How Not to Oppose JP

Capitalism isn’t the only form of oppression. At one time, there was white supremacy too. One reason the Western countries supported apartheid South Africa is because it practiced it. Then they stopped. Today, the only explicit form of racial superiority the West supports is Jewish supremacy. This support leads to Jewish power, whose most obvious symptom is the state of Israel.

Why is this? As Gilad Atzmon put itJewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power” (1). If the Western powers had continued to support apartheid South Africa, and had abandoned apartheid Israel, it would be widely, and correctly, believed that this is a symptom of white supremacy. But the opposite happened. It follows that this is a symptom of Jewish supremacy. The fact that it is difficult to take this obvious logical step is further evidence.

So it is clear that Jewish power is a problem. This article is my opinion about how not to challenge it, how easy it is, having established its existence, to attribute too much power to it, to believe it is the cause of consequences, of which it is not the best explanation. This perennial mistake makes Jewish power look more powerful than it actually is, which tends to demoralize and therefore undermine resistance to it.

Among those who realize the significance of Jewish power, some think it organizes “false flag” attacks, claiming that the real perpetrators are Islamic militants, in order to stir up “Islamophobia”.

This delusion is, in part, a result of Muslims trying to manipulate political correctness: “Americans have been conditioned to assume that any act of terror on our land has been perpetrated by a Muslim” (2). Following the Oklahoma bombing of 1995, there was a widespread assumption that it was probably Muslims. But soon, a pair of rednecks was arrested, and the media corrected itself, and did the opposite of “conditioning” Americans to believe that Muslims are the most likely terrorists.

But that was before September 11th. 2001. Since then, it is reasonable to think Muslim extremists are by far the most likely perpetrators of a terrorist attack inside a Western country. Any possible alternative explanation is so complicated it is astronomically unlikely – remote-controlled planes, explosives, etc..

Some of those who argue for an alternative narrative argue that the powers-that-be “needed” a spectacular massacre to whip up Americans into a war frenzy. But much of its population is only too willing to support attacking another country on the basis of a vague rumor. How easy it was to persuade it to support the invasion of Iraq, when the official report on 9/11 doesn’t claim Iraq was involved (3).

Those who claim there is evidence of Israeli involvement are clutching at straws. An example:

Shortly after 9/11 guess what Israel began building the security barrier, which became a wall with it they took more land” – comment on 9/11 And the Cover Up (4)

To put it charitably, this is a logical fallacy. The official report resisted Zionist pressure to include alleging that Israel’s opponent Hezbollah was among those responsible for the 9/11 atrocities.

Another problem with the idea that the Israeli government faked any given Islamic terrorist attack, is the variety of similar attacks. Are they all hoaxes, or only some of them? The 1993 World Trade Center bomb, the 1998 embassy bombings, the Stockholm bomb, the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, the Toulouse murders, the London nightclub, Glasgow airport and London Transport attacks… Recently I was sent an article claiming that the damage to the London bus on 7th July 2005 was faked:

The Official photo fakery is so inept that the British Authorities even used a completely different bus to stage yet another, third version of the aftermath of the London 7/7 bus bombing in Tavistok Square”.

Some “9/11 truthers” are so convinced by arguments like this, they think that, if you claim not to see the “overwhelming evidence” that terrorist incidents are “false flags”, you are deliberately spreading “disinformation”, which doesn’t encourage debate.

When I helped organize a Gilad Atzmon event recently, I had to work with the local 9/11 truth movement, and keep my views to myself. Atzmon empathizes with that movement (5), but I think it’s a mistake to criticize Israel on the grounds that it had something to do with 9/11, as this tends to deter rational people; there are perfectly sane reasons for Americans to oppose aid to the Jewish state (6).

Jews in Finance

The fact that many bankers are Jewish, and that they made money during an economic crisis, proves nothing; that’s what banks do. The “Jewish banker” theory is an example of induction. It is debatable whether induction can even generate valid hypotheses; it definitely cannot prove them.

A particularly dumb example of the approach taken by some critics of Jewish financial power is citing Bernie Madoff, the financial fraudster, as an example of Jewish networking. A large number of his victims were Jewish organizations, e.g. the Elie Wiesel Foundation, Haddasah and Hillel. The Madoff case is a counter-example. It should lead to questioning the “Jewish financial network” hypothesis.

The Iraq War

Critics of Jewish power often accept uncritically the idea that it caused the attack on Iraq by the USA in 2003, on the grounds that a) the Jewish neo-conservative cult advocated it, and b) it happened. This is not an example of testing a hypothesis. A simple, and obvious, example of a test is to ask “is the current government less influenced by neo-cons, and if so, has it made any difference?”.


Alongside the other evils blamed on Jews, some contributors have adopted, from the Eastern European far right, the idea that the Bolshevik Revolution and the trouble which followed it were caused by Jewish overrepresentation in the Communist Party. Their argument for this consists of listing the names of powerful communist Jews. This is not even induction, which at least generalizes from an apparently universal correlation (“all the swans I’ve ever seen are white, therefore all swans are white”)

The philosopher of science Karl Popper argued against induction and in favor of falsification (7). An example of an attempt at falsification would be to ask “of the three leading Bolsheviks, why did the only Jew get murdered by his own party?”. Another would be to list the numerous gentiles who implemented the horrors of communism, with Josef Stalin at the top.

The Slave Trade, the Irish Famine, and Smallpox-infected Blankets

The above are just three of the tragedies imputed to Jews by commenters on anti-Zionist alternative news sites such as recently. If they wanted to test their hypotheses, they might ask

What other kinds of people were involved in organizing the African slave trade?

Some of the slavers were African Muslims. A politically correct account of Islam and slavery can be found at the BBC (8). Others included the Catholic monarchies, flint-hearted English Protestants, and Jewish merchants too. Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England describes how indigenous businessmen treated their employees – Jewish capitalists could hardly have been worse, and the British Empire didn’t need Jews to teach it racial supremacy.

The Irish famine of 1845-52 was an accident, caused by monoculture. A single variety of potato was planted all over Ireland because it was the most productive plant, and it was not known that it would be particularly susceptible to blight. Potato barons didn’t deliberately cause their businesses to fail! Smallpox in North America was spread by accident too – the European invaders didn’t know they carried a virus to which the natives lacked immunity.

A more effective approach to understanding Jewish power

An example of a better approach to the question is my 2010 article “Faithful Circle” (6) (“essential reading” – Jeff Blankfort) in which I leverage Mearsheimer and Walt’s work to test Noam Chomsky’s estimation of the role of the Jewish Lobby, showing how its power is the key to American support for Israel, which is against the interests of most Americans, rich and poor. It evaluates ideas about Jewish power, and avoids either covering up for it, or giving it too much credit, by asking four questions –

  • what does the theory predict will happen, and does it actually happen?
  • is the theory the simplest explanation of what happens?
  • what would we expect to happen if the theory was not true, and does it happen?
  • is there an alternative theory which better explains what happens?
  7. Karl Popper, 1934: