The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Slavoj Žižek’s “Pervert’s Guide” to Anti-Semitism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“ [Kevin] MacDonald’s theory is a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason.”
Slavoj Zizek

“Žižek is, at his best, a posturing charlatan.”
Thomas Moller-Nielsen, Current Affairs, Oct. 18 2019.

This is an essay on anti-Semitism, but because it’s also about Slavoj Žižek we’re going to have to start with the subject of extra-marital affairs. Very early in my academic career, I was asked to take part in a cross-faculty seminar, where PhD students could present small talks on the development of their research. As a newly-minted PhD, it was hoped that I’d ask presenting students some tough but helpful questions, and thus somehow contribute to a team atmosphere in my department. I was provided with a list of proposed talks and immediately felt an overwhelming sense of apathy at the litany of feminist tripe and quasi-Marxist navel-gazing, none of which was in any way related to my own fields of research. I was eager to please in my new role, however, and so I fell dutifully into line. I’ll never forget the first presentation because it was so remarkably surreal, being an effeminate young African-American who quite literally gave a performance poem titled “Black Skin” about, well, you get the idea. But the more memorable event of the day came later, when a young woman gave a presentation on gender in the media, or something to that effect. Something about her manner irritated me considerably, so I gave her a hard time during the Q & A. This was picked up on by a senior figure in the department, a soft meek-looking and much-gossiped-about English historian, who, after the seminar had finished, invited me to his office for a discussion on gender and sex politics.

I’ve been politically aware since I was a teenager. I’d read deeply about Marxism since the age of seventeen, and was familiar with its cultish elements. None of this prepared me for my adventure in this otherwise unremarkable Englishman’s office, the walls of which were festooned with small red flags and quasi-religious images of Lenin and Trotsky. So, I thought, here was a Red in the flesh. I was in the presence of a dedicated Marxist, and that right there in front of me stood a solitary tangible example of the long march through the institutions. He made tea, and we sat down. He began to talk, I listened. During his initial monologue, my host started speaking from a personal perspective, explaining that even in his private life he aimed to live in accordance with his “socialist beliefs.” Before he got married, he explained, he and his fiancée agreed that they wouldn’t take traditional vows, agreeing they wouldn’t be so possessive as to make an oath of exclusivity to one another. They might “expect” exclusivity, but they wouldn’t demand it. They believed in “freedom,” he said, and ultimately this was what social progressivism and modern gender and sex politics was all about. It wasn’t anything to get upset over, he implied, or laugh about.

Except that it was. The faculty gossip I’d heard was that the wife of this “free love” advocate had been on a short-term teaching stint in Norway and had just recently decided to permanently settle there with a Norwegian lover she’d been having an affair with for some time. She had the marital couple’s two children with her in Norway, and was making it extremely difficult for the meek, permissive, Lenin-loving Englishman to see them. The family home had also been declared off-limits, and my Marxist colleague was apparently reduced to staying in a local bed and breakfast. Tragic? Quite possibly. Hilarious? Most definitely. All of this flooded my mind as the cuckolded Leninite sat opposite me recounting his lukewarm marriage vows, tea in hand, eyes glistening with — tears? Steam from the tea he said, wiping them casually and glancing at the window. My face was stone. The time passed, and my host gradually fell silent. I thanked him most disingenuously, and made a hasty retreat, taking a deep breath as I emerged from the building. I never set foot in that office again.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Semitism? If you’re the superstar Marxist intellectual Slavoj Žižek, it has everything to do with anti-Semitism, since as we will find out, infidelity and anti-Semitism are irrefutably linked. I say “irrefutably” quite deliberately, because his arguments are irrefutable — and they are irrefutable because they are nonsensical.

First, who is Slavoj Žižek? Ostensibly, he’s a serious philosopher from Slovenia who’s held teaching positions in New York and London and tackles a wide range of subjects including political theory, culture, psychoanalysis, film criticism, Marxism, theology, and the philosophy of Hegel and Jacques Lacan. He is the subject of The International Journal of Žižek Studies, and has been declared “the Elvis of cultural theory,” and “the most dangerous philosopher in the West.” Žižek enjoys high levels of popularity among non-academics and young Leftists, due mainly to his idiosyncratic method of speech, his use of pop culture references during his talks, his regular employment of “dirty jokes,” and the packaging of many of his talks and documentaries as “The Pervert’s Guide to … .” In April 2019, Žižek and Jordan Peterson sold out the Sony Centre in Toronto for their debate titled “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism,” billed by some as the debate of the century, but generally regarded afterwards as anti-climactic. The main point here is that Žižek enjoys a very considerable audience and is regarded, for the most part, as a serious thinker. This means that his pronouncements are influential, and it is therefore of some interest to examine what Žižek has to say on Jews and anti-Semitism.

Žižek’s ideas on specific themes can be difficult to determine, owing to the fact he often scatters his perspectives across several books, numerous articles, and innumerable lectures and interviews. It’s clear, however, by comparing his YouTube view counts to web traffic at The Philosophical Salon, the blog where he showcases most of his topical writing, that he has significantly more appeal as an audio-visual entertainer than as a serious writer. Anti-Semitism is not a subject that Žižek has ever tackled with prolonged effort and interest, but he does reference it with somewhat surprising and casual regularity, and has given a small number of lectures dedicated to the theme. Here we turn to Žižek’s theories of anti-Semitism.

I. The Pathology of Jealous Paranoia

As an heir to the psychoanalysis of Freud and Jacques Lacan, it should come as little surprise that psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism feature very strongly in Žižek’s written and audio-visual productions. It is here that we return to the subject of extra-marital affairs because, in a February 2016 essay on the migrant crisis for New Statesman, Žižek opined:

Jacques Lacan claimed that, even if a jealous husband’s claim about his wife — that she sleeps around with other men — is true, his jealousy is still pathological. Why? The true question is “not is his jealousy well-grounded?”, but “why does he need jealousy to maintain his self-identity?”. Along the same lines, one could say that even if most of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true — they exploit Germans; they seduce German girls — which they were not, of course, their anti-Semitism would still be (and was) pathological, since it represses the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism in order to sustain their ideological position. And is it not exactly the same with the growing fear of refugees and immigrants? To extrapolate to the extreme: even if most of our prejudices about them were proven to be true — they are hidden fundamentalist terrorists; they rape and steal — the paranoid talk about the immigrant threat is still an ideological pathology. It tells more about us, Europeans, than about immigrants.

There is a lot to unpack here and, even at first reading, one is stunned that such a car-wreck of logic should emanate from someone regarded by many in contemporary culture as a serious and celebrated philosopher. The first problem is, of course, the citation of the risible Lacan as an authority, and his statement as authoritative. If a man has reasonable grounds to believe his wife has been unfaithful, it would be difficult to describe him bluntly as jealous, never mind pathological, since he would be reacting against a very clear infringement of his interests (sexual, reproductive, financial, emotional, even religious and professional—all of which are unsurprising to an evolutionist). It also doesn’t logically follow that he would need such a reaction in order to maintain his self-identity. In fact, failure to react in such a context would more clearly result in a destruction of self-identity, since all of the emotional and constituent aspects of his life as a man and a husband will have been undermined by the cuckold scenario. Kevin MacDonald has observed that Jewish intellectual activism, especially that tainted by psychoanalysis, has often involved the construction of self-serving arguments couched in universalistic terms. Jacques Lacan wasn’t Jewish, but his theories on jealousy and infidelity, including his famous statement that “there is no such thing as a sexual relationship,” were unquestionably self-serving. Catherine Millot, one of his patients, recalled in her 2017 autobiography Life with Lacan, that he “had affairs with patients and ex-wives of close friends,” and propositioned many of them for threesomes.

Returning to Žižek then, the implication is present in his statement that even if it is proven that there are legitimate complaints to be made about Jewish influence in Western society, these complaints, like those of the suspicious husband, are “still an ideological pathology” that Europeans require in order to maintain their self-identity. At this stage one would have to ask Žižek precisely how one might define any complaint about any subject as legitimate. For example, even if Marx’s critique of capitalism could be proven true, what would make these complaints against the bourgeoisie as a class less pathological than complaints against Jews as a class? Would Žižek agree that Marxists are pathological because they require a paranoia about the bourgeoisie in order to maintain their self-identity? I doubt it. Is it, then, solely complaints from the Right that are pathological, and if so, why? At what point would one have a healthy and non-pathological “paranoia” about terrorists, rapists and thieves? When one is in the process of being blown up, raped, or robbed? No, perhaps this is too early. While one’s limbs are still attached, we presume, the potential is there for a stubborn effort to maintain self-identity via prejudicial paranoia.

Sarcasm aside, isn’t it rather the case that most complaints in life are grounded in the real world of perspectives and interests of individuals and groups, and that pathologizing the complaints of one party or another is simply another means of fighting against that party’s interests and delegitimizing their perspective?[1]It’s particularly worrying that Žižek here essentially makes an argument for “truth is no defense,” a principle that is now in place in Canadian and UK hate speech legislation. Isn’t it simply the case that Žižek, for reasons unknown(although it certainly hasn’t hurt his career), is offering an explanation of anti-Semitism, totally bankrupt of logic, that is designed to smooth over the “irrelevant truth” of Jewish behavior? I don’t believe Žižek to be a philo-Semite in my understanding of that term. Rather, he could be usefully categorized as a combination of “naive true believer in the Marxist creed” and “knowing charlatan.” This is evident in many of his other statements on anti-Semitism, which are merely crude and unthinking regurgitations of Jean-Paul Sartre, who was a firm proponent of the “irrelevant truth” thesis.

II. Non-Existent Contradictions

If the first major feature of Marxist-psychoanalytic interpretations of anti-Semitism is the negation of authentic complaints as a legitimate origin of the phenomenon, then the second is the presentation of a set of false contradictions within the anti-Semitic perspective. In a 2009 lecture at the European Graduate School titled “Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and Jew,” Žižek argued that anti-Semitism places Jews in “impossible Otherness,” and continued:

One of the ironies of the history of anti-Semitism is that Jews can stand, within the anti-Semitic space, for both poles of an opposition. They are stigmatised as upper class, rich, merchants, exploiting us; and low class, filthy. They are perceived as too intellectual, and too earthy, sexual predators and so on. As lazy and workaholics.

In my 2015 review of the late Theodore Isaac Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind, I noted that Rubin, an avowed psychoanalyst, declared “the Jew” to be little more than a symbol in the anti-Semitic mind, with Rubin adding that anti-Semitism contains an endless list of contradictions and “mutually exclusive superlatives.” The idea that anti-Semitism contains logical contradictions is extremely commonplace in Jewish narratives, histories and apologetics. For example, Jewish historian Derek Penslar has stated that “the anti-Semite’s arguments are by their very nature illogical, inaccurate and indefensible.”[2]D. Penslar (ed) Contemporary Anti-Semitism: Canada and the World (University of Toronto Press, 2005), 3. Jeffrey Herf argues that anti-Semitism is “riddled with contradictions and highly irrational.”[3]J. Herf (ed) Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence (Routledge, 2007), 11. This Jewish response to anti-Semitism has a substantial pedigree. Kevin MacDonald has noted that a sizeable part of the Frankfurt School’s The Authoritarian Personality was devoted to “an attempt to demonstrate the irrationality of anti-Semitism by showing that anti-Semites have contradictory beliefs about Jews. …The Authoritarian Personality exaggerates the self-contradictory nature of anti-Semitic beliefs in the service of emphasizing the irrational, projective nature of anti-Semitism.”[4]K. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1st Books, 2002), 449 (endnote 120).

In Rubin’s work, as in Žižek’s, we see allegations about Jews that are either clearly consistent when considered in context, or have probably never been made by those considered anti-Semites. For example, Rubin wrote that all anti-Semites see Jews as both:

  • Moronic, brilliant.
  • All-powerful, weakling.
  • Cosmopolitan, provincial.
  • Cunning, naïve.
  • Extraordinarily sensitive, calloused.
  • “Nigger-lovers,” “worst bigots.”
  • Richest, poorest.
  • Artistic, tasteless.
  • Money-lovers, intellectual snobs.
  • Socially pushy, exclusively clannish.

But the ‘contradictions’ offered by Rubin and Žižek are inevitably over-simplifications. In Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald reviewed works by Levinson, Ackerman and Jahoda, in which the authors argued that it was contradictory for individuals to believe that Jews are clannish and aloof yet still want them to be segregated and restricted. It was also proposed that another contradictory attitude was that Jews are both clannish and intrusive.[5]MacDonald, 449. Similarly, Žižek offers the formulation that there is an inherent contradiction in anti-Semitic beliefs that Jews are “particularist” and “cosmopolitan.” But, as MacDonald states,

Agreement with such items is not self-contradictory. Such attitudes are probably a common component of the reactive processes discussed in Separation and Its Discontents. Jews are viewed by these anti-Semites as members of a strongly cohesive group who attempt to penetrate gentile circles of power and high social status, perhaps even undermining the cohesiveness of these gentile groups, while retaining their own separatism and clannishness. The belief that Jews should be restricted is entirely consisted with this attitude. Moreover, contradictory negative stereotypes of Jews, such as their being capitalist and communist, may be applied by anti-Semites to different groups of Jews.[6]Ibid.
(MacDonald, 449.)

In much the same way, Rubin’s ‘contradictions’ can also be resolved very quickly as soon as over-simplification is done away with. Jews are rarely, if ever, portrayed simply as ‘nigger-lovers,’ but are seen as being in frequent partnership with Blacks in places like the American South and in efforts to bring down Apartheid in South Africa. To my knowledge, this behavior has never been seen by anti-Semites as arising from an altruistic “love” for the Black man. Rather, the partnership is incredibly one-sided, and its ultimate goal is to serve Jewish interests in undermining the White power structure in America. Indeed, for an anti-segregation organization, the early NAACP was essentially divided between the Jews who ran it, and the Blacks who went along for the ride. As Hasia Diner puts it in In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915–1935, many in the NAACP’s Jewish leadership “worked most intensely with other Jews.”[7]H. Diner, In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935 (The John Hopkins University Press, 1995), 123.

Viewing Jews as the “worst bigots” would be consistent with this account of events since the partnership with Blacks is purely opportunistic and often patronizing, and also because of traditions of slave ownership within Jewish populations, and extremely negative Talmudic pronouncements on Africans. For example, in The Image of the Black in Jewish Culture, Abraham Melamed explains that while the Romans had a “climate theory” of race in which they “assumed that the inferior psycho-physical traits of the Blacks in the south and the Whites in the north arose from harsh geographical and climatic surroundings,” they also believed that “change and improvement are possible.” By contrast, Rabbinic teaching was much more deterministic and held that Blacks were “to suffer perpetual slavery forever.”[8]A. Meladmed, Image of the Black in Jewish Culture: A History of the Other (RoutledgeCurzon, 2001), 114.

The other ‘contradictions’ offered by Rubin and Žižek are equally flimsy. For example, history shows extremely few examples of anti-Jewish propaganda playing on a stereotype of a moronic Jew. Instead, it is an overwhelmingly universal theme that Jews are extremely adept at resource competition, and attaining economic, cultural and political dominance. While there is a sub-theme that the notion of ‘Jewish Genius’ does involve ethnic networking and exaggeration, there is little doubt that attempts to reckon with Jewish influence have been built primarily on the need to tackle the realities of Jewish intelligence as well as the organizational and strategic efforts arising from it. Nowhere does the “moronic Jew” make an appearance. Nor do opinions of Jews as being uniquely “artistic” feature in historical anti-Jewish writing. In fact, another universal theme and consensus of anti-Jewish thought is that Jews are devoid of genuine artistic talent, and in the past this was often linked to (as a cause or product of) the Jewish ban on creating ‘graven’ images. Wagner’s Das Judenthum in der Musik may be seen as a classic in this regard.

Contrary to Žižek’s assertion, Jews have also never really been portrayed as “the low class” or poor of society, outside of the brief period in the early twentieth century when the first masses of Jewish immigrants arrived in Western Europe and the United States from the former Russian Empire. This was very specific in terms of time and place, and even then it was frequently remarked by contemporaries that the economic ascent of Jewish migrants was nothing less than remarkable. Also, Žižek opposes being an intellectual to sexual predation, which appears to defy any logical consistency or progression. Is Žižek implying that intellectuals are less sexual? How does he square this with the lives of some of his intellectual heroes like Sartre and Lacan, both of whom were sexually predatory, with one (Sartre), like Freud “earthily” obsessed with defecation and excrement, and the other (Lacan) taking great joy in public farting and burping? Most importantly, does Žižek see any contradiction or absence of logic in the established facts that Jews are over-represented in both academia and the pornography industry? In the same sense, can Žižek actually point to any instance of anti-Semitic thought that posits Jews as both “lazy and workaholics”? Is it not the case, to borrow a brilliant self-description from the writer Cormac McCarthy, that Jews historically have “worked hard at not working,” which is to say that Jews have clustered in non-labor trades, particularly those related to the circulation of money, in which they have excelled as innovators in debt, and in other economic spheres that can only be categorized as exploitative?

These anti-Jewish position are all too consistent. However, out of conscious evasion, or unconscious self-deception, Jewish scholars and their Marxist partners persist in clinging to the idea that these ideas are somehow innately contradictory. For Žižek, as with Rubin and countless Jews, the ‘contradictions’ are real — and the product of a fractured psyche and the ‘anti-Semite’s’ own frustrated desires. Rubin once opined that “Since inner conflicts are very powerful and tend to be seen in an utterly self-hating light or in a purely idealizing one, polarization usually takes place. This polarization makes for the necessity of characteristics to project to in order to encompass the conflicting extremes.” In reality, these psuedo-scholars aren’t just barking up the wrong tree — they are barking up a tree that simply isn’t there.

III. The Jew as Fetish of Anti-Semitic Fascism

It is a matter of special irony that Marxists should present their own contradictions in relation to anti-Semitism and the supposed psychosocial aspects of the anti-Semite. While it is often argued that anti-Semitism is a contradictory, irrational, and pathological ideological proposition, it is equally argued by Marxists that it possesses a kind of logic, but is ultimately misguided or misdirected. This latter argument is the Marxist theory that anti-Semitism is a manipulation by the ruling classes and that “the Jew” is offered to exploited workers as a distraction or “fetish” to enable exploitation under capitalism to continue. Žižek is a very strong proponent of this theory.

In his 2009 lecture at the European Graduate School titled “Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and Jew,” Žižek suggests that anti-Semitism began when

features attributed to Jews expanded into the whole of society. Commodity exchange became hegemonic … . It all started, not in Ancient Rome, but in 11th-, 12th-century Europe, which was waking from the inertia of the so-called Dark Ages and experienced a fast growth of market exchange, and the role of money. At that precise point, the Jew emerged as the enemy, a parasitic intruder who disturbs the harmonious social edifice.

The dating of the origins of anti-Semitism from medieval Christendom, rather than the ancient world, is an overwhelmingly common feature of Jewish apologetics, a tactic that typically owes much of its development to the convenience of placing the blame for anti-Semitism on ascendant Christianity. The trend reached its apogee in the work of the late non-Jewish historian Gavin Langmuir (1924–2005), now remembered and celebrated by Jews and the psychoanalytically-inclined as a “worldwide authority on anti-Semitism.” Langmuir’s explanation of anti-Semitism participated in developing trends in the transformation of the study of historical anti-Jewish attitudes during the 1960s and 1970s. These decades witnessed a shift away from the study of ‘prejudiced’ individuals — as had been the case from the 1940s–50s with studies like the Authoritarian Personality — and towards the pathologizing of entire cultures and epochs. Condemnations of Western culture had certainly been strongly implied in the earlier decades, but works like Jules Isaac’s Has Anti-Semitism Roots in Christianity? (1961) and Alan Davies’ Anti-Semitism and the Christian Mind (1969), made this even more explicit. Langmuir benefited from riding the crest of this wave.

The new paradigm for psychological explanations of ‘prejudice’ was that whole groups, societies, and cultures (of course, only really the people and culture of the West) could have collective psychological processes like projection and narcissism. Psychoanalysis played a huge part in the development of this pseudo-historiography and, indeed, many of the works produced during this period were penned not by historians or social scientists but by avowed psychoanalysts like Avner Falk. Langmuir’s work mimicked Jewish productions by essentially absolving medieval Jewish populations of any responsibility in provoking negative reactions from their Christian host populations, and by ascribing to Christian/Western society a deep-seated psychological malfunction shot through with fantasy, repression, and sadism.

Despite his actually very limited expertise in medieval legal history, Langmuir saw fit to quickly make grand pronouncements on the nature and origins of anti-Jewish feeling across Europe and over the course of centuries. His works, often with pitifully thin evidence of wider reading, portrayed anti-Semitism as “a primarily Western phenomenon.”[9]G. Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 15. He arrogantly claimed to have been able to “define Christianity and categorize its manifestations, including Catholicism, objectively.”[10]Ibid, 13.
(G. Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 15.)
He bluntly confessed in his books that “I shall not discuss pagan attitudes to Jews in antiquity.”[11]Ibid, 275.
(G. Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 15.)
He dismissively described attempts to come to rational, interest-based, theories of inter-group conflict between Jews and non-Jews as “misguided pseudoscientific efforts of racial theorists,” and even argued that attempts to come to “common sense” explanations of anti-Semitism would prove “disastrous.”[12]Ibid, 19 &67.
(G. Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 15.)
Anti-Semitism was instead “both in its origin and in its recent most horrible manifestation … the hostility aroused by irrational thinking about Jews.”[13]Ibid, 275.
(G. Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 15.)
Above all, Langmuir seems to have dated his discussion of the origins of anti-Semitism to the medieval period because, by his own admission, “I am respectably knowledgeable only about the history of the West since the fall of the Roman Empire and am most at home in the Middle Ages.”[14]Ibid, 15.
(G. Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 15.)
This can hardly be considered an optimal foundation for Langmuir’s later sweeping theories, and his work, and that of a series of Jewish psychosocial theorists like Norman Cohn and Joshua Trachtenberg, has since been savaged with some intensity in the work of Hannah Johnson, a Princeton-educated medievalist from England, especially her Blood Libel: The Ritual Murder Accusation at the Limit of Jewish History (2012).

What Žižek accomplishes with his own theory is the semi-plagiarizing of existing psychosocial theories like those of Langmuir, merely substituting ascendant Christianity with ascendant Capital and leaving the rest of the interpretive framework intact. Žižek’s theory has the same starting point, the same pathologizing features, the same oversimplifications, and the same minimizing or denial of antagonistic Jewish behavior.

If one wanted to make any concession to the idea that something novel occurred in the relationship between Jews and Europeans in the eleventh century, it is because the Jewish population, rather than Capital, radically expanded and extended in the period.[15]See P. Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), 205. In other words, “the Jew emerged as the enemy” in Western Europe simply because “the Jew emerged” in Western Europe, and enmity was the product of the behavioral features attending that emergence.

The problematic aspect of Žižek’s dating remains, however, that Western European anti-Semitism, if it has any unique characteristics, originated in the tenth century with the forming of Jewish-elite relationships under the Carolingians and the pursuance of an anti-Jewish strategy by Agobard, the Spanish archbishop of Lyon. It is interesting that Žižek does not specify which events or personalities he sees as commencing “it all.” Nor does he explain whether such events, anti-Jewish riots for example, followed a pattern of intensification of putative capitalist crises, such as famines, shortages, or warfare. In this regard, it is interesting that the Carolingian period has been described by historians not as one of capitalist expansion but as something approaching “complete economic and social retrogression.”[16]R. H. Hilton and C. Hill, “The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,” Science & Society, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Fall, 1953), 340-351. So then, does anti-Semitism follow economic expansion or retrogression? Does it follow prosperity and competition for surplus, or economic decline and famine? If it is the expression of the frustrations of exploited workers under capitalism, why has it spiked in such disparate times as the liberation of the serfs and decadent Weimar of the roaring 1920s? Žižek doesn’t have any answers because he doesn’t even pose such questions.

In the course of his European Graduate School lecture, Žižek comments that “the real mystery of anti-Semitism is why it is a constant. Why does it persist through all historical mutations?” What Žižek fails to add is that it has also persisted through all economic contexts, including Communism, rendering any Marxist interpretation of the phenomenon utterly redundant. This doesn’t prevent Žižek from musing:

[Anti-Semitism] concerns the false identification of the antagonism of the enemy. As we all know, class struggle, or another social antagonism, is displaced onto the struggle against the Jews, so that the popular rage at being exploited is redirected from capitalist relations as such to the Jewish plot. … When the anti-Semite says that “the Jews are the cause of our misery,” he really means Big Capital is the cause of our misery. Workers have a right to be furious at their exploitation, they just direct it at the wrong target. … Jew is the fetish of anti-Semitic fascists. … Anti-Semitism is just a manipulation by the ruling class, so that they are free to exploit [workers].

This proposition is deeply problematic, due mainly to the assumptions underlying the argument. Foremost among these problematic assumptions is the implication that the vast majority anti-Semites (those making complaints about Jewish behavior or influence) would be blindly uncritical of Big Capital, and that Big Capital and the establishment ruling class is not significantly Jewish. Otherwise, anti-Semitism would be a very poor and

counter-productive manipulation indeed. Together with these problematic assumptions, one should also consider Žižek’s proposition to give insufficient consideration to the unquestionably special relationship Jews have enjoyed with capitalism, especially its more exploitative rather than organic aspects (for example, high-interest moneylending as opposed to the basic principle of private property). These problems should be considered individually.

IV. Anti-Semitic Critiques of Capitalism

The assertion that anti-Semites would be blindly uncritical of Big Capital, or for that matter the excesses of any financial systems, is quite contrary to the historical record. Prior to Marx and Engels, there were instances of true, authentic, even quasi-ethnic or ‘national’ “socialisms” where complaints about Jewish behavior were common. An excellent example is William Cobbett (1763–1835), a British farm laborer, gardener, clerk, soldier, journalist, and politician. Cobbett opposed the Corn Laws, legislation imposed between 1815 and 1846 which essentially blocked cheap food imports from abroad, artificially maintaining high domestic food prices. Cobbett blamed Britain’s increasingly aloof and selfish aristocracy as well as its mercantilist culture—built on the development of debt finance—for the decline in the fortunes of the English working class as well as the starvation of the Irish. His Political Register newspaper is often credited with the invention of popular radical journalism, and was the main newspaper read by the working class. His bitter opposition to the British aristocracy led the government to consider arresting him for sedition in 1817—rumors of which caused Cobbett to flee to the United States, where he remained until matters settled somewhat two years later. When he returned, he paved the way for the 1832 Reform Act, which expanded the British franchise and paved the way for the expansion of democracy within the British Isles.

Cobbett was also profoundly oppositional to Jews. He was simultaneously one of the greatest champions of Catholic political emancipation and one of the fiercest and most relentless opponents of Jewish political emancipation. He pointed to the detachment of Jews from the masses, rejecting the idea that Jews should have a say in government unless someone could “produce a Jew who ever dug, or who ever made his own coat or his own shoes, or who did anything at all, except get all the money he could from the pockets of the people.”[17]A. Julius, Trials of the Diaspora, 401. Instead, argued Cobbett, Jews “did not merit any immunities, any privileges, any possessions in house, land, or water, any civil or political rights. … They should everywhere be deemed aliens and always at the absolute disposal of the sovereign power of the state, as completely as any inanimate substance.” He frequently praised the expulsion of Jews from England under Edward I. Jewish academic activist Anthony Julius quotes Cobbett as having argued that Jews “damaged France and killed Poland,” and that Jews are a people “living in all the filthiness of usury and increase…extortioners by habit and almost by instinct. Julius laments that Cobbett’s “anti-Semitism exercised a certain diffuse influence on radicals in the early nineteenth century, if only at the level of vocabulary. … Cobbett enjoyed an immense popularity during his lifetime, and has a substantial posthumous reputation.” In 1830 he published Good Friday: or the Murder of Jesus Christ by the Jews, where he wrote:

[Jews are] everywhere are on the side of oppression, assisting tyranny in its fiscal extortions; and everywhere they are bitter foes of those popular rights and liberties. … It is amongst masses of debt and misery that they thrive, as birds and beast of prey get fat in times of pestilence. … This race appear always to have been instruments in the hands of tyrants for plundering their subjects; they were the farmers of the cruel taxes; they lent a support to despotism, which it could not otherwise obtain.

In Paper Against Gold (1812), Cobbett expressed the belief that the concepts of paper money and the national debt were basically Jewish “tricks and connivances,” endorsed by an aristocracy grown greedy and toothless. Initially a loyalist, Cobbett later came to the opinion that while the concept of aristocracy was not altogether bad or illegitimate, the British aristocracy had betrayed and exploited the people it was supposed to lead. That the aristocracy had given itself over to Jewish thought, through ties of blood and finance, was hinted most strongly in the Political Register of December 6 1817:

Let us, when they have the insolence to call us the ‘lower orders,’ prepare ourselves with useful knowledge, and let these insolent wretches marry amongst one another, ‘till, like the Jews, they have all one and the same face, one and the same pair of eyes, and one and the same nose. Let them, if they can, prevent their footmen from bettering their blood and from reinforcing the limbs of their rickety race; and let us prepare for the day of their overthrow. They have challenged us to the combat. They have declared war against us.

Cobbett’s views on finance capital and the ruling class can only be regarded as fiercely oppositional, and the same holds for such “infamous anti-Semites” as Wilhelm Marr, Adolf Stoecker, Georg Ritter von Schonerer, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Alphonse Toussene l, all of whom combined a radical critique of Big Capital with opposition to the specific role of Jews in finance, culture, politics, and society. In fact, many of these figures articulated specific reasons as to why a separate and distinct critique of “Semitism” was required. A key feature of nineteenth century socialism was a strong anti-Semitism that rejected Jewish-Marxist claims to being part of “the people,” and many anti-Jewish socialists portrayed such claims as opportunistic and cryptic strategies to secure power anew under the new form of government. One of the most memorable statements of the era in this regard is the French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s remark that far from being genuine, Karl Marx was “the tapeworm of socialism.” Proudhon (1809–1865), seen by many as the father of anarchism, regarded apparently socialist Jewish “allies” like Heinrich Heine as “nothing but secret spies” whose hidden agenda was merely to secure the continuation of age-old Jewish privileges and protections under the guise of a putative social justice. In light of the historical trajectory of anti-Jewish critique and the biographies of its major proponents, Žižek’s assertion that anti-Semitism is merely a “fetish” that obstructs criticism of capitalism is simply unsustainable.

V. Jews, Big Capital, and the Ruling Class

Equally unsustainable is the implication that Big Capital and the establishment ruling class is not, and has not been, significantly Jewish over historical time. Žižek simplifies and caricatures the Middle Ages as a time when “the Jew emerged as the enemy, a parasitic intruder who disturbs the harmonious social edifice.” Žižek obviously employs the term “harmonious social edifice” with skepticism and disdain, seeing the pre-existing order (that before the arrival of the Jews) as fraught with exploitation, tensions, and contradictions. In Žižek’s framework then, Jews may be a chaotic capitalist force that enters Europe, but this was a Europe already experiencing chaotic capitalist forces, and therefore it would be irrational to blame Jews for anything arising from their emergence and expansion in Europe. What needs to be distinguished here is the distinction between what might be termed the organic development of finance in Europe,[18]For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown, Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973). and the exorbitant and often extremely negative developments ushered in by the arrival of the Jews and their subsequent special relationship with European elites and with capitalism itself.

The organic development of finance and class divisions in Europe is demonstrated in the evolution of feudalism as a result of the adoption of heavy cavalry by the Franks in the eighth century, with other, non-military, aspects of continental feudalism arising as the inevitable social repercussions of this change in military organization.[19]Ibid.
(For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown, Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973).)
Since knights needed money, horses, servants, attendants, and freedom from all other non-military occupations, like tilling the soil, knighthood gradually became an upper-class affair. Increasing technological sophistication then made mounted warfare more and more expensive and caused knights to become more sharply distinguished from the ordinary peasant. It also caused free peasants to become less and less valuable as soldiers, and they therefore declined towards mere servitude. It was, therefore, in a sense inevitable that the new class of knights should become a landed aristocracy, and its members were thus in a sense destined to low-level jurisdiction of a semi-agricultural kind over their peasants. This situation really was, in a sense, a “harmonious social edifice” to the extent that it followed a clear logic and permitted these communities and their territories to be competitive in a rapidly changing military and geopolitical context. The ruling classes were obliged to adopt paternalistic practices in relation to the peasantry, and outright exploitation was rare since it could be dangerous and counterproductive in that it could provoke a mass uprising and thus damage militarily-valuable social cohesion. The social edifice was thus indeed “harmonious” in the sense that it was coordinated and balanced, and was generally beneficial to the organic national community.

The arrival of Jews in Europe undoubtedly created an imbalance in these class relations, and between the ruling class and the lower orders. Evidence of this imbalance in medieval Europe can be obtained both from surviving documentation and artefacts, and from analogous modern situations such as the the Great Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, during which Jewish intrusion into the existing quasi-feudal social arrangement ended in widespread rebellion and societal collapse due to the specific excesses of Jewish exploitation. The arrival of the Jews in Western Europe as a financial and geopolitical power can be dated to their ascent under the Carolingians in the ninth century, and possibly earlier in the Narbonne where they were noted as an extraordinarily wealthy class. In this development, the birth of formal, symbiotic relationships between Jews and self-interested European elites, we see a crucial fissure in European class relations. Jewish financiers entered into the harmonious social edifice as privileged and protected outsiders whose sole purpose was to accelerate and distort resource transfer between European classes, rendering internal class division less about communal efficiency than about personal gain. In this system, paternalism gave way to such situations as the permitted Jewish trade in Christian slaves (a key reason for the agitations for Agobard of Lyons) and widespread exploitative tax farming.

One of the great modern myths, a stroke of Jewish revisionist genius, is that Jews were forced into such practices by restrictive laws on the ownership of land, and certain other local contexts. This is historicist relativism at its most bankrupt and, thankfully, modern scholarship is slowly eroding such misrepresentations and outright falsehoods. Take, for example, the most recent edition of The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion, which states the “remarkable” fact that Jews

whether in Narbonne in 899 or Gironne in 922, in Trier in 919 or Worms in 1090, in Barcelona in 1053 or Toledo in 1222, or in early medieval England, were permitted to acquire and own land if they wished. Not only were Jews legally permitted to own land, they could acquire significant amounts (especially in Italy, southern Spain, southern and east-central France, and Germany); possessed fields, gardens, and vineyards; and owned, transferred, and mortgaged land holdings. They preferred to hire tenants, sharecroppers, and wage laborers to work their lands. For themselves, they chose the most skilled and profitable occupations, foremost money lending.[20]R. M. McCleary (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 68.

Essentially then, we see the immediate and deliberate entrance of the Jews into European society at the level of knight, if not higher, but without any of the logic or benefits of the position of knight within the organic social edifice. The Jew in this new social order existed for no logical reason other than the personal enrichment of certain elites and the communal enrichment of the Jews themselves. This may be regarded as the first perversion of capitalism and the first true exploitation (excessive or unfair use of workers with no reason other than greed) of the serving class within this system.

Again, dispensing with historicist relativism, we can demonstrate the pattern of Jewish disruptive behaviors within capitalism with reference to analogous modern conditions. For example, the arenda system of late nineteenth- and early twentieth century-eastern Europe (especially Poland, Ukraine, and Romania) was remarkably similar to the feudal system of medieval Western Europe. The arenda system can be regarded as broadly harmonious until the mass influx of Jewish arendasi during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which saw the Jews increasingly operate as tax farmers, property agents, customs agents, and loan merchants. Jewish monopoly in these roles prompted both the rapid commercialization of land and the expansion of Big Capital, both of which were intended by Jews to exclusively benefit their in-group. Since the existence of entire Jewish communities depended on exploitative capitalism, Jews fiercely contended for monopolies in key areas. For example, The Va’ad Medinat Lita (Lithuanian Jewish Council) twice passed a resolution supporting the lease of customs and taxes by Jews, stating: “We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is a pivot on which everything (in commerce) turns, since thereby Jews may exert control.”

Crucially, high Jewish position in the social hierarchy was not accompanied by paternalism of any kind. In fact, Jews are notable throughout history for their incredibly hostile and exploitative behaviors towards non-elite Europeans. Philip Eidelberg, a historian of the Great Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, describes how Jewish arendasi “exploited the estates more ruthlessly than the native Rumanian arendasi.” He continues by explaining that Jews were not interested in the long-term prosperity of estates or their workers, and often hiked rents to breaking point “even at the risk of eventually exhausting the available land and inventory.”[21]P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie (), 39. In Rumania, Jews enjoyed monopolies, with Eidelberg demonstrating that Jewish bankers would decline to grant capital to any non-Jew wanting to enter this form of finance.[22]Ibid, 120.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie (), 39.)
Thus, the Jews competed for profit solely with each other, ever-increasing the chokehold on their European peasantries. Eidelberg writes that “the result was a bidding spiral in which the peasant was the loser. In fact, it was just such a competition between the two greatest Jewish arendas families—the Fischers and the Justers—which was to help spark the 1907 revolt.”[23]Ibid, 39.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie (), 39.)

Jews, of course, continue to occupy conspicuous roles in the worst and most exploitative aspects of capitalism. Jews have also continued to acquire land for exploitative purposes, the most interesting example being the Argentinian activities of the British Jewish oligarch Joe Lewis, a tax avoider and currency speculator who made his billions alongside George Soros when both gambled on the British pound sterling crashing out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. As one commentator explains, “Soros’ and Lewis’ bet against the pound actually led to the pound crashing, after Soros ordered his hedge fund to “go for the jugular” and aggressively trade against the currency, thereby prompting its sharp devaluation. Though Soros is often called “the man who broke the Bank of England” as a result of the $1 billion in profits he made on that fateful day, Lewis is said to have made an even larger profit than Soros.” While these Jews made billions, the British public suffered a rapid economic recession. Lewis didn’t mind. He repeated the experiment in Mexico, causing the Mexican peso crisis, which “led to a massive jump in poverty, unemployment and inequality in Mexico and left its government beholden to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through a loan package arranged by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton.”

Growing extravagantly rich from parasitic currency speculation, Jewish oligarchs Soros and Lewis, together with co-ethnic Big Capitalists Eduardo Elsztain and Marcelo Mindlin, started buying massive tracts of Argentine real estate, particularly in Patagonia, where they pooled resources to take over local banks, the regional water supply, oil and gas wealth, and the area’s largest energy supplier. Lewis then set about buying tens of thousands of hectares, declaring his wish to create “his own state in Patagonia.” Some locals were willing to sell their land. One, Irineo Montero, had refused, and he, along with his wife María Ortiz and their employee José Matamala, were all found dead under mysterious circumstances. Lewis’ land consolidation was then made complete, and paved the way for a Zionist enclave that has exploited locals so thoroughly that there have been regular massive demonstrations (“March for Sovereignty) against this new Jewish ruling class, attracting 80 percent of the local population. According to the research of former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan, Lewis is much more amenable to his fellow Jews, and has been inviting thousands of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers to his territory annually. In late 2017, former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan alleged: “Since the Falklands War, the Israeli army has been organizing ‘holiday camps’ in Patagonia for its soldiers. Between 8,000 and 10,000 of them now come every year to spend two weeks on Joe Lewis’ land.”

What we see here is just a very modern example of the millennia-old Jewish pattern of establishing full-scale operations for extracting a nation’s riches and exploiting its people. We must earnestly ask of Slavoj Žižek: Has Big Capital and the establishment ruling class not been, and does it not remain, significantly Jewish?

VI. Žižek on Kevin MacDonald

A possible explanation for Žižek’s ignorance in relation to anti-Semitism, aside from blind ideological fanaticism, is an extreme lack of serious reading in the subject, a habit he shares with the late Jean-Paul Sartre and Marxist intellectuals more generally. It is interesting in this regard to look briefly at Žižek’s treatment of the work of Kevin MacDonald. In 2014, Žižek published a piece during which he mentions Kevin MacDonald as a “proponent of a new barbarism” before snidely adding, in relation to the Culture of Critique, “the only thing to bear in mind is that this new barbarism is a strictly post-modern phenomenon, the obverse of the highly reflexive self-ironical attitude—no wonder that, reading authors like MacDonald, one often cannot decide if one is reading a satire or a “serious” line of argumentation.” In other words, he has no substantive argument. However, as later covered by Newsweek, Inside HigherEd, and a number of other mainstream news organizations, it became apparent that Žižek had not only failed to read Kevin MacDonald’s work, but had merely plagiarized a summary of Culture of Critique from a review that appeared in American Renaissance. Žižek’s plagiarism had apparently first aroused suspicions when Steve Sailer, in a piece for The Unz Review, pointed out that [Žižek], “achieves a higher degree of clarity while expounding MacDonald’s message than in any other passage I’ve read by [him].” It was left to an anonymous blogger to then discover that this unusually high degree of clarity was due to Žižek copying, almost verbatim, a review of MacDonald’s book by Stanley Hornbeck that appeared in the March 1999 issue of The American Renaissance. Confronted with evidence, Žižek then offered a weak apology before conceding that he hadn’t read Kevin MacDonald’s work, and that the inclusion of MacDonald in his essay arose when “a friend told me about Kevin MacDonald’s theories, and I asked him to send me a brief résumé.” And so, on the basis of some comments from a friend, and a brief résumé Slavoj Žižek, supposedly a superstar academic, saw fit to pronounce Kevin MacDonald, a tenured college professor and author of a number of extremely well-referenced texts on Jews and their history, as “a proponent of a new barbarism.” Žižek is right that there is satire here, but it’s not where he suggests.

VII. Conclusion: Is anti-Semitism an “ideology”?

As Slavoj Žižek should well know, Marx and Engels famously described ideology as arising from the superstructure of society (the ruling social ideas, which are themselves the product of the ruling class). It should be obvious by now that anti-Semitism could scarcely be regarded today as part of the superstructure, since no intellectuals of the ruling class advance anti-Semitic ideas of any kind. This includes both Slavoj Žižek and Jordan Peterson, ostensibly figures who are ideologically diametric opposites in political and economic outlook, who are almost identical in their position in relation to Jews and anti-Semitism. In fact, anti-Semitism may be regarded, almost uniquely, as something that remains outside the superstructure, advanced by organic intellectuals and activists who are themselves the last vestiges of an organic form of society that has been subjected to many centuries of distortion and exploitation. As such, anti-Semitism today, as in the past, remains the most radical, coherent, and dangerous critique of the prevailing social order. It is the last, and only, truly revolutionary idea of our time.

If there is anything of use in the ideas of Slavoj Žižek, perhaps, ironically, it can be found in the analogy of the suspicious husband. Casting my mind back to the cuckolded Leninite, I recall thinking: “That which we do not lay exclusive claim to, we are surely already on our way to losing.” The pathetic figure that sat across from me didn’t lose his wife when she went to Norway — he lost her the moment he renounced his interests and left open a door that, ultimately, she would walk through. We must jealously protect our interests, our families, and our land. Against competitors. Against exploiters. Against Jews. What we have, we hold.

Notes

[1] It’s particularly worrying that Žižek here essentially makes an argument for “truth is no defense,” a principle that is now in place in Canadian and UK hate speech legislation.

[2] D. Penslar (ed) Contemporary Anti-Semitism: Canada and the World (University of Toronto Press, 2005), 3.

[3] J. Herf (ed) Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence (Routledge, 2007), 11.

[4] K. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1st Books, 2002), 449 (endnote 120).

[5] MacDonald, 449.

[6] Ibid.

[7] H. Diner, In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935 (The John Hopkins University Press, 1995), 123.

[8] A. Meladmed, Image of the Black in Jewish Culture: A History of the Other (RoutledgeCurzon, 2001), 114.

[9] G. Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 15.

[10] Ibid, 13.

[11] Ibid, 275.

[12] Ibid, 19 &67.

[13] Ibid, 275.

[14] Ibid, 15.

[15] See P. Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), 205.

[16] R. H. Hilton and C. Hill, “The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,” Science & Society, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Fall, 1953), 340-351.

[17] A. Julius, Trials of the Diaspora, 401.

[18] For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown, Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973).

[19] Ibid.

[20] R. M. McCleary (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 68.

[21] P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie (), 39.

[22] Ibid, 120.

[23] Ibid, 39.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Jews, Slavoj Zizek 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Scotto says:

    Zizek: a perfect example of what happens when one has too much Hegel on the brain(HOTB)

    • Agree: Parsnipitous
    • Replies: @Richard B
    , @Vojkan
  2. Kevin MacDonald is very logical and consistent in his work, whereas, Slavoj merely spews forth random nonsense.

  3. @Bruce Arney

    Yes, but like Jordan Peterson, his nonsense is spewed in defence of the tribe. Hence, he is feted and given ample speaking opportunities, while Kevin MacDonald is shunned.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    , @Richard B
  4. To better understand the Jew read “FROM YAWEH TO ZION” by Laurent Guyenot. ’nuff said

    • Replies: @Fayez chergui
  5. Another ringer from Andrew Joyce! We are so lucky to have him. He is helping us all to recover our collective racial memory (as Jung might call it) as White Gentiles.

    In April 2019, Žižek and Jordan Peterson sold out the Sony Centre in Toronto for their debate titled “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism” …

    And who, pray tell, was invited to defend the honor of National Socialism? 😀

    In a 2009 lecture at the European Graduate School titled “Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and Jew,” Žižek argued that anti-Semitism places Jews in “impossible Otherness” …

    Judaism places Jews in “impossible Otherness.” Their bizarre ‘chosenness’ is the root of their collective pathology. (Notice how all their theories concerning our supposed ethno-centrism are just so much projection!)

    It is a matter of special irony that Marxists should present their own contradictions in relation to anti-Semitism and the supposed psychosocial aspects of the anti-Semite.

    Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx’s own scathing treatment of the Jews in Zur Judenfrage? Here’s a well-known passage:

    “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew … but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.[…] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. […] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

    Pretty frickin’ harsh, eh! I guess if old Karl were still around to hear the pathetic maunderings of post-modern Communists like Žižek, he would just shake his head and say, ‘I am not a Marxist.’

    According to the research of former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan …

    That’s interesting, Dr. Joyce. I’ve been following him over at Voltaire-net on and off for nearly a decade, and I had no idea that Meyssan had been an intelligence officer. Neither Wikipedia nor Infogalatic ever mention it. Good to know …

  6. SchlaovojZhizjek? Haxo cannot spell or pronounce

    this useless pointyhead’s name. But

    as a “Marxist” he is by definition

    a shabbatz goy. As to “Jacques Lacan”,

    I remember him: he

    played goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs

    some years ago. Right?

    he didn’t?

    whatever.

  7. I wrote about Zizek

    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/slavoj-zizek-and-freedom-flotilla/

    Slavoj Zizek went “full Monty” during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the invitation of some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but instead he informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending Palestinians. The Slovenian philosopher spoke kindly of the swindler Bernie Madoff, who was “a scapegoat who was easy to blame, when in fact the real problem is the system that allowed and even pushed Madoff to commit his crimes.” Indeed, it must have been ‘the system’ that pushed poor Mr. Madoff into crime, just as it was ‘the system’ that pushed Shylock to enter into money-lending and Jack the Ripper into the business of carving.

  8. I alway thought this guy was a charlatan or a fake of some sort sailing on his Asperger syndrome. He makes absolutely no sense when he talks. His philo semitism probably explains his success. I think Peterson is just as fake.

  9. Sam J. says:

    “…Rubin wrote that all anti-Semites see Jews as both:

    Moronic, brilliant.
    All-powerful, weakling.
    Cosmopolitan, provincial.
    Cunning, naïve.
    Extraordinarily sensitive, calloused.
    “Nigger-lovers,” “worst bigots.”
    Richest, poorest.
    Artistic, tasteless.
    Money-lovers, intellectual snobs.
    Socially pushy, exclusively clannish.
    …”

    Some of the above are correct but there’s a much more succinct and accurate description. There’s one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There’s a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud “great enlightenment” basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they’re Jews and their lives don’t matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    Even if I’m wrong thousands of years of history show a bunch of Jews moving into your territory in in no way distinguishable from a tribe of psychopaths moving into your country

    They’ve been thrown out of every single country that they’ve been to in any numbers.

    COMPLETE LIST OF JEWISH EXPULSIONS (1,030)

    https://archive.is/8Uvx5

    Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don’t have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    Even if it’s wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew’s behavior will make sense.

    In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity”. Here’s a chapter you should read. It’s about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he’s able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. “They’re pulling a Stanley”. The whole book is on the web and worth reading.

    http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley.pdf

    or

    http://docplayer.net/21248949-Young-man-induces-five-teen-age-girls-to-shave-their-heads.html#tab_1_1_2

    Here’s another link but the graphics are a bit odd.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    “…In the course of his European Graduate School lecture, Žižek comments that “the real mystery of anti-Semitism is why it is a constant…”

    This is not a mystery at all. NO ONE can stand psychopaths over the long term. They’re fucked up. You even hear Jews leaving Israel because the culture is so fucked up. Even psychopaths don’t want to live with psychopaths.

    The only know recipe to living with psychopaths recommended by psychiatrist is…don’t live with them at all. The sooner we realize that the Jews are a damaged, evil, twisted tribe of psychopaths and there’s no reasoning, dealing, co-opting or living with them the better we will be. The only 100%. guaranteed, tried and true, tested with 100% satisfaction of dealing with the Jews is to get rid of them. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means necessary get them away from you and leave them no control of any sort over your country or any other aspect of your and your countrymen’s lives.

    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @annamaria
  10. @israel shamir

    the real problem is the system that allowed and even pushed Madoff to commit his crimes

    The slovenly Slovene succinctly summarizes Marxism.

  11. Žižek copying, almost verbatim, a review of MacDonald’s book by Stanley Hornbeck that appeared in the March 1999 issue of The American Renaissance.

    What a damning indictment of American Renaissance!

    Slavoj Zizek, the uttermost dregs of human intellectual depravity, agrees so utterly with an Amren article he feels comfortable copying it word for word as it it were his own!

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    , @Irish Savant
  12. @Digital Samizdat

    Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx’s own scathing treatment of the Jews in “Zur Judenfrage”?

    This “well-known (pretty frickin’ harsh) passage” is permanently cited by anti-marxists to denunciate “Karl” as “antisemite” and with the intention to subsequently ignore his analysis of capital (for being founded in his “antisemitism”).
    By the way, it is not necessary to imagine “old Karl” to be “still around” or “to turn in his grave” to enlighten us with the word “I am not a Marxist”. If we can trust in the words of Engels he said it in reality: “What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist” (a remark cited by Engels in his letter to Bernstein of 2-3 November 1882).

  13. Yeah….they are a horrible people…to be sure……and they’ve cucked the entire western world.

    Thomm is a low IQ degenerate, but he’s right about one thing…..it truly is astonishing that such a small group could engineer so much destruction.

  14. JoannF says:

    Philosophy is, as an attempt to explain the universe, a verbal pastime limited in its logical perimeter by our hardwired grammar, that most living humans don’t even have the capacity to take part in. They can only listen.

    Of those who take part, many are consumed and motivated by the desire to confuse rather than enlighten, in an attempt to dominate or defuse other people’s competitiveness or standing.
    This covers with the desires of the Chosen.
    In Zizek’s (and Peterson’s) case, it’s the job and the life style of a clown, or a jester.

    The interesting thing is that the method seems to be quitw able to destabilize human evolution, even turn it on its back in ways that can satisfy the limited logic and understanding of those who take part in the philosophical game, who may die out with glee, having gained immeasurable status within a no longer existent, no longer competitive community.

    Is the answer to the Fermi Paradox metaphysical ?

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  15. Svevlad says:

    Maan, just ignore them. They thrive off attention. Burn the books and execute hardcore believers to contain the mind virus and the job is done

  16. @Fidelpoludo

    By the way, it is not necessary to imagine “old Karl” to be “still around” or “to turn in his grave” to enlighten us with the word “I am not a Marxist”. If we can trust in the words of Engels he said it in reality: “What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist” (a remark cited by Engels in his letter to Bernstein of 2-3 November 1882).

    Yeah, I know. I was trying to make a joke referring to that famous incident, but I guess I flubbed it. 🙁

  17. …the Romans had a “climate theory” of race in which they “assumed that the inferior psycho-physical traits of the Blacks in the south and the Whites in the north arose from harsh geographical and climatic surroundings,” they also believed that “change and improvement are possible.” By contrast, Rabbinic teaching was much more deterministic and held that Blacks were “to suffer perpetual slavery forever.”

    The Romans were PC, and the Jews race-realist? No wonder one survived, and the other didn’t.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
    , @DaveE
  18. @israel shamir

    Sorry, but I suspect Zizek is a Trump fan and an anti-Semite. He made some comments that did too good a job explaining why people are drawn to Trump or anti-Semitism and now he’s furiously back-pedaling. He inhabits a milieu where the slightest whiff of anti-Semitism will kill your career and cash-flow, which in his case must be considerable.

    In any case, as a philosopher he is a nothing-burger, like most of these Post-Modern clowns.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
  19. neutral says:

    Regarding this whole “jews are both for communism and capitalism, and thus anti semites are full of contradictory nonsense”, one needs to point the obvious fact that these jewish inventions are meant for consumption for the gentiles and not the jews.

    Some will think that Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are polar opposites, but this is not true, both preached a universal ideology, and both would not think it is problem at the same time that jews are immune from this ideology (because Marx would no doubt support Israel if it existed at his time).

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  20. A car-wreck of logic indeed. What absolute rubbish Zizek comes up with. JM Keynes observed that economics exists only to give astrology a good name. Judging by today’s ‘philosophers’ the same could be said about them.

  21. @Bruce Arney

    Yes but he spews the right kind of nonsense. Hence his rock-star status.

  22. @jbwilson24

    Dr. MacDonald has his own contradictions. For instance, he is courageous yet he is still free and alive. Given the nature of his courage, the remaining two qualities are no mean feat.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Amerimutt Golems
  23. @John Gruskos

    What a damning indictment of American Renaissance!

    Think of White Identity. Then take away courage and integrity. Now you have “American Renaissance”.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  24. padre says:

    Frankly, I can not understand why western world is so obsessed with Jews!They don’t mean a thing to the larger part of the world!

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  25. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:

    a little off topic but i have been thinking that all our problems are rooted in the middle class sindrome .

    if you think about it is the middle class that eat all the jewish propoganda and are the easiest to manipulate while the working class even if we arent as smart we understand things instintively and the real danger behind the scenes,the middle class lose itslef in the relativistic worldview .

    and this can applied to the europeans countries too germanic countries are smart enought to see throw the lies and organize a rational ideological resitance,mediterranean countries like spain or italy in the other hand instintively fell the danger and stay loyal to their simplistic and traditional ways to organice a succesfull defense ,the problem are the countries like france or britain(the middle class of western europe) that try to open a new way that are not capable of understanding or controling and end up devoured by those forces.

    • Replies: @anon
  26. @Bruce Arney

    He is the turd released to poison the pond.

  27. Ziizek: a fat, ugly, drunken Balkan slob paid by Jewish intellectual ‘elites’ to babble and enthrall mindless npc leftists.
    Pathetic.

    • Agree: Irish Savant, annamaria
  28. Anon[120] • Disclaimer says:

    I am a big boy. I read all the words. You teach me up good. Thank-you, Dr. Joyce.

    • LOL: TKK
  29. anon[138] • Disclaimer says:
    @israel shamir

    It’s the system that has allowed Slavoj Zizek to showcase his theory . System works with usual laziness who knows who and not what .

    If Maddoff were a victim may be Epstein was , then so were Hitler and Polpot
    System around them allowed them to reach mass appeal and inflict severe damages .
    Abusing system is not self-victimization . Prince Andrew did not hurt self .

    It’s the system one works to prevent undesirable products . We undermine the system .

    When you side with proponents of right for Palestinian or the victims of usury banking , financialization or against penchant for military budget or eternal war you bring normal perspective , you restore balance between cause and effect and you remove artificial false intellectual reasoning g like existence of antisemitism or American responsibility or America being the beacon to humanity or America being a mystic abstract concept of higher values .
    Allowing and worshipping these kinds of ideas
    we make inroads by the parasites possible

    Abstract concept is easy target for corruption distortion emotional manipulation .

    Antisemitidm should be described and that description should be applied to other anti -ism ( anti black anti Arab anti Iran anti Chinese anti Vietnamese anti Russian etc ) epidemiological survey should be conducted along those detailed descriptive points not like -the way ADL puts out questionnaires .

    It is time for Slavoj Zizek. to go to a library and get hold of the books by Herzl just to get started .

    • Replies: @Wally
  30. anon[138] • Disclaimer says:
    @HammerJack

    He was visited by certain hostile agents .

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  31. @jack daniels

    Žižek is a clown. I have only ever heard him speak. Does he slobber when he talks?

  32. Truth3 says:

    It’s simpler than all that.

    Good people hate evil. Jews are evil. Ergo… Good people hate Jews.

    Therefor… Antisemitism is a requisite for being Good.

    The End.

  33. Pheasant says:
    @anon

    Who?

    I thought they tried to get rid of his tenure and then when they could not they made him retire early?

  34. @padre

    They mean a lot to the Western world (they have ruined it) and via the Western world which they control they mean a lot to the rest of the world too. So “obsession with Jews” is wholly justified.

  35. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    masonry is clear example of this they tricked british and french people that let jews play an important paper in the ideological foundation ,germans understanding the danger but recon¡gnizing that the ilustration was the way of the future adapted his own version of masonry with greek symbols and pure european myths and of course mantaining jews out of the inner circle of power more or less like in scandinavia .
    spanish people simply banned the masonry .

    its curious how italian and iberians and their colonies were able to crush any jewish resistance and asimilate the rest of them in the new world even if they arent the smartest europeans .

    i think we need a fusion of german and latin character to face this new era

  36. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    There’s around 200 nations in the world and if I may be so bold–since this is going against the Cultural Marxists agenda that race is a social construct–4 main races that contain around 30 subgroups.
    In other words, lots of stories to pick from for the MSM.

    Yet, day after day after day, we usually only hear about ONE nation and ONE race, Israel and the Jews.
    It’s gotten all so tiresome to have these human peacocks constantly parading around, demanding that us Goyim worship them or else.
    And if we fail–in their minds–to show them the proper adoration, we get accused of anti-Semitism.

    Does this insanity ever stop?

    • Agree: Irish Savant
    • Replies: @TKK
  37. @HammerJack

    Andrew Joyce’s work would never appear in American Renaissance. Taylor and his cohorts prevent any criticism of Jewish involvement in White dispossession.

  38. anon[138] • Disclaimer says:

    https://medium.com/@rosselson/theodor-herzl-visionary-or-antisemite-97bfbe92980

    Herzl did not like Jews , celebrated possible future conversion of his son , thought en masse conversion to Christianity , did not think of allowing Hebrew as state language and did not conceive Shabbat a holiday

    But also thought sneak attack on local Arab , planned deceptive discussions and ploys to make them leave Palestine without arousing immediate large scale protests , he offered the service of new state to be a barrier between uncivilized Asia and developed Europe , he promised Balfour of protecting British interest

    He wanted no Arab in the midst and eagerly and glowingly promised his visions of equal democratic society .

    Above all he can’t pull it off himself . He needed help . He needed money 💰 that he by threat and persuasion got from rich Jew . What about other nations shedding their non Jews blood to erect a pure Jews nation ????

    His minions got there also by lying false promising misrepresenting and bribing They also used religious hatred of Christianity to Islam and racial hatred of European to Arab and Turkey .
    Britain pod in blood and money Now its Germany and USA .

    ———

    But there are antisemite thinking or musing that. A-gentile never be able to get rid of , so said the Slovenian

    The paradoxes Mr Slovenian sees in antisemite argument is what litter the philosophy of Zionism .

  39. @Digital Samizdat

    Meyssan is a leftist of North African origin. Earlier in his career, he was involved in harassing the National Front and other parties of the right.

    From 1996 to 1999, he worked as substitute coordinator of the National Committee of Surveillance against the extreme right, which held weekly meetings with the 45 major political parties, unions and associations belonging to the French left-wing in order to draw up a common response to escalating intolerance

    I think Dr Joyce mistakes Meyssan’s involvement in the above committee with that of performing intelligence functions. Meyssan was an enthusiastic supporter of Hate Speech laws to be used against the Right. Except later he fell foul of them himself and no longer lives in France.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  40. tumi says:

    Indeed, for an anti-segregation organization, the early NAACP was essentially divided between the Jews who ran it, and the Blacks who went along for the ride. As Hasia Diner puts it in In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915–1935, many in the NAACP’s Jewish leadership “worked most intensely with other Jews.”[7]”

    Muslim has replaced Blacks . Muslim “leaders “ seek in Israel the conduit to power or pipeline to something ( usually end up getting less scornful hateful mutterings in Fox and WSJ ) . In return they attend interfaith meeting to be lectured ,open up discussing Koran with ideas of dropping some pages ,and agreeing to hate Shia ,agreeing to start propaganda against Iran Syria and Muslim Brotherhood ,spreading the FDD orchestrated fear of Iran, imbibing hook line and slinkier the narrative against Iran Syria Hizbullah Libya Houthi and Taliban or Qatar . Add to that Russia and china also. And they start discussing direct flight from Tel Aviv to Medina from where their prophet once banned the Jews after decades of deceptive behaviors of the Jewish clan.

    What does muslim get ? The same stuff the blacks got- violence drugs sex trafiiciking, destruction of community, shuttering down of school college and enrichment of few who sing Hosana to the Jews .
    For the time it is ;limited mostly to ME S Asia and N Africa . But I won’t be supposed to see it get into a more permanent footing in USA ,Canada,Australia. For a back on the back Muslim will hurt themselves the way Afroamerican were taken for a ride.

  41. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:

    Nice, that the Oxford Handbook cited sells for $429 over at Amazon. I hadn’t liked Joyce’s articles particularly, but this one is helpful because it shows not just history, but the link to current events. Particularly useful the info about Joe Lewis, (never heard about him before). Doubly so in view of the fact that South America seems very unstable now, with a migrant expulsion towards Mexico/US that is as bad as the Syria-to-Europe a few years back. But much more under the radar.. no “color this” or “spring that” hashtags this time.

  42. @neutral

    Capitalism and communism have materialism in common. Various schemes based on religious principles vary from both.

    Secondly, a capitalist can favor communism so long as it doesn’t damage his own interests.
    1) He may be able to make money trading with a foreign communist government e.g. Kaiser, Ford.
    2) He may favor communism as a means of destroying the old Christian order, which was the case with US capitalists who funded the Bolsheviks e.g. Schiff, Warburg, Hammer.
    3) A corrupt communist regime may allow selected friendly capitalists to flourish with in effect a state subsidy. Most regimes of any kind are corrupt.

    The idea that a capitalist can’t be a communist is childishly simplistic, really just a slogan.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @DaveE
    , @Wally
  43. WHAT says:

    Well, Red Commissar would slate Zhizhek for execution right after Glorious Revolution.
    A fool no longer useful.

  44. @Fidelpoludo

    “Karl” as “antisemite” and with the intention to subsequently ignore his analysis of capital (for being founded in his “antisemitism”).

    Nonsense, Moses Mordechai Levi advocated for the establishment of a privately owned central bank, and never criticized interest/usury.

  45. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @israel shamir

    [Slavoj Zizek went “full Monty” during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the invitation of some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but instead he informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending Palestinians. ]

    Who were these ‘sincerely dissident Israelis’ who didnot’ know Zizek is a zionist charlatan?
    They are not ‘sincere’ but they are like him zionist jews.

    This fact is obvious many years now and he showed himself as a zionist racist anti Palestinians and non Jew many years ago in Israel. Who are these dummies that they don’t know who is Zizek.

    Zizek like Trump is a charlatan zionist racist. He is a fraud like Henry Bernard Levy

    You should see the video when he appeared at ‘charlie Rose program’ – a womanizer and racist American exceptionalism, to see how this ‘communist’ clown was admiring Jewish capitalism to please another clown charlie rose.

  46. Richard B says:
    @Scotto

    Zizek: a perfect example of what happens when one has too much Hegel on the brain(HOTB)

    A comment that shows not the slightest comprehension of Hegel.

  47. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @jack daniels

    All capitalists use Marxian accounting, eg, depreciation. Capitalists love depreciation.

  48. S says:
    @israel shamir

    Telling information.

    Some stuff is indefensible no matter who the perpetrator, whether it’s Madoff, or anyone else.

    Johnny the Boy and Zizek would have gotten along famously it seems. 😐

    ‘This isn’t what it looks, man.
    I just came down here
    to check it out, and…
    …this guy, he’s already snuffed it.
    Nothing you could do for him.’

    ‘I’m not responsible for anything.’

    ‘What are you doing, man?
    What do you say? What are you doing?’

    ‘Hey, listen. I’m not a bad man.
    I’m sick, see? Sick.
    What do you call it?
    Psychopathic, you know.
    Personality disorder.
    The court, man, he said so.
    You’re not gonna hurt me, are you?’

    http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/mad-max-script-transcript-gibson.html

  49. Anonymous[495] • Disclaimer says:

    Jacques Lacan claimed that, even if a jealous husband’s claim about his wife — that she sleeps around with other men — is true, his jealousy is still pathological. Why? The true question is “not is his jealousy well-grounded?”, but “why does he need jealousy to maintain his self-identity?”.

    Wow, that was such an idiotic “argument” that I almost stopped reading right there. Talking about low-hanging fruit. Lacan’s attempt at logic contravenes nature and life itself which makes it unworthy of refutation. It’s like wrestling a paraplegic.

    It still turned out to be a great article. The other pro-Jew arguments were still resting on obvious falsehoods but they were at least slightly less insane.

  50. @the grand wazoo

    very tru, but I will add the Bible

  51. I don’t understand one thing: why this Žižek personage deserves this long article? At some point Marx wrote about Proudhon, who positioned himself as a philosopher and an economist, that philosophers think “of course, as a philosopher he does not amount to anything, but maybe he is a good economist”, whereas the economists think “of course, as an economist he does not amount to anything, but maybe he is a good philosopher”. I think it applies to that Žižek (who I never heard of before) 100%.

    • Replies: @Anon
  52. @Digital Samizdat

    he would just shake his head and say, ‘I am not a Marxist.’

    I’d suggest, he would have said that when still alive, he just followed the jewish plan to establish the communist global tyranny and centralization of power, ie their “world revolution”.
    He came from a line of Rabbis, his wife was jewish as well, and his teacher was also a Rabbi, Moses Hess. The two would clash over difference of method how to achieve the goal, central banks, but I think he didn’t plan a cult around him.

  53. TKK says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Yet, day after day after day, we usually only hear about ONE nation and ONE race, Israel and the Jews.

    This website has the same obsession. By constantly “villianizing” them, they remain relevant, on the radar and …seemingly targeted by hatred. To be sure, actually proving they are a victimized, special group- unlike any other- for whom attention must be paid.

    So I ask:

    Who’s zooming who?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Kali
    , @annamaria
  54. DaveE says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    No comparison at all. Rome was the greatest empire that ever was. The Jews are an empire that NEVER was.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  55. bjondo says:

    I’ve tried to listen to Zizek
    but he sounds like a hog eating slop.

    • LOL: TKK
  56. @HammerJack

    Dr. MacDonald has his own contradictions. For instance, he is courageous yet he is still free and alive. Given the nature of his courage, the remaining two qualities are no mean feat.

    The Gerald Ball or Munich film treatment would raise too much dust.

    Subtle methods are more effective like numerous trolls to derail threads on TOO website alongside periodic dedicated denial of service (DDOS) attacks.

    Added to this are Soviet-style denunciations from Zionist academics and mainstream media boycotts as mentioned above.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  57. Wally says:
    @Sam J.

    Jews were found to be loathsome by everyone, everywhere, every time, way before Christians.
    more on:
    Complete list of Jewish Expulsions / Jews expelled from over 1,000 places in history: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12596

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  58. @Amerimutt Golems

    Correction: The Canadian was Gerald Bull.

  59. Anon[498] • Disclaimer says:

    Never heard of the guy, but yep, he sounds like just another walking contradiction.

  60. Wally says:
    @anon

    said:
    “If Maddoff were a victim may be Epstein was , then so were Hitler …”

    Nope, you can’t slip in that nonsense here.

    It’s part of the same propaganda that Zizek recites.
    The fact is:

    “If the Waffen-SS had not existed, Europe would have been overrun entirely by the Soviets by 1944. They would have reached Paris long before the Americans. Waffen-SS heroism stopped the Soviet juggernaut at Moscow, Cherkov, Cherkassy and Tarnopol. The Soviets lost more than 12 months. Without SS resistance the Soviets would have been in Normandy before Eisenhower. The people showed deep gratitude to the young men who sacrificed their lives.[15]”
    The Soviet Union Conspired to Foment World War II and Infiltrate the U.S. Government
    By John Wear https://codoh.com/library/document/6807/?lang=en

  61. DaveE says:
    @jack daniels

    Frank Zappa said, “Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.”

    Same difference.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  62. Wally says:
    @jack daniels

    Indeed, within every Communist – Marxist state there always as been, is, a very wealthy elite.

  63. Wally says:
    @TKK

    LOL

    As if The Unz Review is the cause of worldwide dislike and awareness of vile Jew behavior.

    Ron Unz is just a messenger.

    • Replies: @TKK
  64. @DaveE

    No comparison at all. Rome was the greatest empire that ever was. The Jews are an empire that NEVER was.

    I’m not taking a position, but many of your fellow commenters would say they’re the empire that always was.

  65. @DaveE

    Frank Zappa said, “Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.”

    If Zappa said that, it wasn’t original. It’s been attributed to quite a few others. Catchy, though.

    Twain, Mencken, Churchill, Wilde, etc, are what “Quote Verifier” Ralph Keyes calls “flypaper”. Any quip roughly contemporary will eventually be credited to one of them.

  66. @John Gruskos

    And yet Amren, cucks and all as they are, have been relentlessly deplatformed, their conferences blocked, their financing channels closed. Strange.

  67. I couldn’t help, whilst reading this piece — about which I have no formed opinion — but remember a controversy which has become notorious in Brazil, having engaged numerous scholars and writers not only from Brazil, but also from the U.S., England, Portugal, and who knows where else.

    It concerns the Brazilian novel Dom Casmurro, first published in 1899. It was written by Machado de Assis, generally considered to be Brazil’s finest writer of all times. The plot consists of a suspected adultery which is never explicitly shown in the narrative. There are three main sides to this debate, which sustain respectively: (1) though it is never shown, there surely was an adultery; the wife’s behavior and psychological traits are dead giveaways; in any case, the husband acts in a very civilized, dignified and merciful way to put an end to it; most proponents of this thesis are writers outside Academia, one example being minimalist short story writer Dalton Trevisan; (2) there isn’t a single instance in the narrative which authorizes the husband character, or the reader, to suspect of the wife’s infidelity; on the contrary, the purpose of the book is to denounce patriarchalism in the context of Brazil’s peripheral capitalism and the extreme cruelty and neuroticism of its incarnation, the husband character; the most renowned — and fiercest — advocate of this thesis is Adornian literary critic Roberto Schwarz; most of Academia stands by this thesis or small variations thereof; (3) it’s all rigorously undecidable, a mystery game which omits its solution and whose only purpose is to make fine literary art around these conundrums and about assorted aspects of life; this view gained some momentum with the work of Derridean Portuguese critic Abel Barros Baptista.

    • Agree: Tony Lawless
  68. TKK says:
    @Wally

    Are you thick?

    To amplify this flyspeck group of people- day after month after year- keeps them relevant.

    Compare it to the Kardashians. If the media had not rammed them down the pubic’s throat for years- we would not know them. They would not be obscenely rich. They would be getting anal waxes in LA in obscurity.

    Unz is a Jew.

    And here’s an inside tip for you: they don’t ever turn on their tribe in their hearts.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Wally
  69. Art says:

    Slavoj Žižek’s “Pervert’s Guide” to Anti-Semitism

    What intellectual tripe — what a guilt trip — Jews create animosity.

    Trannie and AaronB create anti-Semitism. Those two and AIPAC cause anti-Jew disgust and antipathy.

    It is natural and reactive to be hostile to lying, arrogance, greed, and terrorist guilt trips, that come from one class of people – face it, Jews have an abrasive culture – they HATE everyone.

    There is no deep-seated native human hate for Jews – that is total intellectual BS.

    Jews earn the animus, that they receive from the good people of our species, generation after generation.

    Jews must change – not us!

  70. These guys are just entertainers.

  71. Anon[397] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnonFromTN

    One of the newer names of the multi-culti influencers. Like learning about Gramsci in real time. The better to counter his influence on those around you (I guarantee someone you know has heard him praised and his ideas promoted).

  72. Saggy says: • Website
    @TKK

    And here’s an inside tip for you: they don’t ever turn on their tribe in their hearts.

    Exposing the holohoax is the key. A Jew who exposes the hoax is no longer a Jew.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  73. Before his gigs at Western High Sanctums, Zizek taught philosophy at the University of Essen. You have to be able to picture the University of Essen, to know why I’m laughing. What’s not to laugh is how he made that step up.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  74. @Saggy

    I’m not sure. You can be a Jew (or anything) and hold any position. But to be a hasbara Jew like TKK, you have be either a joker or a shill or else really dense. I don’t think he’s dense and he’s certainly not joking, except maybe on our dime.

  75. annamaria says:
    @Sam J.

    The sanctimonious US government supports Jewish rapists and fraudsters such as Sholom Rubashkin and Ghislaine Maxwell (a procuress of children for the powerful perverts in the US and UK), while prosecuting and slandering the truthtellers like Assange: https://www.darkmoon.me/2017/trump-pardons-racist-criminal-jewish-fanatic/

    Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin (b. 1959 in Russia), a leader of the Chabad crime syndicate, was pardoned by President Donald Trump for his long list of truly heinous crimes. These include child labor violations, illegal drug manufacturing in secret laboratories, the rape and sexual abuse of workers at his meat processing plant in Iowa, and, finally, unprecedented levels of animal cruelty carried out by Rubaskin’s kosher slaughtermen. … Plant supervisors in this hell-on-earth were involved in the rape and sexual abuse of workers. …

    “They [Jewish owners] wanted nothing to do with their Christian neighbors. They were there to make money and the non-Jews (goyim) were barely distinct from the cattle on their assembly line.”

    The Rubashkin criminal exploits and methods were documented in the CNBC series “American Greed – The Slaughterhouse”. The video has now been scrubbed from CNBC’s site. …

    The White House statement cited letters of support for review of Rubashkin’s case from more than 30 members of Congress of both parties … and bipartisan expressions of support for review of the case from over 100 former high-ranking U.S. Justice Department officials, prosecutors, judges, and legal scholars. …

    The indecency of the Jewish community at large: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/rockland/ramapo/2017/12/21/rubashkin-goes-monsey-after-being-released-prison/973047001/

    Rabbi Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin, 57, was released from prison shortly before the holiday of Hanukkah ended … triggering a celebration locally.
    … the massive crowds in each location Rubashkin visited was comprised of people from all different groups of Judaism.

    The story of the homicidal-pedophile Leo Frank comes to mind.

  76. @Digital Samizdat

    Their bizarre ‘chosenness’ is the root of their collective pathology. (Notice how all their theories concerning our supposed ethno-centrism are just so much projection!)

    As Dr. Joyce notes:

    The new paradigm for psychological explanations of ‘prejudice’ was that whole groups, societies, and cultures (of course, only really the people and culture of the West) could have collective psychological processes like projection and narcissism.

    Yet strangely enough, the obvious conclusion that the social construct of so-called “anti-semitism” merely represents the reified projection of the Tribe’s own toxic, hate-filled semitism… never seems to occur to them. Odd.

    Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx’s own scathing treatment of the Jews in Zur Judenfrage? Here’s a well-known passage:

    Well, as Dr. Joyce notes, Žižek couldn’t be bothered to read even a portion of CoC before incontinently emoting about it, and he appears to have done zero serious reading on so-called “anti-semitism,” so it’s certainly possible that he’s just winging it with respect to his knowledge of Marxism as well.

    In On the Jewish Question, Marx is literally stating that capitalism is so intrinsically Judaic that Christians become Judaized under this system. This is often misrepresented as “anti-semitism” or “self-hatred” on Marx’s part, when in fact his argument is that Judaism has served its purpose, and is of no further use to the Jewish people/ nation. You could call him “anti-Judaic,” I suppose, but to claim that he is anti-Jew is simply false — likely deliberately so.

    Perhaps Marx is unique among the Jewish founders of Communism in holding to this view? Well, since he plagiarized much of Part II of OTJQ from an earlier essay, On the Money System, written by his fellow tribesman Moses Hess, that would seem to be unlikely… Hess, of course, was a prominent progenitor of both Communism and Zionism.

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  77. @Parsnipitous

    People occasionally throw bad-faith accusations at Peterson. While I agree that his philosemitic shtick is probably calculated, he’s (I would say) largely in good faith. He needs to protect himself. Debating a fool like Zizek is perfectly fine, not even in need of justification. Plus, the debate itself was relatively fun.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
  78. The main point here is that Žižek enjoys a very considerable audience and is regarded, for the most part, as a serious thinker.

    It’s clear, however, by comparing his YouTube view counts to web traffic at The Philosophical Salon, the blog where he showcases most of his topical writing, that he has significantly more appeal as an audio-visual entertainer than as a serious writer.

    I can see why they scheduled a debate between him and Jordan Peterson. Perhaps they should go with Bernard-Henri Lévy next time. He has a similarly over-hyped media image.

    This passage could be easily applied to much of Peterson’s work as well:

    There is a lot to unpack here and, even at first reading, one is stunned that such a car-wreck of logic should emanate from someone regarded by many in contemporary culture as a serious and celebrated philosopher.

    If one wanted to make any concession to the idea that something novel occurred in the relationship between Jews and Europeans in the eleventh century, it is because the Jewish population, rather than Capital, radically expanded and extended in the period.

    Strangely enough, the same sort of rapid expansion happened with the jewish population in the Russian Empire in the 1800s — as Joyce pointed out in his series deconstructing the semitic canard of “muh pogroms” that has been heavily promoted to “explain” conflict between the Tribe and other peoples in the region during this era.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  79. Sam J. says:
    @Wally

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12596

    Excellent page Wally. I’ll have to include it next time I talk about the inevitably of Jewish psychopath expulsions.

  80. Richard B says:
    @jbwilson24

    “Žižek and Jordan Peterson sold out the Sony Centre in Toronto for their debate titled “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism,”

    The key word here is “sold out.”

    “…billed by some as the debate of the century, but generally regarded afterwards as anti-climactic.”

    No surprise there. There’s really nothing of value to be gained by listening to either one of them. Why?

    Because a teacher is supposed to impart knowledge and remove ignorance, not moralize a wicked world.

    And they’re supposed to impart that knowledge by demonstrating important intellectual skills like rigorous thinking, consistent reasoning and cautious judgment.

    These two, like all intellectual workers, as well as those educated by them who enter business, government, the media and, of course, education itself, are essentially professional explainers.

    And yet, not one of them has ever said anything of value about Explanation itself. This is no small thing.

    Explanation is ubiquitous in human behavior. It’s literally everywhere, in all levels of culture and in every social institution.

    Zizek and Peterson and anyone else in philosophy, science, and the humanities merely specialize in and concentrate on an activity that everyone can’t help but engage in. Try living without it. And yet, neither one of them has anything of value to say on the subjecct.

    Let me rephrase that.

    Two professional explainers can not explain Explanation itself!

    All one would need to do to expose their fraud is to ask them questions like,

    What is Explanation?
    What are the conditions of Explanation?
    What’s the difference between an explanation that is constitutive and one that is instrumental? And which do you prefer and why?

    Of course, one could throw in other questions,

    What is history?
    What is culture?
    What is philosophy?
    What is language?
    What is meaning?

    Or, one could ask either one of them this two part question,

    As trained and experienced thinkers in the subjects of philosophy and psychology, what could you tell us about that special aspect of verbal behavior known as – explanation? And what is behavior’s place in explanation?

    Or,

    Hi guys, could you please tell us something about causality, meaning, rhetoric, logic, mind, and intention? After that, could you see your way clear to saying a thing or two about stimulus, response, conditioning, and, one of psychology’s favorite words – reinforcement? Thank you!

    Now THAT I would pay to see. Though it’s unlikely ever to happen you have to admit, the thought does have its charms.

    And why is it unlikely to happen? For two reasons (among many) – them and their fans.

    Zizek and Peterson are KKK-approved frauds (KKK = Kvetching Kosher Khazars, the ONLY real KKK in existence today; the other being manufactured by The ADL through its control of The FBI).

    These two, like just about everyone in academia today, have not only settled comfortably into their socially approved roles, but have shamelessly and complacently surrendered – body and soul – to the great temptation of academic life, moral pomposity. Thereby making their masquerade as important, innovative thinkers transparent and laughable.

    Because of this, and because they will not be able to answer the above questions without going cross-eyed and becoming tongue-tied (guaranteed) they will never have anything of lasting value to say to anyone – ever.

    Then there’s their fans. Or sychophants, or sychofans. What can one say? How about this,

    The fatal thing about celebrity intellectuals is that their mediocre minds are extolled as “great” by credulous dumbbells devoid of judgment.

  81. annamaria says:

    The psychopaths have always been united with the local easily-bought traitors. See the zio-banderite saga of Ukraine, in which Jewish Russophobes are inseparable from the war-profiteers and presstitutes of all colors and ethnicities.
    “Who “debunked” the Biden conspiracy theories?” https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/11/httpsenwikipediaorgwikiepistemology.html#comments

    “American Independent” is David Brock’s Clinton / Soros linked Shareblue disinfo and troll brigade rebranded. It will obviously tell every lie going to protect the corrupt Corporate Dem Establishment, the Globalists and the Deep State.

  82. @JoannF

    ‘The universe expands.’

    OK, I can live with that [fact]…, but…, why the hell do I get an uncomfortable feeling when I think; ‘Expands into what?’

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @joannf
  83. annamaria says:
    @James Forrestal

    The infamous CrowdStrike exploits are the illustration of the high-level treachery against the US Constitution: http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/Intelligence_agencies_influence/fbi_and_cia_contractor_crowdstike.shtml
    “The Case that Obama Was a Traitor Just Got Powerful New Evidence — From the DNC!” https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/19/the-case-that-obama-was-a-traitor-just-got-powerful-new-evidence-from-the-dnc/

    On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. … [But,] According to counsel [from DNC — this comes from what the DNC has communicated to the U.S. Department of Justice and is now being made public in the “Government’s Response” to Stone’s filing], no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.”

    And, since all the rest, the unredacted information, likewise didn’t “concern the attribution of the attack to Russian actors” (as everyone now knows after reading the Mueller Report, because it admits this), the Obama Government actually had nothing that could be presented to the FISA Court without lying, in order for the Obama regime to be able to win that Court’s permission to investigate Trump as being a possible Russian agent.

    In other words: Obama’s preparation, just in case Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton, included DNC-Clinton campaign fabrication of ‘evidence’ (via the DNC-hired CrowdStrike) to implicate Trump in treason with Russia, so as to get the FISA Court’s okay and then proceed to cripple Trump’s Presidency.

    This was an internal U.S. Government war against then-candidate Trump, in order to cripple his Presidency, in the event that Trump might win — as he did.

    The stinky role of CrowdStrike’s principal Jewish Russophobe Dm. Alperovitch and the exposure of CrowdStrike incompetence: https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/kasperskys-war-on-crowdstrike-evangelist-dmitri-alperovitch/
    Kaspersky:

    We conducted detailed analysis of the Shady RAT botnet and its related malware, and can conclude that the reality of the matter (especially the technical specifics) differs greatly from the conclusions made by Mr. Alperovitch.

  84. Wally says:
    @TKK

    – Calm down gramps, you’re going to have a heart attack.
    You maybe ‘protesting a bit too much’.

    – Nonetheless, yes, we all know Ron Unz is a Jew, a righteous, honest one at that.
    I remind you that you are in fact posting as his website.

    – I suggest what you actually read what he writes and publishes.

    – How many Jew ‘tribesmen’ do you know that reject the “holocaust” narrative and encourage free speech about it?

    – BTW, they are not a mere ‘flyspeck’, see:
    http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/predators-united/#comment-3374797

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

  85. @James Forrestal

    You suggest Marx was “unique among the Jewish founders of Communism.”

    Will people never learn?

    Marx’s parents converted to Christianity about the time he was born. He had a Christian childhood then became an atheist.

    He was not a Jewish founder of anything.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  86. @Parsnipitous

    Re: Petersen publicly debating Žižek

    A slight step above bestiality.

    • Agree: Parsnipitous
  87. Pandour says: • Website

    The puke Žižek and his kind dominate the intellectual scene in Europe.Foreign Policy Magazine,26th Nov. 2012 ranked him among the top 100 Global Thinkers.Just another indication that the Dark Ages were a time of great enlightenment compared to the present.He has three failed marriages behind him.He recently stated-God does not exist,and if he exists He is evil.He is the devil.This deluded soul seeks a redefinition of communism.

  88. Zhizhek ?
    Zhizhek neans little worm that eats inside of beans.
    Some parent call their babies Zhizhek (pet name) while the babies do not move too much yet.

  89. There is no sense to discuss anything with all Jews not only with Zhizhek.
    They will only grind their own opinion regardless what anybody said. They simply disregard it.
    That even applies if two Jews discuss something.

  90. chuckywiz says:

    I dont understand why the author or this site took the trouble and time to put Salvoj’s stuff here. This contradicts the quality of material that normally is presented here. The self proclaimed philosopher is a famous plagiarizer of the 90s. The “philosopher” wastes no opportunity to rub elbows with celebrities to get noticed. We have more important things to worry than to admire or criticize such characters.

  91. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Rich

    expands into larger and larger grant applications for bigger more high power telescopes, and broader spectrum data collection and analytical power…

    The expanding universe (and other stories) has always been about big money, science biz/politics. And hiding military surveillance development and covert ops as science. Space weapons

  92. One good plumber is worth more than a stadium filled with commie ‘educator’ dickweeds.

    PS I can smell that filthy hippie through the screen.

  93. Kali says:
    @TKK

    You mean informing people about all the unscrupulous shit that’s being done in the world is bad because it’s predominantly jews who are behind all the unscrupulous shit?

    Or do you mean to suggest that jewish power will come to a sudden and full stop if only UR, et al, stop bringing attention to it?

    Without this information we’d all be punching at shadows, no knowing how the system evolved as it did and not knowing the mechanisms and people holding it all in place.

    Right now every aspect of the system is being exposed for what it is and all its vile servants along with it.

    Thanks to websites like this, and commentators willing to expose the beast it’s falling down around their ears.
    And unless we have an awareness/overstanding of the role of jewish power in creating and maintaining it, we run a very real risk of allowing it to rise again in some future manifestation of the tyranny of “chosenness”.

    As things stand, there’s a small chance mankind might evolve beyond the tentical grip of “the jew”. Sans a real knowledge of our connected histories, we stand no chance.

    • Agree: Robjil
  94. @Nonny Mouse

    You suggest Marx was “unique among the Jewish founders of Communism.”

    Your pathetic failure to achieve basic standards of reading comprehension is duly noted — as that was posed as a counterfactual hypothetical in my post, and immediately followed by the example of (((Moses Hess))), another prominent jewish founder of Communism… and Zionism. His views on this subject were, of course, in exact concordance with Marx’s.

    Marx’s parents converted to Christianity and blablabla

    Of course, like most other low-effort, low-IQ hasbarats, you insist on making these feeble, flailing, failed attempts to conflate the concepts of “judaism” and “the jewish people/ nation.” Whether this is due to deliberate prevarication on your part, or mere cognitive incapacity, it’s pretty…

    Sad!

    Allow me to assist — in the video below, Chucky Schumer isn’t talking about religious belief when he says “the jewish nation” — and he’s obviously not referring to the jewish settlement in Palestine when he blabbers “…in Israel and America, the jewish nation lives now and forever.”

    So what does he mean by the “jewish nation,” hmm?

    You might wish to attempt to read Rome and Jerusalem while you’re at it. Perhaps they have it as an audiobook…

  95. joannf says:
    @Daniel Rich

    It’s a misunderstanding, we’re biofeedback brains given to three dimensional causal thinking.
    We can only try to see things less ‘literally,’ so our thinking is also dominated by the right angles of our grammar (hardwired). So the term ‘expanding’ is possibly correct for what it’s worth, but tells us nothing substantial (obviously), even within the limits that we can understand.
    An uncomfortable feeling is however perfectly natural, as any healthy organism would crave a finite environment that can be controlled…

  96. annamaria says:
    @TKK

    “This website has the same obsession.”
    — No, it does not. This website offers a wide range of research topics and opinions. Perhaps you are surprised that this website dares to discuss the Jewish question in the context of the widespread fear of the Jewish Lobby.

    “…seemingly targeted by hatred.”
    — You put the cart before the horse. There is only one nation that has been demanding special treatment for special victimhood. That was this nation’s choice — to put itself on a high pedestal and above any criticism. Anyone who dares to criticize the “chosen” has been subjected to the harsh treatment of the Lobby’s thugs. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas

    What is the holobiz about? The suppression of the history of the Bolshevik revolution? The absence of Interpol Red Alert for Ghislaine Maxwell? Whether an ongoing assault on the First Amendment re BDS or ziocons’ collaboration with banderites in Ukraine, zionists have no respect for the dignity of others yet they are surprised when decent people show disgust towards the Jewish Lobby.

    The story of Assange:
    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/474374-prince-andrew-epstein-assange/

    The US Justice system has caused the cruel incarceration of Assange and his Kafkaesque entrapment in an extradition saga which may last for years – if he doesn’t die before it is over as no less than 60 doctors have recently warned he may well do. …

    Although accused of sexual abuse of a teenager and with an admitted close relationship to the alleged procurer of underage female victims, Ghislaine Maxwell, in whose London home it is alleged one of the sexual encounters took place – the US will never require the Prince to give evidence and the UK will never offer him up.

    The Mega Group: https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/

    By virtue of the role of many Mega Group members as major political donors in both the U.S. and Israel, several of its most notable members have close ties to the governments of both countries as well as their intelligence communities. … The Mega Group also had close ties to two businessmen who worked for Israel’s Mossad — Robert Maxwell and Marc Rich — as well as to top Israeli politicians, including past and present prime ministers with deep ties to Israel’s intelligence community.

  97. Johan says:

    ” I’ll never forget the first presentation because it was so remarkably surreal”

    When, due to democracy, the masses and their representatives invade, occupy and seize control over the higher institutions, the educational, the political, by necessity this will be a surreal madhouse, because the masses have not understood the higher ideals and advanced reason, they have no reason, they know no system, they know no system of principles, so everything will be messed up and warped. This is called decadency and decline, destruction and continuous rot from the inside.

    We are going to have hundreds of thousands more of articles like this, and many others likewise, which are merely ritualistic and self-therapeutic ways of trying to re-establish some reason, and to share it with people who still have some common sense, because the madness of the masses occupying the higher grounds of society is unlimited.

  98. Slavoj Čižek is a liberal puppet. He just plays marxist and he is well paid for it.

  99. “The problematic aspect of Žižek’s dating remains, however, that Western European anti-Semitism, if it has any unique characteristics, originated in the tenth century with the forming of Jewish-elite relationships under the Carolingians and the pursuance of an anti-Jewish strategy by Agobard, the Spanish archbishop of Lyon.”

    I would argue the tenth century is already far too late a date. From Gibbon on the Gothic kingdom of Italy:

    [MORE]

    “Even the religious toleration which Theodoric had the glory of introducing into the Christian world, was painful and offensive to the orthodox zeal of the Italians. They respected the armed heresy of the Goths; but their pious rage was safely pointed against the rich and defenceless Jews, who had formed their establishments at Naples, Rome, Ravenna, Milan, and Genoa, for the benefit of trade, and under the sanction of the laws. Their persons were insulted, their effects were pillaged, and their synagogues were burned by the mad populace of Ravenna and Rome, inflamed, as it should seem, by the most frivolous or extravagant pretences. The government which could neglect, would have deserved such an outrage. A legal inquiry was instantly directed; and as the authors of the tumult had escaped in the crowd, the whole community was condemned to repair the damage; and the obstinate bigots, who refused their contributions, were whipped through the streets by the hand of the executioner. This simple act of justice exasperated the discontent of the Catholics, who applauded the merit and patience of these holy confessors. Three hundred pulpits deplored the persecution of the church; and if the chapel of St. Stephen at Verona was demolished by the command of Theodoric, it is probable that some miracle hostile to his name and dignity had been performed on that sacred theatre. At the close of a glorious life, the king of Italy discovered that he had excited the hatred of a people whose happiness he had so assiduously labored to promote; and his mind was soured by indignation, jealousy, and the bitterness of unrequited love. The Gothic conqueror condescended to disarm the unwarlike natives of Italy, interdicting all weapons of offence, and excepting only a small knife for domestic use.”

  100. @israel shamir

    Ask Eliezer Wiesel if Bernie Madoff was a shyster or not… the former lost his fortune to the latter. A Jew exploiting another Jew says something about some hardcore incorrigibles in the Tribe.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  101. Bookish1 says:
    @Really No Shit

    Jews got all their money back via american taxpayer.

  102. I have just finished reading Culture of Critique. MacDonald’s brilliance and thoroughness cannot be overstated. No wonder the powers that be banned it from Amazon! The book reconciles the apparent contradictions in right-wing thought, in particular, why did wealth capitalists assist the fledgling Soviet Union? Even so, I don’t feel that much malice against Jews because they are simply acting for the benefit of their tribe. It is the gentiles who betray their own group interests who have earned my contempt, including neoconservative dupes like Bush and McCain and the execrable propagandist John Hagee.

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
    • Replies: @anaccount
  103. anaccount says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    Yes, but not at the expense of placing blame exactly where it belongs.

    The cat is out of the bag and they’re not quite sure how to handle it. 🙂

  104. Vojkan says:

    “Žižek is, at his best, a posturing charlatan.”

    Nothing to add.

    • Agree: annamaria
  105. Vojkan says:
    @Scotto

    Everything left “intelligentsia” has produced in the last 150 years is a perfect example of what happens when one has too much HOTB. What strikes one while reading Hegel is his arrogance and his need to demean every other line of thought, with a peculiar fixation on that of Kant. Yep, the left inherited even Hegel’s smugness.

  106. “shemitism” still trying to find a definition to that and an explanation for diabolical satan ic inversionary and screeching racist talmud and kabbalah and their evil supremacist doesn’t know when to keep its rapey hands off us judasm…….anyway the jews are moronic, stupid, retarded, mental nutcases, hence them fucking up 9/11, lavon affair, uss liberty, wooden doors and etc. its only because of lucifers help their mass murdering hyper deceptive criminal ways which most people are not accustomed to and the corrupt to control aka drug, get drunk and lie and shill controlled op everyone on every little thing in their hyper dynamic. jews larp as something else then they are and thumping the talmud under a mask hence their conquest of America beginning in earnest they tried before in 1913…money power…propaganda power…mafia power intimidation mass murder and silencing and corrupt off course the pig headed cucks and shabbos for them will never fully understand or admit to Murder Inc, ADL, Lansky, Cohen, Purple Gang, and etc. etc. its too damn much truth

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS