Karl Popper is considered by some to be the most important Jewish philosopher of the 20th century. In his early work, he offered a philosophical policing method to restrict (kosherizing) scientific discourse by excluding non‑scientific (pseudoscientific) elements.

Popper’s work in the philosophy of science was indeed revolutionary and genius in its simplicity. But he was quickly proven completely wrong. Scientific discourse has never followed the analytical path he described.

For some, however, Popper’s most important work lies in political philosophy, particularly his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. The text seems to defend liberal democracy against totalitarianism by attacking essentialism or historicism (if you prefer)—the belief in inevitable historical laws.

It is impossible not to see the Judeocentric motivation in Popper’s political work. The book was written during World War II and published in 1945. Popper was most certainly triggered by Hitler’s anti‑Jewish politics, and in a way was set to identify criteria that might prevent another Holocaust.

Next, we will examine Popper’s key principles, followed by my pointing out the elements that, according to the Popperian model, act as the most devoted enemies of an open society:

Popper: Critical rationalism – No perfect knowledge or utopian blueprint exists; progress comes from trial and error, open criticism, and piecemeal social engineering.

Atzmon: If in 1945 the suppression of authoritarianism seemed to be the way forward, and the enemy was perceived by Popper as the opponents of free intellectual exchange, then it is hard not to see who restricts open intellectual exchange in 2026: who are the people who prevent us from talking about the Gaza genocide? Who restricts questioning the meaning of the Holocaust, let alone its historicity? Who polices thought about the remote possibility of a state of its citizens from the river to the sea? But it isn’t just the so‑called “bad Zionists” who are enemies of openness. There is also a sub‑tribal so‑called “anti‑Zionist” discourse that operates in a similar fashion. It prevents us, for instance, from digging into questions of Jewishness regarding the state that calls itself the Jewish State. It only allows a few misleading materialist frameworks of analysis of the conflict which are colonialism, settler colonialism and apartheid.

The animosity to openness and free intellectual exchange is obviously a Jerusalemite* characteristic, regardless of the (pro‑ or anti‑Z) standpoint.

Popper: Anti‑historicism – History has no predetermined destiny; predictive theories of social evolution (e.g., Plato, Hegel, Marx) are pseudoscientific and lead to tyranny.

Atzmon: The claim that history has no predetermined destiny is as pseudoscientific as the claim that it does (unless Popper sees himself as a meta historical character – similarly to the Jewish God).

Popper often falls into the same trap. In his war against pseudoscience, he himself produces pseudoscientific observations. However, the Jewish fear of essentialism and historicism can be understood in 1945; yet not to see that essentialist realizations are (essentially) a human feature, and that restricting it is itself an authoritarian move on Popper’s part, is a problem.

Moreover, the desperate attempt of pro‑Jewish‑state supporters to see their beloved state within the context of Jewish historical destiny makes them into Popper’s enemies of the open society. On the other hand, the Jewish anti‑Zionists who restrict criticism of Israel to a few familiar historical/materialist models (e.g., colonialism, settler colonialism, apartheid) fall into the exact same trap. What do these two opposing musings have in common? They are Jerusalemite‑driven to the core.

Popper: Open vs. closed society – Closed societies rely on magical, tribal, or authoritarian rule; open societies embrace individual freedom, critical debate, and political institutions that enable non‑violent change of leadership.

Atzmon: The once‑upon‑a‑time “liberal West” is now dominated politically by one global lobby AKA The Lobby that reduces political exchange and democratic elections to a comical facade. On the other hand, the so‑called anti‑Zionist discourse is also a restricted discourse. It has replaced intellectual exchange with “activism.” Consequently, anti‑Zionist discourse has grown into an intellectual desert, and opposition to the Jewish state and its genocidal inclinations has become a conservative right‑wing intellectual/political realm.

Popper: Democracy as a method – Democracy is not rule by the people, but a framework for removing rulers without bloodshed.

Atzmon: Lobby groups such as AIPAC turn the idea of free elections into a farce, as the entire political system is puppeteered by a single foreign lobby.

—

*Jerusalem refers to the 19th‑century German dichotomy Athens Vs. Jerusalem. In this dichotomy, Athens is the birthplace of philosophy and Jerusalem the city of revelation. Athens teaches you to think for yourself; Jerusalem teaches you how to obey (what to say). Athens is the birthplace of the open society; Jerusalem is the enemy of openness in general and throughout history. Using Popperian political theory, it is obvious that the Jerusalemisation of the West has murdered the prospect of openness.

Time to reinstate Athens!!!