Tag Archives: history

Understanding Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora)

kostenki_14_and_his_doppelganger_nemesis_israel_zangwill

A recent paper announcing the results of the analysis of DNA taken from some ancient bones unearthed in Russia in 1954 is causing a stir. Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years was published in the journal Science. The abstract reads:

The origin of contemporary Europeans remains contentious. We obtain a genome sequence from Kostenki 14 in European Russia dating to 38,700 to 36,200 years ago, one of the oldest fossils of Anatomically Modern Humans from Europe. We find that K14 shares a close ancestry with the 24,000-year-old Mal’ta boy from central Siberia, European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, some contemporary western Siberians, and many Europeans, but not eastern Asians. Additionally, the Kostenki 14 genome shows evidence of shared ancestry with a population basal to all Eurasians that also relates to later European Neolithic farmers. We find that Kostenki 14 contains more Neandertal DNA that is contained in longer tracts than present Europeans. Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a meta-population that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.

The meta-population claim is controversial. More on this below.

ScienceNordic published an article titled, Scandinavians are the earliest Europeans, explaining the results in layman’s terms:

“From a genetic point of view he’s an European,” says Professor Eske Willerslev, Director of the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen, who was involved in the new study, and adds:

“Actually, he is closer to Danes, Swedes, Finns and Russians than to Frenchmen, Spaniards and Germans”.

Split happened within a 8.000 year gap

The new results reveal that the man is the oldest that we know of so far to genetically represent a separate line from the forebears of present-day Asians. This is decisive when it comes to dating one of the most important events in history.

“We can now date the separation time between Asians and Europeans,” says Professor Rasmus Nielsen from the University of Copenhagen and the University of California, Berkeley, who was also involved in the study.

He points out that the Kostenki genome sets a line 37,000 years ago. Here the lines must have split, while the 45,000-year-old genome from the recently discovered Ust’ Ishim in Siberia sets the limit in the other direction.

This gives the answer to one of the biggest questions in the history of mankind; scientists now know that it is within the 8000 year gap that Europeans and Asians went their separate ways.

Willerslev presents his views in a brief video, Early peopling of Europe.

The ScienceNordic article concludes:

It turns out that Scandinavians are more closely related to the Kostenki man than any other now-living population. This means that Scandinavians are the earliest Europeans.

However, the genome also indicates that many European traits, including those from the Middle East, were already present in the first Europeans.

So from a genetic point of view it makes no sense to categorise the Scandinavians as a separate people.

The article is relatively free of the anti-”racist”/pro-miscegenation spin found in most of the rest of the mainstream, judaized media “reporting” on Kostenki 14 (K14), but that last sentence is patent semitically correct nonsense. The whole premise of the genetic research, and all the various interpretations of it, is that genetic categorization does make sense, because genetic categories are real and significant. This is, for example, why the claim can be made that the K14 genes came from a mixture of three older and distinct genetic categories, that this mix is closest to a contemporary genetic category called Europeans, and furthermore, that it is closer to a genetic subcategory called Scandanavians.

The reality and significance of genetic categorization is a reflection of the biological reality and significance of race. Genetic categorization is race, and vice versa. Those in academia who remain dedicated to understanding genetic reality, and yet wish to avoid being seen as “racist”, simply avoid the term race, even as they examine the very fibers of it. Meanwhile, the rest of academia and all of media, where the hegemonic ideological line is that biological race does not exist, either pretend genetic research and genetic categories don’t exist, or at least twist their reporting on it with nonsense minimizing its significance.

From a genetic point of view it makes sense not only to distinguish Scandanavians from Europeans but to acknowledge even finer subcategories. Moreover, it makes just as much sense to note that all European subcategories – e.g. the Danes, Swedes, Finns, Russians, Frenchmen, Spaniards and Germans mentioned above – have more in common with each other genetically than they have, individually or collectively, with any kind of Asians. The distance is not simply cultural or geographical, but temporal – prior to globalization there was no significant interbreeding between Europeans and Asians for at least 37 thousand years. The distance between Europeans and Africans is greater still, with genetics indicating that the divide dates back at least 100 thousand years.

Those in media or science who are more semitically correct try to obscure these basic facts and instead spin the K14 news to fit the “melting pot”/”nation of immigrants” narrative so favored by the jews. National Geographic’s Europe Was a Melting Pot From the Start, Ancient DNA Reveals is a good example:

Tale of Migrations

Archaeologists and geneticists have long debated who the ancestors of modern Europeans are—and how, and when, they arrived. It’s typically been a tale of migration and invasion, of people moving into Europe in waves that left distinct genetic signatures behind.

First, the thinking goes, there were groups of hunter-gatherers, moving from Africa into Europe beginning about 40,000 years ago. Much later, a separate group of farmers and herders from the Middle East made their way north, eventually out-competing the hunter-gatherer locals and forming the basis for the European genome we see today.

The introduction of agriculture by this second wave of people—the so-called Neolithic Revolution—was such a pivotal moment in prehistory that it can be seen in both artifacts and genes.

The new results add a surprising wrinkle.

What other geneticists have identified as separate hunter-gatherer and farmer genes are all present in the Kostenki find. “You wouldn’t predict if you go back to one of our earliest individuals, all the components of modern Europeans were already there,” Willerslev says. (Related: “Discovery of Oldest DNA Scrambles Human Origins Picture.”)

Genes once thought to have arrived with the first farmers, for instance, now seem to have been around much earlier. “Until now, it seemed clear this was something that came into Europe during the Neolithic,” says Pontus Skoglund, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School. “It’s an extremely interesting suggestion that they have.”

The complex mixture of DNA in such an old specimen, Willerslev says, suggests that Stone Age Europe was a lively place. Instead of separate groups colliding and occasionally mingling, Willerslev argues there was a single, genetically similar population sprawling across the continent, from Russia to the Middle East to northern Europe. (Related: “Blue-Eyed Hunter-Gatherers Roamed Prehistoric Europe, Gene Map Reveals.“)

“Rather than separate populations moving into each others’ areas and having sex with each other,” he says, “there was a single ‘meta-population’ having sex—or exchanging genes—in a complex and heterogeneous way.”

This is a fairly straight telling of the “tale” and what the new K14 analysis might mean, if true. But rather than calling any attention to the relatively long-term similarity of Europeans, or the distinction from Asians and Africans, the article closes by quoting Willerslev projecting the race conscious jew Israel Zangwill’s early 20th century race-mixing-for-the-goyim vision into the prehistoric past:

The new find complicates a picture of Europe’s deep past that geneticists thought was becoming clearer. “We all thought you could sequence these bones and come up with a simple story. This paper really shows things are not as simple as people thought they were,” Willerslev says. “Europe has always been a melting pot.”

Of course, however long and however relatively genetically homogenous Europeans have been, what made them Europeans in the first place was the fact that Europe wasn’t any kind of melting pot for Asians or Africans, as Zangwill’s tribemates (like Barbara Spectre) today envision.

One folkish pro-European response to the National Geographic article came from Steve McNallen at Asatru Update, European Genetics Remarkably Unchanged for at Least 36,000 Years. McNallen accepts the implication that European genetic homogeneity dates back farther than previously believed, yet senses something is wrong. He writes:

Why does the headline tell us one thing, and the body of the article tell us exactly the opposite? Is the idea of a long-term, stable European identity just not permissible under the ruling intellectual paradigm?

Many people recognize the poisonous “ruling intellectual paradigm” without recognizing that the source and driving force is a genetically distinct group which identifies itself as “the jews” and identifies Europeans as the enemy.

Dienekes Pontikos’ Genome of Kostenki-14, an Upper Paleolithic European (Seguin-Orlando, Korneliussen, Sikora, et al. 2014) ignores semitical correctness entirely, but provides more technical information and expresses some skepticism. The most significant point in his opinion:

The new paper shows that K14 was definitely European (or more correctly West Eurasian or Caucasoid), as it was more similar to modern Europeans than to East Asians or other non-West Eurasian populations. Thus, the morphological description of the sample as “Australoid” by some early anthropologists did not reflect its ancestral makeup. Also, this proves that Caucasoids existed 37,000 years ago

Dienekes also describes how this new research meshes with another less controversial result recently published by Lazaridis et al. in Nature, Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans:

most present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: west European hunter-gatherers, who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; ancient north Eurasians related to Upper Palaeolithic Siberians, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and early European farmers, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harboured west European hunter-gatherer related ancestry.

In A look at an early European, Peter Frost addresses another smaller and more ancient component:

Modern humans received their Neanderthal admixture when they were just spreading out of Africa some 54,000 years ago.

When our ancestors spread farther north into Europe, some 45,000 to 42,000 years ago, they could have interbred directly with Neanderthals, but they didn’t. Perhaps the two groups were just too different. They seem to have intermixed only via a third party that was neither fully modern nor fully archaic.

Frost’s point – that Europeans who already carried a trace of Neanderthal genes later avoided mixing with them – hasn’t gotten much play in the semitically correct media. Perhaps they think the potential benefit of screeching about ancient “racist” apartheid doesn’t yet outweigh the potential reawakening and reassertion of such instincts. They are eager to pathologize and neutralize aversion to the Other, not call attention to how well-established such instincts are.

Like Dienekes, Frost is relatively sympathetic toward Europeans, and furthermore specializes in the genetics of skin color. Thus his tacit acceptance of the following points carries some weight:

The European phenotype came later

Kostenki Man was dark-skinned, dark-eyed, and rather short. These details, curiously enough, appear not in the paper but in a review of the paper, published by the same journal, as well as in an interview with one of the authors (Associated Press, 2014; Gibbons, 2014).

So we now have an upper bound for the emergence of the European phenotype, i.e., light skin and a diverse palette of hair and eye colors. The lower bound has been set by the remains of a Swedish hunter-gatherer, dated to 8,000 years ago, who had the “European” allele for light skin at the gene SLC24A5 (Skoglund et al., 2014).

Frost’s conclusion:

By retrieving ancient DNA from an early modern human, we have made a key advance in human paleogenetics, perhaps more so than by sequencing the Neanderthal genome. We again see that evolution did not slow down with the emergence of anatomically and behaviorally modern humans some 60,000 years ago. It actually began to speed up, as humans began to enter not only new natural environments but also new cultural environments of their own making.

Greg Cochran rejects the ancient meta-population “melting pot” portion of the K14 results. In Remix Cochran flatly states his belief that Willerslev’s conclusion is wrong. He points out that more recent (8Kya) western European hunter-gatherers didn’t have any ancient north Eurasian genetics, and moreover, there is “plenty of evidence of serious migrations in Europe”. Cochran provides two possible explanations for the result: “a small mixing event” that was not widespread but was instead reproduced again later, or “error: they’ve made a mistake”.

My understanding (laid out here, here and here) is that the genetic makeup of contemporary Whites is a composite of two main components, which I’ve called Old European and Aryan (the semitically correct euphemism is Indo-European). Lazaridis and Cochran use the corresponding terms western European hunter-gatherer (WHG) and early European farmer (EEF). The Neanderthal component was discovered several years ago, but is only a trace. The recent Lazaridis result revealed yet another component in the mix – the so-called ancient north Eurasian (ANE, Cochran also uses “Sibermen”) – which is more significant than Neanderthal, but less than WHG or EEF.

Prior to the K14 analysis the likely hypothesis was that the WHG/EEF mixing occurred when Aryans swept in and combined with the indigenous Old European hunter-gatherers circa 6Kya. Cochran may be right. K14 might be either an anomaly or erroneous. But even if the major genetic amalgamation had already occurred 37Kya, it only means that the Aryans and Old Europeans were more closely related than previously thought.

By the way, the picture Willerslev paints of “one enormous meta-population stretching across Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia” calls to mind the following passage from William Pierce’s Who We Are (emphasis added):

Upper Paleolithic Man

For roughly 20,000 years during the closing chapter of the Ice Ages — the period known to archaeologists as the Upper Paleolithic, or “late old stone age” — our ancestors lived as big-game hunters in Europe, ranging from the Mediterranean coast to the edge of the ice in the north. Their physical remains and those of their artifacts are relatively plentiful, giving us a great deal of information about them and their lifestyle. One of the most striking things about the Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe was their physical homogeneity. Measurements made on their skeletal remains indicate a population more racially homogeneous than that of any European country today — and this population was spread over an enormous area throughout a span of time very long compared to that of all recorded human history.

Whether their relative genetic homogeneity came sooner or later, what should concern Europeans most is that the genocidal “melting pot” that the jews and their useful idiots promote so feverishly today is not only ahistoric and unnatural, but antithetical to very the existence of Europeans.

The Danube Valley Cultures of Old Europe

the_thinker_and_the_sitting_woman

The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000 3500 BC (links added):

We have embraced a world that I for one didn’t know existed when I was educated many years ago. Nobody ever talked about the fact that there was a great civilization in Europe well before the pyramids, before the ziggurats, before the Mycenaeans, before Periclean Athens, before all of that there was an extraordinary civilization in the Danube river basin.

It also pre-dates the Aryan invasions of Europe.

The evidence of Old Europe is not only in writing, but in other artifacts, and in our DNA. Modern Europeans are essentially an amalgam of haplogroup I Old Europeans and the haplogroup R1 Aryans who later conquered them. The term Old Europe was coined by Marija Gimbutas. I’ve previously discussed the Aryans, Marija Gimbutas and the Old Europeans in Who’s White? – Part 3.

Danube Script from Old Europe 5000 – 3500 BC:

Harald Haarmann is the world’s leading expert on ancient scripts and languages. According to him, these are the oldest writings in the world invented by and ancient civilization that existed in the Balkans thousands of years ago.

This implies that the first high culture in the world originated in the Balkans. So Mesopotamia would no longer be called the Cradle of Civilization. The ancient culture in the Balkans is thousands of years older. The tablets of Tărtăria were found in Romania and they are dated 5500 BC.

Old Europe – The Danube River Valley Civilization 5000 B.C. – 3000 B.C links many images of artifacts from various sources on the web.

Danube Valley cultures:

Danube Valley civilization or the term Old Europe is the name for several advanced cultures in southeastern Europe and surrounding areas who were connected to the Danube River valley. It was a cycle of cultures beginning somewhere between 7,000 – 6,200 BC,[1] its time of peak were 5,500 – 3,500 BC, from 3,500 – 3,000 BC the civilization fell into decline. The main reason for this were perhaps the arrival of the Indo European speaking people from Eastern Europe.

“Indo European speaking people” is a contemporary semitically correct euphemism for Aryan.

The Danube valley civilization is largely a forgotten, rather than lost civilisation.[57] The upheavals that followed the Indo-European infiltrations into Europe from 4300 BC to 2900 BC transformed differents regions at different times. A few areas were left relatively unaffected.

Modern observers have projected quite different visions on the remains of Old Europe. But this much is clear—far earlier than before recognized, southeastern Europe achieved a level of technological skill, artistic creativity, and social sophistication that defies our standard categories and is just beginning to be understood in a systematic way.

battleground

Battleground: WWII Anti-”Racist” Propaganda

Battleground (1949), IMDb:

A squad of the 101st Airborne Division copes with being trapped in the besieged city of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.

The moral of the story – a justification for the war in Europe – is delivered by a preacher. It is a brief scene whose tone and tenor stands conspicuously apart from the rest. In fact the bulk of the film, the action and interpersonal drama, can be seen as a mere delivery mechanism for this poisonous payload:

Was this trip necessary? Well, let’s look at the facts.

Nobody wanted this war but the nazis. A great many people tried to deal with them and alot of em are dead. Millions have died for no other reason except that the nazis wanted em dead. So in the final showdown there was nothing left to do except fight.

There’s a great lesson in this, and those of us who have learned it the hard way aren’t gonna forget it. We must never again let any force dedicated to a super race, or super idea, or super anything become strong enough to impose itself upon a free world. We must be smart enough and tough enough in the beginning, to put out the fire before it starts spreading.

So my answer to the sixty-four dollar question is: yes, this trip was necessary. As the years go by alot of people are gonna forget, but you won’t. And don’t ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker to fight in the war against fascism.

“Let’s look at the facts.” The authoritative voice in The Brotherhood of Man (discussed here) used the same lie to introduce his anti-”racist” fraud.

The fraud here is, “Let’s you and him fight. And don’t ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker, sucker.”

The fact is that the White race – the people of European descent in every country on this planet – lost that war. The jews won.

The film was written by Robert Pirosh:

His most notable success was garnering the Academy Award for his screenplay of Battleground (1949), a motion picture based on the Second World War Battle of the Bulge in which he had himself participated as a Master Sergeant with the 35th Division.

His name is in the list of Jewish Recipients of the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.

Charles Lindbergh Speaks on a United European Race

Charles Lindbergh Speaks on a United European Race

Charles Lindbergh, 13 Oct 1939:

Our bond with Europe is a bond of race and not of political ideology. It is the European race we must preserve, political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital, politics a luxury. If the White race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.

George Lincoln Rockwell – Vote White

George Lincoln Rockwell – Vote White

In the United States of America there is only one group, only one, with the courage and the guts to face up to the fact that this battle is racial – it has nothing to do with politics, or economy, free enterprise, taxes – it is a question if this country going to be dominated and run by the White Christian people who built it, or is it going to be run and dominated by a bunch of beatnik scum, negroes, jews, communists, aliens and no good people who are trying to take it away from us and tell us that we mustn’t even talk about this because it’s hate. Well I don’t see anything hateful about defending your home and country and family from aliens who are invading and taking it away from you. And that’s what they’re doing.

The same problem happened in Germany, and one man was able to rise up and unite his people as White people. He said the White people are a master race. That’s what Adolf Hitler preached and I believe it. And I think most White Christians in America who have any sense realize that’s true. The jews have been telling us that Adolf Hitler was a monster and he murdered alot of people, and so forth. I learned that that’s alot of garbage. Just like they say the people of Alabama, stormtroopers, and beating negroes, and villains, and heels, and so forth, that’s not true. The same people that lie about Alabama, lie about Germany. In short, Germany was the Mississippi and Alabama of Europe. And they got me and millions of other White Christians like me to go out and try to destroy it. And I think we made a mistake, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should have destroyed atheistic, soviet, race-mixing communism. Which is what Hitler was trying to do.

We didn’t however and now we have it all over us. Grinding[[?]] all over us and destroying us and boasting they’re going to bury us. Well I say to you, it’s just the other way around, we’re going to bury communism. And I believe that only a leader and only a group that’s willing to face up to the whole truth, not part of it, but all of it, is going to be able to bury communism. To do it we need the strength of the enormous masses of the people of America. Not right-wingers, such as voted for Goldwater. We need the White Christian masses. The only group in the country with the courage and the guts to go after these masses is the American Nazi party.

No matter what they call us, no matter what they say about us, we believe in the people – in the ordinary taxi drivers, the construction workers, the ordinary little guys that built this country. We believe that if we go to them with a pitch based on the truth, on the facts about race, on the facts about communism, and tell them the truth as we know it, and don’t try to hide it or disguise it any, we believe we can win political power because those little fellas will go into the ballot boxes and the ballot booths where nobody can see what they’re doing and no matter how much they may be terrorized outside, in that sacred American ballot box they’ll vote for a White man. They did it for Wallace, I believe they’ll do it for me in Virginia. I believe they’ll do it for me or any other leader with the courage to stand up and fight as a White man in this country.

So far, ladies and gentlemen, look at the leaders we’ve had. We’ve had some very great ones. I would have gladly given my life following Douglas MacArthur. And I offered to fight and do anything for Joe McCarthy. And yet not one of these men ever once had the nerve to stand up and say, “I am a White man and I’m gonna fight as a White man.” Even George Wallace today is still saying racism is evil. And I believe that if we keep saying this, for the benefit of the jews, so they won’t call us hate-mongers and racists, we’re going to get whipped.

I believe that time is too short. Time is desperate[[?]]. It is time to stand up and tell the whole truth, and to fight for it. To organize not as conservatives, not as republicans, not as democrats, not as liberals, not as northerners, not as southerners, not as Protestants, or religious or anti-religious, or anything else but as White men. Stand up with all our hearts and souls and unite. For the blacks vote black, the jews vote jewish. Ladies and gentleman, let’s let the White man vote White. Let’s let the White man support the White cause.

If you believe in and understand what I’ve been preaching, please, won’t you support, won’t you enable these young men who go out and risk their lives in the streets fighting communists? Won’t you support them? Keep them alive. Help them pay the bail the way the communists and the jews support their communist jew scum, to get them out of jail, I’ve got alot of men in jail right now, won’t you please support them? Listen to the group leader who has presented this film and give them all the help you can. It will be deeply appreciated by me and every other White American, every White Christian, in this country. I thank you very much and I hope to see you all personally some time.

According to Metapedia:

He ran unsuccessfully for governor of Virginia in 1965 as an independent, polling 5,730 votes, or 1.02 percent of the total vote.

SomeThoughtsonHitlerCover

Some Thoughts on Irmin Vinson

I bought a new book last weekend. While I have not yet finished it, what I have read so far is absolutely wonderful – a clear, sensible examination of topics that many White advocates consider difficult or imprudent to discuss.

The book is Irmin Vinson’s Some Thoughts on Hitler & Other Essays. The promotional blurb reads:

Why are we subjected to more anti-Hitler propaganda today than during World War II?

Why are white nations blanketed with Holocaust memorials, even countries where the Holocaust did not take place?

Why do most people know how many Jews died during World War II but have no idea how many non-Jews died?

Irmin Vinson’s Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays is a book about propaganda. Vinson explains how the organized Jewish community uses the memory of Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust as weapons to stigmatize the patriotism and ethnic pride not just of Germans, but of all whites, including those who fought against Hitler.

Vinson explains how this spurious white guilt and self-hatred has been used to break down white resistance to multiculturalism, miscegenation, affirmative action, and the invasion and colonization of white homelands by non-white immigrants—trends which, if not reversed, will lead to white extinction.

In these clear, rational, and highly readable essays, Irmin Vinson exposes and demolishes this insidious propaganda, clearing the way for the reemergence of white pride and patriotism. Some Thoughts on Hitler will change more than your view of the past; it will also change your understanding of the present—and of our destiny

See also Kevin MacDonald’s Foreword.

Vinson’s long essay titled Holocaust Commemoration forms the core of the book. I do not recall reading this essay previously, but passages like this one made me wonder if I must have:

The public discourse of the Jewish Holocaust is incoherent: it speaks in the universalist language of tolerance and inclusion, while justifying Jewish particularism in Israel; it claims to find in stories of Jewish wartime suffering distinctively Jewish humanitarian lessons, applicable to everyone everywhere, while borrowing them from the historical religion of the West; it teaches human brotherhood, while elevating the suffering of Jews far above all other suffering; it commemorates Jewish powerlessness, while demonstrating Jewish power. But beneath all its deceptions and contradictions lies the message of broad Western responsibility for German mistreatment of Jews, a special culpability which Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, a self-styled Holocaust theologian, has called “the measureless Christian guilt toward the Jewish people.” [6]

Institutionalized Holocaust commemoration in the United States presupposes that White Americans are notably deficient in the various moral qualities that Holocaust remembering purportedly inculcates, whereas Jews, owing to their group experience of nazi persecution, are the appropriate teachers of necessary lessons in racial tolerance. Those peculiar meanings did not, needless to say, arise unaided from stories of German atrocities against European Jewry. The truth of our collective guilt required an aggressive reinterpretation of the Second World War, an assault on the moral legitimacy of the Western nations that fought and won it. Through a remarkable transformation, the Allied victors have become co-agents in the crimes and alleged crimes of the regime they defeated, and the war itself has been reimagined as a Judeocentric moral test, which all of us conspicuously failed. Our measureless guilt, together with the entire edifice of Holocaust commemoration erected upon it, is a doctrine of moral equivalence projected back into the past in order to shape the present.

Vinson fleshes out and hammers home the points I only tersely outlined in A White Guide to the Jewish Narrative. Beside jewish morality and the holocaust narrative, touched on above, Vinson identifies an early example of the generalization of the jewish narrative to “minorities” and the racial aggression behind it:

An Early Holocaust Lesson

In 1944, as the war in Europe was drawing to a close, Jewish playwright Arthur Miller, then in his late twenties, sat down to write Focus, his first and only novel. [7] It would be a critical moral fable about his fellow Americans, for Miller did not share the heroic self-image and traditional patriotism that characterized most other Americans during the war years. Focus, published in 1945, would be an imaginative elaboration of a very simple thesis: being a Jew in Roosevelt’s America was like being a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. In their irrational hatred of the Jewish Other, White Americans, the same White Americans who were then fighting fascism in Europe and the Far East, were no different from nazis.

Lawrence Newman, the novel’s WASP protagonist, is a corporate personnel manager whose quiet bourgeois world is permanently disrupted after he begins to wear eyeglasses, which strangely make him look Jewish, a dangerous liability in the America of Miller’s fertile imagination. Without glasses Newman is a gray-flanneled Episcopalian, a normal White American, despite his ethnically ambiguous surname; with glasses he is perceived and treated as a despised Jew, persecuted and even attacked by other normal White Americans, all of whom are racist and anti-Semitic, as Newman had been before he gained his factitious Jewishness. The novel’s organizing narrative conceit, that eyeglasses can turn an anti-Semitic Gentile into a Jew, conveys an obvious Judeocentric meaning: Lawrence Newman, in his culpable blindness to the intolerance that surrounds him, must first be seen as a Jew in order to see clearly. Thus in his new role as a reluctant Jew, now seeing and experiencing the world through the Jewish lenses conferred by his racial marginalization, Newman gradually discovers that his homogenous New York neighborhood, which had once seemed a benign social environment of communal amity, is in reality, beneath its placid surface, a seething caldron of xenophobia and hate, at least for anyone with the misfortune to be different, or in his case merely to appear different. “Behind these snug, flat-roofed houses,” Newman now perceives, “a sharp-tipped and murderous monster was nightly being formed, and its eyes were upon him.”

The novel’s historical context is central to its subject. In Focus the European war, depicted in our propaganda as a titanic struggle of good against evil, seems little more than a distant contest between two rival groups of pogromists, each nurturing its own “murderous monster” of racial hatred. In Europe German nazis conduct mass hangings of Jews, while at home angry anti-Semites, organized into the Christian Front, part of a large network of patriotic organizations spread across the country, beat Jews and rape Puerto Ricans as they await the return of the American military, who will then assume the lethal role of storm troops in driving Jews from America, beginning first in New York, the center of Jew-hatred. White America’s cleansing war against Jewry will begin, as an activist neighbor informs Newman, “when the boys come home,” since American combatants in the European war are at one with their German enemies in their implacable anti-Semitism.

In the political environment we now all inhabit, nothing in Focus is startling, nothing would be out of place in a sensitivity workshop or an anti-racialist educational exercise. The novel’s vision of a virulently racist America would have appeared radical in 1945; now it is commonplace, especially for young Whites immersed in a rigorous program of multicultural miseducation. Miller, alarmed by the failure of non-Jews to comprehend “the threatening existence of Nazism,” and unimpressed by the fact that many men of his age cohort were then dying in Europe fighting Germans, took it upon himself to teach an early version of what would eventually become the most insidious of the Jewish Holocaust’s numerous lessons, namely that pathological (“nazi”) hatreds lurk behind the West’s superficially civilized exterior. Whereas American wartime propaganda had, naturally enough, presented NS Germany as the moral antonym of the United States in particular and of the democratic West in general, Miller substituted a much different contrastive structure, placing innocent Jews on one side and lethally malevolent Whites on the other, with racial minorities like Blacks and Puerto Ricans in ancillary roles as occasional victims of White intolerance. This structure, which Miller may have been the first to discover, conflated Germans and their enemies in order to nazify White Gentiles as a whole. Focus was a thorough defamation of Euro-America for its endemic anti-Semitism and racial hatred, the purpose of which was to efface any significant moral distinction between ourselves and the propaganda image of the Nazi. Miller’s nazification required the Nazi as the acknowledged representation of evil, but his concrete targets were White Americans, who had not yet seen their own visible racial pathologies.

From this Vinson boldly infers:

An imaginative Jew writing before the liberation of the German concentration camps could arrive at nazifying Holocaust propaganda without the Holocaust, which suggests that the Holocaust does not represent events during the Second World War but rather reveals Jewish attitudes toward their benefactors. The Holocaust, as an idea, was latent Jewish racial aggression awaiting both a symbol and an opportunity to express itself.

Yes indeed. Likewise for the Six Million Holocausts phenomena.

the_jewish_version_of_history

A White Guide to the Jewish Narrative

jewish morality

To most Whites morality is an entirely universalist notion. This means that, with some exceptions, if something is right or wrong then it is assumed to be right or wrong for everyone, everywhere, all the time. This notion of morality is reflected in Christian ethics as The Golden Rule. Universalist morality is one of the tenets of Western-style liberalism.

Jews have a more particularist notion of morality: Is it good or bad for the jews? If something is good for jews then it is right, otherwise it is wrong. Jews are also well aware that universalist-sounding rhetoric can bamboozle Whites into serving or at least acceding to jewish particularist interests.

It is this particularist morality that enables jews to unselfconsciously assert that Israel is for the jews but White countries are for everybody. Likewise that the jews are a people, but White is just a meaningless skin color or social construct.

Criticism of jews along these lines is often mistaken, sometimes intentionally, as an accusation of dual loyalty. As Joe Sobran once observed, dual loyalty would be an improvement (from either a liberal universalist or White particularist point of view).

the hate narrative

Jews tend to identify people they hate for specifically jewish reasons as jew-haters.

According to jews, anyone who comes into conflict with the jews must be to blame. Entirely. This blame cannot be explained in any way that leaves blame unassigned, because then some portion might be ascribed, even if only implicitly, to the jews. Thus the tendency to characterize anyone who vexes them as simply mentally or morally defective, driven to hate jews solely for the sake of hating.

the jewish version of history

A one-sided version of history entirely sympathetic to jews. This means that for any historic conflict with other groups or individuals, the non-jews are and always have been entirely to blame. In a nutshell: jews have always been the victims of horrible persecution and oppression at the hands of stupid, crazy, evil haters.

A corollary of this is the anti-White version of history: Whites have always been stupid, crazy, evil haters, persecuting and oppressing everyone else, and specifically jews.

the jewish guilt-trip

The use of any portion of the jewish and/or anti-White versions of history as an accusation, assigning collective responsibility and guilt to Whites. This is a form of psychological aggression – an attack on White self-worth and self-confidence, placing Whites on the defensive.

The purpose of such aggression is to gain concessions benefiting their own group – to promote or defend jewish power and interests.

the blood libel narrative

One specific jewish anti-White libel/story in the larger jewish version of history. This is the jewish claim that on multiple occasions Europeans killed jews who were accused of kidnapping and killing European children for their blood. Since the idea that jews could be guilty of anything is unthinkable, the Europeans must be the ones who were, and still are, guilty.

Oddly enough, according to jews themselves these accusations of bloody kidnap-killing recur across time and space, following jews wherever they go.

the holocaust narrative

Another jewish anti-White libel/story, the most prominent of all. This is the jewish claim that Whites killed (or otherwise aided and abetted the killing of) six million jews in gas chambers between 1939 and 1945. Today this narrative almost completely overshadows anything else that occurred before during or after World War II.

Over time the target of jewish accusations and guilt-tripping has broadened from the Nazis, to Germans (for not stopping the Nazis), to Europeans in general (for not more effectively opposing the Germans), to Whites in general (for restricting immigration, not joining the war in Europe against Germany soon enough, not making the bombing or liberating of prison camps a higher priority). Meanwhile, in an increasing number of Western countries, open dispute of the holocaust narrative is considered a violation of the law, punishable by fine or imprisonment.

the nation of immigrants narrative

Jews in diaspora are the archetypical nation of immigrants, thriving for millenia while regularly migrating from one host country to another. Well aware of this history, jews overwhelmingly favor open borders for all countries, except Israel. Virtually every jew has a story to tell about how their own family benefited from immigration, or was harmed because they couldn’t migrate freely.

In common use the term is an oxymoron used to idealize unrelated, hostile alien tribes colonizing countries founded and formerly controlled by Whites.

the jewish narrative

All together, the phenomena and attitudes described above, and more, constitute the jewish narrative, which is now the dominant narrative in Western society. The pervasiveness of the jewish narrative is a consequence of jewish influence in media, culture, and politics. This is in turn a consequence of jewish wealth and activism.

the jewish question

Prior to the Enlightenment Europe and Christendom were seen, by Europeans, as synonymous. Jews were seen primarily as members of an ancient religious sect who hadn’t yet gotten around to converting to Christianity.

In the late 18th century, with the fig leaf of religion shriveling, European intellectuals began to wonder aloud – Who are these rude, uncivilized, aliens who call themselves The Jews? Why do they behave as a nation within a nation? Whatever shall we do with them?

jewish emancipation

The jewish question was eventually answered by fiat, imposed from above by European political leaders who were sympathetic to and already in the process of assimilating with the jews. These leaders declared jews equal citizens and granted them full political equality. This process occurred in fits and starts, at various times and places in Europe, during the first half of the 19th century. In exchange jews were expected to drop their particularist identity, to stop being jews and assimilate.

Debate on the jewish question dragged on however. Europeans did not generally accept jews as social or racial equals, and jews did not generally abandon their jewish identity. As partially assimilated jewish intellectuals joined the debate, they turned it more and more into an indictment of Europeans.

Today this portion of European history is taboo. Only the jewish version and their guilt-tripping remain in the mainstream. Calling the process jewish emancipation is itself a sign of deference to jewish sensibilities. It was, in retrospect, more of a slow-motion jewish putsch. In the end, jews were free to operate as a particularist team inside a larger, universalist society.

the jewish template and the minority narrative

The struggle for dominance over Western society came to a head in the middle of the 20th century. Whites waged a cataclysmic, fratricidal war on each other and lost. Long before that war, even while Whites still dominated the US politically, jews were already helping blacks found the NAACP and pathologizing White racial identity.

Now, in the 21st century, jewish power and influence increase essentially unchecked. For the last six decades the jews have gone into overdrive, generalizing and adapting elements of their narrative to other “minorities”. Slowly but surely this is what has turned European-founded societies inside out and upside down. When jews and other diversities exclaim, “Diversity is our greatest strength”, they are exactly right.

[Image data source.]

karl-marx

Jewish Revolutionaries: Good for Anyone Other Than the Jews?

From the Bastille to the boulevard: The long history of Jewish revolt, by Shuki Sadeh, Ido Efrati, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, 2 Sept 2011:

One hot day in the summer of 1967, a young, frizzy-haired guy named Abbie Hoffman tried to go into the visitors’ entrance of the building in which the New York Stock Exchange is located. When the guard stopped him, Hoffman said: “We are Jews and you are an anti-Semite who is not letting us in.” The disconcerted guard let Hoffman and his hippie-friends go up to the visitors’ gallery.

Jews have traditionally taken a particular interest in the successes of their people in every generation and in every field of endeavor. This Jewish “bookkeeping” is mostly tendentious and usually ignores the circumstantial and environmental conditions that made these success stories possible. Indeed, for the most part, it prefers to attribute these achievements to the genetic makeup of the Chosen People.

“The list of Jews who have been involved in leading revolutions [since the middle of the 19th century] is very long,” explains Prof. Moshe Zimmermann of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s history department. “When a social group is not satisfied with its situation and feels it cannot change it – it will support a revolution. The Jews were not satisfied because they did not have privileges granted to other sectors and therefore the idea of revolution – whether communist or liberal – was attractive to them.

According to Prof. Moshe Zuckermann, a historian at Tel Aviv University, revolution was not the only option for Jews. They had least two other options.

“One was assimilation,” he explains, “as happened in Germany in the 19th century, and the other was going in the Zionist direction, a possibility that arose at the end of that century. If a Jew did not choose one of those two directions, his remaining alternative was to change the society at large – and therefore became a revolutionary.”

Trotsky was surrounded by quite a number of Jews, among whom his brother-in-law, Lev Kamenev, and Grigory Zinoviev stood out. “It is said jokingly,” comments Miron, “that when Lenin would leave the room, Trotsky was able to organize a minyan [prayer quorum].”

In Hungary, in another example, Bela Kun, a young man in his 30s, was among the founders of the Soviet Republic in Hungary in 1919. When it collapsed after 133 days, Kun went into exile in Russia, and was killed in one of Stalin’s purges at the end of the ’30s.

“Kun operated within a reality in ferment: Nearly half of the Hungarian journalists were Jewish, as well as the lawyers and doctors – even though they constituted only 5 percent of the population,” Silber explains. “At the end of World War I, Kun seized power in Hungary. He headed a government of 35 commissars, nearly all of them Jewish, and the impression was that a Jewish government really had been created. This led to a wave of anti-Semitism and terror against Jews.”

“In Germany there were various revolutionary ‘focal points’ dominated by Jews,” says Miron. “Kurt Eisner led the ‘Bavarian Soviet Republic,’ which briefly ruled in Bavaria. In Munich, there were three attempts at a revolution, all of them were led by Jews and all of them failed.”

Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish-born Jewess, was one of the founders of the Communist Party in Germany.

“Jewish revolutionaries for the most part live on the margins of Jewish society and sometimes cut off ties with the community,” notes Prof. Avi Saguy, head of the program for hermeneutics and a lecturer in philosophy at Bar-Ilan University. According to him, tikkun olam (repairing the world ) is a profound Jewish ethos – but a conservative rather than a revolutionary one.

“To say that in the Jewish genes there is a revolutionary element is utter nonsense,” says Prof. Zimmermann. “The Jews, by virtue of being a minority and because they were a religious group, adopted various types of behavior – which also explains the support for revolutions. The origin of the demand for social justice is indeed rooted in Jewish tradition, but in modern conditions, it can be said that it lies in revolutionary tendencies.”

Zuckermann, too, says there is no connection between the revolutionaries’ Jewishness and their political choices: “The discourse did not revolve around ultra-Orthodox religious Judaism, but rather around the Judaism that emerged in the period of the Enlightenment. From the moment the Jews integrated into the civil society of the 19th century – which, although it declared that they were emancipated, in fact did not accept them – they had a collective interest in changing society. Bourgeois civil society perceived the Jews in a new light: not only in a religious context, but also in socioeconomic one.”

Emanicipation of society

The most significant expression of the separation between the Jew’s social status and his tradition is found in the writings of Karl Marx, whose philosophy had a crucial influence on the revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries. Born in Germany in 1818, Marx came from a family of rabbis but his father converted and became a Lutheran.

In his 1844 essay “On the Jewish Question,” one of his early writings, Marx related to the secular status of the Jews in society and characterized them as a people identified with commerce and the accumulation of wealth.

“Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion,” he wrote, “but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society …

“We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” There are those who saw in Marx’s sharp words an expression of anti-Semitism and a denial of his Jewish past. However, in general he is perceived as a serious social theoretician, who called for the elimination of religious separatism of any kind and for abolishing economic commerce, on the way to creating an egalitarian, classless civil society.

“Most of the great revolutionaries,” says Zuckermann, “did not relate to their Judaism. People like Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg did not talk about emancipating the Jews from their Judaism, but rather about human emancipation, whereby people need to liberate themselves from social structures that create the oppression of various groups in the society, among them the Jews.”

Jews, jews, jews. Jews are so obsessed with themselves that they write stories bragging even about the mass murder and mayhem their tribemates have caused, turning European society upside down, spinning it as good and righteous. Then, perhaps realizing that this story may not fly, they hedge somewhat by lamely claiming it wasn’t really jews as jews.

But of course the story is about jews as jews. That’s what 9/10ths of it is about and that’s why it was published by Haaretz.