Tag Archives: race

Race and Jews – Part 4

Audio 4 November 2014 Tanstaafl 14 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew commented on the previous installment:

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

As I wrote in On Jewish Deception:

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

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

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

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

Race as a Framework for American Jewish Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 3

Audio 28 October 2014 Tanstaafl 10 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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.

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 2

Audio 21 October 2014 Tanstaafl 1 Comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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.

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 1

Audio 14 October 2014 Tanstaafl 9 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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.

Blog

War Looms – RPO on FPY

28 August 2014 Tanstaafl 1 Comment

This may be regarded as an addendum to my recent examination of Francis Parker Yockey. Revilo Pendelton Oliver’s critique of Yockey, and by extension Oswald Spengler and philosophers of history more generally, is far more erudite and articulate than anything I could possibly muster.

Both Yockey and Oliver dedicated themselves to analyzing and diagnosing European decline, marshalling an encyclopedic knowledge of European thought and history. Unlike Yockey, Oliver recognized the biological nature of race, thus he better understood the jews and did not discount their role in the problem.

Where Yockey concerned himself with “the Western Civilization”, Oliver identified more directly with his people, his race, the Aryans. Where Yockey anthropomorphized Rationalism and other amorphous concepts, as if they had a life and will of their own, Oliver saw more clearly the significance of heritable personality traits.

In my own humble opinion, the main oversight in Oliver’s analysis is in equating contemporary Whites exclusively with the Aryans, thus neglecting whatever contribution to our psyche and situation may derive from the Old Europeans the Aryans conquered and mixed with. Nevertheless, where Yockey’s observations are valuable, Oliver’s are priceless.

The following excerpts are from Oliver’s Enemy of Our Enemies: A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe. It is lengthy but well worth reading. The portions below illustrate the points I’ve made above, or are otherwise relevant to related topics I’ve touched on previously.

WHEN Francis Parker Yockey completed and published Imperium in 1948, he wrote a comparatively short sequel or pendant to his major work. This sequel, which he later entitled The Enemy of Europe …

What is Europe? More to the point: Who is us? What to call ourselves?

(10. The word ‘Aryan’ is commonly avoided these days by writers who fear that the Jews will punish them for using it, but we do need a specific designation for our race and one that will permit us to restrict ‘Indo-European’ to use as a linguistic term, since, as everyone knows, race and language are quite different things, and language is not an indication of race or even nationality. (Jews are not Germans because many of them speak Yiddish, which is basically a corruption of a low dialect of German, and the Congoids residing in the United States are not Anglo-Saxon because their only language is a debased English.) The great pioneer in social anthropology, Vacher de Lapouge, would have us restrict the term ‘Aryan’ historically to the division of our race that conquered India and Persia and sooner or later destroyed itself by miscegenation with the aborigines they had subdued. (One has only to think of the mongrel population of modern Iran, of which the name, derived from arya through the Zend Airyana, means ‘land of the Aryans’!) He would have us use the Linnaean biological classification, Homo Europaeus and Homo Alpinus, which correspond to ‘Nordic’ and ‘Alpine’ in the more common terminology; but the awkwardness of those terms is obvious. The Sanskrit arya is not only the designation by which conquerors of India and Persia identified themselves, but also a word meaning ‘noble,’ which designates the qualities of heroism, chivalry, and magnanimity for which our race has always had a characteristic and distinctive admiration, and is therefore better than any neologism we might devise. So long as we intend to consider objectively the phenomena of the real world, we should not be deterred by the threats of our biological enemies nor yet by the yapping of trained witlings of our own race.)

What are our personality traits? Note that the rationalism Yockey identified as part of the problem, Oliver identified as our dominant characteristic:

… if there is a dominant characteristic of our civilization, it is the capacity (in good minds) for rigorously objective observation of nature and strictly rational inferences and deductions therefrom–the mentality that has made possible our science and technology. This is the type of mentality that Professor Haas, whom I mentioned above, calls ‘philosophical’ to distinguish it from other types, and if we look through recorded history and insist on something more than the invention of simple devices, such as wheels or bows and arrows or permanent buildings, we find the first manifestation of this mentality in the Ionian philosophers, who sought to explain the universe without invoking magic and a mythology about praeterhuman beings. That is the real substance of Graeco-Roman philosophy, and we should take especial notice of the New Academy, from which comes the basic method of modern science, which depends on a nice calculation of probabilities. If we look for this rational view of the world in other civilizations, we find no trace of it in the Egyptian or the Sumerian-Babylonian, for in both of these, so far as we know, the world was always thought of as the work of gods and its phenomena attributed to magic, not to the regularity of natural laws.

We find, therefore, in our civilization a type of mentality paralleled only in Graeco-Roman antiquity, where, significantly, it is the mentality of men of our race.

What’s wrong with the analysis of Spengler and Yockey?

The cardinal flaw in the historical theories of Spengler and Yockey is an almost perverse equivocation about the biological reality of race. Both strive to make race more or less independent of genetics, although they do not go so far as does Alexander Raven, who would reduce civilization to a “super-organic” idea. In The Enemy of Europe (p. 43), Yockey insists that “the idea of vertical [= linear, i.e., hereditary] race is dead…. The race one feels in oneself is everything, the anatomico-geographic group whence one comes means nothing,” and he even deplores the racial policy of the National Socialist regime as “an enormous tragedy.” (25) It is true that Yockey, following Spengler, had the strange notion that the physical characteristics of race, such as the cephalic index, were determined by the landscape and soil, not be genes, in proof whereof “long-headed Jews from Sicily, and short-headed ones from Germany, produced offspring with the same average head measurement, the specifically American one.” (26) Spengler was taken in by some of the propaganda for an American “melting pot” and especially by the hoax contrived by Franz Boas, a twisted little Jew, who popped into the United States, was, for undisclosed reasons, made Professor of Anthropology in Columbia University, and founded a school of fiction-writing called “social anthropology,” (27) It is also true that Spengler and Yockey, unlike Raven, do not categorically deny that race in the accepted meaning of that word does determine the outlook of a people and hence the quality of their civilization, but they create some confusion by using ‘race’ and ‘thoroughbred’ to designate a high degree of excellence in individuals who, it seems, are largely the product of the soil of the region in which they reside. They simply ignore the vast amount of scientific evidence that the potentiality of every individual is unalterably determined by his heredity, although obviously his development will be affected by nutrition and other environmental factors and, of course, by sheer accident, which may terminate his life at any stage.

See Race and Fraud: Franz Boas and the half dozen or so subsequent installments for more on the jewish hijacking of anthropology.

Relating Yockey’s minimization of biology to his desire for European unity:

The urge to minimize or conceal biological and even cultural differences is related to the practical problem that has confronted every ruler and statesman since Sumerian times: the need to create a state (which is necessarily territorial) by inducing some cohesive unity among the more or less diverse peoples who are residing in that territory at the time and whom it is not expedient to expel. This was an acute problem throughout Europe, including Germany, where the proverbial differences in temperament between the typical Prussian and the typical Bavarian could seem as great as a difference between major races to a population that had, for the most part, little contact with non-Aryan races except the chameleon-like Jews with their racial ability to simulate the manners of other races when it is profitable to do so.

This attempt to minimize the biological nature of men is paradoxical in writers who not only recognize that the greater part of human conduct is determined by instincts and tropisms that are largely subconscious, but so restrict the function of reason as to make it virtually without effect on the course of history. We are told–and the proposition is illustrated by examples drawn from the history of our race–that great men, who determine events rather than chatter or write about them, have a ‘tact’ or instinct that enables them to make correct decisions with so little reliance on their rational powers that they may not know why they took the action that made them victorious or successful in a given undertaking. Their strength comes, not from superior powers of cognition and cogitation, but from a faith in their own destiny. The psychological problem cannot be analyzed here, (28) but if we accept the claim that even the greatest men are basically irrational, we thereby attribute to heredity an absolute power over human conduct, of which it becomes the sole determinant, since it is beyond question that in all mammals, including men, instincts are innate and genetically transmitted. The logical conclusion to be drawn from Spengler’s psychology, therefore, is that biological race is supremely important. Granting that “the race one feels in oneself” is what counts, what one feels (as distinct from what one may simulate) is genetically determined.

More on race and the jews. Why the Nuremberg Laws were justified, but not strict enough – and how Toynbee, Spengler and even Yockey underestimated the jews:

Yockey’s denunciation of “materialistic race-thinking” does have some basis in the lamentably elementary state of our present knowledge of racial genetics, which may be compared to the state of chemical science at the death of Lavoisier. The natural laws that determine the inheritance of physiological characteristics, such as color of eyes or olfactory sensitivity, are fairly well ascertained, but we are far from being able to identify racial genotypes. The problem is of enormous complexity, and is further complicated by the migratory and adventurous proclivities of our own race.

Although we can, within limits, determine the transmission and inheritance of physical traits, and although we know that intellectual capacity, as shown by intelligence tests, is genetically determined, we know virtually nothing about the biological mechanism that transmit the almost infinitely complex elements of human consciousness and subconscious being. In certain instances, at least, the psychic elements may be independent of the strictly physiological. No anthropologist or geneticist can explain the fact that there are Jews, members of Yahweh’s Master Race, who exhibit the physical characteristics of other races. The Jews in China, for example, seem to Western eyes, at least, indistinguishable from the Mongolians among whom they reside, although they are spiritually and mentally full members of the Self-Chosen People. We must assume that the Jews, who have preserved their racial identity and cohesion through so many centuries, have an empirical knowledge of genetics much greater than our own, but our knowledge is so limited that we can neither confirm nor disprove Dr. Alfred Nossig’s terrifying boast, “A single little drop of Jewish blood influences the mentality of entire families, even through a long series of generations.” (30)

(30. Although Nossig’s Intergrales Judentum was published simultaneously in Vienna, Berlin, and New York in 1922, it is now extremely rare and has never been translated into English. Nossig gives his fellow Jews eminently practical advice on the ways by which they can most expeditiously attain the goal and purpose which, as he says, is implicit in the teachings of Moses, i.e., the formation of One World under their dominion. Recognizing that his race controls both Capitalism and Socialism, he calls for a coordinated application of both forces to put the goyim in their place–which, of course, will be good for the stupid animals, if they are docile. The statement I have translated occurs on p. 76, where Dr. Nossig goes on to claim that the “drop” of Jewish heredity, once implanted in an ancestor, will affect the brain cells (Gehirnganglien) of his descendants through many subsequent generations and thus make them susceptible to Jewish ideas of internationalism and One World. Persons of that infected heredity, therefore, are goyim who can readily be mobilized as auxiliaries and used to subjugate their own race and the entire globe to its destined Masters. Horresco referens.

There is one great difference between Spengler’s concept of race and Yockey’s. Although Spengler recognizes the Jews as a Magian people imbued with a Magian world-outlook and so instinctively different from us (and therefore at the limit incomprehensible to us), and although he knows that this alien body, this international nation, is today, as it was for centuries before the Christian Era, lodged in all the nations of the world that it can profitably exploit, he regards the natural antagonism between Jews and their hosts as basically not determined by biological race, but rather by the phase of civilization, the Jews representing a Magian culture that is much older than ours and now petrified. (Hence, of course, Toynbee’s description of the Jews as a “fossil people,” despite the absurdity of applying such a phrase to a species that is so active and powerful and, quite possibly, has a vitality much greater than our own.) Spengler asked his readers to believe that the Jews are a dwindling and disintegrating people, a negligible force in world politics and the struggle for power. I have always thought the Jews’ aspersions of Spengler’s memory a good example of their habitual ingratitude toward their most effective apologists.

Yockey, educated by events that Spengler did not live to see, regards the Jews as the dominant force in the world of 1952. He has very little to say, however, about their unvarying activity through all the centuries since they first appear in history, and he focuses his attention entirely on the present. We must therefore postpone consideration of it to a later section, and conclude our discussion of historical theory with notice of one crucial deficiency in both writers.

On the tragic consequences of Christianity:

It is odd that Spengler, and even odder that Yockey, has so little to say about the prime example of what they call “pseudo-morphosis,” the acceptance of an alien element by a young culture, which accordingly strives to make its Weltanschauung conform to a pattern that is repugnant to its inner nature. As we noticed above, Spengler’s dichotomy between the “Apollonian” and the “Faustian” cultures makes him consider our Renaissance an example of such a cultural delusion, but although he recognizes the “Magian” culture as totally alien to our own, he never investigates a far more startling pseudo-morphosis, the imposition of a Magian religion on a Faustian people. And of all the writers who follow the Spenglerian conception, only Lawrence Brown had the very great merit of having perceived the tragic consequences of the fact that the culture of modern Europe was, at its very beginning, infected by a Levantine religion, so that it became “a society whose inward convictions have been at hopeless variance with the outward professions the events of history have forced it to make,” thus producing a spiritual tension that “has destroyed the peace of mind of every able man in the West for a thousand years.”

How “conversion” serves the jews:

Belief in the psychic magic of “conversion”, furthermore, opened the way for the Bolshevism that attained its fullest development in Christianity, the devastating notion that Faith–a faith that is as thoughtless and preferably as unconscious as the “faith” of a vegetable or a mustard seed–was what counted, so that an ignorant peasant, an illiterate fisherman, or the most scurvy proletarian could make himself the superior of the noblest, the bravest, and the wisest of men–and, secure in the favor or a god who so hates learning and reason that he will “make folly the wisdom of this world,” the simpletons and morons, having become True Believers, can look forward to the delights of seeing, when the last have been made first, their betters suffer the most atrocious torments forever and forever. No idea, no menticidal poison, could be more effective in destroying the culture and even the sanity of the people in whom it has been injected. (43) And the poison, destructive of all social stability and hence of civilization itself, survived the mythology from which it sprang and persists today in the atheistic “Liberals” who bleat about the “underprivileged,” fawn on savages, and demand an “open society” that is perpetually stirred up so that the dregs on the bottom may become the scum on the top.

(43. How alien this nonsense was to the mentality of our race is shown by the fact that, professing to believe it, they promptly began to reason about Faith and erected the vast intellectual structure of Scholasticism, “comme si raison et foi pouvaient trottiner de concert,” as Maurice Gar‡on sardonically comments. The final result, of course, was Nominalism and the labefaction of the Mediaeval Weltanschauung and eventually of the alien religion that had been incorporated in it.)

On morality:

The very idea of evil gods is alien and repugnant to the spirit of all authentically Aryan religions, which are never so irrational as to inject good and evil deities into a universe in which the very concepts of moral ‘good’ and moral ‘evil’ are indubitably created by human societies for their own purposes and correspond to nothing whatsoever in the world of nature. Wickedness can exist only within a given society of human beings and can be defined only in terms of the standards of morality that the society more or less instinctively applies to relationships among its own members. Only infantile minds can attribute moral iniquity to hurricanes, volcanoes, dynamite, and other natural phenomena that may be baneful to us; primitive peoples, ignorant of the causes, may superstitiously attribute such phenomena to supernatural forces and may imagine gods that are indifferent to human welfare or have been angered by some supposed offense, but so long as they have a vestige of rationality they will not imagine gods who are inherently evil and seeking to promote wickedness. A notion that species of animals (e.g. snakes, sharks, tigers) that defend themselves against us or prey on us, or that species of human beings that pursue their own advantage to our detriment (e.g. Japanese, Jews) are wicked because they obey the universal law of life is simply irrational. And when a pack of fanatics claims that all persons who do not share their superstitions are diabolically evil, they are insane, prevalent as that form of insanity may be. The Zoroastrian dualism may fairly be called the most devastating mental disease that ever became epidemic on this planet.

The Aryan religions are not infected by that black delusion.

More on Aryan traits and spirituality, eugenics and dysgenics:

The Aryans did not have the hatred of civilized life that inspires the dualists’ notion of Faith, a blind belief in certain tales by which ignorance and credulity are exalted above learning and reason. The Aryans respected the gods they imagined, but with a manly self-respect also; they did not cringe and cower before celestial despots, as do races with the slave-mentality and Sklavenmoral of the Near East.

The Aryan spirit is innately aristocratic and heroic. Aryan man, when he is most fully Aryan, is driven by a spiritual passion to excel, (57)–to realize, at whatever cost to himself, whatever capacity for greatness he may have within him. And while he rationally expects to find perfection in gods and men no more than in the world of physical reality, he has innately certain ideals of personal honor, fairness, and manly compassion that are incomprehensible to other races. (58) Both of these characteristics, however, although they are the source of all the greatness our race has attained, make Aryans vulnerable. The very superiority of men who approach our racial ideal makes it easy for a parasitic race or our own criminal elements to rouse against us the inferior’s resentment of superiority and to excite envy and malice in proletarian herds, thus disrupting our society in what Ortega y Gasset calls, “the revolt of the underman.” And artful appeals to our sense of fairness and compassion can excite, especially in females, the irrational sentimentality that ignores the fact that a cohesive society is an organism and, like all organisms, can live only by excreting its waste products–the grim fact that, by the unalterable laws of biology, we, like all mammals, bring to birth biological tares and misfits, which must be eliminated, if the species is not to degenerate to eventual extinction. And what the struggle for life does automatically for other mammals, our species, being capable of reason and purposeful social organization, must do deliberately–or perish.

Memes can and do shape genes:

For Aryans, including, of course, the Germanic peoples who invaded the moribund Empire that had once been Roman, Christianity has been a deadly and perhaps fatal poison, a delusion that forced our people to act against the dictates of their own biological nature. (59) If ever in recorded history there was a cultural pseudo-morphosis, that was it.

(59. Christianity was also deleterious to our race biologically, but we cannot measure or even estimate its dysgenic effect. It certainly encouraged the preservation and reproduction of the unfit, and, through both monasticism and the distribution of social rewards, it inhibited the reproduction of superior men and women. Having given the Jews a privileged position and enriched them, it facilitated Jewish penetration of our society by a common ruse: Aryan males were hooked by offering them smiling Jewesses with generous or lavish dowries; the Jewesses, although perfunctorily sprinkled with holy water, had naturally been taught by the inspiring examples of Esther and Judith that their loyalty was to their race, not to the goy whose bed they shared and whom the would manipulate in the interests of their kind. A Jewish strain, conceivably as potent as Dr. Nossig claimed (see note 30 above), was thus planted in many gentle, noble, and even royal families and may, as some believe, account for their decadence, both mental and physical, as frequently occurs when incompatible genetic strains are combined. But statistics on all these points are lacking, and if we had them, we should only face the impossible task of measuring what happened against what would have happened, if Europe under the Germanic peoples had adopted some other (what other?) religion or religions. Charles Renouvier’s Uchronie (Paris, 1876) will sufficiently entertain and discourage those who must speculate about the incalculable.

Connecting “jewish penetration” to Christian/”liberal” guilt:

An anonymous writer in Instauration (Aug. 1980) sought to explain psychologically one of the most drastic and puzzling effects of Christianity on our race and civilization. When our ancestors accepted the Magian cult, they believed themselves at the mercy of a capricious and ferocious god whom they had to appease and placate by observing absurd taboos and imposing on themselves unnatural conduct their racial instincts rejected. Thus they had a sense of guilt without consciously knowing why. By not sinning in the eyes of Yahweh, they were sinning against themselves. They were biologically guilty. From this inner conflict,–from the subconscious mind’s reaction to the perpetual conflict between the innate nature of a healthy Aryan and the conduct his Christian or “Liberal” superstitions require of him,–comes the maddening sense of personal and racial guilt that has been for centuries and is today a black and monstrous incubus on the minds of our race. This explanation may well be right.)

Contrasting Spengler and Yockey on jewish influence:

I have tried above to exhibit briefly the magnitude of the cultural distortion that is overlooked by both Spengler and Yockey, although, according to their own doctrines, it was the imposition on the Faustian soul of a Magian ideology, the product of a totally alien civilization. Spengler, however, who goes almost as far as Toynbee in regarding the Jews as a “fossil people,” can be defended on the grounds that he regards the Faustian culture of the West as one that arose, around the year 900, among the dominant peoples who then lived in Europe, regardless of ethnic diversities or innate racial characteristics, and that Christianity was simply an element that entered into that culture. From that standpoint, our culture, whether for better or worse, was as naturally and inevitably Christian as Napoleon was a Corsican. To ask what our civilization would have been like without Christianity is like asking what George Washington would have become, had he been born of different parents. Our estimate of Spengler’s historionomy will therefore depend on our acceptance or rejection of (a) his conception of a culture as largely independent of biological race, and (b) his assumption that the Jews as such, have had no great influence over our history.

For Yockey, no such apology will serve. He follows Spengler, it is true, in his general doctrine of race, but he attributes to the Jews, whom he frequently designates as the “culture-distorters,” a vast and decisive influence over our recent history, and since he does not claim that their baneful power is a recent phenomenon, he must logically believe that it has been exercised against us in earlier centuries. If he is to give us a philosophical comprehension of the historical process, he must explain the nature, origin, and development of that power–and obviously such an explanation must include consideration of the effects of Christianity on both our people and the Jews who, for purposes that Yockey recognizes as hostile, lived among them.

As I have said before, I come neither to praise not to bury Yockey, but merely to evaluate his work. It is clear, I believe, that as an exegesis of historical causality, Imperium and, of course, its sequel are radically defective, even in terms of their own premises. They have other values.

Oliver fleshes out Yockey’s critique of the “18/20ths” “crisis” (see Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 3 and Part 4) and “social Darwinism” (see Part 5) by incorporating rather than overlooking the jews:

The technological achievements of our race, which made us masters of the entire globe until we succumbed to a fit of suicidal mania, did produce, around the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, “one world,” in the sense that events anywhere on the planet did affect in some way the interests of the great colonial empires of Britain, France, and Spain and might vitally concern some of the other Aryan nations, such as Germany and the United States. The peoples of other races were merely raw material; they occupied their territories on our sufferance, either because it would not be economically profitable for us to dispossess them or because the reciprocal jealousies of the colonial powers made a war between Aryan nations the price of annexing China or Morocco. And since our race seemed to be healthy, it was only reasonable to foresee that, with our continued progress and expansion, the lower races would, in the course of nature, become extinct. (3)

(3. Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3 July 1881: “Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian Races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”)

Until 1914, no fact was more obvious than that the power-structure of the world, after the decline of Spain, depended on the three great nations of Europe, Britain, France, and Germany, with two outlying states, Russia and the United States, available as auxiliaries to one or the other of the three. It is true that beneath this structure there was a disquieting fact: seventy years before, Benjamin D’Israeli had emphatically warned Europeans that race was the basis of civilization, that “there is only one thing that makes a race, and that is blood,” that all the nations of Europe were covertly under the control of the Jews, and that the “destructive principle,” which was being used stealthily to undermine our civilization, was “developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews.” (4) Only a very few members of our race were sufficiently alert to understand what he had told them in the clearest possible terms. And thirty years before 1914, Friedrich Nietzsche had clearly foreseen that Europe faced “a long series of catastrophes” and “wars such as the world has not yet seen,” had perceived that our civilization was suffering from a degenerative disease of both intellect and will, and had identified the deadly infection as a superstition that the Jews had devised and disseminated to poison our minds and souls. (5) Only a few men of philosophical intellect understood him. Not only the masses, of whom rational thought for the future is not to be expected, but almost all of the persons who thought of themselves as an aristocracy or a learned elite were sunk in an euphoric complacency, believing in an effortless and automatic “progress” and the Jewish economic system in which money is the only value of human life.

Rather than seeing the root of the problem in spirit or ideology, as Yockey does, Oliver recognizes it as biological, while also noting the critical importance of awareness and perception, i.e. consciousness:

In 1914, our civilization was worm-eaten at the core, but its brightly glittering surface concealed the corruption within from superficial eyes. It was taken for granted that the globe had become one world, the world of which the Aryan nations were the undisputed masters, while all the lesser races already were, or soon would become, merely the subject inhabitants of their colonial possession. This reasonable conception of the world’s unity oddly survived the catastrophes that followed and it conditioned unthinking mentalities to accept the preposterous notions of the current propaganda for “One World,” which is couched in endless gabble that is designed to conceal the fact that it is to be a globe under the absolute and ruthless dominion of the Jews–a globe on which our race, if not exterminated, will be the most degraded and abject of all.

The apparent unity of the globe when it was under the dominion of our race depended, as must all rule, on military power, but it was so contentedly accepted by the other races in the various colonies because our power was proof of a biological superiority that was evident in the discipline of our troops and the courage, intelligence, and moral integrity of our men. (6) It was therefore a function of a biological unity that was only belatedly perceived by our people, and even then only by the few men who were able and willing to study the hidden foundations on which the imposing structure of power really rested, notably the Comte de Gobineau and Vacher de Lapouge. The reality of race was generally overlooked because men took the innate superiority of Europeans so for granted that they thought it unnecessary to mention it and instead concentrated their attention on the rivalries and antagonisms that divided the great powers of Europe, assuming that a shift in the balance of power in Europe would automatically be a shift in power over the entire globe.

On the rise of European self-image and self-consciousness since the Middle Ages:

With negligible exceptions, all the inhabitants of Europe thus defined were Aryans, comprising Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean subraces with a slight Dinaric admixture in some places. (8) The leadership throughout Europe (even, e.g., in Italy) was mostly Nordic. The differences between the subraces, although slight when compared to the great differences that distinguish Aryans from all other races, impeded a consciousness of racial unity at a time when Europe was truly international (and, to be exact, there were no nations in the modern sense, the territories being divided according to the rulers who were sovereign within them). The great contribution of the Church was that it transcended all territorial boundaries and gave all educated men a common language and common culture. They could move freely throughout Europe. William of Occam, the great Nominalist, studied at Oxford, taught in Paris, and spent the later part of his life in Pisa. The abbots of Monte Cassino in its great days came from Germany. One could multiply at great length examples of internationalism within Europe during the Middle Ages.

Yockey urged Europeans to consider the grim realities of the plight they brought upon themselves by their insane and suicidal war for the Jews. He told them bluntly that they must not permit themselves to be narcotized by the endless drivel about “peaceful solutions,” “world peace,” “one world,” and the rest of the gabble to which weak minds are addicted as to opium or cocaine. If they are to have a future, they must deal with both the aliens that drove them to suicide and their own tares, which he, using a German idiom, called the “Michael stratum.”

Yockey reminded Europeans that the only political reality is power, military power, not the twittering of idealists and “Liberals” as they hop from perch to perch on a tree of which they cannot see the roots or understand the life. And he suggested the means whereby Europe might regain at least some of the power that it had insanely thrown away to please its enemies.

Yockey prefigured contemporary Eurasianism:

Yockey saw Europe as lying, temporarily helpless, between two overwhelmingly powerful antagonists, so that the only choice left to it was a choice between its two enemies, which were fortunately enemies of each other. His thesis depended, therefore, on his belief that the Soviet Empire and the United States were irreconcilable forces. And since the United States was obviously an instrumentality of the Jews, that meant that the Jews had lost control of Russia. Yockey thus proposed a solution to a problem that has been earnestly, sometimes furiously, and in the end inconclusively debated ever since, so that it remains the most urgent problem that is immediately before us. On the truth or falsity of Yockey’s solution will depend our foreseeable future.

Oliver was skeptical:

We have been assured so many times that the Jews were losing or had lost control of Russia and the Soviet!

To the end of his life, Yockey remained convinced that a war between the Jews’ United States and the Soviet was inevitable. That conviction was the basis of his last essay, written shortly before his death in 1960.

Yockey was aware of the major objection to his analysis: If the Jews had lost control of Russia, how did it happen that the United States, which saved the Soviet in 1941-45, (25) continued to facilitate the expansion of Russian power?

Oliver quotes Yockey’s answer, which includes this accurate assessment of the motives and mentality of the jews:

It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function independently. As Jews, they are committed to the destruction of Western Civilization, and in this they sympathize with Russia, with China, with Japan, with the Arabs, and as such they anathematize Germany, which is the mind and heart of the Western Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly retain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization even while destroying its soul and meaning. In a word, they are working simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously, they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit…..

‘Thus the newspaper tag of “East versus West” is meaningless. It is East versus East, with the West supplying the lives and treasure for destruction.’

Oliver was writing in 1981 concerning what Yockey had written before 1960. Lo and behold, here we are in 2014 and the jews’ never-ending efforts to spark destruction looms large now in Ukraine. A hundred years after the outbreak of WWI the jews are prodding what remains of Europe to the brink of WWIII.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light