In 2004, when Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" was released, Russ Roberts held a session with colleagues to explain the Jewish response to it. Many Jewish organizations felt the movie demonized Jews, implying they had a decisive role in the crucifixion. Russ explained that the discomfort stemmed less from historical accuracy and more from how the charge of deicide—killing God—has been used to justify murdering Jews throughout history.

As an example, he described how Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem in 1096 stopped in France and Germany to massacre thousands of Jews in what are known as the Rhineland massacres. His colleagues, who were mostly religious Christians, had never heard of this and were visibly ashamed. Russ noted that this event, often a historical footnote for others, is an epic tragedy in Jewish history.

This is just one of many such events. The Jewish tradition commemorates a long history of tragedies, including the destruction of the two temples in Jerusalem, pogroms, the Khmelnytsky massacres of 1648, Kristallnacht in 1938, the Holocaust, and the October 7th attack by Hamas. This history of persecution is part of the Jewish cultural DNA. It fosters a deep-seated vigilance, born from the fear that history might repeat itself.

David Deutsch presents an unusual perspective on the long history of violence against Jews, which he calls "the Pattern." He disagrees that it began with the destruction of the temple, arguing it is a remarkably consistent meme that has persisted over millennia. He reframes common historical narratives, such as the actions of the Crusaders.

I think the impulse to massacre Jews came first and the Jews killing Jesus was an excuse invented afterwards after that impulse in order to legitimize it. And the fact that this excuse absolutely doesn't make sense, that is the beginning of what I want to understand.

The Pattern is not the occasional pogroms or massacres, which are often bottom-up phenomena from the populace rather than top-down from authorities. Instead, the Pattern is the constant, underlying impulse to legitimize hurting Jews. David suggests it is not even about hatred, which he sees as just an occasional symptom. This impulse conflicts with other moral systems, like Christianity, so it must be accommodated. For example, St. Augustine advised that Jews must suffer but not be killed, an attempt to make the impulse consistent with other moral ideas.

Paradoxically, violence erupts not when belief in the Pattern is strongest, but when the Pattern itself is threatened by opposing moral currents in society.

It's when there appears to be a threat to the Pattern, when the moral rationalizations don't seem to be working and the society seems to be going the other direction, that's when the violence breaks out.

He cites two examples. First, during the Enlightenment, many expected antisemitism to fade away like other forms of discrimination, but it actually got worse. Second, the Zionists believed founding Israel would grant Jews the legitimacy of a state, but the reverse happened, intensifying the Pattern. When Russ Roberts asks about the origin of the Pattern, David admits he does not know. He believes it's more important to first understand what the Pattern is before explaining its cause.

It was necessary to understand that the planets move around the sun. Before Newton could come up with the reason an inverse square law, it would have been impossible to come up with the inverse Square law to explain Ptolemy's cosmology.

Standard explanations for the persecution of Jews often try to frame it as a form of irrationality like racism, fear of the other, or envy. However, these explanations are insufficient. For example, people do not always hate those they envy. More importantly, the stereotypes about Jews have shifted over time to suit the narrative of the persecutors.

Before the Enlightenment, Voltaire criticized Jews for being primitive and superstitious. After Jews embraced the Enlightenment, the narrative changed. They were then seen as foreign infiltrators becoming rich and powerful. This new stereotype ignored the reality for many Jews. For example, most of the Jews killed by the Nazis were of below-average income. While Jewish shopkeepers in Polish villages might have been slightly better off than the peasants, they were not wealthier than the elites who justified their murder.

David argues against the impulse to trace the phenomenon back to its psychological or historical roots from 2,500 years ago. He believes the vast majority of people gripped by the Pattern are unaware of its origins. It is simply a remarkably persistent phenomenon. Russ, speaking from a rational, scientific perspective, finds this difficult to accept. He notes that while economic arguments—like groups pushing Jews out of professions to reduce competition—might explain specific instances, they fail to account for the entire, long-standing phenomenon.

Throughout history, there has been a persistent, underlying acceptance of the idea that Jews deserve to be hurt. Russ suggests that for many people today, this idea seems strange. They might say they are just critical of Israel's actions and do not wish for Jews to be killed. However, this criticism is often a smokescreen or a rationalization. The causation is reversed: the desire to hurt Jews comes first, and a reason is invented to justify it.

History provides numerous examples of these justifications. Today it might be Israel's policies. In other eras, it was deicide, economic exploitation by Jewish landlords, or the 'stabbed in the back' myth after World War I in Germany. Jews often respond to these accusations with facts, but the facts do not matter because the underlying belief is not based on reason. The violence itself is rare, but the legitimization of it is common.

A key characteristic of these rationalizations is their illogicality. For example, after World War I, Germans claimed Jews caused them to lose the war, while some in England claimed Jews caused the war and prevented it from stopping. The contradictory nature of these accusations is a feature, not a bug.

The illogicality of the accusations that are formed as rationalizations of the Pattern is itself a characteristic of the Pattern. It's a bit like the phenomenon of cults or some religions. The cults and religions often have credos, shibboleths, where to be a member you have to assert something illogical. And it's a badge of membership. In some situations, the more illogical the shibboleth is, the stronger it becomes as a badge of membership.

A modern parallel is the meme that the $4 billion in U.S. aid to Israel is ruining America, an irrational claim given the scale of the U.S. budget. Russ notes that while he personally opposes the aid on principle, the argument that it's destroying the country doesn't make logical sense.

Antisemitism often presents a strange paradox. David Deutsch notes that Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, wrote virulent books about Jewish people, even repeating the trope that Jewish doctors kill their non-Jewish patients. Luther himself pointed out the irrationality of this situation, observing that despite this belief, people still hired Jewish doctors. This pattern was widespread. Jews would be expelled from cities for imaginary crimes, only to be welcomed back a generation later when their skills in trade, medicine, or finance were needed. The underlying accusations were not disproven, just ignored when convenient.

Russ Roberts shares a modern example that challenges his own long-held skepticism about the persistence of antisemitism. Having lived most of his life with very little overt anti-Jewish sentiment, he was puzzled by the idea of antisemitism as a mutating virus. However, the war in Gaza has shifted his perspective. He observes highly educated, thoughtful, and nuanced people he follows on social media who have changed their behavior dramatically since October 7th. These individuals, who he once considered rational, now exclusively post anti-Israel content, often containing falsehoods. They use terms like "genocide" while ignoring the plight of the hostages and Israel's moral dilemma. When their false posts are exposed, they do not apologize or retract them. Russ describes contacting one of these individuals, whom he knows personally, to explain the real-world danger of such rhetoric.

I said, you know, you're endangering me and my children. I don't mind if you're critical. But by demonizing me, which is the Pattern, by saying that I am a savage, that I am a supporter of genocide, you are justifying hurting me. You're justifying hurting my children. Please don't do that. Be nuanced, be critical. But please do not only post things, many of which are not true.

Russ Roberts questions why some thoughtful, respected people are relentlessly critical of Israel. His initial thought is that their empathy for Palestinians is being manipulated by social media feeds programmed to enrage them with false videos. He finds this explanation charitable but struggles with the perverse behavior of people he knows are rational in other areas of life.

David Deutsch suggests this behavior is not driven by compassion or empathy. He believes claiming empathy is a rationalization. David points out that this supposed compassion is highly selective. These same critics often ignore other tragedies and even the suffering of Palestinians harmed by non-Jews.

If they were empathic or compassionate, they would be compassionate with other Palestinians, for example, the ones who are being mistreated in other countries or who are expelled from other countries or with other tragedies in the world that aren't related to Jews. They don't say a word about them.

David argues this selective outrage points to an irrational "mind virus" rather than genuine empathy. He clarifies that this phenomenon can affect anyone, including Jews and Israelis. Russ questions if it's condescending to view people with opposing views as having a mental illness. David distinguishes between engaging in an argument and observing a phenomenon. While it is an illegitimate ad hominem fallacy to dismiss an opponent's argument by calling them irrational, it is still possible to recognize that irrationalities do happen and can grip people's worldviews.

Russ questions the effectiveness of Israel's public relations, known as hasbara, and wonders if correcting falsehoods on social media is just a game of "whack-a-mole." He notes that the criticism of Israel's communication as blunt or overconfident is a long-standing issue.

David suggests that the rise in anti-Jewish rhetoric during conflicts is a historical feature of pogroms, where bystanders often side rhetorically with the perpetrators. He argues this has little to do with Israel's PR skills. The real issue, according to David, is that organizations fighting antisemitism operate on a flawed premise.

It's not that they have got bad PR, it's that they have the wrong theory of what they are conflicting with. They think it's an education problem. Or that this is a form of prejudice or a form of racism... I can't help thinking that if they had the right theory of what they are combating, they would do better at combating it.

David explains that he sometimes corrects factual falsehoods on social media, not to convince hardened ideologues, but for the sake of newcomers, like a 16-year-old encountering the topic for the first time. He provides the example of the false claim that Israel invaded a Palestinian state in 1948. He points out that these allegations often come with an emotional component designed to legitimize hurting Jews. He compares this to the historical, and impossible, claim that a crowd of Jews in unison told Pontius Pilate to kill Jesus and accepted the blame for all future generations. Such stories are illogical by design and serve as a badge of membership for a group.

The Anglosphere, particularly Britain and the Netherlands, serves as a key example. Following the Enlightenment, these regions did not experience the same upsurge in anti-Semitic persecution as other parts of Europe. This wasn't because people became less prejudiced, but because the actions required to hurt Jews directly conflicted with the prevailing morality of the Anglosphere.

In 1897, the writer Nordau made a perceptive observation about Jewish emancipation. He noted that when Jews were allowed to leave the ghetto and participate in society, it didn't normalize the situation; it often made antisemitism worse. He believed this was because the people implementing Enlightenment ideals in most of Europe were not sincere.

Britain, and by extension the Anglosphere, was different. It was the last major European country to legally emancipate its Jewish population. This delay was a sign of seriousness. They waited until the conflict between the Pattern and the new ideas of the Enlightenment was resolved within the society. Once this happened in the mid-19th century, emancipation was not a major issue. For example, the rule requiring a Member of Parliament to swear on the New Testament was lifted when the country was ready to accept the change.

The Pattern is a moral perversion which takes the form of compulsively legitimizing, not enacting, hurting Jews for being Jews.

This historical difference still matters. In strong societies like those in the Anglosphere, people's actions are more regulated by political and social traditions than by their personal gut feelings about different groups. Russ notes that this framework helps explain the obsessive focus some people develop on Jews, a pattern seen historically with figures like Adolf Hitler and today on social media. This focus can grow over time, crowding out all other topics for those in its grip.

Russ Roberts, a practicing Jew, asks David Deutsch, an atheist, about the proper response to the Pattern. He questions whether the most logical solution, from a utilitarian perspective, might be assimilation. Rather than fighting hatred, perhaps Jews should simply fade into the woodwork by changing names and customs to reduce suffering and stop being a distinct, identifiable group.

David strongly disagrees, stating that this idea has already been tried and has failed. He points out that the extermination of Jews began in the very place where they were most assimilated.

The idea that assimilation is the solution to pogroms was believed by many people in the 19th century and was tried by many people. And the place where this extermination of the Jews began was the place where they were most assimilated in the whole of Europe.

David explains that in 1900, most would have predicted France or Russia, and perhaps Poland, as the likely site of such a catastrophe. Both Germany and Austria-Hungary were refuges for Jews fleeing pogroms. It was the Dreyfus affair in France that served as a turning point for Theodor Herzl. Previously an assimilationist, Herzl saw the intense, society-wide hatred directed at an innocent Jewish man and concluded that assimilation would not work. This realization prompted his advocacy for Zionism.

However, Zionism was not initially popular among Jews. The great majority, including many Orthodox Jews, rejected it. Some held the religious belief that Jews should not return to Judea until the Messiah comes.

Israel's creation saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust and later from persecution. Yet, it did not fulfill its original destiny as a completely safe haven. As one person put it, in Europe, they were told, "we don't want you here," but after creating Israel, they were told, "go back to where you came from." David argues that these conflicting demands are merely rationalizations. The underlying impulse remains the same. He points out that the Nazis initially tried to expel Jews, not murder them. It was the rest of the world that refused to accept them, essentially trapping them. This collaboration, driven by the Pattern, prevented the expulsion and ultimately led to the decision to murder them because the situation could not be left as it was.

This Pattern continues today. Russ describes a recent protest outside Park East Synagogue in Manhattan where attendees were met with aggressive chants. The protest was ostensibly against an event encouraging people to go to Israel. However, the chants went far beyond political disagreement.

They chanted, 'death to the IDF.' Interesting. 'Globalized the intifada,' which to me means promote the murder of innocent civilians... 'We don't want no Zionists here.' 'Resistance, you make us proud. Take another settler out,' meaning kill people who live in disputed parts of Israel... We have video of a woman screaming, 'Go kill yourself. Do the world a favor and effing, kill yourself. Slit your throat. Do that. Please, I beg you.'

Russ also points to people tearing down posters of hostages taken on October 7th with glee, laughing at those who asked them to stop. He questions what the proper response is to this kind of speech, which often comes with threats of violence and intimidation, especially on college campuses. While it rarely breaks out into actual violence, it creates an environment where Jewish people are made to feel their lives are in danger.

A worldwide pogrom is currently underway, with strong manifestations in both Britain and America. This is sad because pogroms haven't occurred in these countries for hundreds of years, though the Pattern has. David Deutsch explains that the actions seen, like tearing down posters of hostages, are fundamentally about one thing.

What this is all about is legitimizing hurting Jews. That's what's going on when somebody tears down a poster and accidentally laughs and mocks the people who are hurt by this in order to hurt them. That is what it's about, that's what tearing down the posters is about. It's not about helping Palestinians or anything like that.

This mindset also extends to the hostages themselves. When people don't mention the hostages, it is because their plight is considered legitimate within that system of morality. Therefore, their suffering does not factor into any moral calculation. This leads to a situation where some people may oppose the violence, but only on tactical, not moral, grounds. They might argue that certain actions are wrong because they harm the Palestinian cause, not because hurting people is inherently wrong. In their view, the violence is morally right but tactically unwise at that moment.

It's very common for people to actually oppose the violence but insist on its legitimacy.

Regarding how Jews should respond, individuals must do what they think is best for their own lives, including considering emigration. However, such personal decisions will not affect the pogrom itself. Historically, pogroms eventually die away, but the Pattern does not. The onset of a pogrom is usually rapid, while the decline is slow. David notes that he has recently observed signs that this current wave may have peaked, though this is not a prediction.

Russ raises a conflict he feels between disengaging from the world's troubling patterns and the moral duty to stand up against them, drawing a parallel to 1935 Germany. He acknowledges the immense support many have shown for Israel and the Jewish people. However, he also points to a concerning new development. Unlike in the past, Jews now have the means to fight back, both with a powerful military in Israel and through direct confrontation in the diaspora. Russ worries this could escalate into a full-blown war between Jews and their detractors outside of Israel, fueled by a sense of inevitability.

Better a tank than on my sleeve where I marched into a death camp.

David Deutsch is not afraid of this scenario, primarily because of a historically unprecedented factor: a massive upsurge of support for Jews from non-Jews. He contrasts the current situation with the 1930s in Britain. Back then, while there were a few supporters like Churchill and Wedgwood, no prominent figures were vitriolically pro-Jewish. Today, there are many vocal, non-Jewish advocates like Douglas Murray. David also mentions Christopher Hitchens, who, despite being anti-Zionist, recognized antisemitism as a fundamental danger to civilization itself. He believes many people mistakenly try to frame the issue through lenses like imperialism or racism, when these are just excuses for the Pattern.