Hitler on the Jews ∙ An Excerpt

With the permission of Castle Hill, Inconvenient History prints in this issue, without further ado, the first section of Thomas Dalton’s newest tome, Hitler on the Jews. It explains very well why this book exists – in fact, needs to exist. References in text and footnotes to literature point to the book’s bibliography, which is not included in this excerpt. [Editor’s note: we print here the text of the second edition of 2022.]

Introduction

That Adolf Hitler spoke out against the Jews is banal in the extreme; perhaps no single historical fact is better-known than that ‘Hitler hated the Jews.’ But that this is the first book ever to compile his remarks on the Jews, is nothing short of astonishing. And it’s not that this material appears in bits and pieces elsewhere; outside of a few highly specialized sources, nearly all of what follows has never appeared in print. Of the thousands of books and articles written on Hitler, World War Two, and the Holocaust, and apart from a handful of commonly repeated sentences and phrases, virtually none of them quote Hitler’s exact words on the Jews – virtually none. How can this be?

There is good reason for this. Those in positions of influence in the media, in government, and in universities have an incentive to present a simplistic and highly sanitized picture of Hitler as an insane Jew-hater, a blood-thirsty tyrant, and the embodiment of evil. This caricature of the truth is extremely useful. It can justify, for example, the many Allied war crimes during WW2. It can justify the (now) 70-plus year postwar US military presence in Germany, Italy, Japan, and numerous other countries.[1] It can be used – mostly by the United States – to justify defense of Jewish and Israeli crimes against humanity in Palestine and elsewhere. Most importantly, it can be used as a cudgel to batter all ‘racists,’ ‘neo-Nazis,’ ‘anti-Semites,’ ‘bigots,’ and generally anyone unfriendly to Jewish, Zionist, or Israeli interests. To publicly compare anyone to Hitler or the Nazis is the ultimate slur. It can end a political or media career, dry up funding sources, drive off advertisers, or tarnish an otherwise good reputation. All this works because everyone ‘knows’ that Hitler was an insane Jew-hater and mass-murderer, and thus anyone even slightly allied with him or his Nazi followers is the lowest of the low – someone to be avoided and shunned at all costs.

This caricaturization, in turn, only works if the public is presented with a carefully controlled and manipulated view of Hitler’s take on the Jews. His real words and his actual ideas are far more complex and sophisticated than most authorities would like you to think. Hitler was an intelligent and well-read man, remarkably so for someone with no formal higher education. He had a broad and largely accurate knowledge of history, culture, religion, human biology, and social evolution. His knowledge, depth, and insight puts to shame most any present-day world leader; Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, certainly Donald Trump, even the likes of Angela Merkel and Theresa May… Hitler would have utterly embarrassed any of them in an intellectual debate. But this fact does not suit those in authority today. They need the public to think of him as a semi-literate, foaming-at-the-mouth demagogue. And to accomplish this goal, they need to ensure that no one reads his actual words. Until now, they have succeeded.

Now, for the first time, this objective has been defeated. In the following pages, one can read nearly every idea that Hitler put forth about the Jews, in considerable detail and in context. What follows is virtually every word on the Jews by Hitler that has been translated into English, from any source. Of course, this is not literally every word he ever wrote or said, but it covers all the major themes and topics: Jews as world-enemy, corrupters of democracy and culture, economic manipulators, parasites, liars, and supreme haters. The writings are drawn from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s “Second Book,” and various letters and declarations; the speeches include virtually all of his major pronouncements on Jews, Jewry, and their role in the world. All passages have detailed source listings, for those who wish to confirm the various entries, or to read more of the context.

This book is not merely of historical interest. It’s not just for experts and specialists in World War Two. Hitler’s analysis of the Jews, though hostile, is erudite, detailed, and largely aligns with events of the past 70 years. There are many lessons here for the modern-day world – lessons that are highly unpopular, to say the least, but not thereby false. It’s very much a case of ‘those who neglect history are condemned to repeat it.’ And this particular history carries with it a huge cost to humanity and the planet.

This introduction intends to serve three purposes: First, to provide a concise overview of Hitler’s main criticisms of the Jews. Second, to demonstrate that they are well-grounded in history, and that he was justified in his concern. Third, to show that these criticisms are relevant and important in the present day. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to hear out Hitler’s case against the Jews.

A Short History of Jewish Marxism

In order to better understand Hitler’s terminology and arguments, we need an historical perspective. His many references to Marxism and Bolshevism, for example, and their related concepts, can be confusing for non-experts. Thus a short overview is in order.

Marxism, of course, was founded by the Jewish writer, economist, and activist Karl Marx (1818-1883). Unfortunately, it has no clear and widely accepted definition. In the broadest sense, Marxism includes the idea that all social conflict is based on class struggle between a lower, working class (the proletariat) and a property- and wealth-owning upper class (the bourgeoisie).[2] Capitalism is the embodiment of bourgeois rule, and thus was hated by Marx, who nominally championed the working class. Philosophically, Marxism is materialist in the sense that it holds that all that exists in the world is matter or physical stuff; God, spirits, souls, etc play no part. Marxism is thus deeply atheist. It also views society as enmeshed in a progressive evolution in which the proletariat, dissatisfied with their capitalist lot in life, eventually revolts against the bourgeoisie, installing a form of socialism in which the government – that is, the people – own many of the goods, services, and means of production. Ultimately, Marx believed that socialism would give way to true communism, in which a classless and egalitarian society would emerge, and private property would be abolished. These ideas are presented in his many books, notably including the Communist Manifesto (1848), Grundrisse (1857), Theories of Surplus Value (1862), and Capital (1867).

Contrary to common view, Marx did not ‘invent’ communism. Many basic communist ideas can be found in Plato’s Republic, and other related concepts exist in the work of Thomas More, circa 1500, and in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, circa 1750. The term itself was coined by French philosopher Victor d’Hupay in 1777. And of course, materialism was already an ancient theory, dating back to pre-Socratic Greece. The notion of human equality also predated Marx by a couple centuries, originating in the work of Hobbes and Locke. Marx’s contribution was to unify these concepts with the idea of class struggle, and to argue for the need for a political revolution to bring about the desired state; to this end, violence was both permissible and justified.

When Marx died in 1883 (Hitler would not be born for six more years), his non-Jewish companion Friedrich Engels carried on his socialist/com­munist revolutionary work for some 10 years. Meanwhile, the nascent Marxist movement had begun to build steam. By 1890, the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin, then just 20 years old, came under the influence of Marxism and began to agitate for a worker’s revolution in his native Russia, which he hoped would eventually overthrow the czar. Lenin moved (ironically) to Munich in 1901 to work with other European Marxists. The following year he went to London, and first became acquainted with another Russian Jew, Leon Trotsky.

By this time, internal disputes had developed in the movement of Russian Marxists. Two factions emerged: the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. Mensheviks were the moderates, calling for peaceful reform; Bolsheviks were the more radical faction, calling for violent and armed resistance against the bourgeoisie. Among this latter group were Lenin, Trotsky, the Jewish engineer Leonid Krasin, and the non-Jewish Joseph Stalin. By 1910, the Bolshevik faction came to dominate, and ‘Marxism’ had become ‘Bolshevism.’ It was, as Hitler often stated, thoroughly Jewish, at least among the leadership. For example, among the seven members of the First Soviet Politburo of 1917 were two non-Jews (Stalin and Andrei Bubnov) and five Jews (Lenin, Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, and Grigori Sokolnikov). Later Jewish members included Nikolai Krestinsky, Mikhail Kalinin, and Lazar Kaganovich. For Hitler, Bolshevism was the embodiment of the Jewish worldview; it was Judaism made tangible.

In February 1917, after a series of strikes and riots, Russian Czar Nicholas II abdicated. After some eight months of provisional government, Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917. In July 1918, a group of Jewish Bolsheviks, led by Yakov Yurovsky, murdered the czar and his family. This horrific event cemented the reputation of the Jewish Bolsheviks as bloodthirsty revolutionaries who would stop at nothing to acquire and maintain power, or to exact vengeance upon their enemies.

The revolutionary character of Marxism broadly, and the violence of Bolshevism in particular, were well-suited to the Jewish mindset. For centuries Jews had acquired financial wealth but been excluded from political power in Europe and in Russia. With long-standing monarchies in place (most hereditary), Jews could only be secondary players in politics and thus never gain true power. But this was unacceptable to them. After all, their God of the Old Testament had promised them that “nations will bow down to you” (Gen 27:29), “you shall rule over many nations” (Deut 15:6), and “you shall eat the wealth of nations” (Is 61:5).[3] In a monarchy, however, the only path to power was through a ‘popular revolution’; thus many Jews became ideological revolutionaries. Such action could occur either as a democratic revolution – bringing with it a parliament or congress – or a Marxist one. In a sense, it didn’t matter; either way, through democracy or through Bolshevism, Jews had a path to power. It is in this sense that Hitler rightly infers an affiliation between democracy and Marxism.

In Russia, it turned out that Bolshevism was the best fit. Its Marxist ideas of revolution and equality (Jews were constantly treated as inferiors), allied with the Bolshevist ideal of violent overthrow of power, suited Lenin and the Russian Jews perfectly. Thus they became ‘champions of the proletariat’ and ‘great friend of the people’ – all simply as a means to power. That many nationalist intellectuals, and many ordinary people, would have to die in the process was apparently of little concern.[4]

The Russian Revolution was their first success, and it was a dramatic one. A nation of some 130 million people had been taken over by a group that represented a small minority in that nation. Emboldened by their success, Jewish Bolsheviks all over Europe began to agitate for their own re­vo­lutions. And not just revolution: War of any sort seemed to work for Jewish interests – political and financial – or simply the settling of old scores. Notably, Jews had been instrumental a few years earlier, in getting a neutral and unaffected United States into World War One. President Woodrow Wilson was strongly influenced by his Jewish backers, including Henry Morgenthau Sr., Jacob Schiff, Samuel Untermyer, Louis Brandeis, and Bernard Baruch. Hitler never forgot who it was that pressured Wilson into taking sides against Germany in 1917.[5]

Thus was Europe ripe for Jewish agitation. Haim Ben-Sasson notes that events of the time “opened up new horizons of activity for Jewish statesmen of liberal-democratic propensities, particularly those with radical-revolutionary views… They were even more prominent in the communist parties…” (1976: 943). As Hitler was well aware, it was not only Russia that fell victim to Bolshevist upheaval. Hungary was taken over by a Jewish group in 1919 that included Matyas Rakosi and Otto Korvin, and led by the ruthless Bela Kun. Fortunately for the Hungarian people, their rule lasted only some four months.

In Germany, it was well-known that Jews were prominent in the various social agitations that rocked the country near the end of World War One. The Berlin group included Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht, Leo Jogiches, Karl Radek, and Alexander Parvus. In Munich, it was Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller, Gustav Landauer, Erich Muehsam, and Eugen Levine. These groups lost out in the end, but the newly formed Weimar government was still saturated with Jewish interests. And the Soviet Bolsheviks were getting stronger by the day. For Hitler, Jewish Bolshevism was no idle threat.

The Case against the Jews, in Historical Context

We are now in a position to address the main question: Why, exactly, did Hitler dislike the Jews? The answer is complex, and is rooted in history. Like most people, Hitler was raised with little to no direct contact with Jews, and thus had no real disposition one way or the other. One learns in school that Jews have been persecuted, and thus one is likely to be initially sympathetic to them, given the standard portrayal in books and media. This was precisely Hitler’s situation, as he explains. A change in this neutral or mildly positive stance would require new information: either direct, negative personal contact, or an extended study of Jewish culture and attitudes, along with an understanding of how they operate in the world. Hitler in fact experienced both of these.

Let’s summarize his main complaints against the Jews. Three points need to be made at the outset: First, it goes without saying – almost – that the following criticisms are not true of every Jewish individual. Like every ethnicity, Jews exhibit a variety of traits, even as certain ones seem to predominate. And it’s equally true that many non-Jews are guilty of the same faults; they exist to some extent throughout humanity. But Hitler’s claim is that (a) Jews are disproportionately represented among these categories, and (b) they are the exemplary individuals in each case. He further suggests that in any sufficiently large Jewish population, a significant percentage – and in some cases a large majority – will manifest these negative qualities. And they do so in a way unlike any other ethnicity.

Second, many of these criticisms have a long history in western civilization. In order to better understand Hitler’s views, we need a short look at some past observations. It turns out that many perceptive people, from many different cultures, and over a very long span of time, found the Jews disagreeable. This undeniable fact strengthens Hitler’s case. He is not operating in a vacuum, nor is he inventing these concerns. They are long-standing, widely attested, and explicit. The negative historical commentary is an indisputable fact, and poses a significant difficulty for those who would defend the Jews.[6]

Third, Hitler then draws an obvious conclusion: that these characteristics are endemic to Jews, and therefore that the only solution is to completely remove them from one’s society. It’s not sufficient to identify and isolate the ‘bad apples.’ Doing so would only allow new ones to come to the fore. The only solution is mass removal. Despite common impressions, and the ‘Holocaust’ notwithstanding, it seems that this is all Hitler ever wanted: for the Jews to be removed from the Reich.

Among Hitler’s writings and words, we can identify at least ten specific criticisms of the Jews. They are, in no particular order:

Let’s briefly examine each individually, in historical context when relevant, to better understand his rationale.

1) Physically repulsive: Here Hitler seems to be thinking primarily of the orthodox Jews that he first encountered in Vienna in his late teens. With their black caftans, hats, and braided hair-locks, they offered a strange and disturbing sight – as they do for many today. They were important because they represented the ‘purest’ Jews, and thus projected the true Jewish essence. They spoke and acted oddly. They smelled terrible. Their facial features were notably different from the native Viennese or ethnic Germans. Truly an alien creature, for Hitler. Then later he understood that they represented (as now) only 5 or 10 percent of the total Jewish community. Most Jews were (and are) secular. They dress normally. They look relatively European, even ‘white.’[7] They are much harder to spot – as Hitler realized, making his way around Vienna. For every recognizable Jew, there are 10 or 20 more invisible ones.

By way of comparison, it’s worth a quick mention of another famous depiction by a major American author, Nathaniel Hawthorne. His nonfiction work English Notebooks (1856) recalled a dinner in England with a Jewish couple. The wife was beautiful but, in her own way, repellent. But the husband was something else altogether:[8]

“There sat the very Jew of Jews; the distilled essence of all the Jews that have been born since Jacob’s time; …he was the worst, and at the same time, the truest type of his race… I have never beheld anything so ugly and disagreeable, and preposterous, and laughable, as the outline of his profile; it was so hideously Jewish, and so cruel, and so keen… [T]he sight of him justified me in the repugnance I have always felt towards his race.”

Obviously, such observations apply not to every Jew, and hence these are not truly racial traits. But they do suggest to Hitler that the most ‘essential’ Jew, being the most repellent, is indicative of a deeper truth of the Jewish people.

2) Liars: Hitler was far from the first to make this claim. In the ancient world, circa 150 AD, the famous astronomer Ptolemy wrote that the Jews were “unscrupulous, despicable cowards, treacherous, servile… and scheming.”[9] Into the 400s, Roman poet Namatianus made reference to the Jews’ “lying bazaar.”[10] Early Christians had long condemned the ‘lying Jews’ for their religious heresies. Then in the early 1500s, the founder of the Lutheran church, Martin Luther, wrote an entire book titled On the Jews and their Lies. Jews were notable and infamous liars, he said, but “they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it.”[11]

German philosophers displayed a notable unanimity on this matter. In 1796, Georg Hegel wrote an essay, “The spirit of Judaism,” in which he observed that the primary rule bequeathed by Moses to the Jews was “to borrow with deceit and repay confidence with theft.”[12] Two years later, Immanuel Kant called the Jews “a nation of deceivers”; in a later lecture he added that “the Jews… are permitted by the Talmud to practice deceit.”[13] Yet another prominent philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, wrote, “We see from [ancient writers Tacitus and Justinus] how much the Jews were at all times and by all nations loathed and despised.” This is due in large part, he says, to the fact that the Jewish people are considered grosse Meister im Lügen – “great masters at lying.”[14] This remark would prove particularly influential for Hitler, as he cites it on three separate occasions in Mein Kampf. But among the most biting comments were those of Friedrich Nietzsche. For example, he wrote:[15]

“In Christianity all of Judaism, a several-century-old Jewish preparatory training and technique of the most serious kind, attains its ultimate mastery as the art of lying in a holy manner. The Christian, this ultima ratio of the lie, is the Jew once more – even three times a Jew.”

Hitler was also aware of Nietzsche’s work, if only indirectly. He seems never to have directly cited or quoted the philosopher, but he did attend the funeral of Nietzsche’s sister.[16] And in his diary entry of 13 May 1943, Goebbels recalls that Hitler “speaks again to the juxtaposition Kant-Schopenhauer-Nietzsche-Hegel.” Of this group, “Nietzsche is the more realistic and consistent” – implying a fair degree of knowledge.

The central and pivotal Jewish lie, for Hitler, is the notion that Jewishness is a question of religion. For him, it is strictly a racial matter. In reality, of course, it is both, as nearly everyone admits today: a ‘Jew’ can mean a follower of Judaism, or it can refer to a specific ethnic group, with an identifiable genetic makeup. Anyone can convert to the religion, but we are all stuck with our genes – or our “blood,” as Hitler and others of the time put it. Genetic Jews can be secular, or convert to Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion, but they are still ethnic Jews. Jews who claim that Jewishness is only a matter of religion, however, do lie. And secular Jews who, even today, will say “I’m not Jewish,” meaning that they don’t attend synagogue, are being facetious liars. In this sense Hitler was right; Jews will deceptively play the ‘race’ or ‘religion’ card as it suits them, without making a clear distinction.

But beyond that, Hitler refers to Jewish words in print and speech, in which they present bald-faced lies as the truth, or in which they omit significant and crucial details (‘lies of omission’). They do so with utter shamelessness, as if they have an inherent right to lie, if it’s to their advantage. And their lies are not over trivial or inconsequential issues. Jewish lies affect the social and economic wellbeing of millions, and, in the case of war, can mean literal life-or-death for masses of humanity.

“But all people lie from time to time,” we are tempted to reply. Yes, but it seems to come as second nature to Jews, says Hitler. They lie as a matter of course, shamelessly and without compunction. Their very nature and history compel them to lie, in a way unlike any other ethnicity. As a result, Jews have become extremely skilled at it. They easily and naturally offer up bald-faced lies, lies of omission, half-truths, exaggerations and minimizations. They are expert bluffers, swindlers, and dissemblers. They are, in Hitler’s words, “artful liars.” This accounts for much of their so-called success in life.

3) Parasites: Similar to lying, this is an ancient and well-attested criticism.[17] The earliest writers did not use the term ‘parasite,’ but rather they would refer to the Jews’ laziness, or their lack of involvement in farming or production, or their lack of creativity, or the absence of their own culture or state. All these things implied that they used the productive and creative efforts of others, to their own benefit.

Consider again a few remarks from the past. Circa 75 BC, Apollonius Molon wrote a book, Against the Jews – the first such book in history, in fact. (We should ask: Why would someone need to write a book against the Jews… in 75 BC?) There he commented that the Jews were “the only people who have contributed no useful invention to civilization.”[18] Circa 30 AD, another ancient writer, Apion, wrote his own book with the same title. Among his many charges were that the Jews failed to produce any “geniuses” in the arts or crafts, and thus lived off the inventive work of others. Roman philosopher Seneca derided the Jews as lazy,[19] as did Juvenal.[20] In 178 AD, Celsus wrote that the Jews “never did anything important, nor have they ever been of any significance or prominence.”[21] And in 361, one of the last Roman emperors, Julian, observed that the Jews had produced no great leaders, generals, intellectuals, or artists, nor anything approaching a civilized society. Regarding such things as systems of government, courts of law, and liberal arts, Julian said, “were not all these things in a miserable and barbarous state among the Hebrews?”[22] All such things came from the Romans, and Jews merely took advantage of them.

Into the Middle Ages, Jews became active in finance and money-len­ding, growing rich in the process. They thus produced wealth from ‘nothing’ – or rather, they were particularly effective at transferring the wealth of others to themselves. For medieval Christians, this was unethical at best, and criminal at worst. Thomas Aquinas wrote that “it would be better for [royalty] to compel Jews to work for a living, as is done in parts of Italy, than to allow them to live in idleness and grow rich by usury.”[23] Unsurprisingly, Luther felt the same way: “[The Jews] are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury.”[24] A few centuries later, as their wealth and influence spread, Voltaire observed that “the Jews have never invented anything,” and indeed “[they are] plagiarists in everything.”[25] It was around this same time that French leader Napoleon – using the kind of ‘biological’ imagery that the Nazis were famous for – remarked that “the Jews… are caterpillars, grasshoppers, who ravage the countryside.”

German intellectuals were no less blunt. Kant noted that Jews were very clever at “profitably outwitting the very people among whom they find protection… It cannot be otherwise with a whole nation of merchants, who are nonproductive members of society.”[26] Johann Herder, though, was the first in history to explicitly refer to Jews as parasites. In 1791 he stated, amidst a longer discussion on “this widely diffused republic of cunning usurers,” that “this people of God… have been for thousands of years, nay almost from their beginning, parasitical plants on the trunks of other nations.”[27] Schopenhauer employed the same terminology: The Jews constituted a gens extorris (refugee race), eternally in search of a homeland; in the meantime, “it lives parasitically on other nations and their soil.”[28]

And it wasn’t just in Germany. All around the world, people were noting this Jewish tendency. In 1862, during the US Civil War, general Ulysses Grant became indignant at Jewish war-profiteering and exploitation. He viewed the Jews as “an intolerable nuisance,” and thus attempted to ban them from his jurisdiction: “Jews,… having not honest means of support, except trading upon the miseries of their country… will leave in 24 hours…”[29] Around the same time, French socialist Pierre Proudhon described Judaism as “mercantile and usurious parasitism,” adding that “the Jew remains a Jew, a parasitic race, an enemy of labor.”[30] And in 1871, Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin noted that “this whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, [is] a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite, voracious, organized in itself…”[31] Even into the 1930s, famed British writer H. G. Wells could write of “the age-long problem of this nation among the nations, this in-and-out mentality, the essential parasitism of the Jewish mycelium upon the social and cultural organisms in which it lives.”[32]

All this shows that Hitler was, as noted above, far from alone, and far from the first to identify and condemn Jewish parasitism. Other ethnicities seem not to merit such opprobrium. The fact that so many perceptive observers, from many cultures and over many centuries, found the same characteristic suggests – though it does not prove – once again, that it is both true and endemic to the Jewish people.

4) Misanthropes: For Hitler, Jews carried an in-born, burning hatred of humanity, especially against the successful and culture-creating Aryans. They are driven by envy and jealousy, by a ruthless desire for power, and with an unmatched sense of impunity. Ordinary notions of sympathy or compassion seem to be utterly lacking, or are present only for show. Jewish hatred of others is thus the root cause of their hatred by others.

This is perhaps the oldest and best-documented complaint of all. As noted above, it appears to stem from the Old Testament (self-)depiction of Jews as the “chosen” people of God. If Jews are chosen, all others are obviously not; if Jews are first in God’s eyes, all others are of secondary importance. This implies a right to look down upon others, and to use them, or abuse them, as needed, to manifest ‘God’s will.’

As far back as 300 BC, Greek philosopher Hecateus observed that, owing to the Exodus, “Moses introduced a way of life which was to a certain extent misanthropic and hostile to foreigners.” Molon, according to Josephus, reviled the Jews “as atheists and misanthropes.”[33] Around 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus wrote that “the nation of Jews made their hatred of mankind into a tradition,” and remarked that “they alone, of all nations, avoided dealings with any other people, and looked upon all men as their enemies.”[34] Note: “they alone, of all nations” – a telling phrase. About 30 years later, Lysimachus noted that the Jews were instructed by Moses “to show goodwill to no man” and “to offer the worst advice” to others.[35] Apion similarly cites the Jewish tendency “to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks” – that is, to Europeans.

It was Roman historian Tacitus, though, who gave the definitive statements. His works Histories (100 AD) and Annals (115) depict the Jews in a highly negative light. The former calls them “a race of men hateful to the gods,” adding that “Jews are extremely loyal toward one another… but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity.”[36] Annals is more concise, identifying the Jews as a “disease” and noting that their long-standing persecution was rooted in their odio humani generis – “hatred of the human race” (XV).

Into later centuries, the list of similar observations seems to go on endlessly:[37]

• Luther: “they haughtily and vainly despise all mankind.”
• Mirabaud: “they were hated because they were known to hate other men.”
• d’Holbach: “[Jews display an] unsocial and savage aversion for the rest of mankind.”
• Voltaire: “As they knew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that in abhorring them they detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the enemies of all men.” “[Jews show] the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”
• Kant: “[The exclusiveness of Judaism] showed enmity toward all other peoples and which, therefore, evoked the enmity of all.”
• Fichte: “[The Jewish ‘state’] is founded on the hatred of the whole human race.”
• Nietzsche: “[Jews are] the best haters there have ever been.” “They had a more profound contempt for the human being in themselves than any other people.” “The Jews… have a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false,’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense.”

Thus, when Hitler writes of the Jews’ “boundless hatred against their fellow citizen,” “a [Jewish] hatred of the more fortunate ones,” that “Jewry in certain countries may be fomenting hatred in the guise of the press,” and so on – we will understand this as a continuation of a very long line of similar critiques.

5) Insular: That Jews, in their private lives, keep to themselves is a commonplace view. Perhaps no other ethnicity is as insistent upon maintaining their ‘purity’ as the Jewish people. Today, most would call such behavior ‘racist.’ And in fact, Jews are among the most racist people on Earth. They have an intense race-consciousness, and a sense of superiority and privilege, that would be utterly unacceptable for anyone else. But Jews are able to hide it away, out of the media eye. It operates in the background, like many other Jewish characteristics. They often disguise it by condemning others as racists, and by claiming to fight racism at all turns. And they do fight racism: but mostly of the anti-Jewish variety. Jewish behavior – from their trading of black African slaves to their massive abuse of present-day Palestinians – shows their true nature.[38]

Jewish insularity is such that they can create an entire functioning sub-economy and even sub-government within a given nation. This is the famous “state within a State” charge that has been leveled for at least a couple hundred years, and is something that Hitler referred to on occasion.[39] Jews have often operated as a law unto themselves, frequently viewing ordinary civil law as irrelevant.

In a practical sense, this insularity has the effect of a Jewish self-obses­sion. Jewish journalists and authors will write about Jewish subjects. Jewish anchormen will interview Jewish academics. Jewish filmmakers will produce films on themes that serve to benefit Jews, such as the Holocaust. For Jews, Jewish issues are all-important; everything else is little more than inconsequential trivia.

6) “Racial Poisoners”: As world-class racists, Jews know the value of race purity. It provides an unmatched social strength and cohesion. People around the world who live in tightly defined ethnic communities understand this, but others who live in more multicultural societies, like America and Canada, can find it hard to comprehend. The typical American is a cross of several nationalities, and thus does not closely identify with any one of them. (Hence the reason they are more likely to congregate by religion, for example.) But a mix of indigenous European ethnicities is not multiracial; such a person is still white. An American who is part English, German, and Italian is still a white European. Such a person, though, typically has no strong sense of ethnic attachment.

Nations defined by a strong and singular ethnicity are particularly resistant to intrusion by outsiders. Jews have a hard time working their way into positions of power in such nations. Therefore, they have to extol the virtues of multiculturalism, racial diversity, immigration, and mixed marriages in order to get the populace to accept their presence. They have to break up any ethnic uniformity and any sense of ethnic cohesion, if they are to get a foothold on power.[40]

The Jews’ single biggest threat comes from white Europeans – or ‘Aryans,’ as Hitler and others would have it.[41] Aryans were the creators of Western civilization and Western culture – from the Greeks through the Renaissance, from Michelangelo and Shakespeare to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. White, Aryan peoples have produced beauty, wealth, excellence, and greatness. Jews, as historically acultural, could only flourish by tapping into, exploiting, and draining Aryan culture. (Hence the parasite imagery once again.) In some cases deliberately, and in others incidentally, they functionally served to undermine and ultimately destroy this culture – much as the parasite eventually kills its host.

Sometimes white loathing by Jewish intellectuals becomes explicit. A notable example came from writer and activist Susan Sontag. Amidst a larger (and valid) critique of American imperialism and cultural hegemony, she wrote the following back in 1967:

“If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. […] The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone – its ideologies and inventions – which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads…” (1967: 57-58)

It would be hard to be more explicit than that. Any such comparable talk of blacks or Jews – that they are the “cancer of human history” – would have been roundly condemned and likely not published at all. But a Jew criticizing white culture and the white race in this way passes for high literature – at least, in Jewish New York circles.

In any case, Jews succeed much more easily in a racially diverse society. Therefore they focus their efforts on ‘polluting’ or ‘poisoning’ the white European nations, partly with their very presence, and partly through the immigration of people of color. Jews thus promoted, historically, colonialism – not only because of the profit motive but also because it inevitably led to an influx of the dark-skinned colonized people. This, for Hitler, is the ‘original sin’ of colonialism, and explains in large part why he never promoted it. They also supported globalism, international travel and movement, refugee resettlement, straight-up economic immigration – anything that would bring the non-white populations into contact with white Europeans, thus diluting their racial unity.

Racial diversity brings with it cultural and moral diversity, and thus Jews have always promoted these things as well. They relentlessly push for declines in moral standards, for ethical ‘flexibility,’ for liberalism, and for any breakdown in traditional social or cultural norms. Our Jewish-oriented media constantly proclaims this as ‘progress,’ but it is not. In fact the evidence is quite to the contrary: that a multiracial, multicultural society is positively detrimental to majority white interests. An important 2007 study by a Jewish scholar, Robert Putnam, reviewed census data for a host of questions related to social trust, civic involvement, volunteerism, and other such factors. Putnam was hoping to show that diversity would alleviate the modern trend toward disengagement and isolationism, but to his dismay, he found the opposite: that greater diversity was strongly correlated with lower trust of others (even of one’s own race!), lower confidence in government and media, lower likelihood of donating or volunteering for charity work, fewer close friends, less happiness, and more time in front of the television.[42]

Racial diversity, then, is demonstrably bad for society but it does provide an environment in which Jews thrive and flourish. And so they promote it, relentlessly. Racial diversity has a corrosive effect on white nations, and a diluted, diversified, confused white nation is far more amenable to Jewish interests.

Occasionally Jews will even admit this very point. Charles Silberman’s A Certain People includes this strikingly honest statement:

“Support for separation of church and state is part of a larger set of attitudes often referred to as ‘cultural liberalism.’ […] American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social issues.’” (1985: 350)

There we have it, in black and white: Jews promote social causes not because they care about the people involved, or because they represent moral enlightenment or progress, but simply because they lead to a social environment in which they – their race – can flourish.[43]

7) Materialists: Despite the fact that it is a religion, Judaism, as expressed in the Old Testament, is shockingly ‘earthly.’ God is there, of course, but the bulk of the text relates to human issues, human conflict, mundane history, power struggles, prophecies of various sorts, moral exhortations, and so on. It is a documentation and guidebook for the Jewish people, in light of ‘God’s will.’[44]

What is lacking, however, is virtually anything of a non-earthly, non-material realm. There is no talk of an immortal soul. No talk of heaven or hell, conceived of as a reward and punishment. Virtually no afterlife at all.[45] Soul, angels, spirits, a divine realm – all these traditional concepts are absent.

Regardless of what we think of such things, any religion that deals almost exclusively with the material realm, with power and wealth, is scarcely worthy of being called a religion (from a modern perspective). For a spiritual man like Hitler – and he was a spiritual man – such a theology is a disgrace, little better than a joke. But it does help to explain Jewish fixation on money, power, political machinations, and the like.

Without a concept of the human spirit, thought Hitler, we are little better than brute animals. There can be no higher ideals, no striving for greatness, no self-sacrifice, no true culture, no real creativity. Aryan cultural and intellectual greatness comes from an idealism, a sense of spiritual greatness; this can never exist in a Jewish context.

For his part, Marx took this religious materialism and made it into a literal and atheist materialism. (More technically, Marx’s view has come to be called ‘dialectical materialism,’ because of its emphasis on the evolving and dynamic nature of society and the world.) For Marx, what matters is power: control of the means of production, flows of capital, and political influence. It is, Hitler believed, a low, demeaning, and undignified worldview at best.

8) Internationalists: Traditionally, Jews were a people without a homeland – the State of Israel not existing until 1948. Ever since the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jews were compelled to wander to neighboring lands and to make their way as best as possible. They were essentially foreigners everywhere, even where they had settled for centuries. In a sense, they were the first true internationalists. And it worked to their benefit. As strangers, they were often exempt from the social and cultural norms of the host population. They were relatively free to exploit the native people. And for the reasons stated above, they had little reason not to. Once again, the relatively amoral, more-clever Jews were able to take advantage of a relatively innocent and naïve populace.

Yes, the natives often ‘willingly’ cooperate with the Jews and their globalist business activities; but without an understanding of the Jewish Question, they are in a poor position to assess the relative merits of doing so. When someone in need of money, for example, ‘willingly’ signs up for a complex interest-bearing loan with plenty of hazardous fine print, and then proceeds to lose whatever they posted for collateral, they are right to feel deceived. Or when locals ‘willingly’ shop at a Jewish business, to their own benefit, but thereby enrich the Jewish owners, and don’t realize the pernicious ends to which that wealth will be used. In the worst cases it may be positively harmful – rather like a heroin dealer passing out free samples, and then saying, “Well, they willingly took it, didn’t they?” When local people are tricked, duped, or otherwise “enabled in their vices” (to paraphrase Wilhelm Marr), they cannot truly be blamed. But we can be sure that, when it does happen, Jews are there to profit handsomely.

Internationalism, or globalism, has thus historically been hugely to their benefit – both in a positive sense, through financial profits, and in a negative sense, in which they used the flow of people to diversify and dilute the strongly ethnic nation-states.

Furthermore, international flow of capital allows one to exert control globally. It is more efficient, and much cleaner, than military coercion. Jews thus are notable proponents of global markets, global currency exchanges, ‘free’ trade, and generally anything that enlarges and binds multiple economies.

9) Egalitarians: This complaint is perhaps the hardest for us to understand. We in the Western nations, and particularly in the United States, have been raised to believe in intrinsic human equality – that no one person, or no one class of people, is fundamentally worse than any other. Obviously, there are ‘bad’ people in all groups, and there are those who excel in certain endeavors. But this does not change their inherent equality. Everyone is equal – equal before the law, equal before God, equal rights, equal duties. “All men are created equal,” after all.[46]

It sounds good – until we ask a few pointed questions. How, exactly, are all humans equal? Certainly not in any physical attributes. Nor in any mental or psychological qualities. On the contrary, in both of these areas, we see nothing but a vast diversity. Moral attributes? Clearly not, once again. Equal before God? Nowhere in the Bible does it state such a thing; in fact, again, to the contrary: Jews are the superior, the blessed, the chosen.

Where, then, did we get the bizarre notion that all humans are equal? It’s a long story, but it seems to have arisen in the mid 1600s, in the work of such men as Hobbes and Locke. They argued that all men (presumably meaning only males) were, relatively, equal in physical constitution and psychological disposition, and that all were more or less equally in competition for the good things in life. In Leviathan, Hobbes wrote:[47]

“Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.

From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.”

Locke stated the following:[48]

“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions. […] A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another […]”

These political statements, altered and modified in a Christian context, evolved into the notion that all humans are fundamentally and intrinsically equal. Marx knew all this, and adapted the concept to his revolution of the mistreated underclasses, and to the coming communist state.

Some thinkers, however, had long believed that no such equality existed. Plato, for example, argued for the obvious view that there are intrinsically better and intrinsically worse people, and that the better ought justly to flourish and thrive to a greater degree than the worse. The better ones are wiser, more refined, and of nobler character; they should rightly have a greater say in society.

In fact, it was precisely on this basis that Plato condemned democracy, which is little more than ‘rule by equals.’ In Republic, he rank orders the five known political systems; the second-worst is democracy, surpassed in corruption only by a tyranny. Democracy’s fatal flaw is that it treats everyone equally, and gives everyone, even the lowest and most ignorant, equal voice. “Democracy,” he said, “is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”[49] Plato’s ideal system, incidentally, was an aristocracy: rule by the best.

Aristotle, too, believed that there were better men – the “great-souled ones” – who rightly must claim more from life. They stood in sharp contrast to the “small-souled” masses, who, by rights, must be followers. The great-souled man “deserves much and claims much.” He is the exemplar of humanity, and has been granted, or earned, the right to great things in life. In any rational polis, such men must rule. But democracy accords them no more right than the least-competent of their fellow citizens. Correspondingly, Aristotle ranked democracy at the bottom of his list of political systems.[50]

And even nature itself, says Hitler, argues against equality. What is evolution other than survival of the fittest – that is, of the best? Nature wants the best to flourish; and she wants the worse to die off. This ironclad law is circumvented by both democracy and Marxism, said Hitler, which place power in the hands of the lowly masses. Thus one goal of National Socialism was to restore the natural order of things by preserving and promoting the best of humanity – very much in line with Greek ideas of an aristocracy. Jews, by contrast, know how to play to the masses, convince them of their ‘equality,’ and thereby serve as power-brokers of the people. The masses have power… but Jews still run the show.

10) Revolutionaries: As stated earlier, Marxism in general, and Bolshevism in particular, advocated violent revolution by the proletariat, so that they might attain control over society and the means of production. With Jews prominent in any such revolution, they would be well-posi­tioned to assume positions of leadership in any putative Marxist state.

Democracy as well had its own revolutionary aspect – witness the American Revolution, if nothing else. Any monarchy or dictatorship, or rule by the wealthy bourgeoisie, would only yield to popular rule by compulsion. Hence the people had to be agitated, disrupted, angered, and driven to hysteria in order to take up arms against their ‘unjust’ rulers. Once again, Jews have proven particularly adept at such tactics.

As ‘rule by the masses,’ democracies require representational rule, in the form of a parliament or congress. Such institutions can be relatively easily manipulated by wealthy Jews, to further their own interests. Thus, a nominal democracy, reliant on mass opinion controlled and manipulated by the media, can be functionally led by a relative handful of ruthless and manipulative individuals.

From Hitler’s perspective, the Jewish-dominated democracies in England, France, and the US were proof of his view. These countries worked hand in hand with local Jewish activists to undermine and overthrow, via revolution, the monarchical nations of Europe – first Russia, then Hungary, Spain, Poland, and most of all, Germany. Thus it was that World War One functioned as a global Jewish-inspired struggle against Germany. The protracted war was slowly tending toward German victory, especially with the capitulation of Russia in early 1918. But then the German Jews managed to agitate the masses against their leader, Kaiser Wilhelm II, eventually provoking a true revolution – the November Revolution, as Hitler puts it. This “stab in the back” at the home front was the true cause of German defeat in WWI. With the victory of the global Jewish powers, a pro-Jewish, democratic “Weimar Republic” was installed in Germany; it held power from 1918 until Hitler’s rise in 1933.

Even ‘regular’ Jews, it seems, felt this urge to revolt. As a case in point, consider Jewish novelist Maurice Samuel. Writing in the mid-1920s – about the same time Hitler was composing Mein Kampf – Samuel produced a popular book, You Gentiles, that laid bare the innate Jewish instinct for upheaval and destruction. Addressing himself to white America, he writes:

“If anything, you must learn to dislike and fear the modern and ‘assimilated’ Jew more than you did the old Jew, for he is more dangerous to you. […] His enmity to your way of life was tacit before. Today it is manifest and active. He cannot help himself. […] Because your chief institution is the social structure itself, it is in this that we are most manifestly destroyers. […] Our very radicalism is of a different temper. Our spur is a natural instinct. […]

In everything we are destroyers […N]othing can bridge the gulf between you and us. […] We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.” (1924: 144-155)

Hitler could scarcely have put it better himself.

Such is the case against the Jews. Again, it’s clear that many of these apply, to some degree, to all ethnic minorities. But the Jewish people collectively seem to uniquely possess this entire complex of traits, and to a relatively high degree. And, through their money and power, they are able to act on them. And this makes all the difference.

The Jewish Question Today

“But I know several Jews, and none of them have any of these negative qualities. In fact, they are just the opposite: nice, friendly, helpful, and sincere” – comes the defense. But we can imagine Hitler offering a few points in reply: First, the Jews “you know” are likely not the relative few with wealth and power. It is those, the worst (say) 5 or 10 percent, who are most likely to manifest these pernicious characteristics. Second, Jews in the US and Europe are now – and have been for over a century – in a comfortable position of power and influence. All Jews benefit from this situation, and thus all Jews can afford to be ‘nice’ and ‘friendly.’ It’s easy to be kind when you are on top. Third, one need only raise an issue that is truly problematic or threatening to Jewish interests to see their true nature emerge. In the presence of a few Jews, bring up any of the following topics: the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine; the many problems and inconsistencies with the conventional Holocaust story[51]; the dominant Jewish role in media, Hollywood, or academia; the overwhelming political power of the Jewish (Israel) Lobby; the disproportionate number of Jewish millionaires and billionaires; Jewish ownership of major technology firms. One will quickly see the fangs come out.

By way of example, consider the fate in recent years of certain prominent individuals who have run afoul of Jewish power, typically by simply speaking the truth: actor/producer Mel Gibson, reporter Helen Thomas, CNN television anchor Rick Sanchez, fashion designer John Galliano, actor Gary Oldman, musician Hank Williams Jr., and actor Charlie Sheen – all of whom were fired, demoted, or otherwise punished for making impolitic remarks about Jews. The Sanchez case is particularly interesting because it was based on his blunt statement of the truth. During a 2010 radio interview, the host suggested that television personality Jon Stewart could sympathize with oppressed minorities because he’s Jewish. Sanchez replied:

“He’s such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]… Please, what, are you kidding? … I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they – the people in this country who are Jewish – are an oppressed minority? Yeah.” [sarcastically]

An entirely correct statement, as we will see. Sanchez’s brutal honesty earned him a quick ticket out the door.

To complete the objective of this Introduction, we need to show that Jews are exceptionally powerful and dominant in certain key aspects of modern society. A concise summary will have to suffice.

The following analysis will center on the US, due to its global dominance and relatively easy access to data. In America, and depending on how we count mixed-race individuals, Jews constitute roughly 1.8% of the population. This is the highest percentage of any nation in the world, apart from Israel. Second highest is Canada at 1.1%, then comes France (0.74%), Uruguay (0.51%), and Australia (0.49%). The UK is 7th highest at 0.45%. We can expect Jewish influence in these countries to be roughly proportional to their share of the population.

Consider, then, the following statistics on American Jews:

Wealth: In terms of total assets, of the 10 richest Americans in 2022, five (50%) are Jews: Larry Ellison ($120B), Larry Page ($120B), Sergey Brin ($115B), Mark Zuckerberg ($115B), and Michael Bloomberg ($70B). Most of this money comes from the high-tech industry: Facebook (Zuckerberg), Oracle (Ellison), and Google (Page and Brin).[52]

Of the 50 richest Americans, at least 27 (54%) are Jews.[53] The combined wealth of these 27 individuals comes to roughly $635 billion. If Jews were proportionately represented among the top 50, there would be one individual; instead, there are 27.

Or take another measure of wealth, CEO income.[54] Among the 10 highest-paid American CEOs, four (40%) are Jews: Leslie Moonves (CBS), Nicholas Howley (TransDigm), Jeff Bewkes (Warner), and Stephen Kaufer (TripAdvisor). Among the top 35, no less than 19 (54%) are Jews.[55]

If Jews control around half of all wealth at the top, we can infer that they hold a similar share all along the wealth hierarchy, and thus that they own about half of all personal wealth in the US. In 2018, the total assets of all private households in the US hit $100 trillion for the first time ever. This suggests that the 6 million or so American Jews own, in total, some $50 trillion. This works out to an average of $8 million for every Jewish man, woman, and child – a truly impressive figure.

Such numbers are amazing in a nation where they constitute a 1.8% minority. What, then, might be the most benign explanation? Perhaps the following:

• “Well, Jews are just smarter than most people.” It’s true that the average Jewish IQ is above the white average. But there’s no direct correlation between intelligence and wealth, and in any case the Jewish IQ is not nearly high enough to account for such a huge over-representation.
• “Jews work harder than others.” If anyone thinks that people become CEOs or billionaires simply through hard work, they are living in a fantasyland.
• “Today’s Jews inherited more wealth than most people, and thus had a huge head-start.” Difficult to assess. We would have to research more into each person’s life history, and even then it would be hard to determine if inheritance was a significant factor. Unlikely, at best.
• “Jews are more likely to go into businesses, like finance and real estate, that produce billionaires.” Probably true, but again, it’s unlikely that this can account for such numbers.

And then we can imagine Hitler’s explanation: Jews are simply more ruthless and unprincipled than other people, and utilize their Jewish connections to maximum advantage. They are champion ‘wire-pullers,’ and will use every dirty trick in the book, and then some, to gain the upper hand.

In any case, we need not debate this here. For present purposes, all that matters is that Jews have a hugely disproportionate share of economic wealth and the power that comes from it. And not just disproportionate – even three or four men among the top 50 richest would count as ‘disproportionate’ – but a dominating influence. Consider: The non-Jewish half of the richest men are likely all white, and of mixed or varying European backgrounds. The whites thus have no cohesive or unifying force, unlike the Jews. Thus half of the richest men implicitly or explicitly work together for common ends, and the other half likely works on a basis of competitive individualism. One half, working together, can always out-power the other half working alone.

Academia: According to Schuster and Finkelstein (2006: 66), “25% of research university faculty are Jewish, compared to 10% of all faculty.” An older study by Steinberg (1974: 103) found that 17.2% of faculty at “high ranking” universities were Jewish.

By a different assessment, Zuckerman (1977) examined just the “elite” scientific and research faculty. She found the following, by major discipline:

These figures are assuredly even higher at the universities with the highest Jewish student populations.[56]

Such impressive faculty statistics arise not from sheer academic accomplishment, but from an insider network in which senior Jewish faculty seek out and hire younger Jews in a systematically biased manner. Jewish university administrators condone this activity, or at least look the other way, and wealthy Jewish donors ensure that funds to implement such a policy flow steadily. It is a self-serving and self-reinforcing process that goes unacknowledged and unexamined. Anyone pointing out the clear and undeniable massive over-representation of Jewish faculty is sure to be hit with ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘racist’ labels, and punished in their career.

Media: The largest media conglomerates in the US are: 1) Disney, 2) Warner Media, 3) NBC Universal, 4) 21st Century Fox, and 5) Viacom/​CBS. A look at their owners, largest shareholders, and top officers is revealing:

All of these individuals are Jewish, with the possible exception of the Murdochs – although it seems certain that they are at least part-Jewish.[57] And given the difficulty in ascertaining ethnicity, Jewish influence is certainly greater than shown. Once again, it’s difficult to convey the degree of dominance here. These six corporations produce the vast majority of all media consumed in the US. This includes all of the major news outlets and most of the major Hollywood studios (more on these below).

In fact, Jewish leadership or ownership at the top translates all down the organization, to middle-managers, staffers, reporters, television personalities, and editors. It has a very concrete effect on how the media is produced, what is presented, and what is not presented. It affects who we see, and who we don’t see. CNN and MSNBC are particularly egregious in this respect. Their on-air television personalities frequently host a “panel of experts” on a given topic. Of a typical panel of three, at least one, often two, sometimes all three are Jews. A panel of five or six has a minimum of two Jews, often more. This is remarkable; it’s not a coincidence, and it’s not an accident. Someone is deliberately arranging Jewish ‘experts’ to explain the news to us. And of course, the viewers generally have no idea of the predominant Jewish ethnicity of their experts. To even mention such a thing is “anti-Semitic,” and thus forbidden.

And it’s not only the so-called liberal media outlets. The conservative venues also are dominated by Jewish interests – typically, via right-wing or neo-conservative Jews. Fox News, and its parent corporation 21^st Century Fox, owned and operated by the part-Jewish Murdoch family, is every bit as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel as the liberal outlets. Fox News anchors disagree vehemently with just about every issue presented on the liberal channels, and yet, remarkably, they are fully on-board with all Jewish issues. Fox hosts struggle to outdo their peers at CNN and MSNBC in their obeisance to Jewish and Israeli interests. This, again, is no coincidence. It is evidence of Jewish domination of American media, across the political spectrum and across all venues.

In addition to the above, various other media are also well-represented by Jewish Americans. Among newspapers, the New York Times has been Jewish-owned and -managed since Adolph Ochs bought the paper in 1896. The current owner, publisher, and chairman is Arthur G. Sulzberger. We have no specific numbers, but the reporting staff there is overwhelmingly Jewish. The Washington Post has been Jewish-owned and -operated since it was purchased by Eugene Meyer in 1933. It was sold to Jeff Bezos in 2013, so the ownership status is now in question. But Bezos retained the chief editor, Martin Baron, who is Jewish. The former owner, Graham Holdings, is a media powerhouse in its own right; it is run by the Jewish Graham family. US News and World Report is owned by Mort Zuckerman. Time magazine is owned by Warner Media; current chief editor is Edward Felsenthal. The Conde Nast empire – which includes Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Wired, and Vogue – is run by president and CEO Robert Sauerberg. And outside of print media, we have National Public Radio (NPR), which has long been a Jewish preserve. Current president and CEO is Jarl Mohn. Although unverified, the NPR on-air staff is unquestionably more than half Jewish.[58]

Hollywood: If Jews are prominent in media, they are absolutely dominant in Hollywood. This has been true for over a century, ever since the days of Carl Laemmle (Universal Pictures), Adolph Zukor, Jesse Lasky, Daniela and Charles Frohman, and Samuel Goldwyn (Paramount), William Fox (Fox Films, later 21^st Century Fox), and the four “Warner” Brothers – in reality, the Wonskolaser clan: Jack, Harry, Albert, and Sam. These men created the industry in the 1910s and 1920s. They were soon followed by Marcus Loew (MGM), and Harry and Jack Cohn (Columbia), establishing nearly complete Jewish control over the film business.

Today the situation is little changed – and is neither disputed nor even controversial. A notable story was published in the Los Angeles Times in 2008 by Joel Stein, openly proclaiming that “Jews totally run Hollywood.”[59] Stein ran through every major studio and found nothing but Jewish bosses. Today the names have changed, but not the ethnicities. A recent survey of major executives reveals the following:

• Columbia (S. Panitch)
• Paramount (under Viacom)
• Warner Bros Studios (T. Emmerich)
• Universal Pictures (J. Horowitz)
• Lionsgate (M. Rachesky, J. Feltheimer)
• Nu Image (A. Lerner)
• Amblin Partners (S. Spielberg, J. Skoll)
• 20^th Century Fox (S. Snider)
• Disney Studios (A. Bergman)
• Metro Goldwyn Meyer (G. Barber, J. Glickman)
• Sony Pictures (T. Rothman)
• Relativity Media (R. Kavanaugh)
• The Chernin Group (P. Chernin)
• Participant Media (J. Skoll, D. Linde)

As before, all of these individuals are Jews.[60] With such dominance, we should scarcely be surprised to find pro-Jewish themes repeatedly appear in film: from the Holocaust and the ‘evil Nazis,’ to the ‘evil Arabs and Muslims,’ to the ignorant and corrupt whites, to support for various socially and ethically degrading behavior such as casual sex, homosexuality, interracial couples and families, recreational drug use, crude materialism, and rampant multiculturalism.

Government: Unlike media, where Jews are front and center, in government they reside mostly in the background, exerting their influence in subtle and hidden ways – the “wire-pullers,” as Hitler puts it. The Legislative Branch of the 2022 US government has ten Jewish senators (10%) and 27 Jewish representatives (6%) – disproportionate, but not overwhelming. But that’s only a start.

In the Judicial Branch, two of nine Supreme Court justices are Jews (22%) – Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. Until the recent death of Ruth Ginsburg, the number was three. And if President Obama had had his way, we would have had a fourth, in Merrick Garland. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that if a 1.8% minority has 10%, 30%, 40% of the Court, that many other constituencies are significantly under- or non-represented.

And on the executive side, current president Joe Biden is surrounded by Jews, both personally and professionally. His three adult children married Jews, and at least three of his seven grandchildren are Jewish. His VP, Kamala Harris, married a Jewish lawyer, Douglas Emhoff. Biden’s staff is heavily Jewish, including Secretary of State Tony Blinken, Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security), Janet Yellen (Treasury), Ron Klain (Chief of Staff), Avril Haines (DNI), Merrick Garland (Attorney General), Isabel Guzman (Chief of SBA), Eric Lander (Office of Science and Technology), and John Kerry (Environment), along with many second-tier leaders such as Jared Bernstein, Rochelle Walensky, Jeff Zients, Wendy Sherman, Gary Gensler, David Cohen, Rachel Levine, Anne Neuberger, Andy Slavitt, and Victoria Nuland.

Former president Donald Trump also surrounded himself, personally and professionally, with Jews. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is an orthodox Jew, married to Ivanka Trump, who herself converted to Judaism in 2009. His inauguration committee was around 50% Jewish, and included the likes of Lew Eisenberg, Sheldon Adelson, Mel Sembler, Ron Weiser, Steve Wynn, Elliot Broidy, Laurie Perlmutter, and Gail Icahn.[61] His personal and professional associates included: Avi Berkowitz, Michael Cohen, Gary Cohn, Reed Cordish, Boris Epshteyn, David Friedman, Jason Greenblatt, Larry Kudlow, Stephen Miller, Steven Mnuchin, David Shulkin, and Allen Weisselberg.[62]

Trump’s political competition was also Jewish, or Jewish-oriented. Hillary Clinton received the lion’s share of her 2016 political donations from Jews, who constituted her top five donors: Donald Sussman, J. B. Pritzker, Haim Saban, George Soros, and Daniel Abraham. And she got millions from other wealthy Jews, including Dustin Moskovitz, James Simons, Steven Spielberg, George Kaiser, Eli Broad, Leonard Lauder, and David Geffen. Clinton, of course, also has a Jewish in-law in Marc Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea Clinton in 2010. We need not ask where her sympathies lay.

Hillary’s primary Democratic competition in the 2016 presidential race was, as we all know, the Jewish socialist (and senator) Bernie Sanders. Her only other liberal competition came from the Green Party – in the person of Jill Stein. In America, it seems, you can vote for any kind of candidate you like – as long as they are Jewish, or have strongly pro-Jewish sympathies.

The root of this influence is money. Money is the chief driver of the American political system, and it tends to come from three sources: corporations, lobbies, and wealthy individuals. Among individuals, as noted above, Jews are heavily represented. Statistics for the 2018 mid-term election were stunning. Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson gave $30 million to a GOP super-PAC called the Congressional Leadership Fund; such magnanimity made him “the party’s most prominent benefactor,” according to Politico.[63] Another conservative Jew, Richard Uihlein, gave at least $29 million – mostly for losing causes.[64]

Not to be outdone, liberal fat cats quickly stepped up to the plate. Jewish billionaire Michael Bloomberg announced that he would spend $80 million to aid Democrats. He is known for “championing left-of-center policies,” including, notably, “immigration.”[65] Then just a month later, yet another Jewish billionaire, Tom Steyer, declared that he would spend a breathtaking $110 million “to redefine the Democrats.” This made him “the largest single source of campaign cash on the left,” and set him on a path “to create a parallel party infrastructure” of his own liking.[66]

All this leaves ‘ordinary’ Jewish billionaires in the dust. Robert Mercer, who was the “largest single donor” in the 2016 presidential election, has been cast into the shadows thanks to the scandal over Cambridge Analytica, the corrupt voter-profiling firm that he co-founded. Kenneth Abramowitz gave generously in the past, and Norman Braman sank several million into Marco Rubio’s failed campaign in 2016, but both men have kept a low profile so far. Paul Singer also supported Rubio, and poured money into gay and lesbian rights organizations, but has been working under the radar since 2018. Sussman gave over $20 million to Clinton in 2016, but his $4 million donated to Democrats for 2018 pales, as does the $4 million each given by Fred Eychaner and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Soros and Simons have done a bit better, at $10 million each to various Democratic super-PACs. But among Jewish donors, $10 million barely warrants a passing mention these days.

On the lobbying side, Jewish efforts are coordinated by the umbrella group known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC – which is the centerpiece of the Israel (Jewish) Lobby. AIPAC is the single most powerful lobbying group in Washington, coordinating millions in donations and dictating policy to compliant lawmakers. AIPAC “has an almost unchallenged hold on Congress,” according to Mearsheimer and Walt (2007: 162). They quote an anonymous staffer as stating that “we can count on well over half the House to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants.” This was proven, for example, back in 2015, when, in the wake of an attack on Jews in Paris, the US House drafted a resolution calling on European governments “to enhance security efforts protecting Jews.” (One wonders why the US government feels the need to do such things.) In any case, the measure passed: 418 to 0. US representatives, who squabble about everything, speak with one voice when it comes to Jews or Israel.[67]

The bottom line of all this is a stunning control over both major American political parties. Among Republicans, Jews donate around 25% of all party funds, and for Democrats, they give an astonishing 50% or more. Such figures have been reported for years, at least since the mid-1990s. The latest analysis was done by Jewish historian Gil Troy, who wrote:[68]

“In a political system addicted to funds and fundraising, Jews donate as much as 50 percent of the funds raised by Democrats and 25 percent of the funds raised by Republicans.”

But the Democratic figure may be higher still. The Jerusalem Post reported in 2009 that “more than 50%” came from Jews, and Henry Feingold’s book Jewish Power in America (2008: 4) claimed that the figure was “over 60%.”

The fact that a single lobby, representing just 1.8% of the country, provides half or more of all Democratic funds, and a very large share of Republican, is nothing less than shocking. All other constituencies and interests in the US must settle for a distant second, at best. And anything like real democracy becomes meaningless.

* * *

But enough. The case is proven: It is an indisputable fact that American Jews have a decisive and dominant role in government, finance, media, film, and academia. This dominance establishes a matrix of control over American society. It dictates what the public sees and hears, and how it thinks. It degrades public moral standards, censors or stifles competing views, and imposes an intimidating pro-Jewish orientation on major aspects of society. It is no exaggeration to say that the American public has been indoctrinated – even brainwashed – into accepting Jewish control and the corresponding Jewish worldview. Without even knowing it, the unthinking masses are reflexively inclined to support Israel, to sympathize with the ‘poor, defenseless’ Jews, to fear Islamic ‘terrorists,’ and to feel revulsion at all ‘neo-Nazis’ and anyone even marginally affiliated with Hitler or his ideas.

For those who might hope for better, the present situation in America and much of the West today seems hopeless. But then again, it seemed equally hopeless for a young Hitler writing amidst a Jewish-dominated Weimar Germany in the mid-1920s. He recalls the situation at the end of 1918, just after Germany lost WWI, when he could scarcely mention the word ‘Jew’ without being confronted with “dumb-struck looks or else lively resistance.” “Our first attempts to point out the real enemy to the public seemed to be hopeless,” he added.[69] And yet slowly, with focused and determined effort, the tide began to turn. Within five or six years, the Jewish issue was openly discussed; within ten years, the anti-Semitic National Socialists were a major party; and just five years after that, they ascended to power. They immediately began to remove Jews from positions of power, wealth, and influence – and it worked. Over a period of just six years (1933-1939), and in the midst of a worldwide economic depression, Germany rose from a beaten-down, demoralized, and indebted people to become the most powerful single nation on Earth.

Here is the main point: All that follows, all of Hitler’s words, are not just ‘history.’ This whole topic is of colossal importance for the present day. Virtually everything Hitler said is, by and large, true today. At least in America – the ‘lone superpower’ – Jews do in fact run the media. Jews do in fact run Hollywood. Jews in fact own a hugely disproportionate share of wealth. Jews in fact are the primary influence in government. Jews in fact dominate academia. They manipulate these institutions to their own advantage, often – usually – to the detriment of everyone else.

Globally, America is terminally involved in illegal military conflicts and wars in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world; most of these, unsurprisingly, are targeted against enemies of Israel or Jews generally. Meanwhile we do little to nothing about the planetary environmental crisis. We ignore the risks to humanity associated with booming population growth and accelerating advanced technology. We relentlessly promote globalism, free-market capitalism, and ‘democracy,’ despite their many inherent failings. And the public is kept in the dark about all these issues, through censorship, coercion, bullying, and brainwashing.

To repeat: Those who neglect history are condemned to repeat it. We ignore it at our peril. The maliciousness of Jewish domination in America and in much of the West is, as Hitler said, profoundly dangerous to humanity. One can only recall the words of Voltaire, who wrote the following in 1771:[70]

“The Jews are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.”

This is a stunning indictment, and a prescient warning. We would do well to heed it.

The Plan of the Book

The main text is organized into four units. Part One consists of two lengthy pieces from Mein Kampf (Vol. 1) describing the origin of Hitler’s experience with Jews, and then his general historical analysis of how Jews operate in Western nations. Part Two includes excerpts from nine early speeches, dating to the years 1922 and 1923. Part Three covers a series of specific themes: problems with democracy, the German Revolution, Jews as liars and parasites, the Jewish role in the debasement of culture, and Jews as the chief threat to the world. And Part Four chronologically addresses Hitler’s evolving views, via a series of speeches and other writings dating from 1933 to 1945.

Source information and abbreviations are straightforward. MK1 and MK2 refer to volumes one and two, respectively, of Mein Kampf (Dalton translation). Subsequent numbers represent chapter and section numbers. For example, (MK1: 5.10) refers to volume one of Mein Kampf, chapter 5, section 10. For all other citations, see the bibliography at the end of the book for details.

* * *

To read the complete collection of Hitler’s multifarious statements on the Jews, get a printed of eBook copy of this book from Armreg Ltd. armreg.co.uk/​product/hitler-on-the-jews/

Endnotes