Till the Conversion of the Jews — Culture Wars

Dr. E. Michael Jones identified three types of Jews in his article “Glazer’s Choice” in the June 2024 issue of Culture Wars. First, there is the “typical” Jew who subverts all narratives except his own. His example was Sigmund Freud, though I would prefer the comedian Sacha Baron Cohen who hails from my part of the world and who makes fun of everyone, that is everyone except smart-arsed Jewish comedians. Then there’s the “real” Jew, who disrupts all narratives including his own. Here Jones cited Jacques Derrida, and I could name many more – Norman Finkelstein, Max Blumenthal, Ron Unz.

Finally, Jones came to the “super” Jew who having nothing left to disrupt, disrupts himself with that final and blessed act of Jewish self-annihilation – baptism. And the example he gave was … me! Well, I went into quite a flurry, a paroxysm even of embarrassment, but also pleasure, and I immediately wrote to him thanking him for his words, which after so much confusion and doubt, I found both enlightening and affirming. And I thank you again, Dr. Jones, for that and for all your wonderful work.

In his article, Jones calls Ben Shapiro and Charles Moskowitz typical Jews because they disrupt every narrative except their own. But Ben and Charles are Jews who act like Jews, and like Jews, openly and honestly speak out with their nonsense. I think they should be called “honest” Jews.

Jonathan Glazer and Norman Finkelstein are real Jews because they disrupt every narrative including their own. These Jews parade their critical thinking about their Jewishness, claiming to hold it up to close scrutiny, while all the time really promoting Jewish narratives and interests. Jonathan Glazer makes a Holocaust film chock-full of “ashes and smoke” and uses it to promote his “good Jew” credentials, while Norman Finkelstein can hardly draw breath without reminding everyone that he is “someone whose relatives died in the Holocaust.” So, I don’t think Jonathan and Norman should be called “real” Jews, I think they should be called “crypto” Jews.

Finally, those “super” Jews, meaning those Jews who have renounced their Judaism by accepting Christ and getting baptised. As pleased as I am to be named by Dr. Jones as one of those Jews, I still don’t care for the name. First, there’s the confusion over “super.” Is it “super” as in “wonderful” or “brilliant” as in Superman, or is it “super” as in “hyper”? (Can you imagine a Jew more hyper than Ben Shapiro?) But even if understood as intended, i.e. “super” as in superseded, as in “the Catholic Church has superseded the Jewish covenant,” it still reminds me of the sixties/seventies Private Eye character Super Jew (fellow Brits of a certain age may know what I mean), So I propose “Supra” Jew which more or less means “beyond” Jew. So, how about it?

The Perfidious Jews

In his article, Dr. Jones focuses on Jonathan Glazer’s speech at the Academy Awards and specifically on his rather ambiguous renunciation of his Judaism, which Dr. Jones seems happy enough to take at its face value. Perhaps it’s Christian charity – something the residual Jew in me still can’t fully understand – which causes him to be so kind to Glazer and his ilk, but haven’t we heard all this before? First, the very making of a declaration itself. What a very Jewish thing to do. How many statements and declarations – often beginning with the words “I” or “We the undersigned…” and containing somewhere the dread words “As a Jew, …” or “As Jews, …” statements claiming to relinquish this or that – have we seen in the last fifteen years? And all these statements have been by Jews! Secondly, even if it were possible to give up on being a Jew, simply by making a declaration (which it isn’t), there are always specific things in these statements that question their efficacy and even their sincerity.

Some years ago, Shlomo Sand, the Israeli historian made a similar statement, and he wasn’t the first “real” Jew of the time, to try to give up on the whole thing. Sand’s statement was in a short book about Jewish identity, what it is and what it is not. I tried to read it, but I can’t say I understood it, and I came away exasperated and with my opinion unchanged. Like everyone else, I had never managed to answer the question: what is a Jew? The nearest I’d got to it was to conclude that the one thing all self-identifying Jews share is a feeling of specialness, and more particularly a belief in the specialness of Jewish suffering.

Sands’ book was peppered with claims about Jewish exceptionalism, namely exceptional Jewish suffering, and it’s hard to see how someone like Sand, himself a historian, could claim to be serious about relinquishing his Jewishness, whilst still clinging to that most basic of Jewish delusions – the specialness of Jewish suffering. But now I, and most readers of Culture Wars, know there’s only one way to renounce Judaism – and Glazer, Sands and so many others are not doing it.

Glazer’s speech, delivered with “visibly shaking hands,” and “tortured syntax and diction,” was delivered before some of the richest and most powerful Jews in the world, and at a celebration of a Holocaust film. His main beef was that the Holocaust had been hijacked to justify the genocide in Gaza. But what was this worth? Did Jonathan Glazer really “renounce his Jewishness,” or did he celebrate the specialness of Jewish suffering, and parade and virtue-signal himself as a “good Jew,” and thus affirm his Jewishness?

Glazer’s message was clear: the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians precisely what the Nazis did to the Jews. Well, I’ve heard that before, it’s the “Deir Yassin, in clear sight of Yad Vashem” message that I ran around with some twenty years ago, and with the same implication: Palestinian suffering may be observed – but only through the lens of a special Jewish suffering.

Then there were the 450 “Jewish creatives, executives and Hollywood professionals” who signed the open letter denouncing Glazer’s speech as a “blood-libel,” immediately followed by the 150 Jewish creatives supporting Glazer. But is this not more of the eternal good cop/bad cop Jewish family squabble, the greatest of our times being the Zionist/Marxist “conflict,” and the most pertinent now being the “right-wing” Jews who want to exterminate or expel the people of Gaza, as opposed to the “left-wing” Jews who simply want to bamboozle them into quietly sitting in their cage?

We saw it here in the U.K. with Jeremy Corbyn. When Corbyn was first mooted for the leadership of Britain’s Labour Party he talked jobs, homes, education, infrastructure. I turned on the radio and heard him speaking authoritatively about some campaign in North Yorkshire, something about a bridge. By the time he was on the ballot paper, all we heard about was which Jews thought he was an anti-Semite, and which didn’t. Jobs, homes, education, infrastructure, and that bridge in Yorkshire, had all been forgotten.

In the U.S., Bernie Sanders is sincerely left, and Ben Shapiro is sincerely right. Bernie is sincerely for abortion(1) and Ben is sincerely against abortion, Bernie is sincerely for the Palestinians and Ben is sincerely for Israel. But who cares? Ben is for Israel and says it’s okay to kill children in Gaza, and Bernie is for Palestine and says it’s okay to kill them in the womb. Ben is Ben and Bernie is Bernie, but both think it’s okay to kill children.

Think of an anthill or a beehive. Ants and bees are running (or buzzing) around doing all kinds of different things, but all are still working for the common good. Of course, each ant or bee doesn’t know this. All they know is the task in which they’re engaged, but still the result of their endeavours is to the benefit of the collective. So it is with Bernie and Ben. Both are sincere, but both want what they think is good for the Jews. Ben wants to support his fellow Jews in killing children in Palestine. Bernie wants to subvert Christian society by encouraging women to gain their freedom by murdering their children in the womb. What could possibly be wrong with that?

But what is it that holds these ants, bees and Jews together? What is it that makes them work so tirelessly, sincerely and in many cases, somewhat blindly for their perceived common good? Well, it’s that same something that makes millions of perfectly decent Jews who care little about revolution, war, domination, pornography, abortion, human rights, mass immigration, or any other form of culture war, still side with their guilty fellow-Jews against their innocent gentile neighbours. For Wilhelm Marr it was race, for E. Michael Jones and the Catholic Church it is spirit. Me, I go with Jones and the Church. And by the way, if these comparisons of Jews to ants and bees are too horrible to contemplate, consider that this is probably, to some extent, true of all human collectives, from the family to the nation. As Chaim Weizmann said, Jews are just like everyone else – only more so!

In his article, Dr. Jones mentioned Trotsky – a man who to his dying day denied that his Jewishness had anything to do with his revolutionary spirit. Look at his picture above. It’s of the 18-year-old Lev Bronstein, soon to become Leon Trotsky. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at that photo. He looks like the young me, or like so many of my Jewish friends and classmates, and I wonder what was going through his head at the time? What were his feelings towards his non-Jewish classmates? I know what mine were. While you’re at it, take a look at the picture of Yakov Sverdlov. Sverdlov was quite a big wheel in the revolution, and the man who co-signed the death warrant of the Czar and his family. (The execution squad was led by another Jew named Yakov Yurovsky). Were Sverdlov and Yurovsky thinking as Jews, as revolutionaries, neither, or both?

Who’s to Blame?

There’s a story I like very much. In a little Polish village, a drunken priest habitually drinks in a tavern owned by a Jewish tavern-keeper. One Sunday, the local priest, deep into his cups, cannot pay his bill. What to do? He offers to leave the keys of the church with the tavern-keeper as surety. A strange offer perhaps but the tavern-keeper agrees. So, sure enough, the following Sunday when the locals come to their church for Mass, they find the door locked.

The priest says to them,

“The Jew, the Jew! The Jew has the keys and will not let you in.” So, sure enough, the enraged peasants go round to the Jew, give him a severe beating and a mini pogrom takes place.

Now who’s to blame?

The peasants, certainly for their violence. The priest, absolutely for his drunken irresponsibility and for inciting the crowd. But what about the Jewish tavern-keeper, is he not also responsible for his contempt for the peasantry, their faith and their priest which leads him to so readily accept the church keys as surety?

But the priest offered the keys. Yes, but did the Jew have to accept them? And in what spirit did he do so? And in what spirit did he sell alcohol to a vulnerable and exploited peasantry?

Jews often aroused the ire of the peasants, etc., amongst whom they lived, because of the occupations they held – bailiffs, middlemen, tax-farmers, tavern-keepers, etc. – and Jews like to say they held these exploitative positions only because they were not allowed to own land. Maybe, but were the Jews reluctant to join with those who did own land in exploiting those who did not? Does our Jewish tavern-keeper pace up and down his tavern, devising ways and means by which he could cease his exploitation of a drunken peasantry and join his fellow Poles in honest toil? And anyway, why were Jews so valued by oppressors as agents of the oppression? Why were Jews such natural bailiffs and tax-collectors? And why were Jews found so suitable for gainful employment in the torture-chambers of the Cheka? Was it not because, with that age-old, and now inbuilt contempt for the host population, Jews were eminently suitable for these worthy tasks?

Study the Bolshevik revolution and note the preponderance of Jews in its high command. Note particularly the Cheka. They say that if one were unfortunate enough to find oneself in some Bolshevik torture-cell, the likelihood was that one would be first welcomed, then tortured, and then shot by a Jewish interrogator. Some even say this revolution was a coup by Jews against the Russian people, and I can certainly see how persecuted Jews may have harboured plenty of hatred against the Czar and also his people. And I can also see how, like the bailiffs, middlemen, tax-farmers and tavern-keepers, the Jews were temperamentally suited to oppress their Russian neighbours.

And just as with our drunken priest who is content to allow the tavern-keeper to keep him in drink, so the elites were content to allow the Jews to keep them in debt and do their dirty work for them. But did the Jews have to allow themselves to be so used? Did they exploit the peasantry grudgingly or enthusiastically, with all that traditional Jewish disdain and contempt for the goy? Those Jewish moneylenders, so beloved by mediaeval kings and so hated by their subjects, and apparently so vital for the pre-modern economy, were they so unhappy in their work?

Much revolves around those two words Dave Chapelle told us to never put together: the and Jews as in “the Jews killed Jesus.” For my part, saying the Jews killed Jesus is as meaningful and as meaningless as saying “The Americans bombed Vietnam.” Of course, all Americans didn’t bomb Vietnam, but the American government and military certainly did. Similarly, all Jews at the time didn’t call for Jesus’ death, but the Jewish establishment did. Many Americans opposed the bombing of Vietnam, and I’m sure Jews at the time opposed Jesus’ execution – but many Americans supported the bombing of Vietnam, and I’m pretty sure many Jews supported Jesus’ execution.

Sure, Jews today cannot be held responsible for the Crucifixion and perhaps some Jews today would not call for Jesus’ death (though I’m sure nearly all of them would call for him to be cancelled). But in all my life, I have never heard anyone Jewish speak against the Crucifixion, disavow it, or express regret. This is not to say that no Jew ever has – but I haven’t heard them. What is true is that many Jews rejected Christ and his message then, and Jews continue to reject him today.

Jewish history is cyclical. They come from the last place cap in hand. They work hard, obey the law and do well. Then they get above themselves, satisfaction turns to pride, and pride to arrogance. They begin to meddle and manipulate, and for all their seeming astuteness, they begin to reveal that fatal ethnic flaw – they never know when to stop, never able to look into the eyes of the other and know when he/she has had enough.

There’s a list on the Internet of all the places, one hundred and nine in all, from which over the last 1,700 years, Jews have been expelled. I can’t vouch for its absolute accuracy but I’m confident it gives a truthful enough picture. Now, if I’d been thrown out of a proportionally similar number of London pubs over a proportionally similar time, I might begin to wonder why. But the Jews never do. I recently watched eminent British-Jewish historian Simon Schama outline historical assaults on Jews over the last couple thousand years.(2) Masterful in his delivery, Schama knows a lot, and his address certainly contained no more than the usual number of exaggerations, distortions and downright lies. But nowhere in his talk does Schama wonder why. All my life I’ve seen, heard, and participated in talk about what has been described as the Jews’ “lachrymose” history. And it is a sad story. Even if one discounts all the lies, there’s no doubt Jews have been kicked about a lot. But no one ever asks why.

Terror & Mendacity

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

                                        – David Ben-Gurion

Ben-Gurion, a Biography by Michael Ben-Zohar

Above is 30-year-old David Grüen, it’s 1906 and he’s just arrived in Palestine. In time he’ll become David Ben-Gurion, known by his fellow perpetrators as the Father of the Nation, and to his victims as the great ethnic cleanser. But here he’s David Grüen, the revolutionary Jew.

David abandoned his Jewish God and is now worshipping new gods: socialism, collectivism and Zionism. David Grüen is a man who “knows.” He knows what is best for the workers of the world, he knows what is best for the Jews of Europe and he certainly knows what is best for the Palestinians of Palestine.