To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that "it is" can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.

Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)

Nanamoli Thera

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Mark Collett & Germar Rudolf – Holocaust Summit 2026


[In this livestream video Mark Collett, leader of the pro-White British nationalist movement, Patriotic Alternative, talks with “Holocaust” revisionist Germar Rudolf. Items discussed include:

Promotion of a virtual “Holocaust Summit” that Rudolf is organising.

Rudolf directs viewers to his website and to holocaustsummit.com for event details and contact information.

Recent work: Multilingual rollout of Rudolf’s “Holocaust Encyclopedia” (English 2023; Spanish and French released; Arabic in progress), noting heavy editing and verification post AI machine translation.

On restrictive laws abroad, Rudolf states he won’t comply with what he considers unjust speech laws: “I don’t give a rat’s arse about any dictatorship passing laws prescribing the writing of history.”

He says distribution uses diffuse international channels and has not yet encountered seizures.

Outlines the history of “Holocaust scepticism” from Arthur Butz’s 1976 book, the IHR conferences (late 1970s–1990s), and their decline after internal conflicts.

Rudolf’s biography: Attended early-2000s conferences; arrested/deported in 2005; served 44 months in Germany; later returned to the US after legal challenges.

Family concerns kept him low-profile for years; post-divorce and with older children, he agreed to spearhead a virtual event.

COVID-era normalisation of online conferences reduced costs / risks and made the Summit feasible.

He argues recent Gaza events have opened minds to re-examining historical narratives, claiming the Holocaust is invoked to justify policy and censor debate.

He registered holocaustsummit.com and launched “Holocaust Academy” to teach what he calls “sound” Holocaust historiography.

Mission framing: Oppose what he calls the weaponisation of history for war and censorship; “We are going to be independent… fearless… and not constrained by politically correct taboos.”

Date: Jan 27 (International Holocaust Remembrance Day). He says the Red Army “conquered” Auschwitz in 1945—“the Red Army never liberated anyone.”

Format: Livestream beginning 9:00 am. ET (2:00 pm UK), recorded for replay; viewers can watch live or later.

Platform: FTGmedia.com (to avoid de-platforming); Summit links will be kept current on holocaustsummit.com.

Structure: 45-minute talks; 15-minute Q&A; chat requires a platform account; Q&A uses small paid Superchats; recordings to be posted on Rumble, BitChute and Odysee.

Anticipated pushback: Cites pressure from anti-racism, anti-anti-semitism groups; worries about DDoS / backbone interference; contingency planning ongoing.

Opening talk (Rudolf):

“80 Years of Holocaust Skepticism”—history of the movement, key claims, and resources; an on-ramp for newcomers.

Speaker: James Mawdsley (UK Catholic priest, film-maker) on Treblinka; Rudolf served as a historical advisor on Mawdsley’s documentaries.

Speaker: Peter Rushton (UK) on British intelligence and Himmler; “The Dog That Didn’t Bark” theme about wartime assessments.

Lunch break: Premiere of a new CODOH-related documentary (~35 minutes); break also helps absorb schedule overruns.

Personal testimonies panel: Brother Nathanael Kapner (online activist), Leo Walls (US bookstore owner), Georges-Marc Theil (France) on entry into scepticism and consequences (ostracism / prosecution).

Speaker: Vincent Reynouard (France), with decades of activism and multiple current cases, on “misuse of the law” to suppress dissent.

Speakers: Heinz Bartesch and attorney Andrew Allen on US OSI “Nazi-hunting” cases; allege legal overreach and evidence abuses in immigration prosecutions.

Speaker: Prof. David Skrbina on early wartime/postwar mainstream voices who expressed scepticism.

Closing paper: Carlo Mattogno (Italy) on the state of research, presented by Rudolf; Rudolf adds “where we go from here,” future research gaps, and generational handoff.

Legal caution for EU presenters: Some will stick to personal experiences to avoid violations; audience asked not to corner them with risky questions.

Attendance: A few hundred email sign-ups so far; hopes for several thousand live viewers and many more on replay.

Sponsors/hosts: Holocaust Academy and CODOH highlighted; FTG Media donating platform access; many contributors working unpaid.

Donations: Sponsorship tiers available via the Holocaust Academy shop; live Q&A questions are donation-based.

Replay/Archive: All talks to be archived on holocaustsummit.com and mirrored to alternative video platforms.

Merchandise: Summit mugs and T-shirts available via Armreg.co.uk (publisher’s merch page).

UK legal context: Watching is legal; case law allows debate if not disparaging; both host and Rudolf stress a civil, scholarly tone to avoid issues.

On humour and speech: Rudolf warns that in some countries jokes can be criminalised—“When jokes become punishable by law, you stop laughing”—and both urge avoiding “edgy” jokes or disparagement; Mark closes by praising Rudolf, plugging future shows, and urging lawful, respectful engagement.

– KATANA]

Mark Collett: Hello everybody, and welcome to tonight’s special stream. We are live tonight on Odysee, Rumble, DLive and Entropy. Please do share the links because we’ve got a very special guest here tonight that I’ll be introducing shortly. It is of course, Germar Rudolf. And before we do that, I’m going to give you a couple of updates.

Now, as I said, this is a very important stream. It’s because we’re introducing a special event that Germar Rudolf is hosting called, The Holocaust Summit. And this event is something that hopefully will be very big. And this is basically a bit of an advert for the event, a bit of a discussion about how it came about, but also a discussion about who’s trying to stop it!

So we’re going to go through all those things and many more tonight and at the end you’ll have a chance to ask questions.

Now, if you support my work, if you like what I do, please share the stream.

But also if you support my work and like what I do, you can give a donation, you can donate through Rumble, you can donate through Entropy. Anything donated throughout the show will be read out live on the show and any questions will be put directly to Germar Rudolf.

So if you ask me a question or pay for a question via a Superchat, I will read it out after the initial presentation and we will answer your questions. All donations are gratefully received. And as I always say, if everyone gave a small amount, $3, $5, $10, that would make a great, great difference. Some of my streams in the past few months have been seen by upwards of 75,000 people. Imagine if everyone had just given $3, what we would be able to do with that money would be almost limitless at that point. But everyone would barely notice that money leaving their account because it’s probably the price of an energy drink, probably less than a coffee house coffee, certainly less than the price of a McDonald’s double cheeseburger these days.

So if you can afford something, please do consider donating. You can also donate by crypto-currency. All the crypto links, as always, are in the description below and you can email me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. And many of you will be saying:

“Well, how can I get in touch with Germar?”

And this is obviously all about Germar. You can get in touch with Germar via the Show Notes. The Show Notes have the link to his website about this very event. So you can find him there. You can also find him on Telegram.

So thank you so much to anyone who does donate in advance. And please do consider supporting Germar’s event, because that’s what this is all about.

Now, obviously, Germar is the special guest here tonight, and I did a special show with him a while back. It was an excellent show, and his ability to present his evidence and to tell his story is almost unrivalled! I couldn’t believe it! I asked one question and Germar sort of spoke very eloquently for about 58 minutes, at which point we went to Questions and Answers. It was sort of the least work I had to do ever in a show! I didn’t need to interrupt. I didn’t need to ask him any additional questions. He just has this skill of being able to tell his story in a timely way and weave it all together almost perfectly in the allotted space that we had on the show. And after doing that show with him, I was sort of really happy with the way it turned out. I was really happy with the reception, Germar got from my audience, and I really did want to have him back on.

So when he contacted me and told me he was doing this conference, this Summit, I was very happy to promote it. And I asked him:

“So, hey, sort of, what can I do to help you?”

He said:

“Well I could always come on the show.”

So I thought:

“Well, what better way to push this event than invite him back on and spend sort of 45 minutes to an hour talking to him about this event and also just having a general catch up.”

Because the last show, as I said, it was so good and everyone appreciated it so much. I did want to get him back on eventually anyway, so this is a perfect time.

Germar, you have been a very busy man since we last spoke. How have you been? And what sort of led up to you wanting to do this event? Because you have an excellent website, you have a number of really good books, you’ve been busy with other content creators. I know that you went on Unity News Network and you’ve had sort of a little flurry of appearances, but if you want to get people up to date with what you’ve been up to and when, what sort of inspired you to decide to put on this conference, please tell us all about it.

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you.

First of all, thank you for having me on the show again. A short remark. If people want to get in touch with me personally, learn more about me, how they can support me if they are so inclined, the easy way is just go to my personal website, which is Germarrudolf.com. So you see my name there on the screen. Just put this together without a blank and a dot com at the end, and you’re on my personal website and you can browse it there.

Now, as to what I’ve been up to over the past year, the main work that I’ve been focusing on was getting the Holocaust Encyclopedia, the English edition of which had appeared in late 2023, out in several other languages. The Spanish and French are out. The Spanish came out in I think it was maybe of last year. And the French we got out, I think it was in November. So we are up now to four languages. English, German, which was done by a different company. It was not in my ballpark. But the French and the Spanish edition, and that’s a lot of work. I mean, writing an encyclopedia is one thing, then AI helps you translate. But at the end you have to walk through it. My Spanish and French is good enough. I could do most of the proofing and editing myself. And then came the big one that we’re preparing right now! It’s an Arabic edition.

So that’s like proofing a pot full of spaghetti, because that’s how that language looks like to me. [chuckling] No clue about it! But I have professionals working on it.

And so this is making good progress and hopefully within a few months that will hit the mark and we’ll see how that’s going to be received. What kind of ripples that we’ll have, if any. So that’s on that side.

Now coming to the actual event for which we have come together today. Holocaust sceptics have been organising conferences since the late 1970s. And the early, …

Mark Collett: Okay, I just ask a quick question before you go into this?

You mentioned that the books are available in French and Spanish, but aren’t the Holocaust sort of revisionism laws or laws and against revisionist literature in France?

Germar Rudolf: So what?

Mark Collett: I was just asking about sort of the legality of the sales. Really, I was just, … What you might have to overcome in that case.

Germar Rudolf: Yes, if I have the intention to abide by unjust and illegitimate laws that violate United Nations Charter of Human Rights, I wouldn’t have gotten into the topic to begin with. So I don’t give a rat’s arse about any dictatorship passing laws, prescribing the writing of history at government gunpoints. This is something that doesn’t go down well with me.

Now, when it comes to printing and publishing the book, that’s an international network and I’m not going to expose here or reveal here what kind of logistics we use. But it basically gets lost in the massive mail stream that goes into and out of every country every day. So we haven’t had any interference, be it getting literature, English literature, or French, also to Canada, to France, to, … You name the countries. If we had them by the bag or by the truck load going into the country that would be selectively subject to border controls, that would be a problem.

But it’s just going individual for every customer into the mail stream. And this just gets lost in the shuffle. So we haven’t encountered any problems yet. So knocking on wood. Fingers crossed. I hope I’m not going to jinx it now.

Mark Collett: Yeah, I was just interested about the logistics of these things because there are draconian laws and I think what you’re doing is obviously very brave. And that answer of you’re not going to allow unjust laws to stop you. I think you’re a very courageous man. So sorry for the interjection. Please, please continue.

Germar Rudolf: That’s quite all right. So back in 1976, the first really scholarly book of Holocaust scepticism was published. That was Arthur Butz’s hoax of the 20th century. The first edition of which actually was published by Historical Review Press, kind of a small outlet that was established on occasion of that book appearing down in Brighton by Tony Hancock in the UK, even though the author, of course, is in the United States. That was the launching pad of people getting interested into Holocaust scepticism seriously, but also realizing that this is a serious School of thought that has to be reckoned with. And it led to the formation of the Institute for Historical Review in California. And they did have first conference was in 78 or 79 [1979], I can’t remember, I think it was in 79.*

[* See: The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention-Instauration Dec, 1979

https://katana17.com/2016/09/27/the-worlds-first-anti-holocaust-convention-instauration-dec-1979/.

[In this article, written for the Dec. 1979 edition of the revisionist journal,  Instauration, an interesting account is given of the first ever, “Anti-Holocaust” convention,  with speakers including:  Robert Faurisson from France; John Bennett from Australia; Udo Walendy from Germany; Louis FitzGibbon from Britain; Arthur Butz and James Martin from the US. This was held in Los Angeles and organised by the Institute for Historical Review  —  KATANA.]

And they had had subsequently, over the next two decades, conferences almost on a yearly basis, with a few exceptions. And unfortunately they had some internal strife in the mid-1990s, a kind of a schism there that led to internal fighting, unfortunately. That’s something that occurs on occasion. And that led to the whole School of thought and the Institute losing steam. And eventually those conferences petered out in the early 2000s.

And there hasn’t been any for the better part of 20 years now. And now I myself participated, since the first conference I attended was in 2000, I think so participated in the last few that happened, until I got arrested and deported back in 2005 and had a hiatus of six years in Germany, well, 44 months of them, full board at government expense. And after I came back to the United States a little bit shell shocked, got my feet wet slowly and eventually got back into the race.

But my family situation, I was married to a US citizen and we had a baby. And of course I was deported right out of this family. And she had to raise her daughter the first six years almost by herself. And so she was more traumatized by that event of government persecution. It was eventually decided that they deported me in violation of US law, and I had to litigate but eventually succeeded and came back. And now here I am in the United States, relatively safe from European style thought crime prosecution.

But my wife wasn’t happy in me continuing this kind of work, fearing that it would have another negative impact down the road for the family, not just for me. So we had an agreement that I could continue my work privately but keep my head down and limit or try to not even at all have any public exposure. That also means I couldn’t do any conferences. I was approached during those years starting 2014, 15, something, that a conference should be held again and I would have been the person to go to with my connections, with my involvement in the various organisations and with my track record of productivity. But I waved it off. I couldn’t have pulled it off logistically back then.

A physical conference requires a lot of work of getting the venue, organising food and accommodation for all the people that want to attend and of course for the presenters themselves. And the costs, the overhead costs could be daunting! And it’s not clear that at the end you actually walk away with profit more likely not. Most of all because you always have to have a “Plan B”. The traditional enemies of free speech and freedom of assembly in the past have always tried to shut down events like that. And they most certainly continue doing this to this day. Not just when it comes to Holocaust scepticism, but anything that is considered Right-wing, whatever that be. Even though Holocaust scepticism is neither Right nor Left. It’s about accuracy in history. But it is something that finds interest in the Right-wing spectrum of the political spectrum more prominently than in Left-wing circles or libertarian for that matter.

Be that as it may, you have to have a Plan B, a second venue, in case the first bails out under pressure of the usual suspects, you have to quickly be able to switch over. So you always have to pay kind of for both. And if your contracts are not written right, you start paying through the nose. With all these challenges, I said I can’t do it, apart from the agreement I had with my wife.

Now Covid hit. With all the negative things there is one upside to Covid and that is that in the meantime everyone is used to and technically capable of attending virtual conferences.

So the kind of discussion we have now with a lot of people watching, we can have 10 people discussing something and 10 million people watching. It has become so common due to Covid that this is something that can now be pulled off. The platforms are there are plenty of them and the overhead costs are reduced. People have the software, have the gadgets to participate, to watch it. And they used to it. Particularly the new generation is very comfortable that kind of technology.

So last summer a friend and supporter of mine, actually a pair of sisters, approached me and said we need to do something with Gaza brewing there’s an opportunity opening with people opening their mind that who see that the Zionists and the jewish Israelis to a large degree, not all of them, are pushing and committing genocide. The United Nations Commission has officially recognised Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza with the justification that they have to pre-emptively wipe out the Gazans in order to prevent them from committing another holocaust against the jews.

So the Holocaust is used as a political weapon to commit mass atrocities, to commit a genocide. That has made people realise that the agendas and the historical narrative pushed by Zionists and it’s not just jewish Zionists, I always say there are more Christian Zionists in the world than they are jewish Zionists, is recognised by people as being illegitimate, as being driven by a Holocaust narrative that is misused for these ends. And they see how the narrative about what happened on October 7th back in when was that? 2023, right? So long ago already, wasn’t quite accurate what Zionist sources told about it either. So there is the distortion and misuse of history for political purposes.

And then people are willing with their open mind:

“Wait, what’s going on here?”

To look back in history and see other cases and then to look at the big elephant in the room when it comes to historical narratives. And that’s the Holocaust used by pressure groups, not just jewish, not just Zionist ones, to push their agendas.

With that said, I couldn’t really bail out anymore. Unfortunately I had gone through a divorce in the meantime. And so my agreement with my ex-wife was no excuse anymore, that had evaporated. So with my family situation, most of my children are now grown up and they’re out of the home. There’s only one left who needs a little bit more of tender loving care still.

So that argument is gone. The logistical nightmare of doing physical conferences doesn’t exist when you do a virtual one. And I had agreed:

“Okay, let’s do it!”

The sisters actually suggested a name, Holocaust Summit.

So I went online and looked whether the domain name is still there was. HolocaustSummit.com was available. I instantly reserved it and we started contacting people who would be willing to present it. Now the website is up. If we can share that screen with the audience. I’d like to go through a number of things we’ve put up there.

So as I mentioned, anyone can go there. Holocaust Summit.com, and it is organised and sponsored by a number of organisations. I’ve actually created a Holocaust Academy roughly a year ago, which I plan on and in the process of developing as a platform to teach sound Holocaust historiography to whoever wants to listen to give an accurate and holistic picture of the evidentiary situation when it comes to this event.

One of the first things that we’re now doing as the academy, major things we have already given private lessons, but the website itself is currently under development. So having a curriculum of a college style is somewhat daunting. But I’m working together with a retired Professor of humanities to get this going. And sometime later this year we will have that flying. But it will come now into the open as the organisation that will officially host the Holocaust Summit. So we are going to be independent, we’re going to be fearless, because unfortunately in this area you have to be! And we are not going to be censored if we can help it. And we’re not going to be constrained by politically correct taboos of thinking and asking questions and looking for answers.

So we’ll be tackling the most harmful ideology, undermining peace, truth and freedom world-wide. Because the Holocaust is used to trigger wars and genocides. That is used to enact censorship laws that suppress the search, the sharing of truth, and thus is used as a starting point for government to increase censorship measures. It’s easy to get a quote, unquote, “anti-Holocaust denial” law through Parliament.

And once the first fortress of freedom has fallen, then censorship like a cancer grows. And we see that in every country in the UK. You know it for yourself, what’s going on in your country. It used to be a stronghold of freedom of speech until they passed the new., … What was in 2002, I think the Public Communications Act. And now it’s completely escalating with the constraints they put on it.

So we need to be aware that the Holocaust is at the centre of the orthodox Holocaust narrative and its abuse, its misuse for political purposes, is at the centre of the problem of deteriorating freedom world-wide, or at least in the Western hemisphere.

Now we have picked the 27th of January, which, what is today, the 20th? I’m getting flustered here. Third. It’s already the 23rd, so it’s just in four days and next Tuesday should be. We picked that day for a reason. 27th of January 1945 was the day when the Red Army conquered the Auschwitz camp. And I choose that word wisely because the Red Army never “liberated” anyone. So they conquered the camp. And in 2005, if I’m not mistaken, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that particular day 27 January, International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

So the iconic camp of Auschwitz, which is the most known alleged crime scene of what is labelled the Holocaust, Auschwitz is also the reason why we have this day as the international day of commemorating this event. And we want to use that too. Commemorating the truth and the lies, the exaggerations and distortions and the victims of this Holocaust narrative. The Gazans are the most recent, most extreme victims of this narrative. But we will have people present their experience of persecution and prosecution. Victims, martyrs, dissidents thrown into prison or having their livelihood destroyed.

So there’s a lot to commemorate and remember for us as well, and we will do that as well.

So the event itself will start 9:00 AM Eastern US time, which if I’m not mistaken is 2 clock in the afternoon for the UK and 3 PM for the rest of the most of the, …

Mark Collett: I think 7 PM in the UK. 2 PM Eastern is 7 PM in the UK.

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, but we started 9 AM so it should be 2 PM

Mark Collett: Oh, okay. Sorry.

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. We actually may start the stream a little earlier to test things and make things sure that things are running smoothly and make few accommodations and have a few organisational remarks before actually the day picks up with the presentations that we have.

Now if you click on the second link there, that CCR list and timeline of presenters that gets everyone down to the actual table where we have the presenters.

So this is our day. How we plan on having it unfold. We have the day started out with a contribution that I’m giving. Originally we had hoped actually for Nicholas Kollerstrom to take that spot. He initially had submitted a paper but then he had to retract it because it came under pressure, has been under pressure for a long time. So he wanted to talk about the English eclipse of communications.

But anyway, it’s not going to happen. There’s already one casualty of censorship and suppression, which is mounting and increasing in the UK. So I’ve taken that spot. And I take the opportunity because that event, short side note here, that event of course is streamed live. We will have the links on that website where people can reach it. Actually at the top there is already one and we’ll keep that updated.

But it’s a Tuesday. Not everyone will be able to sit and watch an event like this all day, on a normal workday. We will of course record it will be posted and people will be able to watch it whenever they please. And we will have it not only on our holocaustsummit.com website, but the company that actually hosts it, as at least the plan, is FTG media.com, and they are an independent platform.

So when it comes to them, we will not be de-platformed because it’s owned actually by one of the board members of one of our main sponsors, which is the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. And he’s on the board there and he has suggested we use that platform so that we can’t be de-platformed.

I will be talking about 80 years of Holocaust scepticism, whence we came and where we are. So I give a historical overview since we assume that a lot of people over time, as years go by and these contributions will be accessible, a lot of people will not know much about our School of thought, its history and its views, that an introduction is due. We haven’t had anything like this happen in 20 years.

So there’s an entire generation that has grown up which needs to be or should be given an introduction of what we are handling and what we’re dealing with here. So I will be talking about the main events and the main achievements of Holocaust scepticism over the past, well, since the end of the war, basically 1946 or 47 when it kind of started. And in the second half I will give a quick rundown giving the most striking, the most convincing arguments why everyone should be sceptical about the mainstream Holocaust narrative, and give resources in that context where people can learn more.

So with that, the event kicks off. Every contribution, full contribution will have 45 minutes. I hope everyone stays in that slot, but you know how it goes. There will be a time overrun, possibly. Followed by 15 minutes of question answers. There will be a chat feature, FTG media.com like any other, like Rumble, like YouTube has a chat feature. In order to chat you have to have registered with the platform that doesn’t cost anything. You just submit your email address and get a free account and then you can chat. Now for the question and answer series session at the end, the last quarter hour, people are requested to make a donation in order to submit a question like the Superchat and various other platforms. And in order to do that you have to have a wallet with FTG media and the wallet is just automatically set up. When you get an account, you just have to fill it with some funds, whatever resources you take it from, plastic money or crypto or whatever.

So that is the plan. My contribution is followed by a compatriot of yours, James Mosley, who is a Catholic priest from the UK. He has done a number of documentaries on the Holocaust over the past several years. Really good documentaries. And when he was working on his first one, he approached me and asked me a number of questions. So I became his historical advisor, if you wish. Each time he was working on one, he submitted what he was doing and I would make suggestion how to improve it.

And he will be presenting what he found about the evidentiary situation in one particular camp that he had investigated and done a documentary on. And that’s Treblinka. Now if you click on James Mawdsley’s name up there in the list that actually will get you to, for every one of the presenters will get you to where there’s a short bio, you can see a portrait and a summary of the presentation. If you scroll a little up or down, you can go back to the list, back to the timetable.

So this is James Mawdsley. We have actually grouped the European presenters first. UK comes first. James Mawdsley. Next one is Peter Rushton, also from the UK and he will be talking about also history between dogma and taboo. He talks about the British intelligence communications and interaction with the German intelligence toward the end of the war. Looking for evidence that the Brits were really thinking that the German intelligence community, which was under the rule of Heinrich Himmler, the supposed main architect of the Holocaust, that the British were actually acting and communicating as if they believed that Himmler was really murdering or had already murdered at that point of time six million jews is a very interesting contribution. I’m looking forward to myself that the title of it, the Dog that Didn’t Bark is already an indication of which direction that will go.

We’re having a lunch break after that. It is scheduled to be 2 hours long now I expect some time overruns and maybe stretching into the hour between 12 and 1. But we will have enough time during that break and I have yet to announce it because we just finished up preparing for this. The lunch break will have will see the premiering of a new documentary we have just finished. And this is about an appearance of representatives of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust in the public arena. And we had a little bit of an impact there and we want to share that with the community. That’s I think a 35 minutes so it will fit in there either way.

So in the afternoon the first session is actually shared by three individuals who will be talking about their personal experience getting into Holocaust scepticism, how that happened and then also to what degree they were exposed to persecution, prosecution, ostracism and that kind of stuff. Nathaniel Kapner has been a very active person on social media, on YouTube, and now on other alternative platforms going after self-chosen people and their capers and also critiquing the misuse of history for political purposes.

Leo Walls is a bookstore owner in the US who tells his story of how that went when he started offering books that most don’t like.

And Georges-Marc Theil is actually a French fellow who has had decades of experiences of exposure to persecution in France.

Which leads us then to the next contribution that’s a bigger one. Seasoned revisionist Vincent Reynouard from France has under his belt now already 30 years of activism and I would say historical scepticism in general on the World War II issue, not just the Holocaust. And he has been the main focus as of last two, three years of the French judiciary to lock him away for good. He currently has to deal with seven court cases at once. He will be speaking during his presentation primarily about his experience of the abuse, … No. Not the abuse, the misuse of the law and the judiciary to suppress dissidents, peaceful dissidents on historical issues.

And after that we go into abuse of power and politics based on history. Heinz Bartesch and Andrew Allen will report about their experience with the Office of Special Investigations, that’s the jewish branch of the FBI that was focusing on what they call informally, “Nazi Hunting”. Hunting down immigrants who had some association during the war with what the Axis powers were doing and the OSI was trying to deprive them of their immigration status or even citizenship and deport them to Europe to have them put on show trials there. The biggest case known is probably the case of Ivan Demjanjuk, John Demjanjuk from the 1980s. Bartesch and Allen will actually discuss a different case, that concerns Heinz Bartesch’s father, late father, who the OSI wanted to deport. And they got a bloody nose because they didn’t reckon with the stiff resistance and skilled defense that Andrew Allen, a lawyer from the San Francisco Bay area, was putting up. They were presenting some insight into how the FBI’s branch, back in the days, it has been disbanded by now, was violating the law, breaking the law left and right and forging evidence and so forth in order to frame immigrants, just to have a heyday for themselves or to push Holocaust propaganda.

After that we have retired Professor Dr. David Scrbina, who used to lecture in the humanities and philosophy at Michigan State University, if I’m not mistaken. He will be talking about early mainstream voices of Holocaust scepticism already during the war and right not too long after the war, which shows that back in the days, even mainstream people were sceptical about the narrative being pushed at war’s end.

And we wrap up the day making full circle what I started beginning the day, showing where we came from and where we are. Carlo Mattogno, probably the most prolific revisionist scholar and writer that we have, but in my opinion, also the most knowledgeable Holocaust scholar on the planet! The mainstream included! He is. He can’t speak English or understand it well, and he is currently in a besieged situation in Italy where they passed a law in 2016, threatening anyone voicing their dissent on the Holocaust narrative with up to six years in prison. Now they haven’t done anything against him, even though he kept publishing books by the truckload. I think he’s by now more than 50 books published on that topic. But he does that in a very scholarly manner and in a very low profile. So in Italy there are a few, 10 people and maybe buy the books, but they’re kind of shelf warmers. And he wants to keep it that way. He doesn’t want to gain a larger profile. He wants to do his work underneath the radar of public attention in Italy. And therefore he has submitted his paper to me to present it. And I have increased it by my own take of: Where Do We Go from Here? One part of it is what are the White spots on the map of Holocaust historiography, which still need to be investigated, explored. But also what else needs to be done to hand the relay staff over to the next generation. And there are some quite promising prospects when it comes to new people coming on board with new ideas, with the help of new technologies, bringing it to a new level and a different level. So trying to imitate or copy what Carlo Mattogno has done with his massive work is not what’s going to happen. The direction I think will go somewhere completely different. And I will be talking about that and hopefully this is going to happen. And with this I hope we will be closing the day.

Now, there’s always a possibility that things don’t run as smoothly as they are listed here. Just today we got information that a powerful group, international group, in the business of suppressing a free speech and freedom of assembly. They call themselves “Opponents Against Racism and Anti-semitism”. But basically what that means is they want to stifle anyone who has an opinion that certain ethnic and religious groups with power and influence, don’t want to hear!

So they are working in the background. We know of that and we hopefully will be able to prepare for there’s no way of telling from DDoS attacks to trying to get to the backbone provider and what have you. Anything is possible these days to just. And if it takes to turn off the power plant so you don’t have electricity, [chuckling] but that’s what it takes, that’s what they’ll do! So we expect something. They have noticed with the kind of exposure that our Summit has already received beforehand that we are there, what we’re doing and that we are reaching out and having a ripple effect and they don’t like it!

Now the kind of presentation that I’m giving here right now, I’ve done a number of them. If you scroll up on the screen here slowly, you can actually see listed on the right-hand side a number of presentations linked to of other platforms where I have given an introduction to this event. So if anyone is interested in listening to those, you just click on the image and go to the respective platform which is usually Rumble or Bitchute where this is posted. And because of this, I think, and you helping out now too, this event hopefully is going to be a success. It promises to be a success for us, and it threatens to become one for those who don’t want our voices to be heard.

So there is going to be in the background the usual electronic warfare from the traditional enemies of free speech, to be expected, and we will see how that goes.

This is by and large my narrative now we are here right on the screen where the organisation of that event is shown. We actually, when we submitted to people who were potentially able to give presentations, the invitation to do so, we said we basically accept papers on three main topics.

The first is Holocaust in History, Taboo Between Dogma and Descent. It just talks about new historical findings and insights and interpretations on the event itself. The next one is Holocaust and Politics History as a Weapon. And I mentioned we have one contribution in this regard which will discuss the weaponisation of immigration law against immigrants in order to get propaganda campaigns out of it. And the last one is Holocaust and Human Rights History as a Muzzle, Holocaust Used to Push Censorship. And we have a number of presenters as mentioned who will discuss their very private experience of censorship.

So it should all be civilised and decent and for no one to get overly excited about in either direction. But of course certain groups get extremely excited if they fear that voices be heard that can disrupt their main source of power and influence.

And there’s a lot at stake for them and they will go to extremes if need be to shut us down. We’ll see who at the end will have the upper hand.

Mark Collett: So are you expecting the usual sort of suspects to try and put a stop to this? Have you had anybody threaten your platform or have you had any threats in the run up to this or any attempts to stop this already?

Germar Rudolf: Yes, yes! We just today we got information that as I mentioned, you can have your own platform which is a computer program, but it has to run at the end of the day. It has to run on a server and has to have the connection to the backbone with the Internet cables with enough bandwidth. And usually you have some company providing services from the telecommunications company that hooks you up to what we call today the Internet, the physical Internet, to companies who do server co-location or dedicated server renting. And along that line I’m not quite sure what it was and I wouldn’t necessarily want to reveal it either. We already had approaches from certain quarters of pressure groups to shut down any link in that chain that would get our voice from where we sit to the Internet to the world. So that’s going on in the background and we have to see how that goes. Nothing has been shut down yet, but they’re trying.

Mark Collett: And when you kick this off, what sort of attendance are you expecting?

Germar Rudolf: Well, the Holocaust Summit website itself, HolocaustSummit.com if you go to the top, you actually see a link there where people can jump to the sign up form and just submit their email address so that they can stay informed if there are any sudden changes in the timeline in whatever is going to happen. Because we never know. If we go by that the last time I checked and that’s a week ago, that’s not quite accurate. We had submitted 300 emails through that. But I would expect these are only the hardcore ones who are willing to share their email. And the other, there’s not really a need if you just keep to the website. Go to the website and look up what the link is to the actual event and we will have it posted on other websites as well. You don’t have to identify yourself. So I would assume that the vast majority will not identify themselves even with an anonymous email.

So we need to see how it goes. I don’t know. Sign up has really accelerated with my frequent experience appearances on shows like yours over the past two weeks. And I would assume by now we have probably harvested several hundred more. But there’s no way of telling, as I mentioned, how many people who, how many of those who will attend will actually have submitted their email address. I would assume it’s a minority.

So hopefully we are going to have several thousand which will most certainly exceed, far exceed the range we could have had in the past with physical conferences, which were limited to a few hundred.

And of course then we have it not just streamed, but we have it posted. So on the usual platforms that will reach many, many more thousands, ten thousands in days, weeks, a month and years to come.

Mark Collett: And bearing in mind you said you are going to be doing donations and questions and answers on the day, sort of how do you expect or is there a way that people can sort of sponsor you in advance?

So obviously these events, they take a lot of time and effort to put together. I know it’s not a physical event and I know you’re not paying people to be there, but sort of, is there a way that people can actually sponsor the event and make donations in advance to help you guys with your infrastructure and to make sure the event goes smoothly?

Germar Rudolf: Absolutely! The HolocaustSummit.com website itself, if you were to go there and you go to the very end of the very bottom of the page, it shows the logos of the two companies who are the main sponsors and have officially declared themselves to be sponsors. You know, most actually want to stay anonymous. But there’s also a link that simply says, “Become an AMREC Holocaust Summit sponsor today”, which gets you to the shop of our Holocaust Academy where you can buy sponsorship packages and that actually has several tiers of whatever you want to invest in it. This would be the way to go. So holocaustsummit.com at the very bottom of the page, that’s where you could chip in to cover any costs. Most of us are actually working for free right now and there’s no payment. And FTG Media.com is a sponsor itself and their way of sponsoring is by giving us access to the platform free of charge. We don’t know what happens if, excuse my French, shit hit the fan with all kinds of attempts to shut us down and then we have to come to some more expensive ad hoc solutions to circumvent these things. There’s no way of telling right now!

Mark Collett: And one final question. So with it being on a Tuesday, it’s going to be difficult for some people to attend. Obviously it looks like it’s going to be a fascinating day and your lineup is an extremely strong lineup. And it’s rare to have a conference that is that well packed with guests, to start at 9 AM and go all the way through to 6 PM. It’s a big event. So where will this be posted for Replay? Is this going to be up on Odysee? What sort of places will it be available on replay?

And as a final sort of additional question, usually with conferences there are some kind of sort of, I don’t know, maybe a brochure, or some kind of physical keepsakes available. Is there any merchandise that people can purchase as well to support the event? So sort of two questions. There will there be sort of a full re-upload of everything? And is the like to commemorate this, any kind of physical merchandise that supporters could also purchase?

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. So to the first question, once the event is over, it’s getting archived on our own website. HolocaustSummit.com will be moved to a folder 2026, and we will have there with posters and a short description, all the contributions listed. You click on it and you will probably have several options. They will be on Rumble and Bitshute and Odysee, and you can pick which platform you want to watch it on. We are probably not going to strain our own server because those platforms are good enough.

So this will all be available and the link to that archive will then be of course on the front page, on the home page, prominently displayed. When it comes to merchandise, we just started developing that and if I am not mistaken, … Let me have a quick look where we are with this.

The only company right now that actually has a merch contract is Armreg and we are developing, … Now if you were to go to armreg.co.uk as you know, the publishing branch of what we are doing is actually located in the UK. It is located in London. So if you go to armreg.co.uk and share that with the audience or do you want me to share it? Which way is faster?

Mark Collett: I’m just doing that myself now.

Germar Rudolf: So Armreg.co.uk.

Mark Collett: Just bringing that up. There’ll be two seconds. Just give me a couple of seconds just to get that set up. There we go.

Germar Rudolf: Okay, now at the top menu you see merch as the third entry. Yeah, click on that’s for merchandise and once that has loaded.

Mark Collett: Oh, it has loaded. Sorry, it’s just now I have to share that window as well. Well, just give me a second because it’s a pop out window. So two seconds. It’s weird how that works. Give me a second. Share screen. That’s the one.

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, that’s the one, yeah.

So if you scroll down a little, we have our various merchandise there’s one for Armreg itself and general stuff and there you see some merchandise. We have a mug and a Tshirt right now that has the announcement of that particular event.

Mark Collett: Wonderful.

Germar Rudolf: So that’s how to go about it.

Now I have still to put that link more prominently on the Holocaust Summit website so people can get there directly. That’s  a good point for you to make that and I will make that happen once we’re off here, and I will add that to the site so people can get to the merchandise easily.

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much! We do have some Superchats so I’m just going to bring them up two seconds. We actually have a couple that hung over from the other night, so I’ll deal with them quickly. Covenant Soldier gave $10. Thank you so much! And said:

“Love the show with Rob Rondo. Hail the active clubs.”

Thank you so much! Flying Dutchman gave $50.

Thank you very much. And said:

“Catching up. Happy New Year!

Well, thank you my friend. I’ve actually sent you a message today so you can pick that up on Telegram. Thank you very much. Nationless Nationalist gave $3. Thank you so much! And said:

“Hope and encouragement to those suffering in silence.”

Well, thank you so much! Some Guy 14 gave $10, thank you so much! Said:

“Qu huge respect to Mr. Rudolf.”

Thank you so much! And Aunt Sally gave $5 and said:

“Mark, how likely am I to get my door kicked in for watching this conference?”

In the UK you see, one thing I’ll say is like in the UK, if I’m correct, And I’m just getting this sort of as correct as I can. In the UK it isn’t illegal to actually deny the Holocaust or to engage in revisionism, as far as I know.

However, if you were to do so in a way that was seen as insulting or demeaning to people, it would be. So if you were making jokes or if you were saying things which were couched in the way that was meant to be insulting, that may be illegal.

However, if you were doing sort of academic work such as what you do, that would be seen in a different light.

So I think in the UK this would be legal, but it would be very hard for anyone to get into trouble for simply watching this at home. Would you agree with that?

Germar Rudolf: Absolutely! We have, with all the censorship laws we have not a single case where a country has stooped down to the point where they persecute people for just attending, listening and consuming. Even the countries with the harshest policies when it comes to this. That’s Austria and Germany. You can, for instance, you can buy Holocaust sceptical literature that is not illegal if you buy only one copy for your own use. If the government happens to intercept it, they can still destroy it, but they can’t prosecute you for it. The same with attending a conference like this. It is not an offence in any country of the Western world. And when it comes to the UK, case law says you can contest the mainstream Holocaust narrative until you’re blue in the face. What you cannot do is in that context, disparage victims, survivors, martyrs, whatever. So in any way talking ironically, sarcastically, humourously, or in any way that is considered offending toward the survivors, the victims and so forth.

Now the company, as I just mentioned, Armreg.co.uk that has published and republished all this material and before that we were actually in the UK since 1996. I was personally, I lived in the UK until 1999. And I started the whole operation there. And it was called Castle Hill Publishers has gone belly up in late 2023, and then we switched over to Amreg. So just a reorganisation basically. Almost at all times been in the UK except for a stretch of one and a half, two years, and we have never been harassed by anyone. So keeping it scholarly, keeping it matter of factly and civilised, as you should, any discourse anyhow, keeps you safe in the UK for now.

Anyone attending, when you are in the chat and you make comments in there that can be considered disparaging to jews in general or survivors or descendants and victims of the National Socialist persecution of the jews. And you do that with an account that for some reason, because you set it up that way, allows the authorities to identify you, which would probably not be smart.

If you want to go on FTG media or somewhere else, use an ID that doesn’t allow anyone to identify you. And if an email is required, if you want safety, use a burner email or someone, some email that is not officially traceable to you directly.

However, if you abstain from making those kind of comments, which I advise under any circumstances, because nasty language doesn’t reflect good on the community and I’m no fan of it. So if you abstain from these kind of comments, you should be good under any circumstances on any place on this planet.

It’s different for our presenters. Some of them come from Europe and as I’ve mentioned, when we’re talking about those coming from France, they’re talking about their persecution. They’re not going to make statements on history themselves because we don’t want to get them in trouble. And if we have the question and answer session, I would like the audience also to abstain from questions that corners those French individuals and putting them on the spot, because they need to fly home and don’t want to be arrested. Not fly home, [chuckling] because they are at home! They don’t want to get arrested the next morning or whenever.

Mark Collett: Yeah, and I want to echo that. I mean, look, I believe it’s very important to talk about the kind of things that we’re talking about tonight. I think it’s important that we discuss things like this.

But I also think it’s very important to ensure that we do so in a productive and polite manner. Talking about this kind of stuff in a way that is disparaging or rude or ridiculous, it not only opens you up for arrest, which is a ridiculous position to put yourself in, but it also demeans the seriousness of the topic and it takes what we do out of an academic light.

Now, I’m not a revisionist. I talk about revisionism. I have revisionist guests on, but I’m generally speaking somebody who talks about demography and jewish or Zionist power and the way that jewish power affects the Western world. They’re the topics that I mainly specialise in. I do speak to revisionists. I’m interested in it. But obviously, if you are going to get involved in this, my suggestion is that you deal with it in an academic way for your own safety.

And also so the topic is held in the high regard that it deserves to be held in. If you’re there sort of cracking jokes and sharing memes and trying to be as edgy as possible, kind of undermines what people like Germar are doing. And there’s an awful lot of revisionists who have suffered greatly at the hands of the authorities over the years. And you don’t want to demean their suffering and their sacrifices.

We’ve got a five dollar Superchat from Mr. Smalls 14, who, regardless of what I just said, said:

“Germar, is it true you tried to sell soap in Sacramento with Pastor Eli?”

That’s obviously one of those jokes. You don’t have to answer that if you don’t wish. No.

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. The UK’s attitude towards Germany is that Germans have no humour. And you need to understand that the chicken has come to roost. The UK, as a winner of the Second World War, has pushed Germany in a situation where Germans can go to prison for jokes. The shortest German joke, do you know what that is?

Mark Collett: No, I don’t.

Germar Rudolf: The German word for joke is “witz”. Okay. The shortest German joke is “Ausch-witz”.

Mark Collett: [uncertain laughter from Mark]

Germar Rudolf: That gets you in prison in Germany.

Mark Collett: Indeed, indeed.

Germar Rudolf: So Germans don’t have humour because they have to watch their back. And they had to watch their backs for centuries. The Nazis didn’t invent book burning and the current government didn’t invent censorship laws. Germany has been under the stranglehold in the medievals of the Holy Inquisition, the worst of all European countries. So it has been bred into the German and out of the Germans to make certain jokes. Jokes live from the tension of putting things together that are not quite acceptable, talking seriously about them. So you package them.  And that is exactly the attempt that this fellow has been doing, pushing the envelope into the not quite acceptable. But making this joke.

And that has become a crime in Germany and in borderline areas, has always been. And now in the UK, people are getting in trouble for showing sarcasm, irony and so forth in that context. If and when jokes become punishable by law, you stop laughing! And I take that opportunity to make that clear. These kind of jokes. Make them when you’re sitting in the bar, but don’t make them publicly.

Mark Collett: Yeah, I want to sort of echo this is a serious point. So I actually believe that when it comes to comedy, when it comes to humour, when it comes to making a joke, really nothing should be off limits.

And once you start making certain things off limits, it’s very easy to make anything and everything off limits. So then you get sort of the Edinburgh Fringe voting the joke of the year as “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Because no one’s allowed to actually joke about anything else.

And I think it was Jimmy Carr who made the remark, a famous British comedian, who made the remark that:

“He’s probably already made the joke that will get him one day cancelled and ruin his career.”

And that’s how it is, because we constantly see the mainstream media, liberals, sort of fans of censorship, spending hours, if not days, if not in some cases weeks, trawling through people’s back catalogue of streams, tweets, Facebook posts, searching for something that they can find offensive in order to cancel someone, or worse still, get them arrested. And I find this very interesting because I’ve wrestled with this myself. People might say:

“Well, look, Mark, I came to your shows and I’ve now watched 200 hours of them and I found these three things offensive.”

And my question would be, if you came to the shows of Britain’s leading ethno-nationalists, and you were looking to find something offensive, is that really my fault? You know, I’m not out there saying it in the street. I’m not shouting it through a megaphone into people’s faces. I’m hosting a show. People come to the show, they know what they’re gonna get when they come to the show. This isn’t something that’s being broadcast to every car and home and workplace in the UK. You come here and you seek this out, knowing that you’re going to get a discussion about things relating to our cause.

And I think the people going out of their way to dig things up on people and to, it’s like Germar’s conference. If you were to go there and to record everything that was said and watch it in detail, taking notes, looking to find something offensive, that kind of defeats the object of watching the conference in the first place or attending the conference in the first place, because you’re not going there in good faith and then finding it offensive by accident. You’re going there on purpose to look for a reason to be offended so that you can then report it.

And this is one of the widespread problems in the West that people, the people who claim they don’t want to be offended will go out of their way and go to great lengths in order to be offended, or so they can claim that they were offended in order to report people to the authorities, which is just essentially a charter for censorship, allowing this to happen. But I do always ask people to be respectful, to exercise caution, not to use racial stuff.

As I said to all my guests, you know, please abide by sensible rules so that we are always the polite academic group that talk about things in a sensible manner.

And one thing that impresses me with Germar both times I’ve had him on is the way he can speak so fluently and in such a way that I think it would be impossible for anyone to find him offensive unless they were going out of their way to do. Optics prime gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

“This man is a national treasure. Thank you for your work, good sir.”

Well, thank you for that Superchat. Lars Aerback with AE, gave $15.

Thank you so much! He said:

“A positive story from Denmark today. Our Supreme Court acquitted a man for hosting a site with racist jokes. Old fashioned holocaust jokes amongst them. The case has been through all three courts and has been going for over six years. This is a win for freedom of speech!”

Well, that is certainly good news from Denmark, and I hope to see more.

Germar Rudolf: Denmark? Regarding Denmark?

Mark Collett: Yeah.

Germar Rudolf: Oh that’s good! Yeah. Denmark has been a stronghold in all those years. Some German holocaust sceptics and historical sceptics actually fled to Denmark and found refuge there over the past four, five, six decades.

Mark Collett: And I’d like to say as well, big thank you to Malibu and Coke for gifting 10 subs to the channel.

And as I always say, those who accepted the gifted subs. It would mean a great deal to me if you kept them up. You know, $5 a month means very little to most people, but if I had four or five hundred people every month subbing my channel, it would take a lot of weight off my mind at the beginning of every month.

And that’s the end of the Superchat so I’m going to bring the stream to a close now. You’ve been a wonderful guest as ever! The advert for the conference has been excellent and again you’ve done most of the heavy lifting tonight and most of the speaking, but is there anything you’d like to say as a final thought before we wrap things up?

Germar Rudolf: Not much more than holocaustsummit.com! So the ultimate link will be streaming and that can change any minute depending on what happens, will be posted there there. If you submit your email, you’ll get it also in an email. And I hope we all see you there! And we are going to build a new community that gets stronger by the day!

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much!

I’d like to thank Germar for being here. He’s a courageous guy. He’s a very good speaker. We have interviewed him in full before. If you want to watch that interview, it is in my previous videos. Go and watch it. It’s well worth watching. It’s a two hour special, that one where we talk about Germar’s personal journey, what he’s been through, the incredible repression he’s faced and his incredible journey in his life. Please do that and also support his event, support his work. He’s a really nice guy. It was really kind of him to come on here tonight and he’s been, as always, the perfect guest.

I’d like to remind you all that I will be back on Sunday with the ladies from Return to the Land. That’s three housewives, mothers and home-schoolers from Return to the Land talking about women in nationalism and their roles as mothers and homemakers and educators. So that’ll be an interesting stream. Please join me then 7 PM UK time on Sunday for that. Until then, if you’re out doing activism at the weekend, please be safe, stay within the law and know your rights. And until Sunday, have a great evening, have a great weekend and I’ll see you all again soon.

Thank you to Germar, thank you to everyone who donated so generously. And as always, thank you to this wonderful community for supporting us, for supporting these shows and for supporting the good work of my guests. Thank you everyone. I love you all. Have a great weekend. Good night.

https://katana17.com/2026/01/25/mark-collett-germar-rudolf-holocaust-summit-2026-jan-23-2026-transcript/




Thursday, January 22, 2026

The Culture of Critique - Preface to the 2025 Edition


The Culture of Critique (hereafter CofC) was originally published in 1998 by Praeger, an academic publisher. The thesis of the book is a difficult one indeed—difficult not only because it is difficult to establish, but also because it challenges many fundamental assumptions about our contemporary intellectual and political existence.

CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the twentieth century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity and upward mobility either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., Jewish activism promoting the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors—the European peoples who early in the twentieth century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States and the wider Anglosphere. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political, and cultural dominance with non-Jews.


Here I attempt to answer some typical criticisms that have been leveled against CofC.1 I also discuss issues raised by several books that have appeared since the publication of CofC.

There have been criticisms that I am viewing Judaism as a monolithic entity. This is definitely not the case. Rather, with all the movements that I discuss, my methodology has been as follows:

(1) Find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are. For example, I touch on Jewish neoconservatism (Ch. 4), which is a departure in some ways from the other movements I discuss. In general, relatively few Jews were involved in most of these movements, and significant numbers of Jews may have been unaware of their existence. Even Jewish leftist radicalism—surely the most widespread and influential Jewish subculture of the twentieth century—may have been a minority movement within Jewish communities in the United States and other Western societies for most periods. As a result, when I criticize these movements, I am not necessarily criticizing most Jews. Nevertheless, these movements were influential, and they were Jewishly motivated.

(2) Determine whether the Jewish participants in these movements both identified as Jews and thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests. Motivations for involvement may be unconscious or involve self-deception, but for the most part it was quite easy and straightforward to find evidence for both these propositions. If I thought that self-deception was important (as in the case of many Jewish radicals), I provided evidence that in fact they did identify as Jews and were deeply concerned about Jewish issues, despite surface appearances to the contrary.

Thus it does not stand or fall on whether Jews in a particular movement constitute more than their percentage of the population as a whole, whether Jews in general are ethnocentric, the rate of Jewish intermarriage, or whether most Jews were even aware of particular movements—criticisms that have been leveled at CofC by Nathan Cofnas.2 The focus is on describing the Jewish identities of the main figures of influential movements and their concern with specific Jewish issues, such as combating anti-Semitism, as well as the dynamics of these movements—ethnic networking, centering around charismatic figures, connections with prestigious universities and media, involvement of the organized Jewish community, and non-Jews who participated in the movements and their motivations.(3) Attempt to gauge the influence of these movements on gentile society. Keep in mind that the influence of an intellectual or political movement dominated by Jews is independent of the percentage of the Jewish community that is involved in or supports the movement.

(4) Try to show how non-Jews responded to these movements—for example, were they a source of anti-Semitism?

Several of the movements I discuss have been very influential in the social sciences. However, I do not argue that there are no Jews who do good social science, and in fact I provide a list of prominent Jewish social scientists who in my opinion do not meet the conditions outlined under (2) above (see Ch. 2). If there was evidence that these social scientists identified as Jews and had a Jewish agenda in doing social science (definitely not for most of those listed, but possibly true in the case of Richard J. Herrnstein—see below), then they would have been candidates for inclusion in the book. The people I cite as contributing to evolutionary or biological perspectives are indeed ethnically Jewish, but for most of them I have no idea whether they either have a strong Jewish identity or if they have a Jewish agenda in pursuing their research simply because there is no evidence to be found in their work or elsewhere. If there is evidence that a prominent evolutionary biologist identifies as a Jew and views his work in sociobiology or evolutionary psychology as advancing his perception of Jewish interests, then he or she could have been in CofC as an example of the phenomenon under study rather than as simply a scientist working in the area of evolutionary studies.Interestingly, in the case of one of those I mention, Richard J. Herrnstein, Alan Ryan (1994) writes, “Herrnstein essentially wants the world in which clever Jewish kids or their equivalent make their way out of their humble backgrounds and end up running Goldman Sachs or the Harvard physics department.” This is a stance that is typical, I suppose, of neoconservatism, a Jewish intellectual and political movement I discuss in Chapter 4, and it is the sort of thing that, if true, would suggest that Herrnstein did perceive the issues discussed in The Bell Curve as affecting Jewish interests in a way that Charles Murray, his co-author, did not. (Ryan contrasts Murray’s and Herrnstein’s worldviews: “Murray wants the Midwest in which he grew up—a world in which the local mechanic didn’t care two cents whether he was or wasn’t brighter than the local math teacher.”) Similarly, twentieth-century theoretical physics does not qualify as a Jewish intellectual movement precisely because there are no signs that Jewish identification and pursuit of Jewish interests were important to the content of the theories or to the conduct of the intellectual movement. Yet Jews have been heavily overrepresented among the ranks of theoretical physicists.This conclusion remains true even though Albert Einstein, a leading figure among theoretical physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist (Fölsing, 1993/1997, pp. 494–505), opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of “mimicry” (p. 490), preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his “tribal companions” (p. 489), embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia that was entirely mainstream in the American Jewish community during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s (pp. 644–645), and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I to advocating for the development of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler. From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians. He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age seventy-three, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: “My relationship with Jewry had become my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations” (in p. 488). According to Fölsing (p. 488), Einstein had begun developing this clarity from an early age, but did not acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: “As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge [his Jewish identity].”In other words, the issues of the ethnic identification and even ethnic activism on the part of people like Einstein are entirely separate from the issue of whether such people viewed the content of the theories themselves as furthering Jewish ethnic interests, and, in the case of Einstein, there is no evidence that he did so. The same cannot be said for Jewish movements covered here in which “scientific” theories were fashioned and deployed to advance ethnic group interests. This ideological purpose becomes clear when the unscientific nature of these movements is understood. Much of the discussion in CofC documented the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of empirical rigor, the obvious political and ethnic motivation, the expulsion of dissenters, the collusion among co-ethnics to dominate intellectual and academic discourse, and the general lack of scientific spirit that pervaded them. In my view, the scientific weakness of these movements is evidence of their group-strategic function.

Frank Salter’s (2000) review in Human Ethology Bulletin discussed some of the controversy surrounding my work, particularly an acrimonious session at the 2000 conference of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society where I was accused of anti-Semitism by several participants. For me the only issue is whether I have been honest in my treatment of sources and whether my conclusions meet the usual standards of scholarly research in the social sciences. Salter notes that I based my research on mainstream sources and that the assertions that have infuriated some colleagues,


are not only true but truisms to those acquainted with the diverse literatures involved. Apart from the political sensitivity of the subject, much of the problem facing MacDonald is that his knowledge is often too far ahead of his detractors to allow easy communication; there are not enough shared premises for constructive dialog. Unfortunately the knowledge gap is closing slowly because some of his most hostile critics, including colleagues who make serious ad hominem accusations, have not bothered to read MacDonald’s books.


Salter also notes that those, such as John Tooby and Steven Pinker, who have denigrated my competence as a scholar in the media, have failed to provide anything approaching a scholarly critique or refutation of my work.

For twenty years there were no academic critiques of CofC despite its being published by an academic publisher. Then, beginning in 2018, Nathan Cofnas published several critiques in academic journals.3 With the exception of Philosophia, an Israeli philosophy journal, those journals did not allow me to reply, but I wrote lengthy responses and posted them on my website. My reply to Cofnas was published by Philosophia (MacDonald, 2022b), but as I noted in recounting this episode, this “resulted almost immediately in hostile comments from Jewish academic activists, calls for retraction, and condemnation of the journal’s editor for allowing such a horrifying breach of academic sensibilities to happen” (MacDonald, 2022a). The editor of the journal was eventually replaced and the article retracted after a back-and-forth with three new reviewers.


Why Are Jews So Influential?


Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and likely have been under genetic selection in Ashkenazi Jewish groups. First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention, psychological intensity and aggressiveness, and finally mention the Jewish guru phenomenon.

The background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, and strong charismatic leadership result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the post-Enlightenment world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of popular and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, even before the Enlightenment Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers.

It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews (see Separation and Its Discontents, hereafter SAID, MacDonald, 1998/2004a, Ch. 3). Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians” (see SAID, Ch. 4). 

Nineteenth-century critics of Jews typically complained about Jewish influence in the media and Jewish wealth that often made traditional Western aristocratic elites subservient to them, and, as Richard Wagner famously did, they complained about Jewish influence on culture (MacDonald, 2023c). Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union and willing participants of horrendous mass murders of its early decades; they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until well after World War II (Ch. 3). They were a central focus of National Socialism in Germany, in part because of the Jewish role in Bolshevism but also because of their influence in the media and culture in general. Jews have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and multicultural/multiethnic revolution in the United States and the West generally, including the encouragement of massive non-White immigration to countries of European origin (see Ch. 8). In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed neoconservative Jews in the George W. Bush administration and the media had a critical role in fomenting wars that benefit Israel (Ch. 4), and neoconservative Jews in the Biden administration encouraged the all-out support for Ukraine against Russia and for Israel against Hamas. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is leading the campaign to dilute the First Amendment in order to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, particularly on X (Twitter), and Jewish billionaires are blacklisting students and withholding funds from universities if they don’t express enthusiastic support for Israel (MacDonald, 2023e). Indeed, I would say that we are once again witnessing an incredible display of Jewish power in the United States.

How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? Part of the story is the individualism of Westerners. In Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (hereafter Individualism, MacDonald, 2019a), I develop the view that Europeans are relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to individualism, as opposed to the ethnocentric, kinship-based, collectivist social structures which are historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to this discussion—Jewish groups (see also Henrich, 2020). 

Individualist cultures show relatively little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself” (Triandis, 1991, p. 82). Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a pro-social, altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of ingroup-outgroup boundaries and thus are less likely to have negative attitudes toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment to and identification with a few ingroups (Triandis, 1990, p. 61). We tend to see people as individuals, as in the ideology of colorblind meritocracy so common among mainstream conservatives. 

Western individualism is unique among the cultures of the world and is largely responsible for the success of the West (Henrich, 2020; Individualism). Whereas other cultures are based on extended families and strong kinship relations (e.g., clan-based cultures), Western cultures deemphasize kinship as the basis of society. Rather than one’s status in a kinship group, individual reputation as being honest and trustworthy is paramount. This leads to lower levels of corruption which plague kinship-based cultures where one’s first duty is to help relatives. Individualists are more prone to trust non-relatives based on their reputation, resulting in the high-trust cultures of the West.

But in the contemporary world, individualism’s weaknesses have become apparent. All societies must have something that holds them together, even the individualist culture of the West. The problem is that the social glue of Western societies is membership in a moral community rather than a kinship group. In the traditional West, the moral community was defined by Christian religious authority. In prehistoric Europe, people who rejected the moral strictures of the community were expelled from the community (a certain death sentence); in historic times, such individuals were ostracized and subjected to other penalties. However, with the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to traditional Christian authority, the moral community of the West has been fashioned by a media and academic culture that is hostile to the people and culture of the West—with disastrous consequences. People who violate the established norms of political correctness, such as being proud of their White identity and believing that Whites have legitimate interests in opposing their demographic replacement and disempowerment, are shunned by friends and family, and they may well lose their jobs. And, as discussed below, Jewish organizations are leading the campaign to establish legal penalties for speech that contravenes the boundaries of political correctness as defined by these organizations.


Background Traits for Jewish Influence


Ethnocentrism. Elsewhere I have argued that Jewish ethnocentrism can be traced back to their Middle Eastern origins (see A People That Shall Dwell Alone, hereafter PTSDA, MacDonald, 1994/2002b). Traditional Jewish culture has a number of features identifying Jews with the ancestral cultures of the area. The most important of these is that Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under circumstances that favored large groups dominated by males (Burton et al., 1996). These groups were basically extended families with high levels of endogamy (i.e., marriage within the kinship group) and consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage to blood relatives), including the uncle-niece marriage sanctioned in the Old Testament. These features are exactly the opposite of Western European tendencies.

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries, and moral particularism represented by the phrase “Is it good for the Jews.” In Jewish religious writings, non-Jews had no moral standing and could be exploited at will as long as doing so didn’t harm the entire group. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups. Group boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as hairstyle or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history. Different groups settle in different areas where they retain their homogeneity alongside other homogeneous groups, as illustrated by the following account from Carleton Coon (1951, p. 153):


There the ideal was to emphasize not the uniformity of the citizens of a country as a whole but a uniformity within each special segment, and the greatest possible contrast between segments. The members of each ethnic unit feel the need to identify themselves by some configuration of symbols. If by virtue of their history they possess some racial peculiarity, this they will enhance by special haircuts and the like; in any case they will wear distinctive garments and behave in a distinctive fashion. 


Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward collectivism and ethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish ethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism—perhaps most notably the ethnic networking that is so important to CofC—and have argued in several places that Jewish ethnocentrism is biologically based (see MacDonald, 2001; SAID, Ch. 1).

A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel Shahak (1994), most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (Shahak & Mezvinsky, 1999). Present-day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in the Kabbala—the Jewish mystical tradition. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist and exclusivist material in the Kabbalistic literature by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Kabbala has a universalist message. The actual texts say salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls” (Shahak & Mezvinsky, 1999, p. 58). 

The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in traditional Jewish society, but remains a powerful current of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:

We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of . . . a totally different species. . . . The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world. . . . The difference of the inner quality [of the body] . . . is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain.” . . . An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. (Shahak & Mezvinsky, 1999, pp. 59–60)These people and secular ethnonationalists, who have basically the same ideas, are firmly in charge in Israel, leading to a long series of protests by liberal Jews in Israel and the U.S. There are many more examples, but in the interest of brevity I’ll leave it at that. Even a prominent Israel apologist like Thomas Friedman (2023) of The New York Times wrote that the present government is a “far-right coalition of Jewish supremacists and ultra-Orthodox Jews.” But the Israel Lobby still dominates Congress and the Executive branch, so there won’t be any changes soon. According to Mitchell Plitnick (2023) writing for Mondoweiss:

When Rep. Jayapal called Israel a racist state in July, Democrats and Republicans leaped on her in a political feeding frenzy. They fell over each other to cash in on the defense of Israel, a state whose racism is not just obvious but a point of pride for many in its government. They immediately and overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating that “the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state.” Jayapal, of course, voted with the majority. The nine who voted against were all progressives who are atop the list of AIPAC’s most hated. It breezed through the Senate by unanimous consent.


Similar overwhelming support for Israel in the Gaza war passed in the House of Representatives and was unanimous in the Senate. Republicans and conservatives generally are especially supportive of Israel.

It’s the same with conservative media. Though I am not entirely sure why this is, it is probably partly because a significant portion of their audiences are Evangelical Protestants who think Israel’s success will inaugurate the Second Coming of Jesus and the end times. It may also be their desire to gain legitimacy in a cultural environment that is completely dominated by the left which accuses anyone to the right of Mitt Romney of being a raving Nazi.

Ethnocentrism is responsive to particular environmental triggers, what evolutionists term “facultative mechanisms,” that is, mechanisms that can be triggered by external circumstances such as perceived threat. The phenomena of a feeling of permanent threat and a siege mentality have been noted by many authors as typical of Jewish culture throughout history (PTSDA, Ch. 7).

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, E. J. Rosen and Weltman (1982, p. 671) note:


Jews have traditionally believed that they are God’s “chosen people.” In Jewish folklore, this notion of “chosenness” has had a double meaning: Although God may have chosen the Jews, they have undergone great travail; their status means that suffering is a basic part of life. A well-known Yiddish saying, “Shver zu zein a yid” (“It’s tough to be a Jew”), while often accompanied by a resigned sigh, may even reinforce the notion of superiority by virtue of the burden of oppression and suggests that one wears the burden of that suffering with pride. 

Zborowski and Herzog (1952, p. 153) note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.”

A good example is how American Jews reacted to the 1967 war. Silberman (1985, p. 184) notes that around the time of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, many Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that “I had not known how Jewish I was.” Silberman comments that “This was the response, not of some newcomer to Judaism or casual devotee but of the man whom many, myself included, consider the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of our time.” Many others made the same surprising discovery about themselves: Arthur Hertzberg (1979, p. 210) wrote:

The immediate reaction of American Jewry to the crisis was far more intense and widespread than anyone could have foreseen. Many Jews would never have believed that grave danger to Israel could dominate their thoughts and emotions to the exclusion of everything else. 


The Israel-Hamas war of 2023–present is no exception. As Chana Hughes (2023) reports:


Our lives have changed forever. We have had to change not just the way we think of Israel but how we think of Britain. The past month has exposed an ugly underside. We once thought we lived in a tolerant society. Now we are asking: ‘Can we safely share our Jewishness here?’, and ‘do we belong?’

As Jews we are familiar with tragedy, threat and betrayal. ‘Always make sure you have your passport in date’, my mother used to tell me. Fortunately, today we are still very far from escape. But the recent rise in anti-Semitism makes us feel like we have moved another step closer.

In the darkest times, however, is when the embers of the Jewish spirit burn brightest. Amidst the tragic loss of life and bloodshed, there are revolutions starting. There is a revolution of Jewish identity and unity.

Although security threats are at their highest, the synagogues have never been fuller. ‘We’ve not seen our synagogue this full since the Pittsburg shooting’, noticed a friend, with a sad laugh. Charities distribute thousands of shabbat candles every Friday, WhatsApp groups encourage psalms to be recited around the clock and hundreds of women gather each week to bake ceremonial challa bread and pray. One local barber, for the first time ever, vowed to close his shop on Shabbat as a sign of solidarity. Members of the community vow to support his business in return.

‘I have never felt my Jewishness the way I do right now’, said a lady, at the kosher butcher, buying chicken soup: ‘Ironically just when we’re under attack.’ Another ex-colleague reached out to me. She had never embraced her Jewish heritage before but now she feels she has to ‘pick a side’. She feels the pain of being vilified and misunderstood but feels that it is worth it. . . .

Pressure builds daily as Israel loses global sympathy and the bloody conflict unfolds. Friends in Israel feel supported there and weirdly they feel safer, even when they run into their bomb shelters. Their sense of connection makes them feel alive. The Jewish community’s unity now feels even stronger in contrast to the splintered in-fighting about Israel’s judicial reform that was rampant prior to the attack. This month, these differences have been put on hold. Faith and togetherness are our community’s protection against threat and we have to cling to them with all our might.


There is also an outpouring of Jewish financial support for Israel in response to the war (Silow-Carroll, 2023). While there are still organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and Mondoweiss that have long condemned Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, they definitely do not represent the vast majority of the power and money of the Jewish community in America.

As the examples from Israel’s wars show, Jewish ethnocentrism is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification—for example, the messages of ever-increasing threat of anti-Semitism promulgated by the ADL—accompanied by highly successful pleas for donations.Bar-Tal and Antebi (1992, p. 643) note: 


[N]ot surprisingly, Siege Mentality is related to Ethnocentrism. The belief that the world has negative intentions towards the group indicates its evil, malice, and aggressiveness. In this context, the group not only feels victimized and self-righteous, but also superior to the out-group. 


Intelligence (and Wealth). The vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. This is a very intelligent group, with an average IQ of approximately 111 with a particular strength in verbal IQ (Lynn, 2011). Since verbal IQ is the best predictor of occupational success and upward mobility in contemporary societies, it is not surprising that Jews are an elite group in the United States. Intelligence, as well as the other traits discussed here, were likely under genetic selection in traditional Ashkenazi societies because scholars were given marriages to the daughters of wealthy Jews, as well as good business opportunities (PTSDA, Ch. 7). Wealth and reproductive success were strongly linked at least prior to the nineteenth century.Nevertheless, because of the demographic differences between Jews and White Americans, there are many more White Americans at any level of IQ required for upward mobility and leadership positions in American society (MacDonald, 2022a). For example, at IQ of 140, there are five times as many White Americans as Jews. Contrary to Cofnas (2021), IQ is thus an insufficient explanation for Jewish influence.

Intelligence and ethnic networking are important for academic success, and in Chapter 2 I show that Jews and Jewish organizations led the intellectual effort to deny the importance of racial and ethnic differences in human affairs and to pathologize any sense of White identity or White interests (see also Chs. 5, 8). The Jewish role in creating the intellectual context of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 relied on the success of the Boasian movement in anthropology in shaping academic views on race by dominating the American Anthropological Association since the 1920s. This theoretical perspective subverted the strong sense of race and racial interests that were prominent trends in academia and the mainstream media during that period. Science is the lingua franca of the West, so the prestige of the Boasians was critical for their success.Intelligence is also linked to wealth. Based on past results, Jews are probably around 35 percent of the wealthiest Americans, and in a democracy, that translates into a well-funded infrastructure of Jewish causes—such as neoconservative think tanks, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the ADL—and political parties; the Democratic Party is basically funded by wealthy Jews, and the Republican Jewish Coalition probably provides 40 percent of Republican donations aimed at supporting Israel and moving the party to the left on social issues. ADL (2022) assets in 2021 were listed at $238,000,000, with $62,000,000 in contributions. The national ADL, like the ACLU, the SPLC, the NAACP, and other so-called civil rights groups, is now merely a tax-exempt cadre of the Democratic Party and is active on behalf of anti-White Critical Race Theory, the transgender revolution, and opposition to any talk about the Great Replacement, claiming that the very idea of a Great Replacement is racist and anti-Semitic (T. Moore, 2021)—while stating that Israel must retain its Jewish majority by controlling immigration and preventing Palestinians on the West Bank from voting. 

Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well-funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual rationales. 

Intelligence and organization are also apparent in Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel. Over thirty years ago a U.S. Defense Department official, noted that, “On all kinds of foreign policy issues the American people just don’t make their voices heard. Jewish groups are the exceptions. They are prepared, superbly briefed. They have their act together. It is hard for bureaucrats not to respond” (Findley, 1989, p. 164). At the time there was concern that the State Department had remained a bastion of old school WASPs. This is not a problem any longer, with neoconservative Jews Antony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, and Wendy Sherman firmly in charge of State, during the Biden administration.

Conscientiousness and Emotional Intensity. In my 1994 book on Judaism, I highlighted two personality traits of Jews, conscientiousness and emotional intensity (PTSDA, Ch. 7). Both are heritable and quite likely under selection in traditional Jewish communities. Conscientiousness, which involves attention to detail, neatness, orderliness, striving for achievement, persistence toward goals in the face of difficulty, and the ability to focus attention and delay gratification, is, along with IQ, linked to upward mobility. Social conscientiousness appears to be a sort of “don’t let down the group” trait, originally proposed by Darwin (1871) as the basis of group allegiance. Individuals high on this trait would be expected to feel intense guilt for having failed to fulfill their obligations to the group. Moreover, given the importance of conformity to group norms for Judaism, it would be expected that individuals who were low on this trait would be disproportionately inclined to abandon Judaism, while successful Jews who were the pillars of the community and thus epitomized the group ethic of Judaism would be disproportionately likely to be high on group conformity—and also likely to be reproductively successful in traditional societies. The result is that there would be strong selection pressures toward high levels of social conscientiousness within the Jewish community.

Conscientiousness was strongly emphasized in Jewish socialization. Thus, a child reared in a traditional Jewish home would have been socialized to continually monitor his/her behavior to ensure compliance with a vast number of restrictions—the numerous commandments of Ashkenazi religious writing. These are exactly the sorts of environmental influences expected to strengthen the conscientiousness system, what I call “system-specific environmental influences” (MacDonald, 2005a).

Jews also tend to be high on the personality trait of affect intensity; i.e., they are prone to intense emotional experience of both positive and negative emotions (Larsen & Diener, 1992). Individuals high on affect intensity have more complex social networks and more complex lives, including multiple and even conflicting goals. They are prone to fast and frequent mood changes and lead varied and variable emotional lives. Clinically, affect intensity is related to cyclothymia (i.e., alternate periods of elation and depression), bipolar affective disorder (i.e., manic depressive psychosis), neurotic symptoms, and somatic complaints (nervousness, feeling uneasy, shortness of breath).

The common perception of Jewish and non-Jewish psychiatric workers from the late nineteenth century until at least the end of the 1920s was that, compared to gentiles, Ashkenazi Jews (and especially male Jews), had relatively sensitive, highly reactive nervous systems, thus making them more prone to the diagnoses of hysteria, manic depression, neurasthenia (Gershon & Liebowitz, 1975; Gilman, 1993 pp. 92ff), and depression, in men only (Levav et al., 1997). Gershon and Liebowitz note that 45 percent of 22 patients had bipolar affective disorder—about the same as in an Iraqi population—compared to 19 percent in a study of northern European populations. Within Israel, they cite an Israeli study (in Hebrew) that found that affective disorders were “much more prevalent” among Ashkenazi Jews than Sephardic Jews (Kalman et al., 1970). Additionally, a “preliminary” study found significantly more patients with affective psychoses and fewer with schizophrenia than among non-Jews (Cooklin et al., 1983). A study from 2000 found that in a sample of Israelis with bipolar disorder, the manic phase was “much more common in Israeli bipolar patients” than European and American populations: 55 percent of the patients have illnesses characterized primarily by manias, 28 percent have approximately equal numbers of manias and depressions, and 17 percent suffer predominantly from depressions, but with no difference between Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations (Osher et al., 2000, p. 187).

I emphasize here that affect intensity is also linked to creativity and the manic phase of bipolar affective disorder which seems to be more common among Jews and a more robust component of manic-depressive illness among Jews (D. M. Tucker et al., 1990). During episodes of mania the person has a grandiose self-image (“I am brilliant and can save the world if only people would listen to me”), goal-directed activity such as obsessively working on a project all night, excessive involvement in pleasurable activity like buying sprees and sexual gratification, and racing thoughts which the manic person thinks are brilliant. The depressive part is just the opposite. 

Many people may be high on emotionality but not meet the criteria for psychopathology. It’s easy to see that people moderately high on positive emotionality—hypomanic or normal but close to the manic range—would be high achievers; they would work persistently toward goals, and they would be very self-confident and have high self-esteem. Such people gravitate to leadership positions in whatever organization they are in, and it’s easy to see that they might become gurus, establishing a devoted following, like charismatic rabbis in traditional Jewish communities—Jewish gurus like Freud, Boas, Trotsky, et al. discussed in the following chapters.For example, Albert Lindemann (1997, p. 448) notes that many of Trotsky’s personality traits are stereotypically Jewish:


If one accepts that anti-Semitism was most potently driven by anxiety and fear, as distinguished from contempt, then the extent to which Trotsky became a source of preoccupation for anti-Semites is significant. Here, too, [Paul] Johnson’s words are suggestive: He writes of Trotsky’s “demonic power” [in A History of the Jews, 1987]—the same term, revealingly, used repeatedly by others in referring to Zinoviev’s oratory or Uritsky’s ruthlessness [Zinoviev and Uritsky were two other prominent early Bolsheviks]. Trotsky’s boundless self-confidence, his notorious arrogance, and sense of superiority were other traits often associated with Jews. Fantasies there were about Trotsky and other Bolsheviks, but there were also realities around which the fantasies grew.

This emotional intensity extends to Jewish academics writing about Jewish history. Lindemann (1997, p. 12) writes:


[E]specially in popular history, a strong tendency exists to favor an emotionally laden description and narrative, especially of colorful, dramatic, or violent episodes, over explanation that employs calm analysis or a searching attention to historical context. Pogroms, famous anti-Semitic affairs, and the description of the ideas of anti-Semitic authors and agitators are described with moral fervor, rhetorical flair, and considerable attention to the details of murder, arson, and rape. Background, context, and motives are often slighted or dealt with in a remarkably thin and tendentious fashion.


Lindemann comments on the impassioned, moralistic rhetoric and simplistic analyses to be found in Robert Wistrich’s Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred and in the writings of Holocaust historians Lucy Dawidowicz and Daniel J. Goldhagen. “In order to write ‘genuine’ German history, [Dawidowicz] seems to think, hatred and resentment rather than sympathy or love constitute the appropriate state of mind. She makes precious little effort to understand the motivations of nineteenth-century nationalistic Germans. They are simply contemptible ‘other people.’” He describes Howard Morley Sachar’s chapter on Romanian anti-Semitism as “a tirade, without the slightest effort at balance” (Lindemann, 1997, p. 509).Affect intensity influences the tone and intensity of Jewish activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: Jewish activism is an intense response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue.

Ashkenazi Jews Are Aggressive. Much of the previous is also about Jewish aggressiveness. Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived among, and they have been perceived as aggressive by their critics. Aggressive behavior by Jews can be found in the ancient world. Bachrach suggests that the Jews were so wealthy, powerful, and aggressive that until around the middle of the fifth century the Roman government viewed a strong anti-Jewish policy as not politically viable, even though it was continually being pressured in this direction by the Church (Bachrach, 1985). The rather limited anti-Jewish actions of the government during the 150 years following the Edict of Toleration of 313 are interpreted “as attempts to protect Christians from a vigorous, powerful, and often aggressive Jewish gens” (p. 408). The Jews themselves were perceived by the emperors, the government, and the Church fathers as “an aggressive, well-organized, wealthy, and powerful minority” (p. 408). Particularly revealing are the suggestion that the solvency of the municipalities depended on Jews paying their taxes and the fear that offending the Jews could set off widespread and costly revolts, such as the one led by Patricius in 351.E. Horowitz (1998, p. 5) recounts the historiography surrounding Jewish violence and aggressiveness, noting, for example, what a nineteenth-century British historian Rev. George Williams had written: 


[The Jews] had followed the Persians from Galilee, to gratify their vengeance by the massacre of the believers, and the demolition of their most sacred churches. They were amply gutted with blood. In a few days 90,000 Christians of both sexes, and of all ages and conditions, fell victims to their indiscriminating hatred.

Commenting on this assertion, E. Horowitz (1998, p. 5–6) notes: 


As we shall see, Jewish contemporaries of Williams described the events of 614 rather similarly. A century later, however, in the years following the Holocaust, memories of Jews gratifying their vengeance and giving vent to their “indiscriminating hatred” began to fade, being displaced increasingly by the Sartrean Jew, “passionately hostile to violence” [a reference Jean Paul Sartre’s philo-Semitic Anti-Semite and Jew]. This was especially true in works dealing with the Holocaust itself. In The Informed Heart (1960), Bruno Bettelheim wondered aloud whether the Nazi notion “that millions of Jews . . . would submit to extermination did not also result from seeing how much degradation they would accept without fighting back.” . . . [Historians] present a monolithic view of a mythic Jewish past in which abhorrence of violence was deeply ingrained in the Jewish self-image. . . . Yet a reexamination of the record of Jewish religious violence against Christians and the external manifestations of their religion during the millennium after the Christianization of the Roman empire under Constantine . . . would reveal patterns of behavior very much at variance with the alleged historic self-image of the Jews “as a people abhorring violence in any form.”

Being aggressive and “pushy” is part of the stereotype of Jews in Western societies, and the behavior of Israeli West Bank settlers—who routinely attack Palestinians with impunity (Bergman & Mazzetti, 2024)—and Israel itself in ethnically cleansing and murdering at least 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza in the war that began on October 7th, 2023 and expanding their territory in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime also fits the stereotype. In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross (1914) commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades to poor Jews attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. For Ross (p. 144–145), while not involving physical violence, “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews,” and:


The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. . . . The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. [During this period, arson aimed at collecting insurance payouts was often termed “Jewish lightening.”] Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”


Ross (1914, p. 150) also reported:


[Immigration officials had] become very sore over the incessant fire of false accusations to which they are subjected by the Jewish press and societies. United States senators complain that during the close of the struggle over the immigration bill they were overwhelmed with a torrent of crooked statistics and misrepresentations by the Hebrews fighting the literacy test.


Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture. From the perspective of Henry Ford’s The International Jew, the United States had imported around 3.5 million mainly Yiddish-speaking, intensely ethnocentric Jewish immigrants over the previous forty years. In that very short period and long prior to achieving anything like the power they obtained after World War II and the 1960s counter-cultural revolution, Jews had had enormous effects on American society, particularly in their attempts to remove expressions of Christianity from public life beginning with an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights. Ford (1920) stated in his outlet, The Dearborn Independent: “The Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the US is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today.”

However, the epitome of Jewish aggression is their long crusade as a tiny minority to alter the ethnic balance of the U.S. in order to prevent the sort of mass movement that occurred in Germany in the 1930s (see Ch. 8).

Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only instruments of Jewish aggressiveness. Jewish groups intimidate their enemies by a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel advocated by Jewish activist organizations have been fired and blacklisted from their jobs, harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive surveillance, and threatened with death. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in the media on Israel as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of the media, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. Paul Findley (1989, p. 296) noted over thirty years ago that there are “threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas”—a phenomenon that, as noted above, is ongoing.

Incidentally, not all Jewish groups have behaved as aggressively toward the surrounding society as have the Ashkenazi groups that make up the great bulk of American Jewry. For example, a community of Syrian Jews called the SY (pronounced “ess-why”) arrived in New York around the same time as the huge influx of Ostjuden (Eastern European Jews). The SY have become wealthy, but they haven’t entered into the power centers of American society. They eschew higher education and have no role in the elite media. They are not involved in the legal profession, politics, or academic departments of the social sciences or humanities. Although they tend to be hawkish on matters related to Israel, they have not been involved in creating the edifice that is the Israel Lobby. One gets the impression that they want to make money and stay under the radar by not making waves—the antithesis of the aggressive posture of the Ostjuden. This is probably how they survived for centuries in the Middle East. In fact, Jews in traditional societies often hid their wealth and controlled the behavior of other Jews so as not to arouse hostility from the surrounding peoples (SAID, Ch. 6). In other words, unlike the Ashkenazim, they have not developed an adversarial, competitive stance toward the people and culture of America. One can’t imagine them developing a lobby that would harness the power of the United States on behalf of a foreign government, nor can one imagine them becoming a hostile elite, as Ashkenazi Jews became in the Soviet Union (MacDonald, 2005b). They have shown no tendencies toward developing a culture of critique that subjected Western culture to what John Murray Cuddihy (1974, p. 68) termed “punitive objectivity” and “the vindictive objectivity of the marginal nonmember.” Unlike their Ashkenazi brethren, they had no impact on Western societies in the twentieth century. In this regard, they are much more like the Overseas Chinese than their Jewish brothers from Eastern Europe. To understand the origins and the power of the Israel Lobby, one has to understand the Ostjuden—the fons et origo of the two most potent and aggressive twentieth-century Jewish movements: political radicalism and Zionism. It is not that the Ostjuden are particularly ethnocentric compared to other Jews. They are, if anything, less ethnocentric than the SYs with their hyperxenophobia and obsession with blood purity (Chafets, 2007). Indeed, it is obvious that the Ostjuden could never have been so successful in creating the Israel Lobby or in altering the culture and demography of the West had they remained as a hermetically sealed community, shut off from the power centers of the society.

Finally, I have proposed that the most radical, most ethnocentric Jews tend to provide the direction for the entire Jewish community in the long run (MacDonald, 2003b). This has happened once again in contemporary Israel and is supported enthusiastically by the mainstream Jewish community in the U.S. as epitomized by the ADL, the American Israel Public Affairs Council, etc. For example, “With its overwhelming victory in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, Israel more than doubled the amount of land it controlled, seizing new territory in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.” Israel could have used this land to bargain for a future Palestinian state, but “the acquisition of the territories animated a religious political movement—Gush Emunim, or ‘Bloc of the Faithful’—that was determined to settle the newly conquered lands” (Bergman & Mazzetti, 2024).

Settling newly conquered land reflects the attitudes of many prominent Zionists and Israelis. Theodor Herzl (1960, p. 711), the founder of Zionism, maintained that the area of the Jewish state stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” This reflects God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1: 3–4: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” The flexibility of the ultimate aims of Zionism can also be seen in this 1956 comment by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister:


The acceptance of partition [of the Palestinian Mandate] does not commit us to renounce Transjordan [i.e., the modern state of Jordan]; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them. (in Chomsky, 1999, p. 161) 

Ben-Gurion’s vision of “the boundaries of Zionist aspirations” included southern Lebanon, southern Syria, all of Jordan, and the Sinai, much of which has already been achieved (in Chomsky, 1999, p. 161). Or consider Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s statement that the borders of Israel “are where Jews live, not where there is a line on the map” (p. 50).

These views are common among the more extreme Zionists today—especially the fundamentalists and the settler movement, and notably Gush Emunim—who now set the tone in Israel. Indeed, in the opinion of Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky (1999, p. 73), “It is not unreasonable to assume that Gush Emunim, if it possessed the power and control, would use nuclear weapons in warfare to attempt to achieve its purpose.”

Conclusion. The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel since the 1967 war despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories—an apartheid occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation and degradation of the Palestinians. During this same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among European-derived peoples, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities (the culture of the Holocaust). All this is done without a whisper of double standards in the aboveground media.The American Jewish community is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests. One of the great myths often promulgated by Jewish apologists is that Jews have no consensus and therefore cannot wield any real power. Yet there is in fact a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, and abortion rights. 

Nevertheless, while civil liberties were championed by Jewish organizations during the anti-communist wave of the 1950s—when sympathy with communism was mainstream within the American Jewish community at a time when many Jewish communists were being hauled before Congressional committees and universities sometimes required loyalty oaths (MacDonald, 2019b)—Jewish organizations like the ADL are now prominently involved in censoring speech, especially on social media. Jewish consensus changes depending on Jewish interests. As always, interests trump principles.Massive changes in public policy on these issues, beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any significant area where public policy conflicts with the attitudes of mainstream Jewish organizations.

Kevin MacDonald