Why Anti-Semitism Is Almost Always Rightwing

That’s true that US conservatives associated with the Republican Party are profoundly philosemitic. However, this is a fairly new thing. There is also the anti-Semitic Pat Buchanan wing of the party too, you know?

And if you took 100 anti-Semites in the US, 95 of them would be conservatives, either Republicans or Libertarians.

Leftwing anti-Semites are not that common. Nowadays a lot of Zionist shits are trying to say that there is all this liberal or Left anti-Semitism (the “new anti-Semitism”), but it’s mostly garbage. These folks are simply anti-Israel to out and out anti-Zionists. Most Left and liberal Israel-critics or even anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites.

A few liberal to Left anti-Zionist types do get into anti-Semitism, but when they do, they seem to gradually drift towards the rightwing! In particular, they start being sympathetic to either fascism or Islamism or both. Especially they tend to be pro-Nazi.

It’s really strange the way that works.

This makes me think that there is something intrinsically rightwing about anti-Semitism and something organically anti-anti-Semitic about liberalism or Leftism.*

With some exceptions.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

17 thoughts on “Why Anti-Semitism Is Almost Always Rightwing”

    1. Can’t remember where I found this, but it’s from 2009:

      Who Controls the Federal Reserve System?
      Board of Governors:
      Ben S. Bernanke(Jew) – Chairman [Former Chairman = the Jew Alan Greenspan]
      Donald L. Kohn(Jew) – Vice Chairman
      Kevin M. Warsh(Jew)
      Elizabeth A. Duke(White European)
      Daniel K. Tarullo(White European)
      (Note:Frederic Mishkin [JEW] recently left the Board of Governors)
      Federal Reserve District Banks:
      Eric S. Rosengren(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
      William C. Dudley(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
      Charles I. Plosser(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
      Sandra Pianalto(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
      Jeffrey M. Lacker(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
      Dennis P. Lockhart(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
      Charles L. Evans(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
      James B. Bullard(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
      Gary H. Stern(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
      Thomas M. Hoenig(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
      Richard W. Fisher(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
      Janet L. Yellen(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
      Of the five(5) members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, three(3) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 60%. Of the twelve(12) Federal Reserve District Bank presidents, eight(8) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population. This means that Jews are over-represented on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by a factor of 30 times, or 3,000 percent, and over-represented among the presidents of the Federal Reserve District Banks by a factor of 33.5 times, or 3,350 percent.
      This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the highest levels of the United States Federal Reserve System.
      Also remember that the U.S. Federal Reserve was started in 1913 by the Jewish-German Warburg family, specifically the Jew Paul Warburg.

  1. Dear Robert
    Pro-capitalists can’t blame the plutocrats for the evils of society, so they blame the Jews. Leftists often have attitudes toward capitalists which are essentially the same as the attitude of anti-Semites toward Jews. Anti-Semites seem to think that all will be well when the Jews are gone and leftists claim that all will be well when the capitalists are eliminated.
    It just isn’t true that white nationalism and economic conservativism go hand in hand. That’s perhaps true in the US but not in Europe. The German National Democrats, for instance, whom many consider to be neo-Nazis, have lots of positive things to say about socialism but are strongly hostile to neo-liberalism, especially of the globalist kind.
    It just isn’t true, as you like to claim, that the Nazis were a worker-unfriendly party. They quickly restored full employment, expanded the welfare state and emphasized national unity above class divisions. One leftist German historian even wrote a book on the Nazi regime in which he argued that its popularity rested not on ideology and propaganda but on the economic favors that he bestowed on the masses. To avoid making Hitler seem like the social-democrat that he was, he claims that it was all made possible by despoiling the Jews, a ridiculous claim since you can’t significantly improve the lot of 99% of the population by dispossessing the other 1%. Leftists will go to any length to deny that Naziism had socialist elements.
    By 1936, Hitler was as popular among workers as among other classes. As true nationalists, the Nazis thought in terms of Germans (or Arians) versus foreigners, not in terms of all workers of the world against all capitalists of the world. That’s the root of the fierce anti-communism of the Nazis. Marxism, with its emphasis on class struggle and international solidarity, is essentially anti-national, just as economic liberalism is anti-national because of its emphasis on individual self-interest.
    Marxism divides the nation into mutually hostile parties, which are on the brink of civil war. Conservatives like to see he nation as consisting of masters and servants, and economic liberals atomize the nation into insecure, highly competitive individuals. Only the combination of nationalism and socialism can produce a united nation in which there is room for all.
    By their hostility to religion and nationalism, the socialists did themselves a huge disfavor. In practice, the socialists aren’t so anti-national, but that only proves that their theory is defective.
    Having said all this, I recognize that more often than not, class war is topdown rather than bottomup. It is the rich that practice a right-wing Marxism. The Republicans can be regarded as a right-wing Marxist party because their principal aim is to advance the economic interests of one class: the wealthy.
    It is with class as it is with race. Either every class or race puts national interests above racial or class interest ot else no class or race can do it. There can’t be unilateral peace.

    Have a good day. James

  2. Well said James. I can’t remember where I found this:

    Vanity Fair’s Latest version of the New Establishment – October 2007.
    William cash suffered considerable abuse, and eventual political oblivion, at the hands of the jews-only lobby in america when he dared to point out that many of those in vanity fair’s list of the top 100 most powerful people in america were jews. The controversy surrounding cash’s article did not deter vanity fair from making the list an annual publishing event. Indeed, the list has become even more grandiose since it now consists of the most wealthy and powerful individuals around the world. However, in october 2007 the magazine wasn’t reticent about mentioning the disproportionate number of jews on the list. “It’s a list of “the world’s most powerful people,” 100 of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It’s an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power. More than half its members, at least by one count, are Jewish. It’s a list, in other words, that would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins, calling attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in finance and the media. Making matters worse, in the eyes of many, would no doubt be the identity of the group behind the list – not a pack of fringe anti-Semites but one of the most mainstream, glamorous publications on the newsstands. Published between ads for Chanel and Prada, Dior and Yves Saint Laurent, it’s the 2007 version of “The Vanity Fair 100,” the glossy American magazine’s annual October ranking of the planet’s most important people. Populated by a Cohen and a Rothschild, a Bloomberg and a Perelman, the list would seem to conform to all the traditional stereotypes about areas of Jewish overrepresentation. Printed over 15 pages before an interview with Nicole Kidman, the rankings, described on the magazine’s cover as the membership of “The New Establishment”, are less than scientific, accompanied by a paragraph-long introduction that neither defines power nor describes the methodology behind the list.” (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish power dominates at ‘Vanity Fair’’
    Indeed, burstein quoted one jewish commentator who believed such a list was something about which jews ought to be proud. “Yet the list doesn’t appear to have generated concern so far, instead drawing expressions of satisfaction and pride from the lone Jewish commentator who’s responded in writing. Joseph Aaron, the editor of The Chicago Jewish News, thinks it’s a list his readers should “feel very, very good about.” “Talk about us being accepted into this society, talk about us having power in this society,” Aaron wrote this week, in apparent reference to Jewish life in the United States. “Talk about anti-Semitism being a thing of the past, talk about Jews no longer needing to be afraid to be visible and influential.”” (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish power dominates at ‘Vanity Fair’’ )This is sound advice which finkelstein ought to heed.

    Justin raimondo provides a couple of interesting insights firstly, into the likudnik fundamentalists publishing the magazine and secondly, about how the jews on the list like to boast of their membership of the global ruling jewish elite. “Some, like CBS’s Leslie Stahl, have owned up to the temporary collapse of their critical faculties (by failing to expose the lies used to boost support for the invasion of iraq); others, like Vanity Fair’s David Rose, are silent. It was Rose, after all, whose four-page spread in the glossy, perfumed pages of the magazine the elites love to display on their coffee tables made the most extreme claims about the imminent danger posed by Saddam: the Iraqis were feverishly working on a long-range missile project, which was perilously close to becoming operational. Not only that, but, according to Rose and his INC sources, the Iraqis had a “dirty bomb” in the works, as well as blueprints and the means to build chemical and biological warheads. The relentlessly visual Vanity Fair editors even included a map that purported to show where these various sites were located in Iraq, including a nuclear weapons development laboratory. When none of this turned up in the aftermath of the invasion, did the editors of Vanity Fair cry “mea culpa”? Certainly not. Instead, they ran a piece, “The Path to War,” that blamed “the media” for all that INC-generated misinformation, but failed to mention their own role in promoting it. The piece was written by Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, and, hold on to your seat, David Rose.” (Justin Raimondo ‘How Did We Get Here? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11803 October 24, 2007).

    With vanity fair’s publication of the list of what is in effect america’s ruling jewish elite, the jewish oppression of americans is reaching new levels of sophistication. Most dictatorships, like most democratic governments, do their best to cover up bad news which would reflect badly on the regime. The greater their dictatorial power the greater their chances of burying news that might undermine their regimes. But clearly with vanity fair’s list, america’s ruling jewish elite is now so confident about its grip over american society that it no longer feels there’s a need to cover up news that could be exploited to undermine its control. America’s most powerful jews can enjoy boasting about their achievements knowing that the natives are unlikely to start questioning the benefits of these achievements.

    1. Lafayette is the peculiar creature known as the leftwing anti-Semite, or even Leftist anti-Semite. They actually are not very common, much less so than these idiot Zionists going on and on about “the new anti-Semitism.” The “new anti-Semitism” is just anti-Israel to anti-Zionist folks on the liberal-Left. As a good general rule, they try pretty hard to divorce their anti-Israel stuff from anti-Semitism and they do a pretty good job of it too.

      I’ve hung around a lot of Left and liberal fora and while anti-Israel stuff may well be welcome, out and out anti-Semitism is generally not, and if they suspect you are one, they often ban you right off.

      However, the odd creature known as the Left anti-Semite does indeed exist, and Lafayette is Exhibit A.

      There are some others that I am a bit more sympathetic too. I would term them “confused Leftists.” I think they are just politically confused people, and the anti-Semitism is a symptom of that confusion.

      LS is the real deal though. He’s not confused at all. He’s articulated this stuff quite well.

      1. No, I’m not an anti-semite. I’m a left anti-racist. The rest of the ‘left’ are mostly racists because they believe that these statistics about jewish ‘success’ can be explained by the fact that jews are superior to other races ( not that jews are even a race anyway), though of course they claim not to believe in ability differences between racists. At least Robert is consistent in this respect. The ‘left’ too claim to support affirmative action i.e. when monitoring shows evidence of racial bias, in say employment and recruitment practices, doing something about it. But they exclude jews from this, sometimes, like Robert, on the ground that jews are more moral than the rest of us, but usually they just say that jews are a marginal, powerless people and deny the statistics, unless of course they want to tell us how clever jews are and how much we owe to them – they don’t need to be consistent because no-one listens to them. This philosemitism is because ‘the left’ is thoroughly infiltrated with jewish partisans to the extent, as Robert himself has noted, that the Marxist organisations are effectively jewish organisations.

        I’m not an anti-semite because I don’t claim that everyone with a jewish parent is ‘ the enemy’; or even anyone who thinks of themselves as a jew for whatever reason. But there is no doubt that a large percentage, maybe a majority, of such do at least to some extent support and participate in jew-first discriminatory practices, and so it’s necessary to be wary of them all. I think that any jew who claims to be opposed to this ethnic mafia style behaviour should recognise and accept that non-jews must be skeptical about their sincerity.

  3. See the full 2007 Vanity Fair rich list here, annotated with analysis 57% jewish, many of the rest heavily dependent on jews. The list is at the end of the article Copy it before it disappears.

    However, this is unlikely to be the ‘real’ rich list. Anyone who thinks that pop and film stars are anywhere near the top 100 is living in a fantasy world. The truth is undoubtedly much much worse.


    1. That’s not a rich list, that’s just a prominent/powerful list. The main rich list for the United States is the Forbes 400:


      According to these guys, between 34 and 37 percent of the people in the list are Jews:


      I’ve been meaning to sum up the Jew wealth to see what percentage of the total top 400 wealth they control, as well as identify what ratio Jew wealth was created through entrepreneurship (Google, Dell, Oracle Systems, Facebook, various businesses) as opposed to inheritance or investment banking, and how that ratio compares to gentile wealth, but I’ve been too lazy to do it so far.

      1. William Domhoff’s ‘Who rules America’ site is THE place to start for serious ‘power structure research’. He has an essential, regularly updated book by the same name. I just got the book recently and I haven’t read much yet, so I can’t say for sure, but I expect he will steer well clear of the ‘jew question’. It will be a question of checking the ‘ethnicities’ yourself.


        Q: Is WhoRulesAmerica.net connected to the site called “Who Rules America?” on natvan.com?

        A: No! That site (and many others with documents purporting to tell you “who rules America”) is run by a white supremacist/neo-Nazi organization.

        More Questions and Answers

        Q: So, who does rule America?

        A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?,
        or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.

        Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?

        A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.

        Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?

        A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it’s true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).

        Q: Then how do they rule?

        A: That’s a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.

        Q: Are you saying that elections don’t matter?

        A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That’s because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.

        Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?

        A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)