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
Reflections on Hilaire Belloc’s “the Jews” (1922)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Hilaire Belloc portrait by E. O. Hoppé, 1915. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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
List of Bookmarks

Of all the fallacies that one confronts when engaging with the theme of relations between Jews and Europeans, one of the most easily disproven is the idea that antagonism towards Jews is constantly changing. In the ‘mainstream’ reading of the history of European-Jewish interactions, the friction that exists between Jews and other elements of the society is argued to be linked solely to a Christianity-induced communal psychosis on the part of Europeans. This psychosis is said to undergo almost ceaseless metamorphoses.

The idea is so deep-rooted among organized Jewry that, even today, we are forced to listen to endless bleating about the emergence of a “new anti-Semitism”? This redundant cry resounds almost weekly even though, to the informed observer, it is clear that there isn’t, and has never been, any real change in the essence of the friction between Jews and Europeans. The ‘Jewish Problem,’ if one wishes to employ that archaic terminology, is seemingly as timeless and unchanging as the Jews themselves.

In my examination of Robert Wistrich’s Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, I pointed to that author’s typically contorted argument that a “virus” existed in Europe, in which “pagan, pre-Christian anti-Semitism grafted on to the stem of medieval Christian stereotypes of the Jew which then passed over into the post-Christian rationalist anti-Judaism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” Needless to say Wistrich’s phantasm, and similar poorly-fabricated ‘theories,’ are prejudiced at a very early stage by the employment of that fundamentally meaningless term: ‘anti-Semitism.’ By its very nature the term places the Jew or the ‘Semitism’ immediately in the passive position, thereby avoiding confrontation with the true essence of the problem — that there is a mutual friction between two essentially different entities, with divergent group interests and goals.

Concurrent with such prejudices, in mainstream ‘histories’ one finds a wholesale condemnation of many historical writers and their work on the subject of ‘the Jews.’ The gravest sin of these authors was their emphasis on the causes and nature of the inter-ethnic friction, rather than on the ‘martyr-ology’ which today passes for Jewish ‘history.’ Too much analysis, and not enough sympathy. The efforts of these authors were intended to point out the differences, transgressions, and secrecy which together combined to ensure a periodic, and often chaotic, resurgence of Gentile exasperation. I am thinking in particular of specific works produced by Voltaire, Wagner, Bauer, and von Treitschke.


Today, much of the basic meaning of these writings is lost amidst the jargon and squabble of obviously-biased scholars. However, one striking and enduring feature of these works is the uniformity of their argument that, specific provocations aside, the ‘Jewish Problem’ was unchanging. None of these authors operated on the assumption or pretence, made fashionable by western Liberalism, that Jews as a group did not exist. These authors defied an age in which the wisdom was passed down from above that nationality and citizenship was a purely voluntary affair. They dared to insist that ‘the Jew remains a Jew,’ and it is this element that gives such writings a timeless quality and a defiant relevance. The majority of these writings have passed through the centuries unscathed, even their anecdotes finding resonance and familiarity in the present. In this essay I want to share some reflections on one of the lesser-known of these important authors whom ‘history’ would rather we forget. Although now largely forgotten, Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953) was a poet and author of some eminence during his lifetime, and his notable 1922 work, The Jews, remains one of the most lucid, relevant, and balanced examinations of the nature of Jewish-Gentile relations available to us today.

A Brief Biographical Summary

Hilaire Belloc was born at La Celle St Cloud, near Paris, the younger child of Louis Belloc and his wife, Elizabeth Rayner Parkes, daughter of a successful English lawyer. Louis Belloc was French (although with Irish blood from his maternal grandfather); his father was a well-known portrait painter. Hilaire Belloc was born just before the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and a few weeks later the family retreated to England, having taken the last train out of Paris. When the Bellocs returned to the family home after the war they found that it had been ransacked and pillaged. The fortunes of the family declined further when, aged only two years, Hilaire’s father died. Elizabeth and her two children moved to London, later settling in Sussex, where the family lived a life of genteel poverty.

After he left school, Belloc’s energy and restlessness made it hard for him to settle to a career. In succession he attempted to train for the French navy, to become a farmer, and then a draughtsman. In 1892 Belloc undertook military service in the French army as an artilleryman — a necessity if he wished to retain French nationality. It was a highly formative experience, which gave him a lifelong interest in military matters. It also made him aware that he was by now more of an Englishman than a Frenchman. A few years later he decided to become a British subject.

After he returned from France, Belloc was admitted to Balliol College, Oxford, with the financial support of his sister and her fiancé. Belloc excelled and quickly became a star performer in debates at the Oxford Union. He graduated in modern history with first class honors in 1895. After graduation, he applied for a prize fellowship at All Souls College, which would have given him a financially secure niche in Oxford, but his assertive and argumentative demeanor had already made him enemies in the small world of the university. For a while Belloc remained at Oxford, making money by tutoring while unsuccessfully applying for academic posts. He was also launching himself as a writer, and it was in this early phase of his career that, beginning with The Bad Child’s Book of Beasts in 1896, he started to produce the comic and satirical verse which for many readers is his best-known work. He soon began making a living by the labors of his pen, and as a man of immense energy, versatile talents, and wide reading, he worked in many genres.

Belloc eventually reconciled himself to the fact that he would never get a college fellowship in Oxford. In 1899 the family moved to London. Belloc’s literary career was by now gaining momentum, and he began producing a stream of books and articles. He had a sharp, penetrating, dogmatic intelligence, and there were few subjects on which he did not have strong opinions. Belloc soon acquired public literary fame. Most famously, he became known as a polemical apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, which he regarded as the only source of sanity and order in the world. Although Roman Catholicism was central to Belloc’s life and his writings, his beliefs and attitudes were often out of step with the spirit of the Church. His religion was a disciplined matter of the will and the intelligence, but his subjective stance to the world was essentially pessimistic and strikes one as more pagan than Christian.

In 1906 Belloc entered politics as a Member of Parliament on the radical wing of the Liberal Party. It was an unsatisfactory and disillusioning experience. Belloc was never at ease with the practice and assumptions of the British parliamentary system and turned sharply against it after he left the House of Commons in 1910. He was later outraged by the Marconi scandal of 1913, in which several Jewish members of the Liberal government were accused of improper trading in the shares of the Marconi Company. Belloc gradually came to the belief that true democracy was feasible only in small communities such as the Greek city state, and that in large modern societies it inevitably degenerated into an unaccountable oligarchy. He had originally described himself as a republican and supported the ideals of the French Revolution; he now shifted towards a belief in absolute monarchy, or, in effect, dictatorship, as he expounded in The House of Commons and Monarchy (1920).

In 1912 Belloc published a critique of modern society, The Servile State, in which he attacks both capitalism and socialism. His argument was that modern civilization combines notional political freedom with economic slavery, since most people in the modern period possess little or no ‘rooted’ property, and such property is essential for both freedom and well-being. Belloc believed that a rooted life, close to nature, was humanly superior to the massification produced by modern civilization. His ideal was a society of peasant proprietors or craftsmen, negotiating with each other by free contract, where property is widely distributed and not concentrated in a few hands. Two books from the 1920s developed further some of his basic political ideas. The first, Europe and the Faith (1920) sets out his personal reading of European history. The other work is The Jews (1922), an analysis of which will form the main body of this essay.

In his final years Belloc was a public figure with many friends and admirers, though he was lonely, and increasingly wearied by the need to continually write books for money. His despair at personal and national tragedy deepened during the Second World War when his son Peter died on active service in the Royal Marines. After a stroke in 1942 his health declined and he became senile within a few years. He struggled defiantly to retain independence until his death in 1953. Many of Belloc’s numerous books are now forgotten, though Amazon very recently reissued a few, including The Jews, under their cut-price Forgotten Books imprint.

The Jews (1922)

One of my first impressions of The Jews was how closely it seemed to fit the psychological, and even physical, attributes ascribed to its author by some of his earliest biographers. C. Creighton Mandell describes a forceful, rapid, orderly and energetic man whose vigor “appears, in his person, in the massive breadth of his shoulders and the solidity of his neck.” Like its author, The Jews is a compact, powerful, and solidly-built treatise on “the relation between the Jews and the nations around them (vii)”. The book is characterized by its directness and its urgency. This is not a work of prose or literature. It is a work of argument and action. There are few words wasted. Each chapter arrives like a hammer blow against convention.

Belloc begins by outlining in simple language the thesis of his book: the need to address the problem of reducing or accommodating the strain produced by the presence of an alien body, in this case the “small but intense” Jewish population (12), within European culture and society. Belloc writes: “The alien body sets up strains, or to change the metaphor, produces a friction, which is evil both to itself and to the organism which it inhabits (4).” The author then outlines the only two ways whereby the easing of these strains can be achieved. “The first is by the elimination of what is alien. The second is by its segregation. There is no other way (4).” Belloc states that elimination can take three forms: destruction, expulsion or absorption. Segregation can take two forms: a hostile form which takes no account of the needs of that which is segregated, and an alternative form which considers the good of both parties and may be better described by the term “recognition.” Belloc’s book is intended to advocate for the ‘recognition’ solution.

Solution by way of destruction is condemned as “abominable in morals” and “futile in practice (5).” Belloc briefly lists historical instances where angry popular masses have vented violent frustration upon Jews, arguing that this has led to “a dreadful inheritance of hatred upon the one side and of shame upon the other (5).” Expulsion is no better a solution because, although theoretically sustainable, it is weak in practice and “only one degree less odious than the first (6).” It would involve “a mass of individual injustice” and it would be “almost impossible to dissociate it from violence and ill deeds of all kinds (6).” Expulsion is also something that can never be complete. Belloc points out that expulsion has only ever been attempted “at moments and in places where the strength of the Jews has declined; and this invariably means their corresponding strength in some other quarter (6).” Absorption, while vastly gentler than the other means of elimination, is declared impossible. Belloc writes that “there have been generations and even centuries where every opportunity for absorption existed; yet that absorption has never taken place (9).” The body of Jewry “as a whole has remained separate, differentiated, with a strong identity of its own under all conditions and in all places (10).”

Hostile segregation is little more than static expulsion. This is contrasted with the more amicable form of segregation which may be by mutual arrangement: “a recognition, with mutual advantage, of a reality which is unavoidable by other party (10).” Societal recognition would involve a scenario wherein “the Jews on their side shall openly recognize their wholly separate nationality and we on ours shall equally recognize that separate nationality, treat it without reserve as an alien thing, and respect it as a province of society outside our own (5).” Belloc powerfully concludes his opening chapter by arguing that:

If the Jewish nation comes to express its own pride and patriotism openly, and equally openly to admit the necessary limitations imposed by that expression; if we on our side frankly accept the presence of this nation as a thing utterly different from ourselves but with just as good a right to existence as we have; if we renounce our pretences in the matter; if we talk of and recognize the Jewish people freely and without fear as a separate body; if upon both sides the realities of the situation are admitted, with the consequent and necessary definitions which those realities imply, we shall have peace (11).

Belloc argues that opposition to a solution to the problem among Gentiles is for the most part rooted in three falsehoods, which are based on flawed western Liberal conceptions of nationality and citizenship (12):

  • Denial of the existence of the problem.
  • Defining the problem in false terms — e.g., proclaiming it as a religious matter rather than as a national/racial one.
  • Conceding truths by accompanying this with contradictory statements e.g. admitting that the Jew is international but arguing that one can be a patriot and at the same time international.

The second chapter consists of a breakdown of these forms of denial. In the first instance we see those who earnestly hold the conviction “that no Jewish problem exists (18).” Here one finds an ignorant mind beholden to the post-Enlightenment dogma that a Jew is “a full member of whatever society he happened to inhabit during whatever space of time he happened to sojourn there in his wanderings across the earth (18).” Since there is no Jewish nation, so the thinking goes, there can be no friction between it and the society in which it dwells. We are all simply individuals. Without friction between groups, there is no problem.

Aside from that seen in simple minds, denial also takes more deliberate and insidious forms. In one piercingly insightful paragraph, Belloc points out the hypocrisy of Western governments who castigated Poles and Romanians for entertaining the idea that Jews were a separate nation and lectured them on ‘minority’ rights, while at the same time proceeding “to erect a brand-new highly-distinct Jewish state in Palestine, with the threat behind it of ruthlessly suppressing a majorityby the use of Western arms (19).”

The illogical and contradictory nature of denial enabled “the position that there is no Jewish nation when the admission of it may inconvenience the Jew, but very much of a Jewish nation when it can advantage him (19).” Of course, Jews were more than keen to support and encourage the non-ethnocentric view of nationality held by Europeans, because it granted them entry to European societies on very weak terms. These weak terms, which ask next to nothing of Jews, were based on the equally weak principles that all men are equal and that the nation is merely a construct. To Jews, citizenship was a path to the security and special treatment which, Belloc argues, ‘the Jew’ feels “to be his due.”

Without it he feels handicapped. He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship of his own nation. … What the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was completely indifferent. What the Jew wanted was not the feeling that he was just like the others — that would have been odious to him — what he wanted was security.(26).

Belloc raises an interesting point: the incessant search of Jews for security remains a stark but often overlooked reality in the present. The rise of the National Socialists, and the wave of pent-up exasperation which swept through Europe during World War Two, revealed to Jews the weakness of citizenship, in and of itself, to maintain the fiction of equality and to offer the deep level of security they crave. Confronted with a mass expression of European ethnocentrism, the Jew could find no appropriate mask. Not one of religion, for the guise of ‘Christian’ no longer offered protection and the opportunity of crypsis. The state now comprised a citizenry of racial brothers rather than ‘fellow citizens’ of the Jews. For the first time in the long game of musical chairs they had played since arriving in Europe, the music had stopped playing — and the Jews were left without a chair.

From the rubble of World War II, a new world was to be fashioned. No longer was citizenship for the Jews enough — now Jewish security was to be sought by regulating non-Jews and imposing limits on the exercise of their citizenship. Since World War II this has taken the form of everything from engineering the demographic profile of Western nations, to ‘hate speech’ laws and lobbying for gun control. One of the crucial functions of The Occidental Observer has been to catalog instances where, under the guise of equal citizenship and other Western liberal fads, Jewish organizations have been moving towards achieving immunity from criticism, and water-tight levels of Jewish security, in the United States, Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany, France and many other nations. Thus a process which began following the Enlightenment with Jewish admission to citizenship, has slowly evolved to the gradual diminution of the citizenship of non-Jews and the ascendance of Jews to privileged protected status throughout the West.

The parallel with the position of Jews under feudalism is astonishing. Rather than ensuring the equality of everyone under the law, Western Liberalism’s non-ethnocentric citizenship has simply acted as the conduit for the transfer of power within society.

Further, I would argue that no amount of repressive legislation would satisfy these Jewish organizations or make them feel truly safe. The craving they feel is so deep-rooted it seems more like an unquenchable thirst. The slow chipping away of our freedoms suggest that the continued indulgence of this thirst by our own elites will only be to our detriment in the long run.

But, of course, the problem is not simply one of our own making, and Belloc has much to say on the Jews themselves.

Part Two

After discussing denial among non-Jews on the issue of the “Jewish problem,” Belloc moves in the third chapter to his thoughts on how that problem had manifested in his lifetime. He describes Jewry as a “political organism” which, like any independent organism, seeks after its own interests. The author writes (44):

It is objected of the Jew in finance, in industry, in commerce — where he is ubiquitous and powerful out of all proportion to his numbers — that he seeks, and has already reached, dominion. It is objected that he acts everywhere against the interests of his hosts; that these are being interfered with, guided, run against their will; that a power is present which acts either with indifference to what we love or in active opposition to what we love. Notably it is said to be indifferent to, or in active opposition against our national feelings, our religious traditions, and the general cultural and morals of Christendom which we have inherited and desire to preserve: that power is Israel.

Although these objections had, for the most part, merely simmered under the surface of Western liberal convention, Belloc argues that the Bolshevik revolution shocked Europeans. The leading role of Jews in the Russian catastrophe “struck both at the benevolent who would near no harm of the Jews, and those who had hitherto shielded or obeyed them as identified only with the interest of large Capital (45).” Although liberal convention on the Jews officially held the field, the Bolshevik menace “compelled attention. Bolshevism stated the Jewish problem with a violence and an insistence such that it could no longer be denied either by the blindest fanatic or the most resolute liar (46).”

However, the Bolshevik shock was only part of a gradual change in the Jewish interaction with Europe. Belloc describes early modern Jewish settlement in the West as involving very small numbers of Jews in a given location. These Jews belonged to classes which kept them out of direct competition with the poor of the large towns. They were absent from the countryside. They refrained from interference in politics or in the press. It was relatively easy to admit such a collection of non-descript characters to equal citizenship. But changes were afoot. Religion declined and with it some of the last barriers to certain professions and avenues to power. This small number of Jews now entered the liberal professions, but still in numbers too small to dominate or influence. Conflicts were minimal. But with time, even this small group acquired influence vastly out of proportion to its numbers. Between 1830 and 1870,

the weight and position of the Jew in Western Civilization increased out of all knowledge and yet without shock, and almost without attracting attention. They entered the Parliaments everywhere, the English Peerage as well, and the Universities in very large numbers. A Jew became Prime Minister of Great Britain, another a principal leader of the Italian insurrection; another led the opposition to Napoleon III. They were present in increasing numbers in the chief institutions of every country. (47)

Within the same period, the Papal States were broken up, and the Pope confined to the Vatican. “Within a few years Rome was to see a Jewish Mayor who supported with all his might the unchristianizing of the city and especially of its educational system (48).” Jews like Paul Reuter began to take the lead in international news transmission and became owners, editors, and journalists of many European newspapers.

The perennial friction between Jews and non-Jews had increased to intolerable levels. The first writings on the increasing friction — what would today be called “hate speech” — emerged in Germany and France in the 1870s. In 1879 the famous and respected German historian Heinrich von Treitschke complained publicly about “the unjust influence of the Jews in the press,” but was shouted down as an anti-Semite. Belloc states that men like von Treitschke had their writings denounced as “the extravagancies of fanatics (49).” But, argues Belloc, “fanatics” like von Treitschke frustrated their opponents “by the quotation of an immense quantity of facts which could not but remain in the mind (49).” The object of many of these early writers was to expose “crypto-Judaism,” and the conscious secrecy which lay behind Jewish networking in Europe’s corridors of power.

Such work was necessary given the increasing number of international Jewish financial scandals. These included a war between the British and the Boers in South Africa in 1899 — a conflict Belloc argues was “openly and undeniably provoked and promoted by Jewish interests (50).” Jewish politicians in France and Britain were also exposed by brave writers as participating in large-scale fraud in conjunction with their cousins in finance:

The Panama scandals in the French Parliament had already fed the movement in France. The later Parliamentary scandals in England, Marconi and the rest, afforded so astonishing a parallel to Panama that the similarity was of universal comment [see also “Free to Cheat: ‘Jewish Emancipation’ and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood“] They might have passed as isolated things a generation before. They were now connected, often unjustly, with the uneasy sense of a general financial conspiracy. They were, at any rate, connected with an atmosphere essentially Jewish in character. (51)

Then, on top of the rise to power of those Jews already settled in the West, the great Eastern reservoir of the Jewish race was opened up in the 1880s, and the borders of the Western states were pried open with fabricated tales of pogroms and persecution. By the time Westerners became attuned to the fact that those “ignorant Slavs” might have had good reason to resent the “poor innocent victims” now calling for revolution on the streets of New York and London, their mouths had been muzzled. Belloc writes that “The Jews were in every place of advantage: they taught in the Universities of all Europe; they were everywhere in the Press; everywhere in finance. They were continually to be found in the highest places of Government and in the chanceries of Christendom they had acquired a dominant power which none could question (53).” Following this was the Russian catastrophe, which was motivated by the Jewish communists’ “sincere hatred of national feeling, save, of course, where the Jewish nation was concerned (59).” Such was the “Present Phase of the Problem” when Belloc penned his work, and with this he concludes his third chapter.

Having discussed the immediate context of his own times, Belloc moves in his fourth chapter to an examination of the more timeless qualities of conflict: “The General Causes of Friction.” I found this to be one of the better chapters in the book. Here Belloc is careful to point out that the “Jewish Problem” is more than the contemporary context he described in the previous chapter: “The friction between the Jews and the nations among which they are dispersed is far older, far more profound, far more universal (69).” It is a force which has been “permanently at work everywhere and at all times (71).” The causes of this friction, argues Belloc, are both “general” and “special.” The general cause is summed up “in the truth that the whole texture of the Jewish nation, their corporate tradition, their social mind, is at issue with the people among whom they live (71).” The special causes are “the use of secrecy by the Jews as a method of action and the open expression of superiority over his neighbors which the Jew cannot help but feeling but is wrong to emphasize (71).”

Belloc argues that the different ‘texture’ of the Jewish nation from our own is self-evident. He takes three common charges levelled against the Jews — cowardice, avarice and treason — and argues that these have the opposite qualities but with a “special national timbre.” Thus among the Jews you will find “innumerable instances of the highest courage, the greatest generosity and the most devoted loyalty: but courage, generosity and loyalty of a Jewish kind, directed to Jewish ends, and stamped with a highly distinctive Jewish mark (73).” It is upon the non-Jew to realize that the Jew will be courageous on behalf of his own people, that he will be generous toward his own people, and that he will be loyal to his own people. His defects to us, are his virtues to his own. Belloc writes that “there is no race which has produced so few traitors. It is not treason in the Jew to be international. It is not treason in the Jew to work now for one interest among those who are not of his people, now for another. He can only be charged with treason when he acts against the interests of Israel, and there is no nation nor ever has been one in which the national solidarity was greater or national weakness in the shape of traitors less (78).”

Thus, to use an example from the present, Jonathan Pollard is a loyal Jewish hero who has attracted unceasing support from global Jewry since his arrest by the US government for “treason.” Belloc urges us to see that such cases are to be expected. Pollard, as a Jew, did not commit treason. He was in fact very loyal — to his own people. Our crime is in adopting a dog and expecting it not to bark. In permitting loyal Jews, such as Pollard, to positions of power and influence in our society, it is we who harbor the greater amount of traitors, and it is we who commit treason daily by ceding power, influence, and money to a foreign nation.

Belloc moves on to a survey of Jewish traits which again are similar to our own but differ in quality or direction. Thus “his tenacity, which all know and all in a sense admire and which is far superior to our own, is also a narrower tenacity, or at any rate a tenacity of a different kind. He will follow one end where we will follow many. His wonderful loyalty to all family relations we know: but we do not appreciate it because it is outside our own circle. Even his intellectual gifts, which are less affected by this matter of timbre, have something alien to us in them. They are undeniable but we feel them to be used for other ends than ours (80).”

I found this last sentence quite haunting. Bear in mind that Belloc was writing prior to the rise of Jewish intellectual movements, and that ‘Jewish timbre’ was not so clearly evident in academia during his lifetime.

In a further example of the unchanging nature of the friction between Jews and non-Jews, and the observations of difference at the core of that friction, Belloc precedes scholars like Kevin MacDonald in identifying psychological intensity as a background trait of Jewish ethnocentrism and activism. In addition to a marked single-mindedness, Belloc describes “a certain intensity of action which is very noticeable and which again is a cause of friction between himself and those about him. Hear a Jew speaking upon the revolutionary platform, and note the high voltage at which the current is working. … He is not eloquent in our fashion; but he is at any rate astonishingly effective in his own (82).”

This intensity, argues Belloc, is most often employed in “a corporate capacity for hiding or for advertising at will: a power of ‘pushing’ whatever the whole race desires advanced, or of suppressing what the whole race desires to suppress (82).” Such corporate action “will always remain a permanent irritant in its effect upon those to whom it is applied.”

Belloc uses the example of the nausea which is eventually felt following the incessant Jewish propaganda about “the talents of some particular Jew [see, e.g., my series on the promotion of Spinoza, “Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza”], or the scientific discovery of another, or the misfortunes of another (83).” And conversely, when men discover “that some important matter has been suppressed, some bad scandal in the State or some trick in commerce, because Jewry desired it to be suppressed,” they will not suffer the operation as quietly the second time as they did they first.

A final significant cause of friction is also related to the intensity of the Jewish corporate capacity — the strong tendency toward monopoly (94). Belloc contends that “the Jew is international, tenacious and determined upon reaching the very end of his task. He is not satisfied in any trade until that trade is, as far as possible, under his complete control, and he has for the extension of that control the support of his brethren throughout the world (94).”

The increase of Jewish monopolies in various public, political and financial spheres is dangerous for everyone, including Jews. Belloc closes his fourth chapter by prophetically anticipating the rise of a dictatorial mode of government and the backlash against the Jews:

To put an end to this state of affairs is impossible so long as parliamentary government, with its profound corruption, endures. The only force capable of dealing with the plutocratic evil of an alien monopoly upon this scale is a king; but a king we have not among the modern nations. But the parliamentary system will not last forever. It is already in active dissolution among ourselves, and badly hit elsewhere. The king may not be so far off as people think him to be. At any rate, in one way or another the thing will cease, and will probably cease in violence. (96)

The fifth chapter concerns the “special” causes of friction. These are the Jewish reliance upon secrecy, and the Jewish expression of superiority. Belloc states that the centuries-old Jewish habit of secrecy has now almost become an instinct. This is expressed in “secret societies, a language kept as far as possible secret, the use of false names in order to hide secret movements, and secret relations between various parts of the Jewish body (99).” Such behavior should be deplored because it “feeds and intensifies the antagonism already excited by racial contrast (100).” In particular, the author singles out the Jewish habit of denying the influence of his nationality upon his thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Belloc writes:

If a man tells me that he hates the English, and in reply I say, ‘That’s because you are an Irishman,’ he does not fly at my throat. He takes it as a matter of course that the history of the English government in Ireland excuses his expression. So far from being insulted at being called an Irishman he would be insulted if you said he was not an Irishman. And so it is with many another nationality which has suffered oppression and persecution. I can find no rational basis for a contrary policy in the case of the Jews (106).

But the Jews do, of course, pursue a different line of thought altogether. Accuse of Jew of bearing a grudge against Europeans for past conflict, and you will quickly find yourself accused of being a “rabid anti-Semite” or some such nonsense. Your crime has been to pierce the veil of secrecy thrown over Jewish nationality. His membership of the Jewish nation is a matter of private pride, and only the mask of outward patriotism to the goy State is permitted to be up for discussion. Thus, during World War II, New York Jews were protesting as democracy-loving Americans against the Jewish policies of National Socialist Germany. People like Charles Lindbergh, who dared to rip off the mask and describe the situation plainly, were monitored and attacked by the distinctly Hebraic Anti-Defamation League.[1]B. Ginsberg, How The Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), p.46.

Although he concedes that a great deal more could be written on the subject of Jewish secrecy, Belloc moves on to a discussion of expressions of Jewish superiority. He writes that “the Jew individually feels himself superior to his non-Jewish contemporary and neighbour of whatever race; the Jew feels his nation immeasurably superior to any other human community (108).” This fixed idea of superiority, linked to the concept of Jews as “a light unto the nations,” often creates friction.

The Jew will write of our religion, taking for granted that it is folly, and will marvel that we are offended. He will appear in our national affairs, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct policy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to national feeling is annoying. He will postulate the Jewish temperament as something which, if different from ours, must, whether we like it or not, be thrust upon us. He acts in all these things as everyone acts instinctively in the presence of those whom they take for granted to be inferiors. (113)

This superiority also connects with Jewish contempt for the masses of non-Jews, particularly the rural folk.[2]A good example of the hostility toward rural folk by Jewish intellectuals can be seen in the New York Intellectuals. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Terry Cooney, The Rise of the New York Intellectuals 1986, 267–268; italics in text) Belloc writes that it is an overwhelming and incontrovertible truth that the bulk of Jewry makes no effort to get in touch with the race in the midst of which he may be living. He is content to remain separate from it, and deludes himself into the belief that he cannot help but remain separate from it. “He associates with the elite, with those who direct, with those who have some sort of special function (114).” But to him it seems, at best, a waste of time to attempt communion with the rest.

Jewish resentment is increased when his sense of superiority is forced to contend with the European’s own sense of superiority. He loathes this as insolence. (One is reminded of the hatred of Franz Boas toward the idea that Europeans were the pinnacle of humanity, a major motivation for his theory of cultural relativism; here, p. 24.) He feels his position and his security threatened. He attempts to gain a more solid position by extending his power, but succeeds only in provoking stronger assertions of superiority by the European, indignant at having to fight for mastery on his own soil. Friction escalates, and sometimes violence ensues.

Belloc concludes the chapter by urging the restraint of the sense of superiority by both parties, and the adoption of more natural and truthful societal positions — that of host and guest — with impermeable boundaries. Only by doing so can we avoid “falling back into the old circle of submission, consequent anger accompanied by shame and violence, and these followed by remorse (119).”

Part Three

As Belloc moves into the second half of his book, I personally feel that the work becomes weaker. His characteristic style remains powerful, but it is in the second half of the book that Belloc’s attempt to come across as balanced goes too far. The sixth chapter examines “The Causes of Friction upon Our Side.” Here Belloc neglects to concede that the great mass of Europeans has never urged the Jews to settle among them, that they have never held them captive, and certainly never sought out conflict with them. As Martin Luther once so insightfully pointed out:

Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about being captives among us. … [W]e do not know to this day which Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them from Jerusalem! On top of that, no-one is holding them now. Land and highways are open to them; they may move to their country whenever they wish to do so.

This is a fundamental issue in the history of Jewish-European relations that Belloc fails to recognize. Purposeful or not, the presence of a powerful but separate foreign, political entity exerting influence to its own ends in the elite strata of a given society amounts to one thing and one thing only: colonialism. In such a scenario, one would be hard-pressed to find fault with the colonized. Jews have remained in European society out of choice and with purpose and goals; not out of captivity. There are no passive partners. We are not locked into a fateful and unceasing struggle with all exits blocked. But instead Belloc strains to keep a balance which loses touch with the reality of the situation. He argues that “it is certain that we play a part ourselves in this quarrel between us and the Jews (124).” While certain actions on our part may escalate tensions, I would argue you that no fully accurate assessment of the situation can be made without having as a foundation an acknowledgement of the scenario I have just outlined.

This aside, Belloc has some insightful comments on how the European peoples deal with Jews. He argues that only two types of people show perfect honesty in their dealings with Jews: “the completely ignorant dupe who can hardly tell a Jew when he sees one and who accepts as a reality the old fiction of there being no difference except a different of religion,” and “the person called an ‘anti-Semite’ (126).” Both these types are rare, says Belloc. The majority of men “are grossly disingenuous in all their dealings with the Jews (127).” In this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject. Belloc describes such activity as “the great fault of our side which corresponds to the fault of secrecy upon theirs (127).”

Both types inhibit the ultimate goal of achieving openness and honesty. Jews, of course, are aware of the disingenuous nature of much of the contact they have with non-Jews. Afraid that at any second that hidden awareness may be made explicit, his infamous sense of insecurity grows and he becomes ever more paranoid. His paranoia breeds further friction. Only with the dupe and the so-called “anti-Semite” do Jews think “At least I know where I am.” For this reason, Belloc argues, “in their heart of hearts the Jews are grateful to both (126).”

This may well be the case, but I’m not holding my breath for a thank you card from Abe Foxman. Belloc also astutely recognizes that the great vice of disingenuous dealings with the Jews is “particularly rife among the wealthy and middle classes,” being far less common among the working class and the poor (131).

Falsehood also extends to the historical record of the Jews among us. Belloc writes that “we throw the story of these relations, which are among the half-dozen leading factors in history, right into the background even when we do mention it (131).” The vast and omnipresent nature of this subject “is deliberately suppressed (132).”

There took place in Cyprus and in the Libyan cities under Hadrian a Jewish movement against the surrounding non-Jewish society far exceeding in violence the late wreckage of Russia, which to-day fills all our thoughts. The massacres were wholesale and so were the reprisals. The Jews killed a quarter of a million of the people of Cyprus alone, and the Roman authorities answered with a repression which was a pitiless war. One might pile up instances indefinitely. The point is, that the average educated man has never been allowed to hear of them (132).

These epoch-defining events, unless they can be adapted in some fashion to clearly show the Jew as victim, are relegated to mere footnotes or insignificant details in the vast catalogues of our history. The same falsehood then extends into our contemporary record in the media reports, produced by knowing non-Jews, which insist on describing Jonathan Pollard as an American, or which portray the activities of the ADL or SPLC as in any way consistent with “American” values.

Belloc pours scorn on this falsehood not only because it “corrodes the souls of those who indulge in it (134),” but also because it “produces in the Jew a false sense of security and a completely distorted phantasm of the way in which he is really received in our society (134).” The more this falsehood is pursued, “the more the surprise which follows upon its discovery and the more legitimate the bitterness and hatred which that surprise occasions in those of whom we are the hosts (134).”

This is a good point. Studying Jewish reactions to the rising tide of inter-ethnic friction in Central Europe at the start of the twentieth century, one is indeed struck by the “profound shock, the utter disbelief, among the Jews.”[3]Y. M. Bodemann, Jews, Germans, Memory: Reconstructions of Jewish Life in Germany (University of Michigan Press, 1996), p.266.

Aside from falsehood on our part, Belloc also condemns the “unintelligence of our dealing with the Jews (134).” We stand at a particular disadvantage because “their dealings with us are always intelligent. They know what they are driving at in those relations, though they often misunderstand the material with which they deal (135).”

This unintelligence manifested in a number of ways in Belloc’s lifetime in the form of inept defenses of the Jews. He particular loathed the masking of Jewish immigration under the title of “the alien question,” or “Russian immigration.” He also castigated authors who, having been scolded for including less than positive Jewish characters in their novels, rushed to put “imaginary Jew heroes in their books.” Using the example of Dickens and the Fagin of Oliver Twist, and later his Riah of Our Mutual Friend, Belloc writes:

He disliked Jews instinctively; when he wrote of a Jew according to his inclination he made him out a criminal. Hearing that he must make amends for this action, he introduced a Jew who is like nothing on earth — a sort of compound of an Arab Sheik and a Family Bible picture from the Old Testament, and the whole embroidered on an utterly non-Jewish — a purely English character (136).

This unintelligence can generally be summed up in the idea that we too readily read ourselves into others, becoming shocked and acting stupidly when we discover otherwise. Rather “we ought to take it for granted that the Jew is nomadic, international, and spread all over the world (137).” We need to become attuned to the reality that “the Jew feels among us, only with far greater intensity, what we feel when we are in a foreign country — a sense of exile, a sense of irritation against alien things, merely because they are alien; a great desire for companionship and for understanding, yet a great indifference to the fate of those among whom he finds himself; an added attachment, no, indeed, to his territorial home, for he has none, but to his nation (138).” The modern reader can accept such a thesis, though obviously with the acknowledgment that a steady loyalty to the Israeli state has now been woven into the mentality of the Diaspora Jew.

With the close of this chapter, the book moves toward progressively shorter sections on ‘The anti-Semite,’ ‘Bolshevism,’ ‘The Position in the World as a Whole,’ ‘Zionism,’ and some concluding remarks. Belloc’s chapter on ‘The anti-Semite’ is particularly weak, based as it is on the assumption that there is in fact a sizeable portion of men who “hate Jews in themselves (147).” Belloc subscribes to the Jewish notion that the motives of those they label ‘anti-Semites’ are not related to a “hatred of concealment, falsehood, hypocrisy, corruption and all the other incidental evils of the false position. These things, indeed, irritate him, but they are not his leading motive. His leading motive is a hatred of the Jewish people (148).”

The bankruptcy of Belloc’s adoption of such weak analysis is nowhere more evident than in the reception of his book, and the manner in which history has recorded him and his works. For, despite what he may have thought, his focus on attempting to achieve an extreme level of balance and a focus on those “evils of the false position,” did not prevent him from being labelled an “anti-Semite” in his own lifetime and in mainstream history since his death.[4]See for example R.S. Levy, Antisemitism: An Historical Encyclopaedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Vol. 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2005), p.65. This is perhaps the greatest condemnation of his theories on the “anti-Semite,” and I will offer no further comment on the subject other than to remark that an “anti-Semite” has been, and always will be, any individual deemed by Jewry to be in opposition to Jewish interests.

Belloc’s chapter on Bolshevism has been superseded in more recent decades by more insightful works on the Russian catastrophe. It remains, however, a coherent and concise contribution to honest discussion of Jewish involvement in those events. Belloc describes the rise of Bolshevism as “a field in which we can study the evil effect of secrecy, and one in which we can analyse all the various forces which tend to bring Israel into such ceaseless conflict with the society around it (167).” His general theory of the Bolshevik explosion can be summed up in his description of the destruction of old Russian society as “an act of racial revenge (169).”

In his thoughts on “The Position in the World as a Whole,” Belloc points out that “the Jew has collectively a power today, in the white world, altogether excessive. It is not only an excessive power, it is inevitably a corporate power and, therefore, a semi-organized power (191).” This power has been acquired

out of all proportion to his numbers, out of all proportion to his ability; certainly out of proportion to any right of his to interfere in our affairs. It was a Jew who produced the divorce laws in France, the Jew who nourished anti-clericalism in that country and also in Italy; the Jew who called in the forces of Occidental nations to protect his compatriots in the East, and the Jew whose spirit has so largely permeated the Universities and the Press(199).

Belloc observed that the “regular and organized Jewish emigration” to the United States was having an effect. He noted “the growth of the financial monopoly and of monopolies in particular trades (202).” He noted a corresponding “clamour for toleration in the form of ‘neutralizing’ religious teaching in schools; there was the appearance of the Jewish revolutionary and of the Jewish critic in every tradition of Christian life (202).” The United States was ultimately left more prone because here “this Liberal tradition or convention, this conception that the Jew must be treated as a full citizen, was far stronger even than it was in the West of Europe. It was in the very soul of the Constitution, and, what is more important, in the very soul of the people (206).”

In terms of viable opponents to the growth of Jewish power and influence, Belloc posited only the Catholic Church. He argued that “the Catholic Church is the conservator of an age-long European tradition, and that tradition will never compromise with the fiction that a Jew can be other than a Jew. Wherever the Catholic Church has power, and in proportion to its power, the Jewish problem will be recognized to the full. … The Catholic Church will always maintain reality, including the reality of that sharp distinction between the Jew and his hosts (210).”

Here we encounter another of Belloc’s great and unfortunate errors. The Catholic Church was not invulnerable to Jewish influence. Nor, contrary to the opinion of those who wish to make a fetish of the link between the Church and our way of life, has it ever explicitly or implicitly been a protector of European traditions or peoples. The Catholic Church and Christianity in general are concerned solely with the fate of the “faith.” When Christianity came to Scandinavia, did it respect the existing culture? Did it accommodate those perfectly upstanding European folk who declined to kneel before the Nazarene? As I have written previously, it was Europe and Europeans that gave life and success to Christianity and not the other way around. It was we who took it to the four corners of the earth, on routes long since established by the pagan and the heathen. As the heart of Catholicism moves slowly south of the equator, we need only look at the shift of power and demography within Catholicism to see that it has, and always has had, a life distinct from our racial vitality.

Belloc returns to form in his chapter on Zionism, which is prophetic to say the least. With the creation of a Jewish state not yet a reality, he was left to ponder solely theoretical scenarios. He begins by asking “whether the Zionist experiment will tend to increase or to relax the strain created by the presence of the Jew in the midst of the non-Jewish world (231).” Pondering the creation of a Jewish state, Belloc was particularly interested in “the status of the Jew outside this territorial unit, which he had chosen to be much more than a symbol of his national unity — its actual seat and establishment (232).” He correctly predicted that the majority of Jews would continue to live outside such a state because they live “and desire to live the semi-nomadic life, the international life, which has becomes theirs by every tradition, and which one might now almost call instinctive to them (233).”

The new Zion, then, is to be “no more than a fixed rallying point, an established but small territorial nationhood (234).” Faced with the questioning of their political character, diaspora Jews would cling to insisting that he is “to be regarded as the full national in the nation in which he happens to be for a time (234).” In an astonishingly clear prediction of modern Jewry’s relationship with Israel, Belloc argues that “He shall in every respect be regarded, by a legal fiction, as identical with the community in which he happens to be settled for the moment, but at the same time he is to have some special relation with the Jewish State (234).” [Italics in original]. Belloc also heavily doubted that a Jewish state would rely upon its own military strength to ensure its security (241).

The conclusion of the book commences with an account of “Our Duty.” Here Belloc urges non-Jews to rid ourselves of the Liberal conventions and the falsehoods by which the Jewish problem is obscured. The author acknowledges that this is not easy. The greatest obstacle in this respect, he argues, is fear. There is first the European’s fear of breaking convention. He is secondly faced with fear of social and economic consequences. Belloc writes that “Men dread lest hostility to the Jewish Domination should bring them into the grip of some unknown but suspected world-wide power which can destroy the individual who shall be so rash as to challenge it (262).” There are “innumerable men who would express publicly on Jews what they continually express in private, but who conceal their feelings for fear that their salaries may be lost or their modest enterprises wrecked, their investments lowered, and their position ruined (263).” Jews, of course, are aware of this fear, and are adept at manipulating it. I’ve noted precisely this behavior in my recent article on Jewish Hollywood’s show of strength over Gaza.

However, Belloc correctly points out that the “fear strategy” will only work for so long, and that in the longer-term Jews are pursuing a very dangerous course of conduct. Based on a false sense of power and relative security, the use of fear only “dams up and enormously increases the latent force of anger against Jewish power. … It is like the piling up of a head of water when a river valley is obstructed, or like introducing of resistance into an electric current (263).” It is a “fierce irritant and accounts for the high pressure at which attack escapes when once it is loosened (263).”

Essentially, Belloc is questioning the rationality and wisdom of Jews who would seek the oppression of a grumbling peasantry, only to be later expelled en masse by a king; or who would shout down and intimidate a von Treitschke, only to be confronted later by a Hitler. In all cases, this elaborate game of “chicken” is taken too far.

The author argues that Jews too have a duty to perform in ceasing the ethnic conflict. They must end their “foolish and dangerous habit of secrecy and the irritating expression of superiority (271).” They may remain among us, but must form Jewish institutions that openly speak for Jewish interests, with no claims or pretensions to any other interests or values (273). They should permit open scrutiny of their interests if they wish to participate in the national, political and economic life of their host nation. Special courts of mixed character should be established to deal with conflicts and disputes between Jews and non-Jews, and these courts should be founded on acknowledgment of the mutual causes of friction between the two peoples. To ensure the endurance of this state of affairs, these developments should arise from a social movement before they are made law. It should not be imposed from above, but arise from the will of the people.

Are Belloc’s proposals practical? That remains to be seen. But The Jews, his general assessment of the longest ethnic conflict engaged in by the European peoples, is, almost a century after it was written, a prophetic, informative, concise and powerful summary of issues which retain a painful relevance. It deserves more recognition and deeper study. For my part, I have been inspired by Belloc’s work to produce a kind of companion book, which will offer greater detail, and some correctives to the original, in light of the century which has since passed.

  • The Jews
    Hilaire Belloc • 76,000 Words


[1] B. Ginsberg, How The Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), p.46.

[2] A good example of the hostility toward rural folk by Jewish intellectuals can be seen in the New York Intellectuals. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Terry Cooney, The Rise of the New York Intellectuals 1986, 267–268; italics in text)

[3] Y. M. Bodemann, Jews, Germans, Memory: Reconstructions of Jewish Life in Germany (University of Michigan Press, 1996), p.266.

[4] See for example R.S. Levy, Antisemitism: An Historical Encyclopaedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Vol. 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2005), p.65.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Jews 
Hide 176 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. That was both educational and very eye-opening. Thank you for this article. I am now going to read that book!

  2. Dan Hayes says:

    An example of the current state of Catholic – Jewish relations. The Roman Catholic Church has effectively ceased considering the canonization of G K Chesterton because of anti-Semitic allegations waged against him. In England at one time Chesterton and Belloc were fierce, able, and prominent defenders of the RCC.

  3. Paul says:

    When trying to understand Jewish behavior, which can appear contradictory at times, merely look at the criterion that they themselves use: Is it good for the Jews? Hence, the same Jews who support civil rights for “people of color” can oppose the rights of the indigenous Palestinian people. The reason is because the issue for Jews (a highly ethnocentric group) is: Is it good for the Jews? After you have been around Jews long enough, you begin to understand what is going on.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Moi
    , @Fuerchtegott
  4. Wally says: • Website

    Jews were found to be dangerous & loathsome by everyone, everywhere, every time, long before Christianity.

    Complete list with graphics of the Expulsions of Jews / Jews expelled from over 1,000 places in history:

    • Replies: @Miggle
    , @Miggle
  5. I don’t agree the issue is just a national one, because the blessed nation is at its core a nation of faith, subject to its own theology, and from this flow the actions of the nation and its people.

    The best summary of the problem the blessed nation faces is found in the first lines of the Talmud on Avodah Zarah, idolatry, imo.

    The first ruling is not on the general notion of applying conventional and impermanent words, conceptions, unto an Absolute that is separate from this imperfect experience, but on money lending to Gentiles before their pagan festivals.

    The rulings betrays what concerns the faith, as well as its errors. It is reminiscent of Christ with the money changers. It is either subject to a misattribution of volitional action and its result – from the pagan to the Jew – or a hidden chosenness motive of helping the Gentile to not commit idolatry, in secret (at best authoritarian, at worst deluded). It is certainly not universal.

    There is no moral solution to the Jewish problem from the Gentile side, because Jewish theology categorically denies the Copernican principle that ‘Man (or more specifically Jew) does not have a preferential frame of reference to observe the Universe’. It is the chosenness issue that plagued Christianity before Copernicus too – the Great Commission, and the reason they acted out so violently towards others.

    The Jewish people will assimilate and coexist peacefully when God given chosenness – a denial of religion (the need for self improvement) and an acceptance of ideology (the need for other improvement, ‘light unto the nations’) – is expunged from their faith.

    But this would paradoxically require religion from an ideological and ritualistic faith, and it has shown millennia of the latter two aspects, and little of the former aspect.

    • Replies: @Brewer
  6. The fall of the cities, now glaringly apparent, means the fall of the Jewish establishment along with several other establishments.

    The Jewish establishment has always been good at tactics, but very poor at strategy. It seldom wants the consequences of what it wants. All of its major strategies during the 20th Century failed badly, causing major Jewish casualties and forcing increasingly repressive, hence dangerous, measures during the 21st Century (up to 2006, year of this post).

    Cultural reorganization changes the way people do everything; above all it changes the thought of the culture. [1] This makes the end state of a reorganization difficult or impossible to predict: the thought of the predictor has certain prohibitions and freedoms that are different from the thought after the reorganization. Something literally unthinkable before the reorganization (such as men as a group risking loss of the promises of religious life in favor of secular achievement) become the conventional wisdom after the reorganization.

    The sandpile analogy has become a popular analogy to such things as reorganization [2], and I think it’s worth considering. In this analogy, every bit of tactical success of the Jewish establishment (and similar establishments, there are several in the US) is analogous another “grain of sand” in the center of a sandpile, the sandpile being an analog of Western society. The strategic defeats are then analogs of avalanches in the sandpile.


    1] Hegel’s historicism is based on this realization. The subsequent developments of historicism makes me a bit reluctant to make the “singularity” claim, but the observation is so clearly true that I make it anyway. Hegel’s disciples became quite the believer in “political reality”, eventually becoming nearly psychotic in the USSR prior to their rejection by the Russians. I take reorganizations as a change of beliefs in what is fundamentally important, no more, no less.

    2] “Fragility, Mental Models And The Sandpile Analogy”
    Jordan Ellenberg.
    “The Amazing, Autotuning Sandpile: A simple mathematical model of a sandpile shows remarkably complex behavior”.

  7. Yet another sand grain on the sandpile. The US Army and the West in general have been considering urban combat for quite some time. It’s said that concrete eats troops — cities are highly defensible terrain. It appears that there are still only two answers to the problem of a hostile city in wartime: either it surrenders or it is destroyed. Only two tactics have produced victory in the past: cordon and ignore (reduces force available elsewhere, and the city will likely be destroyed by civil unrest as food and water grow scarce), or evacuate city and fight through it (destroys the city).

    So four years ago the US Army says that neither of the old Army tactics will stand a chance of working by 2030 (I suspect 2020 would be closer to the mark), and that it doesn’t know what to do.

    (from posting at

    Copley, _Uncivilization_, has a few ideas on what might actually happen. Copley was a student of Luttwak, he’s a legitimate strategist. He points out that urban areas dominate contempoarary polities, but under some circumstances cannot exist without support from their hinterland, and that their hinterland has become hostile.

    This puts the Jewish establishment, and every other establishment that is urban based, in an unfavorable situation.


    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  8. 1. If deaths and lives are truly no respecters of persons and apply to everyone without discrimination then there will be the natural difference between right and wrong;

    2. Because the Jews are themselves the Jews (coincidentia oppositorum), the internal question for each one of the “Gentile” will be “who are you sticking up for, Jewish or Gentile?”. “Who are you, Jewish or Gentile?”. The difference is as fundamental as right and wrong.

    3. If one says it does not matter to me “who you are sticking up for, Jewish or Gentile?” I will stand by the right or truth it means you are going to be extremely taken up with yourself, and this has therefore nothing to do with the “question” and thereby with the “truth” per se. It is just a lack of personal knowledge, judgement or capability to understand things themselves. It is wrong.

    4. All the others should have got to think this out.
    5. It makes no difference “how many Jews were murdered in line with spirit of the
    Holocaust”. The Jews themselves are the conceptualized “Holocaust” (“Sacrifice”, “Korban”, or “Burnt Offering”), whenever and wherever they are, whatever the cost.

    6. The “Holocaust”, it is not a kind of seeing yourself as others see you. Nor extramural idea or an outsourcing partnership. The “Holocaust” is inner self of the “Jew”.

    7. Come to think of it, the individual Jew is itself none other than reversed Jesus Christ, maybe Jesus Christ on its own terms.

    8. In this context, the “Jewishness” forms an “another” physical or natural condition that a substance can be in. Properly speaking, the “Jewishness” or the “Jew” is itself anti-matter to all manner of Gentile.

    What the “Jewishness of the Jew” is made of?

    You should accept the following in the absolute sense of vision but in a particular way of thinking.
    You must try to see all these ” personality traits” in proportion to one another.


    1) Jewish Intellectuality Movement.
    As an example I refer to the art lovers who say that the World is driven by the talent and passion of great painters. Therefore, there were many great painters who created the genuine or real “beauty” and there were many copyist-painters thereabout who created widespread copies of this real “beauty”. Here is the first supreme quality of the Jew is that they (Jews) are great “copyistpainters” or just “imitators” not the “painters” themselves. Jews themselves are nothing more than “copyists” or “imitators”. Jews were never meant for the reality (something original). They mimic it. They make a complimentarycopy of the nature and distort (express) it in their own terms. Depending on the level of their great mimic skills they can imitate the nature (original) in such way that no one but “expert” is able to tell real thing from its imitation.
    Because of this inborn ability to imitate (mimic or copy) the nature (original) they can
    also imitate the Intellectuality itself. For some people, but not all it is hard to distinguish
    factual Intellectuality (of Gentile people) from pseudo-Intellectuality (of the Jews).
    The best known example of high quality imitators is Albert Einstein who was a
    pedestrian mind and did nothing but plagiarize his theories from actual theoretical
    physicists and mathematicians when he secured his job in the patent office and accessed the date.
    As a result of their work, the famous E=mc2 was discovered and formulated by
    numerous theoretical physicists and mathematicians long before Albert Einstein secured his job in the patent office including but not limited to Fritz Hasenohrl, John Henry Poynting (with Nikolay Umov), Oliver Heaviside, Whilhelm Wien, James Clerk
    Maxwell etc. Theoretical treatment of this formula was completely done by Jules Henri
    Poincare and Hendrik Lorentz. Albert Einstein just stole it.
    Same thing happened to his Nobel Prize in Physics “for his services to Theoretical
    Physics, and esp for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”. The law of the photoelectric effect was discovered and formulated by two famous scientist long
    before the Great Plagiarizer (Einstein) secured his job in the patent office, by Hertz
    (1887) and Stoletov (1888). Albert Einstein ripped off almost everything they had. There
    is conventional wisdom amongst theoretical physicists saying that “if a jew discovers some this or other formula (theorem) it is either a plagiarized and/or wrong”.
    You should accept that the “Jews” are ready, willing, and able to imitate the nature, not
    create one! They are NOT intellectuals but “great” second-raters. However they can well
    enough imitate the Intellectuality in itself the way that none but real intellectual can
    distinguish it. Without restricting the generality, it happened to Martin Buber, Max Nordau, Simon Wiesenthal, Otto Frank, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt to mention only a few (concerning this topic).
    Only one thing can be inferred from their this “copying” quality. The “Jews” STEAL the
    reality as it is.
    It is for this reason that they are good (to some “distinctive” degree) in plagiary, writings, stand-up comedy, politics (lying), language expertizing, legal profession, instigating a conflict, negotiating a conflict and so on and so forth.
    Jewish people look like a real but they are imitation as well.
    The Jews are not antique heroes but great squabblers (or stormbirds);
    The Jews are not great painters but great copyist-painters (caricaturists or
    The Jews are not scientists but great plagiarizers (or just patent officers);
    They are not Germans but have German names;

    This is not about their human nature. it is all about the imitation of the humane
    Engrave this in your mind, they are able to exactly imitate the Intellectuality itself the
    way that none but real intellectual can distinguish it.
    As such, don’t take seriously their
    behavior, however, stay on alert.

    2) “Conflicting unity of opposites”, “mixed bipolar mindset”, “controversial aspect of the behavior” (behavior abnormalities), moral perversions etc

    Because the “Jews” make a “copy” (“imitation” or “mimicry”) of reality there is always
    some “gap” or (to be precise) “break” between this reality and its imitation. This “gap”
    (“breakdown” of human nature) is always found in their mind. the “Jews” are told from
    their childhood they are “smart”, in other words, they have this “gap” (the natural “natural defect”) in their head. With this they feel “obliged ” to close it whenever and wherever they are, whatever the cost . This “smartness” or “Jewishness” precisely reflects the leveling effect of this gap, a funny way to behave. This “gap” makes vital
    difference for you on which side you are sticking up for, whether Jewish or Gentile. The
    difference is as fundamental as nature and its copy, right or wrong.
    As a consequence, there are two major conflicting pattern of jewish behavior (behavior
    repertoire) we can observe there.

    1. First behavior pattern is when the “Jew” looks much the same as insane person
    (like “off his own nut”).
    If the “Jew” looks like this behavior pattern then it is, strange as it may appear,
    going to be normal (mental) condition for that “Jew”. However this may come as a strange (or even dangerous to or) for Gentile.
    If this is the case, the Jew is in the middle of doing “something” (imitating,
    caricaturing, distorting, falsifying, stealing etc). it is an activation state of the Jewish idiosyncrasy.

    2. Second behavior pattern is when the “Jew” looks much the same as a normal human being (quite normal).
    If this is the case, Jew’s mind is all by itself a sort of salmagundi. However, in this regard, it looks good for Gentile (outside), after a sort.It is a “standby” pattern of Jewish behavior repertoire (“lag phase” or “resting stage”).
    These both behavior patterns are half-finished product.
    Under some circumstances, both conditions may be present at the same time in this jewish mind and create a world-design model of jewish behavior or jewish life style.
    When this occurs the conflicting unity of opposites or a mixed bipolar mindset is fully
    set forth: pathological mendacity, joining in a conspiracy, swindling, “aiding and
    abetting”, toadyism, servility, high “intellectual” activity (pathological hyperphrenia),
    polygraphy, glossolalia, logorrhea, pretentious speech (hoity-toity language),
    pathological monologue, hysteric mutism, rededfatig (pressured speech), psychomotor
    hallucination, malice, deceitfulness, hypocrisy, doublethinking and along with all types of perversions and genetic diseases.
    Generally, almost all Jews reach their particular (or specific for each one of them) age
    when this bipolar mindset of/in their mind is found and underlined.
    “If you are persistently hated by social surroundings you must be prepared to answer
    that you are chosen, and therefore, victim” (being victim and chosen is the same). “If
    one finds or is repeated over and over again that he is a soundly stupid then he must
    be prepared to answer again that he is a smart”.
    “Victim/ a failure”, “chosen/social outcast ” and “smart/stupid” is all of these represent single image of the “Jew” that can easily be understood. “Victim/ a failure” means aggressor (invader or annexationist, dominion, politics); “chosen/social outcast”
    means social interspecific parasitism (crime, cheating, swindling, monkey business
    etc); “smart/stupid” means plagiarism (thievery, graphomania, falsification etc), and vice versa, and so and so forth.
    Torah is like the scrapbook full to the brim of these “behavioral models” and Talmud,
    as an orgy of speechmaking, is their prolific justification and confabulation (embolalia).
    3) There is a comprehensive list of many other aspective traits there explaining the
    idiosyncrasy of the “Jew” however I’d like to qualify all of them now.
    If you favour me with an answer that all these behavioral patterns are widely distributed and reserved for everyone, and ask me why I think that is only on jewish side I will tell you the following thing, “genetics”. That is not about psycho-behavioral patterns but “genetic fate choices”.
    There are certain classes of genes that modern humans inherited from the archaic
    humans with whom they interbred. The interactions between modern humans andarchaic (and/or ancient) humans are complex with multiple events resulting in possession of the certain percentage of archaic ancestry (Neanderthal, Denisovan, Red Deer Cave people, and some others). So, what about the “Jews”? Except that the “Jewish Tribe” possess the 3-5% of Neanderthal archaic genes, the Jews had been interbred with some “Animals” and got these “animal genes” into their blood. One locus of them is the DNST3 gene. Because the “animal nature” is lack of human one, those genes being placed in such humans (the Jews) are to be in opposition to such humans. It constitutes this “natural gap” and therefore all their Jewish behavioral repertoire and diseases (schizophrenia, autism, kakergasia, and other malfunctions of the brain and body) I was talking about earlier.

  9. Thank you for this great article. I first came to know of Hillaire Belloc after hearing about the social doctrine called distributism (in Houellebecq’s novel Soumission), then looking it up in Wikipedia, where I read : “Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.” I recommand studying about distributism, one of those social reform movements swept by marxism, like so many others.

    • Replies: @Al Liguori
  10. I would strongly recommend the introduction Hilaire Belloc wrote for the 1937 edition. In it, he discusses at length the policies of National Socialist Germany towards the Jews:

    Introductory Chapter to the 3rd edition of The Jews by Hilaire Belloc
    by Hilaire Belloc

    In brief, Belloc says they will fail because they don’t past the test of the reasonable man.

  11. cranc says:


    I might have misunderstood, but struggle with this part where Belloc identifies one of three falsehoods among non-Jews:

    Defining the problem in false terms — e.g., proclaiming it as a religious matter rather than as a national/racial one.

    Surely the key issue is that Judaism is a religion specifically of race/ethnicity/tribe/nation which at the same time tries to lay claim to a universal God ? Surely that is the ideological root/’ success’ / motivating power of their supremacist culture?
    I would have thought this made much of by a thinker so committed to the faith of Catholicism. To try and separate out the national/racial problem from the theological one seems to me to be a more obvious falsehood.

    The majority of men “are grossly disingenuous in all their dealings with the Jews (127).” In this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject.

    As the reality of Jewish power becomes unavoidably obvious to more and more people, such disengenuousness becomes more stark. Even self professed ‘free speech’ zones like OffGuardian have started deleting comments accusing people of ‘rampant racism’ because some dare to raise a debate about Jewish identity and Judaic ideology in the context of Epstein-Maxwell-Mossad etc.

    Trump seems to have got everyone talking about dual loyalty and Henry Ford on the same day…
    The strangeness of times match the perennial nature of this issue.

    • Replies: @Trevor Hardy
  12. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

    > The Catholic Church was not invulnerable to Jewish influence.

    True, true. Catholics are officially Jew-worshipers, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states, “To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship.’” And the Catechism of the Catholic Church accurately reflects the Jew-worship outlined in the Holy Hook, namely, “We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” (((John 4:22)))

    • Replies: @Anon
  13. Big Daddy says:

    Belloc has it spot on. Only a radically decentralized, basically libertarian society is long term feasible or you soon have Big Government. Didn’t both Washington and Adams have to fight war parties immediately after our founding? And we blew ourselves up after only 74 years of nationhood.

    The Jews are merely perhaps the most successful conspirators in America.. But they could not have achieved their level of success in a decentralized liberty environment.

    • Replies: @Ace
    , @Anon
  14. DanFromCT says:

    How many here have worked in a Jewish dominated field, on Wall Street? The thing is, in every office (and no doubt in every public institution and gov agency as well) it goes without saying that of course they’re a conspiracy, by their own definition of what it means to be a Jew, which as they like to boast means putting Jewish interests first. It is what is is. As Belloc observed, only a fool would think otherwise. The fact is they own the public stage and all entertainment in America. Only goys on their payroll, such as the talking heads on CNN/Fox News and members of Congress, are granted public existence by appearing on camera. Could there be more disgusting, toadeating flunkies than the members of Congress, whose main use for our flag beyond jingoism for the cameras is wiping off their chin? What we see them doing every day is putting Israel’s and International Jewry’s interests ahead of millions of Americans in our cities rotting from neglect.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
    , @Cassander
  15. Judaism, the earliest form of racism. It is also the only form of racism that is allowed to flourish in this politically correct world we live in.

    “Racism is the most fundamental building block of Zionism/Israel and is an intrinsic characteristic of the Zionist colony so much so that Zionist Jews do not just discriminate against all goyims; non-Jews, but they also discriminate against different factions of Jews among themselves, and segregate each faction from the others; Ashkenazim, Haredim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, and black African Jews, Oriental Jews, Russian Jews European and American Jews. This intra-racism is so strong that white Jewish Israelis regularly commit hate crimes against black Ethiopian Jewish Israelis and refuse to have them live in the same neighborhood or shop in the same grocery stores, or work in the same office, or even buried in the same grave yards. This racism is implanted early in the minds of their children in public schools, where black Jewish Israeli children are segregated from white Jewish Israeli children.”

    Zionism/Israel are the terms used to describe the victory claimed by Judaism in it’s quest for its “very own” homeland.

  16. The church has fallen to the kosher influences for nearing at least a century now. It serves as an apologist for the faithful and offers them up as cheap sacrifices for a small fee.

    The “church” has throughout its history enabled the enslavement and extermination of its faithful, prohibiting the self defense of its adherents. Today, it works to facilitate the invasion of European homelands and societies as Native Europeans are brutally attacked, disenfranchised and subjugated.

    The church itself is now the greatest retrograde force and enabler of the destruction of European peoples.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anarchyst
  17. To funny to not post. Family Guy “The Jewish Lawyer”.

  18. Jew Christopher Jon Bjerknes – Secrets of the Satanic Sabbatean Frankists

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  19. Anonymous[297] • Disclaimer says:

    Belloc’s solution to the problem is disappointingly nonsensical. After describing the homicidal sociopath in some detail, he’s suggesting that we should – for some inexplicable reason – make a deal with him about coexisting in our own house.

    What the actual fuck? A sane person would be buying a shovel and a blanket so that everyone’s house could be safe. No deals whatsoever.

  20. Durruti says:

    Joyce writes:

    The idea is so deep-rooted among organized Jewry that, even today, we are forced to listen to endless bleating about the emergence of a “new anti-Semitism”? This redundant cry resounds almost weekly even though, to the informed observer, it is clear that there isn’t, and has never been, any real change in the essence of the friction between Jews and Europeans.

    Read and learn:

    I am not an anti-Semite. I like Arabs.

    Semites are peoples from the Middle East. You are writing about people, (Jews), from Europe. The overwhelming majority of Jews are not Semites; they hail from Europe. Koestler’s research is one of numerous sources of information on the ethnicity of Jews.

    The Zionist Oligarch land thieves & holocaust genociders, committed the 1st Holocaust -Jericho, murdering every man, woman, child, and living thing -animals). They killed an entire nation. The account is in the old testament. Whether the Old Testament is accurate documented History is less important than the fact that Jews & Christians Celebrate the extermination and land Seizure by Movie, Play, and song.

    I have sung this song at home, in Synagogues, and a Church. I asked a Reverend if he knew what the song was celebrating.? He walked away.

    2 examples, one by Mahalia, and one by Elvis.

    The Zionists, controllers of the New World Order, are attempting to exterminate another nation-Palestine, (as we speak). They are also doing a fine job of eradicating all other Nations, as they convert their citizens to Slaves.

    The Point Is:

    As Orwell in his Novel, 1984, explained, oppressors use/misuse Language to misdirect/brainwash people, to rob them of any cognitive ability to understand their oppression.

    The Zionists misuse/steal the label of “Semites.” in order to claim a portion (or all) of the Middle East. If they are Semites, they argue, then it is fine (or at least excusable-before-history) if they exterminate another Nation in the Middle East, in order to occupy their territory. It is significant – how few ‘experts’ on the Middle East, or Historians, or Politicians, understand, or will acknowledge, this point.

    Palestinians are Semites. Whereas, Zionists, Jewish Zionists, are, overwhelmingly, anti-Semites.

    • Replies: @Anon
  21. The problem is with the zionists who are the satanic talmudic cult of the Jews and are hell bent on world domination and have subverted America and every country where they have gained power and once the zionist bankers fastened their FED and IRS on the American people we were doomed and now we have a zionist POTUS who thinks he is Israels god!

    • Replies: @Durruti
  22. Durruti says:
    @Desert Fox

    Desert Fox

    American people we were doomed and now we have a zionist POTUS who thinks he is Israels god!

    Isn’t current events amazing? Casino Trump, latest of a long line of Unconstitutional ‘Presidents’, who was an early friend of pedafile/rapist/scum/MOSSAD agent-Epstein, and connected to much other filth, -Apparently believes he is GOD!!!

    Worse, Casino Trump – fits in well with the other democrap/republicant Minions of the Devil, Shumer, Pelosi, etc.. They dance & fornicate together, rape our children, and slaughter.

    We might try to Restore Our Republic!

  23. @Counterinsurgency

    The Jewish establishment has always been good at tactics, but very poor at strategy. It seldom wants the consequences of what it wants. All of its major strategies during the 20th Century failed badly, causing major Jewish casualties and forcing increasingly repressive, hence dangerous, measures during the 21st Century (up to 2006, year of this post).

    Exactly. I have long been of the opinion that the Jews are more clever than they are wise. Watching the MSM these days, it strikes me that the Jews are alarmed that–once again–the goyim are waking up and beginning to notice that they control everything of any significance in the West … and they are filled with terror!

    • Replies: @Ace
  24. Miggle says:

    Wally, thanks for that link. I’m working my way through it. I notice a couple of things, (1) they are mostly punishment for evil and murderous conduct of the Jews; (2) many seem to relate to expulsions from individual small towns, so the “1000 places” may not be so significant; (3) in a proportion of cases, a high or low proportion I don’t yet know, there was a choice of converting to Christianity or leaving; (4) a high proportion are pre-Christian or relate to non-Christian countries.

    There is a big problem, though, relating to the expulsions from several cities in 1066.

    1066 A.D. – Mentz, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon,
    ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, Vol. II, p.1008) X

    1066 A.D. – Worms, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon,
    ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, Vol. II, p.1008)

    1066 A.D. – Spires, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon, ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, Vol. II, p.1008)

    1066 A.D. – Treves, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon, ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, Vol. II, p.1008)

    1066 A.D. – Verdon, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon, ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, Vol. II, p.1008)

    I haven’t been able to find those Gibbon references. My Vol. II begins at Chapter XI, covers dates A.D. 268 to A.D. 359, has no p.1008: the pages go from 1 to 425, and chapters from XI to XIX. Vol. VIII has chapters LXIV to LXXI. The tables of contents have dates, those in Ch. LV have a TOC including “800-1100. Christianity in the North”, those events might be there, probably not.

    Anyway, those Gibbon references need the chapter numbers. Useless as is.

  25. Miggle says:

    Haven’t found those 1066 passages, but in Ch. LV, “Christianity of the North”, I’ve come across words by Gibbon that are highly relevant today. At least the first part.

    The rage of war, inherent to the human species, could not be healed by the evangelic precepts of charity and peace; and the ambition of Catholic princes has renewed in every age the calamities of hostile contention.

  26. Anon[388] • Disclaimer says:

    As Orwell in his Novel, 1984, explained, oppressors use/misuse Language to misdirect/brainwash people, to rob them of any cognitive ability to understand their oppression.

    Orwell was a philo-Semite. From his AntiSemitism In Britian:

    There was also literary Jew-baiting, which in the hands of Belloc, Chesterton and their followers reached an almost continental level of scurrility. Non-Catholic writers were sometimes guilty of the same thing in a milder form. There has been a perceptible antisemitic strain in English literature from Chaucer onwards, and without even getting up from this table to consult a book I can think of passages which if written now would be stigmatised as antisemitism, in the works of Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, T. S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and various others. Offhand, the only English writers I can think of who, before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade. And however little the average intellectual may have agreed with the opinions of Belloc and Chesterton, he did not acutely disapprove of them. Chesterton’s endless tirades against Jews, which he thrust into stories and essays upon the flimsiest pretexts, never got him into trouble–indeed Chesterton was one of the most generally respected figures in English literary life. Anyone who wrote in that strain now would bring down a storm of abuse upon himself, or more probably would find it impossible to get his writings published.

    …It so happens that for some decades past Britain has had no nationalist intelligentsia worth bothering about. But British
    nationalism, i.e. nationalism of an intellectual kind, may revive, and probably will revive if Britain comes out of the present war greatly weakened. The young intellectuals of 1950 may be as naively patriotic as those of 1914. In that case the kind of antisemitism which flourished among the anti-Dreyfusards in France, and which Chesterton and Belloc tried to import into this country, might get a foothold.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Durruti
    , @Wally
  27. anonymous[338] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes

    The worst part about it is Chesterton liked Jews and was a zionist but he refused to see them as anything other than alien to Europe.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  28. @Durruti

    Trump is Americas Caligula, a Roman emperor who was insane, Trump is a promoter of zionism and if he gets reelected he will go to war with Iran for his zionist masters and this will bring in Russia on the side of Iran and the whole thing will go nuclear.

    The zionist elites who control every facet of the zio/US have DUMBs ie. deep underground military bases, that they have throughout the US and Europe and Israel and the bases , connected by tunnels and via magnetic levitation trains, and they believe that they can survive a nuclear war with Russia and they care not how many 10’s of millions die, as these satanists want to depopulate the world and so are looking forward to the nuclear war with Russia and Russia is well aware of this!

    Trump if he is reelected will deliver for his zionist masters as he is the chosen one, as he said yesterday, and is the second coming of God, and Trump believes this, and that makes him the new Caligula!

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @Durruti
    , @Gg Mo
  29. @Counterinsurgency

    Sorry, another typo. The “2006” should, of course, have been “2019”.

  30. Crone says:

    Will I ever see an article entitled “Anti-Goyism, the Longest Hatred?”

    • Replies: @Rerevisionist
  31. Wally says: • Website

    You’re welcome.

    Too bad you missed:

    (Note: has a list of all of the events archived here: — ctrl+f “expel” or “expul” for hundreds of examples)

  32. Pheasant [AKA "anonymous gazer"] says:


    It is a function of their ethnocentrism as a parasitic people requiring a host society to survive.

    Two Jews three opinions-about what is best for the Jews.

    Tow Jews, three opinions-one scheme.

  33. Security is not what Jews are ever really seeking – that’s merely a deceptive rationalization.

    What they want is domination, and the license in seeking that is unlimited when it’s justified as ‘self-protection’ after all.

    This quest for power is more and more manifested in humiliation – where the victim with a foot crushing his head must beg forgiveness for his ‘persecutions’.

  34. @Miggle

    Page references are pretty much useless without the physical book. That’s why useful references have the publisher and pulication date, and if possible should have the ISBN, Library of Congress ID, or similar.
    If you can get a .pdf or .txt version of the book, you can try searching it for key terms, or using somewhat more effective text mining techniques. That sometimes works.


    • Replies: @Miggle
  35. Wally says:


    Imperfect Trump over the alternatives any day.


    • Troll: ChuckOrloski
  36. Are Belloc’s proposals practical? That remains to be seen.

    Belloc strikes me as one of those people we come across occasionally who are naturally both insightful and courageous, and so suited to expose some of the lies of their times, yet at the same time limited by their own prejudices in how far they are willing to follow the trail toward truth. C. S. Lewis is the other eminent example of this that I come to think of in roughly the same milieu: a radically perceptive, eloquent and even effective critic of the degeneracy of the West, but still completely unable to offer constructive solutions due to his prior religious commitment. The same could by and large be said for Chesterton.

    While I am not so anti-Christian as some people around here, it’s painful to see these brilliant intellects hamstringing themselves out of misguided loyalty to principles which are not based on the realities of this world. All the more so when I see the greatness they did contribute to our culture, and imagine what they could have done if freed of those fetters.

    Ah, well. In any case, a fine article which brings much-deserved attention to a sadly neglected, flawed but still very valuable author. We need not agree with everything he writes to learn from him.

    As an aside, apropos the brief allusion to Martin Luther (who was a very different sort of Christian, with flaws of his own, but not those that would cripple a Belloc or a Chesterton), it would be very satisfying to see an article by Mr. Joyce on this Titan of newer Western history. He is among the relatively few writers in the dissident right that I think could do the great reformer justice, and his thoughts are (in part, at least) also still very relevant to us today.

    • Replies: @chris
  37. BCB232 says:

    I assume this is why Spielberg’s non-German villain in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was named “Belloq(c).” Spielberg melted his face and made his head explode.

    • LOL: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  38. Miggle says:

    More generally, though a minor proportion of those evens relate to Christians demanding conversion, in general they related to, responded to the treacherous and murderous evils of the Jews. If a Roman city was under attack by the Persians the Jews of the city betrayed the Romans. If a Persian city was under attack by the Romans the Jews of the city betrayed the Persians.

    The list gives the number of Christians murdered by the Jews when the Persians took Jerusalem in 614.

    614 A.D. – Palestine – Jews Expelled by Persians/massacred by Romans as Persians invade and capture Galilee; Jews joined army of invading Persians against Rome; Jews purchase 90,000 Christian prisoners from the Persians for the pleasure of cruelly putting them to death; Jews were expelled, however, afterwards, because they insisted on setting up their own independent state under the protection of Persia and the Persians weren’t going to allow that (James Parkes, ‘The Conflict of The Church and The Synagogue’, p. 260; originally via Michael the Syrian)

    But okay, if the Romans had just massacred Jews (not mentioned in other accounts such as by Runciman or Israel Shamir) the murder of 90,000 purchased Christian prisoners might be understandable.

    • Replies: @Sic Semper
  39. Dutch Boy says:

    “his subjective stance to the world was essentially pessimistic and strikes one as more pagan than Christian.” Christians are pessimistic in the short term (this world being a battleground with powerful enemies arrayed against us) but optimistic in the long (Christ will put all his enemies under his feet). BTW – there is no European race. The unity of Europeans was their unity in the Church, outside of which they remained a squabbling, feuding collection of hostile ethnicities. I am undismayed that the pagan Norsemen (aka “upstanding European folk”) had to give up their human sacrifices and murderous attacks on their fellow Europeans at the behest of the Church.

    • Replies: @anon
  40. Pheasant [AKA "anonymous lazer"] says:

    ‘Orwell was a philo-Semite’

    Yes but he did not like them as people so perhaps he was a hypocrite.

    He redeemed himself a little bit by giving a list of Jews who were communist agents to MI5.

  41. anarchyst says:
    @Sic Semper

    Tying Judaism to Christianity was a clever trick used by the jews to “cement” their claim to the “land of Israel” and of the covenant, to which I reply, “God is not a real estate agent”.
    Jews rejected the covenant when they murdered Jesus Christ. Their covenant with God was then “null and void”.
    It is the flawed Schofield translation of the Bible that elevated jews to the status of Christianity’s “elder brothers”, which was then reinforced by the Catholic (flawed) “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” in the 1960s.
    I cringe when I hear well-meaning people talk about out judeo-Christian heritage.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    The only common thread between Christianity and judaism is the Ten Commandments, nothing more.
    The god of judaism is a vengeful god, totally unlike the merciful and welcoming God of Christianity.
    Christianity welcomes ALL, regardless of nationality or social status, not true of judaism.
    Judaism is an insular belief system that shuns outsiders, prohibits proselytization, and promotes a form of supremacy, relegating all gentiles (non-jews) to the status of livestock-subhumans with souls, only to be used for the advancement and benefit of jews.
    Jews DID murder Jesus Christ. Sad to say, even the present-day (post-Vatican II ecumenical council) Catholic church has bought into absolving the jews for Jesus Christ’s murder. As always is the case, the jews got others, the Romans to do their dirty work for them, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. How can Christians have the same values as the Jews; the very people who denounced and betrayed the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, and call for his execution (by others, of course, that is the Jewish way). It makes absolutely no sense at all. Jews have no respect for Christianity, for Jesus Christ or Mary, his mother, who are both honored as Prophets in Islam, but instead, Jews spit on hearing their names and do the same while passing a Christian of any kind or a Christian Church in Israel. They have no respect for Christians or any other religion.
    It is time the Jewish lobbies and the American Government leaders as well as the evangelical Christian leaders who mislead the poor American young into joining the military and believing that they are doing something for God and Christianity by fighting Israel’s wars were named, shamed and arrested and tried for treason.

    • Replies: @anon
  42. anarchyst says:
    @Sic Semper

    The beginning of the end of traditional Catholicism was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church Vatican II Ecumenical Council of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants who were involved in the “modernization” of the Catholic Church.
    Much Catholic ritual and doctrine was discarded or changed, in order to reflect the “age” that we live in, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) to do their “dirty work” for them…
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its universality. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new Modern Mass and the New Church, in general. It took a brave Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to push back” against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an actor, diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church dogma or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations, nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize pre-Vatican II principles.
    Fortunately, there are Catholic organizations that subscribe to pre-Vatican II principles, one being the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

    • Replies: @Sic Semper
    , @Al Liguori
    , @chris
  43. @Desert Fox

    Those DUMBS fall into the category of good tactics/bad strategy.

    A radioactive wasteland would ruin anyone’s day. Their children would not find it amusing.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  44. Durruti says:


    You completely ignore the point of my comment, & misdirect to a discussion of George Orwell.

    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  45. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    > The unity of Europeans was their unity in the Church

    Apparently you’re not familiar with the Northern Crusades. Or the Thirty Years’ War. Or the Troubles. Or most of history.

    > aka “upstanding European folk”

    Your snark about whites is surpassed only by the sullen sheboon at the Waffle House.

    > their human sacrifices

    You Jew-worshipers always project. “Christ, our Passover Lamb, is SACRIFICED.” Right in the Buybull.

  46. Jews favored Anglo-ness over German-ness because the weaker & more generic personality of the Anglos were easier to push around for the powerful-personalitied Jews. Anglos were more about manners whereas Germans were more about manhood. Anglos thought and behaved with their heads whereas Germans used their entire bodies. Anglos were verbal, Germans were musical. Jews preferred Anglo culture not because they aspired to be like Anglos but because it was relatively easier to penetrate, conquer, and control. Head and shoulders were easier to topple than blood and soil.

    And yet, the Jewish personality is closer to the Germanic, and the most influential Jews were of Germanic influence: Kafka, Freud, Marx, Frankfurt School, etc. Jews have strong personalities and feel more at home with the Gestaltism of Germanic thought. Also, like the Germans, Jews have a deeper sense of roots than the Anglos who are a Germanic people whose culture has largely been replaced by Romance terminology and attitudes.

  47. Great work from Joyce, as always.

    The fascinating aspect of this topic is the awful fact that so few people have any understanding
    of the jews and their jewing, when it’s in our faces 24/7.

    I agree with the comments above that the nose tribe is not motivated by a need for security;
    the nose is motivated by the desire to RULE over the rest of us, to have their boot on our face.

    Lately, I can actually feel it in the air…..the censorship…..constant demonization of whites…..
    cries of “anti-semitism”……..demands for gun confiscation and snitch laws……
    you can feel the noose tightening……

  48. Durruti says:
    @Desert Fox

    Desert Fox

    I know you know this: Casino Trump is part of the Show, along with the Democraps. A perusal of American History will show that Democraps have led America into every major war, since 1917, World War I (Wilson). WW II (FDR), Korea (Truman), & Vietnam (LBJ). The ‘police actions’ (smaller imperialist aggressions-Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan,), have been initiated by both gangs.

    Trump certainly behaves like the Hollywood version of Caligula. He might even suffer Caligula’s fate.

    Ironically, sexual depravity, rape, brutality, assassination, were component parts of the Movie. It is not impossible that Jeffrey Epstein was the American Caligula, and was the Controller /Dictator of the United States – these last few decades.

    We may have just witnessed a Change of the Guard.

    God Bless!

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  49. @Justvisiting

    The zionists do not care, and for an example of the undergrounds bases, google the underground at the Denver airport and the base at Dulce New Mexico and China Lake in California, just a few of many examples.

  50. In this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject.
    I call you out mr. derbyshire. Why the reticence to call a kikeroach a Kikerocach?

  51. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Nine Tailed Fox

    Security is not what Jews are ever really seeking – that’s merely a deceptive rationalization.

    Good point. Reminds me of one of their favourite excuses for promoting anti-white migrations. The excuse is that they’re feeling unsafe among the whites so they need more non-whites to blend in.

    Needless to say, this narrative is transparently false. They were extremely safe among the whites until they fucked it up and – due to their small numbers in host countries – they could have blended in everywhere decades or even centuries ago.

    Now, after decades of anti-white migrations, they’re obviously less safe, less “blended in”, but they want even more of the same. How curious. It almost looks like they won’t feel “safe” as long as the whites exist.

    That’s pretty tragic because now a white goy like me honestly won’t feel safe as long as they exist. They’re causing their own destruction.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @The Nine Tailed Fox
  52. chris says:
    @John Regan

    Great response John!

    I totally agree especially the value of these great Catholic thinkers. Still, separating these men from their religion would have separated them from their identity. As in Chesterton: “for who would speak of separating a man from his skeleton ?” (If memory serves). Without their religion they would never have gotten into these battles but would have cynically observed things from the sidelines.

    It seems like Beloc and to some extent Chesterton, when they win their arguments, they thrust not a sword but a Christian hand in friendship and get slaughtered.

    • Replies: @chris
    , @John Regan
  53. @Durruti

    The zionist banking kabal fastened the unconstitutional FED and IRS on America and then came the zionist wars as you stated, and with these wars came debt and taxes and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Americans and 10’s of millions of innocent civilians, all in the name of zionism!

    To add insult to injury the zio/US and Israel and zio/Britain created and funded and supplied AL CIADA aka ISIS and all offshoots of the same to destroy Iraq and Syria and Yemen for zionist Israel, and to top it all off, the Israelis and zio/US deep state did the attack on 911 to get excuse to destroy the middle east!

    God help us, for it is going to take divine intervention to save America, check

  54. @Durruti

    Your comment was about George Orwell.

  55. @anarchyst

    I am really at the end of my Christian upbringing in this world of anti-christs. With each proselytization by the church and the enemies of man telling the faithful to bear more outrages, endure more persecutions and reward invasions with our bare necks, I have abandoned any connection to the church.

    In the end Christianity can only exist in a stable end state civilization, where the population is homogenous and resources are stable. All of the “doing unto others” in a noble brotherhood goes out the window when you are marked for extermination and your children marked for rape and murder.

    I cannot imagine any benevolent god asking his people to submit to the merciless in eternal outrage.

    At this point Native Europeans are likely better off returning to Zeus and Odin as their gods in the face of the murderous hebraic god and his Mohammedan cousin – the “church’s” version of Jesus as god simply ensures the Native European population of being sodomized to death by the twin devils of the Hebraic and Mohammedan gods.

    If anything, Jesus must serve as an eternal reminder of what the Hebraics so unto the godly outside of their influence, they torture them to death.

    Each time I see a crucifix, I think that is what jews do to all good. It is what they did to 100 Million of my European brothers and sisters barely a century ago and what they are to do to me and all who are like me as soon at the time is ripe – which if one is astute, can easily observe its proximity.

  56. @Miggle

    One must know that the Genocide of Christians at Mamilla now sees an Israeli parking lot built upon the mass grave of at least 90,000 European Christians whom were slaughtered by jews. the entire cemetery at Mamilla was destroyed by this itineration of hebraic mass murderers to build ” the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance” on top of the ancient graves of tens of thousands and the victims of hebraic mass murder.
    Contrary to the words of the crucified Christ – THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO.

  57. Wally says:

    Yet Orwell rejected the absurd & impossible ‘Nazi gas chambers’.

    from Zionist dominated Wikipedia:

    Orwell Doubted the Gas Chambers

    Orwell was an antisemite who even doubted the holocaust gas chambers. At the conclusion of the war in Europe, Orwell expressed doubt about the Allied account of events and posed the following question in his book Notes on Nationalism, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear… Is it true about the gas ovens in Poland?”.

    discussion on Orwell:
    Orwell’s 1984 and modern censorship

  58. geokat62 says:

    In this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject. Belloc describes such activity as “the great fault of our side which corresponds to the fault of secrecy upon theirs (127).”

    Can I get an Oouch!

    Finally, someone calls out the Derb for the coward he is!

    Well done, Andrew Joyce.

    • Agree: chris, Republic
    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Republic
  59. Wally says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    You have identified major factors as to why the fake “holocaust” narrative was contrived.
    Communist Jew, Bruno Baum, himself a member of the illegal ‘partisans / terrorists’, boasted after the war:

    “The entire propaganda which started abroad, was made by us with the help of our Polish mates.”
    – Bruno Baum, »Wir funken aus der Hölle« in Deutsche Volkszeitung – Zentralorgan der KPD, Berlin 31.7.1945.; cf. B. Baum

  60. Republic says:

    An excellent article.

    Does anyone know if there has even been a poll regarding the Jewish Question among Americans?

    I understand that in 2006 a poll was conducted which showed only 20% of Americans said that the Jews controlled the Hollywood studios.

    In the past many more people said that the Jews controlled Hollywood.

    I suspect that the downward trend was due to increased Jewish control over the media.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  61. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

    > The only common thread

    You Jew-worshipers always lie. “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” (1 Cor. 5:7 ) Who else celebrates Passover, but Jews and you wannabee-Jews?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  62. chris says:

    “as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones”

  63. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sic Semper

    > better off returning to…Odin

    Gad-Gawd-God-Gott-Gotin-Godin-Odin-Woden-Wotan are all variations of the same Teutonic name. Europeans can continue worshiping God, then need only stop conflating God with Jewhovah, since Jewhovah hates God anyway. “But you who forsake Yahweh, who forget my holy mountain, who prepare a table for God…” (Isaiah 65:11) Prepare a table for God. Tell Jewhovah and his followers to fuck off.

  64. @chris

    Great response John!

    Thank you!

    I totally agree especially the value of these great Catholic thinkers. Still, separating these men from their religion would have separated them from their identity. As in Chesterton: “for who would speak of separating a man from his skeleton ?” (If memory serves). Without their religion they would never have gotten into these battles but would have cynically observed things from the sidelines.

    I don’t know, I tend to think it lies more in a man’s temperament than his specific ideology how he chooses to respond to his surroundings. The sort of thoughtful, idealistic soul which animates this sort of man would surely seek some sort of expression, even in the absence of the particular vessel of Roman Catholic religiosity. It would obviously not be precisely the same, but most probably not wholly cynical or apathetic either. For example, what would a hypothetical Belloc or Lewis have been like if grown up in a world where neo-Platonic, monistic or Islamic religion were dominant in England instead of Christianity? I think he would still be spiritually inclined and concerned for society, although of course it’s impossible to “know” either way.

    That said, I agree with you on the general point. All of these thinkers were deeply and sincerely committed to their creeds, and if one tried somehow to “remove” that from them as we know them historically, the result would be intellectual and spiritual mutilation. As they stand, their beliefs are inseparably part of their (flawed, but still inspiring) greatness. We latter-day students who would learn from their examples, however, will also do well to pay attention to their blind spots, as Mr. Joyce also emphasizes.

    It seems like Beloc and to some extent Chesterton, when they win their arguments, they thrust not a sword but a Christian hand in friendship and get slaughtered.

    All too true. To be fair, this is by no means a uniquely Christian failing, but one fairly common in European-derived, high-trust cultures (although Christian teachings often tend to exacerbate it). Even highly intelligent and otherwise perceptive men often fail to correctly assess the true meanness of opponents hailing from radically different backgrounds.

    • Replies: @chris
  65. @cranc

    Trump in his own way is imperiling the Jews. He is calling them out as Israel Firsters and is saying that the bad ones aren’t sufficiently loyal to their own narrow-minded tribe, not exactly a noble character traits.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  66. Back to the central question:
    Why do white men allow these people in their lands?

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
  67. nickels says:

    As I recall, Belloc’s prime thesis was for the Jews to quit trying to move in the shadows and hide the differences between gentile and jew, and to act through deceit-a source of great ire to the gentile.
    By that token the ADL and other militant ‘antisemites everywhere’ jews are going directly against his suggestions.
    In general, Belloc held back to many punches, as he was trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle.
    Belloc as a historian is beyond brilliant-I highly suggest his biographies to understand England and Europe through the stories of its pivotal characters.

    • Replies: @Rerevisionist
  68. Pheasant [AKA "anonymous lazer"] says:

    In 1944 Americans were asked what was the Biggest threat to america. About 75 percent of them said the Jews.

    • Replies: @Wally
  69. Breitbart the Zionist mouthpiece had a front page article today screaming bloody murder about the “anti-Semite” NYTimes editor Tom Wright-Piersanti and demanding his head on a silver platter:

    As Henry Ford said in his book The International Jew, published nearly a century ago in 1920, the Jews excel in ingratiating themselves to rulers and aristocrats of every society they live in. They then persuade these leaders to go to war against one another, in the process borrowing heavily from them. With each war, Jews on both sides profited handsomely, while more gentiles died. A win-win.

    Two thousand years later, nothing has changed. Except now they have superpower status thanks to their total control of every institution of import in the US: from Wall Street to Hollywood, DC to SV and everywhere in between, the media, academia, judiciary. The only way for this to end is for America to end, most likely through a total collapse from within as we are picked clean and hollowed out, swamped over by the third world hordes by these fifth columnists.

    Gandalf doesn’t exist in real life. The only way to kill off Wormtongue is to kill off King Theoden of Rohan.

  70. Moi says:

    I’d think a good place to start at understanding Jews would be the Torah and Talmud.

    • Replies: @Jake
  71. chris says:
    @John Regan

    Very good points again, about the nature of these great men and their unfortunate failings in stemming the tide that they saw coming upon their societies. And yes I see your point that in the absence of their deep faith, they would certainly not have been cowards, as the presence of a Phil Giraldi, Mr. Joyce and others might attest to.

    We’re also in agreement that irrespective of their value as human beings, their approach was bound to come up short as we’ve been ‘privileged’ to see. It pains me to say this but our only hope is in bankruptcy and other disasters, as well as in the dim hope that this Jewish monolith itself will begin to crack, though as so often in the past, this will serve the strategic goal of leading the opposition and returning to power via the other route.

  72. anarchyst says:

    Not a jew or “jew worshiper” at all. It might interest you to know that Jesus Christ was NOT a “Pharasaic jew” but was of the obscure Essene sect which espoused many Christian-like (and jew averse) principles.
    It is YOU who need to “get a life” and refrain from name-calling. Your name-calling exposes your juvenile behavior. Grow up, already!

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Al Liguori
  73. @DanFromCT

    I worked on Wall St in a number of capacities. My sponsor for the Series 7 was what was called a “Jewish house”, but I am not Jewish. My first mentor was a Jewish principal of the firm, a frustrated classical violinist from South America and a highly intelligent and fine individual who made sure I received continuing education as an analyst. He confided in me that the head of the firm “detested” Christians and that I couldn’t advance because of that. He then hooked me up with what was then known as a “white” house, aka a “white shoe” firm at which there was no barrier to advancement. My grandfather, a banker, was mentored and later partnered with a Jewish man. I have a long history with Jewish folks, most all of it highly positive in terms of personal experience.

    That said, I was fortunate to be able to leave the game at age 52 and was overjoyed to have done so. Finance is on balance a vile profession and as a long-time subsidiarity fan… Sadly, however, few “average” Americans and Europeans have much interest in learning the workings of finance and little opportunity to do so in any case. As anyone with experience in the field knows, it’s a secretive and closed shop. Its sole intention is to acquire wealth and perhaps power. It has no redeeming qualities, no altruism, little fraternal loyalty and thimble-rig ethics.

    A worthwhile read is a book (novel) unfortunately not available in English to my knowledge. I tried to acquire translation rights, but was unable to do so: El Kahal y Oro by Hugo Wast. It paints an ugly portrait of Jewish conspiracy at a treasonous level, assuming the author’s basic premise is true. I have nearly all of Belloc’s work, including The Jews and have written published essays about him and his work. I consider him one of the 20th Century’s “must read” authors for anyone who values his/her European heritage.

  74. @Sic Semper

    I already used up my button for the hour, so lemme just say: I could not agree more with your comment. That’s exactly how I feel these days.

    Can you imagine if Frank had been pope more than a thousand years ago when the Saracen hordes were invading Europe? He’d be to busy washing their damn feet to call a crusade!

    • Replies: @Sic Semper
  75. There are “innumerable men who would express publicly on Jews what they continually express in private, but who conceal their feelings for fear that their salaries may be lost or their modest enterprises wrecked, their investments lowered, and their position ruined (263).”

    That’s me right there!

    Thank god for Unz–this website is a real lifeline, a place where I can relax and just be myself.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  76. Jake says:

    The Jewish Problem is religious and theological. Its rise in Europe began with the Reformation (all Reformers Judaized at least by focusing on Jews as experts on the Old Testament), and it took off like a wildfire in northwestern Europe when Jews expelled from Spain congregated primarily in the Netherlands, and there made very close friends with the first wave of Protestants. Jews were the primary publishers of Protestant tracts in most countries, and Jews became bankers to a significant degree for all Protestant princes and republics. Protestantism developing naturally into secularism meant doors were wide open across Europe with the 19th century.

    That pattern is one of rebellion against Christ and Christendom that sees Jews being piggybacked into positions of great wealth and power. The rebellion against Christ and Christendom is what led to this world we now have in which Jews are free to wage permanent culture war. Continued rebellion against Christ and Christendom will continue that pattern. Jews love white Gentiles being atheist or agnostic or Nordic pagan wannabee, like so many who congregate at the Occidental Observer or VDARE. Just like Jews delight in whites becoming Mohammedan, which means embracing cultural and religious Semitism.

    • Replies: @anon
  77. @Bill Jones

    They had historically been tax collectors for the king and other nobility.

    A major milestone in the development of Parliament and self-governance was when Edward I expelled them from England and was forced to call together the English nobility and representatives of the people to collect taxes. (Let Mel Gibson say what he wants, Edward I was one of England’s greatest kings.)

  78. Jake says:

    The Talmud is the written form of the ‘oral law’ of the Pharisees that Jesus said meant that Satan, not Abraham, was the spiritual father of the Pharisees. The Talmud is absolutely necessary to understanding Jews as a people who in every era and locale will produce large numbers of radicals who intend to ruin anything even redolent of historic Christianity and any white people seen as even a possibility to play a role in an attempt to revive Christendom.

  79. @Paul

    Still it is advantageous to not be around Jews at all.

    • Replies: @Sic Semper
  80. Jake says:

    The Derb is not a coward in any sense. He is a natural product of WASP culture, which was formed fully by the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.

    WASP culture spread that affinity for all things Jewish around the globe.

    WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.

    • Disagree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @geokat62
  81. @Digital Samizdat

    Kosherists have always seized peoples by their leaders first. I am hard pressed to recall anytime in Catholicism where the church protected the faithful. I spent a dozen years in catholic schools, underwent the sacraments and all along was told how unworthy I was, while child rapists preyed upon my classmates. That has always been the control the church has by convincing its faithful that they are cheap unworthy sacrifices to an invisible god who demands their subservience and sacrifice.

    As the Christian people face existential threats from entities who proclaim their adherents to be supermen whose excretory waste is even considered “holy” – the juxtaposition of faiths and the extreme disadvantages we are left at are glaring.

    It is now impossible to be a Christian. We are preyed upon at every turn like sardines among a feeding frenzy of sharks. Some of those sharks wear Catholic vestments and wag their fingers proclaiming us in violation of our faith as they cut deals with the other sharks.

    A noble brotherhood doing unto others will not survive long preyed upon by sharks and offering no defense of their own.

    • Agree: Counterinsurgency
    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  82. annamaria says:
    @Priss Factor

    ” Jewish personality is closer to the Germanic, and the most influential Jews were of Germanic influence”
    — Not necessarily when you learn about Jews living in different civilizations.

  83. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sic Semper

    At this point Native Europeans are likely better off returning to Zeus and Odin as their gods in the face of the murderous hebraic god and his Mohammedan cousin

    Probably true for many. We need to recommit ourselves to naked, earthly survival in the coming years because that’s where the battle started decades ago.

    • Replies: @Sic Semper
  84. Theodore says:

    The book is available on Library Genesis. Here seems to be the relevant portion:

    The fifteenth of August had been fixed in the council of Clermont for the departure of the pilgrims; but the day was anticipated by the thoughtless and needy crowd of plebeians, and I shall briefly despatch the calamities which they inflicted and suffered, before I enter on the more serious and successful enterprise of the chiefs. Early in the spring, from the confines of France and Lorraine, above sixty thousand of the populace of both sexes flocked round the first missionary of the crusade, and pressed him with clamorous importunity to lead them to the holy sepulchre. The hermit, assuming the character, without the talents or authority, of a general, impelled or obeyed the forward impulse of his votaries along the banks of the Rhine and Danube. Their wants and numbers soon compelled them to separate, and his lieutenant, Walter the Penniless, a valiant though needy soldier, conducted a van guard of pilgrims, whose condition may be determined from the proportion of eight horsemen to fifteen thousand foot. The example and footsteps of Peter were closely pursued by another fanatic, the monk Godescal, whose sermons had swept away fifteen or twenty thousand peasants from the villages of Germany. Their rear was again pressed by a herd of two hundred thousand, the most stupid and savage refuse of the people, who mingled with their devotion a brutal license of rapine, prostitution, and drunkenness. Some counts and gentlemen, at the head of three thousand horse, attended the motions of the multitude to partake in the spoil; but their genuine leaders (may we credit such folly?) were a goose and a goat, who were carried in the front, and to whom these worthy Christians ascribed an infusion of the divine spirit. Of these, and of other bands of enthusiasts, the first and most easy warfare was against the Jews, the murderers of the Son of God. In the trading cities of the Moselle and the Rhine, their colonies were numerous and rich; and they enjoyed, under the protection of the emperor and the bishops, the free exercise of their religion. At Verdun, Treves, Mentz, Spires, Worms, many thousands of that unhappy people were pillaged and massacred: nor had they felt a more bloody stroke since the persecution of Hadrian. A remnant was saved by the firmness of their bishops, who accepted a feigned and transient conversion; but the more obstinate Jews opposed their fanaticism to the fanaticism of the Christians, barricadoed their houses, and precipitating themselves, their families, and their wealth, into the rivers or the flames, disappointed the malice, or at least the avarice, of their implacable foes.

    Perhaps the date is incorrect and it was 1096 rather than 1066. Please check the date “1096 AD” and come back to me

  85. @Fuerchtegott

    “Still it is advantageous to not be around Jews at all.” Truer words have never been said. However, in an age where every information resource is owned and tightly controlled by this menace and sees their ever tightening grasp of the “truth” they want told, it is impossible to avoid them. The argument then becomes that only one who has dealt with the malevolence firsthand in their unguarded and uncontrolled moments can fully understand the abject malice they hold us in. Only when they let their facade slip in person can one understand how ugly they are.

    Anti-semitism is a communicable disease spread by any contact with jews themselves.

    Live long enough amongst any in an arena where they intend to dominate, it is impossible to not understand the persecution that the valiant Palestinian peoples – the modern Christs being tortured to death face daily.

    They wage terror against the gentile. Preying upon them, committing outrage after outrage and inviting reprisals to prove how they are the victims always. Gentiles soon surrender their principles, their children and later their homes to this malignancy. It is systematic and total, from the local schools, to the local bureaucrats – jews field armies against the gentile.

    I have lived it for 40+years now. The outrages mount every day. Even my puppy was poisoned by a yarmulke wearer when I was a little boy – the kosherist enjoyed pleasuring himself while looking in our windows to underage children and an attractive “shiksa” wife of a gentile, a young watch dog alerting the gentile was an inconvenience that a little Draino mixed in the dog’s food when it was placed outside would solve. Fortunately he was witnessed and the plate of food taken away before the puppy tasted it. Police were called, court appearances held… the gentile mustn’t leave their puppy in their backyard where he wil alert of the noble jew pleasuring himself while looking in our windows.

    The entire neighborhood was united in their abject hatred of a gentile family signing petitions and sending “hate mail” while vandalizing at every turn our property and going so far as to smash Christmas lights and ghastly slit a child’s jack o’lantern with butcher knives.

    As alway, never expect a court or police in such hebraic occupied lands to side with the gentile victims.

    The time will come. As Samuel Roth wrote “The next time you read about a particularly bloody pogrom and pause to wonder how Christians, dedicated to a religion of mercy, can exercise so much brutality against the Jews, remember that the Jew wheedles all the mercy out of his neighbors in the ordinary course of business. He lies and cheats until he is caught. When caught, instead of accepting punishment, he moans and tears his hair, invokes the sores of ancestors in their graves and living relations at the point of death in hospitals, until the wronged gentile, nauseated, lets him go. Then, thumbing his nose at the gentile behind his back, the Jew goes about his business the same way, lying and cheating now doubly to make up for lost time. A pogrom is usually the climax of years of such relentless goading. Do you wonder that when the final reckoning comes the gentile is absolutely merciless?”

    — Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live, Ch. 13, p. 206, f/n 31 [expurgated chapter]

    We again shall be merciless.

  86. Gg Mo says:
    @Dan Hayes

    It is a shame that GKC sided with the Bankers in WWI. Producing propoganda for *their* revenge against the Austrian/Germans

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  87. Wally says:

    Source please.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  88. @Anonymous

    All higher religions and philosophical understandings state to do good, live in peace and prosperity. Christianity handicaps its adherents by convincing them to live at the mercy of others. In a world where the global native European population is openly demonized in service of a mounting genocide, such a handicap eases such an extermination.

    Christ spoke of the metaphysical to a rural population in a time before science. His language was spoken to the illiterate of “fathers” and “heaven” – a reading by a modern man free of the vestiges of canon and open to understanding of spiritual realms and dimensions reads so much more into what was written and interpreted to subjugate in the name of religious orders and for the profits of high priests.

    The church we have been saddled with is not of any spiritual realm, but of a physical who demanded tithes of flesh. It is an ancient order who continues now to collect its pound of flesh but no longer for any priestly masters, but for the enemies of this god and man itself.

  89. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

    You Catholics are Jew-worshipers too, as it states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship.’” Even the Catholics’ Pope says, and I directly quote him, “Inside every Christian is a Jew.” It’s time you man-up and take responsibility, instead of trying to shift blame.

  90. @BCB232

    Actually- food for thought re Spielberg….

  91. Republic says:

    Any American who openly names the Jews is taken out. A few days ago, the you tube account of Dr E Michael Jones was banned from that platform.

    He has written some very informative books, like The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: and its impact on world history. His video, The Goy Guide to world history is a very good introduction for those people not familiar with the Jewish Question

    Jones’s videos are still available on his website, and on bitChute

  92. Brewer says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    “The Jewish people will assimilate and coexist peacefully when God given chosenness – a denial of religion (the need for self improvement) and an acceptance of ideology (the need for other improvement, ‘light unto the nations’) – is expunged from their faith. ”
    Excellent comment.
    Exceptionalism lies at the heart of every troublesome issue involving Israel and Jewish activism.
    Colonial oppression and dispossession – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
    Race/religion based State – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
    Assassination – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
    Territory taken through War – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
    Racial segregation – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
    Imprisonment without trial – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
    Shooting unarmed protestors – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
    The list is long

  93. Gg Mo says:
    @Desert Fox

    Global Chabad Lubavitch is compromised of Several compromised world leaders. See Putin and His Rabbi Lazar etc etc etc

  94. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

    Who cares what kind of Jew Jewsus was? He was still a Jewish Rabbi, who taught in the Synagogues, and was quite popular among the Jews. Says so right in the Jew Testament in Luke 4:15. Your attempt to make Jesus into some obscure Jew is a dishonest scam. He was praised by “EVERY” Jew, if the Jew Testament is correct. Go read it yourself.

  95. geokat62 says:

    The Derb is not a coward in any sense.

    If these are not the words of a coward, I don’t know what are:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    How people continue to follow this coward’s writings is beyond me.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  96. I went with some friends to see a poetry presentation by a jewish writer…I found it terrible and mediocre rants, But my jewish fiedn said that I was Uneducated and unable to understand it…He cited a (jewish) literary critic that praise the work. I told him I find many jewish comedians NOT funny, at all… I a christian gentile MUST laugh while a jewish comedian blasphemes my religion with rabid (Unfanny hatred), otherwise I am not smart enought …later teh same comdeian is promoting his Christmas special TV show??…Sometimes I just feel that WE the NONjews MUST exist in a Jewish Matrix of Power almost like robots accepting ALL jewish directives without ever questioning its accuracy, authority, etc. Its a MATRIX of power enforce since birth, early schooling, politics, media, academics, institutional, etc. BUT what happens when REALITY, FACTS, concrete tangible objective rationality clash with jewish narrative? then we enter the world of ANTIsemitism…which MUST be enforce RE/enforce its validity however absurd it is. The fact that Jews must use violence, censorship, etc. that means They KNOW they are wrong they are lying..they lost the DEBATE the intellectual debate…It si not that jews are super intelligent its is that they have the power to kill ideas, destroy much brighter opponents, by cheating, rigging the system. IF I run a red light while driving I will probably pay a hefty fine, higher insurance rates, lose my license etc… JEWS break the RULES all the time steal, robe, kill, defraud, deceive, etc. without punishment??? it seems that the LEGAL codes of their respective nations (of residency) NEVER apply to jews..why not?? can the USA govt audit the ADL,? SPLC? ACLU? WJCongress???

  97. @geokat62

    Okay….to be fair…..I could rattle off a VERY long list of writers who are afraid of the nose.

    The list of big balls is a short list with Duke and KMAC at the top with maybe a half dozen more brave souls.

    MOST people are afraid. Ramzpaul did a recent clip where he warned people to be careful and not run head first into machine gun fire. He wasn’t cucking, he was simply alerting people to the very real dangers.

    On the other hand, cucking didn’t help Alex Jones, or Gavin…..and Trump is the biggest cuck of all and it doesn’t help him either.

    I keep hoping for the day when ALL of us stand up and yell, “I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!”

    • Replies: @geokat62
  98. Miggle says:

    I’m suggesting that the chapter references are the only thing that can work with different numbers and sizes of volumes in different editions. The chapter sequence runs from the beginning of the first volume to the end of the last, 70 chapters in all. The chapter number. and the number of pages counted from the beginning of the chapter, would work as a reference for all editions.

    If there is a PDF your idea is good.

    Mine I came across in a second-hand book shop, a 1914 edition in eight hard-cover volumes, very complete with Gibbons’ autobiography at the beginning, a “new edition” with Dean Milman, M. Guizot, and Sir William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. as the editors, published by John Murray, Albemarle Street, London.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  99. geokat62 says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Okay….to be fair…..I could rattle off a VERY long list of writers who are afraid of the nose.

    True enough.

    The list of big balls is a short list with Duke and KMAC at the top with maybe a half dozen more brave souls.

    These are the people who should garner the support of the people, not the likes of the Derb.

    I keep hoping for the day when ALL of us stand up and yell, “I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!”

    Or more succinctly: “I’m Spartacus!”

  100. Durruti says:
    @Eric Blair

    I a christian gentile MUST laugh while a jewish comedian blasphemes my religion with rabid (Unfanny hatred)

    I have nothing to add.


  101. Milovan Djilas, one of the best-known exposers of communism, stated in an interview for the German magazine Der Spiegel (also published in the Swedish daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, 13th April 1983) that he believed the idea of communism had evolved from the culture of the West, from Judaism, from the Utopian philosophy, from Christianity and the medieval sects.

    We do indeed find some similarities between the communist system and the power structure of the Christian church, especially regarding the ideology and the intolerant attitude. Even a few Christians (not many) have, in retrospect, condemned the Fathers of the Church for their atrocious acts of violence and for laying the foundations of a system of religious totalitarianism in Europe. Certain Christians have called these criminal Fathers of the Church and other barbaric lay members “sham” Christians.

    At the same time they make a point of claiming there is nothing intrinsically wrong about the doctrine; that the fault lies with the sheep, which have strayed from the path of the true doctrine. It is quite improbable that such a doctrine would be without error. The Buddhists have not waged any religious wars or tortured any of their dissidents. Neither have they, like the Christians and the communists, forced their teachings on anyone with violence. The Christians and the communists have both been especially intolerant towards their dissidents. Both Church and Marxism were created with a view to slavery. Both doctrines split into different factions, and both have also claimed a monopoly on the truth. The developments of twentieth century history and science have shown these doctrines to be intrinsically wrong and exploded their dogmas. Sovietologists have revealed embarrassing facts about Marxism, and many Christian ideas have been overthrown by research in quantum physics. (Paul Davies, “God and the New Physics”, 1983.) cl

    Jurii Lina – “Under The Sign Of The Scorpion”

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  102. @Johnny Walker Read

    In the 1920s, Soviet ideologues held up the “communist state” founded by Johannes Bockelson in Munster in 1534 as an example. A group of fanatical Anabaptists led by Johannes Bockelson seized power in Minister, Westphalia on the 23rd of February 1534, where they proclaimed the Miinster commune, also called “New Jerusalem”. This commune became the abode of extreme ruthlessness.


    Three days after the seizure of power, the first leader of the commune, Jan Matthijs, expelled all those who were not ready to accept their beliefs. Later, the leadership passed over to the baptised Jew, Johann Leiden, who proclaimed himself king of New Zion (Miinster), and the town council was replaced by a council of twelve apostles. They confiscated the property of the church and the wealth of those who had fled. They banned trade, enforced work duty and abolished money. Everything was to be owned collectively – the people were only allowed to keep their tools – all the produce was confiscated by the commune and polygamy was introduced. This community was intended to become the “thousand year reign of peace” (the Millennium).

    Jurii Lina – “Under The Sign Of The Scorpion”

  103. Zumbuddi says:
    @Trevor Hardy

    Rick Wiles aimed an assault rifle w/ bumpstock at Trumps comments about being the messiah & chosen.

    Wiles religiosity is not mine, but it’s a good thing that Wiles spoke strong words against zionism to his evangelical community .

    As for Trump, his words just might be pure genius::
    YES, he is “imperiling the tribe.” Do you suppose he is unaware of thaf?
    What is the Tribe going to do about it — call him an antisemites?

    Maybe Trump hates his sniveling girlie-man son-in-law as much as most of us do, and this is Trumps way of, um, raining on Kushner’s yarmulke.

    Come to think of it, the Trump-Ivanka-Jared dynamics may be almost as sordid as Epstein.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  104. @anon

    Sadly it’s true that the Catechism contains flaws, heresies in fact, and you’ve identified one.

    Prior to these heresies the result of Jew infiltration, The Catholic Church taught soundly based on the words of God Incarnate Jesus that there is no salvation outside The Church He founded headed by the successors to Peter, His foundational “rock”.

  105. @Jake

    This is the precious insight which makes sense of all else.

    I am so thankful you have provided it via your comments on this site.

  106. @anon

    Are you not falling into the category of people that only accept bloodlines as the determination of a person and their messages’ worth?

  107. More super scary Bolshevik boogeymen that do not exist
    Any writer here besides Israel Shamir that will tell the other side of the story, the believable side?
    Didn’t he say he was writing a 2nd Red Zog article, still waiting..

  108. Dan Hayes says:
    @Gg Mo

    Gg Mo:

    I agree that he was guilty of producing vile World War I propaganda. But that was very early in his writing career. As time went on these non-Christian transgressions ceased!

  109. niceland says:
    @Sic Semper

    At this point Native Europeans are likely better off returning to Zeus and Odin as their gods in the face of the murderous hebraic god and his Mohammedan cousin – the “church’s” version of Jesus as god simply ensures the Native European population of being sodomized to death by the twin devils of the Hebraic and Mohammedan gods.

    I think most Scandinavians have abandoned religion. What’s left is just tradition and it seems to be going out fast. It’s never coming back, any of it. Only a small fraction still believes. Even part of the clergy is really atheist, pretending not to be, to get paid.

    Truth to be told I find it amazing to be reading grown men argue about religion here on Unz. USA is unique in this regard among western nations. I kid you not I haven’t seen a debate about religious matters here in Iceland for many years. Religion is totally absent from politics and the media. We use the church when we have to bury someone. It’s still a framework around such ceremonies.

    And it seems people doesn’t need the fear of god to behave – given that we are on top of societies regarding low crime rate and so forth. It’s a blatant lie one needs religion to have good ethics and be a decent human being.

    Personally I found stories abut this Jesus guy so boring and outlandish in my youth I couldn’t bring my self to believe any of it. Later I came to the conclusion that organized religion is just another tool to control the masses. Yes Richard Dawkins was helpful in this regard.

    And it’s actually quite funny to think the Mediterranean religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (all pathetic) have monopoly on ethics or some great wisdom in general. When Edda chapter: Hávamál, a 1000 year old Viking poems cover most of the basics better and without any need of interpretation. Straight to the point.

    Here is a brief example in English.

    The good news is the North is abandoning wast immigration from the middle east and Africa. It can be felt here, in Norway, Denmark. Not sure about Sweden but it looks like they had enough. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Practical people eventually get it right – small societies can’t absorb many people with different culture very fast. Great mistakes have been made and it seems this is finally being accepted.

    So I guess – have faith! Nothing is lost yet.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Russ
  110. Icy Blast says:

    You obviously have not read the New Testament, Coward 396, and you are betting anarchyst won’t either.

  111. Al Liguori says: • Website
    @Laurent Guyénot

    I recommand [sic] studying about distributism, one of those social reform movements swept by marxism, like so many others.

    A puzzling remark.

    Distributism is the widest possible individual ownership of private property, a bane to both monopolistic capitalism and communal marxism.

    In what way is individual ownership of private property “swept” by an ideology that proscribes private property?

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  112. Al Liguori says: • Website

    Indeed Jesus was not a Pharisee; He damned them.

    Neither was Jesus an Essene. Essenes were forbidden to make animal sacrifice. Not only did Jesus’ Holy Family offer the sacrifice of turtledoves (Luke 2:24), but Jesus Himself commanded the healed leper to make the animal sacrifice (Mark 1:44) required by Mosaic Law (Leviticus 14:30).

  113. Al Liguori says: • Website

    Well stated.

    Background on the occupation of the Church by Judeo-Masonry’s “New Order”:

    Background on the talmudic anti-Pope “subsisting in” the Chair of Peter:

    Unfortunately the Fellay/Krah cabal, using Guttman/Rothschild money, is subverting the SSPX:

  114. @Sic Semper

    We need to take the example of the ancients and demonstrate a far more pragmatic approach to the Divine.

    We’re certainly not obligated to give worship to a traitorous Abrahamic God – just because the weakness of our ancestors (and sheer inertia) dumped him on us.

  115. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:

    Let’s hope so. Keep in mind that the pendulum must swing quite a bit in the opposite direction for permanent results. In other words – it’s not enough to stop the invasion – previously settled invaders will also have to be shipped back to their natural shithole environments.

    The best way to avoid racial friction is to have racially homogeneous countries. Iceland is a great example.

  116. Ace says:
    @Big Daddy

    Exactly so. All that was needed to make abortion a constitutional right was the votes of seven people and, for impeachment purposes, the indifference to the Constitution of one person, the Speaker of the House or, to be generous, that of 218 representatives. Rinse and repeat for any subversive Supreme Court decision.

    Don’t care for particular legislation? Be one person out of, what, 700,000 to write your guy in the House where representatives are “most responsive to the will of the people. ”

    Saban and Adelson can play both sides of the street and each focus on one man. Regardless of who wins, Jews win. And Trump delivers.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  117. @Zumbuddi

    Yes sir, keep trying to hang a halo on that big ol’ set of horns on der Trumpenstien.

  118. Ace says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Hence the present full-court press on “hate speech” and “anti-Semitism.” (Mark Levin and Sean Hannity in full cry on the latter.) And the neutralizing tu quoque “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and “structural racism.”

    In other less urgent times it was deflections like “The Holocaust” and the subtler “right-wing” National Socialism that effectively disappeared Jewish Bolshevik industrial-scale murder.

  119. @Ace

    Unless 40 million more orcfricans born over the last 50 years was a worthy goal, abortion was/is a boon for The Right.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Alden
  120. Thanks for this eye-opening article! It should be reprinted in every newspaper in the US and Europe. Wouldn’t that be something?

  121. @Sic Semper

    It is now impossible to be a Christian. We are preyed upon at every turn like sardines among a feeding frenzy of sharks. Some of those sharks wear Catholic vestments and wag their fingers proclaiming us in violation of our faith as they cut deals with the other sharks.

    A noble brotherhood doing unto others will not survive long preyed upon by sharks and offering no defense of their own.

    Or by sacrificing their children on the altar of tolerance.

    Recommended short fiction by R. R. Martin:
    “And Seven Times never kill Man”
    _Dreamsongs_, Vol. 1.
    Bantam (October 30, 2007)
    Short story, originally published in _Analog_, 1975/07

    Two groups try to colonize a planet with intelligent natives. One group is obvious Protestant variants, another never quite appears. The second group, which arrived first, changes the Protestant variant’s religion so that it turns inward and raises the passing bar of its coming of age tests so high that nobody passes it, executing all those who fail.

    It’s a difficult read for quite a few people, and its also what happened to the Anglo Saxon’s kids since about 1950. There were a different set of coming of age tests in real life, to be sure, and with somewhat different tests, but gives the same effective 100% fatality outcome by reducing the fertility of each successive generation to well below reproduction through religious means. Think back to the late 1960s when the entire Harvard graduating class had reported trying hard drugs, the archetype of committing suicide. or think back to this year, the more promising young being saddled with crippling college debts and enduring what amounts to a prolonged beating/indoctrination at college. Considering the difference between real life and what amounts to R. R. Martin’s parable, the correspondence is pretty good. Martin called it back in 1975.


    R. R. Martin:
    “And Seven Times never kill Man”
    _Dreamsongs_, Vol. 1.
    Bantam (October 30, 2007)
    Short story, originally published in _Analog_, 1975/07

    • Replies: @Russ
  122. chris says:

    Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations, nothing more.

    Thanks for the post and for this information; I wasn’t aware of that.

    It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.

    More than that, Greek Catholic priests in Eastern Europe have been allowed to marry since at least the 18th century and they still continue to do so today while remaining an integral part of the Catholic Church!

  123. Pheasant [AKA "anonymous phazer"] says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Just to let you know it isowned by a Jew and all comments posted here remain his property to be reposted anywhere.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  124. @Eric Blair

    “You have lied to me for my entire life with schools and with media you created that I might be a slave who killed his heritage and his parents and his wife and children, but now I see you, and your days are numbered.”

    Minerva’s owl flies at dusk. Once understanding of a society is achieved on a wide scale, the society is near the end of its life. Societies only work when most people don’t _have_ to think about them and are thus freed to do something economically productive.
    The current situation in the West was set up by the World Wars and the Great Depression, followed by the Cold War and the possibility of WW III, thought to be a civilization ender. This left the Christians in shock, with bad PTSD, and the Jewish establishment (most conspicuously, but there were several other establishments that did this) stepped into the gap. Now they’ll get to step out again.

    Nobody stays in power forever. Even the US business class only ran things from the end of the Civil War until the start of WW I and Pres. Wilson.


  125. @Miggle

    Fully agree with you. “Pinpoint references” to the individual text block are very good if you have the physical book available, but otherwise the chapter heading (and any subsection titles or other information) is a much better way to specify the source.
    Not sure that number of pages would work. Quite a few books are converted to electronic form, perhaps by photography followed by optical character recognition. This allows use of contemporary fonts and printing equipment. In this process, paging information can be lost. The people reprinting the book are businessmen, after all, not people who actually use the book.
    It does occur to me, though, that for searchable electronic media quoting some unique looking sentence in its entirety would be enough to locate the source being cited. Just a speculation.

    BTW, the volume of Gibbon sounds like quite a find, 1914 being the tag end of the pre-World Wars ear.


  126. hmm, why would Jews stop lying when the elders promote it as an art form ?

    “Goys are so stupid and coarse that they do not even know how to lie

    Again, they call their primitiveness and stupidity honesty and decency, although they are by nature mendacious and dishonest. In ancient times the goys referred to their characteristically primitive behaviour as barbarity, in the Middle Ages they termed it chivalry, and later they called it gentlemanly conduct. They committed suicide out of empty principles. Let them continue to do so! They are constricted in their abilities, and for this reason, they set limits to everything. But we say: “Man’s possibilities are unlimited because man behaves in accordance with circumstances!”
    Speak and act in a way which their morality and their concepts do not permit

    Always remember the limits which goys set for themselves. Their thinking has stagnated within these limits, and they are unable to go beyond them. Therein lies their misfortune and our advantage.

    Speak and act in a way which their morality and their concepts do not permit. Do things which seem to them to be impossible and incredible. They will not believe that you are capable of words and actions of which they are not capable.

    Speak and act in a way which is confident, energetic, aggressive, discouraging and stunning. Produce more noise and oral trumpery, and say more things which are incomprehensible and pseudo-scientific.

    Create theories, hypotheses, tendencies, schools, practicable and impracticable methods. The more extravagant, the better!

    Do not bother about these theories being useless, or because they will have to be forgotten about by tomorrow. A new day, and with it, new ideas will come. It is here that our self-assertion, our superiority, and the power of our spirit, all find expression.”

    • Agree: utu, Saggy
  127. @Pheasant

    I was already aware, but thanks for your concern.

  128. Theodore says:

    Perhaps it is this:

    And American citizens, asked to name the greatest threat to the United States in a series of polls taken by the Opinion Research Corporation between 1939 and 1946, consistently chose “the Jews” over the Japanese or the Germans, with fear peaking in June of 1944, just as the Jewish population of Europe was close to fully exterminated.

    Source cited here:
    Were Americans more anti-Semitic than anti-German during WWII?

  129. Aksa says:

    “The fortunes of the family declined further when, aged only two years, Hilaire’s father died.”
    A surprising age to die for a father, indeed.

  130. Russ says:

    I kid you not I haven’t seen a debate about religious matters here in Iceland for many years.

    In the spirit of this book review:
    How many Aesquimeaux have you in Iceland?

    • Replies: @niceland
  131. Russ says:

    Think back to the late 1960s when the entire Harvard graduating class had reported trying hard drugs, the archetype of committing suicide.

    They as incoming freshmen were all photographed naked, by some quack posing as some sort of anthropological physiologist or the like. The whole mess was written up in Esquire if memory serves. Small wonder that they henceforth sought to torment the rest of the country ever since.

  132. Russ says:

    Beauty is only skin-deep; ugly cuts all the way to the bone.

  133. Saggy says: • Website

    Who in hell is blindlight, does he have a blog/site now?

  134. niceland says:

    Come to think of it I don’t think I have ever met one in my ~50 years. I guess less than 0.01% of the population.

    • Replies: @Russ
  135. @Durruti

    Trump is bigger than Trump, He has had inadvertent consequences. Thanks to his insincere bilge about concern for the borders, more people are thinking WHITE than before. Also his tweet attack on Onmar is getting more people to think about Israel and ultimately Jews. Smart Jews have long known that the Jews do best when the goyim are not talking or thinking about the Jews They call this “Dynamic Silence” Trump is keeping Israel and ultimately Jews in the camera.
    Given who they really are, this cannot do them good long term

    • Replies: @Durruti
  136. Anon[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @Big Daddy

    Only a radically decentralized, basically libertarian society is long term feasible or you soon have Big Government.

    Decentralization and libertarianism are not equivalent concepts.

    The fist implies multiple power centers. It says nothing about how those decentralized power nodes will naturally evolve under pressure. Decentralized power nodes can grow large under supporting circumstances.

    The latter concept of libertarianism generally implies a relative lack of power centers (ever smaller being ever better).

    If I were to guess, you meant to cite libertarianism.

    Anyone not taking into account how political pressure will shape an idealistic system with passing time is making a mistake that is fatal to all of us.

    This is what politics are about. Models that are effective over time and under constant competitive pressure. Politics are not about static theoretical ideology that creates systems that often break under pressure (and perhaps intentionally so, making them not an ideology but a weapon of a group’s enemies).

    Libertarianism is the ideology that will always fail this competitive test the quickest, precisely because it is primarily structured to reject the politically organized ethnic bonds that can only create the political power that allows systems to survive in the face of groups who will inevitably create politically strong groups (mafias, armies, nations) to win the competition for resources (ultimately the entire Earth).

    Structurally vulnerable static thought toys in textbooks, like non-frontier libertarianism (frontier = an unpopulated environment with no competition) never get off of the page because when they do then libertarians are enslaved or killed by large mafias. Luckily, most sane and smart people realize this early and so libertarianism remains a thought toy for hateful enemies and the unthinking and nothing more, keeping its death and destructive tolls low.

    If libertarianism did get off of the page in the modern age, the people under it would be enslaved or killed at will by one of the multitude of inevitable large mafias that would rise due to no effective sociopolitical resistance (because libertarians reject political organization) to organized roving armies.

    Mafias, armies, and nations ALWAYS defeat individuals. Mafias, armies, and nations will ALWAYS naturally form through the natural desire of every human to be more competitive for resources and to stave off large armies that will form to harm them and steal their resources.

    There was no push for libertarianism in an age when the so called libertarians were not protected by large nations as they are today, and were subject to large group competition. There were no sane, non-suicidal early Germanics, Levantines, or Romans looking to be “free” from their tribe. It would have meant death.

    Ever larger armies and mafias are inevitable absent equally or greater powerful governments to neutralize them. Because all political power is born through interpersonal cooperation, and so people will always create ever larger alliances to be the largest mafia on the block: if for nothing but protection from the same but often to gain more to eat.

    This is human nature, libertarians can never stop it, and its why the Marxists declared communism to be a perpetual war (against the human instinct to create politically effective small nations, first through the natural creation of politically functional culture that was communism’s primary role to attack and that is exemplified in traditional family values).

    Marxism being the creation of an international Mafia looking to neutralize its competitors in every nation.

    Individualists can NEVER stop the ever-larger scale cooperative act of human nature because two people cooperating are ALWAYs more politically powerful than the individualist who holds to an ideology whose central purpose and effect is to reject political power.

    Political power is equally neutralized, its neutralization being the primary goal, by the ethnic individualism that is the most important characteristic of both Jewish communism and Jew-promoted libertarianism.

    This is why we do not have libertarianism, and why it is not your lost answer to the modern world.

    Libertarianism is a frontier ideology and pipe dream for the modern world at best, and a malignant / subversive replacement ideology that played a large part in weakening our post WWII ethnic self defense against Marxist ideology at worst. Hint: it’s the latter. It’s not a coincidence that false conservative Jewish gatekeepers for the Right love libertarian ideology.

    Jews are masters at replacing politically effective culture of their enemies with something that will eventually kill them. See the politically false-unity of economic communism that replaced the ethnic politics of the nationalist Russians.

    Libertarianism played the same role in the United States: replacing ethnic unity again for an ineffective economic unity that forcefully rejects ethnic politics, the same as communism, this time only reversing the allegiance from shared economic power to rank individualism so that the utterly low IQ goyim can’t identify that it’s the same basic political weapon, meant to replace ethnic politics with the politics of economics, merely dressed up in a different suit.

    Marxism is not economic socialism.

    What Marxism is, at its core, is a successful attempt to replace a true concept of political power (ethnicity) with a false concept of political power (economics) so that those who buy into it lose the ability to analyze political power and therefore the method to create it.

    It doesn’t matter if you believe in libertarian economics or communism. The goal is the same: the replacement of the proven concept of creating political power (ethnic unity) with a false concept (economics). Anyone talking about politics from an economic view (ie: Right Wing politics = equals free markets, etc) is doing the work of the Marxists.

    The result is the same: the voluntary and sometimes involuntary) rejection of the true and protective political group by non-Jews.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @utu
  137. @The Nine Tailed Fox

    I think it is all interrelated with Jews. They have a need for absolute security from us. Therefore the have a need for absolute domination of us. This then requires absolute license to do to us what is necessary to get that domination. All of the forgoing is relativized depending upon the period and country. in which they are living. Jews have a psychology which is all their own. But they dwell among us and dominate our institutions. It is perplexing and frightening once we realize who they are

  138. Anon[317] • Disclaimer says:

    When you learn to read the Tanakh (Old Testament) correctly (protip: its all a cyclical allegory that applies to every age in which the Jews live), on which the Talmud is only commentary, then that is all that you will need to learn their plans and beliefs. In the meantime, don’t forget the Zohar.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  139. @Priss Factor

    Smart comment. The union of the Anglo and the Jew as against the Germanic is the key to understanding our history in the west.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  140. @Anon

    What Marxism is, at its core, is a successful attempt to replace a true concept of political power (ethnicity) with a false concept of political power (economics) so that those who buy into it lose the ability to analyze political power and therefore the method to create it.

    And in the West right now, Marxism does appear to be successful and is definitely powerful in terms of adherents and institutions it controls. And yet Marxism failed in Russia and China, replaced by nationalism (that appears to be ethnic in China and may well be in Russia). It is important to understand how that happened because (a) it should hold information about speeding the process in the West, and (b) it would be wise to have a contingency plan should the same thing happen spontaneously in the West.

    For one thing, think of Stalin and Deng as Trump analogs: nationalist politicians who re-introduced nationalism to a Marxist country.


  141. @Goybiscuits


    I would attribute that to the Jewish Bolsheviks who did their damnedest to eliminate the entire professional class, and as the above quote proves they were quite successful. Their goals are the same today as they were under the Bolsheviks, it’s just their methods have been modified to fit the times.

    These lofty “idealists” have tortured and killed, in the name of Russia’s workers and peasants — and according to their very own statistics — the following numbers of victims in the first four years of the glorious Russian Revolution: 28 bishops of the Church, 1,215 priests and 6,000 monks. Why? Just because they were bishops, priests and monks, and because they believed in God — who is of course merely a disposable middle-class superstition.

    Next come 8,800 Christian doctors and their aides. Why? Because they represented non-Jewish middle-class medicine.

    Now come the officers: 54,650 army and naval officers, 10,500 police offi­cers (lieutenant-rank and above) and 48,500 lower-ranking policemen. And for what reason? Because they were military and police officers, and we all know that “militarism” is no longer permissible for any nationalistic and Aryan-conscious white people. It is only allowed to Red bandits, who call themselves proletarians, to dig the real proletariat a mass grave.

    Then there are 260,000 flag-loyal soldiers of the old army, all now executed. But even this statistic is trifling. Now come the intelligentsia: teachers, professors, engineers, building contractors, writers and judges — especially judges, because these were the most dangerous for a state ruled by convicted felons.

    To them let us add lawyers, district attorneys and all the college-educated occupations — to reach the number of 361,825 murdered members of our most mentally demanding professions. I will not even tarry over our annihilated class of large landowners, consisting of 12,950 persons.

    And when someone asks me how the Russian intelligentsia can bear the Bolshevik yoke, I always answer that the Russian intelligentsia is either literally six feet under or in exile, and that the tiny remainder left over has suffered such a blood-letting and systematic humiliation through the communist steamroller that they have forfeited every last bit of self-esteem and personal honor.

    • Agree: Alden, Maowasayali
  142. @Johnny Walker Read

    very informative.
    thanks for posting.

  143. @Achilles Wannabe

    Thx to #10, @ Cagey Beast for mention of the Introduction to Belloc’s 1937 edition.

    The 1937 Introduction treats three main topics:
    — the “European revolution,” from Moscow to Barcelona;
    Berlin’s “violent reaction” to the European Revolution; and
    — Zionism’s progress in Palestine, with special attention to violence between Arabs and Jews.

    Belloc recognizes the links the “European revolutions” in Russia and in Spain; it’s reasonable to assume he recognizes the anti-Christian nature of the Russian revolution inasmuch as he calls the Spanish revolution “a religious war” —

    “[L]et it be carefully noted and fixed in the reader’s mind that the Spanish conflict is essentially a religious war.
    It does not call itself such. The superficial foreign observer, especially if he be from a country where Catholicism is virtually unknown to the mass of men, may well think the other elements of the struggle to be of greater importance, particularly the struggle between Capital and Labour.
    But in all its manifestations of active hatred, especially its organizing of murder, Communism in Spain since the outbreak of the revolution baa been specially and particularly anti-Christian.

    However, Belloc otherwise treats his three topics as silos, especially segregating Berlin’s “response to the Jewish question.”
    Belloc also attempted to put “Bolshevik / Communist Jews” in a separate silo from “Jews,” —

    “Jews as such are not Communists, but the modern Communist movement was inspired and is directed by Jews. . . . the Revolution now advancing in Europe is a part of the Jewish problem.”

    Which of these two of Belloc’s categories, “Jews [who] are not Communists,” and “the modern Communist movement inspired and directed by Jews” is responsible for- and executing a murderous anti-Christian “religious conflict?”

    Based on his harsh and, frankly, casuistic assessment of Berlin’s response to the JQ, one assumes Belloc sequestered German Jews in the “Jews who are not Communists” silo. He failed to recognize that if Germany was a battlefield of the European revolution as were Moscow and Barcelona, that the conflict was similarly a religious conflict and anti-Christian. Having failed to make this connection, Belloc called Germany’s relatively pacifist programs of removing Jews from certain forms of employment, and of constraining intermarriage, “immoral and unjust,” and not conducive to peace but rather sowing the seeds of resentment and future retaliation.

    Belloc’s treatment of the situation of zionists in Palestine, and especially of the unavoidable and hapless decisions of Balfour and other British leaders, was as anodyne — but casuistic– as his treatment of the Third Reich’s response to JQ was condemnatory and casuistic. And once again, Belloc did not link zionism to the European revolution(s) and to Germany.

    In 1937 very few people, even relatively few Jews were aware of the deep, or rather high, penetration of zionist Jews and the influence they wielded in affairs involving Russia, Germany, Palestine, and the USA.

    It was only in 1984 that Edwin Black published The Transfer Agreement, a book so controversial in its revelations of Jewish collaboration with leaders of the Third Reich that Black’s own mother disowned him.
    In that book, Black quotes a February, 1933 conversation between the most powerful zionist in the world, Louis Brandeis, and his factotum, Rabbi Stephen Wise:

    “Within a fortnight of Der Fuhrer’s January 30 [1933] appointment, Justice Brandeis shocked Stephen Wise by candidly declaring, “The Jews must leave Germany. There is no other way.” An astonished Rabbi Wise asked, “How can five-hundred eighty-five thousand people be taken out of Germany?” Brandeis interrupted, “I would have the Jews out of Germany. They have been treated with deepest disrespect. I urge that Germany shall be free of Jews. Let Germany share the fate of Spain. No Jew must live in Germany.” ” [The Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black, p. 75 ]

    If Belloc had had this information, he would have to have concluded that:

    — At a very early date — February, 1933, before the hair on a single Jewish head had been harmed by the Third Reich, the highest levels of Jewish leadership formed and voiced the intent to do unto Germany what Belloc himself reports Communist (Jews) were doing to Russia and Spain: murdering Catholics / Christians in a propaganda-fueled religious war.

    — The Berlin policies that Belloc decries were, in fact designed to accomplish the directives of Jewish zionist leadership.

    — The zionist – German collaborative response to the “European revolution” had as a significant part of its goal the transfer of German Jewish wealth and skills to the zionist project in Palestine.

    — As Chris Bjerknes emphasized in above-linked video conversation (See #18) , “Jewish inspired” Communism was the flip-side of Jewish zionism.

    Sidebar: The Introduction makes this statement about propaganda. Unz readers may hear the resonance to hasbara but the masses who rely on corporatized-federalized-zionized media for that information upon which democracy depends will not notice the similarities between Spain 1937 and today:

    “A very important feature in any estimate of what the eventual fate of the Spanish conflict mav be is the condition of propaganda on the two sides.

    On Franco’s side there is virtually none: Franco’s side is national and the Spanish national temper does not lend itself to this form of commercialized falsehood. Such facts as have been put forth in foreign magazines . . . to support Franco’s cause and that of the traditionally Christian Spain which he is defending have been from non-Spaniards . . .
    On the other side propaganda may be described as the main weapon. It is used with all the well-known tricks of that trade, and used, as the Americans say, “to capacity.”
    . . .
    In so far as propaganda can win a war the Reds hold all the trumps.
    This is only natural, considering the motive power behind the revolutionaries which works everywhere by the suppression of truth on the one side and propagation of falsehood on the other. ”

    • Agree: utu
  144. Russ says:

    Come to think of it I don’t think I have ever met one in my ~50 years. I guess less than 0.01% of the population.

    Thank you. One surmises that your island’s ability to keep the N in front of its name is in proportion to its ability to keep that %age from growing (among of course other factors).

  145. @Anonymous

    It’s a destructive cycle.

    The only thing though they seem to learn from it as a collective is to try and go even harder at it next time. Thus, with a certain poetic quality to it, the Anglo peoples who crushed the Germans for them are now been punished and destroyed even more severely than the Germans ever were.

    This thing cannot escalate like this indefinitely – a conclusion will come where matters will settled one way or another.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  146. utu says:

    Great comment.

    Libertarianism is a frontier ideology and pipe dream for the modern world at best, and a malignant / subversive replacement ideology that played a large part in weakening our post WWII ethnic self defense against Marxist ideology at worst. Hint: it’s the latter. It’s not a coincidence that false conservative Jewish gatekeepers for the Right love libertarian ideology.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  147. Anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Nine Tailed Fox

    Yep. I have no doubt that this is the final escalation.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  148. Anon[297] • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps Germany has suffered the fate of Spain.. a kind of cultural disrepute.

    There’s a nucleus of intellectual resistance in Spain, small but articulate and deeply versed in history. Though the Spanish temper —or what remains— does indeed not lend itself to calumny, they are adept at language-wielding. They have coined useful terms such as “gender ideology” “one thought” “talisman word”, etc. They are writing about the “Black Legend”, about the Vendée.. about the Civil War. They are catholic, but some are learning not to be overt about it. They can thus go and talk about WWII and the Morgenthau plan. They say Soros is “hebrew” quite calmly (of course he’s a post-Temple Jew), then proceed to talk about the right to “national identity”. Jose Javier Esparza comes to mind. Esparza also writes quite knowledgeably about Yihad and the Civil War. (They are quite aware that the killings of priests started in 1931).

    The exercise of remembering is fortunately not only a jewish one.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  149. Durruti says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    Trump is bigger than Trump, He has had inadvertent consequences.

    You may be correct about “inadvertent consequences.” The Zionist Oligarchs just as likely, may have tripped over their own feet, with the Epstein farce.

    It is most likely that Epstein, Maxwell, MOSSAD, have been running the United States Government for 3 decades, in service to the Rothschild & other Jewish/Zionist Oligarchs. Our Executive, and Congress often travel to the Entity for orders, $$$, immoral support, brain implants?, & drugs?. & to pray at the Wall. They have exercised NO power, political or otherwise, since the murder of JFK.

    It is good that you are optimistic about the future, but I would be careful abour your Heel.


  150. annamaria says:

    Thank you for establishing the important connections and great generalization.

  151. annamaria says:

    Another article by Whitney Webb:

    Epstein’s activities — a sexual blackmail operation involving minors and connected to intelligence agencies — was one of many such operations that have taken place for decades, developing from the nexus forged between the CIA, organized crime and Israeli intelligence shortly after World War II. …

    The Clintons’ involvement in Iran-Contra revolved around the covert activities at Arkansas’ Mena Airport, which involved the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and occurred while Clinton was governor. Just a few years into the Clinton presidential administration, Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein would play a major role in Southern Air Transport’s relocation to Columbus, Ohio, leading to concerns among top Ohio officials that both men were not only working with the CIA, but that Wexner’s company, The Limited, sought to use the CIA-linked airline for smuggling. …

    Under the close watch of the CIA, then led by William Casey, the Mena Intermountain Regional Airport was used to stockpile and deliver arms and ammunition to the Nicaraguan Contras. The arms were sometimes exchanged for cocaine from South American cartels, which would then be sent back to Mena and used to fund the covert CIA operation. … The CIA director Bill Casey was a close friend of Roy Cohn, who also ran the sexual blackmail operation involving underage boys out of Manhattan’s Plaza Hotel … Casey was one of Cohn’s most frequent callers. …

    During that same period of time, Epstein had already forged close ties to important Clinton White House officials and prominent Clinton donors like Lynn Forester de Rothschild and made several personal visits to the official presidential residence. …

    …during this same time that Epstein exerted substantial control over Wexner’s finances; and, according to Fitrakis and his extensive reporting on Wexner from this period, it was Epstein who orchestrated logistics for Wexner’s business operations, including The Limited. As was revealed in the Arthur Shapiro murder file and in ties between SAT and The Limited, much of The Limited’s logistics involved figures and companies connected to organized crime and U.S. intelligence.

  152. annamaria says:

    More from the same article, including the pardon of Marc Rish and Epstein-Clinton (Cheney) relation to the illegal enterprise on Syrian land:

    the main reason behind the Marc Rich pardon [by Clinton] was the heavy lobbying from Israeli intelligence, Israeli politicians and members of the Mega Group and donations from Denise Rich… Marc Rich was deeply tied to the Mega Group, as he was one of the main donors to the Birthright Israel charity along with Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman and Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt. …

    Former adviser to Barak, Eldad Yaniv, claimed that Barak had shouted that the pardon was “important … Not only from the financial aspect, but also because he helped the Mossad in more than one instance.”

    The Israel lobbying effort had considerable help from Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt as well as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was at the time heavily funded by Mega Group members, including Ronald Lauder and Edgar Bronfman. …

    One major player who has been largely overlooked in bringing Epstein and the Clintons together is Lynn Forester de Rothschild. … Epstein was associated with both Bill Richardson, former ambassador to the UN and former secretary of energy under Clinton, and Larry Summers, secretary of the treasury under Clinton. Both Richardson and Summers sit on the advisory board of controversial energy company Genie Energy, alongside CIA director James Woolsey; Roy Cohn associate and media mogul, Rupert Murdoch; Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt; and Lord Jacob Rothschild. Genie Energy is controversial primarily for its exclusive rights to drill in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Bill Richardson also has ties to Lynn Forester de Rothschild as she was on the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board while Richardson was secretary of energy.

  153. annamaria says:

    “Genie Energy and its hidden role in the war on Syria:”

    What do Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Bill Richardson, Jacob Lord Rothschild, Rupert Murdock, Larry Summers and Michael Steinhardt have in common?

    They all are members of the Strategic Advisory Board of a Newark, New Jersey-based oil and gas group with the name, Genie Energy [oil-exploration project on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.] It’s quite a collection of names.

    Dick Cheney, before becoming George W. Bush’s “shadow president” in 2001, was CEO of the world’s largest oilfield services company, Halliburton…

    James Woolsey, a neo-con former CIA Director under Bill Clinton, today sits as the chairman of the neo-con think-tank, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and is a member of the pro-Likud Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). He was a member of the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC), along with Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and a gaggle of neocons who later staffed the Bush-Cheney administration. …

    Bill Richardson is a former US Secretary of Energy.
    Rupert Murdock, the owner of major US and UK media including the Wall Street Journal, is the major financier of the neo-conservative Weekly Standard of Bill Kristol, who founded the PNAC.
    Larry Summers was US Treasury Secretary and drafted the laws that deregulated US banks from the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, in effect opening the floodgates to the US financial crisis of 2007-2015.
    Michael Steinhardt is the hedge fund speculator and a philanthropic friend of Israel and a board member of Woolsey’s neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
    Jacob Lord Rothschild is a former business partner of convicted Russian oil oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Before his arrest, Khodorkovsky secretly transferred his shares in Yukos Oil to Rothschild.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  154. Durruti says:


    Your 3 informational comments have been read, & passed on.

    We Americans (& most everyone else) are all Slaves. The institution of Slavery has not been ended, It Has Been Expanded – to include All – except The Ruling Class (to use an old but accurate descriptive phrase).


    Dems & Reps are Hollywood cover for-

    Shadow Government (the real rulers)

  155. @SolontoCroesus

    Good post. Well argued. Belloc would agree if he were still alive.

    I suspect his French (foreign-sounding) name contributed to his obscurity in the English-speaking world. Of course, his (((antisemitism))) didn’t help. lol

    The French are not known for their brevity–incidentally, Belloc’s English prose style is very verbose and French-like–but this particular expression sums up your post concisely: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

    (((Anitsemitic))) translation:

    The more things change, the more Jewish perfidy stays the same.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  156. @Anon

    Thank you for the insight into Spanish world view, and please, tell us more.

  157. @Maowasayali

    Thank you.

    Wikipedia says his father was French & Hilaire was born in France but raised & educated in England.

  158. @Al Liguori

    In what way is individual ownership of private property “swept” by an ideology that proscribes private property?

    The same way that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s theories were plagiarized and then radicalized and pushed into the memory hole by Marxism: as far as I understand, both distributism and “proudhomism” are social theories seeking to reduce injustice by limiting private property (legal property limited to actual “possession”) rather than eliminate it. Anyway, I just wanted to mention Belloc’s involvement in this movement, because Joyce did not.

  159. @Anonymous

    Yep. I have no doubt that this is the final escalation.

    Fair chance. World population can’t be sustained without international trade, which will be in severe danger as the world wide organization that has been maintaining open sea lanes (the US Navy) stops doing so. The resultant decline in population (which will involve several nations with nuclear weapons) will be accompanied by severe conflicts. Current social and civilizational norms will be dropped in the process, hence your “final escalation” under existing norms.

    In short, the same thing will happen that always happens when an empire falls. Last time around was the wars in Africa as the European empires fell. Current example is the wars in the Middle East

    What we are seeing now is an attempt to maintain the American suzerainty [1] over the industrialized world (Trump) and a rather desperate attempt to reatain urban viability by the Democrats, supported by some Republicans. The political dominance in the US on the Federal level by urban areas is made possible by American suzerainty, which provides a good deal of funding and population to US urban areas. It is likely that resolution the current US domestic conflicts will entail an inward looking political system that will be unable to manitain and uninterested in maintaining American suzerainty.

    I should note there that China (PRC) is pursuing a strategic goal that it will not like should that goal be achieved. An end to American suzerainty would make the “new silk road” indefensible for quite some time, and maintenance of China’s existing population requires imported raw material.


    1] Suzerainty in the sense of a practical, de facto situation of effective dominance, rather than a legal, de jure situation of dominance. The United States has no single formal and legal structure that explicitly states its “superpower” status in world politics.

  160. gregor says:
    @Dan Hayes

    Here is a some rather amusing Chesterton commentary on Dickens (similar to what Joyce quotes above).

    In Our Mutual Friend is an old patriarch named Aaron, who is a saintly Jew made to do the dirty work of an abominable Christian usurer. In an artistic sense I think the patriarch Aaron as much of a humbug as the patriarch Casby. In a moral sense there is no doubt at all that Dickens introduced the Jew with a philanthropic idea of doing justice to Judaism, which he was told he had affronted by the great gargoyle of Fagin. If this was his motive, it was morally a most worthy one. But it is certainly unfortunate for the Hebrew cause that the bad Jew should be so very much more convincing than the good one. Old Aaron is not an exaggeration of Jewish virtues; he is simply not Jewish, because he is not human. There is nothing about him that in any way suggests the nobler sort of Jew, such a man as Spinoza or Mr. Zangwill. He is simply a public apology, and like most public apologies, he is very stiff and not very convincing.

    So far so good. Now we come to the funny part. To describe the high visionary and mystic Jew like Spinoza or Zangwill is a great and delicate task in which even Dickens might have failed. But most of us know something of the make and manners of the low Jew, who is generally the successful one. Most of us know the Jew who calls himself De Valancourt. Now to any one who knows a low Jew by sight or hearing, the story called Our Mutual Friend is literally full of Jews. Like all Dickens’s best characters they are vivid; we know them. And we know them to be Hebrew. Mr. Veneering, the Man from Nowhere, dark, sphinx-like, smiling, with black curling hair, and a taste in florid vulgar furniture — of what stock was he? Mr. Lammle, with “too much nose in his face, too much ginger in his whiskers, too much sparkle in his studs and manners” — of what blood was he? Mr. Lammle’s friends, coarse and thick-lipped, with fingers so covered with rings that they could hardly hold their gold pencils — do they remind us of anybody? Mr. Fledgeby, with his little ugly eyes and social flashiness and craven bodily servility — might not some fanatic like M. Drumont make interesting conjectures about him? The particular types that people hate in Jewry, the types that are the shame of all good Jews, absolutely run riot in this book, which is supposed to contain an apology to them. It looks at first sight as if Dickens’s apology were one hideous sneer. It looks as if he put in one good Jew whom nobody could believe in, and then balanced him with ten bad Jews whom nobody could fail to recognise. It seems as if he had avenged himself for the doubt about Fagin by introducing five or six Fagins — triumphant Fagins, fashionable Fagins, Fagins who had changed their names. The impeccable old Aaron stands up in the middle of this ironic carnival with a peculiar solemnity and silliness. He looks like one particularly stupid Englishman pretending to be a Jew, amidst all that crowd of clever Jews who are pretending to be Englishmen.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Maowasayali
  161. @gregor

    The Christmas-hating Ebenezer Scrooge was (is) the most obvious Jew in Dicken’s cast of characters, but he is arguably and ironically the most famous goy villain–he really stands out– in Dicken’s massive body of fiction.

    Even the Jews at “Jew or Not Jew” are so worried about this fictional fact that they insist Scrooge was not a Jew. lol

    Sometimes it is so obvious that we miss it because they are hiding in plain sight–no crypsis or nose job necessary when clever Jews control how we dumb goys think and act and even what musical idols we worship via their complete control of the (((Mass Media & Entertainment Complex))).

  162. Alden says:

    It’s so rare to find anyone who knows the truth about the Spanish civil war. Thank you.

  163. Cassander says:

    Some years ago I was an associate in a prestigious and nominally WASP law firm in NYC. It was during the time when buying and selling companies was becoming a ‘thing’ and the practice of M&A law began to develop. A few Jewish lawyers in the firm took over this nascent but growing practice and began to build a team. The younger non-Jewish lawyers in the firm who were interested in practicing in this area were discouraged from applying to join the team. Today there is nary a WASP in the firm, let alone on the M&A team.

  164. @Dan Hayes

    So true. Chesterton, the “author of common sense” & who offered profound Catholic insight into the world (Fr. Brown Mysteries, Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, Heretics, In Defense of Sanity…) and staunch defender of the RCC now finds himself attacked by the feeble-minded, effeminate, politically correct homo-heretics that have infiltrated & now congregate in the halls of the Vatican & USCCB to name few. It’s laughable, I just received a prayer card from the National Shrine & Basilica in DC for Arch Bsp Wilton Gregory. Imagine, a prayer card from the Basilica, which is under the direction of St. Galen-Mafia Made-Man, himself & openly gay-well now he is because he’s been exposed-Msgr. Rossi, for prayers for another St.Galen Mafia associate member Acbshp. Gregory, who himself is rumored to be actively gay & complicit in the scandals & cover-ups. You can’t make this stuff up. The so-called Shepards now prey upon their own unsuspecting, naive & dolt like flocks for prayers & money. “I simply wrote a prayer request petitioning the Lord “to open the eyes of all Apostates & heretics, including some of our own prelates or to close them forever”. Wonder how that will be received? The Church & the world, in general, are waking up!

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  165. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve found Christopher Jon Bjerknes’s website to be useful for understanding esoteric aspects of Jewish cultic practices. I’m generally pessimistic in regard to people speaking on Judaism, but Bjerknes knows his stuff. Which is more evident by his website than through this interview format. Even so, this interview is good. Thanks for linking to it.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  166. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:

    To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship.’” And the Catechism of the Catholic Church accurately reflects the Jew-worship outlined in the Holy Hook, namely, “We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” (((John 4:22)))

    Which is extremely strange phrasing given that, if I’m not mistaken, reliable translations of the “Old Testament” rarely if ever refer to Jews in that manner but instead refer to Israel in that manner. Why would the New Testament then change that stylistic convention to cite only Jews?

    If “Jews” were replaced with “Israel” in those New Testament verses, then those verses would be consistent with Christ’s words in regard to the Jews as well as the general theme of a New Covenant. Christians thereafter being representative of Israel.

    John 8:44
    You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

    Sorry Ron. This conversation is more of a theological debate than applied commentary.

  167. Alden says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    Conservatives are pro black and anti White. They want more and more black welfare and affirmative action beneficiaries and black criminals born every year.

  168. Vojkan says:

    The only perennial solution to the Jewish problem is that Jews renounce to their “chosenness” and that is highly unlikely to happen any time soon. So the history of gentile-jewish relations will continue to go in cycles, a period of Jewish unabashed callousness inducing a continuous increase in gentile fustration until the boiling point is reached and there is an explosion of violence.
    On a more esoteric note, the Jewish national character correspnds to that of the Zodiac sign scorpio, and like in the fable, they can’t help but sting the frog that carries them on its back across a stream of water.

  169. Miggle says:

    Jews were found to be dangerous & loathsome by everyone, everywhere, every time, long before Christianity.

    Yes. Let me quote a Jewess of the Maccabean era, very approx. 150 B.C. This is a quotation I found in Hans Lietzmann’s A History of the Early Church. It looks like a loose translation. I’ll quote the context.

    In the elevated mood of the Maccabean period, the Hebrew Sibyl, disguised in the dress of Greek prophecy, foretold the fate of the Jewish people. It bewailed the Babylonian imprisonment, when wife and child languished as slaves of the enemy, and all possessions were lost; then it continued

    Thou fillest every continent and state;
    And all men learn thy usages to hate.

    His citation is “Sibyl, 3, 271” which I assume refers to book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles. And I’ll quote his next sentence:

    In the reign of Augustus [27 BC to AD 14], Strabo set it down in plain prose that, by his time, Jews “were to be found in every city, and that in the whole world it was not easy to find a place where they had not penetrated and which was not dominated by them”.

    This was an era during which the Jews were expelled from Rome every 50 years approximately for their aggressive proselytizing. I mean, expulsions every 50 year approx. are on record. There may have been many more.

  170. @Anon

    Thanks for mentioning Bjerknes’s blog.
    I took a look; you might enjoy this post from a few days ago:

    A Great Joke Floating Around the Internet
    Christopher Jon Bjerknes

    I just heard a great joke which is circulating through the internet and should be seen by everyone because it so succinctly tells a forbidden truth with great humor:

    “Trump offered to buy Greenland from Denmark and the Danish responded with an offer to buy the United States from Israel.”
    Posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 11:55 AM

  171. @Eric Blair

    You mention running red lights and being punished. While I don’t share your anti-Semitism I can’t resist offering a UR commenter the nes from Sydney that the son of a leading Jewish Labor politician, who (the son that is) became Federal Court judge did two years in gaol for perjury. It should have been for arrogance and stupidity because it all flowed from his putting on oath (or a statutory declaration) the assertion that it wasn’t him caught by the traffic camera but a visiting lady friend from a University in Florida who was no longer in Australia. The trouble was that she wasn’t even in the land of the living and hadn’t been for some time. Not Epstein but Einfeld (Marcus) qv. 🙂

  172. @Crone

    Yes, it’s here
    By Lady Birdwood (d. 2000). Well, it’s anti-gentilism. The leaflet was scanned and uploaded in 1992 – by me, in fact.;
    Nobody mentions that Belloc was, all his life, rather childishly devoted to the Catholic Church. (Not in his iew ‘Roman’). That’s the reason he liked or praised Jews.

  173. @nickels

    Belloc had no idea that the ‘Fed’ existed, or how Catholicism and its rents and town Jews and usuary complemented each other. Unfortunately Belloc like all Jew-unaware types was worthless as a historian.

  174. A Jew became Prime Minister of Great Britain, another a principal leader of the Italian insurrection; another led the opposition to Napoleon III.

    The first one is Benjamin Disraeli, who are the other two?

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS