Tag Archives: jewish identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Race and Jews – Part 1

Rabbi_Solomon_Schindler

What is race? What are jews? The two questions are connected. Conventional wisdom is divided between two poles: jews are a race, or not a race. The truth is somewhere between. The jews are a group whose nature is racial, more race than not. To understand the jews you must understand race. To understand anything else (especially concerning history or politics) you must understand the jews.

Race/racial means heritage, birthright – everything bequeathed by parents to their children, everything inherited by children from their parents. Thus race is both genes and memes, biology and ideology. The latter includes culture, language, arts, traditions, history, legends, myths, and most critically, a consciousness of identity.

What is identity? A consciousness of who you are and the group(s) to which you belong.

Kevin MacDonald’s Multiculturalism and the Racialization of Politics in the United States provides this description of social identity theory, as stated by 19th-century anthropologist William Graham Sumner:

Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without—all grow together, common products of the same situation. It is sanctified by connection with religion. Men of an others-group are outsiders with whose ancestors the ancestors of the we-group waged war. . . . 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.

The jews who dominate mass media and education have defined such identity as “hate”, something pathological, but only in Whites. Not in jews. Not in other non-Whites.

Jewish Crypsis – An Introduction is the first installment in a long series I produced last year, focused specifically on jewish identity. Crypsis – disguise, secrecy, duality – and the confusion it creates are a very important aspect of that identity. Race or not, race or religion, weak or enduring, adaptive or inflexible are examples of their dual nature.

Some describe the jews as an ethnic group, a finer-grained racial concept implying closer genetic relationship, common religion, common language, common culture (myths, heroes, holidays, music, literature). Classification as an ethny is as debatable as race.

One problem with seeing the jews as a mere race/ethny is that it imagines them as comparable or similar to other races/ethnies, implying there is some symmetry or congruence. The reality, in comparison to other groups, is incomparability, dissimilarity, asymmetry and incongruence.

Why do we do this? Why do we even try to imagine others as like ourselves? This is a White/Aryan personality trait, this tendency toward objectivity and universalism. A less charitable interpretation is that we are unsubtle, unintelligent, gullible even. At any rate, such traits are especially notable in contrast to the jews.

Occam’s Razor asks, Are Jews natural race realists?:

The question whether Jews are natural race realists might seem odd to some considering that Jews, since the 1950s, have been at the forefront of promoting the “race is a social construct” myth. In fact, Jews today, following the lead of people like Franz Boas and Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu), have almost single-handedly transformed the social sciences away from Darwinian models toward black-slatist / race-does-not-exist models.

But things were not always this way. Prior to WWII, Jews (and by ‘Jews’ I mean mostly Ashkenazis) were some of the most adamant race realists. Mitchell B. Hart’s 2011 book by Brandeis University Press, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880 – 1940 (reviewed here), shows that Jews, prior to WWII, overwhelmingly believed in the reality and importance of racial differences. Even Franz Boas, who later would promote the “race is a social construct” myth, early on believed in the hardwired reality of racial differences.

So what happened? In short, WWII happened, whereafter Jews decided race realism was bad for Jews and began to promote race denialism. Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu) and others even muscled the United Nations into declaring that race isn’t biologically real.

But things aren’t so simple. Although Jews today prescribe race denialism for the West, in Israel they are the ultimate race realists and ethno-nationalists.

The irony is that “whites” who self-identify as “race realists” tend to be jew-blindists. They espouse a cartoonishly black and white view of race in which jews are “white”. Jared Taylor, for example, is one of the best known “race realists” of this type. He claims jews look white, implying race is simply appearence or skin color. He sees race and jews as two separate kinds of “crankery”.

This kind of “race realist” is really a race surrealist, and they persist in it despite constant reminders of the racial animus jews feel for Whites. Taylor himself was recently condemned, in perfectly typical jewish fashion, by a jew at Salon. America’s virulent racists: The sick ideas and perverted “science” of the American Renaissance Foundation:

I would hope that most public venues would not allow a Nazi rally in their facilities. The history of the Pioneer Fund and the American Renaissance Foundation shows that there is little difference between the ideals and goals of these organizations and those of racial hate groups that have caused misery throughout the centuries. Modern science now undermines all of their basic premises, and there is no reason to tolerate their hateful, dangerous, ancient, and outdated assertions. If just one racially motivated hate crime is prevented by depriving attendees of the stimulus these conferences provide for some of its more radical and deranged followers, then we have ample reason to close them down.

This is the jewish narrative. The inversion of reality is a hallmark of this narrative, typically by transfering blame to Whites for the things jews are responsible for. In this case it is the jews who have caused “misery throughout the centuries” and invoke science to back their fraudulent claims about race. Their actions have stimulated untold “racially motivated hate crimes”, causing the deaths of millions of Whites and promising to cause millions more, leading ultimately to our destruction.

Brooks Bayne recently provided a sample of the book The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, by Eric L. Goldstein, published by Princeton University Press in 2006.

As with any story-telling jew, Goldstein’s story is entirely sympathetic to jews. Even so, and probably because the target audience is jews, Goldstein’s tale is quite blunt and informative, providing a window into the minds of jews, their constant and conscious strategizing, without inverting reality and without all that much of the usual woe-is-me.

The Google Books summary reads:

The Price of Whiteness documents the uneasy place Jews have held in America’s racial culture since the late nineteenth century. The book traces Jews’ often tumultuous encounter with race from the 1870s through World War II, when they became vested as part of America’s white mainstream and abandoned the practice of describing themselves in racial terms.

This book lays out the flip on race Occam’s Razor described above, though as we’ll see, the transformation from embracing racial thinking to pathologizing it was quite deliberate and began decades before World War II.

We’ll start with an excerpt from CHAPTER 1, page 11:

In 1887, Solomon Schindler, rabbi of Boston’s Temple Israel, delivered a Friday evening sermon to his congregation on the topic “Why Am I a Jew?” Schindler spoke of the universal task of Judaism, its superior logical foundation, and its concordance with reason in explaining why he was a follower of Jewish religious teachings. But first and foremost, he emphasized, his connection to Jewishness was a matter of “race.” Despite the fact that the Jewish nation had disappeared from the earth, Schindler told his congregants, “it remains a fact that we spring from a different branch of humanity, that different blood flows in our veins, that out temperament, our tastes, our humor is different…. In a word, we differ [from non-Jews] in our views and in our mode of thinking in many cases as much as we differ in our features.”

The use of “race” as a positive means for self-description among American Jews has not been well documented by historians and, given the contemporary implications of the term, most likely comes as quite a shock to the modern reader. Even more surprising is the fact that this self-description was employed by Schindler, one of the most radical exponents of nineteenth-century Reform Judaism, a movement usually seen by scholars as having distanced itself from strong expressions of Jewish particularism in its attempt to adapt to the American setting. What Schindler’s remark testifies to, however, is the pervasive use of racial language as a means for Jewish self-definition in late-nineteenth-century America, even among those most anxious to take their place in American life. By “race” nineteenth-century Jews meant something different from “ethnicity” in its present usage. Their conception of jewish distinctiveness was one rooted not in cultural particularity but in biology, shared ancestry, and blood. Such overt racial discourse has usually been treated by modern Jewish historians as the province of antisemites, yet racial language also served as an attractive form of self-expression for Jews. American Jews drew comfort from a racial self-definition because it gave them a sense of stability an a time when many familiar markers of Jewish identity were eroding. Despite its strong biological thrust, the racial definition of Jewishness did not impede Jews’ identification with American society and institutions during these years. Because non-Jews of the period generally saw the “Jewish race” in a positive light and defined it as part of the white “family” of races, Jews had few reservations about defining their communal bonds in racial terms. Race, then, fit the needs of Jews to define themselves in a changing social landscape, allowing for emotional security and a degree of communal assertiveness without threatening their standing in the larger white world.

Back then jews not only acknowledged the biological reality of race, but proclaimed their own distinctive racial identity. They did so for the same reason they ever do anything – because they saw it as good for the jews. As Goldstein put it, it “fit the needs of jews” “in the larger white world”. If and when the jews change their attitude toward race again, it will be because their need has changed, not their reason.

On Jewish Deception

believe_what_you_want_to_believe

Andrew Joyce’s thought-provoking series of articles, “Reflections on Some Aspects of Jewish Self-Deception”, is posted at The Occidental Observer in five parts: Part 1. Introduction, Part 2. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography, Part 3. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography (continued), Part 4. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Secular Culture, and Part 5. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Politics.

Joyce notes that jewish self-deception is a common theme at TOO and “a major component of [Kevin] MacDonald’s analysis of Jews”. He hopes “to widen its application as an analytical tool to different historical and contemporary contexts”.

He begins by examining the meaning of the term, especially in the context of the apparent double-standards of jewish moralizing:

While the basic premise of lying to oneself remains central, [Ann] Tenbrunsel and [David] Messick describe self-deception as the state of “being unaware of the processes that lead us to form our opinions and judgments. Such deception involves avoidance of the truth, the lies that we tell to, and the secrets we keep from, ourselves.”[7] Self-deception, on some scale, is “common, normal, and accepted as constant and pervasive in individual’s lives. We are creative narrators of stories that tend to allow us to do what we want and justify what we have done.”[8]

Crucially, they add that self-deception serves a purpose by allowing “one to behave self-interestedly while, at the same time, falsely believing that one’s moral principles were upheld.”[9] This statement alone will have immediate resonance with anyone remotely familiar with the nature of Jewish interference in the cultural and demographic life of White countries. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that this “internal con game” aids a process where ethical aspects of a situation, and their moral implications, are entirely obscured.[10]

One of the key questions confronting anyone studying self-deception is the relationship between a conscious deception of others and an unconscious deception of the self. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that “it is unclear whether such deception is the result of a conscious act or an unconscious process. Self-deception is paradoxical in this sense, for to deceive oneself somehow implies that one must know that something needs to be hidden or kept secret.”[11] Or as other scholars have asked: “how can the self be both deceiver and deceived?”[12]

For our purposes, we would face the dilemma of whether influential Jewish historians, politicians, etc. are simply lying to us, or whether they truly believe what they are saying.

This paradox, at least with regard to the jews, can be unravelled by asking two fundamental questions: Who/whom? And cui bono? Who is lying to whom? And who benefits from these lies? In short, the paradox arises in trying to describe collectivist psychology in individualist terms.

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. In the extreme it can be psychopathological.

The controversy and supposed paradox begin when the same term is applied to a seemingly related but qualitatively distinct behavior – lying to oneself to facilitate lying to others. The motives are still selfish, but others are now directly affected. In this sense it is on the cusp between psychology and sociology, an especially devious way one may deceive others. In the extreme it can be sociopathological.

Joyce notes that “scholars have identified and delineated four enablers of self-deception”, and that the first is “the employment of language euphemisms”, “careful use of language”. I agree, and thus see a corrective in paying careful attention to the use of language, and especially the term self-deception.

Joyce’s subject is really jewish deception, which includes jewish deception about jewish deception. Yes, the jews promote a narrative which tends to allow them to do what they want and justify what they have done. But it differs from ordinary self-deception in that the behavior is consistent and collective. It is about jews collectively lying to non-jews collectively to serve the interests of jews collectively. To call this plainly sociopathological behavior self-deception is to stretch the term beyond reason. Better to simply call it jewish deception, or jew lies, though even lie fails to capture the repetitive, in-your-face, black-is-white, now-white-is-black nature of it. Deception of others is at the very heart of jewish identity. It is a feature, not a bug.

To the extent either of the truer senses of self-deception plays a part, it seems to apply best to how non-jews try to cope with the otherwise inconceivably awful reality of jewish behavior. We may hypothesize, for instance, that the jews must be unconsciously deceiving themselves, that they know not what they do. Or we may say that jewish behavior is simply instinctive, that they can’t help what they do. But the reality is that jews behave as they do exactly because they are hyper-conscious of their collective identity and interests, not unconscious. Whatever portion of it is instinctive is very deliberately supplemented by indoctrination.

White minds recoil from such thoughts, but the lies jews tell about why jews lie are, in fact, just more jew lies. Jews tell these lies upon lies with the best interests of jews in mind, implicitly if not explicitly. It’s that simple.

In Part 2 Joyce introduces a good example of this:

Robert Wistrich (born 1945) is the current Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the head of the University’s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism. Born to Polish leftist Jews in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, Wistrich emigrated to France and then Britain while still a youth. He grew up in England, and received his PhD from the University of London in 1974. Between 1974 and 1980 he was Director of Research at the Wiener Library, a piece of biographical information which is quite significant in itself.

In fact, the bulk of Joyce’s “Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography” concerns the work of this professional jew, who makes his hyper-consciousness of jewish interests quite explicit. In Part 3 Joyce writes:

Moving into the Enlightenment and the modern era, Wistrich becomes entangled in the increasingly complex and bizarre, self-deceiving “Christian virus” theory. Attempting to explain why anti-Semitism persisted into a period in which adherence to Christian dogma weakened radically, he proposes that the Christian virus remained dominant but had “pagan, pre-Christian anti-Semitism grafted on to the stem of medieval Christian stereotypes of the Jew which then passed over into the post-Christian rationalist anti-Judaism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”[29]

This is certainly an impressive mouthful, but in the absence of evidence it is completely ad hoc; it actually means and proves nothing and is instead typical of the attempts of Jewish historians to evade the rather obvious fact that in all eras and in all places the themes of anti-Semitism are unwaveringly similar. Talk of anti-Semitic themes “grafting” onto “stems” which ‘evolve’ and “pass over” into new forms simply can’t explain away, for example, the fact that we find evidence and complaints of Jewish avarice from ancient Rome, early Christian Syria, medieval England, and early modern Germany. Anti-Semitism is immutable.

Indeed, this behavior is typical. And it has nothing to do with these jews lying to themselves about what they’re doing. Jewish behavior is parasitic. The jews are virulent in the most literal biological sense of the word. While some work directly on extracting the resources of their host, others, like Wistrich, work more indirectly on damage control, spinning a narrative which shifts the blame onto their hosts. Inverting reality is a hallmark of the jews and jewish deception. Wherever jews cause pain, even more jews flock to cry out that jews are the ones who are the real victims.

My quibble about terms aside, Joyce’s articles are a masterful review of many facets of jewish deception. There are quite a few details and insights which were new to me, and thus I found it well worth reading.

the_beam_in_my_eye

Why the Jews Hate Those Who Love Them

Andrew Anglin points at Yori Yanover, who asks, Must Jews Dislike the Christians who Like Them? Yanover’s answer is an emphatic yes:

In other words, while I and my fellow faithful Jews like the fact that the next pogrom will not come from an Evangelical torch and pitchfork crowd, we still don’t trust you. You can’t say you love me for who I am, because who I am includes a thorough rejection of the essence of your ideology, all of it, completely, I hold that there’s no truth to it whatsoever.

But wait, there’s more.

Now do you love me? Do you love me in a future in which Jesus doesn’t come, and you continue to hold on to your faith, and I to mine?

Or, at least, can you keep the narrative about my seeing your light to yourselves?

That’s [what] we’re really asking.

Yanover imagines himself as a jewish superpope, who speaks for all the jews. It is a voice which is totally unselfconscious about jews force feeding others with their narrative, their tikkun olam and “light unto the nations” excuses for turning everyone else’s life upside down for their own benefit, never mind their noxious holocaust narrative, which they insist everyone else must learn and describe as they see fit, with special laws and fines and prison terms for heretics.

But I think Anglin’s response to Yanover gives Christians too much credit:

One might even go so far as to assert that continued existence of the Jews as a people is dependent on American Christian Zionists.

Surely, if it was not for them, we would cut the funding to the Jew state tomorrow, as aside from the weird cult, there is simply no logical reason to support these Jews. The fact that they use the money to commit genocide against the indigenous people of Palestine removes the humanitarian burden of protecting the allegedly persecuted Jews, even if you believe this Holocaust gibberish.

If it were not for the doctrine of Christian Zionism, most Christians would, by default, be Antisemitic, as this has been the default position of Christians since the beginnings of the religion. Thus, we would not continue to allow Jews to continue to run our government, economy and media.

Christians have bitterly opposed abortion and homosexuality, yet the jews have gotten their way on these domestic issues. Why would Christian opposition to Israel, or any other point of foreign policy, be different? Anglin knows it isn’t Christian Zionists who control the money, the media or the political parties, it’s the jews. It’s their money and media which moderate the policies of the United States, not the other way around. It has very little to do with what voters want, Christian or otherwise.

The jews make mountains out of molehills. They know there is a built-in limit to Christian “anti-semitism”. Yanover admits they’re all but toothless now, but even if Christians returned to a more traditional position, seeing jews as a separate people, as accursed Christ-killers even, they’d still also see jews, even jews as blatantly alien as Yanover, as potential Christians, potential brothers in spirit. Christians have always welcomed jews to “convert”, to infiltrate and manipulate them from within, even during the many brief periods of “persecution” that the jews complain most bitterly about.

The jews clearly wouldn’t have nearly as easy a time infiltrating and manipulating White societies if Christianity didn’t exist. Anglin’s argument that the jews wouldn’t exist if American Christian Zionists didn’t exist is far less plausible.

It seems to me that the Christians who love the jews who hate them are suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome. The affliction in self-proclaimed Christian Zionists, like Vox Day, is particularly obvious and acute. They insist on seeing the jews as partners, or at least as peers, even after looking directly at evidence which indicates otherwise.

Having a faith in beliefs which can’t be proven one way or another is one thing. Maintaining a truth which has been demonstrated false is something else. The first is a form of spirituality common to most men. The second is pathological. In this case the cause, the pathogen, is jews.

Though Christians make a spectacular show of the symptoms, and bashing Christians is perfectly semitically correct under the current, thoroughly judaized regime, Christians aren’t the only ones afflicted. Christianity appears to be only one method by which jews “capture” the minds of their “hostages”. Sharing short-term measures of fame or wealth or power seems to explain more.

Why do the jews hate those who love them? Because that’s their nature. Race is real. The parasite’s interest is not in loving or assimilating or cooperating with its host. The parasite’s interest is in infiltrating, the better to manipulate, the better to exploit the host. Christians prefer a more purely spiritual view, which tends to preclude such an understanding. It’s more difficult to explain why those who are comfortable thinking in secular, biological terms refuse to understand.