Psychodynamics of antisemitism: recommend readings for lay people?

39 views
Skip to first unread message

ryoud...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 15, 2025, 11:32:21 AM (4 days ago) Oct 15
to Clio’s Psyche
What are your recommendations, for lay people with no background in psychology, for readings about the psychodynamics of antisemitism?

All suggestions welcome.

Thank you.

Burton N. Seitler

unread,
Oct 15, 2025, 2:34:17 PM (4 days ago) Oct 15
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

I believe an  excellent source is:
"Resurgent Antisemitism," edited 
by Alvin H. Rosenfeld (2013).

I ho-e this is helpful.

Best,
Burton N. Seitler, Ph.D. 

--
<><><>
To post to this group send to: clios...@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/4273d319-9b78-4703-be20-29c60ad603cfn%40googlegroups.com.

Paul Elovitz

unread,
Oct 15, 2025, 2:57:36 PM (4 days ago) Oct 15
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Hi Burt,
  Thanks for recommending  Alvin H. Rosenfeld's edited Resurgent Antisemitism  (2013).
Best wishes,
Paul
Paul H. Elovitz, PhD, Historian, Research Psychoanalyst, Online Psychohistory Professor, Psychohistory Forum Director, and Editor, Clio's Psyche; Author, The Making of Psychohistory: Origins, Controversies, and Pioneering Contributors (Routledge, 2018); Editor, The Many Roads of the Builders of Psychohistory (ORI Academic Press, 2021); Author/Editor of other books. See CliosPsyche.org for additional information.  


Rachel Youdelman

unread,
Oct 15, 2025, 5:58:33 PM (4 days ago) Oct 15
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Thank you, Burton, I will look for that.

Jeffrey Rubin

unread,
Oct 15, 2025, 7:21:27 PM (4 days ago) Oct 15
to clios...@googlegroups.com

Brian D'Agostino

unread,
Oct 15, 2025, 11:05:44 PM (4 days ago) Oct 15
to clios...@googlegroups.com

Thank you, Burton.

I want to add something to this conversation, namely, that there is a broader psychohistorical context to antisemitism.  Specifically, it is a special case of scapegoating, and as such is akin to racism and is part of the right-wing authoritarian complex.  Indeed, I don't think we will ever adequately understand antisemitism if we think of it as a sui generis phenomenon.  (I am not imputing that fallacy to the book Burton recommends, which I have not read).  To understand antisemitism's underlying dynamics, we need to ask why a substantial segment of most populations in the world harbor murderous rage and displace it onto vulnerable minorities, which may be Jews (say in Europe), Blacks in the US, Muslims in Hindu India, etc.  The victims vary with historical and geographical circumstances, but there is a common, underlying psychology that calls for a psychohistorical explanation.

As for this underlying psychology, I recommend Raised to Rage: The Politics of Anger and the Roots of Authoritarianism a 2016 book by Michael Milburn and Sheree Conrad published by MIT Press.  This book summarizes an important body of survey research by the authors on the effects of punitive parenting on human psychology.  I will not attempt to summarize this research here (for that, see my PowerPoint at https://bdagostino.com/resources/12_14_24%20Mass%20Shootings_BD.pptx ), but will note that it builds upon and updates Adorno et al's classic The Authoritarian Personality (1950), which explicitly included an antisemitism scale as one of its measures of authoritarianism.  Milburn and Conrad address racism as one of the forms taken by this complex, but not antisemitism per se.

To be sure, every specific form of scapegoating has its own unique psychohistory.  For anti-Black racism in the US, the history of slavery is central (Milburn and Conrad have a chapter on this).  For antisemitism, we need to examine the roles of Christianity and Islam as daughter religions of Judaism, and the fraught psychodynamics of this relationship.  We also need to examine the role of Jews as money-changers in medieval Europe, which is the historical source of the trope that the Jews are hoarding all the money (a convenient myth for the medieval nobility, and later the industrialists, who were actually hoarding all the wealth.)  For Hindus, anti-Muslim bigotry has historcial roots in three centuries of Muslim rule of the subcontinent by the Mughal Empire.

So every system of bigotry has its unique historical origins, but the psychology of scapegoating that they all have in common has its origins in punitive parenting.  And the solution, in all cases, is the reform of parenting, which can be accomplished by various forms of parenting education, which I have discussed in other contexts (see my PowerPoint, cited above).  To adequately understand and eradicate anti-semitism, I think it is important to view it in this broader context.

Brian D'Agostino

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 2:34 PM Burton N. Seitler <binsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,bi

Rachel Youdelman

unread,
Oct 16, 2025, 7:11:06 AM (4 days ago) Oct 16
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Brian, this is super-helpful. I'm hoping to put together a basic reading list for people with no background in psychodynamics. 

Lloyd deMause wrote about minority groups as objects of hatred as "poison containers" - do you know of other scholars who have analyzed that concept?

A query for you: you mention right-wing authoritarianism; I wonder if you have thoughts on the current phenomenon of left-wing antisemitism, whose enthusiasts bandy about lefty terminology in service of their bias.



Brian D'Agostino

unread,
Oct 16, 2025, 9:50:06 AM (4 days ago) Oct 16
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Glad that you found my comments helpful, Rachel.  Yes, deMause's notion of "poison container" overlaps with and is relevant to scapegoating.  Other than Milburn and Conrad's work, however, I am not aware of other psychohistorical work on this topic.

As for left-wing antisemitism, I think we need to keep two things in mind simultaneously.  First, antisemitism can indeed be found across the political spectrum.  Second, it is also true that Netanyahu, Trump, and many others on the right are using such accusations as a pretext to silence critics.  Neither of these things negates the other; both are true.

That raises the question whether antisemitism is equally a disease of the right and the left, a view sometimes called the "horseshoe theory."  This is an empirical question, though there is hardly any empirical research on it.  One study that attempted to answer this question by actually examining evidence concluded, "Contrary to the expectation of horseshoe theory, the data show the epicenter of antisemitic attitudes is young adults on the far right."  See Eitan Hersch and Laura Royden, "Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum," Political Research Quarterly (2023). This is consistent with Milburn and Conrad's finding that punitive parenting is correlated with right wing attitudes, though there are always exceptions to any statistical pattern. (The biggest class of exceptions are punitively parented people who undergo psychotherapy, which reduces the need to displace repressed anger onto scapegoats).

Howard Stein

unread,
Oct 16, 2025, 2:42:55 PM (3 days ago) Oct 16
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein
10-16-2025

Dear Rachel, Brian, and Everyone, 

         I would like to recommend a work that long ago deeply affected my understanding of the inner workings of anti-Semitism, yet which is not penned by a psychoanalytic author: Jean-Paul Sartre's 1946 book, Anti-Semite and Jew. It has been published in many subsequent editions. You will find no Kleinian "projective identification" or deMausian "poison containers" here, yet the psychodynamic ideas are implicit. 

         Maybe I am "way out in left field" (Is it still baseball season?), but this book would be high on my list of works to recommend to someone who might be interested in the psychodynamic (individual and group) taproots of anti-Semitism, yet which uncovers them in a very direct and gripping, plain language (to me). I hope this is useful to you in your important work.

Warm regards,

Howard

Howard F. Stein
7501 W. Britton Rd., Apt. 273, 
Oklahoma City OK  73132 USA
E-mail: hfs...@gmail.com ; 
Cell Phone: 405-226-2484
Poet Laureate, High Plains Society for Applied Anthropology; 
Psychohistorical Poet Laureate





--

Howard F. Stein
7501 W. Britton Rd., Apt. 273, 
Oklahoma City OK  73132 USA
E-mail: hfs...@gmail.com
Cell Phone: 405-226-2484
Poet Laureate, High Plains Society for Applied Anthropology; 
Psychohistorical Poet Laureate

Rachel Youdelman

unread,
Oct 16, 2025, 3:01:32 PM (3 days ago) Oct 16
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein
Howard, many thanks for the recommendation and for your reflections. I am not familiar with that book but it’s now on my list. I can understand how concepts conveyed implicitly may be more effective than the jargon-filled. Thanks again, very appreciative.


jerome chanes

unread,
Oct 16, 2025, 3:16:49 PM (3 days ago) Oct 16
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein
Dear all~

See my review of Rosenfeld's book (attached).

/Jerome Alain Chanes


Baruch College
CUNY



--
Jerome A. Chanes
Baruch College, CUNY

Forw_Rev_ALV_ROSEBFELD_AS_2013.doc

Rachel Youdelman

unread,
Oct 16, 2025, 6:40:05 PM (3 days ago) Oct 16
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein
Jerome, thank you for sharing the review. The opening paragraph says a lot.
Despite what appear to be the book's shortcomings, I'll look for it.
I was not aware of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, the author's project. I'm looking into it as well.

Ken Fuchsman

unread,
Oct 17, 2025, 9:03:07 AM (3 days ago) Oct 17
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein

1.    A universal of being human past and present is dividing an in-group from an out-group, and us from them. This is one of 98 universals found by Jewish-American anthropologist and physician Melvin Konner and published  in 2010.

2.    Anti-Semitism is one of many examples of us vs. them.

3.    Anti-Semitism has at times ebbed and flowed. In 1867, Jews were first given the right to be admitted to the University of Vienna medical school. If Sigmund Freud had been born in 1806, he would not have been admissible. Freud would not have had patients that led him to discover psychoanalysis. Who knows if there would have been psychoanalysis if restrictions in Vienna against Jews had not been lifted. The same earlier restrictions would have applied to Freud’s Jewish mentor and initial collaborator, Josef Breuer.   

4.    The World War II, German effort to exterminate Jews is the worst crime in human history.

5.    After World War II in the U.S., independently of each other two prominent historians of Judaism, Robert Wistrich and Deborah Lipstadt, found that there was a dramatic decline of hostility to Jews. It lasted through the end of the twentieth century.

6.    After the biracial Obama was elected President in 2008, there became a resurgence of a racist American radical right. The FBI is required to annually publish findings on hate crimes.  Since 2010, these reports indicate that per capita more hate crimes are committed against Jews than any other group. The FBI also finds that racist radical rightists are the predominant committers of these crimes. The hatred of Jews mandates that we recognize where on the political spectrum those opposed to Judaism are.

7.    There are a variety of stereotypes of Jews rather than just one type. In 1954, Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport in his The Nature of Prejudice found that the stereotypes of Jews in Europe corresponded to the images of African-Americans in the U.S. While the portrait of American Jews had a completely different character.  Anti-Semitism cannot be understood without looking at its historic and geographical varieties.

8.    Given this history, psychoanalysis by itself is not sufficient to comprehend the diversity of hostility to Jews.

9.    An informed psychohistory has a better chance of understanding the totality of the dreadful and enduring phenomenon of anti-Semitism.

10.  One of the posts in this discussion alluded to lefty anti-Semitism. Since 1919 the American political radical left has been divided into hostile factions with contradictory  ideologies, and have often been in conflict with each other.  There is also a leftist political radicalism and a leftist cultural radicalism.  They have not seen eye to eye. Any characterization of leftism has to recognize the disarray and opposition within the radical left.  It is a major challenge to clearly define and characterize the American left with precision. Stereotypes of the left are not any better than stereotypes of Jews.

11. Recently, there are some who equate anti-Semitism with being critical of Israel’s action in the current war.  This characterizations runs into a number of problems. One of these is that in a poll this month 39% of American Jews characterize Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.

12. It is not only native-born Americans who reach this conclusion. Israeli born Omer Bartov, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies wrote, “My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home…served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could.” Novelist David Grossmanis is often considered Israel’s leading living novelist. In an August 1, 2025, interview Grossman said, “For many years, I refused to use that term: ‘genocide'….But now, after the images I have seen and after talking to people who were there, I can’t help using it.” He says he uses the word “with immense pain and with a broken heart.”  

13. This is a challenging time to be Jewish. As we know, discrimination against Jews is a serious, enduring, and complex problem. It is one that requires extensive knowledge of history, political science, psychology, and psychoanalysis. Part of this understanding ought to include examining how and why us vs. them is a human universal.

Ken       


Rachel Youdelman

unread,
Oct 17, 2025, 11:06:48 AM (2 days ago) Oct 17
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein
Ken, thank you for this summary history and analysis.

Judith Logue

unread,
Oct 17, 2025, 11:13:36 AM (2 days ago) Oct 17
to clios...@googlegroups.com

This is excellent, Ken.  Thank you for giving me permission to send it to my friends and colleagues.

 

Judy

 

Judith Logue, Ph.D.

18604 Tranquility Base Lane

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987

609-915-9155

www.judithlogue.com

www.goldilox.net

www.shAIRing.com

jerome chanes

unread,
Oct 17, 2025, 12:23:06 PM (2 days ago) Oct 17
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein
Dear Ken et al~

Your points #8 and #13 are spot on.  

On the psychology of antisemitism there is stuff by our colleague Arnie Richards.  See as well my Antisemitism in America:  Exploding the Myths (1995), chapter 8, "Antisemitism and the Psychology of Prejudice" by Martin S. Bergmann.  

Alvin Rosenfeld has made substantial contributions in a number of areas.  Alas, antisemitism ain't one of them.  Not to put too fine a point on it -- Few serious social-scientists take Alvin seriously as a serious scholar of antisemitism.

/Jerome Alain Chanes

Rachel Youdelman

unread,
Oct 17, 2025, 12:29:58 PM (2 days ago) Oct 17
to clios...@googlegroups.com, Howard Stein
Jerome, I'm grateful for these comments and suggestions. Thank you.

Brian D'Agostino

unread,
Oct 17, 2025, 12:32:05 PM (2 days ago) Oct 17
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Thank you, Ken.  I want to comment on your point #1: "A universal of being human past and present is dividing an in-group from an out-group, and us from them" and point #2: "Anti-Semitism is one of many examples of us vs. them."  We need to unpack what these statements mean. As stated and without further specification, point number #1 can mean, "I would rather play a game of cards with my friends than with strangers."  True, but so what?  I'm sure you will agree that it is a very, very, very long road from such benign prejudices to the Holocaust.  

This raises similar questions about point #2, namely, what do we mean, exactly, by "antisemitism"?  If it means that gentiles would rather play cards with other gentiles rather than with Jews, many would take issue with such attitudes, but again, what exactly is the problem here? Especially if Jews would also rather play cards with other Jews than with gentiles, which seems to be implied by point #1.

Based on the above, it would be easy to devise an entirely benign "antisemitism" scale.  For example, items could include, "Observant Jews do not eat pork" and "Jews accept the Old Testament as their scriptures, but not the New Testament."  A Christian responding to such a scale would identify Jews as an "out group," but in doing so would not necessarily be expressing negative stereotypes, much less repressed murderous rage.

Contrast this with the following two actual items from Adorno et al's The Authoritarian Personality: "A major fault of Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race."  And, "Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive."  (from The Authoritarian Personality, New York: Harper and Row, p. 61.)  Clearly there is a vast difference between willingness to eat pork and harboring toxic attitudes such as those found in Adorno et al's anti-semitism scales.  When I have been using the term "antisemitism," I am referring to the social-psychological constructs measured by Adorno et al, Bob Altemeyer (e.g. Enemies of Freedom), and more recent social science research.  What do you mean by "antisemitism" and how, exactly, does it relate to "us vs. them" thinking?

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 9:03 AM Ken Fuchsman <kfuc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Esa Palosaari

unread,
Oct 18, 2025, 8:36:10 AM (yesterday) Oct 18
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

Thank you all for the discussion and the sources from me as well. For many years, I’ve been thinking every now and then exactly about your most recent question, Brian: what is anti-semitism exactly and how exactly does it relate to in-group biases?

In-group biases

I have observed fairly benign in-group biases in a behavioral laboratory among people with quite different political identities: people donating more money to the needy in their own group than to those in other groups. I think it could be a universal, on average, in different larger groups. However, there are also studies showing some people pre- or unconsciously associating negative attributes more to their own group than to the other groups, for example. They have negative implicit biases towards themselves and their own group, but in general this is a minority.

What might be behind these biases and how could they be changed? There were some experiments done by Mario Mikulincer in Israel which appeared to show that activating attachment security attenuates negative reactions to out-groups (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-07168-008). I was unfortunately unable to replicate this finding at a statistically significant level with real monetary stakes myself. There are also some correlational studies showing that attachment security is linked to attitudes towards out-groups like immigrants, e.g. "Results revealed that self-reported fearful general attachment was positively related to more unwelcoming acculturation orientations.” (Goedest et al., 2019).

Loving, consistent parenting sensitive to the baby or toddler's needs and fears is generally associated with more attachment security, but the connection to attachment security in adulthood is less clear. Lloyd deMause wrote that parenting styles and amount of abuse is directly connected to attachment styles or security, but my understanding is that the connection is less clear for the less severe abuse, and there might be more influence from genetics for the variation of attachment styles among the adults. This is based on twin studies on attachment both with infant and adolescents and young adults. One story for different attachment styles existing in all kinds of groups or cultures is that different sensitivity to threats is differently helpful in different social environments, not just within families, and that there might be benefits for not trusting others that much whether in-group or out-group. I remember talking with Mario Mikulincer about his findings from two decades ago, and, if I remember correctly, he said that he nowadays thinks that the more positive attitudes towards out-groups are more likely to be seen among people who had moved from one city to another a lot in their childhoods, for example, losing their friends, and did not develop that strong of a general secure attachment, despite having had a secure attachment in infancy.   

Antisemitism as a salvation doctrine

I think the negative out-group biases generally do play a role in prejudices and in anti-semitism, but I think there is something deeper or elaborate in antisemitism. Looking at the issue with my not-perfect knowledge of history and different cultures, it seems that there is a common theme of Jews playing an important role in some cosmic story that tells how the non-Jewish group is going to get to some paradise whether it is on this Earth or in Heaven. This recurring story template might actually be told in a way that leads people to consider Jews to be allies (at least for some time) rather than enemies to be destroyed or oppressed. I’m thinking specifically of some modern Christian Evangelicals / Dispensionalists who view and support the state of Israel as fulfilment of biblical prophecies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism). They are expecting and supporting the rebuilding of the Temple and the coming of the end of times. They want to honor and preserve Jews because Jews will help bring about the final divine acts. The support is conditional, however: Jews are expected to accept Christian claims to be fully redeemed at the end. 

Christianity

Although this Christian dispensionalist worldview is eschatological and theological rather than conspiratorial or secular, it shows a parallel structure to antisemitic stories: Jews are embedded in cosmic time and are part of the machinery of salvation. What makes the more hostile antisemitic stories different, maybe, is that in other stories Jews are considered to be a more immediate impediment or a block to the coming paradise of pure goodness or perfect community. There is something to that also in Dispensionalism: Jews need to convert in order for there to be redemption. My understanding is that this has been a constant in Christian theology: unconverted Jews were somehow hardened in their hearts and did not see or hear the truth, but that eventually they would, at the end of times. In history, Jews were considered increasingly evil in the Christian story of the moral universe. In the late Middle Ages, you had blood libels of Jews re-enacting the crucifixion of Jesus by killing Christians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Norwich). Christians lied that real Jews living among them were playing the role of cartoonish, cosmic evil. Lies were spread of Jews desecrating communion wafers (the Body of Christ, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration), leading to torturing and burning or expelling whole Jewish communities. Christians associated Jews with poison and poisoning by lying that Jews had caused the Black Death plague and that they had poisoned wells, and Jews were then burned at the stake or in synagogues based on those lies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_poisoning). There are stories of Jewish diaspora, their expulsion from the land of Israel being the punishment for killing of Jesus, requiring full repentance of the crime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew). This story appears from the Middle Ages to Nazi Germany to novels published in Brazil in 2000. Additionally, the Catholic church, in a way, forced Jews into committing what they considered a sin, in plain sight: lending money for interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism; https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/how-christian-europe-created-anti-semitism-in-the-middle-ages/47800164). Christians were forbidden to carry out this sin and Jews were forbidden many other types of livelihoods. Jews were then considered evil in the Christian stories and assigned to have some of the worst possible attributes according to those stories:

- Jew as ritual murderer:  morphs into modern “child killer / bloodsucker” capitalist.
- Jew as host-desecrator: morphs into “sacrilege against the nation / culture.”
- Jew as plague-spreader: reappears in 19th–20th century conspiracies (“Judeo-Bolshevik contagion”).
- Jew as servant of Antichrist: reappears as “architect of modern corruption.”

So by 1500, virtually every symbolic role later antisemitism would need was in place. These stories offered help in explaining evil’s persistence, a way to purify one’s community both psychologically and medically, debt relief and joy from revenging moral outrages by stealing from Jewish money-lenders, and eschatological hope when the Jews would repent, stop being Jews and convert into Christianity.

National Socialism

The modern nationalist, racial antisemitism had Jews as a malignant race conspiring against the nation, polluting it. Destroying Jewish influence in the community, economy, politics and culture would make the community pure, allow for the rebirth of the nation, bring in a thousand-year Reich and world peace. Jews would be the scapegoats for starting another world war:

If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe. 



Socialism

My understanding is that there are similar antisemitic stories among some identifying as politically leftists. There are similar stories of utopian, perfect societies as among the national socialists: earthly versions of the Christian heaven. And Jews have often been considered to be impediments on the road to this leftist heaven, whether it is money-lending or having a particular tribal or ethno-religious identity. For example, Karl Marx’s essay ”On the Jewish Question” is usually considered antisemitic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question). In it, Marx writes that the society should be organized in such a way that money-lending would be abolished and thereby Judaism would also be abolished and the end result would be emancipation of mankind, or in older Christian words salvation and paradise:

What particular social element has to be overcome in order to abolish Judaism? For the present-day Jew’s capacity for emancipation is the relation of Judaism to the emancipation of the modern world. This relation necessarily results from the special position of Judaism in the contemporary enslaved world.

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

— — 

This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.





Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Russian_Loan 


Another leftist, Pierre Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) was even more explicit in his antisemitism in the sense of removing Jews and Judaism, whether by genocide or expulsion, in order to get to the perfect society:


December 26, 1847: Jews. Write an article against this race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Demand its expulsion Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It’s not without cause that the Christians called them deicides. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weill, and others are nothing but secret spies ; Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, wicked, bilious, envious, bitter, etc. etc. beings who hate us. The Jew must disappear by steel or by fusion or by expulsion. Tolerate the elderly who no longer have children. Work to be done – What the peoples of the Middle Ages hated instinctively I hate upon reflection and irrevocably. The hatred of the Jew like the hatred of the English should be our first article of political faith. Moreover, the abolition of Judaism will come with the abolition of other religions. Begin by not allocating funds to the clergy and leaving this to religious offerings. – And then, a short while later, abolish the religion.




In the 20th century, Communist regimes sometimes channeled the same narrative. The Soviet Union, for example, railed against “rootless cosmopolitans” (code for Jews; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan) and propagated the idea that “Zionist” financiers and capitalists were behind global evils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-Zionism). Both far-right fascists and far-left communists thus converged on the figure of the “Jewish banker” as a scapegoat for society’s sufferings. “Modern, political anti-Semitism is a creature of the left as well as the right” (https://philosophersmag.com/karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism/)  – in both cases offering the intoxicating fantasy that removing “the Jews” would magically cure social ills. These same themes have appeared in more recent leftist justifications for terrorist attacks against Jews:

Jews and/or Judaism are thus tied up with money, with power, and with oppression. Through such an analysis, violence and demonisation of Jews are justified by some leftists. Consider Ulrike Meinhof of the Marxist Red Army Faction. For her, hatred of Jews was actually the hatred of capitalism. As a witness at the trial of Horst Mahler in 1972, she posed the question “How was Auschwitz possible, what was anti-Semitism?” Her stated opinion: “Auschwitz means that six million Jews were murdered and carted on to the rubbish dumps of Europe for being that which was maintained of them—Money-Jews.” Also, for her, the murder of the Israeli Olympic team at 1972 Munich Olympics was not only justified but something that could be praised.



Islamism

I don’t know too much about the history of Muslim thought about Jews and Judaism, but it seems that there is a similar story among Utopian Political Islam in the modern era. In the Islamist extremist worldview, Jews again appear as the cosmic obstacle, this time to a divinely ordained Islamic order. Movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, or Iran’s regime fuse traditional Islamic themes with modern conspiracy tropes, painting the Jewish people (or the State of Israel) as a demonic force thwarting God’s will. Classic Islamic theology had assigned Jews a subordinate status (dhimmi) under Muslim rule: their rebellion against this status, epitomized by Jewish sovereignty in Israel, is framed as an intolerable affront to the sacred order. The Hamas Covenant (1988) explicitly presents the destruction of Israel as a religious imperative. It opens by declaring: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/hamas.asp). It even cites an apocalyptic hadith that “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them”, portraying the extermination of Jews as a precondition for the ultimate redemption of Islam.

Haviv Rettig Gur interviewed one hostage who said the the Hamas members constantly talked about conquering Britain, the United States, France and Germany, but only after the conquest of Israel. Israel is the key that would unlock the door to the world where everybody would obey the true god. Something similar is said aloud on the streets of Western countries, but with different moral story vocabulary.


Decolonialism, antiracism and anti-Zionism

I’m not that familiar with the decolonialisation and antiracist literature and discourse. However, I do see some rhyming there with the historical antisemitic themes. People on the streets and in the social media are saying things like:

 ”Defeating Israel means defeating the U.S., Canada, the settlements who exist on the backs of the Indigenous people and the Black People. Defeating Israel means defeating this colonial institution.” 


Destroying Israel destroys all of colonialism everywhere and brings about justice and frees the world from suffering.

Coleman Hughes wrote about his experiences in the Black community where he said that Jews challenge the story they tell themselves which leads to denials of Jewish experience and to antisemitism (https://sapirjournal.org/friends-and-foes/2024/black-radicalism/). According to him, the organization Nation of Islam has had a large influence on the American Black community understanding of Jews. Hughes is sure that the rapper Kanye West would have been influenced by those stories which led him to release songs like ’Heil Hitler’. In an interview with Haviv Rettig Gur, Coleman Hughes also discussed the discourse in liberal Columbia University circles while he was there: Whites were considered oppressors to overcome, Jews were considered to be White Oppressors, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict was viewed through that American racial lens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W-MtwTGa9s). This was also the lens that Soviet Union pushed around the world and got the United Nations to adopt with its friendly countries being the majority: "Zionism is a form of racism” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379).

Haviv Rettig Gur also very recently talked with Dara Horn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sPAPTXTyU4), who has been a professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard and who has written a book called People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present (https://www.darahorn.com/book/people-love-dead-jews). Dara Horn says that the Hollywood movies and much of the fictive literature in the West appear to be different from Hebrew and Yiddish literature, both the very old religious literature like the Hebrew Bible and more modern fiction. In Hollywood, there must be some happy ending, some grace, some moral development, whereas in the literature she reads and writes, there is not necessarily any development in the characters at all. Rather, there is more often resilience, of carrying on despite the hardships. The main characters are also not described to be perfect like Jesus or Muhammed but as broken, complex people. The basic structure of the stories that you expect in the different civilizations may be different.

Dara Horn also gave a definition of antisemitism that seems to fit most of the examples I have gathered here. She says she does not teach antisemitism being a social prejudice or bigotry but a lie that people use to gain or maintain power. ”The lie is always the same: Jews are the obstacle to what you value the most.” ”The only thing that changes in different historical moments, different settings is what you value most.”

There is a debate on how anti-Zionism and antisemitism are related, are they the same? I think you can argue against anti-Zionism without using the label of antisemitism as Yossi Klein Halevi has written (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2024-december/dangerous-jewish-moment/). But there do seem to be some familiar themes in the stories that anti-Zionists tell:

I don’t understand it but … basically the Death Star has a place in it that if you shoot through that specific place in the Death Star you explode the entire Death Star. So somebody said that Palestine is that place. And the construction, the Death Star, is like all of if, Sudan, Congo, all of it, Nigeria, everywhere. If we can free Palestine, it explodes everything.”

 This Death Star analogy is from the Irish actress Denise Gough who has acted in Disney’s Star Wars universe’s Andor series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Gough). 

Antisemitism, leftism, authoritarianism 

There was previously some discussion on whether there is antisemitism on the left. Brian wrote about this one study:

One study that attempted to answer this question by actually examining evidence concluded, "Contrary to the expectation of horseshoe theory, the data show the epicenter of antisemitic attitudes is young adults on the far right."  See Eitan Hersch and Laura Royden, "Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum," Political Research Quarterly (2023). This is consistent with Milburn and Conrad's finding that punitive parenting is correlated with right wing attitudes. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081)

This is indeed said in the abstract of the study published before the latest war. However, there are some nuances there. They measured the political spectrum in different ways. One scale is from very liberal to very conservative. Many leftists do not consider themselves to be liberal and show contempt for them. Fortunately the authors also asked about other identifications such as Leftist, Socialist, Progressive or Alt-right. No Communists, though. Measured in various ways, those on the left showed a double-standard in favour of Muslims and against Jews, whereas the opposite was true of those on the conservative side. No significant bias among Alt-right in double standards. Also, in the supplement they look at non-primed attitudes for those not in the liberal-conservative scale:

Moving from liberal to conservative is associated with higher antisemitic views; however, socialist identifiers appear to have higher agreement with the antisemitic statements than others on the left. Alt-right identifiers stand out with the highest rate of support for antisemitic statements.

One way to test the hypothesis that antisemitism is linked to political authoritarianism would be to have questions on two dimensions: (1) economic left and right as well as (2) authoritarianism. It is possible to be very authoritarian and politically very left, as the last hundred years have shown.


Best regards,
Esa



Goedert, C., Albert, I., Barros, S., & Ferring, D. (2019). Welcome or not? – Natives’ security feelings, attachment and attitudes toward acculturation of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations69, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.12.001



Ken Fuchsman

unread,
Oct 18, 2025, 12:49:07 PM (yesterday) Oct 18
to clios...@googlegroups.com

Brian,

You asked for my definition of anti-Semitism. Instead, I present three reputable definitions. The respected Cambridge Dictionary defines anti-Semitism as “hate directed at Jewish people, or cruel or unfair treatment of people because they are Jewish.” Then there is “Antisemitism” according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The Bard College Center for the Study of Hate says, “Antisemitism consists of anti-Jewish beliefs, attitudes, actions, or systemic conditions. It includes negative beliefs and feelings about Jews, hostile behavior directed against Jews (because they are Jews), and conditions that discriminate against Jews and significantly impede their ability to participate as equals in political, religious, cultural, economic, or social life.”

What is clear from these definitions is that hostility to Jews is a form of the dark emotion of hatred. What then characterized being hateful? Columbia University psychiatrist Willard Gaylin writes, hatred is “a sustained emotion of rage that occupies an individual” and allows “him to feel delight in observing or inflicting suffering on the hated one” To him, “hatred represents displacement of an internal conflict onto external sources” Otto Kernberg finds that hatred can include “envy or an inordinate need for revenge,” and/or a wish to destroy, control, or make suffer. “Paranoid fears of retaliation also usually accompany intense hatred.” Sadism can also be an integral element in hatred. Philosopher Berit Brogaard has the subtitle of her book on hatred that it is our most dangerous emotion. How so? Because it “spurs atrocities like genocides, mass shootings, and other violent attacks.” Hate contains “malevolence or evilness.” 

The hatred that is contained in anti-Semitism can contain delight in making the other suffer, fulfill a need for revenge, and be sadistic and malevolent. Anti-Semitism is an extreme that may be akin to what Conrad describes as the heart of darkness.

To return to the universality of us vs. them, what Dr. Konner describes is not about who one individual wants to associate with. That is a me vs. you. The human universal Konner discusses is us vs. them. It is one human group downgrading another human group. It is a collective activity. Konner also says in group vs. out group contains ethical dualism, likely entailing discriminatory action against the out group. There is often stereotyping and demonizing of the “them.”  There are of course various grades and types of this phenomenon ranging from the trivial to the deadly.

Racial prejudice is certainly one form of in group out group dynamics. For instance, over the better part of a century states in the American South established a segregated school system. One less well-financed separate system for African-Americans, another where more money was spent on all-white schools. Lynching of American black males was another form of us vs. them. It was a deadly extra- legal execution that often included cutting off the black man’s penis. 

Religious prejudice is another variation of an in-group lording it over a lesser group. Jews have been a main recipient of such us vs. them collective decisions. Even before Christianity in 139 BC Jews were banished from Rome. In the second century of the common era Christians made the slanderous claim that the Jews killed Jesus. For well over a millennium because of this alleged crime Jews were forbidden to live in many Christian nations. In some instances, where they had been permitted to reside, they were expelled. In the few countries that allowed them in, Jews were prevented from entering many occupations and were forced to live in ghettos. Some countries practiced pogroms against Jews including terrorizing and even murder. It is warranted to find that anti-Semitic discrimination and despising of Jews is an extreme variety of us vs. them, of hatred and persecution of Jews. And worse was yet to come. Murder and in-group vs out-group characterizations are not strangers to one another.

Another extreme form of collective in-group vs outgroup enterprise is war. Among Homo sapiens, war is lethal armed combat between or within self-governing, autonomous groups who are fighting together to kill, defeat, and/or deter the other group. As Randolph Bourne said war inevitably releases luxurious forms of hatred. One example of this hate filled ethical dualism was given by Arthur “Bomber” Harris, who in February 1942 became the head of the British Bomber Command. He proclaimed, “I personally do not regard the whole of the remaining cities in Germany as worth the bones of one British bombardier.”  This parochial viewpoint allowed him to justify the fire-bombing of the German cities of Hamburg and Dresden.  The initial British World War II use of incendiary bombs was of the city of Hamburg. It began on the night of July 27-28, 1943. The result of the initial bombardment was the first firestorm created by bombs. The flames reached a height of 7,000 feet, 45,000 dead bodies were in the streets, and half the cities buildings were totally destroyed (Grayling, 2006, pp. 18-20).  

In February of 1945, the British and American forces firebombed Dresden, and the resulting firestorm killed 25,000 and destroyed the city. The 1,181 tons of fire-bombs started fires that historian Biddle writes “merged into a vast, self-sustaining conflagration” (Biddle. 2002, p. 255). A British air force officer was quoted as saying that the allied air force leaders had a policy of “deliberate terror-bombing of German population centres as a ruthless expedient of hastening Hitler’s doom” These barbarous attacks indicate how far us vs. them can drive antagonists in war. It can result in the most evil acts of which humans are capable. This hatred, as Berit Brogaard says. is chock full of malevolence. 

Another most extreme form of in-group out-group is genocide.  The World War II Nazi government enforced an effort to exterminate all Jews. Us vs. them and extreme anti-Semitic hatred were combined together in the Holocaust. The systematic German campaign to rid the world of Jews, though not completely successful, is not exceeded in horror and evil by any other human enterprise. 

Given the dire actions within this collective violence, it is foolish to underestimate how horrendous an in-group out-group and anti-Semitic campaign can be. Any assessment of being human has to fully account for how we can be so deadly towards each other. A peculiarity of being human so far has been that it is less frequent that we identify with the shared commonality of our species, and more often that our identity and loyalty is to a nearby group with its built in universal of us vs. them.  Homo sapiens, it should be noted, are just one of six mammals out of 6,495 who go to war and commit genocide against their own kind. Anti-Semitism is just one example of the 16 ways humans kill, making us the premier killing mammal on the planet. Included in these killings are that this hatred of Jews has led to the worst atrocity one people have committed on a religious group.    


Brian D'Agostino

unread,
Oct 18, 2025, 2:49:53 PM (yesterday) Oct 18
to Clio's Psyche Forum
Thank you for these extensive clarifications, Ken.  As you and I have discussed previously, I view human universals as a backward looking and ahistorical concept, in the sense that it generalizes from the past and abstracts various behaviors from the specific contexts in which they arose.  Most notably, killing played a key role in food acquisition for hunting societies, and human-on-human violence played a key role in systems of domination during the era of agricultural civilizations.  The abolition of slavery, the emergence of human rights, the development of international organizations, the effectiveness of non-violent, non-cooperation campaigns by Gandhi, MLK, and others, the globalization of political economy and technology, the emergence of artificial intelligence, and other developments of the modern period and our own age, raise questions about the future of violence and about whether and how violence can be overcome.  

Steven Pinker, Johan Galtung, Immanuel Wallerstein, and many others have addressed these questions.  These big questions go far beyond the topic of antisemitism.  Suffice it to say that to simply assume that whatever has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future is a dubious proposition, considering how much change has actually occurred over the span of our 300 thousand years or so existence as homo sapiens sapiens, especially in recent centuries.  I am not suggesting that you are committing this fallacy, just noting the limitations of the "human universals" paradigm for understanding public affairs historically and in the present.

Brian D'Agostino

unread,
Oct 18, 2025, 3:21:14 PM (yesterday) Oct 18
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Thank you, Esa, for this extraordinarily thoughtful and learned compilation of ideas and information relevant to the topic of antisemitism.  There is a lot to digest here, and I need time to think about what you've raised.  For now, I just want to add one point to the topic of antisemitism and the left.  Karl Kautsky, who was "the pope of Marxism" and the editor of Die Neue Zeit after the death of Marx and Engels, played an important role in combating antisemitism in Germany and Europe.  On this, see the 2009 essay by Jack Jacobs entitled, Marxism and Anti-Semitism: Kautsky's Perspective: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-social-history/article/marxism-and-antisemitism-kautskys-perspective/F25DB1268995C86715FD5EF5292E8736  

As for antisemitism under the USSR, Inna Rozensvit can speak from her own experience.  A distinction should be made between the antisemitism of the societies that were incorporated under the Soviet banner including Russia (and Moldova, where Inna was a medical student) and the role of Moscow in addressing this problem.  Kautsky faced a similar situation in Europe and he and other leaders of the German Social Democratic Party played an active role in combating antisemitism, which was extensive and longstanding in European culture, and far predates the advent of socialism. I will leave Inna to comment on the record of the Soviet leaders in addressing grass-roots antisemitism in the USSR.. 

On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 8:36 AM Esa Palosaari <esa.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Stephen Foster

unread,
8:22 AM (14 hours ago) 8:22 AM
to clios...@googlegroups.com
“There is no greater compliment to the Jews than the fact that the degree of their unpopularity is always the scientific measure of the cruelty and silliness of the regime under which they live.” Sinclair Lewis, It Can't Happen Here, beginning of chapter 25

Rachel Youdelman

unread,
10:19 AM (12 hours ago) 10:19 AM
to clios...@googlegroups.com
Stephen Foster, I appreciate the Sinclair Lewis quote.

I haven't had a moment yet to read some of the other responses from Ken, Brian, and Esa; I look forward to reading.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages