"Judaism is a conspiracy against all races"

Tom Metzger’s line deploys a classic antisemitic conspiracy trope, framing a diverse religious and cultural tradition as a unified, malevolent force. The rhetoric operates by assigning collective intent to millions of people who do not share a single agenda, thereby erasing internal diversity, religious denominations, political views, ethnic backgrounds, and replacing it with a caricature of coordinated harm. Such framing converts complex social realities into an emotionally potent, simplified narrative: there is a hidden enemy, omnipresent and omnipotent, to blame for any grievance.

Conspiracy language does particular work. It reverses the burden of proof, offering an unfalsifiable claim: lack of evidence becomes evidence of the conspiracy’s cunning. It uses sweeping generalization and circular reasoning, if some Jews hold influence in any domain, that becomes “proof” of the whole; if they do not, that absence is framed as concealment. It also relies on racial essentialism, presuming fixed, antagonistic blocs rather than overlapping, plural identities, and it sells a zero-sum picture of society in which one group can rise only by injuring all others.

Historically, this pattern echoes fabrications like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and was amplified by fascist and white supremacist movements to justify exclusion, persecution, and violence. By positing an existential, totalizing threat, the claim seeks to galvanize an in‑group around fear and grievance, presenting discriminatory policies or vigilante actions as defensive necessity.

The social reality contradicts the premise. Judaism encompasses a spectrum of beliefs and communities, often with deep internal disagreements; Jews participate across the political and cultural landscape and, like any group, are not a monolith. Societal problems, economic dislocation, political corruption, geopolitical conflict, have material, institutional, and historical causes that do not require a global cabal to explain them.

Understanding why such statements resonate is part of resisting them: they offer simple stories for complex anxieties and provide a scapegoat when uncertainty feels intolerable. Critical inquiry, historical literacy, and a commitment to seeing individuals rather than conspiratorial abstractions undercut the allure and the harm of this narrative.