The Jewish Power Structure


Did you know that 50% of American Billionaires are Jewish even though they are only 3% of the population.

Henry Ford.JPG
Charles Lindbergh.JPG
Ezra Pound.JPG
Quotes about Jews1.jpg
Quotes about Jews8.jpg
Jewish Power.JPG
Covid19 and the Jews.JPG
Bidens Jews.JPG
Presidents and Jews.JPG

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Jewish Cabal

Some of these Jews were directly responsible for plunging America into WWII by deliberately alienating America from anti-Communist countries such as Germany and Japan long before the outbreak of hostilities. These Jews also pioneered the idea of Big Egalitarian Government in America; some of them were later discovered to have been spies for the Soviet Union

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States of America, 1933-1945, was himself partly of Dutch-Jewish ancestry.


1. Bernard M. Baruch -- a financier and adviser to FDR.


2. Felix Frankfurter -- Supreme Court Justice; a key player in FDR's New Deal system.


3. David E. Lilienthal -- director of Tennessee Valley Authority, adviser. The TVA changed the relationship of government-to-business in America.


4. David Niles -- presidential aide.


5. Louis Brandeis -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice; confidante of FDR; "Father" of New Deal.


6. Samuel I. Rosenman -- official speechwriter for FDR.


7. Henry Morgenthau Jr. -- Secretary of the Treasury, "unofficial" presidential adviser. Father of the Morgenthau Plan to re-structure Germany/Europe after WWII.


8. Benjamin V. Cohen -- State Department official, adviser to FDR.


9. Rabbi Stephen Wise -- close pal of FDR, spokesman for the American Zionist movement, head of The American Jewish Congress.


10. Frances Perkins -- Secretary of Labor; allegedly Jewish/adopted at birth; unconfirmed.


11. Sidney Hillman -- presidential adviser.


12. Anna Rosenberg -- longtime labor adviser to FDR, and manpower adviser with the Manpower Consulting Committee of the Army and Navy Munitions Board and the War Manpower Commission.


13. Herbert H. Lehman -- Governor of New York, 1933-1942, Director of U.S. Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations, Department of State, 1942-1943; Director-General of UNRRA, 1944 - 1946, pal of FDR.


14. Herbert Feis -- U.S. State Department official, economist, and an adviser on international economic affairs.


15. R. S. Hecht -- financial adviser to FDR.


16. Nathan Margold -- Department of the Interior Solicitor, legal adviser.


17. Jesse I. Straus -- adviser to FDR.


18. H. J. Laski -- "unofficial foreign adviser" to FDR.


19. E. W. Goldenweiser -- Federal Reserve Director.


20. Charles E. Wyzanski -- U.S. Labor department legal adviser.


21. Samuel Untermyer -- lawyer, "unofficial public ownership adviser" to FDR.


22. Jacob Viner -- Tax expert at the U.S. Treasury Department, assistant to the Treasury Secretary.


23. Edward Filene -- businessman, philanthropist, unofficial presidential adviser.


24. David Dubinsky -- Labor leader, president of International Ladies Garment Workers Union.


25. William C. Bullitt -- part-Jewish, ambassador to USSR [is claimed to be Jonathan Horwitz's grandson; unconfirmed].


26. Mordecai Ezekiel -- Agriculture Department economist.


27. Abe Fortas -- Assistant director of Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of the Interior Undersecretary.


28. Isador Lubin -- Commissioner of Labor Statistics, unofficial labor economist to FDR.


29. Harry Dexter White [Weiss] -- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; a key founder of the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank; adviser, close pal of Henry Morgenthau. Co-wrote the Morgenthau Plan.


30. Alexander Holtzoff -- Special assistant, U.S. Attorney General's Office until 1945; [presumed to be Jewish; unconfirmed].


31. David Weintraub -- official in the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations; helped create the United Nations; Secretary, Committee on Supplies, 1944-1946.


32. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster -- Agriculture Department official and head of the Near East Division of the Board of Economic Warfare; helped create the United Nations.


33. Harold Glasser -- Treasury Department director of the division of monetary research. Treasury spokesman on the affairs of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.


34. Irving Kaplan -- U.S. Treasury Department official, pal of David Weintraub.


35. Solomon Adler -- Treasury Department representative in China during World War II.


36. Benjamin Cardozo -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice.


37. Leo Wolman -- chairman of the National Recovery Administration's Labor advisery Board; labor economist.


38. Rose Schneiderman -- labor organizer; on the advisery board of the National Recovery Administration.


39. Jerome Frank -- general counsel to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Justice, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1941-57.


40. Gerard Swope -- key player in the creation of the N.R.A. [National Recovery Administration]


41. Herbert Bayard Swope -- brother of Gerard


42. Lucien Koch -- consumer division, N.R.A. [apparently-Jewish]


43. J. David Stern -- Federal Reserve Board, appointed by FDR


44. Nathan Straus -- housing adviser


45. Charles Michaelson -- Democratic [DNC] publicity man


46. Lawrence Steinhardt -- ambassador to Soviet Union


47. Harry Guggenheim -- heir to Guggenheim fortune, adviser on aviation


48. Arthur Garfield Hays -- adviser on civil liberties


49. David Lasser -- head of Worker's Alliance, labor activist


50. Max Zaritsky -- labor adviser


51. James Warburg -- millionaire, early backer of New Deal before backing out


52. Louis Kirstein -- associate of E. Filene


53. Charles Wyzanski, Jr. -- counsel, Dept. of Labor


54. Charles Taussig -- early New Deal adviser


55. Jacob Baker -- assistant to W.P.A. head Harry Hopkins; assistant head of W.P.A. [Works Progress Admin.]


56. Louis H. Bean -- Dept. of Agriculture official


57. Abraham Fox -- research director, Tariff Commission


58. Benedict Wolf -- National Labor Relations Board [NLRB]


59. William Leiserson -- NLRB


60. David J. Saposs -- NLRB


61. A. H. Meyers -- NLRB [New England division]


62. L. H. Seltzer -- head economist at the Treasury Dept.


63. Edward Berman -- Dept. of Labor official


64. Jacob Perlman -- Dept. of Labor official


65. Morris L. Jacobson -- chief statistician of the Government Research Project


66. Jack Levin -- assistant general manager, Rural Electrification Authority


67. Harold Loeb -- economic consultant, N.R.P.


68. William Seagle -- council, Petroleum Labor Policy Board


69. Herman A. Gray -- policy committee, National Housing Conference


70. Alexander Sachs -- rep. of Lehman Bros., early New Deal consultant


71. Paul Mazur -- rep. of Lehman Bros., early consultant for New Deal


72. Henry Alsberg -- head of the Writer's Project under the W.P.A.


73. Lincoln Rothschild -- New Deal art administrator

Jewish Control of the Media


Jewish Control of Hollywood


Jewish Control of the Internet


Jewish Control Lists


Jewish Control of the Federal Reserve


The Jewish Porn Industry


The Jewish Lobby List


When victims Rule: A Critique of Jewish Pre-Eminence in America


Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism


Understanding Jewish Influence II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism


Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement


Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review


Jews, Blacks, and Race


The Israel Lobby: A Case Study in Jewish Influence


Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR


The Neoconservative Mind – They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons


Light for Nations: A Short History of the Jews in the Modern World


Terror Timeline: History of the Jewish War Against the World


A Malicious Duo: Two Laws that Destroyed America’s Culture


A Malicious Duo, Part Two: Two More Laws that Destroyed America’s Culture


The Origins of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954


The Frankfurt School: Destroying Western Culture


Feminism: A Jewish Adversary Movement Against Gentile Culture


Jews Associated with the NAACP


Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover,

that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the

"Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors

of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah.

However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such

people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a

"Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."


In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the

18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century

first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is

quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th

centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction

and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition

and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in

the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only

the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in

the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier

English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century.


Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is:

"Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive,"

"Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English

equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus,"

"Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."



Understanding Jewish Influence:Background Traits for Jewish Activism

Kevin MacDonald



Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.


Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they

reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.


The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the

fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.  Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”2


Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until at least the post-World War II era. They were an important focus of National Socialism in Germany, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-white immigration to countries of European origin.  In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the Bush administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.


How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? This article is the first of a three-part series on Jewish influence which seeks to answer that question.


This first paper in the series provides an introduction to Jewish ethnocentrism and other background traits that influence Jewish success. The second article discusses Zionism as the quintessential example of twentieth-century Jewish ethnocentrism and as an example of a highly influential Jewish intellectual/political movement. A broader aim will be to discuss a generalization about Jewish history: that in the long run the more extreme elements of the Jewish community win out and determine the direction of the entire group. As Jonathan Sacks points out, it is the committed core—made up now especially of highly influential and vigorous Jewish activist organizations in the United States and hypernationalist elements in Israel—that determines the future direction of the community.



The third and final article will discuss neo-conservatism as a Jewish intellectual and political movement. Although I touched on neo-conservatism in my trilogy on Jews, the present influence of this movement on U.S. foreign policy necessitates a much fuller treatment.


Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form

is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries.

Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups Group boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as hair style or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history. Different groups settle in different areas where they retain their homogeneity alongside other homogeneous groups, as illustrated by the following account from Carleton Coon:


There the ideal was to emphasize not the uniformity of the citizens of a country as a whole but a uniformity within each special segment, and the greatest possible contrast between segments. The members of each ethnic unit feel the need to identify themselves by some configuration of symbols. If by virtue of their history they possess some racial peculiarity, this they will enhance by special haircuts and the like; in any case will wear distinctive garments and behave in a distinctive fashion.


These societies are by no means blissful paradises of multiculturalism. Between-group conflict often lurks just beneath the surface.  For example, in nineteenth-century Turkey, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in a sort of superficial harmony, and even inhabited the same areas, “but the slightest spark sufficed to ignite the fuse.


Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism and hyperethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish hyperethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism and have suggested in several places that Jewish hyperethnocentrism is biologically based. Middle Eastern ethnocentrism and fanaticism has struck a good many people as extreme, including William Hamilton, perhaps the most important evolutionary biologist of the twentieth century. Hamilton writes:


I am sure I am not the first to have wondered what it is about that part of the world

that feeds such diverse and intense senses of rectitude as has created three of the

worlds’ most persuasive and yet most divisive and mutually incompatible religions.

It is hard to discern the root in the place where I usually look for roots of

our strong emotions, the part deepest in us, our biology and evolution.


Referring to my first two books on Judaism, Hamilton then notes that “even a recent treatise on this subject, much as I agree with its general theme, seems to me hardly to reach to this point of the discussion.” If I failed to go far enough in describing or analyzing Jewish ethnocentrism, it is perhaps because the subject seems almost mind-bogglingly deep, with psychological ramifications everywhere. As a pan-humanist, Hamilton was acutely aware of the ramifications of human ethnocentrism and especially of the Jewish variety.

Likening Judaism to the creation of a new human species, Hamilton noted that from a humanist point of view, were those "species" the Martian thought to see in the towns and villages a millennium or so ago a good thing? Should we have let their crystals grow; do we retrospectively approve them? As by growth in numbers by land annexation, by the heroizing of a recent mass murderer of Arabs [i.e., Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Arabs, including children, at the Patriarch’s Cave in

Hebron in 1994], and by the honorific burial accorded to a publishing  magnate

[Robert Maxwell], who had enriched Israel partly by his swindling of his employees,

most of them certainly not Jews, some Israelis seem to favour a "racewise" and

unrestrained competition, just as did the ancient Israelites and Nazi Germans.

In proportion to the size of the country and the degree to which the eyes of

the world are watching, the acts themselves that betray this trend of reversion from

panhumanism may seem small as yet, but the spirit behind them, to this observer,

seems virtually identical to trends that have long predated them both in humans and animals.


A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Present-day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., priorto about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in Cabbala—Jewish mysticism. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Cabbala by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Cabbala has a universalist message. The actual text says salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls.”

The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in traditional Jewishsociety, but remains a powerful current of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:


We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior

level. Rather we have a case of…a totally different species…. The body of a Jewish

person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the

world…. The difference of the inner quality [of the body]…is so great that the bodies

would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is a halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain”…. An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.17


This claim of Jewish uniqueness echoes Holocaust activist Elie Wiesel’s claim

that “everything about us is different.” Jews are “ontologically” exceptional.

The Gush Emunim and other Jewish fundamentalist sects described by Shahak and Mezvinsky are thus part of a long mainstream Jewish tradition which considers Jews and non-Jews completely different species, with Jews absolutely superior to non-Jews and subject to a radically different moral code. Moral universalism is thus antithetical to the Jewish tradition in which the survival and interests of the Jewish people are the most important ethical goal:


Many Jews, especially religious Jews today in Israel and their supporters abroad,

continue to adhere to traditional Jewish ethics that other Jews would like to ignore

or explain away. For example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: “Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.” Rabbi Ido Elba: “According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such situation one may kill any Gentile.” Rabbi Yisrael Ariel writes in 1982 that “Beirut is part of the Land of Israel. [This is a reference to the boundaries of Israel as stated in the Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1 3–4]

…our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed

every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.” It is usually yeshiva

students who chant “Death to the Arabs” on CNN. The stealing and corruption by religious leaders that has recently been documented in trials in Israel and abroad continues to raise the question of the relationship between Judaism and ethics.19


Moral particularism in its most aggressive form can be seen among

the ultranationalists, such as the Gush Emunim, who hold that

Jews are not, and cannot be a normal people. The eternal uniqueness of the Jews

is the result of the Covenant made between God and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai….

The implication is that the transcendent imperatives for Jews effectively nullify moral

laws that bind the behavior of normal nations. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, one of Gush Emunim’s

most prolific ideologues, argues that the divine commandments to the Jewish people

“transcend the human notions of national rights.” He explains that while God requires

other nations to abide by abstract codes of justice and righteousness, such laws do

not apply to Jews.20


As argued in the second paper in this series, it is the most extreme elements within

the Jewish community that ultimately give direction to the community as a whole. These

fundamentalist and ultranationalist groups are not tiny fringe groups, mere relics of traditional

Jewish culture. They are widely respected by the Israeli public and by many Jews in the

Diaspora. They have a great deal of influence on the Israeli government, especially the Likud

governments and the recent government of national unity headed by Ariel Sharon. The

members of Gush Emunim constitute a significant percentage of the elite units of the Israeli

army, and, as expected on the hypothesis that they are extremely ethnocentric, they are

much more willing to treat the Palestinians in a savage and brutal manner than are other

Israeli soldiers. All together, the religious parties represent about 25% of the Israeli electorate

a percentage that is sure to increase because of the high fertility of religious Jews

and because intensified troubles with the Palestinians tend to make other Israelis more

sympathetic to their cause. Given the fractionated state of Israeli politics and the increasing

numbers of the religious groups, it is unlikely that future governments can be formed

without their participation. Peace in the Middle East therefore appears

unlikely absent the complete capitulation or expulsion of the Palestinians.


A good discussion of Jewish moral particularism can be found in a recent article in Tikkun—

probably the only remaining liberal Jewish publication. Kim Chernin wonders why so many

Jews “have trouble being critical of Israel.”22 She finds several obstacles to criticism of Israel:


1. A conviction that Jews are always in danger, always have been, and therefore are

in danger now. Which leads to: 2. The insistence that a criticism is an attack and will

lead to our destruction. Which is rooted in: 3. The supposition that any negativity towards

Jews (or Israel) is a sign of anti-Semitism and will (again, inevitably) lead to our destruction….

6. An even more hidden belief that a sufficient amount of suffering confers the right to

violence…. 7. The conviction that our beliefs, our ideology

(or theology), matter more than the lives of other human beings.


Chernin presents the Jewish psychology of moral particularism:


We keep a watchful eye out, we read the signs, we detect innuendo, we summon

evidence, we become, as we imagine it, the ever-vigilant guardians of our people’s

survival. Endangered as we imagine ourselves to be; endangered as we insist we are,

any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own, takes on exaggerated

dimensions; we come to perceive such criticism as a life-threatening attack. The path

to fear is clear. But our proclivity for this perception is itself one of our unrecognized

dangers. Bit by bit, as we gather evidence to establish our perilous position in the world,

we are brought to a selective perception of that world. With our attention focused on

ourselves as the endangered species, it seems to follow that we ourselves can do no harm….

When I lived in Israel I practiced selective perception. I was elated by our little kibbutz

on the Lebanese border until I recognized that we were living on land that had belonged

to our Arab neighbors. When I didn’t ask how we had come to acquire that land,

I practiced blindness…


The profound depths of Jewish ethnocentrism are intimately tied up with a sense of historical

persecution. Jewish memory is a memory of persecution and impending doom, a memory

that justifies any response because ultimately it is Jewish survival that is at stake:


Wherever we look, we see nothing but impending Jewish destruction…. I was walking

across the beautiful square in Nuremberg a couple of years ago and stopped to

read a public sign. It told this story: During the Middle Ages, the town governing body,

wishing to clear space for a square, burned out, burned down, and burned up the

Jews who had formerly filled up the space. End of story. After that, I felt very uneasy

walking through the square and I eventually stopped doing it. I felt endangered, of course,

a woman going about through Germany wearing a star of David. But more than that, I

experienced a conspicuous and dreadful self-reproach at being so alive, so happily on

vacation, now that I had come to think about the murder of my people hundreds of years

before. After reading that plaque I stopped enjoying myself and began to look for other

signs and traces of the mistreatment of the former Jewish community. If I had stayed

longer in Nuremberg, if I had gone further in this direction, I might soon have come

to believe that I, personally, and my people, currently, were threatened by the contemporary

Germans eating ice cream in an outdoor cafe in the square. How much more potent

this tendency for alarm must be in the Middle East, in the middle of a war zone!…


Notice the powerful sense of history here. Jews have a very long historical memory.

Events that happened centuries ago color their current perceptions.


This powerful sense of group endangerment and historical grievance is associated with a

hyperbolic style of Jewish thought that runs repeatedly through Jewish rhetoric. Chernin’s

comment that “any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own, takes on

exaggerated dimensions” is particularly important. In the Jewish mind, all criticism must

be suppressed because not to do so would be to risk another Holocaust: “There is no

such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the

omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in

American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’ ”23 Norman Podhoretz, editor

of Commentary, a premier neoconservative journal published by the American

Jewish Committee, provides an example:


My own view is that what had befallen the Jews of Europe inculcated a subliminal lesson….

The lesson was that anti-Semitism, even the relatively harmless genteel variety that enforced

quotas against Jewish students or kept their parents from joining fashionable clubs

or getting jobs in prestigious Wall Streetlaw firms, could end in mass murder.24


This is a “slippery slope” argument with a vengeance. The schema is as follows: Criticism of

Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility toward Jews, which leads to Hitler and

eventually to mass murder. Therefore all criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this

sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank

and Gaza because “the survival of Israel” is at stake. Consider, for example, the

following advertisement distributed by neoconservative publicist David Horowitz:


The Middle East struggle is not about right versus right. It is about a fifty-year effort by

the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state, and the refusal of the Arab states in general and

the Palestinian Arabs in particular to accept Israel’s existence…. The Middle East conflict

is not about Israel’s occupation of the territories; it is about the refusal of the Arabs to

make peace with Israel, which is an expression of their desire to destroy the Jewish state.


 “Survival of Israel” arguments thus trump concerns about allocation of scarce resources

like water, the seizure of Palestinian land, collective punishment, torture, and the complete

degradation of Palestinian communities into isolated, military-occupied, Bantustan-type

enclaves. The logic implies that critics of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

also favor the destruction of Israel and hence the mass murder of millions of Jews.


Similarly, during the debate over selling military hardware to Saudi Arabia in the Carter

administration, “the Israeli lobby pulled out all the stops,” including circulating books to

Congress based on the TV series The Holocaust. The American Israel Public Affairs

Committee (AIPAC), the main Jewish lobbying group in Congress, included a note stating,

“This chilling account of the extermination of six million Jews underscores Israel’s concerns

during the current negotiations for security without reliance on outside guarantees.

In other words, selling AWACS reconnaissance planes to Saudi Arabia, a backward kingdom

with little military capability, is tantamount to collusion in the extermination of millions of Jews.


Jewish thinking about immigration into the U.S. shows the same logic.

Lawrence Auster, a Jewish conservative, describes the logic as follows:


The liberal notion that “all bigotry is indivisible” [advocated by Norman Podhoretz] implies

that all manifestations of ingroup/outgroup feeling are essentially the same—and equally

wrong. It denies the obvious fact that some outgroups are more different from the ingroup,

and hence less assimilable, and hence more legitimately excluded, than other outgroups.

It means, for example, that wanting to exclude Muslim immigrants from

America is as blameworthy as wanting to exclude Catholics or Jews.


Now when Jews put together the idea that “all social prejudice and exclusion leads

potentially to Auschwitz” with the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,” they must reach

the conclusion that any exclusion of any group, no matter how

alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.


So there it is. We have identified the core Jewish conviction that makes Jews keep pushing

relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their deadliest enemies.

In the thought-process of Jews, to keep Jew-hating Muslims out of America

would be tantamount to preparing the way to another Jewish Holocaust.27


The idea that any sort of exclusionary thinking on the part of Americans—and especially

European Americans as a majority group—leads inexorably to a Holocaust for Jews is not

the only reason why Jewish organizations still favor mass immigration. I have identified two

others as well: the belief that greater diversity makes Jews safer and an intense sense of

historical grievance against the traditional peoples and culture of the United States and Europe

.28 These two sentiments also illustrate Jewish moral particularism because they fail to

consider the ethnic interests of other peoples in thinking about immigration policy. Recently

the “diversity-as-safety” argument was made by Leonard S. Glickman, president and

CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that has advocated open

immigration to the United States for over a century. Glickman stated, “The more diverse

American society is the safer [Jews] are.”29 At the present time, the HIAS is

deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa to emigrate to the U.S.


The diversity as safety argument and its linkage to historical grievances against European

civilization is implicit in a recent statement of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) in response

to former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s argument that Muslim Turkey

has no place in the European Union:


Ironically, in the fifteenth century, when European monarchs expelled the Jews, it was

Moslem Turkey that provided them a welcome…. During the Holocaust, when Europe

was slaughtering its Jews, it was Turkish consuls who extended protection to fugitives

from Vichy France and other Nazi allies…. Today’s European neo-Nazis and skinheads

focus upon Turkish victims while, Mr. President, you are reported to be considering

the Pope’s plea that your Convention emphasize Europe’s Christian heritage. [The Center

suggested that Giscard’s new Constitution] underline the pluralism of a multi-faith

and multi-ethnic Europe, in which the participation of Moslem Turkey might bolster the

continent’s Moslem communities—and, indeed, Turkey itself—against the menaces of

extremism, hate and fundamentalism. A European Turkey can only be beneficial

for stability in Europe and the Middle East.30


Here we see Jewish moral particularism combined with a profound sense of historical

grievance—hatred by any other name—against European civilization and a desire for the

end of Europe as a Christian civilization with its traditional ethnic base. According to the

SWC, the menaces of “extremism, hate and fundamentalism”—prototypically against Jews

—can only be repaired by jettisoning the traditional cultural and ethnic basis of European

civilization. Events that happened five hundred years ago are still fresh in the minds of

Jewish activists—a phenomenon that should give pause to everyone in an age

when Israel has control of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems.31


Indeed, a recent article on Assyrians in the U.S. shows that many Jews have not forgiven

or forgotten events of 2,700 years ago, when the Northern Israelite kingdom was forcibly

relocated to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh: “Some Assyrians say Jews are one group of

people who seem to be more familiar with them. But because the Hebrew Bible describes

Assyrians as cruel and ruthless conquerors, people such as the Rev. William Nissan say

he is invariably challenged by Jewish rabbis and scholars about the misdeeds of his ancestors.”


The SWC inveighs against hate but fails to confront the issue of hatred as a normative

aspect of Judaism. Jewish hatred toward non-Jews emerges as a consistent theme throughout

the ages, beginning in the ancient world. The Roman historian Tacitus noted that “Among

themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard

the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. The eighteenth-century English

historian Edward Gibbon was struck by the fanatical hatred of Jews in the ancient world:


From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce

impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious

massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties

which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they

dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to

applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against

a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them

the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind.35


The nineteenth-century Spanish historian José Amador de los Rios wrote of the Spanish

Jews who assisted the Muslim conquest of Spain that “without any love for the soil where

they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally without

sentiments of generosity, they aspired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin

of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancor, and boasting of the hatreds

that they had hoarded up so many centuries.”  In 1913, economist Werner Sombart, in

his classic Jews and Modern Capitalism, summarized Judaism as “a group by themselves

and therefore separate and apart—this from the earliest antiquity. All nations were

struck by their hatred of others.”


A recent article by Meir Y. Soloveichik, aptly titled “The virtue of hate,” amplifies this theme

of normative Jewish fanatical hatred. “Judaism believes that while forgiveness is often

a virtue, hate can be virtuous when one is dealing with the frightfully wicked. Rather

than forgive, we can wish ill; rather than hope for repentance, we can instead hope that

our enemies experience the wrath of God.” Soloveichik notes that the Old Testament is

replete with descriptions of horribly violent deaths inflicted on the enemies of the Israelites

—the desire not only for revenge but for revenge in the bloodiest, most degrading manner

imaginable: “The Hebrew prophets not only hated their enemies, but rather reveled in their

suffering, finding in it a fitting justice.” In the Book of Esther, after the Jews kill the ten

sons of Haman, their persecutor, Esther asks that they be hanged on a gallows.


This normative fanatical hatred in Judaism can be seen by the common use among

Orthodox Jews of the phrase yemach shemo, meaning, may his name be erased.

This phrase is used “whenever a great enemy of the Jewish nation, of the past or

present, is mentioned. For instance, one might very well say casually, in the course of

conversation, ‘Thank God, my grandparents left Germany before Hitler, yemach shemo,

came to power.’ Or: ‘My parents were murdered by the Nazis, yemach shemam.’ ”39

Again we see that the powerful consciousness of past suffering leads to present-day intense hatred:


Another danger inherent in hate is that we may misdirect our odium at institutions in

the present because of their past misdeeds. For instance, some of my coreligionists

reserve special abhorrence for anything German, even though Germany is currently

one of the most pro-Israel countries in Europe. Similarly, after centuries of suffering,

many Jews have, in my own experience, continued to despise religious Christians,

even though it is secularists and Islamists who threaten them today, and Christians

should really be seen as their natural allies. Many Jewish intellectuals and others of

influence still take every assertion of the truth of Christianity as an anti-Semitic attack.

After the Catholic Church beatified Edith Stein, a Jewish convert to Christianity,

some prominent Jews asserted that the Church was attempting to cover up its role in

causing the Holocaust. And then there is the historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen,

who essentially has asserted that any attempt by the Catholic Church to maintain that

Christianity is the one true faith marks a continuation of the crimes of the

Church in the past. Burning hatred, once kindled, is difficult to extinguish.


Soloveichik could also have included Jewish hatred toward the traditional peoples and culture

of the United States. This hatred stems from Jewish memory of the immigration law of 1924,

which is seen as having resulted in a greater number of Jews dying in the Holocaust because

it restricted Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Jews are

also acutely aware of widespread anti-Jewish attitudes in the U.S. prior to World War II.

The hatred continues despite the virtual disappearance of anti-Jewish attitudes in the U.S.

after World War II and despite the powerful ties between the United States and Israel.


Given the transparently faulty logic and obvious self-interest involved in arguments made by

Jewish activists, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Jews are often engaged in

self-deception. In fact, self-deception is a very important component of Jewish moral

particularism. I wrote an entire chapter on Jewish self-deception in Separation

and Its Discontents41 but it was nowhere near enough. Again, Kim Chernin:


Our sense of victimization as a people works in a dangerous and seditious way

against our capacity to know, to recognize, to name and to remember. Since we have

adopted ourselves as victims we cannot correctly read our own history let alone our

present circumstances. Even where the story of our violence is set down in a sacred

text that we pore over again and again, we cannot see it. Our self-election as the people

most likely to be victimized obscures rather than clarifies our own tradition. I can’t count

the number of times I read the story of Joshua as a tale of our people coming into their

rightful possession of their promised land without stopping to say to myself, “but this is

a history of rape, plunder, slaughter, invasion and destruction of other peoples.” As such,

it bears an uncomfortably close resemblance to the behavior of Israeli settlers and the

Israeli army of today, a behavior we also cannot see for what it is. We are tracing the

serpentine path of our own psychology. We find it organized around a persuasion of

victimization, which leads to a sense of entitlement to enact violence, which brings

about an inevitable distortion in the way we perceive both our Jewish identity

and the world, and involves us finally in a tricky relationship to language.


Political columnist Joe Sobran—who has suffered professionally for expressing his opinions

about Israel—exposes the moral particularism of Norman Podhoretz, one of the chorus of

influential Jewish voices who advocate restructuring the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel:


Podhoretz has unconsciously exposed the Manichaean fantasy world of so many of those

who are now calling for war with Iraq. The United States and Israel are “good”; the Arab-Muslim

states are “evil”; and those opposed to this war represent “moral relativism,” ostensibly

neutral but virtually on the side of “evil.” This is simply deranged. The ability to see evil

only in one’s enemies isn’t “moral clarity.” It’s the essence of fanaticism. We are

now being counseled to fight one kind of fanaticism with another. [My emphasis]


As Sobran notes, the moral particularism is unconscious—an example of self-deception.

The world is cut up into two parts, the good and the evil—ingroup-outgroup—as it has been,

for Jews, for well over two thousand years. Recently Jared Taylor and David

Horowitz got into a discussion whichtouched on Jewish issues. Taylor writes:


Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that “we are all prisoners of identity politics,” implying

that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so,

why does the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions

to “David’s Defense of Israel Campaign”? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or

Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to

Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to

me and to other racially-conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously

Jewish state but calls it “surrendering to the multicultural miasma” when I work to

return to a self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for

Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one… If he supports a Jewish Israel,

he should support a white America.42


Taylor is suggesting that Horowitz is self-deceived or inconsistent. It is interesting that

Horowitz was acutely aware of his own parents’ self-deception. Horowitz’s description

of his parents shows the strong ethnocentrism that lurked beneath the noisy universalism

of Jewish communists in mid-twentieth century America. In his book, Radical Son, Horowitz

describes the world of his parents who had joined a “shul” (i.e., a synagogue) run by

the Communist Party in which Jewish holidays were given a political interpretation.

Psychologically these people might as well have been in eighteenth-century

Poland, but they were completely unaware of any Jewish identity. Horowitz writes:


What my parents had done in joining the Communist Party and moving to Sunnyside

was to return to the ghetto. There was the same shared private language, the same

hermetically sealed universe, the same dual posturing revealing one face to the outer

world and another to the tribe. More importantly, there was the same conviction of

being marked for persecution and specially ordained, the sense of moral superiority

toward the stronger and more numerous goyim outside. And there was the same fear

of expulsion for heretical thoughts, which was the fear that riveted the chosen to the faith.43


Jews recreate Jewish social structure wherever they are, even when they are completely

unaware they are doing so. When asked about their Jewish commitments, these communists

denied having any. Nor were they consciously aware of having chosen ethnically Jewish

spouses, although they all married other Jews. This denial has been useful for Jewish

organizations and Jewish intellectual apologists attempting to de-emphasize the role of

Jews on the radical left in the twentieth century. For example, a common tactic of the

ADL beginning in the Red Scare era of the 1920s right up through the Cold War era was

to claim that Jewish radicals were no longer Jews because they had no Jewish

religious commitments.45


Non-Jews run the risk of failing to truly understand how powerful these Jewish traits of

moral particularism and self-deception really are. When confronted with his own rabid

support for Israel, Horowitz simply denies that ethnicity has much to do with it; he supports

Israel as a matter of principle—his commitment to universalist moral principles—and he

highlights the relationship between Israel and the West: “Israel is under attack by the same

enemy that has attacked the United States. Israel is the point of origin for the culture of

the West.”46 This ignores the reality that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is a major

part of the reason why the United States was attacked and is hated throughout the Arab

world. It also ignores the fact that Western culture and its strong strain of individualism are

the antithesis of Judaism, and that Israel’s Western veneer overlays

the deep structure of Israel as an apartheid, ethnically based state.


It’s difficult to argue with people who cannot see or at least won’t acknowledge the depths

of their own ethnic commitments and continue to act in ways that compromise the

ethnic interests of others. People like Horowitz (and his parents) can’t see their ethnic

commitments even when they are obvious to everyone else. One could perhaps say the

same of Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and the

legion of prominent Jews who collectively dominate the perception of Israel presented by the

U.S. media. Not surprisingly, Horowitz pictures the U.S. as a set of universal principles,

with no ethnic content. This idea originated with Jewish intellectuals, particularly Horace

Kallen, almost a century ago at a time when there was a strong conception that the

United  States was a European civilization whose characteristics were racially/ethnically based.

 As we all know, this world and its intellectual infrastructure have vanished, and I have

tried to show that the prime force opposing a European racial/ethnic conception of the U.S.

was a set of Jewish intellectual and political movements that collectively

pathologized any sense of European ethnicity or European ethnic interests.48


Given that extreme ethnocentrism continues to pervade all segments of the organized Jewish

community, the advocacy of the de-ethnicization of Europeans—a common sentiment in

the movements I discuss in The Culture of Critique—is best seen as a strategic move against

peoples regarded as historical enemies. In Chapter 8 of CofC, I call attention to a long list of

similar double standards, especially with regard to the policies pursued by Israel versus the

policies Jewish organizations have pursued in the U.S. These policies include church-state

separation, attitudes toward multiculturalism, and immigration policies favoring the dominant

ethnic group. This double standard is fairly pervasive. As noted throughout CofC, Jewish

advocates addressing Western audiences have promoted policies that satisfy Jewish

(particularist) interests in terms of the morally universalist language that is a central feature of

Western moral and intellectual discourse; obviously David Horowitz’s

rationalization of his commitment to Israel is a prime example of this.


A principal theme of CofC is that Jewish organizations played a decisive role in opposing

the idea that the United States ought to be a European nation. Nevertheless, these organizations

have been strong supporters of Israel as a nation of the Jewish people. Consider, for example,

a press release of May 28, 1999, by the ADL:


The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today lauded the passage of sweeping changes

in Germany’s immigration law, saying the easing of the nation’s once rigorous

naturalization requirements “will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance. It is

encouraging to see pluralism taking root in a society that, despite its strong democracy,

had for decades maintained an unyielding policy of citizenship by blood or descent

only,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “The easing of immigration

requirements is especially significant in light of Germany’s history of the Holocaust and

persecution of Jews and other minority groups. The new law will provide a climate for

diversity and acceptance in a nation with an onerous legacy of xenophobia, where the concept of ‘us versus them’ will be replaced by a principle of citizenship for all.”


There is no mention of analogous laws in place in Israel restricting immigration to Jews, or of the long-standing policy of rejecting the possibility of repatriation for Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Israel or the occupied territories. The prospective change in the

“us versus them” attitude alleged to be characteristic of Germany is applauded, while the

“us versus them” attitude characteristic of Israel and Jewish culture throughout history is unmentioned. Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Interior ruled that new immigrants who have converted to Judaism will no longer be able to bring non-Jewish family members into the country.

The decision is expected to cut by half the number of eligible immigrants to Israel. Nevertheless, Jewish organizations continue to be strong proponents of multiethnic immigration to the

United States while maintaining unquestioning support for Israel. This pervasive double standard was noticed by writer Vincent Sheean in his observations of Zionists in Palestine in 1930: “how idealism goes hand in hand with the most terrific cynicism; . . . how they are

Fascists in their own affairs, with regard to Palestine, and internationalists in everything else.” The right hand does not know what the left is doing—self-deception writ large.


Jewish ethnocentrism is well founded in the sense that scientific studies supporting the genetic cohesiveness of Jewish groups continue to appear. Most notable of the recent studies is that of Michael Hammer and colleagues. Based on Y-chromosome data, Hammer et al. conclude that 1 in 200 matings within Jewish communities were with non-Jews over a 2000-year period.


Because of their intense ethnocentrism, Jews tend to have great rapport with each

other—an important ingredient in producing effective groups.  One way to understand

this powerful attraction for fellow ethnic group members is J. Philippe Rushton’s Genetic

Similarity Theory.52 According to GST, people are attracted to others who are genetically

similar to themselves. One of the basic ideas of evolutionary biology is that people are

expected to help relatives because they share similar genes. When a father helps a child

or an uncle helps a nephew, he is really also helping himself because of their close genetic

relationship. (Parents share half their genes with their children; uncles share one-fourth of

their genes with nieces and nephews.53) GST extends this concept to non-relatives by

arguing that people benefit when they favor others who are

genetically similar to them even if they are not relatives.


GST has some important implications for understanding cooperation and cohesiveness

among Jews. It predicts that people will be friendlier to other people who are genetically

more similar to themselves. In the case of Jews and non-Jews, it predicts that Jews

would be more likely to make friends and alliances with other Jews, and that there

would be high levels of rapport and psychological satisfaction within these relationships.


GST explains the extraordinary rapport and cohesiveness among Jews. Since the vast

majority of Jews are closely related genetically, GST predicts that they will be very attracted

to other Jews and may even be able to recognize them in the absence of distinctive

clothing and hair styles. There is anecdotal evidence for this statement. Theologian Eugene

Borowitz writes that Jews seek each other out in social situations and feel “far more at

home” after they have discovered who is Jewish.54 “Most Jews claim to be equipped with

an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence

of another Jew, despite heavy camouflage.” Another Jewish writer comments on the

incredible sense of oneness he has with other Jews and his ability to recognize other Jews

in public places, a talent some Jews call “J-dar.”55 While dining with his non-Jewish

fiancée, he is immediately recognized as Jewish by some other Jews, and there is an

immediate “bond of brotherhood” between them that excludes his non-Jewish companion.


Robert Reich, Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, wrote that in his first face-to-face

meeting with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, “We have never met before,

but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he

grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish.

He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at

countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain

that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the

same ancestor.”56 Reich is almost certainly correct: He and Greenspan do indeed

have a recent common ancestor, and this genetic affinity causes them to have an

almost supernatural attraction to each other. Or consider Sigmund Freud, who wrote

that he found “the attraction of Judaism and of Jews so irresistible, many dark emotional

powers, all the mightier the less they let themselves be grasped in words, as well as the

clear consciousness of inner identity, the secrecy of the same mental construction.”57


Any discussion of Judaism has to start and probably end with this incredibly strong

bond that Jews have among each other—a bond that is created by their close genetic

relationship and by the intensification of the psychological mechanisms underlying

group cohesion. This powerful rapport among Jews translates

into a heightened ability to cooperate in highly focused groups.


To conclude this section: In general, the contemporary organized Jewish community is

characterized by high levels of Jewish identification and ethnocentrism. Jewish activist

organizations like the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid

Society, and the neoconservative think tanks are not creations of the fundamentalist and

Orthodox, but represent the broad Jewish community, including non-religious Jews and

Reform Jews. In general, the more actively people are involved in the Jewish community,

the more committed they are to preventing intermarriage and retaining Jewish ethnic

cohesion. And despite a considerable level of intermarriage among less committed

Jews, the leadership of the Jewish community in the U.S. is at present

not made up of the offspring of intermarried people to any significant extent.


Jewish ethnocentrism is ultimately simple traditional human ethnocentrism, although it

is certainly among the more extreme varieties. But what is so fascinating is the cloak of

intellectual support for Jewish ethnocentrism, the complexity and intellectual sophistication

of the rationalizations for it—some of which are reviewed in Separation and Its Discontents

58 and the rather awesome hypocrisy (or cold-blooded deception)

of it, given Jewish opposition to ethnocentrism among Europeans.


II. Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy)


The vast majority of U.S. Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. This is a very intelligent group, with

an average IQ of approximately 115 and verbal IQ considerably higher.59 Since verbal

IQ is the best predictor of occupational success and upward mobility in contemporary

societies,60 it is not surprising that Jews are an elite group in the United States. Frank

Salter has showed that on issues of concern to the Jewish community (Israel, immigration,

ethnic policy in general), Jewish groups have four times the influence of European

Americans despite representing approximately 2.5% of the population.61 Recent data

indicate that Jewish per capita income in the U.S. is almost double that of non-Jews, a

bigger difference than the black-white income gap.62 Although Jews make up less than

3% of the population, they constitute more than a quarter of the people on the Forbes list

of the richest four hundred Americans. Jews constitute 45% of the top forty of the Forbes

400 richest Americans. Fully one-third of all American multimillionaires are Jewish. The

percentage of Jewish households with income greater than $50,000 is double that of non-Jews;

on the other hand, the percentage of Jewish households with income less than $20,000 is

half that of non-Jews. Twenty percent of professors at leading universities are Jewish,

and 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington D.C. law firms are Jewish.63


In 1996, there were  approximately three hundres national Jewish organizations in the

United States, with a combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion—a sum

greater than the gross national product of half the members of the United Nations.64

For example, in 2001 the ADL claimed an annual budget of over $50,000,000.65 There

is also a critical mass of very wealthy Jews who are actively involved in funding Jewish

causes.  Irving Moskowitz funds the settler movement in Israel and pro-Israeli, neoconservative

think tanks in Washington DC, while Charles Bronfman, Ronald Lauder, and the notorious

Marc Rich fund Birthright Israel, a program that aims to increase ethnic consciousness

among Jews by bringing 20,000 young Jews to Israel every year. George Soros finances

liberal immigration policy throughout the Western world and also funds Noel Ignatiev and

his “Race Traitor” website dedicated to the abolition of the white race. So far as I know,

there are no major sources of funding aimed at increasing ethnic consciousness among

Europeans or at promoting European ethnic interests.66 Certainly the major sources of

conservative funding in the U.S., such as the Bradley and Olin Foundations, are not aimed

at this sort of thing. Indeed, the Bradley Foundation has been a major source of funding for

the largely Jewish neoconservative movement and for pro-Israel

think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy.67


Paul Findley68 provides numerous examples of Jews using their financial clout to support

political candidates with positions that are to the liking of AIPAC and other pro-Israel activist

groups in the U.S. This very large financial support for pro-Israel candidates continues

into the present—the most recent examples being the campaigns to unseat Cynthia McKinney

and Earl Hilliard from Congress in 2002. Because of their predominantly Jewish funding base

,69 Democratic candidates are particularly vulnerable, but all candidates experience this

pressure because Jewish support will be funneled to their opponents

if there is any hint of disagreement with the pro-Israel lobby.


Intelligence is also important in providing access to the entire range of  influential positions,

from the academic world, to the media, to business, politics, and the legal profession. In

CofC I describe several influential Jewish intellectual movements developed by networks

of Jews who were motivated to advance Jewish causes and interests. These movements

were the backbone of the intellectual left in the twentieth century, and their influence

continues into the present. Collectively, they call into question the fundamental moral,

political, and economic foundations of Western society. These movements have been

advocated with great intellectual passion and moral fervor and with a very high level of

theoretical sophistication. As with the neoconservative movement, discussed in the third

article in this series, all of these movements had ready access to prestigious mainstream

media sources, at least partly because of the high representation of Jews as owners and

producers of mainstream media.70 All of these movements were strongly represented

at prestigious universities, and their work was published by

prestigious mainstream academic and commercial publishers.


Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jewish activism is like a full court press

in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity,

Jewish efforts are very well organized, well funded, and backed up by sophisticated,

scholarly intellectual defenses. A good example is the long and ultimately successful

attempt to alter U.S. immigration policy.71 The main Jewish activist organization

influencing immigration policy, the American Jewish Committee, was characterized

by “strong leadership, internal cohesion, well-funded programs, sophisticated lobbying

techniques, well-chosen non-Jewish allies, and good timing.”72 The most visible Jewish

activists, such as Louis Marshall, were intellectually brilliant and enormously energetic

and resourceful in their crusades on behalf of immigration and other Jewish causes. 

When restrictionist arguments appeared in the media, the American Jewish Committee

made sophisticated replies based on at least the appearance of scholarly data, and

typically couched in universalist terms as benefiting the whole society.  Articles favorable

to immigration were published in national magazines, and letters to the editor were published

in newspapers. Talented lawyers initiated legal proceedings aimed at preventing

the deportation of aliens.


The pro-immigration lobby was also very well organized. Immigration opponents, such

as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and organizations like the Immigration Restriction League

were kept under close scrutiny and pressured by lobbyists. Lobbyists in Washington also

kept a daily scorecard of voting tendencies as immigration bills wended their way through

Congress, and they engaged in intense and successful efforts to convince Presidents Taft

and Wilson to veto restrictive immigration legislation. Catholic prelates were recruited to

protest the effects of restrictionist legislation on immigration from Italy and Hungary.

There were well-organized efforts to minimize the negative perceptions of immigration

by distributing Jewish immigrants around the country and by getting Jewish aliens

off public support. Highly visible and noisy mass protest meetings were organized.73


Intelligence and organization are also apparent in contemporary Jewish lobbying on

behalf of Israel. Les Janka, a U.S. Defense Department official, noted that, “On all kinds

of foreign policy issues the American people just don’t make their voices heard. Jewish

groups are the exceptions. They are prepared, superbly briefed. They

have their act together. It is hard for bureaucrats not to respond.”74


Morton A. Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is typical

of the highly intelligent, competent, and dedicated Jewish activist. The ZOA website states

that Klein had a distinguished career as a biostatistician in academe and in government service

in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations. He has received accolades as one of the

leading Jewish activists in the U.S., especially by media that are closely associated with Likud

policies in Israel. For example, the Wall Street Journal called the ZOA “heroic and the most

credible advocate for Israel on the American Jewish scene today” and added that we should

“snap a salute to those who were right about Oslo and Arafat all along,… including Morton

Klein who was wise, brave and unflinchingly honest…. [W]hen the history of the American

Jewish struggle in these years is written, Mr. Klein will emerge as an outsized figure.” The

website boasts of Klein’s success “against anti-Israel bias” in textbooks, travel guides,

universities, churches, and the media, as well as his work on Capitol Hill.” Klein has led

successful efforts to block the appointment of Joe Zogby, an Arab American, to the State

Department and the appointment of Strobe Talbott, Clinton nominee for Deputy Secretary

of State. Klein’s pro-Israel articles have appeared in a wide range of mainstream and Jewish

media: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, New Yorker,

Commentary, Near East Report, Reform Judaism, Moment, Forward, Jerusalem Post,

Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, Ha’aretz (Jerusalem),

Maariv (Jerusalem), and the Israeli-Russian paper Vesti.


Klein’s activism highlights the importance of access to the major media enjoyed by

Jewish activists and organizations—a phenomenon that is traceable ultimately to Jewish

intelligence. Jews have a very large presence in the media as owners, writers, producers,

and editors—far larger than any other identifiable group.75 In the contemporary world,

this presence is especially important with respect to perceptions of Israel. Media coverage

of Israel in the U.S. is dominated by a pro-Israel bias, whereas in most of the world the

predominant view is that the Palestinians are a dispossessed people under siege.76 A

critical source of support for Israel is the army of professional pundits “who can be

counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without qualification.”77 Perhaps the most

egregious example of pro-Israel bias resulting from Jewish media control is the Asper

family, owners of CanWest, a company that controls over 33% of the English-language

newspapers in Canada. CanWest inaugurated an editorial policy in which all editorials

had to be approved by the main office. As the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression

notes, “the Asper family staunchly supports Israel in its conflicts with Palestinians, and

coverage of the Middle East appears to be a particularly sensitive area.”78 CanWest has

exercised control over the content of articles related to Israel by editing and spiking articles

with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli views. Journalists who have failed

to adopt CanWest positions have been reprimanded or dismissed.


III. Jews Are Psychologically Intense


I have compared Jewish activism to a full court press—relentlessly intense and covering

every possible angle. There is considerable evidence that Jews are higher than average

on emotional intensity.79 Emotionally intense people are prone to intense emotional

experience of both positive and negative emotions.80 Emotionality may be thought of

as a behavioral intensifier—an energizer. Individuals high on affect intensity have more

complex social networks and more complex lives, including multiple

and even conflicting goals. Their goals are intensely sought after.


 In the case of Jews, this affects the tone and intensity of their efforts at activism. Among

Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7,

“pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish

issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand

in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing described above: Jewish activism is an

intense response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or

behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue.


Besides its ability to direct Jewish money to its preferred candidates, a large part of AIPAC’s

effectiveness lies in its ability  to rapidly mobilize its 60,000 members. “In virtually every

congressional district…AIPAC has a group of prominent citizens it can mobilize if an

individual senator or representative needs stroking.”81 When Senator Charles Percy suggested

that Israel negotiate with the PLO and be willing to trade land for peace, he was inundated

with 2200 telegrams and 4000 letters, 95% against, and mainly from the Jewish community

in Chicago.82 The other side is seldom able to muster a response that competes with

the intensity of the Jewish response. When President Eisenhower—the last president to

stand up to the pro-Israel lobby—pressured Israel into withdrawing from the Sinai in

1957, almost all the mail opposed his decision. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles

complained, “It is impossible to hold the line because we get no support from the Protestant

elements in the country. All we get is a battering from the Jews.”83 This pales in comparison

to the avalanche of 150,000 letters to President Johnson urging support for Israel when

Egypt closed the Strait of Tiran in May 1967. This was just prior to the “Six-Day War,”

during which the U.S. provided a great deal of military assistance and actively cooperated

in the cover-up of the assault on the USS Liberty. Jews had learned from their defeat at the

hands of Eisenhower and had redoubled their lobbying efforts,

creating by all accounts the most effective lobby in Washington.

Pressure on officials in the State and Defense departments is relentless and intense.

In the words of one official, “One has to keep in mind the constant character of this pressure.

The public affairs staff of the Near East Bureau in the State Department figures it will

spend about 75 percent of its time dealing with Jewish groups. Hundreds

of such groups get appointments in the executive branch each year.”84


Psychological intensity is also typical of Israelis. For example, the Israelis are remarkably

persistent in their attempts to obtain U.S. military hardware. The following comment illustrates

not only the relentless, intense pressure, but also the aggressiveness of Jewish pursuit

of their interests: “They would never take no for an answer. They never gave up. These

emissaries of a foreign government always had a shopping list of wanted military items,

some of them high technology that no other nation possessed, some of it secret devices

that gave the United States an edge over any adversary.”85  Even though small in number,

the effects are enormous. “They never seem to sleep, guarding Israel’s interests around

the clock.”86 Henry Kissinger made the following comment on Israeli negotiating tactics.

“In the combination of single-minded persistence and convoluted tactics the Israelis preserve

in the interlocutor only those last vestiges of sanity and coherence needed to sign the final document.”87


IV. Jews Are Aggressive


Being aggressive and “pushy” is part of the stereotype of Jews in Western societies.

Unfortunately, there is a dearth of scientific studies on this aspect of Jewish personality.

Hans Eysenck, renowned for his research on personality, claims that

Jews  are indeed rated more aggressive by people who know them well.88


Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived among, and they

have been perceived as aggressive by their critics. What strikes the reader of Henry Ford’s

The International Jew (TIJ), written in the early 1920s, is its portrayal of Jewish intensity

and aggressiveness in asserting their interests.89 As TIJ notes, from Biblical times Jews

have endeavored to enslave and dominate other peoples, even in disobedience of divine

command, quoting the Old Testament, “And it came to pass, when Israel was strong,

that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out." In the Old Testament

the relationship between Israel and foreigners is one of domination: For example, “They shall

go after thee, in chains they shall come over; And they shall fall down unto thee. They shall

make supplication unto thee” (Isa. 45:14); “They shall bow down to thee with their face to

the earth, And lick the dust of thy feet” (49:23). Similar sentiments appear in Trito-Isaiah

(60:14, 61:5–6), Ezekiel (e.g., 39:10), and Ecclesiasticus (36:9). The apotheosis of Jewish

attitudes of conquest can be seen in the Book of Jubilees, where world domination

and great reproductive success are promised to the seed of Abraham:


I am the God who created heaven and earth. I shall increase you, and multiply you

exceedingly; and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the

sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven,

and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they

shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it for ever (Jub. 32:18‑19).


Elsewhere I have noted that a major theme of anti-Jewish attitudes throughout the ages

has been Jewish economic domination.90 The following petition from the citizens of the

German town of Hirschau opposed allowing Jews to live there because Jews were

seen as aggressive competitors who ultimately dominate the people they live among:


If only a few Jewish families settle here, all small shops, tanneries, hardware stores,

and so on, which, as things stand, provide their proprietors with nothing but the scantiest

of livelihoods, will in no time at all be superseded and completely crushed by these

[Jews] such that at least twelve local families will be reduced to beggary, and our poor

relief fund, already in utter extremity, will be fully exhausted within one year. The Jews

come into possession in the shortest possible time of all cash money by getting involved

in every business; they rapidly become the only possessors of money,

and their Christian neighbors become their debtors.91


Late nineteenth-century Zionists such as Theodor Herzl were quite aware that a prime source

of modern anti-Jewish attitudes was that emancipation had brought Jews into direct economic

competition with the non-Jewish middle classes, a competition that Jews typically won.

Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let themselves be subjugated’

by formerly scorned outsiders whom they had just released from the ghetto.”92 The

theme of economic domination has often been combined with the view that Jews are

personally aggressive. In the Middle Ages Jews were seen as “pitiless creditors.”93  The

philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that Jews were “a nation of usurers . . . outwitting the

people amongst whom they find shelter.... They make the slogan

‘let the buyer beware’ their highest principle in dealing with us.”94


In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater

tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging

from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades to Jewish poor attempting to

get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so

noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.”95


The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law

as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way…. The insurance

companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. Credit men say the

Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For

lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston

“the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”96


These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned

by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds

of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar,

materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones

who were willing to admit it.”97


Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American

Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture.98

From the perspective of Ford’s TIJ, the United States had imported around 3,500,000

mainly Yiddish-speaking, intensely Jewish immigrants over the previous forty years.

In that very short period, Jews had had enormous effect on American society, particularly

in their attempts to remove expressions of Christianity from public life beginning with

an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights:

“The Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant

Christian character of the U.S. is the only active form of religious intolerance in the

country today.”99


A prototypical example of Jewish aggressiveness toward American culture has been Jewish

advocacy of liberal immigration policies which have had a transformative effect on the U.S.:


In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokespersons

and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other

interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for

practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over

the years, their spokespersons had assiduously attended congressional hearings,

and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such

non-sectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the

Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.100


Jewish aggressiveness and their role in the media, in the creation of culture and information

in the social sciences and humanities, and in the political process in the United States

contrasts with the role of Overseas Chinese.101  The Chinese have not formed a hostile

cultural elite in Southeast Asian countries motivated by historical grievances against the

people and culture of their hosts. For example, despite their economic dominance, the

Chinese have not been concerned with restrictions on their citizenship rights, which have

been common in Southeast Asia.102 Whereas the Chinese have reacted rather passively

to such restrictions, Jews have reacted to any manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or

behavior with an all-out effort at eradication. Indeed, we have seen that the mainstream Jewish

attitude is that even trivial manifestations of anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior must not be

ignored because they can and will lead to mass murder. Not only have the Chinese not attempted

to remove public displays of symbols of Indonesian nationalism and religion, they have not

seriously attempted to change laws in place since the 1960s mandating that there be no

public displays of Chinese culture.103


Besides the normal sorts of lobbying typical of the political process in the U.S., perhaps

the clearest examples of Jewish aggressiveness are the many examples of intimidation of

their opponents—loss of job, death threats, constant harassment, economic losses such

as loss of advertising revenue for media businesses, and charges of anti-Semitism—the last

being perhaps the greatest sin against the post-World War II political order that can be

imagined. When Adlai Stevenson III was running for governor of Illinois, his record in opposition

to Israeli settlement policy and his statement that the PLO was a legitimate voice of the

Palestinian people resulted in a whisper campaign that he was an anti-Semite. Stevenson commented:


There is an intimidating, activist minority of American Jews that supports the

decisions of the Israeli government, right or wrong. They do so very vocally and very

aggressively in ways that intimidate others so that it’s their voice—even though it is

a minority—that is heard in American politics. But it still is much louder in the United

States than in Israel. In other words, you have a much stronger, more vocal dissent in

Israel than within the Jewish community in the United States. The prime minister of

Israel has far more influence over American foreign policy in the Middle

East than over the policies of his own government generally.104


A common tactic has been to charge that critics of Israel are anti-Semites. Indeed, George

Ball, a perceptive critic of Israel and its U.S. constituency, maintains that the charge of

anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust is the Israeli lobby’s most effective weapon—outstripping

its financial clout.105 The utility of these psychological weapons in turn derives from the very

large Jewish influence on the U.S. media. Historian Peter Novick notes regarding

the importance of the Holocaust in contemporary American life:


We [i.e., Jews] are not just “the people of the book,” but the people of the Hollywood film

and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column,

of the comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with

the Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important

role that Jews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural,

but virtually inevitable that it would spread throughout the culture at large.106


And, of course, the appeal to the Holocaust is especially compelling for American Jews.

When the Mossad wants to recruit U.S. Jews for help in its espionage work, in the words

of a CIA agent “the appeal is a simple one: ‘When the call went out and no one heeded it,

the Holocaust resulted.’ “107


Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only instruments of

Jewish aggressiveness on Israeli issues. Jewish groups intimidate their enemies by

a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel advocated by Jewish activist

organizations have been fired from their jobs, harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive

surveillance, and threatened with death. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in

the media on Israel as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of

the media, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. There are “threats to editors and

advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination,

and personal vendettas.”108 Other examples recounted by Findley include pressure on

the Federal Communications Commission to stop broadcast licenses, demands for submission

to an oversight committee prior to publication, and the stationing of a Jewish

activist in the newsroom of the Washington Post in order to monitor the process.


The result of all this intense, well-organized aggression is that


Those who criticize Israeli policy in any sustained way invite painful and relentless retaliation,

and even loss of their livelihood by pressure from one or more parts of Israel’s lobby.

Presidents fear it. Congress does its bidding. Prestigious universities shun academic

programs and buckle under its pressure. Instead of having their arguments and opinions

judged on merit, critics of Israel suddenly find their motivations, their integrity, and basic

moral values called into question. No matter how moderate their criticism, they may

be characterized as pawns of the oil lobby, apologists for Arabs, or even anti-Semitic.109


The following quote from Henry Kissinger sums up

the aggressive Israeli attitudes toward U.S. aid:


Yitzak [Rabin] had many extraordinary qualities, but the gift of human relations was

not one of them. If he had been handed the entire “United States Strategic Air Command”

as a free gift he would have (a) affected the attitude that at last Israel was getting its due,

and (b) found some technical shortcoming in the airplanes that made his accepting them a

reluctant concession to us.110


But of course by far the most importantexamples of Israeli aggressiveness have been

toward their neighbors in the Middle East. Thisaggression has been there from the beginning,

as Israel has consistently put pressure on borderareas with incursions,

including the Kibya massacre of 1953 led by Ariel Sharon.111 The

personal aggressiveness of Israeli society has long been a topic of commentators. Israel is

known for its arrogance, insolence (chutzpah), coldness, roughness, rudeness, and lack of

civility. For example, B. Z. Sobel, an Israeli sociologist at the University of Haifa, found that

among the motivations for emigrating from Israel was that “there is indeed an

edginess [in Israeli society]; tempers flare, and verbal violence is rampant”112




The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of

Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have

managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-five years

despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in

the occupied territories—an occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete

subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During this same period Jewish organizations

in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state

dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive

multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology

that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities:

the culture of the Holocaust.113


American Judaism is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of

power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests.114 One of the great myths

often promulgated by Jewish apologists is that Jews have no consensus and therefore cannot

wield any real power. Yet there is in fact a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues,

particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and

refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties.115 Massive changes

in public policy on these issues, beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s,

coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States.

Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any significant area where public

policy conflicts with the attitudes of mainstream Jewish organizations.


Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology, California State University -‑ Long Beach, and

the author of author of a trilogy on Judaism as an evolutionary strategy: A People That Shall

Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and its Discontents (1998), and The Culture of Critique (1998),

all published by Praeger 1994-1998. A revised edition of The Culture of Critique (2002),

with an expanded introduction, is available in a quality soft

cover edition from or