Antisemitism: When Jews Become Gods

I was talking to a Jewish friend who wanted to understand the mind of an antisemite, particularly someone like me, and how I snapped out of it. I sent him a PDF copy of my most antisemitic work, Our Struggle, which was my own version of Mein Kampf, but instead of just speaking to Germans, I was appealing to all humanity—to get everyone to turn on Jews.

As I pointed out some excerpts from my book to him, which argue the various methods I believed Jews deployed to control Gentiles, I said, “Read that, and look how I give Jews omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.”

And then it hit me: I had turned Jews into gods.

I told him, “I think we’ve all been looking at antisemitism the wrong way. It isn’t just some illogical hatred based on nothing; it’s a religious belief based on conspiracies, where the Jews are made gods.”

That’s the theory I want to put forward here, because the usual explanation doesn’t hold up. We’re told antisemitism is an irrational hatred, a jealousy of Jewish success, and a prejudice like any other that happens to be older. None of that explains what I experience as an antisemite. It also doesn’t explain why the belief survives every refutation, why it changes its justification every century while keeping its shape, or why no amount of evidence has ever killed it. A religion does all of that.

Here’s what I’ll argue. The antisemite has a god, and like any god, it’s omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. The theology changes depending on who’s holding it, but the deity remains the same.

The jealousy explanation is where I’d start, because it’s the one most often used and the one that does the most damage. The antisemite knows it’s wrong about him, and nothing closes a mind faster than being told what you think by someone who has clearly never asked. For a former racial antisemite like me, it never felt like envy; it felt like dispossession. The sense I carried was that a people who had been received as guests had come to run the house, that my country was being steered by someone who wasn’t from it. That’s what it felt like.

What was actually underneath it took me far longer to see.

Today, there are three kinds of antisemitism that exist: racial, religious, and anti-Zionist.

The racial antisemite believes Jews are inherently inferior, that they are a combination of all the worst elements of mankind mixed into one group. Despite this, they somehow have conquered the world. This paradoxical belief is based on the idea that Jews engage in behaviors that allow them to beat the superior races of the West. In fact, the racial antisemite doesn’t require a global Jewish conspiracy because they believe all Jews will behave instinctually to undermine their host nations.

Think about what that means. If their behavior is genetic, then every Jew across the world acts in concert without anyone ever giving an order. It’s a conspiracy with no conspirators, which is far more powerful than a Bilderberg meeting, because there’s nothing to find and no evidence that could ever be missing. The god isn’t sitting in one place; it’s spread through an entire bloodline of a people, which is omnipresence by another name.

The religious antisemite—we’ll go with Christian antisemites—considers the Jews as lost souls in the best-case scenario or the devil incarnate, the Antichrist, in the worst. They are evil because they reject Jesus Christ. Not only that, they’re responsible for his death, making them god-killers.

But it goes further.

Christians hold that Satan is the ruler of the earth—the prince of this world, the god of this age. So if the Jews are the Synagogue of Satan, the children of the devil, then they aren’t merely his followers; they’re the ones administering his rule on Earth, exercising his power on his behalf.

While the racial antisemite says the Jew conspires by blood, the Christian antisemite says he conspires with Satan. Either way, you arrive at the same place: a people who move everything from behind the curtain, which no actual people has ever been able to do.

I should be clear that this is a reading most Christians have never encountered and would reject outright. The Catholic Church formally set the deicide charge aside in 1965, and the major Protestant bodies have done the same. Christian antisemites would be and are rejected by their own churches.

Although anti-Zionism is not technically Jew-hatred—since many Jews can be anti-Zionist, and there are far more Gentile Zionists than Jews on earth, some 30 million Christian Zionists in America alone—the anti-Zionist promotes a form of antisemitism that denies Jews the right to self-determination. Even though Zionists established Israel no differently from many other nations—by setting borders and declaring independence—they also fought for their right to exist, warding off several attempts at total annihilation by Arab coalitions.

Those survivals look improbable on paper but can be easily explained.

In 1948 the United States had an arms embargo on the region, and Israel armed itself largely through Czechoslovakia, with Soviet approval. In 1967 the planes that won the air war were French. Large-scale American military support came later, and the decisive moment was the 1973 airlift under Nixon.

Now watch what the conspiracy does with that last one.

The story in the JQ movement is that Golda Meir forced the airlift by threatening to use nuclear weapons. There’s something real underneath it: Seymour Hersh reported it; Moshe Dayan did raise nuclear preparations in a meeting, and American intelligence detected activity around Israel’s Jericho missiles. But the testimony of a man who was in the room is that Meir rejected the proposal outright, and Israel’s own nuclear chief publicly dismissed Hersh’s account. A proposal floated and killed becomes, in the retelling, a gun held to the head of the United States.

The conspiracy needs that, because the alternative—that America had its own reasons—would make Israel an ally rather than a handler.

From there it follows that Israel must control America, because otherwise why would America do it? The conspiracy then extends to total Zionist control of the West as the only thing maintaining Israel. This is where a political position turns into the same thing as the other two: Mossad is behind all false flags; Israel owns Congress; it runs Britain, France, Canada, and the whole West. One small country, somehow steering every other actor on the board.

Now think about what that claim has to ignore in order to work.

There are tens of millions of American Christian Zionists who will tell you they unapologetically support Israel on theological grounds they’ve held their entire lives. In the framework I held, not one of them could be sincere: they’re all duped, or bought, or have no agency of their own. For one small country to move hundreds of millions of people across the West, those people can’t have minds of their own. The belief isn’t only a claim about Jews; it requires nearly everyone to be a puppet.

Three different theories—blood, theology, politics—converge on one belief: one hidden power that sees everything, knows everything, and controls everything.

For most of Western history the charge was religious. As Europe secularized through the 1800s, the same hostility came back in racial language, with scientific racism and eugenics supplying the new vocabulary. After 1945, racial language became verboten, but the hostility didn’t go anywhere; it shifted into politics, which is where it lives today.

History provides another angle. In England during the 1200s, coin clipping was everywhere, and Christians were doing it as much as anyone else—I didn’t learn this until I did research for this article. Yet in 1278 and 1279, only Jews were arrested by the hundreds and executed as a group. This collective punishment only makes sense if you believe Jews are one agent. You don’t punish an entire people for an act unless you think they all did it. That’s the monolith belief showing up again.

But the lazy counterargument to antisemitism is that it’s built on nothing at all, and that’s false. Plenty of it is built on things that actually happened.

The coin clipping was real. Some Jews in medieval England were debasing the currency. The Lavon Affair was real; Israeli military intelligence ran a false-flag bombing campaign in Egypt in 1954 and later admitted it. The USS Liberty was real. Israeli forces attacked an American ship in 1967 and killed 34 American servicemen, injuring 174. Whatever you conclude about intent, the attack happened, and the record is public.

None of the above is in dispute, and pretending otherwise is how you lose someone who knows that. The error isn’t in the facts; it’s in the leap taken from them: a crime some people committed becomes a crime the people commit, a state’s action becomes the whole diaspora’s action, or a documented case becomes evidence for a thousand undocumented ones.

This is why trying to debunk antisemitic conspiracy theories, claim by claim, rarely gets anywhere on its own. Some of the claims survive the fact-checks because they’re true, and the antisemite treats each survivor as proof of the conspiracy. What has to be shown is the unjustified leap from the fact to the people, the same move the English crown made in 1278. Expose that move, and the claims lose their footing all at once. That’s what happened to me.

Now let me show you how the antisemite’s god was assembled, one divine attribute at a time.

Charges from ancient times were real but limited. Tacitus and others accused Jews of being separate, clannish, and hostile to outsiders. That’s a monolith—one people with one disposition—but there’s no omnipotence in it and no hidden hand. Nobody in the ancient world thought Jews were secretly running the Roman Empire.

The hidden hand arrives in the medieval period. Jews were accused of poisoning wells across Europe during the Black Death and of ritual murder in towns that had never heard of each other. Those are charges of a people acting in concert, everywhere, unseen, with no account of how any of them could have coordinated it. That’s omnipresence.

Omnipotence comes in the 1800s with the Rothschilds, a banking family with branches in several capitals and genuine financial reach. From there it was a short step to claiming they owned the nations themselves. In 1873, a writer calling himself Osman Bey published The Conquest of the World by the Jews, which took the Rothschilds, made them the Kings of World Jewry, and turned their banking into a program for world domination. It went through seven editions in two years and was translated across Europe. Scholars treat it as a precursor to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which finished the job in 1903.

I know both books well, because I used to sell them.

So, the ancient world produced the Jewish monolith. Centuries of scattered, stateless vulnerability created Jewish omnipresence. Visibility in trade and finance created Jewish omnipotence.

Some people say antisemitism comes out of hard times, that Jews get scapegoated when things go bad, and sometimes that’s exactly right. The Black Death massacres are a clear case, as is the rise of Nazism amid Weimar’s collapse. But Spain expelled its Jews in 1492, the same year it finished the Reconquista, at the height of its power. England in 1290 and France in 1306 were driven by crowns that wanted Jewish assets and debts canceled.

Antisemitism isn’t always crisis-driven; sometimes the ruling class just wants money, unity, or somebody to blame.

Which brings me back to the people trying to fight it, because the well-intentioned responses are where the most damage can be done. I’ve already said why the jealousy explanation fails; two others backfire just as badly.

The first is denial. When someone responds to a real event by denying it happened or by insisting the whole thing is baseless, the antisemite doesn’t hear a correction; he hears confirmation. “There it is! They’re covering it up!” The denial becomes another piece of evidence of a Jewish conspiracy. A framework that converts every denial into proof can’t be argued with from the outside, which is exactly what makes it a religion rather than a position.

The second is the both-sides objection, which gets turned around just as easily. Point out that Jews are on every side of every issue—capitalists and communists, hawks and doves, Zionists and anti-Zionists—and the answer comes back that they run both sides so they win either way. But nobody applies that reasoning to their own group. White men owned slaves, and White men died to end slavery. Nobody thinks that this means Whites ran a two-sided operation to trick Black people. A group appearing on both sides of a conflict is the ordinary signature of a group of individuals. It’s only read as coordination when you’ve already decided there’s one mind behind it.

Take conspiracy theory behind the Black Lives Matter movement, that a unified White power structure is deliberately holding Black people down and exterminating them via a racist police force. This anti-Whiteness is similar to antisemitism: 150 million Whites with no leadership, no meetings, and no common interest become a monolith with an agenda. The White man in a collapsing Appalachian town is still said to benefit from a system he has no access to, the way the Jewish shopkeeper in a Polish village was still part of the cabal. And if he objects, the objection is itself the proof—fragility, false consciousness, complicity.

That’s the identical architecture: real events, promoted to a unified agent, with denial converted into confirmation. I’m not saying the two are the same in history or in scale. I’m saying the logic is the same, and if it’s wrong when it’s aimed at Jews, it’s wrong when it’s aimed at anybody.

Whether times are good or bad, whether Jews have a homeland or not, or whether there’s anything to an accusation or nothing at all, antisemitism is a prejudice that molds itself to whatever the antisemite needs it to be. It functions as a cherry-picked explanation for what has gone wrong rather than a conclusion anyone reached from evidence, which is to say it’s held on faith. If it worked like a scientific hypothesis, evidence would change it. If it worked like a grievance, settling the grievance would end it. It does neither. It works like a religion, where a believer will drop a particular theology and keep the god.

I know, because that’s exactly what I did.

---