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

/8 Comments/in , , , , /by

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and declarations.”[3] Even the 1753 Naturalization Act which had granted citizenship to foreign-born Jews had been repealed following widespread popular agitation, and a pervading atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust of Jews generally, and foreign Jews especially.[4] Ursula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.

 

High Hope and Damnable Despair: Some Words of Wisdom from Vox Day and Bruce Charlton

/16 Comments/in , /by

I don’t believe in God or Satan, but I increasingly wonder whether I should. I greatly admire and regularly learn from the writers Vox Day and Bruce Charlton, so perhaps I should adopt the Christianity that they make central to their work. At the same time, I can separate the ontics from the pragmatics in the epistemics of theistics. That is, I understand that believing in God can be useful whether or not God literally exists. Indeed, I know for myself that merely imagining a God can be useful. The concept of God clarifies and consolidates some valuable techniques of mental, moral and spiritual hygiene.

Crucial question

Even if you’re an atheist (and adiabolist) like me, you might find it useful to ask yourself of your own thoughts and deeds: Would God be pleased with these or would the Devil be cheering you on? By definition, God is the embodiment of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. He wants what’s best for you, me and every other human. Satan, by contrast, is the absolute and eternal enemy of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. He wants what’s worst for you, me and every other human. So it’s a very effective shorthand to ask who would be pleased by what one is doing or thinking: God or Satan? I’ve killed negative trains of thought by asking myself that question. And thereby snapped out of self-pity, bitterness and recrimination.   Those are bad things to have in your head – Satanic things, a Christian would say, so it’s no wonder that leftism encourages thoughts like that.

Yes, the same “God or Satan?” question applies just as much to the political as the personal. Indeed, the political is the personal, because the politics you espouse reflect what kind of person you are. Is someone interested in power rather than Truth, Beauty and Goodness? Then they will espouse leftism. And that gives leftists some big advantages. It is easier to pursue power when you don’t have to worry about truth, morality and aesthetics. This is related to the fact that it’s easier to destroy than to create. Leftism is the ideology of destruction, not creation, and that again gives leftists an advantage. They are energized and encouraged by destruction, decay and degradation – by ugliness and evil in the arts and entertainment, by the elevation of thuggish Black criminals like George Floyd to sainthood, and by the flooding of White Christian nations with unattractive, unproductive and unintelligent non-Whites.

Hope creates morale, morale wins wars

Those of us who oppose leftism are not encouraged and energized by those things. Quite the opposite. And so it’s easy to be dismayed and demoralized by them – in short, to slip into despair. But that’s where the “God or Satan?” question proves useful once again. Christianity has always taught that hope is virtuous and despair is damnable. As Vox Day puts it: “The choice is between the hope of Jesus Christ and the despair of Satan.” Despair is what our enemies want us to feel, because it does their fighting for them. As Vox Day has also said: “Hope is what generates morale, and morale is what wins wars and every other form of conflict that requires endurance.” Here are some excellent blog-posts by Day on the subject of hope and despair:

∙ Always watch your tongue

∙ No despair nancies

∙ Despair will not be tolerated

∙ The filth-pigs of San Francisco

∙ The journey sans ticket

∙ Biggest sting-op in US history

As he says in the first blog-post above: “Words not only describe reality, they shape reality by influencing thoughts.” Feeling despair yourself is bad enough; seeking to infect others with despair is worse still. That’s why defeatism has often – and rightly, in my opinion – been a capital offence in times of war. It’s exactly what the enemy wants you to practise. If you oppose the enemy and his ideology, why do you do his work for him?

Despair is always wrong

And if you understand the world, why do you feel despair in the first place? That’s because one essential part of understanding the world is the recognition that you don’t and can’t fully understand the world and its future course. That is, the world is too complex and you know too little of it to warrant a firm belief in one outcome or another. Despair isn’t just stupid and self-defeating: it’s egotistical. By indulging in it or encouraging it in others, we set ourselves up as something we are not and cannot be: infallible prophets and prognosticators. And if you want to understand better this aspect of the wrongness of despair, I strongly recommend a blog-post by Bruce Charlton entitled “Palantir problems… Tolkien on the evil of despair.” Here’s an extract from the post:

And – simply put – despair is always wrong because we never have conclusive reasons to give-up hope.

Despair is not based on probability, but certainty – and that certainty is always false. A high probability of a bad outcome should be called pessimism. It is not despair because it is a best guess, and estimate; and we realise that even the very improbable sometimes happens.

Note: It is vital to distinguish between despair and pessimism; and between hope and optimism.

Despair is a sin, and is always-wrong; hope is a virtue and (for a Christian) always-right. Optimism and pessimism are merely conjectural judgments about the likely future – constrained by individual ability, information and honesty…

But more fundamentally, despair is not even about strict probabilities of the future of a known situation; since we are very unlikely to be framing, to be understanding accurately, the real nature of the situation.

Even if we know a lot about a situation, we never know every-thing about it; and some specific thing (some ‘fact’) that we do Not know, may have the capacity to transform our understanding. (“Palantir problems…  Tolkien on the evil of despair,” Bruce Charlton at The Notion Club Papers, 5th January 2021)

Bruce Charlton is writing about what he calls “Tolkien’s frequent theme that it is always wrong to despair” [his emphasis]. And that theme is another of the many ways in which Tolkien’s great work Lord of the Rings (1954-5) is invaluable for White nationalists. We can do more than refresh our souls and rejoice our spirits by reading Tolkien: we can learn how to conduct ourselves in the war between the friends and the enemies of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. In one section of Lord of the Rings, one great and noble character is driven to despair by what he learns from a palantír, a crystal ball that allows the skilled and strong-minded to learn of distant events.

The character learns much, but he misinterprets what he sees, because despite his wisdom he fails to understand his own limitations. As Bruce Charlton says: “Even if we know a lot about a situation, we never know every-thing about it; and some specific thing (some ‘fact’) that we do Not know, may have the capacity to transform our understanding.”

“Westward, look, the land is bright!”

This has long been a theme of literature. In the ancient myth of Theseus and the Minotaur, Theseus’ father Aegeus, King of Athens, casts himself in despair into the sea when he sees the black sails of an approaching ship. Theseus has been successful in his fight with the Minotaur, but has forgotten to hoist the white sails that he promised his father would signal victory. So Aegeus despaired and died, misinterpreting what he saw and failing to wait for the truth. And here to end is the Victorian poet Arthur Clough (1819-61) using the power of verse to compress into a few lines what Tolkien, in his different genre, takes many thousands of words to say:

Say Not the Struggle Availeth Naught

Say not the struggle nought availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke concealed,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light,
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
But westward, look, the land is bright!

My Journey to Racial Consciousness

/15 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

The Holocaust of Six Million Jews—in World War I

/49 Comments/in /by

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

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

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

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

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

Context for War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Into the Great War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interwar Holocaust?

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

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

Assuredly so.

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

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

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

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

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

The storyline persisted in subsequent years:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

===================================

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

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

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

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

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

[5] 10 February, p. 14.

[6] 26 January, p. 8.

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

[8] 10 November, p. 2.

[9] 23 March, p. 7.

[10] 25 March, p. SM6.

[11] 11 April, p. 18.

[12] 31 October, p. 5.

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

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

[15] 28 February, p. 8.

[16] 22 January, p. 6.

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

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

[19] 25 June, p. 4.

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

Domestic Woes in 2022: Inflation and Crime

/17 Comments/in /by

Domestic Woes

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

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

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

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

US Economy: Historic Highs in Inflation and Deficit Spending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Joe Biden:

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

From Tucker Carlson:

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

From the People:

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

The Trade Deficit

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

According to Reuters:

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

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

 

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

Economistc Peter Schiff:

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

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) December 29, 2021

Joe Biden:

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

— President Biden (@POTUS) December 29, 2021

Murders, Crime and Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nah!! Be reasonable!

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

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

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

Black Murders Matter

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

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

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

My paper on Jewish influence blows up

/82 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we hear from the predictably outraged ADL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish History, Jewish Religion: A Review

/13 Comments/in , /by

Jewish History, Jewish Religion
Israel Shahak
Pluto Press, 1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most damningly, Shahak states:

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

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

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

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

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