On the Definition of Jewish Supremacism

The concept of Jewish Supremacism was first coined by David Duke and it is an interesting one as it attempts; somewhat successfully, to turn the common rhetorical charge of 'White Supremacism' against the same jews who are among those who frequently level the latter charge. It is a rhetorically powerful point in and of itself, but I would point out that Duke himself makes remarkably little of its potential rhetorical power in his definition of it.

Duke contents himself with charging that the jews explicitly view themselves as being manifestly superior to all other peoples in the world and accordingly seek to control the endeavours and activities of non-jews. This is shown in his book 'Jewish Supremacism' where he defines 'Jewish Supremacism' in his preface; in both the first and second editions, as being:

'The belief, theory or doctrine that the Jewish people are superior to all others and should retain control of all relationships.' (1)

Now this definition is quite usable as far as it goes as it allows us to categorize some of the more explicit jewish nationalist/Zionist behaviours and statements as being 'Jewish Supremacist' in nature. However it is actually rather narrow in its focus in that it focuses purely on the expressed version of a belief, theory or doctrine meeting the required criteria.

This is all well and good, but this definition only actually works with groups that explicitly state their supremacist ideas (such as the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers) not ones that shroud their supremacist beliefs, theories and doctrines behind stilted jargon and rhetorical platitudes, which doesn't in itself seem to indicate such a belief, theory or doctrine, but rather necessarily implies it.

For example if a jew were to say:

Then we could say they were a 'Jewish Supremacist' without too much debate.

However if a jew were to say:

Then unless you knew precisely what the terms meant then it would seem like the above is not a 'Jewish Supremacist' statement when in fact it is identical to the first in meaning, but rather than being explicit in its supremacism: it is implicit in its communication of that meaning.

This informs us then that the definition given by Duke is not suitable when dealing with a people who are well-known to have a very oral intellectual culture and whose religious system is extremely legalistic in nature. In other words if you are dealing with a people who have the ability; and a separate sub-vocabulary in which, to express a concept subtly as well as brashly then unless you include implicit as well as explicit beliefs, theories or doctrines then you will only classify the most brash elements of that people who hold those beliefs, theories or doctrines as supremacists.

Now before we restate an improved definition of 'Jewish Supremacism' we need to call attention to the last part of Duke's definition when he says: 'should retain control of all relationships'. The issue with this statement is once again that it assumes that jews are a tangible empire; like that of the Romans, the Chinese or the British, with clearly demonstrable and delineated responsibilities and organizational reports. It also assumes that an empire that views its original people; or its naturalized citizens, as being manifestly superior to others will always have tangible relationships and well-defined command structures.

A study of any significant empire or even a single state in history would clearly indicate that not all; or even most, relationships are tangible, well-defined ones, but rather operate outside of plain sight and the formal decision-making process giving rise to speculation as the nature and extent of these relationships or conspiracy theory as it is better known (be it well-evidenced links [such as those shown by Carroll Quigley concerning the Milner Group] or poorly-evidenced links [such as those shown by Jim Marrs concerning members of the Bush Administration being linked to the ODESSA or Kameradenwerk]).

Further even a tangible imperial power with a supremacist ideology (be it cultural or racial); such as the Roman Empire in Judea before the First Jewish Revolt or the British Empire in India after the Indian Mutiny, necessarily relies heavily on those outside of those deemed culturally and/or racially desirable in its ideological base to control the medium and/or lower level relationships. Having a supremacist ideological position does not necessarily imply practical or operational control of the relationships, but rather that control at a high level may be exercised in order to create the necessary conditions for the graduation acquisition of control of relationships at the medium and lower levels.

This means; in effect, that a supremacist ideology does not require the acquisition and retention of all relationships at once, but rather it requires the acquisition and retention of all relationships at a high level as its introductory practical basis. This is so because supremacist ideology necessarily requires a period of transition between other groups engaged in self-government and said groups being absorbed under the governmental aegis and decision-making apparatus of the supremacist group.

In other words we are referring to the transitional stage that is necessarily envisioned by supremacist ideology and that this transitional stage can also; like any other stage, be marked by a series of informal power relationships which operate within or outside of the formally-defined power structure or hierarchy.

For practical purposes this means that in seeking to define 'Jewish Supremacism' we need to take into account of the fact; which the definition given by Duke does not, that supremacist ideology does not function on a Boolean (i.e. black or white) basis, but rather; if the group involved already has some degree of influence over relationships regardless of how slight, is in a transition (i.e. grey) state between having no control of any relationships to having complete control of all relationships.

The current definition only works on the assumption that a group is either in power or is not in power: not as to whether it is working towards gaining power. As this is rarely true of any group in history; let alone currently, then we need to understand that every group that holds a supremacist ideology will have some control of some relationships although it may aspire to control them all.

That aspiration; as well demonstrable behaviour, is what we need to include in the definition in order to take account of these specific factors.

Once we do then we get the following definition of 'Jewish Supremacism':

This then allows us to classify the behaviour of non-Zionist jews who believe they have an entitlement over and above that of gentiles based on their status as jews as supremacist, while also allowing us to classify the behaviour of both 'dove' and 'hawk' sections of the Israel Lobby as such. It also nicely allows us to classify the aggressive career promotion activites of jewish individuals within a non-jewish governmental and non-governmental context as having supremacist goals given the well-documented use of such neutral positioning to enforce an Israel-first or jews-first agenda.

 

(1) David Duke, 2003, 'Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question', 1^st Edition, Free Speech Press: Mandeville, p. 21; see p. 24 in the 2^nd Edition from 2007.