“Why Semitism is a Danger”:  Adrien Arcand defines the meaning of “Semitism” in the Goglu of May 23rd, 1930

The Art of Succeeding and Dominating in Quebec

THE NEWLY ARRIVED JEW FROM PALESTINE:  “You seem prosperous, brother Israelite.  But you appear to be just an employee, because the name on the store isn’t Jewish.” 
THE MERCHANT:  “If I had a Jewish name on the sign, the Christians wouldn’t come in.  So, I take a French name and they all flock like sheep.  These good Christians!  They have no idea how to stand up for themselves, they do their best to weaken their race, and make ours strong and rich so that Israel can dominate Canada faster.  Take my word, brother Israelite, move here, because Quebec is a veritable Promised Land and the government gives us all we demand.”  From The Goglu of June 6th, 1930.
LE JUIF NOUVELLEMENT ARRIVE DE PALESTINE:  “Tu as l’air prospere, frère Israëlite.  Pourtant tu n’as l’air que d’un employé, car le nom du magasin n’est pas juif.”
LE MARCHAND:  “Si j’avais un nom juif sur l’enseigne, les chrétiens n’entreraient pas.  Alors, je prends un nom français et ils accourent tous comme des moutons.  Ces bons Canadiens!  Ils ne savent pas se soutenir, ils font tout en leur possible pour affaiblir leur race, rendre la nôtre forte et riche afin qu’Israël puisse dominer plus vite en Canada.  Prends ma parole, frère Israëlite, installe-toi ici, car Québec est véritablement notre Terre Promise et le gouvernement nous accorde tout ce que nous demandons.” Du Goglu du 13 juin 1930.


My WordWeb desktop dictionary from Princeton defines the noun “antisemitism” as “The intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people”.  The “adjective”, “antisemitic”, we are told, means “Relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews”.

In our day, these words certainly have these meanings, in fact they are clichés. They are not used intellectually, or academically, but as propaganda (in the pejorative sense) by Jews and a legion of others to control public opinion, public behavior; and in other quarters to curry favor with the notorious “Money Power”.

Even a former member of Israel’s Knesset matter-of-factly admits how the term is used.  Shulamit Aloni, an ex-Palmach fighter and Israeli Knesset and cabinet member, gave an interview to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.  To Goodman’s shocked face, Aloni said:

“Well, it’s a trick, we always use it.  When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust.  When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are antisemitic.”

The “trick” would be used, for example, if you oppose Israel’s full-time illegal military occupation of Gaza, punctuated every couple of years by a good phosphorus bombing, incinerating children to a crisp in their schools and in their beds.  (Now, that’s a Holocaust.)

In other words, if you disagree with the violent domination and ongoing bloody genocide of Palestine by foreign Israel (2019 is the 71st anniversary of this ongoing true Holocaust), you “hate” Jews.  If you advocate the right of the German people to defend their post-war reputation, or the right of any people to defend their reputation against abuse by red smears like “far right”, “white supremacist”, “white privilege”, etc., which all rolled into one are now practically equivalent to “anti-Semite” ― as we will see below ― then the “trick” will be used to smear you.  On the other hand, if you are a Jew who opposes all of this, you may be called a “self-hating Jew”.

That is how the term is currently used, as a political weapon to terrorize the world into enduring and tolerating lies, genocide, civilization suicide, and hyper-control of the rest of us by a handful of Jews who can murder or mass-murder anyone they like at any time with the help of our far-out evangelical, freemasonic, patsy “liberal” governments.

Adrien Arcand published an editorial in the May 23rd, 1930 issue of his Goglu newspaper entitled “Why Semitism is a Danger” in which he defines what he meant by the word “Semitism”.  We therefore know what Arcand meant by “anti” semitism.  However, it is too bad Arcand chose a word that already had a definition, one the media and the left have persistently attached to him:  “Relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews”.

I decided to find out where the term anti-Semitism came from.

The Origin of the term “anti-Semitism”

A search for the origin of the word “anti-Semitism” in an online etymological dictionary yields up something less than a definition and more in the nature of political exploitation of a dictionary for an agenda.  Etymonline has included anti-nationalism in its litany of pejoratives to refer to the man it says authored the term “anti-Semitism”.  Etymonline’s politically loaded etymology of “anti-Semitism” claims the term dates from 1881:

anti-Semitism (n. )
also anti-Semitism, 1881, from German Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite.”

Just look at all those pejoratives in relation to an “anti-Semite”:  “German”, “radical”, nationalist and “race agitator”!

At least Etymonlone makes clear that anti-nationalism is directly connected with Jews (it certainly is:  “cultural pluralism” (multiculturalism), the method of destroying the nation-state, was invented by a Zionist in 1915:  Horace M. Kallen).  What Etymonline does not explain is how Jews themselves end up with a nation-state without being called “radical” “nationalist” “race-agitators” — which they absolutely are!

The terrorism is everywhere.  It is now in your dictionary, rewritten for you by the Ministry of Truth, where armies of Winston Smiths (וינסטון סמית ‘) now busily “rectify” all past news to accord with “truth” as held by the Party.  You can look up your mental and spiritual terrorism, your anti-white ethnic terrorism, your psychological warfare against nationalism in a “dictionary” perverting our languages for left-wing mind control.

Etymonline continues:

“Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense.  Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try Hermann Adler”s Judaeophobia (1881).  Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the “Athenaeum” of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.  Jew-hatred is attested from 1881.  As an adjective, anti-Jewish is from 1817.”

Judaeophobia”:  Arcand might have saved himself a little misery with that one.

Etymonline believes that Anti-Semitism means “Jew” hatred.  That, however, is not how Adrien Arcand used the term.  Arcand defined Semitism as everything Talmudic Jews do and believe that is antithetical to the existence and well-being of non-Jews in general, and to Arcand’s Catholic Quebec in particular.  The prefix “anti” then simply means hatred or dislike for things Jews do because of what they believe and that are harmful to other peoples.  It does not mean hatred for Jews as human beings.  Arcand was a devout Catholic who opposed hate, as the diametric opposite of Christian civilization.

In “The Wells of World Hate”, in Chapter I of Down With Hate! (1965) at page 20, Arcand said:

“Le Christ avait dit et prouvé que cette descendance d’Abraham devant régner éternellement sur tout et sur tous était Lui, fils unique du Père, non créé mais engendré parle Père, connu jusqu’alors sous le nom de Iâvé, léhovah, Sabbaoth, etc.”

“The Christ had said and proven that these descendants of Abraham were to reign eternally over all, and above ail was He, the only Son of the Father, not created but engendered by the Father, ever after known by the name of YHVH, lehovah, Sabbaoth, etc.”

In other words, the quite Catholic Mr. Arcand believed the Jews would convert and rule the world under Christ … because Christ had said so (above) in the New Testament.  Arcand therefore could hardly hate Jews as human beings.

Eight years after this Goglu editorial, in 1938, Maclean’s magazine captioned a photo of Arcand with the statement:  “He hates Jews”.1  Would Maclean’s have reconsidered, had they read Arcand’s editorial in English … for the first time, below?


Adrien Arcand in The Goglu of May 23rd, 1930, page 3



Pourquoi le sémtisme est un péril

“Why Semitism is a Danger”

Ce qui porte le Juif à ne se fondre ni s’assimiler avec aucune autre race. — Indéfectible espérance dans les promesses de l’ancienne alliance. — Civilisation absolument contraire à la civilisation chrétienne.

Why the Jew does not merge or assimilate with any other race. — Persistent hope in the promises of the Old Covenant — Civilization absolutely contrary to Christian civilization.

Israël dominera la terre

Israel will dominate the earth.

Continuant son étude sur la question des écoles juives en cette province, le “Miroir” du 11 mai publiait l’article suivant que nous reproduisons, comme les précédents, pour le bénéfice de nos lecteurs éloignés qui ne reçoivent que le “Goglu”.   Le péril juif est devenu tellement grave, dans notre province, que nos lecteurs voudront bien se mettre au courant de la question, car ils seront appelés avant longtemps à se prononcer sur l’opportunité de confirmer ou rappeler la Loi David.

Continuing its study on the question of Jewish schools in this province, the “Miroir” of May 11th published the following article which, like those previous, we reproduce here for the benefit of our distant readers who only receive the “Goglu”.  The Jewish danger has become so severe in our province that our readers will want to be up-to-date on the issue, as they will soon be asked to decide whether to confirm 2 or repeal the Law David.

Après avoir constaté l’indiscutable dis­sa­tis­faction des évêque au sujet du Bill David des écoles juives, nous avons vu comment ils ont été les seuls à se lever pour nous défendre, au double point de vue religieux et national, contre cette mesure qui modifie la structure de notre système éducationnel.  Pour pouvoir affirmer que les évêques ont DEFENDU la race en cette circonstance, il faut qu’il y ait véritablement un danger à prévenir ou repousser.  Avant de voir en quoi la Loi David constitue un péril, le plus grand de tous ceux qui aient encore menacé politiquement et socialement cette province, qu’on nous permettre d’exposer le péril qu’offre partout le sémitlsme en général.

After noting the obvious dis­sat­is­fac­tion of the bishops with respect to Bill David on the Jewish schools, we saw how they alone rose to defend us—from both the religious and the national point of view—against this measure that alters the structure of our educational system.  To be able to affirm that the bishops DEFENDED the race 3 in this circumstance, there must be a real danger to prevent or repel.  Before we look at how the Law David is a danger, the greatest that has ever politically and socially threatened this province, we take the liberty of exposing the danger offered by Semitism in general.

Il y a deux sortes de Juifs:  le Juif religieux et le Juif irreligieux ou purement athée. Le Juif religieux, comme d’ailleurs le Juif athée dans son enfance, est nourri de l’Ancien Testament et des préceptes talmudlques, qui enseignent que Dieu a fait une alliance avec un seul peuple:  Israël.  Seuls les Israélites ont trouvé grâce devant Jéhova, seuls ils sont de la race bénie.  Les autres sont simplement “enfants des hommes” et le plus souvent sont appelés … “les chiens de Gentils”.  Un Messie doit être donné aux Juifs, qui domineront matériellement toute la terre et assujettiront les autres races. Le Juif est formé dans cet enseignement et cette foi, répudiant et ridiculisant même le Nouveau Testament, alliance nouvelle de Dieu avec tous les peuples et toutes les races dans une union d’amour universelle. [Surbrillance ajoutée.]

There are two kinds of Jews:  the religious Jew and the irreligious or purely atheistic Jew.  The religious Jew, like the atheistic Jew in his childhood, is nurtured by the Old Testament and by Talmudic precepts teaching him that God made an alliance with one people:  Israel.  Only the Israelites have found favor with Jehovah, only they are of the blessed race.  The others are simply “children of men” and most often are called… “dogs of Gentiles”.  A Messiah must be given to the Jews, who will materially dominate all the earth and subjugate the other races.  The Jew is shaped by this teaching and belief; repudiating, even ridiculing the New Testament, the new covenant of God with all peoples and all races in a union of universal love. [Emphases added.]

C’est pourquoi, alors que le Christianisme envoie des missionnaires se sacrifier jusqu’à la mort dans tous les coins de la terre pour gagner toutes les races à l’alliance Évangélique, les Juifs ne font aucun prosélytisme, aucun apostolat, fort de l’alliance exclusive que leur assure l’Ancien Testament.  Ils ne se hasardent dans un pays que lorsqu’il a été policé et civilisé par le travail des missionnaires et des pionniers, quand le temps est favorable à son exploitation matérielle.  Et partout où il va, le Juif s’y rend dans cette idée que les Gentils ne sont pas les enfants de Dieu, qu’Israël dominera un jour toute la terre et aura les autres races pour servantes. [Surbrilance ajoutée]

Thus, while Christianity sends missionaries into every corner of the earth to sacrifice themselves even unto to death to win all races to the Gospel of the New Covenant, the Jews do not proselytize and have no apostolate, shored up by the exclusive Covenant promised to them by the Old Testament.  They venture into a country only when it has been polished and civilized by the work of missionaries and pioneers, when the time is favorable for its material exploitation.  And wherever the Jew goes, he goes with this idea:  that the Gentiles are not the children of God, that Israel will one day dominate the earth and will have the other races for servants. [Emphases added.]

L’Ancien Testament fournit au Juif son inspiration religieuse et surtout nationale, et le Juif n’y voit que la promesse divine d’une ère de conquête matérielle et mondiale.   Dès les premières pages de la Bible, on voit assez quel matérialisme effréné rongeait le coeur de la race Juive, comme de nos jours, et quelles difficultés Moïse eut à surmonter si patiemment pour inculquer un peu de sens religieux à cette race qui, dès qu’elle en avait une occasion, élevait des statues du Veau d’Or et de Baal en signe d’amour de l’or et des richesses.

The Old Testament gives the Jew his religious, and above all, his na­tion­al inspiration, and the Jew sees in it only the divine promise of an era of material and world conquest.  From the very first pages of the Bible, we clearly see the frantic materialism eating away at the heart of the Jewish race, as in our own day, and the difficulties Moses so patiently had to overcome to inculcate a little religious feeling in this race which, at the first opportunity, raised up statues of the Golden Calf and of Baal as a sign of love of gold and wealth.

Les Egyptiens, les Assyriens et les Mèdes ont disparu, de même que les Chananéens et les Coptes; les Celtes, les Francs et les Gaulois ont fait place aux Français, aux Anglais, aux Allemands, aux Belges et autres nations; les Romains sont devenus les Italiens, etc. Mais, pendant que tous ces peuples suivaient l’évo­lu­tion rationnelle du temps, les Juifs ont subsisté sans subir le moindre changement.  Pourquoi?  Toujours à cause do la croyance à l’ancienne alliance exclusive de Dieu avec leur race, à cause de l’espérance que se réalisera la promesse d’as­sushy;jéshy;tisshy;seshy;ment mondial à Israël.  Et cela empêchera toujours les Juifs de se fondre aux autres races ou même d’admettre des Gentils au sein de le leur.

The Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Medes have disappeared, as have the Canaanites and the Copts; the Celts, the Franks and the Gauls gave way to the French, the English, the Germans, the Belgians and other nations; the Romans became Italians, etc.  But while all these peoples followed the rational evolution of time, the Jews survived unchanged.  Why?  Because of their belief in the old exclusive Covenant of God with their race, because of the hope that the promise of world subjection to Israel will be realized.  And this will always prevent the Jews from merging with other races or even admitting Gentiles into their own.

Au Canada comme ailleurs, le Juif caresse donc l’espoir de dominer un jour.  Ce sera sa patrie et il assujettira à sa puissance les “chiens de Gentils”.  S’il devient simplement un Canadien comme les autress, il menace de cesser d’être Juif et de ne pas participer aux promesses de l’anclenne alliance.  Il faut donc qu’il forme une nation au sein de la nation, qu’il forme un groupe à part qui, par tous les moyens recommandâmes ou non, deviendra le groupe le plus puissant et dominera complètement l’autre.  Le Juif ne dit pas ces choses publiquement; au contraire, il est cauteleux, insinuant, chattemiteux; mais au fond de son coeur, il entretient une haine contre les races fortes et un espoir toujours vlvace de les dominer.

In Canada, as elsewhere, the Jew cherishes the hope of one day dominating. This will be his homeland and he will subjugate the “dogs of Gentiles” to his might.  If he simply becomes a Canadian like any other, he risks ceasing to be Jewish and not participating in the promises of the old covenant.  He must therefore form a nation within the nation, he must form a group apart which, by all means, disreputable or not, will become the most powerful group and completely dominate the other.  The Jew does not say these things publicly; on the contrary, he is cautious, ingratiating, self-isolating; but in the depths of his heart, he maintains a hatred of strong races and an everlasting hope of dominating them.

Comme le Juif ne reconnaît que le pacte ancien de Dieu avec Israël; comme il répudie la nouvelle alliance universelle et refuse de reconnaître le Messie chrétien, il a donc des aspirations diamétralement opposées aux aspirations chrétiennes.  Et quand il se trouve dans un pays officiellement chrétien de tradition et de fait, comme le Canada, il travaille contre les aspirations de ce pays, il poursuit un but contraire à celui de la majorité, aussi longtemps qu’il réussit à rester Juif, individuellement comme collectivement. [Surbrillance ajoutée.]

Since the Jew recognizes only the ancient pact of God with Israel; since he repudiates the new universal covenant and refuses to recognize the Christian Messiah, he has aspirations diametrically opposed to Christian aspirations.  And when he is in a country like Canada, officially Christian in tradition and in fact, he works against the aspirations of the country, he pursues a goal contrary to that of the majority for as long as he succeeds in remaining a Jew, individually and collectively. [Emphasis added.]

Quant au Juif irréligieux ou athée, il procède d’une autre façon qui vise cependant au seul et même but.  Comme il n’a pas de patrie et ne peut connaître l’idée d’une aspiration nationale, il cherche à briser cette idée dans le coeur de tous les patriotes, sans se soucier des divergences de traditions, de langue, de climat, voire même d’an­thro­po­lo­gie.  Pour arriver à ces fins, il prêche le neutralisme en tout, il enseigne l’internatlonalisme.  Il veut que tout être humain devienne Juif en ce que, comme lui, il perde le sens pa­tri­o­tique, le sens traditionnel et ce sens émulatif qui constitue le progrès par l’ambition de chaque pays de faire aussi bien sinon mieux que son voisin.

As for the irreligious Jew or atheist, he proceeds in another manner which nonetheless targets one and the same goal.  Since he has no homeland and cannot know the idea of a national aspiration, he tries to break this idea in the heart of all patriots, unconcerned with differences of tradition, language, climate, even of anthropology.  To achieve these ends, he preaches neutralism in everything, he strives for internationalism.  He wants every human being to become a Jew to the extent that, like him, he loses the patriotic sense, the sense of rivalry, the traditional sense and that emulative sense which constitutes progress through the ambition of each country to do just as well, if not better than, its neighbour.

L’on peut donc conclure que le sémitisme a toujours été et est toujours un péril national, même si on ne lui accorde pas l’égalité ethnique.  Il empêche partout l’unité nationale en permettant la for­ma­tion d’un groupe solide, bien uni, exclusiviste, au sein d’une nation.  Et si on considère l’enseignement moral du Talmud en regard de l’en­seig­ne­ment évangélique, on peut conclure que le sémitisme est pareillement un grand péril social, puisque le Talmnd recommande surtout l’affermissement de la seule race Juive et ne considère pas comme un mal le tort causé & un … “chien de Gentil”, comme nous le dé­mon­tre­rons par les textes.  Si le sémitisme est en lui-même un si grand péril pour toute idée nationale et pour la civilisation chrétienne, quel péril devient-il donc quand on lui donne une reconnais¬sance ethnique, statutaire et offi¬cielle, comme vient de le faire la Législature de Québec?  Nous le verrons plus tard. [Surbrillance ajoutée.]

It can thus be concluded that Semitism has always been and still is a national danger, even if it is not granted ethnic equality.  It prevents national unity everywhere, by allowing a solid, strongly united, exclusivist group to form within a nation.  And if we compare the moral teachings of the Talmud to the teachings of the Gospel, we can conclude that Semitism is just as great a social danger, since the Talmud above all recommends the strengthening of the Jewish race alone and does not consider as wrong the harm done to a … “Gentile dog”, as we will demonstrate, using the texts. If Semitism itself is so great a danger for the whole national idea, and for Christian civilization, then how will the danger grow when we give it official and statutory ethnic recognition, as the Quebec Legislature has just done? We will look at this later.  [Emphases added.]



1.  See Part I of “Fascism in Canada”, a very unfriendly but quite well written article by Frederick Edwards, published in Maclean’s magazine on April 15, 1938; Part II was published on May 1st, 1938.  Nonetheless, the article has some very interesting background on Arcand and his National Unity Party of Canada.

2. Adrien Arcand did not understand constitutional law. The electorate cannot vote to confirm or repeal an unconstitutional law, the law is void if unconstitutional. A court action is required to declare it void. In this case, he is referring to an unconstitutional law of the Quebec legislature under the Liberals which purported to deprive the French-Canadians in Quebec of their exclusive right to self-government under their own Legislature. The Liberals had given Jews coordinate ethnic rights, which destroys Confederation by re-federating Quebec internally while giving Jews competitive control of Quebec law-making, which violates the Constitution. Canada was federalized in 1867 to give each of the founders (ethnic majorities in each former colony being federated) their own legislature for local self-government to preserve their own culture.

3. By “race”, Arcand means the French-Canadians in Quebec.  (The French-Canadian race is found all over Canada, North America, and the western hemisphere.) The Catholic Church had always been their great protector and defender.

Subscribe and share! Every now and then, you’ll get a piece of my mind, and a free eBook.

Abonnez-vous et partagez!  De temps en temps, vous aurez un morceau de mon esprit et un eBook gratuit.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s