Search Results for: the nature of jewish power

Age of Treason Radio

The Jew Menace

Audio 20 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

the_jewish_argument

The big news this week is that the jews have very openly and collectively, as jews, called upon governments everywhere, but especially in Europe, to provide them special treatment, to protect and serve the jews specifically by suppressing and punishing any expression of whatever the jews decide to define as “anti-semitism”.

Effectively the jews and their worshippers are calling for a ban on blasphemy against the jews. They’re seeking to criminalize any expression of irreverence, disrespect, distaste, disagreement, or even mere disregard for the complaints and demands that jews are constantly making. Complaints and demands such as the ones they’re making this week – which we’re going to critique in some detail. This is precisely the sort of critique that the jews are demanding goverments illegalize. Everywhere.

Let’s start by noting that there are two very specific kinds of blasphemy that the jews are most keen to stop. The first they call “holocaust denial”, by which they mean any form of challenge to or rejection of their version of history, their narrative about the period of European history which used to be known as World War II. The second kind of blasphemy they want governments to stop is any and all forms of criticism of their ethnostate, Israel.

This is actually old news in that the jews have been making these same complaints and demands for decades – especially since the war ended. It is a difficult fact for White people to face – and even 70 years after that war most still will not think about it in such terms – but the White race, all European peoples whatever their nationality and wherever they may live today, lost that war. The jews won.

There is no clearer indication of this than the unrivalled position of power from which the jews have been able to dictate to Whites everywhere what can and can’t be said about jews or virtually anything jews feel impinges on their interests. Most especially having to do with that war. Thus it is less and less even referred to as World War II, and more and more “The Holocaust”, or “Shoah”. Because that is how the jews see it. And, as everyone can see now, if only because the jews’ media and political power compels it, that war was all about the jews.

The most elementary point I’d like to make here is that these three things – the jews, Israel, and their holocaust narrative – are connected. They come in a package. And it is this way because the jews themselves insist upon it. Yet they also insist that if anyone else makes this connection it is “anti-semitism”. As I mentioned the last time, when describing jew-worship and blasphemy, the double-standards jews promote seem surreal, almost magical in nature. But I think it’s really just a reflection of their dominance.

Speaking of dominance, and old news, I’m recording this the night before, but tomorrow is a special day for jews and jew-worshippers. When this special day was first declared by the UN in 2005, Robert Faurisson wrote a short article about it titled The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism:

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”.

Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.

Faurisson’s conclusion:

This extraordinary UN resolution also constitutes proof that historical revisionism is a reality that can no longer be bypassed, denied or played down. Its notoriety has become global. Still, let us take care to recognise that the revisionist researchers who remain active are now but a handful and, with each passing year, their future grows darker.

Faurisson was being optimistic. Here we are in that dark future. The jews are still at it. More aggressively pushing for more banning. More directly connecting it to themselves, their Holocaust narrative, and their ethnostate. Let’s take a closer look at three jewsmedia reports on the menace jews have been making of themselves this week.

Prosor calls on European leaders: Take a stand against anti-Semitism, quotes Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor:

“Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Semitism,” Prosor said.

This rhetorical fraud – jews cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language – can be found throughout their pronouncements this week. It’s a constant feature of what jews do and how they do it.

To see just how transparently brazen this statement is you simply have to substitute one word: Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Europeanism.

Is there even one European politician, in power, who would claim he himself is taking a stand against anti-Europeanism, much less lecture the rest of the world that they should do so?

Prosor asserted that “The struggle against anti-Semitism must be a priority for every nation because the hatred that begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews. History has shown us time and again that when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk.”

The main struggle of the jews is to ensure that the harm the jews cause others is never attributed to the jews. To do this jews shift the blame elsewhere, in this case, as usual, to “anti-semitism”.

The argument Prosor is making here is that everybody else must make it their priority to stop somebody else from even complaining about what the jews do.

History has shown us time and again that jews are parasites who infiltrate, manipulate, and ruthlessly exploit other nations, that they have cared only for their own interests as they have undermined and ultimately brought to ruin and fled every other nation they have ever lived amongst.

History has shown us time and again that jews pose a special menace to hosts which attempt to look after their own safety and defend themselves against the depredations of the jews. Even those who succeed in reclaiming control over their nation as the national socialists did in Germany find that the jews never forgive and never forget. In Germany’s case, world jewry declared war in 1933, began agitating Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States to war, to teach them all the lesson Prosor alludes to: “when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk”.

The jews blame their hosts for resisting them. That they bribe and lobby and propagandize and even succeed in taking control of the host’s leaders and crucial organs and makes them more culpable and harm they cause more insidious, not less.

“Europe is being tested,” he said. “We don’t need any more monuments commemorating the Jews who were murdered in Europe, we need a strong and enduring commitment to the living Jews in Europe. If the governments of Europe succeed in defending their Jewish communities, then they will succeed in defending liberty and democracy.”

Prosor cites the jewish victim narrative even as he denies it.

Jews actually want, and get, both – worship and defense. They get monuments and holidays commemorating them, and special security. It is sponsored by governments, funded by taxing others.

It is jews telling Europeans what to think and what to do – in this case Prosor literally defines “liberty” and “democracy” and even success as the defense of jews.

And vowed that “The days when Jews were the world’s victims are over. We will never again be helpless and we will never again remain silent. Today we have the State of Israel standing guard.

Victimhood again, this time couched in menace: “We don’t need to incite others to war against you, we have weapons of our own now”.

The article explicitly mentions the attack on the “kosher supermarket” in Paris a few weeks ago, giving the impression that this is what triggered the jews to action this week. It isn’t. The bombing of Gaza this summer was not explicitly mentioned, though that was the actual impetus for the UN meeting. It is hinted at indirectly in this paragraph toward the end:

The meeting was requested by 37 countries who sent a letter to assembly President Sam Kutesa on October 1 calling for a meeting in response to “an alarming outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide.” They said they wanted a meeting because “a clear message from the General Assembly is a critical component of combatting the sudden rise of violence and hatred directed at Jews.”

This simple statement, in both what it says and doesn’t say, reflects the incredible power and influence jews have over dozens of other governments outside the single government they officially control. Jews have enough control over the govts of 37 countries (most crucially the US) to manipulate them in this fashion.

That they could orchestrate such a show of force in response to the murder of four jews in Paris would be amazing enough. But in fact it was actually orchestrated in defense of Israelis who murdered thousands of non-jews in Gaza. The Israeli military bombs Gaza and then jews worldwide join with Israels to organize a UN meeting to literally shift the blame to “anti-semitism worldwide”.

UN meeting challenges world to stand up to anti-Semitism, describes the result:

But 40 mainly Western countries issued a joint statement afterward urging all nations to “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism,” strengthen laws to combat discrimination, and prosecute those responsible for anti-Semitic crimes.

“The determination to eradicate the conditions that gave rise to the Holocaust was a guiding principle among the founders of this organization over six decades ago,” their statement said. “Let us rededicate ourselves to that principle and endeavor to eliminate anti-Semitism in all forms.”

I could find no UN source for this UN declaration. All the pages containing “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism” are variations on this AP story.

Note the unequivocal, uncompromising language used to compel others to serve jews.

In the keynote speech, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said blaming Jews “is once again becoming the rallying cry of a new order of assassins.”

Levy, who is Jewish, called for new arguments to counter anti-Semites who say “Jews are detestable.”

These anti-Semites call Israel an “illegitimate state,” deny the Holocaust, and believe Jews give far too much attention to Holocaust victims and stifle other people’s martyrs, including the Palestinians, he said.

Dozens of speakers echoed his call to address the root causes of anti-Semitism as well as wider religious intolerance, hatred and extremism.

The jews try to dictate what others are permitted to find detestable. That’s detestable.

Levy offers no arguments, and his call for arguments is disingenuous anyway. The whole point of the UN meeting was for jews to make public their demands, which amount to telling everyone else they must “reject” and “prosecute” and “eliminate” blasphemy against the jews.

Levy is one of the many jews who unambiguously connects jews to Israel and to their holocaust narrative.

France’s minister of state for Europe Harlem Desire urged the world to act “with the utmost firmness, wherever anti-Semitism rears its head in the world.”

“Without the Jews of Europe, Europe would no longer be Europe,” he warned.

Harlem Desire, which is his real name, is a semitic-looking mulatto.

The premise of Desire’s argument is that “the world”, and especially European govts, should be more worried about what’s best for the jews than what’s best for Europeans; that “the world”, and especially European govts, should see a Europe without jews as unthinkable, and literally not think at all about what Europe will be like without Europeans.

A host can survive without a parasite. A parasite cannot survive without a host. Thus the jews equate expulsion to extermination. Jews, without the wealth and security wheedled out of Europeans, would cease to exist. Europe, without the parasitic load of the jews, would thrive – as Spain did after expelling its jews in 1492, and as Germany did as well in 1933.

Roth and Desire called for a new legal framework at the European Union and internationally to address the diffusion of racist and anti-Semitic speeches and material.

This is needed today, Desire said, “to put the responsibility on those passing the message” such as Google and Twitter.

This the closest thing to a “new argument”, though it’s just the old methods applied to new technology, new forms of communication. The tactic suggested here is to leverage the influence and power jews already have over some governments in some places and couple it with the influence they have over certain internet corporations in order to impose the priorities and interests of jews over and above everyone else, everywhere else, all at once.

Jewish leaders call for Europe-wide legislation outlawing antisemitism, describes a separate but related push:

European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

Let’s decode “Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”.

“Ethnic” is a euphemism for race – an ethnic group is a genetically and culturally (in other words racially) distinctive group.

The oldest ethnic groups in Europe are the Europeans, not the jews.

Jewish roots, genetically and culturally, are in the Levant, not Europe. Jews have quite consciously preserved their distinctiveness from Europeans for more than two millenia while living amongst Europeans.

The words “minority” and “exodus” allude to the jews’ victim narrative, and a reminder that it stretches back to Egypt, far more than 70 years ago and outside Europe.

The fact is that the jews, whomever the host among whom they live happens to be at any point in time, see themselves, organize and operate as a collective. This international lobbying, using their influence over some governments to influence other governments to “combat anti-semitism” is a perfect example.

The fact is that the jews have collectively imposed themselves upon virtually every European nation at one time or another. They have infiltrated, manipulated and exploited Europeans, moving and concentrating physically in each and every place Europeans have ever been or have ever gone. Today they manipulate Europeans collectively, via the EU.

“Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”? No. The jews are the oldest and most hostile alien interlopers in Europe. The jews have parasitized Europeans, who have for millenia served as their primary hosts.

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.

This is essentially an echo of the demands the jews put forth at the UN, but aimed more specifically at the EU. It is also more fleshed out with ready-made answers to those demands – an indication of the long-term, premeditated nature of the effort.

These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

This is the traditional approach jews have taken, disguising their concern for their interests by wrapping them up and conflating them with others. It’s not clear whether they want to ban burqas, or ban the banning of burqas. It hardly matters because whatever it is it’s subject to change depending on what the jews running the show demand tomorrow.

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group,” says the document.

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”

“Tolerance” and “freedom of expression” as defined by the jews, in the interests of security of the jews.

Amid acute European angst over multiculturalism, fundamentalist violence perpetrated on alleged religious grounds and the response of the state, the call for uniform rules across Europe is to be initiated this week in Prague at events commemorating the Holocaust and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Yet another reminder, amidst all the disposable universalist platitudes, that it is the holocaust narrative, the jews-as-victims-of-Europeans narrative, that the jews themselves provide as justification for the contempt and hostility they so constantly and freely express toward Europeans.

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 7

Audio 7 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

the_jews_vs_henry_ford

Concluding this brief series with some odds and ends, reviewing and connecting what has been covered with a few new points.

Eric Goldstein’s book, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, documents and tries to explain, from a jewish point of view, the complete about face in attitudes about race which occurred during the 20th century, specifically the shift jews made among themselves. Our concern is how they have since manipulated Whites to toe their “anti-racist” line.

During the 19th century and into the 20th Whites were just beginning to appreciate the depth and breadth of their roots, their biological relationship with each other, but also to recognize their common parasite. They were beginning to appreciate just how biologically and psychologically distinct and implacably alien and hostile the jews are and have always been. How the jews have in fact insisted upon being and remaining this way.

This growing understanding of their roots, this racial consciousness, was not fabricated out of nothing, but was based on evidence gathered from study and research – archeology, linguistics, biology. It was spreading not only among the elite, the intelligensia, but was beginning to trickle out to the masses too.

In the first half of the 20th century Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color were popular books. White understanding of race was increasing.

In 1933 the national socialists took power in Germany, and for the first time a White European government officially and definitively answered the question, “who is us”, and pursued policies guided by the principle, “what’s best for us”, racially. Expressing a collective group-consciousness that for the first time approximated (and took into account the competitive and adversarial nature of) the kind of collective awareness of identity and interests that the jews had been practicing for millenia among Europeans.

Even before this, before this racial consciousness had fully coallesced into a national socialist government, those jews most aware of their collective interests recognized this burgeoning understanding among their host as a threat to the jews. They saw that jews embracing race was not going to be good for the jews in the long run.

Their efforts to thwart this rising consciousness pre-date the founding of national socialism. We’ve mentioned Franz Boas and Maurice Fishberg, whom were just two of the more prominent names among the many jews who ultimately co-opted and derailed race science.

By the time national socialism rose to power in Germany the jews had come to the consensus that race was definitely bad for the jews, and they were throwing all their efforts into an idea, a movement that would eventually be called “anti-racism”.

“Anti-racism” is a jewish contruct, though they have tried to generalize it and otherwise obscure this. As many Whites are beginning to realize, “anti-racism” is really just anti-Whitism. It is a movement, a perverse way of thinking about race that doesn’t abolish the idea of race, but simply inverts White consciousness – making White bad and non-White good. It was inspired and continues to be led and driven by jews who think that this is what’s best for the jews.

Let’s return one last time to Goldstein’s book, where he describes jewish attitudes in America during the first decade of the 20th century. Unlike their “anti-racism” today, back then jews openly identified themselves as a race, because they thought that was what was best for the jews. As Goldstein put it, race “fit the needs of jews” “in the larger white world”.

This bit, from page 107, is part of the discussion of Simon Wolf’s (the jew lobbyist who knew every president between Lincoln and Wilson) appearance before the Immigration Commission in 1909, where he was questioned by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on the issue of whether jews are a race or religion. Wolf infamously denied their racial nature and instead conflated jewishness with religion.

In the wake of the hearing jews sympathetic to a racial view of jewishness denounced Wolf for what they saw as an abandonment of jewish pride before the commission, and took advantage of his poor performance to argue that his case had no defensible foundation. One rabbi wrote to the Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia that Senator Lodge was a better jew than Wolf, because he did not try to deny the existence of the jewish race. Zionists especially attacked Wolf’s efforts, arguing that if anything could stimulate anti-jewish sentiment, it was not the affirmation of racial identity but the “shifting, unmanly and undignified pretense of representatives of a people, who against fact and history, and against their own private convictions, disown the racial and national birthright.”

The Zionist source is reprinted in a book I mentioned briefly in Part 1 of this series, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880-1940. It covers roughly the same period and attitudes as Goldstein’s book, but offers less narrative and more in the way of original sources. Among them is an article from a 1910 issue of Maccabaean, There is No Jewish Race!, which contains the criticism of Wolf quoted above, and more, including this:

We believe we speak in the name of the entire jewish people when we say that the jewish people, native-born and naturalized in this country, are not ashamed to have themselves or their brethren classified as racial jews

As previously mentioned, the authors of Henry Ford’s The International Jew – The World’s Foremost Problem also discussed Wolf’s testimony. In October 1920 they wrote:

From the extracts given in this article, four matters become very clear:

First, the Jew is opposed to any restrictive legislation against his entrance into a country.

Second, the Jew is opposed to any racial classification of himself after he has entered a country.

Third, the Jewish argument to the Gentile authorities is that the Jew represents religion and not race.

Fourth, that at least one indication has appeared in which the Jew has one view to present to the Gentiles, and another which he cherishes among his own people, on this question of Race.

Another point might be made, as this: when the authorities disregard as untenable the argument of “religion, not race,” the Jewish spokesmen fall back on the fact that their organizations don’t want certain things and won’t have certain things—argument or no argument, commission or no commission.

The Jewish lobbyists had their way. There is no enumeration of Jews in the United States. There are 46 other classifications, but none for the Jew. The Northern Italians are distinguished in the records from the Southern Italians; the Moravians are distinguished from the Bohemians; the Scotch from the English; the Spanish-American from the Spanish-European; the West Indians from the Mexicans—but the Jew is not distinguished at all.

None of the other races made objection.

They were noticing certain consistent traits of the jews.

First, how the jews demand and often get special, unique, exceptional treatment. Contra Goldstein, there is no liability, no price connected to their privilege.

Jews demand that there be no restrictions on jews, effectively imposing restrictions on their host.

What seems to be duality, hypocrisy, or double standards, one story or standard for non-jews, another for themselves, is really just one standard: what’s best for the jews.

The International Jew was a well-known and popular book in 1920s America. It is valuable because it documents the White attitude about race and the jews at that time. But in many respects Ford and his TIJ writers were too optimistic, too conciliatory. They regarded the jews as peers, social and political equals, or at least saw them as having the potential to be so.

They maintained a pretense that they were trying to appeal to and influence the jews, and called for them to step forward and challenge their leaders. This was a weak rhetorical device that was more likely actually aimed at stirring their more “liberal”-minded White readers to resent the fact that jews were not showing any interest in participating in their “liberal” American project as peers, but were instead well aware of and committed to pursuing their own narrow identity and interests.

At that point in time Ford and Americans in general believed the Anglo-Saxon founding stock still ruled America, but were also generally unaware of the threat posed to them by the jews. A half-year after the piece above was published, the TIJ writers seemed to have come to realize that the conflict and its stakes were more dire than they had at first let on. In May of 1921 they wrote:

Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and Anglo-Saxon power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle. It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the public schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo-Saxon idea is kept away from Anglo-Saxons on the plea that it is “sectarian” or “clannish” or “obsolete” or something else. It is not a fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as Anglo-Saxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon-Celtic fathers have free course among their Anglo-Saxon-Celtic sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture.

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promise all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. And it is against this that the Jews protest. “You must not identify us,” they say, “you must not use the term ‘Jew'” Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!

Throughout TIJ we find not only various aspects of jewish influence described but also jewish personality traits. They identified the jews as a race with persistent, collective, racial traits.

One of those characteristic traits is how jews alternate between openly announcing themselves and bragging about their influence, and yet also disguise themselves and deny their powerful influence. This is no mystery. They do whichever is good for the jews in a given situation.

Another characteristic trait is how the jews swarm collectively to self-righteously attack those who take notice of their activities and oppose them. Ford too was subjected to this treatment, and it continues to this day. Some examples of jewish attitudes are attached as “Editorial Reviews” to the bookseller Amazon’s page for The International Jew:

A Message from the Anti-Defamation League

The International Jew, authored by Henry Ford, is blatant anti-Semitism. It portrays Jews as monolithic, malicious schemers plotting to control the planet. “If there is one quality that attracts Jews, it is power,” the book states. “Wherever the seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequious.” It does not portray Jews as individuals but as a single-minded, calculating cabal. Conflict among Jews, no matter how real, is painted as a sly trick, part of the Jewish plot. The book blames nearly all the troubles it saw in American society of the time on Jews. “Whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group of Jews,” it claims. Even problems with the “national pastime” are attributed to Jewish influence: “If … fans … wish to know the trouble with American baseball, they have it in three words … too much Jew.”

Never mind baseball. The trouble with America, then and now, is too much jew.

Note how jews seem to relish criticism, how they so eagerly repeat it, without denial. Instead they embellish and distort their critics in a telling way that reflects their own view of the world around them. Theirs is a world populated not with individuals but with jews mindlessly antagonized by “anti-semites”, a single-minded, calculating cabal of malicious schemers plotting to control the planet.

The jews blame all the troubles of jews then, now, and into the future on “anti-semitism”. And yet what they call “anti-semitism” is simply anti-parasitism, the host’s recognition and resentment of jewish infiltration, manipulation and exploitation. It is a reaction to the harm caused by the jews pursuing their own interests.

Interestingly, jewish anti-“anti-semitism”, combating their host’s anti-parasitism, pre-dates their “anti-racism”. Today these two things are seen as connected, with “anti-semitism” being a special form of “racism”, a specific awareness of the jews as racially distinct and hostile.

A second review at Amazon is more of the same. Because the jews ultimately prevailed over the fair-minded Anglo-Saxons with fraud they still can’t be honest about what they did. Instead they malign Ford, faulting him for thinking and behaving as they actually do:

The best lesson one can draw from this book is that being a great industrialist does not necessarily convey expertise in other subjects. The International Jew began as a four-volume set of pamphlets, published by Henry Ford in the 1920s, in which he attempted to justify his anti-Semitic views by couching his beliefs not as racism but as “fact.”

What follows is an unwieldy and meandering set of essays in which Ford uses pseudo-science and third-rate sociology (as well as talk of conspiracy and “ancient prophecy”) in an attempt to scientifically prove that “the Jew” is the biggest problem holding the world back.

If something nice can be said about this book, it’s that Ford is absolutely thorough in his accusations–perhaps an illustration of the kind of attention to detail that made him rise to such heights as a businessman. In his essays, he accuses the Jewish people of just about everything under the sun: fomenting Communism, gambling on baseball, making “Jewish Jazz” our national music, even conspiring with Benedict Arnold. Ford may have done as much as anyone in history to propel American industry into the future, but his anti-Semitic ramblings would have us stepping back into the Dark Ages.

Here at the end I’d like to take the opportunity to point you to two brief but authoritative and well-presented explanations of the jews and race.

The first is a ten-minute video presentation by David Duke. Duke approach comes across as a contemporary version of the early TIJ, at least in his laying out of the facts and can’t-we-all-just-get-along attitude. Duke primariliy cites jews on the religion versus race question, and points out jewish hypocrisy in their attitudes about race and racial purity.

Kevin Strom’s recent podcast, Jewish Weakness, also discusses the jewish race and religion, but lays them out and puts them together in a way that provides a more complete understanding.

Strom asks, “Who are these people? And why do they do the things they do to us? The answer can be found in Jewish genes and Jewish memes.” He notes:

Thus we see that the memes of Jewish peoplehood began with lies — and it is my contention that these memes, these lies, have had a race-formation effect on those who adopted them, and that this race-formation effect has continued to operate even after the incorporation of non-Semitic genes into the Jewish gene pool.

No, the essence of Jewishness is the special “us versus them” mentality which is formalized in their Chosen People myth and which was necessary for their survival as a tiny group among the teeming masses of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, and America.

The key is this: In the first place, early Jews were those Semites to whom the ethnocentric and genocidal memes of what we now call the Old Testament were attractive. So even at the very earliest period at which Jews appear, we have a select, distinct, and peculiar group. Then, for thousands of years, the Jews were subjected to a rigorous process of genetic selection.

The Jews perceive any reaction against their presence in the host nations as persecution, and from their point of view perhaps it is persecution, since our reaction is against the only way of life they know, that of a parasite attached to a host. Our interests are irreconcilable.

To protect themselves from any reaction from the host population, the Jews promote the doctrine that there is no difference among the races, although among themselves they cherish the doctrine of not only the superiority but the actual divinity of their race.

The key, I think, is perception, which is to say consciousness. Strom’s conclusion:

The difference is that today the venue for Jewish exploitation and overt and covert rule is not just France or England or Palestine, but half or more of the civilized world. It is a global phenomenon and the burgeoning reaction to it is also global. There will be nowhere to “disappear to” this time. It’s probably true that “the 1%” is 99% Jewish, but that’s a lot less of an advantage when everyone knows it.

Joe Sobran observed in 1996 that:

Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.

“Paralyzing”, and other such words people choose when they describe the jewish problem, indicate the host-parasite nature of the problem, even when it is not consciously acknowledged.

The furtive power of the jews is the apparent paradox to which Sobran refers. The two concepts – furtiveness and power – seem at odds, but are not really. Furtive power is another way of saying illegitimate or unpopular power. A power whose strength lies in remaining unrecognized and thus unopposed. The most pliable host is an unwitting host. The jews control the media because they must in order to survive as a collective, in order to put their ideas, their consciousness of their interests into their hosts’ heads. Also, to ensure that their host remains otherwise unaware, unconscious of its own interests. Unconscious of the manipulation and exploitation. Unconscious of the grievous harm being done by the jews.

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 6

Audio 1 Comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

cicero_tacitus_strabo_pierce

The jews have infiltrated, manipulated, exploited and outlived every nation, empire and civilization in Europe and the Middle East for millennia. The jewish problem is an old problem. The racial character and nature of the jews is not something Europeans only first noticed in the 15th century with the Purity of Blood Statutes in Spain. We’ve previously addressed what contemporary twits have to say. This time we’ll review some observations of jewish racial character – the personality traits characteristic of the collective – which date back more than two thousands years into the past.

Cicero, a Roman statesman during the 1st century BC, remarked:

The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers.

Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire during the 1st century AD. In The Works of Tacitus, Volume 4, published in 1752, Thomas Gordon wrote:

Concerning the jews, he followed the tradition and accounts current amongst the Romans. He tells you what different relations there were, and neither adds any thing, nor misrepresents things maliciously. It was an obscure State; generally enslaved by some greater power; to the Assyrians, Egyptians, Grecians and then to the Romans, and condemned by all, as much as they themselves hated all. They had not common mercy or charity toward the Gentiles and uncircumcised; and being persuaded that the Almighty loved only themselves, they fancied that he abhorred, and therefore they abhorred, the whole human race besides : So that it was said by Tacitus too truly, “adversus omnes alios hostile odium.”

This is a well known phrase amongst scholars, and has appeared in many variations since. What Tacitus was saying was, “they hate and are hostile to all others”.

Notices of the Jews by the Classic Writers of Antiquity, published in 1870, John Gill notes that Tacitus had described the laws of the jews as “hostile to men, and calculated to inspire the jew with hatred and opposition to the rest of mankind”.

Strabo, a Greek geographer during the 1st century BC was another ancient observer who noticed the jews. I found Strabo’s wisdom embedded in a broader account provided by William Pierce in 1998, How It Fits Together:

The world’s 14 million Jews think and act like one big family — even though, like most families, they do a lot of arguing and squabbling among themselves. They go to different synagogues — Orthodox and Conservative and Reform — or to no synagogue at all. There are atheist Jews, and there are Jews who have converted to Christianity. There are capitalist Jews and communist Jews, homosexual Jews and heterosexual Jews. There are rich Jews and middle-class Jews and even a few poor Jews, but despite this apparent diversity they do a better job of cooperating with each other and looking out for their common interests than any other ethnic group in the world.

Why is this? Why are Jews more racially conscious than anyone else? Why are they so much more ready to collaborate with each other than members of other groups? Part of the reason is in their religion. It is an ethnocentric religion, a racist religion. Whereas Christianity and Islam, for example, are universalist religions, religions for anyone who chooses to believe in them, Judaism is not. Judaism is a religion only for the Chosen People, only for the circumcised sons of Abraham. Jews are defined in terms of their bloodline, not in terms of their faith, which is why non-religious Jews like Freud or Trotsky or even Marx, the father of atheistic communism, are considered just as much Jews as the most pious synagogue-goer, with sidelocks and yarmulke. The non-religious Jews don’t believe the hocus-pocus in their Torah, or Old Testament, but they nevertheless are steeped in the folklore and traditions of Judaism. They are as familiar as their religious cousins are with the claims that Jews are a Chosen People, destined to own all of the world’s wealth and be waited on hand and foot by non-Jews. And they are familiar with the tales of persecution, from the time of the pharaohs until the time of Hitler: with the tradition of being universally hated by all the other peoples of the world — which is why they believe they are justified in avenging themselves on non-Jews whenever they have the opportunity.

This tendency of the Jews to stick together, always to favor their fellow Jews over non-Jews, and to work for the interests of their tribe instead of just for their individual interests is a fact: a very enviable fact. It is the primary reason for their extraordinary level of wealth and power through the ages.

You know, there are clubby little groups of White men who cooperate with each other to advance their interests. But those interests are personal and individual, not racial or even tribal. And virtually all of the really influential groups of this sort — the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, or groups of very rich and powerful men, corporate bosses or bankers, are in fact heavily larded with Jews. They’re not racial groups at all, even if they don’t have any Blacks or Chinamen in them. They’re simply special-interest groups, whereas the 14 million Jews of the world form a huge, self-conscious racial-interest group. They really are unique in this regard.

I wish that our people had the same degree of racial consciousness the Jews do. The Jews understand the power of togetherness. Most of our people don’t. And this is largely the reason why we’re in the mess we’re in today.

The second thing for us to understand about the Jews is their very unusual mode of existence, living nearly everywhere as a small minority among other peoples. If one looks at their history in the Biblical period, they were at most times a people on the move, living as strangers and aliens among other peoples, getting kicked out of one place after another, always on terms of enmity with the Gentile host population. Only for a little over 400 years, from approximately the time of King David until the Babylonian conquest, did they really have a national existence in the ordinary sense of the word, with geographical borders.

When the Babylonians dispersed the Jews throughout the Middle Eastern and the Mediterranean world in the middle of the sixth century BC, the Jews adapted amazingly well to being a minority everywhere and a majority nowhere. Five hundred years later, in the first century BC, the Greek writer Strabo commented: “The Jews have penetrated every country, so that it is difficult to find any place in the world where their tribe has not entered and become dominant.” Note those words: “There is no place where they have not become dominant.” The great geographer and historian Strabo was not the only scholar of the ancient world to make that observation about the Jews. The Jews became dominant by accumulating a substantial portion of the wealth of every country that they infiltrated. And they accumulated their wealth by collaborating with each other and preying on the host population. Their collaboration was based on their racial consciousness, on their conviction that they were a distinct and unique people, superior to the people among whom they lived and deserving of whatever they could take away from their hosts. The Jews in Rome did not think of themselves as Romans who happened to believe in Judaism, but as Jews who happened to live in Rome. And the same for every other country where they lived.

With the sort of attitude and behavior the Jews had they were bound to be hated by everyone — and they reciprocated. The Jews regarded the hatred they had for their hosts as justified, just as they considered deceiving and exploiting their hosts to be justified; but their hosts’ hatred of the Jews they regarded as “bigotry” and “persecution.” Their history is a chronicle of one “persecution” after another, right down to modern times. During the Middle Ages they were kicked en masse out of every country in Europe, repeatedly. They pretend today that this supposed “persecution” was the result of religious bigotry on the part of their hosts, but in fact it was simply self-defense on the part of their hosts, the same sort of reaction to their presence that the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans and everyone else in pre-Christian times had had. And it was this barrier of hatred between the Jews and the rest of the world which made it possible for them to maintain their identity and their sense of racial self-consciousness.

We return again to Eric Goldstein’s book, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity. We left off last time in CHAPTER 4: “WHAT ARE WE?”: JEWISHNESS BETWEEN RACE AND RELIGION, page 110. Goldstein describes the private communications between jewish leaders in America. In 1909 these leaders feared that race scientists were close to declaring the jews a non-White race, and so they conspired to:

enlist the help of an anthropologist in order to get “a very strongly worded declaration as to the practical identity of the white race,” one that would presumably leave no doubt as to the whiteness of Jews.

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, Columbia University Processor Franz Boas was the best known anthropologist of Jewish origin in the United States. Boas shared the concern of the Jewish communal elite about racial nativism, but his preference to identify as a German American rather than as a Jew prevented him from engaging too directly in Jewish defense efforts during these years. Instead, Boas worked to discredit the centrality of race in evaluating human capabilities, arguing that differences between groups–including those between blacks and whites–were heavily influenced by environmental factors. Because these ideas contradicted the overwhelming consensus about the importance of racial differences in the United States, however, they offered little to Jewish leaders hoping to win acceptance for their group in white America. As a scholar who was well integrated into the non-Jewish world, Boas could freely advance such oppositional theories. But for Jews struggling to overcome their uncertain racial status, it was much harder to build their case for inclusion on ideas that undermined the basic assumptions of the larger society. To soothe white Americans’ doubts about the “Jewish race,” they would have to affirm the basic distinction between black and white.

The scientist who took up this challenge was Maurice Fishberg, one of the leading scholars of Jewish physical anthropology at the turn of the century, and the only American to devote himself significantly to such research.

I’ve examined Franz Boas in some detail previously. What Boas and his disciples did was adopt the mantle and authority as objective scientists while replacing research with outright fraud and just-so stories about culture.

Fishberg laid out his line of argument in a book titled, The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment, published in 1911. The jews did not see it as good for the jews. Page 114:

In denying any far-reaching racial distinctiveness and identifying Jews with other American whites, Fishberg had provided a scientific basis for the claims of Jewish leaders. Unlike other Jewish spokesmen, however, he pursued his conclusions with a rigid scientific consistency that was unable to make room for any lingering attachment to the notion of a Jewish race. In fact, because he had made the argument for the temporary, artificial nature of Jewish difference so rigorously, he discounted not only the Jewish racial distinctiveness but almost every form of Jewish particularity.

By taking the denial of Jewish racial difference to its logical conclusion, Fishberg failed at satisfying the contradictory needs of American Jews, most of whom ultimately wanted to be accepted in white America without giving up their own distinctive racial identity. This failure was apparent in the almost universal condemnation the book received in Jewish circles.

Fishberg argued that the jews were not a “race, creed or nation” but simply a “social phenomenon”. Page 115:

Horace Wolf, a Reform rabbi in Chicago, scoffed at Fishberg’s argument that the term “Jewish race” was a scientific misnomer. “What do we care that the laboratory masters have dubbed us in error,” he asked, “so long as our lives reflect our implicit belief in the continued existence of the Jewish people?”

If Jews found that race was an increasing liability and threatened to lump them with nonwhites, they also found themselves unable to break the emotional commitment they had to a racial self-understanding. The result was a constant stuggle with these two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness, one that led many acculturated Jews to assert their status as a religious group in public while privately clinging to a much broader racial understanding of Jewishness. In 1910, addressing the question “What Are We?” for a Jewish reading audience, historian Max Margolis summed up the collective frustration of American Jews by concluding that the Jews were “a great anomaly which cannot be classified according to accepted rules of definition.” In finding satisfactory terms for Jewish self-definition, complained another Jewish writer the same year, “we succeed to about the same extent as the man who sets out to square the circle or to prove that twice two are five.”

These “two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness” are exactly what parasitism needs to succeed. The parasite must infiltrate, manipulate and exploit its host, while being mindful enough not to attack or destroy itself.

The jews see themselves as a racially related group. They always have and always will. The euphemism they use for race today is “peoplehood”.

When the reality of race was something everyone acknowledged the jews openly talked about themselves in those terms. But as scientists began to understand the deep, biological nature of race, thus threatening to expose the jews, the jews came up with a two-pronged plan to meet the challenge. Both prongs involved co-opting race science (infiltrating and manipulating it) to make their seemingly contradictory case for inclusion and distinctiveness.

In the end the jews settled on Boas’ path – hijacking and derailing race science – first to minimize the significance of race, and eventually to banish any understanding of race as rooted, relatively immutably, in biology.

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 4

Audio 14 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

dawkins_examines_a_judaism

A recent twit from Richard Dawkins to his 1.05 million followers (retwitted by 325, favorited by 498):

Biologists disagree over how, or whether, to define race. But there is NO sensible definition whereby either Judaism or Islam is a race.

This is intellectual sleight-of-hand, a word game in which Dawkins has substituted “judaism” for “jews”. It is the same trick the jews themselves use – emphasizing the ideological, the religious disguise, to distract from the biological, hereditary nature of the group itself. Dawkins is a world-famous biologist, specializing in evolution. He is too intelligent to not comprehend the fallaciousness of this game.

He may have been trolling, intentionally mocking the fallacy. More likely he was lamely trying to defend himself from the jews and muslims who call him a “racist”. Jews deliberately conflate jewishness with judaism, encouraging others to do the same, but they also don’t hesitate to cry “racism”, because they understand better than anyone that their connection to each other is racial.

The pretense that jewishness equates to religion falls apart as soon as you start asking questions. Which religion? What about so-called “jews of no religion”? For a more detailed examination see Pew Polls Jews, as well as Jewish Crypsis – Religion – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Kevin MacDonald’s article, Get into Twitter. Be Depressed., elicited a comment from James Reinfeld calling attention to my recent work:

Tanstaafl at Age of Treason is doing podcasts on intellectuals such as Francis Parker Yockey and their thoughts – or really their lack of adequate thoughts – on the Jews. The impression I get from these confirms the frustration I had myself in looking up the wise old men of the white race for thoughts that might help us in this crisis.

A pithy summary. I’m also disappointed with the feeble criticism of wise old “anti-semites” like Wilhelm Marr.

Before Kevin MacDonald, no one knew anything about the Jews, and the danger to whites as whites. Attempts to grapple with a Darwinian challenge using theological mental tools, passing references to Jewish attitudes and habits with no development on the potential danger they posed and no advice on how whites should defend themselves as whites, or at most inclusion of Jews on lists of alien peoples who really posed nothing like the same threat – these just didn’t cut it. Nor is there guidance to be had in hyper-nationalist perspectives, that had no notion of whites as an endangered in-group, and rather saw some particular nation as in competition with all others (merely including Jews).

Jews are and have been conscious of themselves as a collective with shared interests and enemies, while we have been unconscious. This has given Jews an enormous advantage over us.

From the publication of the Culture of Critique trilogy and the additional material that followed, we can say that at least tiny numbers of whites had for the first time a matching awareness. That’s quite new. Really, it’s a 21st Century phenomenon only.

Kevin MacDonald is a refreshing exception amidst the cowardice and ignorance that prevails today. MacDonald’s analysis is both comprehensive and coherent, but the general thrust – that the jews are biologically alien and conspire to advance their own interests, against the interests of their White hosts – is not new.

Many Europeans have seen the jews for what they are – implacably alien, harmful, an existential threat – especially since the Enlightenment. In Germany the National Socialists, the “nazis”, understood the jews in this way, and organized to defend themselves.

Reinfeld’s point about “hyper-nationalist perspectives” is that it plays into the divide-and-conquer tactics jews use. If Americans, Britons or Russians had awakened and recognized the jews as the Germans did then World War II might have been averted, or at least the jews might have lost. At any rate the world would be a very different place today.

Andrew commented on the previous installment:

I am unsure about the degree of Jewish self-deception versus conscious deception. I tend to side with Dr. MacDonald here. On the micro level, I am sure they know very well that they are slithery and deceptive in their conduct. But on the macro level, I think there is a lot of self-deception at play.

. . .

I see their need to destroy Europeans as an emotional compulsion that they are mostly not self-aware of. A circumspect, self-aware, not self-deceiving organism would not be hell-bent on destroying its host (or undertaking the other ultimately self-destructive policies that we see).

Note how difficult it is to believe that the jews are self-destructive and contrast this with the premise of the suicide meme, that Whites are inherently self-destructive. The truth is that no organism evolves to destroy itself.

Jews, like any group, exhibit a range of behaviors. Applying their favorite adage to their primary concern we could say, “Two jews, three opinions about what’s best for the jews.” Whites should be wondering whether it’s good for Whites that any jews are free to run around, pretending to be White, telling Whites what to think and do, regardless of whether all jews are hell-bent on destroying Whites, or why.

On the one side are jews like Tim Wise. Wise’s “White Like Me” shtick serves as the barest disguise for a resentful mischling who is quite literally hell-bent on destroying Whites.

On the other side are jews like Lawrence Auster. Auster was the quintessential “good jew”, a self-professed Christian convert, (neo-)conservative, and race realist. Like Wise, Auster insisted that jews are “white”, though only because he was hell-bent on defending the jews, and thought Whites could still be of some service to this end.

As I wrote in On Jewish Deception:

Self-deception, in its most literal sense, is about lying to oneself to protect oneself. It is a personal mechanism for dealing with a personal problem – avoiding mental anguish by mentally avoiding reality.

The primary problem for Whites is not in trying to distinguish between jewish deception or self-deception, it is White denial, the propensity of Whites to deceive themselves, to imagine ways to avoid facing the harm and pain caused by jewish deception.

“It’s not the jews! There is no jewish conspiracy. That’s just craaaazy talk.” This line of thinking is strongly and constantly encouraged by the jews. It is a line eagerly adopted by those who wish to avoid the very real pain the jews readily inflict on those who refuse to accept it.

Speaking of conspiracy, let’s return to Eric Goldstein’s book, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, page 16:

Race as a Framework for American Jewish Identity

Jews had long been understood as a “race” in Western societies. According to Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, racial terminology was applied to the Jews as early as the fifteenth century, when Purity of Blood Statutes were enacted in Spain to restrict Christians of jewish descent from holding certain privileges. By the mid-nineteenth century, the opposition between “Aryan” and “Semite,” which had grown out of the study of philology, had become an orthodoxy of racial science in Europe. In America, however, where racial theories grew in response to a history of colonization, slavery, and westward expansion, Jews did not become a primary focus of racial discourse. White Americans spoke of the Anglo-Saxon heritage that had endowed them with a talent for good government and contrasted themselves to African Americans, Native Americans, and other peoples of color. But despite the national preoccupation with these groups, by the mid-nineteenth century there were also a number of European immigrant populations—mainly the Irish, Germans, and Jews – who began to be referred to in racial terms as they became more prevalent on the American scene.

The evidence of just how distinct jews are from Europeans is in archaeology and biology as well as philology. This is beside the fact that jews are most clearly distinguished by the way they distinguish themselves. It was the collective behavior of jews and their quick rise to power that alarmed White Americans and distinguished them from other immigrants.

The “Purity of Blood Statutes” are also known as Limpieza de sangre. The Iberian Reconquista and Inquisition is one of many instances in history, better known than most, where jews were at least partly exposed, recognized for what they are: racial aliens living among and preying upon their hosts. As MacDonald put it:

Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”

Jews have long been understood as a race because it fits reality. This understanding didn’t start in Spain or 19th century America. It started when the jews started. Even today jews euphemize their racial nature as “peoplehood”. They see themselves as a people connected by heritage, by genetic descent – a connection that transcends language, religious beliefs, or current place of residence.

Goldstein’s book could just as well have been titled “White Like Us”. Reading between the lines we find an expose of jews hyper-conscious about identity, obsessed not only with how best to see themselves, but how to best manipulate others into seeing them.

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 3

Audio 10 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

kevin_macdonald

This time we’ll contrast William Graham Sumner’s view of ethnocentrism with Kevin MacDonald’s view specifically focused on the jews. Sumner wrote in 1907, when it was still reasonable to imagine that the White man ruled America and Europe, or as Francis Parker Yockey put it, ruled 18/20ths of the world.

Recall Sumner’s definition of ethnocentrism:

15. Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.

Though Sumner saw the significant role jews played in the development of Western folkways and mores, and noted their ethnocentrism, he showed no discernable sign of alarm concerning jewish power.

A hundred years later it is still common, more common, to flatly ignore the jews or even deny that the jews have any power. However, it is more difficult to defend such a position in the face of the jews’ dominance in the realms of finance, media, and politics. Today those who are critical of jewish influence and power are openly punished for doing so.

Kevin MacDonald is a good example. Like Sumner, MacDonald is an academician specializing in social psychology. He has described the jews not only as ethnocentric, but as a hostile elite with a particularist morality, where “good is what is good for the jews”. In fact, MacDonald has noted the unique and extreme qualities of jewish ethnocentrism, often referring to it as hyperethnocentrism.

The abstract for MacDonald’s monograph, Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism, begins with this sobering overview of the history of White/jew relations:

Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.

The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.1 Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”2

Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until at least the post-World War II era. They were an important focus of National Socialism in Germany, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-white immigration to countries of European origins.3 In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the Bush administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.

How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? This article is the first of a three-part series on Jewish influence which seeks to answer that question.

The main body of MacDonald’s monograph is in the first section, titled I. Jews are Hyperethnocentric. His review of jewish behavioral traits is in direct comparison to Whites:

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries.

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism and hyperethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish hyperethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism and have suggested in several places that Jewish hyperethnocentrism is biologically based.

In this monograph MacDonald reiterates many of the themes he has written about elsewhere, including the aforementioned moral particularism of jews. He discusses self-deception, a term and concept I have taken issue with. Jewish deception is especially evident in their crypsis, the claims jews make as to the harmless or insignificant nature of jewish identity which are so often and blatantly belied by their activism.

MacDonald notes the long historical memory of the jews, their “memory of persecution and impending doom”, ostensibly at the hands of Whites. The point of How Anti-Whiteness is at the Heart of Jewish Identity is to see the jewish victimology narrative for the aggressive inversion of reality it is.

MacDonald touches on the uncanny ability jews have to identify each other and identify with each other, to recognize who is “us” and who is “them” – a trait informally known as jewdar.

MacDonald describes the strong identification jews have with Israel and zionism. Referring to an ADL press release responding to the liberalization of Germany’s immigration policies in 1999, MacDonald notes:

The prospective change in the “us versus them” attitude alleged to be characteristic of Germany is applauded, while the “us versus them” attitude characteristic of Israel and Jewish culture throughout history is unmentioned.

Words fail to capture the spectacle of professional jews, acting as spokesmen for the world’s most outstanding practitioners of “us vs them”, lecturing and moralizing us “them” on the evils of thinking in terms of “us vs them”. MacDonald concludes his section on jewish hyperethnocentrism with another attempt:

Jewish ethnocentrism is ultimately simple traditional human ethnocentrism, although it is certainly among the more extreme varieties. But what is so fascinating is the cloak of intellectual support for Jewish ethnocentrism, the complexity and intellectual sophistication of the rationalizations for it—some of which are reviewed in Separation and Its Discontents58 and the rather awesome hypocrisy (or cold-blooded deception) of it, given Jewish opposition to ethnocentrism among Europeans.

The three subsequent sections describe other heritable, i.e. racial, personality traits of jews. An excerpt from II. Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy):

Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. A good example is the long and ultimately successful attempt to alter U.S. immigration policy.

The next section is titled III. Jews Are Psychologically Intense. MacDonald describes jews as having higher than average emotional intensity:

In the case of Jews, this affects the tone and intensity of their efforts at activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues.

Several examples of such instant, massive responses come to mind.

Judaized Discourse – A Holocaust Over Blood Libel documents such a response to Sarah Palin.

What’s Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tom Perkins on the 1% and Kristallnacht documents another example.

Another more serious and recent example came just a few months ago with the Israeli military bombed Gaza, hitting schools and hospitals. Four Jews, One Opinion on Israel captures a portion of the surreal response, where “liberal” jews got up on their jewsmedia soapboxes to defend Israel, and jews in general, describing themselves as the real victims.

All of the above brings to mind the proverb, “The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”

The last section is titled IV. Jews Are Aggressive. One excerpt:

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”97

MacDonald’s work, and specifically this monograph on jewish hyperethnocentrism, highlights the racial divide in mentality and the great difficulty Whites face in trying to understand jews, a difficultly the jews themselves mockingly refer to as goyishe kopf.

What we’ve discussed here are really all just various facets of an inborn racial ruthlessness, the stereotypical willingness of jews to say almost anything in defense of jews, or to excuse the harm jews do to others. Anyone who has debated jews is familiar with the lies, illogic, personal insults and other distractions to which they readily resort.

The term ethnocentrism doesn’t really capture this ruthlessness. Hyperethnocentrism is only slightly better. Loxism, or jewism, though relatively uncommon and unknown, are better words because they do capture the unique, incomparable nature of jewish racial ruthlessness. As Alex Linder recently remarked:

Whites assume jews aren’t conspiring, because whites don’t. Jews assume whites are conspiring, because they do. #loxism

Picture source: Is Orange County professor Kevin MacDonald ‘the most dangerous living anti-Semite?, in which the jewish interviewer/author exhibits his entirely jew-centric views and many other of the jewish personality traits MacDonald has described.