Tag Archives: race

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 7

Audio 7 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

the_jews_vs_henry_ford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of the other races made objection.

They were noticing certain consistent traits of the jews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Message from the Anti-Defamation League

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Sobran observed in 1996 that:

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

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

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

Blog

Why Ferguson Burns

Audio 4 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

the_jew_yorker

No new AoTR today, I’ve got too much else going on.

The black chimpout/intifada in Ferguson came to a head last night. Diversity is divisive. I have nothing to say that I haven’t
already said on Twitter months ago.

What I said in the 2nd hour of Discussing Trayvon/Zimmerman with Carolyn Yeager in the summer of 2013 also applies, and even more so now – the open air zoo, the role of jews and the jewsmedia in creating, exacerbating and perpetuating it and transferring all the blame for it to Whites.

Jewish rule is disastrous for Whites.

Blog

Understanding Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora)

13 Comments

kostenki_14_and_his_doppelganger_nemesis_israel_zangwill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split happened within a 8.000 year gap

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

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

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

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

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

The ScienceNordic article concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tale of Migrations

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

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

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

The new results add a surprising wrinkle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European phenotype came later

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

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

Frost’s conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

Upper Paleolithic Man

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

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

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 6

Audio 1 Comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

cicero_tacitus_strabo_pierce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 5

Audio 11 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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.