Let me start off by saying that if you think this book is rascist then you are falling into the same problem that Belloc is crying out against when he wrote "The Jews" in 1922. We need to talk about problems, issues, frictions in society even when these problems are based around race, nationality, sexuality, religion, etc. Belloc amazingly predicted the Holocaust: "the danger is rather that... the natural antagonism to the Jewish race... may take an irrational and violent form, and that we may be upon the brink of yet one more of those catastrophes, of those tragedies, of those disasters which have marked the history of Israel in the past... The peril seems still far distant from [England], though it may be at the very door of our neighbours."

How did he foresee the danger? What was the issue in the 1920s with respect to the Jews? There were many but the bottom line is that there was "friction" in Europe between the Jewish people and the societies in which they were living (be it England, France, Germany, the USA, etc.). However, people didn't talk openly about these issues, about the causes of this friction, let alone about the friction itself. Why? Among other things, because any form of debate was immediately shut down:

"If a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish financial power in any region—for instance, in India—he was an Anti-Semite. If he interested himself in the peculiar character of Jewish philosophical discussions, especially in matters concerning religion, he was an Anti-Semite. If the emigrations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast modern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been organized and controlled like an army on the march), interested him as an historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an Anti-Semite. If he exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an Anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians taking money from the Jews, he was an Anti-Semite. If he did no more than call a Jew a Jew, he was an Anti-Semite."

We see this today, don't we? When you don't agree with the SJWs, the Cancel Culture, or parts of the liberal agenda, you're immediately struck down and your voice is quashed. But this attitude will sooner or later lead to disaster. The interior voice of disagreement in certain parts of society will breed extremism (e.g. far-right) simply because friction cannot remain friction. It is not an indifferent thing. If it is not talked about openly and recognised for what it is, it will grow and be followed by gross extravagances.

So, yes, Belloc talks openly about the Jewish "problem". A book like this would not enter the mainstream today, especially if it dealt with something like Islam or same-sex marriages. But Belloc respects the Jews - in fact, he loves that nation, admires it for many of its characteristics, and wants to help it before it is too late: "I repeat the formula for a solution: it is recognition and respect. Recognition is here no more than telling of the truth..."

This is the way to have open debates, even if you do not agree with certain arguments or a thesis in general. I think everyone today should read a book like this before we completely forget how to talk to one another and before we forget that when frictions occur, they need to be aired or things will just get worse.

It really was refreshing to listen to somebody openly but respectfully talking about controversial issues.

An interesting, insightful, and fair-minded examination of the Jewish Question from the vantage point of 1920s Britain. Belloc writes with the aim of offering a peaceful modus vivendi between their civilization and ours. Taking a moderate stance, he denounces extremism on either side, critiquing both rabid anti-Semitism and Zionism. He delves into Jewish history, covering such topics as medieval expulsion, the 'Russian' Revolution, and Palestine. Though aspects of the book may seem dated to a present day perspective, it's largely still relevant. While Belloc's examination of wrongs on both sides glaringly neglects any discussion of the Talmud, his socio-cultural analysis anticipates future works, such as Kevin MacDonald's trilogy on Judaism.

A truly remarkable analysis, made in 1922. Most of obsevations are still valid. The prophetic statements towards the future state of Israel. Worth of reading. And no, it is not antisemitic pamphlet.

I managed to finish this book within a year! It wasn't easy. I picked it up thinking it was a history book but it wasn't. Written in 1923, the author was concerned about solving the "Jewish problem" in Britain but also all over the world. I'm sure he wasn't surprised by the Holocaust. I wanted to understand where he was coming from. But no matter how I slice it, he comes out anti-Semitic (a term he doesn't believe in). Depressing but I suppose it did help me understand how foolishly fearful people were.

Very well written and takes the problems seriously and gives thoughtful and reasonable commentary on and suggestions for dealing with them.

Jewish apologetics. The author acknowledges that there is a Jewish problem but will not admit the Jews are the cause of it. It reminds me of those stories you see of people that are attacked by minorities and then blame "white privilege" for the behavior of savages.

An extraordinarily depressing book, Belloc's The Jews, published in 1922, reads a little bit as if it was written 20 or 30 years from now. Belloc writes at a time when the "liberal" attitude towards the Jewish people (that they were essentially no different from the other peoples among whom they lived), which had enforced ideological and political conformity in tolerance and equal treatment of Jewish minorities, was just in the process of cracking up, unable to withstand what Belloc describes as the inevitable conflict that arises between different peoples (with different interests and different sympathies) inhabiting the same places.

Along with various financial and political scandals, the most serious blow was the Russian Revolution, which was in many ways was regarded as Jewish-organized and Jewish-run (see Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century for an even-handed modern treatment of this issue). Although these events had perhaps no immediate effect on the general public's attitude towards the Jews, each served as its own military mine, dug underneath the walls of strictly-enforced bien-pensant opinion. As fault lines between Jewish and Gentile interests become more salient, the liberal consensus becomes more vulnerable to anti-Semitic availability cascades, and a public opinion that had once seemed uniformly tolerant can become quite hostile, almost overnight. It is clear and to his credit that Belloc had some premonition of the horrors that were coming, and of course his warnings acquire a new force in hindsight.

The book doesn't fit the modern temper, which, having developed a new liberal uniformity of opinion with regard to Jewish-Gentile relations, one nearly identical to the old one, is extremely hostile towards discussions of the Jewish people as in any essential way different. Neither will his recommendation of cultural and political ghettoization appeal much to the modern reader (assimilation, Belloc, believes, is impossible, and expulsion immoral). But the bald fact that he had seen a working consensus so similar to our own collapse, and then went on to provide at least the sketch of a framework for understanding why it had, and how to develop a more lasting peace, should be enough to grant his views a tolerant hearing.

The style is repetitive and pseudo-logical, but I don't know if that's from an overabundance of caution in approaching what was then and is now a controversial subject, or just the way he wrote.

Note that this book was first published in 1922. Its copyright has expired, so it is freely available and easily found on the internet.

Hilaire Belloc was a highly prolific author. As is often the case of those who write a lot, he did not always write well. The Jews is wordy and repetitive. I wish an editor had forced Belloc to cut out the fat. Furthermore, he makes confident assertions about questionable issues while providing no citations.

That said, The Jews by Hilaire Belloc is an interesting historical document. If you read it with imagination, especially between the lines, you will no doubt learn something about the world of nearly one hundred years ago. Considering that anti-Semitism is still with us, you might even learn something relevant to the world today. History never repeats itself exactly, but it teaches one about human nature and illustrates what is possible.

Is the book itself anti-Semitic? By our current standards, it doubtless is. Beliefs the author takes as basic information would today be considered gross calumnies. Were an author of Mr. Belloc's stature to write such a book now, it wouldn't be published. If it somehow did get published, the author would be denounced by all right thinking people. Excerpts, whether in context or not, would be quoted proving that he is a monster who should be expelled from society. He would lose his friends, his safety, and his livelihood. Ceremonial book burnings would be held on university campuses.

Of course, it isn't fair to judge a book written in 1922 by the standards of today. I believe that in the context of his times, Hilaire Belloc was making a good faith attempt to suggest a reasonable accommodation between European Jews and gentiles of his day. The author saw disaster looming, and he did his best to keep it from happening.

Note that 1922 is well before the start of the Holocaust. The accuracy of Mr. Belloc's predictions about the events that were to come is chilling.

The Jews är skiven av Hilarie Belloc (1870-1953) 1922. Belloc, född i Frankrike, flyttade sedan till England där han ägnade sig fullt ut åt sitt skrivande. Han var en författare, poet, talare, satiriker och politisk aktivist med en katolsk bakgrund.

I den här boken undersöker Belloc den judiska frågan från båda perspektiv på ett uttalat neutralt och nyanserat sätt. Författaren uppmanar till en öppen och ärlig diskussion i syfte att komma till en lösning som gynnar båda grupper.

Belloc hävdar att den liberala toleransen, det vill säga att folk från den här gruppen bör ses som vilken annan medborgare som helst i nationen de bor i, är ett av huvudproblemen i denna fråga. Faktumet att denna grupp inte har någon som helst vilja att bli en del av sin värdnation eftersom de redan har en högre lojalitet till sin egen grupp (vilket är fullt naturligt) är en orsak till friktionen mellan dem och den nationen de bor i. En annan källa till friktion, enligt författaren, är att denna grupp, när det passar dem, väljer att identifiera sig som en etnisk grupp och när detta inte är till deras fördel väljer de att identifiera sig som en religiös grupp.

Författaren identifierar vidare två beteenden per grupp som skapar osämja. Från vårat håll är det vår känsla av överlägsenhet och vår ovilja och oärlighet när det gäller att tackla och prata om den här gruppen. Från judarnas sida är det deras överdrivna och arroganta uttryck av sin känsla av överlägsenhet. Exempelvis uttryckte sig Benjamin Disraeli, den judiska premiärministern av Storbritannien i slutet på 1800-talet, på följande vis:”The Jew cannot be absorbed; it is not possible for a superior race to be absorbed by an inferior”(s.68). Det andra beteendet är judarnas inneboende fäbless för hemlighetsmakeri, framförallt när det kommer till influens och byten av efternamn för att gömma sitt ursprung. Exempelvis kan vi ta skaparen av make-up märket Max Faktor vars riktiga namn var Maksymilian Faktorowicz. En annan komponent av hemlighetsmakeriet är den judiska dominansen av internationell finans eller som författaren uttrycker det:

”But while the numerical proportion of Jews in these western countries is much smaller, and while therefore the peril of Jewish domination is very different in form from what it is farther East, it is clearly marked. It is exercised primarily through finance; next through the sceptical Universities, the anonymous Press and the corrupt Parliaments, and, lastly, in a more general form, by the presence of institutions which greatly favour the rise of the Jew in competition with his hosts ; each favours international knowledge ; each favours anonymity ; each still favours the old Liberal nonsense which called itself " toleration " and was really an indifference to that most fundamental of all social motives — religion — save, of course, where an exception is made to permit attack upon the Catholic Church.”(s.118)

Fortsättningsvis tar Belloc upp faktumet att Bolsjevismen var en judisk rörelse, något som få historieintresserade av någon anledning inte har en aning om och något som vi inte fått lära oss om i skolan. Författaren tar även upp Englands roll som en beskyddare av denna grupp från 1800 talets mitt fram till det första världskriget, då denna beskyddarroll tas upp av USA.

Belloc behandlar även hur det magiska ordet antisemit användes redan på hans tid på följande sätt:

”If a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish financial power in any region — for instance, in India —he was an Anti-Semite. If he interested himself in the peculiar character of Jewish philosophical discussions, especially in matters concerning religion, he was an Anti- Semite. If the emigrations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast modern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been organized and controlled like an army on the march), interested him as an historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an Anti-Semite. If he exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an Anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians taking money from the Jews, he was an Anti-Semite. If he did no more than call a Jew a Jew, he was an Anti-Semite. The laughter which the name used to provoke was most foolishly used to support nothing nobler or more definitive than this wretched policy of concealment. Anyone with judgment could have told the Jews, had the Jews cared to consult such an one, that their pusillanimous policy was bound to fail. It was but a postponement of the evil day.” (s.96)

Vi konstaterar att detta är ett strategi som hundra år senare fungerar lika bra då som nu.

Avslutningsvis vill vi rekommendera denna bok till alla som är intresserade av denna fråga och dess historiska aspekter. Som vi redan nämnt är denna redogörelse neutral och nyanserad och långt ifrån en polemisk skrift samt en uppmaning till en öppen och ärlig diskussion rörande en fråga som inte fått en rimligt lösning på över tvåtusen år.

Belloc wrote this book in 1922, five years after the Russian Revolution, five years after the Balfour Declaration, and eighteen years before the outbreak of WWII.

He wrote the book as a friend of the Jewish people (the book ends with the words, "Peace be to Israel") and in recognition of the growing antisemitism in Europe. His purpose was to propose a peaceable solution to the Jewish Problem, which had repeatedly arisen over the 2000 year history of Christendom--a problem which invariably followed a cyclical pattern:

"The Jew comes to an alien society, at first in small numbers. He thrives. His presence is not resented. He is rather treated as a friend. Whether from mere contrast in type--what I have called "friction"--or from some apparent divergence between his objects and those of his hosts, or through his increasing numbers, he creates (or discovers) a growing animosity. He resents it. He opposes his hosts. They call themselves masters in their own house. The Jew resists their claim. It comes to violence.

It is always the same miserable sequence. First a welcome; then a growing, half-conscious ill-ease; next a culmination in acute ill-ease; lastly catastrophe and disaster; insult, persecution, even massacre, the exiles flying from the place of persecution into a new district where the Jew is hardly known, where the problem has never existed or has been forgotten. He meets again with the largest hospitality. There follows here also, after a period of amicable interfusion, a growing, half-conscious ill-ease, which next becomes acute and leads to new explosions, and so on, in a fatal round."

Belloc's stated purpose in writing the book, was to "stop the wheel from its perpetual and tragic turning." Failing to stop the wheel, he feared, would lead to a greater catastrophe than those seen in the past. Obviously, he proved tragically prophetic in this regard. But, mostly because the world failed to hear his warning.

Belloc wrote from England, the home of Lord Balfour and the protectorate of the incipient state of Israel. At the time, the Jewish Problem was in its incipient phases in the U.S. Attention was diverted by WWII, the post-war formulation of the State of Israel, the post-war consensus to "never again" foster the conditions that led to the Holocaust, and so the issue faded into the background.

And here we are, in 2025, with growing awareness of the "friction" bursting from the seams in the U.S. And Belloc's book is more needed than ever, because Belloc proposes what he believed then (and I tend to believe now) is the only solution to the problem: abandonment of the "Liberal fiction" that the Jewish people (as a collective) can be anything other than an international people--a nation always and everywhere essentially independent of their hosts.

Belloc's book is often described as antisemitic literature. It is likely that my reading this book and posting a favorable review will be deemed by some as antisemitic as well. This, too, is part of the problem. One of the defensive instincts of the Jewish people, coupled with a false sense of propriety on the part of Gentiles, is to enforce an unnatural silence upon the very recognition of the problem.

"You can meet an Irishman and discuss with him the conditions of his nation. You can ask an Italian when he was last in Italy, or congratulate a Frenchman upon his acquisition of your tongue or tell him that it is difficult for him to understand your own customs: but a convention arose under the Liberal fiction... that do do any of these very natural things in the case of the Jew is monstrous."

Belloc suggests nearly all fall into one of two extremes: ignoring the problem and engaging in ostrich-like assertion it doesn't exist at all; or outright hatred and bona fide antisemitism. The only recipe is to bring it out into the open, recognize the rights of both parties to protect their own interests while respecting those of the other, and dropping the fiction that absorption of the alien into the host is possible, for it has never proven so in the past and has no sign of doing so in the present.

"And they are a separate people, they cannot be other. My whole plea is that this truth should be recognized and acted upon; for if it is shirked or denied it will take its revenge. Reality always takes its revenge upon unreal pretence."

Peace be to Israel.

I read this because I wanted to understand what "mainstream" anti-Semitism looked like in the 1930s before the Holocaust. I was shocked at how pervasive it seems, and I was also shocked to read in this book how pervasive it seemingly was _not_ at the end of the 19th Century. Thus there is recent history, within living memory, of liberalism and tolerance receding even in the West.

This informs our times, where intolerance seems again to be on the move.

This can all happen again, and we should guard against it.

Belloc was not "anti-semitic" as the back of the book accuses him. He simply wrote honestly about a real problem that still exists. This book even anticipates the Jewish difficulties in Germany during the Second World War; however, Belloc does not advocate violence against Jews. His goal in writing is clearly outlined in the opening chapters to be twofold: simply to identify a problem between Jews and those with whom they live who are non-Jewish and to advocate a clear and open delineation between Jews and non-Jews. This is not necessarily "ghettoization" but a clear and honest denial of the common practice among Jews to lie about their race through name change and feigned concern for the country in which they live. A modern example of this sort of subtle deception is Comedy Central's "Jon Stewart" who was born Jon Stewart Leibowitz (not kidding) or former fed chair Ben Shalom Bernanke (again, not kidding). Disproportionate Jewish dominance in finance and media is not an accident and Belloc's general proposals would prohibit Jews from working secretly and working in the highest positions of power to further the interests only of their fellow Jews.
None of this discussion makes Belloc an "anti-semite," or one who hates all Jews simply for their Jewishness and blames all world problems on Jews. In fact, Belloc condemns the anti-semite (in spite of his frequent sympathy for the anti-semite's anger toward a real Jewish problem) as unhelpful and uncharitable. The anti-semite actually ends up furthering the Jewish cause by making any mention of it a Shibboleth that gets immediately labeled "anti-semitic." Of course he is correct in 95% of his assessment throughout the entire book. His main failure is that he seems to be a bit too careful in his desire to avoid anger or "overreaction"; I think this leads him to white wash the problem more than is helpful.
I wonder how long my review here will be allowed to remain up or how long it will take for a reader to decide I am an anti-Semite for agreeing with Belloc and saying things like "Ben Shalom Bernanke."