View source for G. K.'s Weekly

{{Short description|British newspaper}}
{{Redirect|The Eye-Witness|other uses|Eyewitness (disambiguation){{!}}Eyewitness}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2024}}
{{Italic title}}
'''''G.K.'s Weekly''''' was a British publication founded in 1925 (with its pilot edition surfacing in late 1924) by writer [[G. K. Chesterton]], continuing until his death in 1936. Its articles typically discussed topical cultural, political, and socio-economic issues yet the publication also ran poems, cartoons, and other such material that piqued Chesterton's interest. It contained much of his [[Journalism|journalistic]] work done in the latter part of his life, and extracts from it were published as the book ''The Outline of Sanity''. Precursor publications existed by the names of '''''The Eye-Witness''''' and '''''The New Witness''''', the former being a weekly newspaper started by [[Hilaire Belloc]] in 1911, the latter Belloc took over from [[Cecil Chesterton]], Gilbert's brother, who died in World War I: and a revamped version of ''G. K.'s Weekly'' continued some years after Chesterton's death by the name of '''''The Weekly Review'''''.<ref name="scrapbook">{{cite web|url=http://distributistreview.com/mag/2010/06/chestertons-scrapbook-a-look-at-g-k-s-weekly/|title=Chesterton's Scrapbook: A Look at G.K.'s Weekly|last=Ahlquist|first=Dale|date=26 June 2010|website=The Distributist Review|accessdate=28 April 2015|archive-date=10 June 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610181049/http://distributistreview.com/mag/2010/06/chestertons-scrapbook-a-look-at-g-k-s-weekly/|url-status=live}}</ref>

As an alternative publication outside of the mainstream press of the time, ''G. K.'s Weekly'' never attained a particularly large readership, with its highest circulation being some eight thousand. However, it attracted significant support from several benefactors, which included notables such as the internationally famous conductor [[Sir Thomas Beecham]]. Individuals whose work appeared in ''G. K.'s Weekly'' include public figures such as [[E. C. Bentley]], [[Alfred Noyes]], [[Ezra Pound]], and [[George Bernard Shaw]] as well as (at the very beginning of his career) [[George Orwell]].<ref name=scrapbook/> The relationship between the '''Distributist League''' and ''G. K.'s Weekly'' being a very close one, the publication advocated the philosophy of [[distributism]] in contrast to both the centre-right and centre-left attitudes of the time regarding [[socialism]] and [[industrialism]].<ref name=encyclopedia/>

In terms of criticism, the publication has garnered condemnation for alleged [[anti-Semitic]] prejudice to be found in the views of Gilbert and Cecil Chesterton as well as of Hilaire Belloc. The controversy has involved sorting out the distinct differences in the opinions of the three men versus that of others within the publication, as essentially everyone featured had their own nuances to their viewpoints and would disagree among themselves. Critics have alleged that the writers often featured false stereotypes and made ignorant arguments about British capitalistic society while defenders have viewed the accusations as biased and misleading.

==History in sequence with related publications==
[[Hilaire Belloc]] founded a weekly newspaper in 1911 that he titled ''The Eye-Witness''. The publication lasted only a year, though it gained notoriety for publishing articles on the [[Marconi scandal]]. It was the first place in which [[Gilbert Chesterton]] released the famous poem ''[[Lepanto (poem)|Lepanto]]''. Belloc focused his energies on [[anti-capitalist]] and [[anti-communist]] articles fighting against what he saw as the collusion of the many [[Government of the United Kingdom|British government]] members with [[Corruption|corrupt forces]], writing in a brash style.<ref name=scrapbook/>  Belloc relinquished the editorship to [[Cecil Chesterton]] but continued writing for it.

When [[Charles Granville]], backer of ''The Eye-Witness'', went bankrupt in 1912 Chesterton's father financed the magazine under the title ''The New Witness''. The style and contents remained essentially the same. [[Gilbert Chesterton]] took over as editor in 1916 when his brother left to serve in the [[British Army]] during the [[World War I|Great War]]. Chesterton spent seven years (1916–1923) continuing at the helm of ''The New Witness'', enduring the loss of his brother in 1918. Taking advice to fundamentally change the publication, on 21 March 1925, Chesterton unveiled ''G.K.'s Weekly''.<ref name=scrapbook/>

With the continuation of ''G. K.'s Weekly'' even after Gilbert's death, with Belloc's son-in-law Reginald Jebb joining alongside [[Hilary Pepler]] to support the effort, the complete series of publications therefore reads as

:''The Eye-Witness'' (1911–1912) →
:''The New Witness'' (1912–1923) →
:''G. K.'s Weekly'' (1925–1936) →
:''The Weekly Review'' (1936/37 – 1948, when it became a short-lived monthly).<ref>''Everyman'', edited 1912–17 by [[Charles Saroléa]], was another publication in which Titterton and the Chestertons wrote from a Distributist angle.</ref><ref>A full account of distributism is complicated by the way from about 1920 Orage also had a comparable political and economic doctrine, [[Social Credit]], amongst his major concerns; this other 'wing' drew in [[Ezra Pound]], for example.</ref>

In total, the series of publications featured hundreds of articles, including well over a hundred poems. Some essays from ''G.K.'s Weekly'' have appeared in the books ''The Outline of Sanity'', ''The Well and the Shallows'', ''The End of the Armistice'', ''The Common Man'', and ''The Coloured Lands''. Some originals of the weekly have been collected by educational institutions such as [[Christendom College]].<ref name=scrapbook/>

==Background and publication contents==

===Typical contents===
The bulk of the material published was composed by Gilbert Chesterton himself (the precursor publications before 1925 had far less involvement by him). Besides standard works of a publication of its type at the time such as long essays and short news items, he intended to use it as a kind of '[[Scrapbooking|scrapbook]]' and added a variety of other material such as [[Poetry|poems]], pieces of fiction, [[Cartooning|cartoons]], and so on. He additionally would personally answer letters to the editor at times.<ref name=scrapbook/>

''G.K.'s Weekly'' generally published from a viewpoint of [[distributism]], social traditionalism, and [[Democracy|democratic]] pluralism, with criticism against both '[[big government]]' and '[[big business]]' while in support of the 'common man' (in Chesterton's view) intermingled with commentary on social and cultural topics. He would condemn ideological trends such as [[Marxist-Leninism]] in depth while drawing upon his own strong [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] faith. As in his books, Chesterton was known for writing in the weekly in a pithy, witty style, such as with the following short book review: "''Lenin'' by [[Leon Trotsky]]. The publication of this book has caused the exile of Trotsky; but there are books equally bad written every week without any specific punishment being inflicted".<ref name=scrapbook/>

In a 1932 work in the publication, Chesterton argued, "Communism is that form of Capitalism in which all workers have an equal wage. Capitalism is that form of Communism in which the organizing officials have a very large salary. That is the difference; and that is the only difference." He wrote in another writing published that same year, "The right and essential thing [is] that as many people as possible should have the natural, original forms of sustenance as their own property."<ref name=scrapbook/>

===Distributism in context===
The essential continuity under the main editorial figures (those mentioned above, and [[W. R. Titterton]] who was Gilbert's sub-editor), is a manifestation of the political and economic doctrine of [[distributism]]. This was mainly the work of Belloc, Gilbert and Cecil Chesterton, and [[Arthur Penty]], and had its origins in an Edwardian-era split of [[Fabian socialism]] in London circles, around [[Alfred Richard Orage|A. R. Orage]] and his prominent publication ''[[The New Age]]''.<ref>Titterton put it this way in his biography ''G. K. Chesterton'' (pp.&nbsp;62–3):

:"...just before the ''Eye Witness'' began, there was a fine controversy at the ''New Age''." [...]
:"I admit that though our plan provides for the craftsman, some Distributists tend to ignore him. We need Penty, and Penty needs us."
:"In the end the Socialist element in Orage's make-up made him weaken on the Gild theory, which he debased with a Socialist alloy."</ref>

In founding ''The Eye-Witness'', Belloc took a title of a book of essays of his own from a couple of years before, and drew initially on a group of writers more associated with ''The Speaker''.<ref>Editor [[J. L. Hammond]], an old paper bought up by a group of young Liberals ([[Robert Speaight]]'s biography of Belloc goes into this). Before the [[Marconi scandal]], at least, the writers were a broad group.</ref>

The papers under discussion in this article became, in practical terms, the organs of the distributist group. This came together as the ''Distributist League'' in 1926,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.00.081 |title=MJP Text-Viewer Page Mockup |access-date=6 March 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902181321/http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.00.081 |archive-date=2 September 2006  }}: "In 1926, the Distributist League was founded, mainly in order to help the G. K. Weekly's finances."</ref> as ''G. K.'s Weekly'' appeared as a revamped publication. The main business of the League, organisationally, fell to Titterton. The League had its own newsletter from 1931.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.00.081 |title=MJP Text-Viewer Page Mockup |access-date=6 March 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902181321/http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.00.081 |archive-date=2 September 2006  }}: ''In 1931, the Distributist League began publishing its own newsletter, The Distributionist, as G. K.'s Weekly could no longer keep up with the heavy editorial traffic.''</ref>

==Readership details with Chesterton as editor and campaigner==
''G. K.'s Weekly'' never picked up a particularly large readership, being viewed as outside of the mainstream press of the time. Its highest circulation worked out to only about eight thousand. Yet the weekly attracted significant support from several benefactors, including the internationally famous conductor [[Sir Thomas Beecham]], many well-known writers contributed material, including [[E. C. Bentley]], [[Alfred Noyes]], [[Ezra Pound]], and [[George Bernard Shaw]].<ref name=scrapbook/>

The relationship between the [[Distributist League]] and ''G. K.'s Weekly'' was close, at times essentially inseparable.<ref name=encyclopedia/> Chesterton travelled the country to local distributist chapters in order the spread the word about the publication and also to promote his viewpoints.<ref>There is an account by [[Marshall McLuhan]] of how he attended a London League meeting in June 1935, travelling from [[Cambridge]], where he was a doctoral student, with the local distributist activist.</ref> ''G. K.'s Weekly'' provided little financially for Chesterton; it was not a lucrative venture by any means in his mind, but he kept it going as a gesture of respect for Cecil's memory.<ref>Maisie Ward in ''Gilbert Keith Chesterton'' goes into the financial side, naming [[Thomas Evelyn Scott-Ellis, 8th Baron Howard de Walden|Lord Howard de Walden]] (T. E. Ellis, or Thomas Evelyn Scott-Ellis) as one of the patrons.</ref> The financial state of the publication meant that contributors could expect little or no reward. One later famous name who first broke into journalism this way was [[George Orwell]] (then going by 'E. A. Blair').<ref>His first article for an English publication was "A Farthing Newspaper" which appeared in ''G. K.'s'' on 29 December 1928, placed from Paris where he was at the time.</ref>

Editorial policy in the latter days of ''G. K.'s Weekly'' in terms of foreign policy and also electoral politics involved nuanced positions, with Gilbert Chesterton providing a generally moderating influence. Chesterton, for example, held ambiguous and conflicted views about Italy under [[Italian fascism|fascism]]. Until 1929, the Distributist League broadly supported the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] and the [[Trade unions in the United Kingdom|British trade union movement]]. [[Sir Henry Slesser]], a notable [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] [[Member of Parliament (UK)|Member of Parliament]], served as one of the League's biggest supporters.<ref name=encyclopedia/>

During the 1930s, the [[Soviet Union]] appeared the biggest enemy to the cause of the distributists, and a move towards [[monarchism]] and to support for [[Italian fascism|fascist Italy]] took place. Upon Chesterton's death, ''G. K.'s Weekly'' openly backed the far-right forces of [[Francisco Franco]] during the [[Spanish Civil War]]. Nonetheless, the Distributist League and its followers backed the British declaration of war against the [[Axis Powers]] in 1939.<ref name=encyclopedia>{{cite book|pages=82–83|publisher=[[A & C Black]]|date=2000|title=Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century}}</ref>

Attitudes to [[Benito Mussolini]] specifically (whom GKC interviewed, see the Maisie Ward biography){{Citation needed|date=December 2024|reason=You can't just write "see". Cite the source!}} in the 1930s has attracted attention.  Chesterton made somewhat favourable remarks about contemporary Italy in his ''Autobiography'' (1935).{{Page needed|date=December 2024}} However, the [[Second Italo-Ethiopian War|invasion of Abyssinia]] proved a dicey{{Clarify|reason=Are we sure this is the best adjective needed?|date=December 2024}} matter for Chesterton and his League.{{Citation needed|date=December 2024}}

==The League after Chesterton's death==
Gilbert Chesterton's death on 14 June 1936 brought changes to the publication. Belloc resumed as editor, as in 1911.

After Chesterton died in 1936 the League was near collapse<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070812121402/http://www.secondspring.co.uk/course/term14.htm G. K. Chesterton]</ref> but continued in a new form, until being closed down in 1940.<ref>[http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.00.081 MJP Text Viewer] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902181321/http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.00.081 |date=2 September 2006 }}</ref> Arthur Penty's ''Distributist Manifesto'' was published in 1937; Belloc had taken over as president, and the vice-presidents included [[Eric Gill]] and [[T. S. Eliot]].

==The Chesterbelloc and anti-Semitic prejudice==
{{Unbalanced section|date=December 2010}}
{{Original research section|date=October 2021}}

===Editorial controversies===
The ''Chesterbelloc'' moniker was coined by [[George Bernard Shaw]] for Gilbert Chesterton in partnership with Belloc. The description has stuck, though Shaw additionally remarked that he took issue with how the two were "bracketed together" given that they differed "widely in temperament".<ref>[[H. W. Nevinson]] (''Fire of Life'', 1935, p.&nbsp;240) wrote ''I don't know why they are always bracketed together, for they differ widely in temperament, though their principles and aims seem much the same.''</ref> The ideological viewpoints advocated in the weekly received a great deal of criticism during the time of publication, leading Gilbert Chesterton to quip that he got "called insane for attempting to return to sanity." [[Letters to the editor]] that ''G. K.'s Weekly'' ran included commentary from [[H. G. Wells]] and [[Oscar Levy]].<ref name=scrapbook/>

There is a continuing debate about the extent of [[anti-Semitic]] prejudice to be found in the views of Gilbert and Cecil Chesterton as well as of Belloc. Complicating matters is that the discussion involves three people who were very different in character, though having largely similar political views, and allegations been put in the frame of [[guilt by association]] in the past. Cecil Chesterton was the most combative of the three,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.01.010 |title=Resource not found |access-date=6 March 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719154341/http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.01.010 |archive-date=19 July 2011  }}: ''Even as a youth, however, Chesterton was intent on conducting arguments and not just receiving them; he would grow up into a man whose talent and contentious spirit earned J. Chesterton Squire's high praise: "there was no better arguer, no abler journalist, in England".''</ref> and his work is probably the most theoretical as well. Looking at them together acknowledges that the publication's history pieced together does represent a continuity of thought given the many different, distinct writers involved.<ref>Cheyette, p. 197: ''After 1925, the political agenda of The New Witness circle continued with the formation of G. K.'s Weekly, [...] and the Distributist League which helped fund this journal.''</ref>

Chesterbelloc critics include [[Barnet Litvinoff]], author of ''The Burning Bush: Antisemitism and World History'', who has written:

{{blockquote|"Britain had its replicas of [[Charles Maurras|Maurras]] and [[Léon Daudet|Daudet]] in those adornments of English letters, G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc."<ref>''The Burning Bush: Antisemitism and World History'' (1988) p. 272.</ref>}}

This question has to be examined on a historical trajectory, from the time of the [[Second Boer War]] to the [[Spanish Civil War]], via the [[Marconi scandal]]. [[Bryan Cheyette]]<ref>''Construction of 'the Jew' in English literature and society'' (1993) pp. 197–8.</ref> speaks of Chesterton's 'literary decline' from around 1922, and writes

{{blockquote|To his detriment, Chesterton's fiction at this time seems to be unduly influenced by Belloc's Barnett quartet with its constant reference to all-powerful Jewish plutocrats [...]}}

Litvinoff<ref>''The Burning Bush'', p. 274–5.</ref> also cites Chesterton commenting on [[Henry Ford Sr.]]'s view on the 'Jewish problem', in his 1922 ''What I Saw in America''.

The journalism of Cecil Chesterton for the ''Eye-Witness'' at the time of the Marconi scandal, is a substantive though flawed reason why Belloc, Cecil Chesterton and G. K. Chesterton have often been considered an anti-semitic clique. This can justly be called guilt by association; which was certainly the precise tactic and fallacy Cecil himself used. One Jewish member of the government, [[Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel|Herbert Samuel]], was accused and no evidence was ever shown of his involvement. Godfrey Isaacs sued successfully; he was the brother of the politician [[Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading|Rufus Isaacs]], who was cleared by Parliament, but had a case to answer.

===Hilaire Belloc's views in detail===
Belloc's views from the [[Edwardian era|Edwardian period]], when he was most engaged in political writing, have been discussed by later authors such as in the work ''Hilaire Belloc: Edwardian Radical'' by McCarthy. During this period, Belloc's social criticism frequently had in its targets corrupt business practices, what he saw as a ruling [[plutocracy]], the nature of the [[Second Boer War]] (seen as economically motivated by Belloc), and the machinations of international [[finance]]. Negative fictional characters who are Jewish appear in Belloc's novels from this time, and his writings contain condemnations of industrial capitalism and its [[dehumanization]] in which the role of Jews in business and finance is arguably quite emphasized.

Later commentators have argued about the degree in which Belloc's [[anti-capitalism]] and [[anti-communism]] crosses into [[antisemitic canard]]s about supposed Jewish involvement in international politics, with his work being both criticized (by figures such as [[Frederic Raphael]]) and defended (by figures such as [[J.B. Morton]]). Belloc responded to criticisms in his own lifetime, writing in 1924, that he would never support works in which "a Jew has been attacked as a Jew". In terms of Belloc's personal relationships, he apparently held no animus, or little enough animus, that he corresponded with on friendly terms and maintained close connections with numerous Jewish individuals. Several examples exist, an example being his intimate friend and secretary for many years Ruby Goldsmith.<ref name=thunder>{{cite book|title=Old Thunder: A Life of Hilaire Belloc|first=Joseph|last=Pearce|publisher=[[Ignatius Press]]|isbn=0898709423|date=2002|pages=[Chapter Twenty-Three]}}</ref>

In his specific work ''The Path to Rome'', Belloc describes (at least at that time) finding antisemitism against ordinary laypeople puzzling, if not outright distasteful:

{{blockquote|"At the foot of the street was an inn where I entered to eat, and finding there another man- I take him to have been a shopkeeper- I determined to talk politics, and began as follows: 'Have you any anti-Semitism in your town?' 'It is not my town,' he said, 'but there is anti-Semitism. It flourishes.' 'Why then?' I asked. 'How many Jews have you in your town?' He said there were seven.}}

{{blockquote|'But,' said I, 'seven families of Jews-' 'There are not seven families,' he interrupted; 'there are seven Jews all told. There are but two families, and I am reckoning in the children. The servants are Christians.' 'Why,' said I, 'that is only just and proper, that the Jewish families from beyond the frontier should have local Christian people to wait on them and do their bidding. But what I was going to say was that so very few Jews seem to me an insufficient fuel to fire the anti-Semites. How does their opinion flourish?"}}

{{blockquote|'In this way,' he answered. 'The Jews, you see, ridicule our young men for holding such superstitions as the Catholic.'... I then rose from my meal, saluted him, and went musing up the valley road, pondering upon what it could be that the Jews sacrificed in this remote borough, but I could not for the life of me imagine what it was, though I have had a great many Jews among my friends."<ref>{{cite book|title=''The Path to Rome''|url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924028082265|first=Hilaire|last=Belloc|pages=[https://archive.org/details/cu31924028082265/page/n109 86]–87|publisher=[[Longmans, Green and Company]]|year=1902}}</ref>}}

Belloc's later book ''The Jews'', which came out in February 1922, sets out his specific views in detail with his own words. The work has variously been interpreted over the years, with some critics finding it deeply flawed though with good intentions, tinged with antisemitism, while others viewing it as rather fair for its day. Belloc identified a cycle of persecution faced by Jewish families in the various places in which they lived, a kind of [[self-fulfilling prophecy]] caused by evolving social views, and he coined the phrase "''the tragic cycle'' of anti-Semitism". ''The Jews'' has been construed both as supporting the case that Belloc had no real prejudices against Jews and as a purported statement by Belloc of the historical view that Jewish integration 'inevitably' causes friction, being insensitive at best.<ref name=thunder/>

Belloc specifically wrote,

{{blockquote|"It has been a series of cycles invariably following the same steps.  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.}}

{{blockquote|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."<ref name=butler>{{cite book|first=Hilaire|last=Belloc|title=The Jews|publisher=[[Butler and Tanner, London|Butler and Tanner]], London|date=1937|pages=11–12, 215}}</ref>}}

Belloc also wrote,

{{blockquote|"The various nations of Europe have every one of them, in the course of their long histories, passed through successive phases towards the Jew which I have called the tragic cycle.  Each has in turn welcomed, tolerated, persecuted, attempted to exile— often actually exiled— welcomed again, and so forth.  The two chief examples of extremes in action, are, as I have also pointed out in an earlier part of this book, Spain and England.  Spaniards, and in particular the Spaniards of the Kingdom of Castile, went through every phase of this cycle in its fullest form.  England passed through even greater extremes, for England was the only country which absolutely got rid of the Jews for hundreds of years, and England is the only country which has, even for a brief period, entered into something like an alliance with them."<ref name=butler/>}}

On the integration of Jews into British society at the higher levels, he asserted, in the same book,

{{blockquote|"[T]hose of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the stain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the tradition those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed the admixture."<ref>''The Jews''</ref>}}

Thus, while highlighting Jewish and non-Jewish conflict and viewing it as common as well as natural, Belloc also portrayed the situation as morally wrong and regrettable, with Jewish citizens of Christian nations being unfairly victimized. His approach took on a largely [[Fatalism|fatalistic]] slant distinct from many later analyses of Jewish integration, and he arguably heavily relied on the [[stereotype]]s and biases of the period. At the same time, he clearly abhorred seeing violence done to individuals as a result of religion. Defenders such as [[Joseph Pearce]] have pointed to comments such as "[t]he Bolshevist Movement was a Jewish movement, but not a movement of the Jewish race" and "the imputation of its evils to the Jews as a whole is a grave injustice" as evidence that Belloc held nuanced opinions alien to the discriminatory anti-Semites of the time.<ref name=thunder/> As well, rabbi [[David Dalin]] has commented positively on Belloc's study of how antisemitism comes in cycles, viewing Belloc's ideas as being perceptive.

Critics taking a more negative view of Belloc's attitudes about Jews and Judaism have cited incidents such as when Belloc made the following controversial statements in a conversation with [[Hugh Kingsmill]] and [[Hesketh Pearson]]:

:Belloc: It was the Dreyfus case that opened my eyes to the Jew question. I'm not an anti-Semite. I love 'em, poor dears. Get on very well with them. My best secretary was a Jewess. Poor darlings – it must be terrible to be born with the knowledge that you belong to the enemies of the human race.

:Kingsmill: Why do you say the Jews are the enemies of the human race?

:Belloc: The Crucifixion.<ref>Reported in Kingsmill and Pearson, ''[[Talking of Dick Whittington]]'' (1947); the occasion is described also in ''God's Apology'' (1977) by [[Richard Ingrams]], pp. 231–3.</ref>

Author [[Robert Speaight]], however, has cited a private letter by Belloc to one of his [[Jewish-American]] friends in the 1920s in which Belloc pilloried [[conspiracy theorist]] [[Nesta Helen Webster]] for her accusations against "the Jews". Webster had rejected [[Christianity]], studied [[Eastern religions]], accepted the [[Hinduism|Hindu]] concept of the equality of all religions and was fascinated by theories of [[reincarnation]] and ancestral memory<ref>Nesta Webster, ''Spacious Days'', [[London]] and [[Bombay]], 1950, pp. 103 and 172–175</ref> while also making claims about a so-called [[Illuminati]]. Belloc expressed his views on Webster's antisemitism very clearly:

{{blockquote|"In my opinion it is a lunatic book. She is one of those people who have got one cause on the brain. It is the good old 'Jewish revolutionary' bogey. But there is a type of unstable mind which cannot rest without morbid imaginings, and the conception of a single cause simplifies thought. With this good woman it is the Jews, with some people it is the [[Jesuits]], with others [[Freemasonry|Freemasons]] and so on. The world is more complex than that."<ref>''[https://archive.org/details/lifeofhilairebel009626mbp The Life Of Hilaire Belloc]'' by R. Speaight, 1957, pp. 456–458.</ref>}}

In the later years of his life, Belloc wrote publicly against the [[Nazi German]] regime ruled by [[Adolf Hitler]]. He viewed the state as "odious" and particularly condemned Nazi antisemitism. In 1940s ''The Catholic and the War'', Belloc asserted, "The Third Reich has treated its Jewish subjects with a contempt for justice which even if there had been no other action of the kind in other departments would be a sufficient warranty for determining its elimination from Europe".<ref>''The Catholic and the War''</ref>

===Gilbert Chesterton's views in detail===
Points often made about Chesterton's attitude to Jews relate to well-known writings, both 'in the small' or casual, and in the large when he seriously addressed the question.

[[Bernard Levin]], a leading British columnist who frequently quoted Chesterton, in ''The Case for Chesterton''<ref>26 May 1974 in ''[[The Observer]]''</ref> brought up some of his light verse, and said "The best one can say of Chesterton's anti-semitism is that it was less vile than Belloc's; let us leave it at that." [[Joseph Pearce]]<ref>''Wisdom and Innocence'' p. 445</ref> wrote that ''It is clear that such verses may cause offence, but it is equally clear they were not intended to''.

Against Chesterton are also his remarks in ''[[The New Jerusalem (Chesterton book)|The New Jerusalem]]'' (1920). Chesterton was, in a real sense, a [[Zionist]]. He was not, however, a Zionist without conditions. The following is from the introductory remarks in that book:

:"I have felt disposed to say:  let all liberal legislation stand, let all literal and legal civic equality stand; let a Jew occupy any political or social position which he can gain in open competition; let us not listen for a moment to any suggestions of reactionary restrictions or racial privilege.  Let a Jew be Lord Chief justice, if his exceptional veracity and reliability have clearly marked him out for that post.  Let a Jew be Archbishop of Canterbury, if our national religion has attained to that receptive breadth that would render such a transition unobjectionable and even unconscious.  But let there be one single-clause bill; one simple and sweeping law about Jews, and no other. Be it enacted, by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in Parliament assembled, that every Jew must be dressed like an Arab. Let him sit on the Woolsack, but let him sit there dressed as an Arab. Let him preach in St. Paul's Cathedral, but let him preach there dressed as an Arab.  It is not my point at present to dwell on the pleasing if flippant fancy of how much this would transform the political scene; of the dapper figure of Sir Herbert Samuel swathed as a Bedouin, or Sir Alfred Mond gaining a yet greater grandeur from the gorgeous and trailing robes of the East. If my image is quaint my intention is quite serious; and the point of it is not personal to any particular Jew.  The point applies to any Jew, and to our own recovery of healthier relations with him. The point is that we should know where we are; and he would know where he is, which is in a foreign land."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/newjerusalem00chesuoft|title=The New Jerusalem|last=Chesterton|first=G.K.|publisher=Hodder and Stoughton|year=1920|pages=[https://archive.org/details/newjerusalem00chesuoft/page/271 271]–272}}</ref>

This is seen by some as an unacceptable statement. The point is still contested.<ref>[http://www.chesterton.org/discover/lectures/32irishimpressions.html Dale Ahlquist] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221143335/http://www.chesterton.org/discover/lectures/32irishimpressions.html |date=21 February 2006 }}: "Chesterton argued that the Irish were a distinct people from the English and deserved their autonomy, to be able to rule their own country in their own way, to protect their traditions and their religion. For that he has always been recognized as a defender of human rights and freedom in general and a champion of the Irish in particular. However, when he made the exact same arguments on behalf of the Jews, he was called anti-Semitic."</ref> It was Chesterton's stated view, having a fondness for the dramatic, that all nations should maintain and return to traditional dress, and enjoyed wearing a classical form of dress himself in the manner of capes and swordsticks. He gave this idea free rein in his first novel ''[[The Napoleon of Notting Hill]]''.

In the chapter 'On Zionism', one also finds Chesterton's dim appraisal of the patriotism of [[Benjamin Disraeli]] (who had been baptised Anglican at age 13). He argues in effect that the former Prime Minister, due to his Jewish birth, would naturally have abandoned England (a Christian nation) ''in extremis'':

:"Patriotism is not merely dying for the nation. It is dying with the nation. It is regarding the fatherland not merely as a real resting-place like an inn, but as a final resting-place, like a house or even a grave... Even if we can bring ourselves to believe that Disraeli lived for England, we cannot think that he would have died with her. If England had sunk in the Atlantic he would not have sunk with her, but easily floated over to America to stand for the Presidency... When the Jew in France or in England says he is a good patriot he only means that he is a good citizen, and he would put it more truly if he said he was a good exile. Sometimes indeed he is an abominably bad citizen, and a most exasperating and execrable exile, but I am not talking of that side of the case. I am assuming that a man like Disraeli did really make a romance of England, [as did [[Bernhard Dernburg|Dernburg]] Germany], and it is still true that though it was a romance, they would not have allowed it to be a tragedy. They would have seen that the story had a happy ending, especially for themselves. These Jews would not have died with any Christian nation."

Further discussion comes from comments about Jews being responsible for both the USSR's communism and the US's unbridled capitalism (1929). John Gross in ''The Rise and Fall of the Man of Letters'' (1969) commented:

:"Chesterton's hatred of capitalism and his dread of the monolithic state were the generous responses of a man who saw the sickness of his society far more clearly than the ordinary [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] and felt it far more deeply than the self-confident Fabian social engineers. Unfortunately, though, a sense of outrage often proved as bad a counsellor in his case as it had done in [[Thomas Carlyle|Carlyle's]]. His diatribes against usury and corruption were those of a man on the edge of hysteria; his anti-semitism was an illness. Despite this, his fundamental decency is never obscured for long. He hated oppression; he belonged to the world before totalitarianism. But the positive side of his politics – Distributism, peasant smallholdings, [[Merry England|Merrie England]]ism – led him into a hopeless cul-de-sac."

Chesterton, however, opposed all forms of persecution of Jews and all violent anti-semitism. In 1934, after the [[Nazi Party]] took power in [[Weimar Republic|Germany]] he wrote that:

{{cquote|In our early days Hilaire Belloc and myself were accused of being uncompromising Anti-Semites. Today, although I still think there is a Jewish problem, I am appalled by the Hitlerite atrocities. They have absolutely no reason or logic behind them.  It is quite obviously the expedient of a man who has been driven to seeking a scapegoat, and has found with relief the most famous scapegoat in European history, the Jewish people.<ref>Coren, M. Gilbert: ''The Man Who Was G. K. Chesterton'', p. 216.</ref>}}

==References==
*''The Outline of Sanity'' (1926) G. K. Chesterton
*''GK's: A Miscellany of the First 500 Issues of G.K.'s Weekly'' (1934)
*''G. K.'s Weekly, a Sampler'' (1986) editor Lyle W. Dorsett
*''G. K.'s Weekly: An Appraisal'' (1990) [[Brocard Sewell]]

==Notes==
<references/>

{{G. K. Chesterton}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:G. K.'S Weekly}}
[[Category:G. K. Chesterton]]
[[Category:Weekly newspapers published in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Newspapers established in 1925]]
[[Category:Publications disestablished in 1936]]
[[Category:Defunct newspapers published in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Antisemitic publications]]
[[Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Distributism]]