Tag Archives: jewish identity

Jew Identity: Non-White, Anti-White

do_i_look_too_jewish

The jews have noticed that White racial consciousness is growing. A few are freaking out and screeching to each other that Trump’s selection and the rise of the jew-aware alt-right is why jews, as jews, should freak out and screech more. This hysterical reaction, which only further exposes jew malevolence and power, is collective. It is what they are. The internet merely amplifies their jewing, allowing more of us to see it more clearly.

The essence of jew identity is inherently schizophrenic – a loud-furtive tribe of name-changing shape-shifting fraudsters who insist they are the victims of the many peoples they’ve parasitized and ultimately offed. They have thrived as a group because they are so keenly aware of themselves as a group, but also because they are aware that they thrive at the expense of others, their hosts, whose awareness jews spend a great deal of effort monitoring and ruthlessly manipulating – to suppress or redirect toward their own ends.

Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a jewsmedia jewess whose long-term special concern has been to jewsplain, specifically to jews, how two toxic jew-driven anti-White memes – that jews are White, and that “White privilege” is evil – are colliding, and how this collision might ultimately not be good for the jews.

In a recent piece published by The Forward, Bovy empathizes with another, younger jewsmedia jewess, Sydney Brownstone. ‘Oh Man, Do I Look Too Jewish?’:

I have lived for 26 years under the illusion that I am unconditionally white, for example, and in pictures recently I have started looking at my face and going, oh man, do I look too Jewish? I’ve never done that before or at least not since I was 13 and like comparing myself to girls wearing Abercrombie.

Brownstone expressed this perfectly typical cryptic jew expression of hostility in a conversation with two other blabbermouth-stranger jewsmedia jews.

Brownstone was describing her concern about an impending alt-right revolution. She explicitly connected her antipathy for “a bunch of gun nuts shooting people” to her own conflicted self-image – a lifetime comfortably posturing as White while simultaneously seeing herself and her own violent, nutty tribe as separate from and at odds with Whites:

It’s just really weird to see this rise of anti-semitism, and think about kind of umm the historical pathway that even got my family on this continent and I know that, Eli, you share kind of a similar history. But I feel like there are ghosts that live in our blood and those ghosts are telling us to run or to remember the revolutions that our families survived and to look out for the signs that are happening now.

History is kind of umm weird because jewing. As White racial consciousness rose a hundred years ago jews as a group were compelled, by the Whites who ostensibly still governed America at that time, to resolve the weirdness, to present an argument that jews were racially “white”. Galvanized by this threat to their jewness a few jews went through the required motions. At the same time, other jews set out to remove the threat by constructing anti-”racism”.

Bovy offers an intimate and explicitly racial interpretation of Brownstone’s feels:

In one sense, pale-skinned American Jews are only now experiencing a shift in our racial self-conception. But if you step back and look at how these same Jews — specifically, the Jewish girls — often experience their teen and preteen years, it starts to seem as if maybe this experience of racist anti-Semitism isn’t entirely new.

And it feels a bit full-circle-ish, I must say, when you learn (on Facebook, where else?) that your 13-year-old self’s Abercrombie-girl equivalent now supports Trump.

Bovy, like Brownstone, clearly sees two separate groups – jews, whom they identify and sympathize with, versus Whites, whom they don’t. They act conflicted because there is a conflict, and they know they are on the jew side, against Whites.

No group is more conscious of race and identity than jews, who are well aware of the privilege they enjoy when Whites mistake them as White. They never tire of expressing their dislike and distrust for Whites, but also recognize the value of the error, the advantage it provides them to manipulate White thoughts and actions: “As a White, I think my fellow Whites suck.” At other times, especially when such goyposing fails, they revert to more explicit jewing: “As a jew, I can’t believe this craaaaaazy anti-semitism exists, shut it down.”

In this respect Bovy is full-time one-jewess band – more overt jew, less pretend “white”, but constantly dancing around the fault line. Bovy titled her take on Trump’s selection Between Guilt and Fear: White, Jewish, and Female after a Trump Victory:

But when I see “white women” posts from white Jewish women, I pause. Are we white women? Today? That is, are we complicit in what’s just happened?

The short, honest answer is no, jews aren’t White, they’re anti-White. But while Brownstone and Bovy provide one of the more blatant examples, it isn’t the only one.

Another jewsmedia jewess, Emma Green, coyly asks Are Jews White? (This article was published by The Atlantic, a “jewish Commentary” in the same sense as The Jew Republic.) Like Bovy, Green blames all this jewy double-talk, which has been going on forever, on the alt-right and Trump.

On the extreme right, Jews are seen as impure—a faux-white race that has tainted America. And on the extreme left, Jews are seen as part of a white-majority establishment that seeks to dominate people of color. Taken together, these attacks raise an interesting question: Are Jews white?

“Jewish identity in American is inherently paradoxical and contradictory,” said Eric Goldstein, an associate professor of history at Emory University. “What you have is a group that was historically considered, and considered itself, an outsider group, a persecuted minority. In the space of two generations, they’ve become one of the most successful, integrated groups in American society—by many accounts, part of the establishment. And there’s a lot of dissonance between those two positions.”

There’s that weird, jewed history again. The tales jews tell only seem paradoxical and contradictory to those who refuse to accept their implication. Jews, as a group, see themselves as distinct from and at odds with Whites. The confusion on this point persists because jews foment and perpetuate it. While fewer jews may believe that masquerading as White is still what’s best for the jews, they all peddle a version of history which hinges on the same stark distinction: excusing jews, faulting Whites.

Green’s coy bit triggered a jewlash much like the one just a week earlier, and for the same reason – jews lash out in anger when their jewing gets exposed. Green responded with Jews and the Social Construction of Race. The first article rehashed the old jew narrative on race, “It’s complicated, goyim, trust me.” The second article taps a more up-to-date jew narrative, “It’s imaginary, goyim, trust me.”

“Race” is a historically contingent and subjective category that is used to justify violence against minority groups. I specifically wrote about American Jews because their experiences—which are incredibly diverse and varied—show the hypocrisies and limits of these racial categories. Looking at the historical experiences of this one particular group, and the present-day tensions its faces, is a means of critiquing the way “whiteness” is used to delineate who is and isn’t considered powerful and valuable in society.

A lot of people seem to feel strongly that talking about Jews in terms of race—even to challenge the notion that Jews could ever fit neatly into a single racial category, which is what my article is about—is thought-provoking or, at worst, dangerous.

Here’s what I’d say to these objections: Racial categories exist in American society. Everyone—including and especially Jews, a group that is arguably constructed not just around religious identity, but also ethnicity—has to grapple with their relationship to those racial categories. As I argue in the piece, racial categories are flawed, socially constructed, and ultimately premised on control and power. But ignoring questions about race is not a way of bringing about racial justice or overturning white supremacy. It’s a way of stifling understanding, debate, and awareness.

Many jews realize they can’t talk about race without contradicting themselves, so they try to forbid the subject to everyone. Many others instead embrace the sort of weaponized racial double-talk Green uses in her second article – an overtly anti-White narrative about “white supremacy” and “control and power”, constructed by jews inside universities and broadcast to the masses by their corporate media. Both of Green’s narratives hammer home the same point. Jews aren’t White, they’re anti-White.

Then there are some jews who speak relatively plainly about jew identity and their historic racial animus toward Whites, like Micha Danzig, an Israeli soldier and NYPD cop. Anti-Semitism in America is Nothing New. Don’t Deny Jewish History and Culture by Calling Us “White”:

Ruiz-Grossman also apparently believes that Jews in America have been hiding behind their “skin privilege” instead of being at the forefront of the civil rights movement. Perhaps Ruiz-Grossman never learned that Henry Moskowitz, an Ashkenazi Jew, was one of the founders of the NAACP in 1909, and that many, if not most, of the civil rights attorneys fighting for racial equality in the South in the 1950’s and 1960’s were Jewish. Maybe she never learned that half of the famous volunteer “freedom riders” in the early 1960’s were Jewish, or that it was the murder by the KKK of three such freedom riders, two Jews, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, along with an African-American, James Chaney, that helped galvanize the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As if ignoring Jewish history in America is not enough, Ruiz-Grossman also disregards her own Jewish identity and Jewish history by characterizing herself and presumably all (Ashkenazi) Jews as “white.”

This is wrong and offensive. Anyone that understands Jewish history as well as the history of the entire development of the idea or construct of the “white race” should understand how that no Jew, Ashkenazi or otherwise, is “white.”

Ashkenazi Jews have been the victims of European and Western oppression and violence for centuries precisely because they were perceived as not being a part of the “white” world, beginning with the Roman colonialism of Judea and continuing through the 20th Century with arguably the worst genocide in history based on racial classification, the murder of more than 6 million, primarily Ashkenazi Jews, precisely because they were non-whites. The characterization of Jews as now somehow “white” and beneficiaries of “white privilege” is one of the main fallacies behind the relatively recent identification of some self-identified progressives with the demonization of Israel, a hateful cause to wipe off the map the world’s only Jewish state and to once again destroy the indigenous homeland of the Jewish people.

This is not merely a semantic issue. Jews are not “white.” We are a tribal people from the Levant. Many of our people were forcibly exiled out of and into other nations, including in Europe, where we were taken in chains and often subjected to brutal and oppressive institutional racism based on our ethnicity, tribal affiliation, culture and faith. For thousands of years, including nearly 2000 years where the majority of the Jewish people lived without the protection or comfort of having a Jewish homeland, we still maintained our indigenous culture, passing on from generation to generation our traditions, our language, and our sacred texts, all of which are entirely based on our indigenous tribal faith and affiliation. To call us “white,” when the notion of a “white” race was created by indigenous Europeans as a basis for supporting the “White Man’s Burden” and European imperialism, which certainly persecuted and oppressed Jews, in addition to numerous other non-Europeans, is a gross travesty and distortion.

No one that wants to end anti-Semitism and to fight against bigotry and racism should be claiming that Jews are “white.” People who try to depict or describe Jews as “white” are (albeit likely unintentionally) nullifying Jewish history and identity, and they are (again albeit likely unintentionally) essentially supporting Western imperialism, or at least it’s cultural imperialism, by imposing an artificial European creation (of a “White people”) on Jews — who regardless of our shade or whether we are Ashkenazi, Sephardic, or Mizrahi — are genetic brothers and sisters who have more in common genetically with each other than with most ethnic Europeans or “whites.”

Read that last paragraph again. Same anti-White jew narrative, yet another form. This is the ordinary jew-sixpack’s take on the weaponized double-talk produced by more subtle, polished jews, though his point about genetics is something none of them would be foolish enough to mention.

Are Jews People

cnn-chyron-526x345

The jews have been screeching about Richard Spencer’s NPI conference in Washington DC this past weekend. Alot of it is just the usual jew normal wow-just-wowing that a handful of Whites still have the nerve to openly meet and speak positively about White identity and interests. The loudest wailing has to do with a bit of exuberant hailing at the end of Spencer’s closing speech, but there was a more telling response to a rhetorical question he asked at the beginning:

This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous podcast hosts, and dissidents working deep within the beltway right proved that they objectively understood politics better than the “Republican strategists” and “political consultants” snarking at us every night on MSNBC. It’s not just that they are leftists and cucks. It’s not just the many are genuinely stupid. Indeed, one wonders if these people are people at all – or instead, soulless golem, animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking point John Oliver stated the night before.

This twit, from one screechy jew organization to another, captures the gist of the reaction that immediately echoed throughout the Lügenpresse: “‘Alt-right’ Trump supporters are unsure if Jews are people. @jfederations, are you sure you want to support this admin? #JewishResistance”.

CNN pushed a similar line, which produced a swift jewlash and apoplectic apology. Of course, the apology was for offending jew sensibilities, not for distorting what Spencer said.

Spencer was speaking in terms of partisan political opposition, at the edge of the jew normal box – his alt-right and Trump versus the left and their cuck-right. His use of the term golem alludes to jews as the animators of the entrenched opposition, implying that the non-jews, the kikeservatives of whatever party affiliation, are behaving inhumanly, like robots.

It is telling that jews immediately reduced what Spencer said to being entirely about jews – as if nobody else matters, as if nobody but jews is human. Much the same occurred last month when Trump started speaking stridently against the elite globalist bankers and media. Jews flipped out exactly because they perceived this as a coded threat to themselves, not at all out of concern for anybody else, elite or otherwise.

CNN’s crime was to highlight Spencer’s reference to the jews’ golem tale, in which the jews are saved from the inhuman goyim of medieval Europe, while deploring a modern day meeting of inhuman White “racists” and “anti-semites”. The jews are screeching so loudly because they feel exposed. By crying out they seek to ensure that everyone understands the jews are not just people, part of “us”, but are that extra special part of “us” who defines who “them” are.

When some member of the jewed elite equates Trump to Hitler what they’re implying is that Trump (and his supporters) must be attacked, destroyed, and even killed. Never Trump. Never again. By any means necessary.

The toxic anti-White jew Tim Wise put it this way: “Nazis must be crushed. No co-existence…crushed. If the “alt-right” wants to play Nazi, we need to play the Allies, circa 1944 and 45″.

Another toxic jew, jewsmedia editor Michael Hirsh, screeched his thirst for goy blood more explicitly: “Stop whining about Richard B. Spencer, Nazi, and exercise your rights as decent Americans. Here are his two addresses. …”

Are the jews people? In fact their definitive concern is for themselves, for their own peoplehood. As a parasitic people they not only organize around this exclusive sense of “us” as jews, but actively seek to co-opt, control, and ultimately destroy any similar sense among the goyim host “them” they feed upon.

One thing is certain. The jews aren’t White people. They are empirically collectively anti-White, the enemies of Whites. Indeed, when jews attack Whites while screeching about “anti-semitism” it is because they are drawing a clear distinction and expressing a truly racial animus.

Race and Jews – Part 7

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.

Race and Jews – Part 6

cicero_tacitus_strabo_pierce

The jews have infiltrated, manipulated, exploited and outlived every nation, empire and civilization in Europe and the Middle East for millenia. 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.

Race and Jews – Part 5

the_essence_of_jewish_identity_is_their_persecution_narrative_not_religion

Amanda Bynes, a half-jewess celebrity with mental health issues and 3.5M followers on Twitter, twits:

Adolf Hilter tricked the germans into believing that jews were less than the germans and that they should be segregated and then killed

Nothing new or profound here, just another expression of the jewish narrative, specifically their holocaust narrative, a testimony to its utter pervasiveness. In this dominant, jewish view of history and morality, Germans and jews are distinct and unequal – it is the Germans, and Whites generally, who are less than the jews, with subordinate identity and interests.

Hitler and the national socialists offered German leadership to the German people, who naturally resented being ruled and harmed by jews. The jews have always thought less of the goyim. How many Germans were killed? How many Whites have been killed by Whites who have been tricked into war by the jews? The jews don’t care how many Whites died. All they care about is how many jews died. What’s more, they think that’s all anybody else should care about.

Last year’s Pew poll of jews reveals telling aspects of jewish identity. The table in the image above comes from the complete report. It indicates that the jews realize that the essence of being jewish is their persecution narrative, not religion.

The poll results were initially greeted by the jews in stereotypical fashion, as if the sky were falling on the jews. The truth is that the survey and their collective response highlight just how obsessesed jews are with their identity and interests, and those who aren’t are simply no longer counted as jews.

A recent article reiterates the point. More Dire Signs of Liberal Jewry’s Demise, J.J. Goldberg, The Jewish Daily Forward:

… a reanalysis of the data in last year’s Pew Forum survey … focus mainly on worrisome family patterns of non-Orthodox Jews. Fewer marry, those who marry have fewer children and those with children give them less Jewish education. The likely result — the signs are already visible — is that each successively younger age cohort is smaller than the one before, less Jewishly attached and less likely in turn to give their children a strong sense of Jewish identity.

The process produces degenerates such as Amanda Bynes, who melt into the White host.

Their calculations don’t include the Orthodox community, they note parenthetically, “because its overall family patterns are so different.”

“If Pew tells us anything,” Wertheimer and Cohen write, “it is this: judged by their ability to retain the allegiance of their young, foster a commitment to the group life of Jews at home and abroad, or even meet the elementary needs of survival, American Jews, whatever stories they continue to tell about themselves, no longer constitute a great community.”

Their solution: First of all, get more kids into Jewish day schools, which are depicted as the one sure fix for dissolving Jewish identity. They call it “tragic that day schools at every level have become largely the preserve of Orthodox Jews, with only small percentages of others choosing an immersive Jewish education for their children.”

This is common sense about education and its importance to group identity. The fact is that jews do teach their kids who they are, who their enemies are, to think of themselves as part of a group, to be loyal and committed to that group.

Another fact is that the jewiest jews have high birth rates and group consciousness:

It’s not that the Haredi streams are gaining popularity and attracting more Jews. Chabad, the Hasidic group that reaches out to non-Hasidic families, is the exception, so distinct that it’s listed as its own category with just 12,000 students, half of whom aren’t Hasidic. No, the streams of Judaism that are bursting at the seams are growing through high birthrates and strict self-segregation from everyone else.

How fast are they growing? Consider: Orthodox Jews comprise about 11% of the total American Jewish population of about 6 million, but they’re 27% of the 1 million children under 18. In New York City that figure is 60%. And nearly all that growth is in the black-hatted Hasidic and Yeshivish communities, not the Modern Orthodox.

Judaism probably isn’t at risk, but the worldly, liberal Jewry that emerged from the Enlightenment could be.

“Worldly liberal jewry” is not being taken down by anyone, and they’re certainly not taking the rest of jewry with them. They are, however, taking down Whites. “Worldly liberal jewry” focuses on infiltrating and manipulating Whites to keep the world safe for the more fecund core of jewry, which in turn focuses on spawning more of itself and more “worldly liberal jewry”.

Jews in America have been whining about their persecution and impending demise for more than a hundred years. To understand why, we return again to Eric Goldstein’s book, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, page 19:

The Uses of Race

Under the pressure of the shifting social boundaries of the 1870s, the language of race became an attractive vehicle for self-expression among American jews and was used liberally in the weekly jewish press, in popular novels and magazines, and in the pronouncements of jewish leaders. The great appeal of racial language was its unique ability to capture the strong attachment of jews to jewish peoplehood, a feeling heightened during a time when many of the familiar markers of jewishness were receding. Because jews could no longer count on clear social boundaries to set them off from non-jews, they looked to race as a transcendent means of understanding and expressing the ties that held them together as a group. In short, racial language helped them express their ongoing attachment to the social dimension of jewishness even as the social distinctiveness of jews began to weaken.

In similar fashion, racial language also allowed jews to maintain their self-image as a persecuted people as they rose on the economic ladder and attained an unprecedented level of social acceptance. For Cyrus Sulzburger, editor of the American Hebrew, jewish racial identity could not be understood apart from the history of jewish oppression, which had deeply shaped the group’s character and bound its members more closely together. The racial distinction between “Semite” and “Aryan” had been “more clearly marked by reason of the….persecution which we have undergone,” he explained. “The story of those persecutions form us a peculiar legacy which stirs the blood and touches the heart of every Hebrew in a way that it can stir none else.” Many jewish commentators of the period developed this theme by arguing that jews’ experiences with persecution had imbued them with a heightened morality, a clearer sense of justice, and a greater appreciation for the suffering of others. While the “Aryan has stood for pillage,” editorialized the American Hebrew in 1884, “the Semitic race has stood for peace.”

The opposition between White/Aryan versus jew/semite/hebrew is clear here. A century ago jews saw “the language of race” as good for the jews, as an “attractive vehicle” that captured “the strong attachment of jews to jewish peoplehood”. Ironically, as part of their infiltration and manipulation of White Americans, jews embraced their racial distinctiveness to help assert their moral authority. Yet even then, decades before Hitler or their “holocaust”, the foundation of jews’ identity and claims to superiority was their persecution narrative. Then, as now, the “persecuted” jew moralizes, lecturing his White “persecutor” about how to serve the best interests of the jews.

Skipping ahead to CHAPTER 4: “WHAT ARE WE?”: JEWISHNESS BETWEEN RACE AND RELIGION, page 108:

Confronting Jewish Racial Origins

In defending endogamous marriage and opposing the government’s racial classification schemes, American Jews often relied on diversionary tactics. By trying to change the topic from race to religion, they aimed to protect their status as white Americans without having to directly deny their cherished “racial affinities.” As Simon Wolf’s appearance before the Immigration Commission demonstrated, however, such tactics fell flat in the face of direct questions about Jewish racial identity. This was precisely the problem American Jews confronted as questions began to arise among scholars and scientists about Jewish racial origins. In clarifying their place in American life, Jews had to have a coherent explanation as to how they fit into the larger story of human racial development. Yet the story of Jewish origins to which most jews of the period subscribed had significant potential to mark them as racial outsiders in white America.

During the nineteenth century the claim of “Semitic” origin had become something of a badge of honor for American Jews, allowing them to trace their heritage back to the dawn of civilization and take credit for laying the ethical foundations of Western society. By the early twentieth century, however, some Jews had become alarmed at the tendency of scientists, scholars, and popular commentators to attribute an African origin to the Semites.

Simon Wolf’s dissembling and its significance is better described in Henry Ford’s The International Jew. Wolf was a professional lobbyist for the jews who had been in contact with every president from Lincoln to Wilson.

The jews asserted their racial distinctiveness as a way of asserting their moral authority. It was just as Whites began to appreciate their racial distinctiveness from jews that the jews decided it would be better for the jews to abandon that argument and hijack and derail race science instead. Page 110:

Though dedication to the story of Semitic origins remained strong among many Jews, Jewish leaders did begin to see the importance of establishing their claim to whiteness scientifically. At the height of the controversy over immigrant classification in 1909, Jewish notables exchanged letters expressing concern about the increasing reliance of government policy on the work of race scientists, whom they feared were dangerously close to pronouncing the Jews a non-white race. While they had confidence that they could continue to dispute the racial classification of Jews on a political level, they were less certain of their ability to contest the authoritative voice of racial science. As Cyrus Adler of the American Jewish Committee wrote to his colleague Mayer Sulzburger, Jewish leaders needed 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.

The very title of Goldstein’s book, The Price of Whiteness, is another small lesson in jewish mentality. The implication is that jews paid in any way for their deliberate conspiracy to infiltrate, manipulate and exploit White Americans. The fact is that mistaking jews as “white” has cost Whites.

Race and Jews – Part 4

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.

Race and Jews – Part 3

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.

Race and Jews – Part 2

william_graham_sumner_1902

Concerning some basic race-related terminology and concepts, especially ethnocentrism.

Upon reading the previous brief quotation of William Graham Sumner I was curious to learn more about him. His Wikipedia page begins:

William Graham Sumner (October 30, 1840 – April 12, 1910) was a Classic Liberal–now often called libertarian American academic. He taught social sciences at Yale, where he held the nation’s first professorship in sociology. He was one of the most influential teachers at Yale or any major schools. Sumner was a polymath with numerous books and essays on American history, economic history, political theory, sociology, and anthropology.

Sumner, like the other White polymaths of his time, has been retroactively branded a “social Darwinist”, which to the jews and other anti-Whites who have hijacked science roughly equates to “boogeyman”.

An example of the cognitive dissonance this hijacking has created can be found in this Slate article from 2012, Income Inequality: William Graham Sumner invented the GOP’s defense of the rich—in 1883:

One of the earliest (and most acerbic) champions of inequality was William Graham Sumner, a Yale sociologist and one of the best-known public intellectuals of the late 19th century. Sumner started his career as an Episcopal priest, tending to the pastoral needs of a New Jersey flock. Within a few years, however, he concluded that his temperament—famously standoffish and blunt—was better suited to scholarly endeavors. As a professor, he helped to pioneer the new discipline of sociology, coining such lasting terms as ethnocentrism and folkways in his studies of American culture. He also made a name for himself as a staunch anti-imperialist and principled opponent of the Spanish-American War.

Sumner was exactly the kind of proponent of “19th century thinking” that Francis Parker Yockey misidentified as the source of the problem with “the Western civilization”. (The real problem being the jews and other anti-Whites who hijacked the entire civilization, including race science.) Sumner was a White “liberal” who was objective, but not egalitarian. He was conscious of racial differences, and also aware that beyond the obvious physical traits these differences were also mental and cultural.

Sumner coined the term “ethnocentrism”, which ethnocentrism.net defines like so:

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

This is group consciousness and the morality based on it – my group, right or wrong, my group defines right and wrong.

The following is an indication that an ethnocentric jew is behind ethnocentrism.net:

The most extreme case of ethnocentrism, occuring since the time of William Graham Sumner, is that of the rise of Hitler and his hatred of Jews, gypsies and others.

Hitler was an individual, not an ethny. To the extent that the broad German support for national socialism, led by Hitler, had anything to do with the jews it was in reaction, in response to jewish ethnocentrism. The jews were an ethnocentric racial group which had risen to dominance over the native Germans via subterfuge, ethnic networking and financial fraud. They had infiltrated, manipulated and exploited the Germans, causing them harm.

The jews are the most extreme case of ethnocentrism. This is evident not only in their current power but their long history, their continuity over time relative to others. It is evident not only in their existing so long amongst others, but in thriving while doing so. So extreme is their ethnocentrism that they have been able to squelch criticism/discussion of their group, including their ethnocentrism. They have accomplished this in part by transferring the blame for the consequences of their parasitism onto their victims, the long string of hosts they’ve infiltrated, manipulated, and exploited, while ultimately driving them to ruin and extinction.

The situation has changed dramatically since Sumner’s day. Today jews pathologize and demonize “nazis”, by which they mean Whites generally, for being “racist”, by which they mean any hint of White ethnocentrism. Through relentless propaganda and indoctrination they have transformed the slightest sign of good and right and healthy ethnocentrism or racial consciousness, any awareness of White identity or concern for White interests, into something evil, wrong, and unhealthy. This is what they call “racism”.

You could say that by behaving this way, the jews demonstrate that they are the real “racists”. That would be wrong. The difference is that Whites are not ethnocentric enough, obsequious in the face of enemy criticism, whereas jews are beyond simple ethnocentrism, they aim not simply to quash what ethnocentrism Whites do have, but to turn it to their service.

The racial animus, the disdain, the hatred with which jews regard Whites is of its own kind. It deserves its own term. Alex Linder calls it loxism.

Considering his interest in ethnocentrism, did Sumner ever discuss the jews? How did he see them? In the process of searching for answers I came across Sumner’s most popular book, Folkways, published in 1907.

The book promotes a sociological or relativistic approach to moral behavior, as expressed in his thesis that “the mores can make anything right and prevent condemnation of anything.” (p. 521)

Encyclopedia Britannica describes the relation between folkways and mores:

Mores are more coercive than folkways: relatively mild disapproval follows an infringement of a folkway; severe disapproval or punishment follows the breaking of mores. Polygamy violates the mores of American society; failure to wait one’s turn in line is a breach of folkways.

Folkways is available online at The Gutenberg Project.

Sumner defines “mores” in the introduction:

I mean by it the popular usages and traditions, when they include a judgment that they are conducive to societal welfare, and when they exert a coercion on the individual to conform to them, although they are not coördinated by any authority

I have tried to treat all folkways, including those which are most opposite to our own, with truthfulness, but with dignity and due respect to our own conventions.

Sumner’s definition of ethnocentrism and its relation to folkways:

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. Folkways correspond to it to cover both the inner and the outer relation. Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn. Opprobrious epithets are derived from these differences. … For our present purpose the most important fact is that ethnocentrism leads a people to exaggerate and intensify everything in their own folkways which is peculiar and which differentiates them from others. It therefore strengthens the folkways.

He remarks on what could be called the universality of particularism:

17. When Caribs were asked whence they came, they answered, “We alone are people.”20 The meaning of the name Kiowa is “real or principal people.”21 The Lapps call themselves “men,” or “human beings.”

18. The Jews divided all mankind into themselves and Gentiles. They were the “chosen people.” The Greeks and Romans called all outsiders “barbarians.”

Contra Yockey, Sumner’s “19th century” understanding of race was far deeper than “group anatomy”:

51. Class; race; group solidarity. … The concept of a race, as the term is now used, is that of a group clustered around a mean with respect to some characteristic, and great confusion in the use of the word “race” arises from the attempt to define races by their boundaries, when we really think of them by the mean or mode, e.g. as to skin color. The coherence, unity, and solidarity of a genetic group is a very striking fact.

Sumner also describes his understanding of group interests, patriotism, chauvinism, and further into the book discusses the origins of a variety of foundational societal attitudes on subjects such as slavery, abortion, cannibalism, sex, marriage, incest.

What you might call the spiritual side of race, Sumner called ethos:

76. The ethos or group character. All that has been said in this chapter about the folkways and the mores leads up to the idea of the group character which the Greeks called the ethos, that is, the totality of characteristic traits by which a group is individualized and differentiated from others.

Races have personality traits. And racial character is characteristic:

85. Persistency in spite of change of religion. … The Jews to this day show the persistency of ancient mores. Christianity was a new adjustment of both heathen and Jewish mores to a new religious system. The popular religion once more turned out to be a grand revival of demonism. The masses retained their mores with little change. The mores overruled the religion. Therefore Jewish Christians and heathen Christians remained distinguishable for centuries.

Sumner did indeed seem to understand the jews in racial terms. Elsewhere he referred to them as a nation. One sour note:

114. Antagonism between groups in respect to mores. … The real reason for the hatred of Jews by Christians has always been the strange and foreign mores of the former. When Jews conform to the mores of the people amongst whom they live prejudice and hatred are greatly diminished, and in time will probably disappear.

Sumner misjudged here, in two ways. First, he accepted the jewish point of view as his own. Second, jews express their distaste, alienation, even hatred for Whites more plainly than ever. It is Whites who must conform to the mores of the jews now, or suffer the consequences. The jews’ anti-”racism” is becoming more overt anti-Whitism, even as there are more non-Whites behaving far more ethnocentrically.

Overall Sumner’s attitude toward the jews comes across as neutral, viewing the jews as the older brothers of Christians, as the origin of and an influence on many mores later adopted or adapted by Christianized Europeans. He seemed to regard them as active in the past, and not so much in the present.

The following passage is the closest he came to criticizing contemporary jews, in Folkways at least:

116. Missions and antagonistic mores. … There is no such thing as “benevolent assimilation.” To one who knows the facts such a phrase sounds like flippant ignorance or a cruel jest. Even if one group is reduced to a small remnant in the midst of a great nation, assimilation of the residue does not follow. Black and white, in the United States, are now tending to more strict segregation. The remnants of our Indians partly retain Indian mores, partly adopt white mores. They languish in moral isolation and homelessness. They have no adjustment to any social environment. Gypsies have never adopted the mores of civilized life. They are morally and physically afloat in the world. There are in India and in the Russian empire great numbers of remnants of aboriginal tribes, and there are, all over the world, groups of pariahs, or races maudites [[[cursed races]]], which the great groups will not assimilate. The Jews, although more numerous, and economically far stronger, are in the same attitude to the peoples amongst which they live.