have documented extensively (e.g., here) that they are massively overrepresented among French elites, that they are completely intolerant of criticism of Jewish power and ethnocentrism, and are equally intolerant of French ethno-nationalism. As further evidence, I present in this article a number of interesting statements, mostly from Jews, taken from Paul-Éric Blanrue’s books on Jewish power networks.

Even sympathetic observers have commented upon Jewish power even during the earliest years of the Fifth Republic in the 1960s. The famous Jewish anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss denounced in private the fact that Jewish media influence and bias were distorting coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Lévy-Strauss went so far as to defend and repeat President Charles de Gaulle’s comments following the Six Day War that Jews were “an elite people, self-confident and dominating.”[1] Lévi-Strauss wrote to the Jewish liberal intellectual Raymond Aron on April 9, 1968:

Certain Jewish elements in France, taking advantage of their control over print or audiovisual media and of acquired positions, and arrogating to themselves the right to speak in the name of all the others, showed themselves to be “self-confident and dominating” [. . .]. From the first hour, we witnessed a systematic attempt to manipulate public opinion in this country. Remember France-Soir headlining on the entire page: “The Egyptians Attacked,” and this continued long after the Six Day War. [2]

Read more

France’s Zionist Prime Minister: A Review of Emmanuel Ratier’s “Le Vrai Visage de Manuel Valls” — Part 1

/31 Comments/in , , /by

 

Valls

Le Vrai Visage de Manuel Valls (The True Face of Manuel Valls)
by Emmanuel Ratier
Paris: Éditions Facta, 2014.

There is a rather surreal quality to most Western governments today. There is little pretense of actually defending the interests of their citizens, but much blithe conforming to a smug and self-destructive egalitarian ideology (see: Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau . . .).

In this regard, France is no different. But senior French politicians are unusual in their eagerness to make ever-more Judeocentric statements, a truly bizarre phenomenon. Nicolas Sarkozy, who seeks to be reelected as President of the Republic, has said “Israel’s right to security [. . .] is the struggle of my life” and that humanity has “contracted towards the Jewish people a debt which cannot be extinguished.”[1]

You would think such declarations of fealty to foreign interests would disqualify someone from seriously participating in French politics. In fact, such statements are increasingly common. The center right Sarkozy has real competition in this regard with the Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls. Here are some of Valls’ statements in recent years:

  • “I am by my wife eternally bound to the Jewish community and to Israel. Come on!” — Responding to Jewish critics on Radio Judaïca Strasbourg on June 17, 2011.
  • “The Shoah, the extermination of the Jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, sacred.” — On French television in February 2014 explaining why the government was more sensitive to anti-Semitism than to anti-Islamic or anti-Catholic actions.
  • “Anti-Zionism is the open door to anti-Semitism [. . .]. The Jews of France are more than ever the Frenchmen at the vanguard of the Republic and of our values.” — Speech at an event organized by the CRIF (the official Jewish lobby)[2] held on March 19, 2014. Valls was flanked by CRIF President Roger Cuckierman and Bernard-Henri Lévy. The event was attended by the Jewish Defense League (an organization banned for terrorism in the United States of America and Israel.)
  • “So madame [Marion Maréchal-Le Pen], until the end, I will campaign to stigmatize you and to tell you that you are neither the Republic nor France.” — Response in the National Assembly to the young Le Pen, on March 10, 2015.
  • “Why this particular bond [between France and] Israel? This bond is unique. Because we are two sister nations.” — In a speech of January 25, 2016, at an event dedicated to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

These are not exceptional statements. The French prime minister constantly broaches these themes, always with the same message: Jewish ethno-nationalism is supremely good and must be supported, French (ethno-)nationalism is supremely evil and must be opposed. Again and again in innumerable speeches and television or radio appearances. Such comments are also representative of an official policy of enthusiastic support for the Jewish ethnostate of Israel despite its crimes and of organizing the replacement of the indigenous French population with African and Islamic settlers. Valls has also taken the lead in excluding nationalist parties like the Front National from participating in democratic politics and persecuting critics of Jewish ethnocentrism like Alain Soral and Dieudonné M’Bala M’bala. He has justified all this by publicly affirming on numerous occasions, perhaps more explicitly than any other French politician, the “sacred” status of the Shoah as the de facto state religion of France (the Jewish journalist Éric Zemmour has called the Shoah “the official religion of the French Republic”). Read more

The Friends of Boris Johnson: Plugging into Jewish Networks as the Key to Success for Ambitious Politicians

/35 Comments/in , /by

Boris Johnson in IsraelThere are two pilgrimages which any ambitious British Conservative politician should undertake if he wants to seriously improve his chances of getting the top job. One is to Israel to be pictured with wearing a skull cap at the Western Wall.

The second is to the most exclusive Jewish charity event in the London social calendar. The Norwood Trust banquet is one of the most glittering social occasions in London. Under the chandeliers, networkers rub shoulders with likes of Elton John, Simon Cowell, Tom Jones, Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Sir Philip Green and anyone who is anyone in British Jewry.

It was on this august occasion last month that the Mayor of London Boris Johnson addressed the assembled notables and as usual charmed, amused and entertained the huge crowd at London’s Grosvenor Hotel. For “Boris,” as he is universally known, it was the latest in a long strategy of letting Britain’s most powerful ethnic community know that they can count on him. He followed that up last week with a trademark witty denunciation of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration.

“The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.” It was a response that delighted the British chattering classes. Typical Boris! A suitably witty quip from a man regarded as humorous as he is unkempt, and a celebrity among the ranks of anonymous political suits. Read more

On Contemporary Opera and Wagner’s ‘Jewry in Music’

/72 Comments/in , , /by
Kirill Petrenko: “a tiny gnome, a Jewish caricature.”

Kirill Petrenko: “a tiny gnome, a Jewish caricature.”

This month marks the 165th anniversary of the publication of Richard Wagner’s landmark essay ‘Das Judenthum in der Musik.’ Almost right on cue the opera scene, particularly in Berlin, has recently played host to a series of episodes that would have the Old Sorcerer spinning in his grave. Back in June Kirill Petrenko, a Siberian-born Jewish conductor, was appointed as music director to the Berlin Philharmonic beginning September 2018. Petrenko was no-one’s first choice. His name apparently came into the reckoning only after 124 orchestra members split down the middle in an all-day election on May 11, half of them voting for the German favourite Christian Thielemann and the other half for the young Latvian, Andris Nelsons. By nightfall, the players were steeped in conflict, forcing leaders to seek a third, compromise candidate. Petrenko, 43, in his second year as music director at Bavarian State Opera, privately signalled his disinterest in the job. However, when called with the election result, he accepted with ‘euphoria and joy’. As a result, he will be the first Jewish chief conductor of the Philharmonic.

Rather predictably, Petrenko’s appointment has been greeted with enthusiasm by Jewish critics and commentators eager to indulge in the usual effort to promote their co-ethnics as geniuses. In my 2013 analysis of the Spinoza cult, I pointed out that

a recurring theme here at TOO has been the monitoring of ethnic networking in efforts to establish Jewish figures in positions of scientific, academic, artistic or cultural pre-eminence. Erudite studies by several writers, particularly Kevin Macdonald (a major theme of The Culture of Critique) and Brenton Sanderson, have shed light on individual cases (e.g., Boas, Freud, Trotsky, Rothko, Mahler) as well as the more generic processes involved in these efforts (e.g., promotion in the elite media and the academic world). Typically these efforts can be said to begin with the veneration by a group of Jews of a Jewish intellectual or artist, and is followed by the creation of an authoritarian cult-like aura around his or her personality. The process reaches its completion, in some cases after the death of the guru figure, in an aggressive Jewish marketing effort to convince society at large that this figure, together with his or her ideas, is or was of national or international—if not cosmic—significance. It is predominantly by this process that the notion of “Jewish Genius” is perpetuated.

More specifically relevant to the Petrenko case, in 2011 TOO’s Brenton Sanderson wrote ‘Why Mahler? Norman Lebrecht and the Construction of Jewish Genius.’ The piece explored the efforts of Jewish critic and author Norman Lebrecht to transform Mahler’s image “from that of a relatively minor figure in the history of classical music at mid-Twentieth Century, into the cultural icon of today.” Sanderson, commenting on Lebrecht’s Why Mahler?, writes that

The focus here is on alerting us to fact of Mahler’s towering genius, and how this genius was inextricably bound up with his identity as a Jew. Overlaying this, as ever, is the lachrymose vision of Mahler the saintly Jewish victim of gentile injustice. Lebrecht’s new book is another reminder of how Jewish intellectuals have used their privileged status as self-appointed gatekeepers of Western culture to advance their group interests through the way they conceptualize the respective artistic achievements of Jews and Europeans.

Given Sanderson’s comprehensive treatment of Lebrecht and his motivations, and the wider context of Jewish ethnic networking, I was unsurprised to see Lebrecht emerge as one of Petrenko’s earliest and most gushing admirers in the aftermath of the diminutive Jew’s election. According to Lebrecht, Petrenko is a “profound and experienced Wagnerian,” who “spares nothing in his musical passions and gives both musicians and audience the feeling that the music could not be performed in any other way.” Lebrecht assures us that Petrenko is “a genuine maestro.” Read more

Paul Singer and the Universality of “Anti-Semitism”

/80 Comments/in , , /by

One of the most fundamental positions for White advocates concerned with Jewish influence must be the conviction that antagonism against Jews lies in Jewish behavior rather than solely the cultural pathology or psychological tendencies of non-Jews. A major testing ground for this position is the necessity for anti-Jewish attitudes to be present among geographically, racially, and culturally diverse peoples, and for the reasons behind this antagonism to be fairly uniform. In Separation and Its Discontents Kevin MacDonald argued that a social identity theory of anti-Semitism is highly compatible with supposing that anti-Semitism will be a very common characteristic of human societies in general. Reasons for this pervasiveness lie in Jewish cultural separatism leading to the perception of the Jewish group as an alien entity; inter-group resource and reproductive competition; and finally, the fact that Jews are, for cultural and genetic reasons, highly adept in resource competition against non-Jews. Additionally, Jews are adept at influencing culture and creating and influencing intellectual and political movements which often run contrary to the interests of the host population. Wherever these behaviors and circumstances are present, they contribute to the arousal of hostility in a host population.

Despite overwhelming evidence in support of our position, the vast majority of Jewish historiography and apologetics continue to argue something quite different. Our opponents have successfully disseminated the view that anti-Semitism is a peculiarly Western phenomenon, rooted more or less in a cocktail of evil Christian theology, the implicit frustrations of capitalist society, the despotic nature of the Western family, and even repressed sexual desires. A key aspect of maintaining this narrative has been to downplay non-Western (mainly Muslim) anti-Semitism, or attempt to give it different features. However, as MacDonald has noted, “the remarkable thing about anti-Semitism is that there is an overwhelming similarity in the complaints made about Jews in different places and over very long periods of historical time.”[1] Of the universal themes noted by MacDonald, the theme of resource competition and economic domination is perhaps foremost. Read more