Suggestions for a New Approach to
An Ancient Problem
A FEW WEEKS AGO I watched a television programme on a subject that everyone would probably agree has had an ample airing over the years, sometimes to the point at which it has appeared that the TV people have an obsession about it. Yes, the programme was about ‘anti-Semitism,’ an area of human study perhaps aptly misnamed because so much else about it is false and misleading. Anthropologically speaking, Semites are Arabs plus that section of Jewry descended from the original Israelites who inhabited the Middle Eastern region alongside them but who are now heavily outnumbered within their own nation by the descendants of the Khazars, a Turco-Mongoloid people whose roots are in Central Asia.
There may be some who would regard this quest for accuracy of nomenclature as ‘nit-picking.’ It sometimes is, but not in this instance; the choice of the terms ‘Semitic’ and ‘anti-Semitic to describe things which do not correspond to those appellations is symbolic of the whole atmosphere in which the subject of ‘anti-Semitism’ is customarily debated in these times. However, having made this point I will oblige the Jews from here on by using their own terminology, if only because such a phrase as ‘anti-Jewishism’ sounds clumsy, unfamiliar and distracting.
During the programme to which I have referred, one after another representative of the Jewish and pro-Jewish point of view was shown giving his, or her, definition of the psychology of the anti-Semite.’ At times the viewer might almost have been led into believing that all this amounted to a genuine exchange of views, in as much as not every explanation of what makes anti-Semites’ tick was the same. Each had a theory as to the roots of the problem, and the theories varied considerably – thus contributing to the image of an actual ‘debate.’ The impression of debate was heightened by the fact that non-Jews, as well as Jews, were invited to offer their opinions. But at the end of the programme the rational observer could not help but be struck by the thought that something had been missing from it all. What could that something be?
Barely a half a minute’s thought sufficed to reveal what it was. Not in one single case had the producers permitted a contribution to the discussion by one of those maligned persons whom the programme was supposed to be all about: the ‘anti-Semites’ – or, more accurately, those people who adhered to the theory that the Jewish presence in world affairs was not an unmixed blessing for which all mankind should be thankful.
Surely, in the name of reason, in the name of fairness and objectivity – above all in the name of that procedure for handling human affairs to which the Jews, more than anyone, are supposed to be dedicated, namely ‘democracy’ – a discussion about ‘anti-Semitism’ should feature, among others, the ‘anti-Semitic’ point of view. But no! Not a single word was permitted to be said in support of this.
That very fact, more than any of the opinions aired on the programme, ought to tell us something.
Perhaps I can contribute something to this discussion be speaking as one of the missing people on the said programme, one of the considerable number of speakers and writers around the world whom no doubt this TV feature had in mind when referring to ‘anti-Semites’ but who are almost never allowed to come on television before a large audience and explain the basis for their attitudes on this question.
As a youngster growing up in the South Eastern part of the outer London suburbs in the early aftermath of World War II, I saw very little of Jews. They were not numerous in my area, and the pursuits in which I engaged myself were not such as to be likely to bring me into contact with the few who did live locally.
When I started to take an interest in politics in my late teens I had no views whatever about Jews or ‘anti-Semitism.’ I had, of course heard about such things in Germany during the Hitler period, but I simply didn’t understand what it was all about.
If anyone, however, had suggested to me that a particular race of people, or the members of a particular religion, should be especially ostracised, ill-treated or persecuted merely because of what they were, I would have rejected the idea without a moment’s hesitation.
My interest in politics at the time derived from my sense of duty towards my own people, the British people. I felt that the British people were on the way down as a nation. I wanted to lift them up. I wanted them to prosper and recover their former greatness; I had no thought of wishing to do harm to any other people, only to do some good for my people.
As this interest in, and concern for, the future of the British people developed, I came to the point eventually at which I was driven by a compulsion to seek some outlet for political action. This happened in my early twenties, not a very long time after I had left the army, during which I spent long hours reading and thinking about British and world affairs and becoming more and more discontented with the direction in which Britain was heading. Had I known of an organisation which represented my opinions I would have joined it sooner. At last, however, when I was 22 I did find one, and I enlisted in it and started to become active.
Up to this time, my motives were those of pure patriotism. I did not hate any race in particular; if I had any feelings of hate they were reserved for members of my own race who seemed to be happy to commit acts of treason against Britain if it were to their personal advantage to do so.
But as I started to meet people in, or in some way allied with, the organisation I had just joined, I began to come into contact with the theories of ‘anti-Semitism.’ People would tell me: “If you want to understand what’s going wrong with this country, you’ve got to study the activities of the Jews.” Some books were recommended, and in one or two cases freely given, to me which purported to explain the ‘Jewish Question.’
Avoidance of the Nettle
My first reaction was one of doubt and, just a little, of revulsion. I wanted to do something, as I have said, to lift up my own people, not to down others. Probably, some little subconscious voice inside me was telling me that by embracing these theories I was embracing something that had been universally damned, excoriated as the ultimate evil, the doctrine that led to the ‘gas chambers’. Every normal human being prompting inside me was such as to counsel me not to touch these ideas with a barge-pole, if only for the fact that it would invite bitter hostility and opposition and deflect attention from the task of promoting ideas that would contribute to the regeneration of Britain.
My study of the subject was not helped, moreover, by the obvious eccentricity of some of the people who were peddling it. That had the look, and they spoke in the language, of cranks. They blamed the Jews for just about every conceivable human catastrophe, including catastrophes which by no stretch of the imagination could possibly be attributed to the members of that race.
It was not an encouraging start to my quest to understand what lay behind ‘anti-Semitism’.
But not all of the literature on the subject was so wildly exaggerated and unbalanced. I had come by this time greatly to admire the writings of A.K. Chesterton, my first real political mentor. Chesterton appealed to me above all because of his blazing British patriotism, not because of his opinions on the Jews. There was no doubt, however, that he had very firm views abqut the latter subject. Because I believed in his patriotic ideals, and also because I respected his fine intellect and balanced judgement, I felt I owed it to him to study his writing on the Jewish question in a spirit of objective enquiry.
In these writing there were none of the wild rantings of the lunatic fringe of ‘anti-Semites’. Chesterton gave the facts about Jewish Power and influence as he saw them, backing these up with ample documentary references. His dominating theme was that of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to obtain overlordship of the earth. This was rather too much for me to digest all in one gulp, even from such a respected author. But as I had come by that time to know Chesterton personally, and to be sure that he would not take up the cudgels in support of a particular doctrine without sound reasons for doing so, it seemed only right for me to give some careful examination to this idea before rejecting it out of hand.
At about the same time, four other books came my way, which I read carefully and upon which I pondered deeply. They all had in common the fact that, like the writings of A.K. Chesterton, they strongly condemned certain Jewish interests and advanced the theory of a Jewish conspiracy for world conquest.
One of these was The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, of which all Jews and all ‘anti-Semites’ will be aware. This book is purported to consist of the minutes of a series of meetings of leading Jews at which the speaker (or speakers) outline the alleged Jewish strategy for obtaining control of the nations of the globe. Since its first appearance in Russia early in the present century, the book has been condemned by the Jews as a forgery, probably concocted by the Czarist state security police in order to justify that regime’s measures against the Jews. Having given careful study to the contents of this book over many years, I am inclined to the opinion that this Jewish claim is most likely correct-if only for the reason that the language used by the alleged Jewish elders in their lectures is far too outspoken and explicit to be credible; my knowledge of the semantics of that race leads me to feel that, if such a strategy was being outlined as claimed, it would be shrouded in the customary words of double-meaning, innuendo, euphemism and altruism generally employed by internationalists, both Jewish and non-Jewish, rather than stated as baldly and crudely as is the case in The Protocols. This aside, the question must obviously be asked: would such plans be announced and recorded at a meeting of Jews anyway, let alone then allowed to be leaked to Gentile sources.
However, even assuming that some functionary of the Czarist Government conceived the idea for authoring The Protocols by drawing on the realms of his own imagination, this invites the contrary question: would he have composed the document as he did unless its revelations corresponded closely with the picture of the activities of Russian Jewry held by a great many people in the Czarist Empire at the time? Supposing, for instance, I were to write and publish a book purporting to be a blueprint for world domination by, say, the Italians. The absurdity of such a theory would be so manifest that the book would not have the remotest credibility anywhere, and therefore there would not be the slightest point in producing it. If I wanted to ‘get at’ Italian people, it would be common sense to attribute to them racial vices and racial goals that to a reasonable number of people were believable, not to make allegations against that nation that were liable to be laughed out of court by almost everyone.
I therefore have come to the opinion that, though The Protocols were most probably fiction there is much reason to credit the idea that they correspond to fact, as perceived by a very intelligent person observing events from a Russian perspective sometime around the turn of the century.
Another of the books that I obtained at about the same time as my first introduction to The Protocols was The World Conquerors, by Louis Marschalko. Marschalko was a Hungarian and had produced his book something like half a century after the appearance of The Protocols. What was uncanny was the similarity in the scenarios depicted in these two books – just as these in turn were uncannily similar to that depicted in The International Jew, another book I obtained and studied during this formative period. The International Jew was the work of the motor magnate Henry Ford, and consisted of a selection of articles that Ford had written in The Dearborn Independent, a paper he had founded in the 1920s after he had seen first-hand some of the practices of certain Jewish interests in the American business world, and the way in which Jewish financial and commercial power was employed to wield political influence. Ford’s paper was brought into existence to expose and oppose these Jewish practices, but eventually Jewish pressures on his company forced him to cease publication of the paper and even go so far as to make a public apology to the Jews for the ‘distress’ he had caused them. This true story, which no Jewish sources have even tried to deny, may tell us something about the famous car-producer’s moral fibre. But it also tells us a great deal more about the power and leverage of the forces he tried to fight.
The final book that is worthy of mention among my early readings on the Jewish Question needs no introduction. It was Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Here again, this time as seen from a German standpoint, was a reiteration of the now familiar themes concerning the workings of Jewry and the alleged Jewish plan for world conquest.
The Hitler book was written at about the same time as the Ford book, roughly a quarter century after the appearance of The Protocols in Russia and some thirty or so years before the Marschalko book in Hungary. Here I was able to look at the Jewish phenomenon as seen by men of three different generations and in four different countries. Then to add to this I was able to compare the contents with what was currently being written by A.K. Chesterton in his newsletter Candour, which though of international scope was primarily derived from observations of developments in Britain. The similarity of the picture portrayed was remarkable, and it was, to my mind, sufficient justification for my starting to take the subject very seriously.
But here another factor intervened, which itself was something of a revelation. Both Hitler and Henry Ford had been people of world renown, whether for good or ill. This being so, surely their writings ought to be of great public interest. In that case they ought to be available straight off the shelves in any library, as well as in larger bookshops. My investigations soon told me that they were not – as was the case also with The Protocols and The World Conquerors. Why, in a supposed ‘democracy’, had such books been virtually obliterated from public view? And why indeed, in times when the subject of ‘anti-Semitism’ was under constant discussion on radio and television and in the press, and when it was the central theme in so many products of the cinema dealing with World War II, was is not possible to walk into an ordinary bookshop or library and pick up a book explaining the subject from the standpoint of the so-called ‘anti-Semite’?
Asking myself these questions, I recalled what had been said to me some little time before one of my acquaintances in the patriotic movement. The Jews, he said, had seen to it that all criticism of them in print was effectively banned by the simple method of pressuring bookshop chains and libraries into withdrawing such books from sale and from view.
Had this man sufficient evidence to support his claim? I did not know then and I do not know now, but one thing I do know is that someone quite clearly was able to ensure that these books were withdrawn from circulation through the normal channels, and is able to ensure likewise today. And if so, who? I leave the reader to deliberate over this question; and the question itself takes us right forward to about a month ago, when I watched the TV programme referred to at the beginning of this article. Under whose pressure, and in whose interest, was it decided that such a programme, whose central subject was ‘anti-Semitism’, should totally exclude any contribution from that quarter from which ‘anti-Semitic’ doctrines are supposed to emanate? Surely this is like a discussion on feminism which excludes all feminists!
Three years ago I produced my own book, The Eleventh Hour. In this book no attempt was made to analyse the Jewish Question in any great depth, as I felt that this had been amply done by other authors. But I did make reference to the strange censorship on the subject that has been described here, saying,
One thing we must take into account concerning the theory of a Jewish international conspiracy and that is that it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as an obscure subject. It lies at the heart of that doctrine that the Jews call ‘anti-Semitism’, and it has been acknowledged by writers on the so-called ‘holocaust’ as being the theory that underlay the anti-Jewish doctrines of Hitler and the Nazis.
And we are never allowed to forget ‘anti-Semitism’. It is hurled at us almost every day of our lives by means of the television screen, newspapers and book trade. If two weeks of TV programmes and films go by without a reference to it, the guardians of the Semitic interest being to become greatly worried that the public may he in the process of being permitted to forget this the world’s most important issue!
Considering all this, might it not reasonably be argued that the theory of a Jewish conspiracy must be one of sufficient public interest for it to be subjected to a thorough public enquiry, to an even-sided public debate in which someone is permitted to speak for those many people of historical importance who might be classed as ‘anti-Semites’ – from Luther to Hitler, from Shakespeare to Belloc and A.K. Chesterton, from Richard Wagner to Henry Ford?
Surely, if the theory of a Jewish conspiracy underlying ‘anti-Semitism’ has caused so much misery in the world, the proper way to avoid future misery of the same kind is to knock the theory thoroughly on the head by having an open debate about it and once and for all demolishing it by the power of arguments and facts! Yet it seems that those who control the channels of communication whereby such a debate may be staged are strangely reluctant to do this. Why?
Whether or not there actually is such a thing as a Jewish conspiracy for world domination, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that there is a conspiracy, being conducted by someone, to place a gag on all public discussion of the subject.
Nature of the Opposition
After having read a number of serious books, as well as a few cranky ones, in which the ‘anti-Semitic’ point of view was presented, I became convinced that this doctrine certainly could not be airily brushed aside as the invention of mere bigots and ‘hatemongers’. I was not yet disposed to accept it completely, however, without putting it to the test of my own further enquiries and practical experiences. I joined the patriotic movement, as I have related, to do something for Britain rather than to promote hostility to other nations or races. When I began speaking, at first on street corners, in 1958, the main thrust of my speeches consisted of a series of proposals for constructive changes of British policy, on economic, social and political questions. I opposed the break-up of the British Empire, and advocated that it was in the mutual interest of the United Kingdom and her mainly British dominions to stick together in close alliance. I opposed the moves to embroil Britain in the Common Market, because they ran contrary to this policy. I advocated economic nationalism through the protection of British manufacturing industry, in a series of speeches and articles that anticipated, many years ahead of time, the industrial collapse that we have seen during the last decade under the impact of cup-price foreign imports. I put forward proposals for an integrated national community of the British people, with all helping one another, as opposed to the individual-centered society that is the consequence of liberalism. I opposed nonwhite immigration into Britain, though without hatred for the immigrant races involved. I spoke and wrote in favour of strong defences and for the restoration of national service.
In none of these early activities did I bang the drum of ‘anti-Semitism’. Although I was starting to think seriously about the Jewish Question I was, like many others, anxious not to be dubbed a ‘Nazi’, and I sought therefore to avoid association with Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.
Bit by bit, however, personal experiences were leading me to a position in which involvement in this issue could not be avoided.
I found that the people most hostile to our patriotic ideas were, in very large part, Jewish. In arguments with Jews I could not notice the contrast between their attitudes to questions affecting Britain as a nation and to those affecting the interests of their own community and the state of Israel, to which they were all attached. They condemned British Nationalism and patriotism vehemently, yet they were the most passionate Jewish Nationalists. What they would never acknowledge Britain’s right to do in defence of her interests they enthusiastically applauded Israel’s right to do when her interest were thought to be at stake.
This Jewish hostility towards our ideas was evident at our meetings – at which, as yet, we had not started to mention Jews in any unfavourable context. Jews were the most vociferous protesters and, when attempts to wreck the meetings by physical attack were made, Jews were in the forefront of those involved in the violence.
At about this time I had started to make the acquaintance of some people who had taken part in the Mosley movement in the 1930s, and I also obtained some literature produced by supporters of that movement. One revelation that caught my interest was that Mosley had had exactly the same experience as the people with whom I had now become associated: he started out with a programme for Britain that contained no policies directed against Jews; but the Jewish community in this country immediately organised itself against him and Jews predominated among those found guilty of physical assaults against Mosley’s supporters.
I began to read Jewish publications, including the world-famous Jewish Chronicle. They were veritably dripping with hatred against any and all people in this country who took a strong stand for British interests and advocated patriotic policies, quite regardless of whether such people had ever attacked Jews. I was then reminded of a passage that I had read in Hitler’s Mein Kampf a little while earlier, in which the author said that he had been unable to find any newspaper in Germany under Jewish ownership that could properly be called ‘national’.
In the books that I mentioned earlier, and in many others that I had read, it had been alleged that almost the entire Soviet leadership that took over Russia after the red revolution in 1917 had been Jewish, many of the people involved operating under false Russian-sounding names, such as Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Sverdlov and so on. It was also pointed out that Karl Marx, the intellectual father of bolshevism, had been Jewish. Was this just ‘anti-Semitic’ propaganda? In due course I found out that the Jews themselves had never made any attempt to deny such facts but simply explained them away as the result of Jews having been driven towards the revolutionary movement in Russia by the oppression they had suffered under the Czars. Would that have explained the extent of their predominance in the first Soviet State? I think not. Nor would it have explained why, as I myself found out first hand, middle-class Jews from quite prosperous families were to be found disproportionately represented among communists in Britain – a country which had been extremely kind to their race for three centuries. I was able to make these observations on a trip to Russia, sponsored and organised by sundry left-wing groups, to attend the World Youth Festival in Moscow in 1957. I had enlisted to go on that trip after seeing an advertisement for it in a sporting magazine and being struck by how cheap it was: £43 all-in! I went for no political motives but only to exploit a unique opportunity to visit a country that had been shrouded in mystery and which I thought was worth seeing. By going there I did not learn a lot about communism in Russia because we were only permitted to travel within limits laid down by our Soviet hosts. I did learn quite a bit about communism in Britain, however, by acquaintance with the organisers of the ‘British’ party during a three-day train journey across Europe. I never forgot the impact of the large Jewish presence among these people, particularly at official level.
The Jewish presence in communism today is not what it was, but then neither is communism itself. For many years collapsing under the weight of its own internal rottenness, this system which has been the creator of most of the misery we have seen in the 20th century is now on its way out, and no longer serves as a magnet for those who want to be at the centre of political power. Nevertheless, among the communist rearguard in East Germany we have seen Jews to the fore, as we also see them in the white intelligentsia of the communist-dominated African National Congress.
The State That is a Law unto Itself
If we seek a focal point of Jewish power in the world today, we will find it in the State of Israel and in the mobilisation, through the American political system, of US support for that state in the face of growing international concern at the rampant imperialism and racism that is evident in Israeli policy. Use of these terms is not made with derogatory intent, but only to illustrate a paradox; the most passionate denigrators of imperialism and racism when practised by others, Jews are only too ready to support them when practised by their own kin in the bandit state that was set up in 1948 on foundations of Briley and terror: bribery in the way of favours bought for Jewish support of America’s entry into World War I, terror in the way of the methods used against enforcers of the British Mandate and against those Palestinians who have not taken kindly to their traditional homelands being occupied and themselves being driven out of them.
At the beginning of this year a massive military operation was launched under United States leadership to stop the Iraqis annexing Kuwait. And yet it has been this same United States that has not only sanctioned Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank but has continued to provide huge economic subsidies to the state responsible for it and has given implicit guarantees of military security to that state within the framework of its present illegal borders. It will also be remembered that Israeli forces rampaged into Lebanon just a few years ago without any American action to stop them.
All this is a clear indication that Israel is able to get away with things that virtually no other small state, and very few larger states, in the world are allowed to get away with. Israel, in other words, seems to enjoy a special status and to be the beneficiary of the workings of a special power – a power formidable enough to determine United States foreign policy by being able virtually to elect and unelect American presidents and American Congresses. I could go on almost indefinitely citing further examples of this selfsame Jewish power in operation, but space imposes limits, and it should suffice to illustrate this one example to show that the Jewish Nation expects and enjoys privileges in this world that are given to no other. Yet the moment that anyone draws attention to this and protests that it ought not to be so he is certain to have his name filed away in the archives recording the world’s ‘anti-Semites’, who of course must not be permitted to present their case on British television nor in the British press nor have their ample literature on display in British libraries or bookshops. It is a difficult state of affairs to come to terms with, and some of us simply cannot come to terms with it. Hence we are ‘anti-Semitic’!
I think I am correct in deducing from all that the Jews have said on the subject of ‘anti-Semitism’ that they would like to see an end to it. They may not believe this, but there are many of us whom they label ‘anti-Semites’ who share that sentiment.
The point at issue is whether the initiative for achieving this needs to come from the ‘anti-Semites’ or the Jews themselves.
For many centuries the Jews with a few exceptions, have been adamant on this point. It is we who have to reform and not they. ‘Anti-Semitism’, they claim, is an unmitigated evil and must be eradicated, either by the ‘anti-Semites’ undergoing a change of heart and learning to love the Jews or by their simply being silenced.
The Jews, in order to accomplish the first object, lay great stress on the value of ‘education’ – education in the great benefits their race has brought to the world and education in the appalling suffering and persecution to which they have been subjected, particularly under Hitler.
But this education must be a wholly one-way business. The people of the world must be educated, under the tutelage of the Jews and their Gentile supporters, to appreciate the Jewish point of view and understand Jewish suffering.
None of this education may permit the airing of any other point of view, nor may it suggest that Jews anywhere might themselves have inflicted suffering – such as in the bloodstained years of the building of the Soviet State in Russia, in which millions of Gentiles were murdered by decree of a leadership that was, as stated, predominantly Jewish.
I would suggest that it is time for a change in this policy. And I would suggest that that change is as much in the interest of the Jews as of anyone else.
Because for all the howling over the centuries against ‘anti-Semitism’, for all the measures used to wipe it out, for all the wars waged to oppose it, it still has not disappeared. Indeed there is evidence that today it is again on the upsurge. My source of this information? Why, the Jews themselves!
So why not a new approach to the problem?
Why not start by accepting that there may be two sides to this argument: that not all the guilt is on the side of the ‘anti-Semites’, that at least some of the guilt may lie with the ‘Semites’? Why not permit an open debate on the matter – in the press, on TV and radio, in the book trade, in the schools and universities?
And why not make public meeting halls around the country available to ‘racists’ and ‘anti-Semites’ so that they can speak to audiences and explain why they are ‘racists’ and ‘anti-Semites’, so that the latter can then make up their own minds?
For surely if there is no reasoned foundation for ‘anti-Semitism’ the Jews and their supporters will be able to convince the people of this by winning an open and honest debate. In this way they can bury the bogey once and for all.
I challenge them to do this.
But this is just a start. There are other ways in which the Jews can take steps to put an end to ‘anti-Semitism.’
The first is for them to abandon their idea of themselves as a special people, as a ‘Chosen Race’, as a nation that must be treated differently from other nations.
They might make a start in this by withdrawing from its occupation of territories that do not belong to it and which have only been acquired by the use of naked force.
Then they might continue the good work by dismantling their formidable apparatus of power and influence by which they play a decisive role in the politics of so many other nations. They might, to begin with, abandon their attempts to direct the foreign policy of the United States and leave this instead to Americans.
And they might, similarly, discontinue their efforts to play a disproportionately powerful role in the politics of this country.
As an example, they might withdraw their pressure on the present British Government to push the infamous ‘War Crimes Bill’ through parliament – a Bill that is causing great offence to many Britons who are not ‘anti-Semites’, in as much as it amounts to the violation of hallowed British legal traditions and practices at the behest of an ethnic minority.
The Jews dislike the allegations of ‘anti-Semites’ that they aim to control the British press. Very well, they can demolish those allegations very effectively by persuading their own Sir Robert Maxwell to sell off his newspaper empire and by their never again attempting to influence the editorial policy of any paper by means of the threat of canceling advertising contracts.
And there is another thing the Jews can do.
It is their constant claim that the German Nation is tainted by the record of Nazism and Hitler, and they have always urged that the Germans must for ever stand up before the world and acknowledge their guilt in having given birth to the Nazi movement, and that those Germans must atone for their country’s past crimes.
Would it not therefore be reasonable to ask that the Jews acknowledge before the world the predominant role that members of their race played in the creation of Communism, and that they are under some obligation to atone for the sufferings that that system has inflicted on mankind?
This would be just another way in which the Jews could demonstrate to us all that what holds good for other nations and races holds good also for themselves.
There is another way in which the Jews can do this.
They can decide once and for all whether they are nationalists or internationalists.
If, as they claim, they are in favour of internationalism, if they support the demise of the sovereign nation-state and the merging of all nations and races into ‘one-world’, let them set an example in this regard by abandoning Jewish Nationalism, by dismantling the State of Israel, by handing Palestine back to the Palestinians and themselves either remaining there as integrated members of the Palestinian Nation under Palestinian rule or migrating elsewhere and integrating themselves thoroughly with the nations among which they settle.
If, on the other hand, they choose to be nationalists, to be intensely patriotic towards Israel and to fight doggedly for Jewish national interests at all times, they surely cannot object to other peoples – Briton, Germans, French, Americans and so on – doing likewise. This would mean that they should abandon their bitter hostility and their organised opposition to all non-Jewish nationalism wherever it manifests itself.
Is this really an unreasonable proposition to put to the Jews?
Should the Jews decide to integrate fully with other nations as part of the ‘one-world’ ideal in which they profess to believe, no-one would with fairness object to their maintaining their own distinct religion, with their own churches (synagogues) and their own traditions of worship. I certainly, for one, would not.
But Jewish communities would be expected to disband the numerous organisations that they now maintain within the states in which they live which are dedicated to promoting special Jewish interests and which lend credence to the view of many of their hosts that they regard themselves as separate and distinct from the societies around them.
All this amounts to a suggestion that a better way might be found to put an end to ‘anti-Semitism’ if the Jews themselves change – instead of always insisting that it must be us who must change, and us alone.
The Jews will be the first to remind us that ‘anti-Semitism’ is far from new but is a phenomenon that has reared its head again and again over the centuries, and in one country after another. Absolutely true, and in acknowledging this in The Eleventh Hour I said:
No parallel exists anywhere of movements of opposition to any other race or religious group that have manifested themselves with the same intensity, the same universality and the same repetitiveness as these movements against Jewry. Are we to believe that the people involved in such movements were all lunatics, beasts or sadists, intent on persecuting a racial group just out of the malevolence of their natures? Was William Shakespeare, Britain’s and perhaps the world’s, greatest dramatist, so wrong in his manner of dealing with this subject, as in The Merchant of Venice, while he was considered so right in his observations of practically every other human problem under the sun?
Or did all these people perhaps have a reason for their attitudes towards Jewry? We are surely entitled, if we live in a society in which intellectual freedom is allowed, to debate the matter in a spirit of open enquiry by hearing both sides of the argument. Yet in fact we are only allowed to hear one side. Again I put the question: why?
The gist of what I was saying in this passage should be plain to the reader: were all these people, and nations, out of step and only the Jews in step? Is there any particular reason why we should assume that all of them were in the wrong and just the Jews in the right? And if the latter, just why did it all happen? Why this universal and repeated opposition to the Jews and never on any comparable scale to other races?
From this it is pertinent to ask: why the insistence that the remainder of the world must change? Why is it not at least equally fair to propose that the Jews change?
Will the latter ever happen? I am not a crystal-ball gazer, and I am not given to making such forecasts.
All I can say with certainty is that if it does not happen, there seems little prospect that the Jewish future will be any the less turbulent than the Jewish past.
From Spearhead No. 268, June 1991
P.O. Box 117, Welling, Kent DA16 3DW, England
SOURCE: The Liberty Bell, November 1991