George Lincoln Rockwell speaking at UCLA 5/16/1967


In this relatively high-quality recording of George Lincoln Rockwell speaking at UCLA 5/16/1967 he covers many topics: How a jew editor distorted his Playboy interview (he did not live to answer Alex Haley’s jewed theatrical vision); losing Vietnam; how he was “almost a liberal” before he saw through the lies, e.g. Churchill’s 1920 article Zionism versus Bolshevism; how jews disguise their actions by putting non-jews on top and out front; the jewishness-as-religion fraud; the kosher tax; free speech and how jews stifle opposition by keeping others from reading/hearing what they hate (e.g. Rockwell, or Madison Grant’s Conquest of a Continent); on FDR whipping up hate during WWII; the name game, and more.

I wanted to put this speech on TFeed but I couldn’t find an audio file, so I downloaded the “video” from YouTube, transcoded it to mp3, and am making it available here for educational (i.e. fair use) purposes.

I found the image above (originally from Playboy, I presume) attached to From Ivory Tower to Privy Wall: On the Art of Propaganda at Daily Stormer – which provides another excellent example of Rockwell’s worldview.

Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do


Some observations on the assassination of Charlie Hebdo “satirists” in France last week – specifically how jews have pushed their “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate” meme.

There is a distinct contrast between the jewsmedia response to the Hebdo attack, Anders Breivik’s attack in Norway in 2011, and their initial reaction to Mohammed Merah’s shootings in Toulouse in 2012.

Hebdo was anti-nationalist. In 1996 Cavanna, Val and Charb (three pillars of Charlie Hebdo) organized a public petition to ban Front Nationale and personally delivered the signatures they collected to the French government.

This animus is in step with The Demonization of Marine Le Pen by the broader jewsmedia.

Hebdo was also anti-islam/anti-muslim. This is what the mainstream jewsmedia found most controversial about it. It does not fit the liberal, leftist or cultural marxist mindset. It is neo-con. Like The Jew Republic under Peretz, but in crude cartoon form.

The controversy reflects a division among jews on whether the islamization of dar al goyim is good for the jews. Outside Israel the clearest ideological distinction between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” jews is where they stand on this issue.

“Liberal” jews see muslims as “new jews”, as allies. They think it best for the jews to extend some degree of special “hate speech” protection to muslims. “Conservative” jews see muslims as “islamofascists” (“new nazis”), as enemies. They think it best for the jews if muslims can be freely mocked and ridiculed – satirized – as Hebdo did.

Heebdo illustrates and defines the term, and also links and comments on some prominent examples.

Shyster Sheldon Nahmod is a professor who describes himself as a “well-known expert on constitutional law, civil rights and the law of Section 1983” (which was “enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871” and “was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states”).

Nahmod offers the following heebdo:

One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech, including but not limited to the anti-Semitic kind. Hate speech and anti-Semitism are major concerns in Europe and the Middle East and remain a nagging concern in the US as well. Hate speech can be defined as speech directed at a historically oppressed religious or racial minority with the intent to insult and demean. Hate speech undermines social attitudes and beliefs, it isolates its targets and it tends to silence them because they are often stunned and unable to respond. Hate speech also traumatizes (think of the effect it had on survivors and other Jews when the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie). We all know some of the hateful slurs that are too often directed against Jews, blacks, Latinos and Italians in this country.

This captures the essence of what you find when you search for “free speech” “hate speech” – lots of jews explaining how “free speech” is not “hate speech”, with jews literally defining “hate”. The decisive factor is identity and intent, who/whom, not words. The key phrase is “historically oppressed religious or racial minority”, the generalized-jew template, how jews describe themselves without using the word jew. It’s part and parcel of the broader jewish narrative.

As I indicated in Christmas 2014, jew worship is openly promoted at the highest levels of government. Charlie Hebdo has been criticized for blasphemy against the dieties of muslims and Christians, but for jews the mere caricature of a generic jew is regarded as blasphemous.

One of the examples the New York Times attached to Proud to Offend, Charlie Hebdo Carries Torch of Political Provocation was a Hebdo cover depicting the Le Pen father and daughter in a concentration camp tower, laughing, with the “new reactionary” jew Eric Zemmour sitting between them looking sour. It is included in the article only as an example of something regarded as offensive and provocative to jews, because it toys with the most holy iconography of jew-worship.

If you like my podcasts, see TFeed.

A Genetics Primer – Germ and Soma


Continuing our examination of the biological mechanics of heredity.

Once again, this material is dense, so to fully appreciate everything that’s covered you may find it necessary to listen more than once. You might also like to consult the web page for this program to find the proper spelling for some technical terms, and for links to more in-depth explanations.

The last time we covered the macromolecular biosynthesis which goes on within every living cell – how proteins called polymerases transcribe DNA into RNA, and how proteins called ribosomes translate RNA into all the many proteins required for life to go on. We also touched briefly on the three main “domains” of life and the two main kinds of cells – the single-celled or unicellular prokaryotes, Archaea and Bacteria, and the unicellular and multicellular eukaryotes, or Eukaryota. It is this last class of life, the multicellular eukaryotic organisms, which includes all the forms of plant and animal life most familiar and most closely related to humankind, and which I therefore assign the most importance for the purpose of this primer.

This time we’ll review some key distinctions at the cellular level having to do with reproduction and genetic inheritance.

We’ve gotten a bit ahead of ourselves by talking about different types of cells before we even described what cells are. So we’ll start this time with the cell:

The cell (from Latin cella, meaning “small room”) is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms. Cells are the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, and are often called the “building blocks of life”. The study of cells is called cell biology.

Cells are small, in most cases too small to see with the naked eye. It was the invention of the microscope which made the ubiquity of cells and the significance of their workings visible.

The cell was discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665. The cell theory, first developed in 1839 by Matthias Jakob Schleiden and Theodor Schwann, states that all organisms are composed of one or more cells, that all cells come from preexisting cells, that vital functions of an organism occur within cells, and that all cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.

In multicellular forms of life there are many different types of cells, each specialized to perform one specific function or another – blood cells, muscle cells, and nerve cells, for example. In animals, the most critical distinction in specialization is between germ and soma. This distinction was first made by the German evolutionary biologist August Weismann in the 1880s.

According to Weismann’s germ plasm theory, inheritance only takes place by means of the germ line, or germ cells, also known as gametes, such as egg cells and sperm cells. All the other cells of the body, called soma or somatic cells, do not function as agents of heredity.

Weismann pointed out that a germline cell:

is immortal in the sense that it is part of a lineage that has reproduced indefinitely since the beginning of life and, barring accident could continue doing so indefinitely.

Soma cells, in contrast, are mortal and serve merely as a vehicle for the germ line. Together they both serve as a vehicle for the genetic information of the organism, its biological inheritance, its genes, which we know now is encoded in its DNA.

As we saw with biosynthesis, as a general rule the flow of genetic information goes only one way, from DNA to RNA to protein. And likewise, as we see here, for multi-cellular reproduction there is a similar one-way relationship between germ and soma. Though all cells contain and make use of DNA to do what they do, it is only the germ cells – egg and sperm – which play the key role of carrying the genetic information, the blueprints of the organism, from one generation to the next during reproduction.

Those DNA blueprints, carried by the germ cells, contain the information how to build all of an organism’s cells, both germ and soma. The germ cells carry the essence of life, whereas the soma cells are the workers and materials, just as within each cell the various proteins and carbohydrates which are constructed and can perform construction only according to the information encoded and contained in the nucleic acids.

Within cells, at the molecular level, this general one-way rule was first identified by Francis Crick, one of the two men credited with discovering the double-helix structure of DNA. He called this one-way relationship the central dogma of molecular biology.

The analogous general one-way rule at the cell level was identified decades earlier, by Weismann. That one-way relationship, whereby genetic information only passes to the next generation via the germ cells, not the somatic cells, is called the Weismann barrier. The idea of the Weismann barrier is central to what biologists today call the modern evolutionary synthesis, though they don’t express it in the same terms.

These general one-way rules are important for two reasons. They help explain how evolution works, and how it doesn’t work.

Can a mutation in the DNA of one of your liver cells be passed on to your children? No. Your liver cells, like most of the cells in your body, are soma, and therefore the DNA in them is not passed on to your children. Only mutations in the DNA within germ cells have any chance of being passed on.

This is why Lamarckism is wrong, at least for multicellular organisms, including humans. Lamarckism is the idea that an organism can pass on to its offspring characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime, also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance. I direct you to Race and Genetics – Part 3 and the next few podcasts after it for a previous discussion of Larmarckism and how it fits into the hijacking of race science by “anti-racist” jews.

I use the qualifier “general” when describing these one-way rules because there are some exceptions. If you read what microbiologists have to say about the Weismann barrier today, for example, you see they have discovered evidence of horizontal gene transfer, the exchange of genetic information between organisms outside the usual, more thoroughly understood reproductive mechanisms. Different species, especially unicellular forms of life, and especially prokaryotes, appear to be swapping genes through the activities of retroviruses. Retroviruses are able to transfer genes between species because they reproduce by integrating their code into the genome of the host. If the cell they infect is a germline cell then that integrated DNA can become part of the gene pool of that species.

That’s close to the ultimate in virulence – a parasitic lifeform screwing with the DNA of the organisms which host it, mixing them together. Imagine the damage retroviruses could do if they were to organize to manipulate cell-level media and politics in order to actively suppress any anti-retrovirus immune response from their hosts.

There is another pair of biological terms whose meaning seems very similar to germ and soma, and which today are in even more common use. The terms are genotype and phenotype. In my layman’s understanding, I’ve always regarded the meaning of genotype as roughly corresponding with germ, and phenotype with soma – genotype meaning the stuff of inheritance, the payload, and phenotype meaning everything else, the vehicle for the genes.

Only recently did I try to find out why there are two pairs of terms, and what the technical distinction is. I was a little surprised by what I found, which comes from an article at The Embryo Project Encyclopedia titled Wilhelm Johannsen’s Genotype-Phenotype Distinction:

Wilhelm Johannsen first proposed the distinction between genotype and phenotype in the study of heredity while working in Denmark in 1909. The distinction is between the hereditary dispositions of organisms (their genotypes) and the ways in which those dispositions manifest themselves in the physical characteristics of those organisms (their phenotypes). This distinction was an outgrowth of Johannsen’s experiments concerning heritable variation in plants, and it influenced his pure line theory of heredity. While the meaning and significance of the genotype-phenotype distinction has been a topic of debate—among Johannsen’s contemporaries, later biological theorists, and historians of science—many consider the distinction to be one of the conceptual pillars of twentieth century genetics.

Genotype and phenotype are more general terms, referring to “dispositions” rather than cells, and applying as well to plants as animals. The meaning of Weismann’s terms germ and soma, in contrast, were based on what he saw and what was later determined to apply mostly to cellular reproduction in animals.

In describing the results of his experiments with plants, Johannsen referred to the group identity of the organism as its genotype and contrasted this with its phenotype, or the individual qualities of those organisms. The key phrases being group identity versus individual qualities.

Johannsen’s genotype-phenotype distinction has some similarity to August Weismann’s late nineteenth century distinction between the germ and soma, in that both thought that the causal interactions between an organism’s hereditary disposition and its physical characteristics was unidirectional. Although Johannsen acknowledged this affinity with Weismann’s ideas, he was unwilling to engage in what he considered to be unjustified speculations about the material basis of the genotype, as he argued Weismann had done.

It’s important to remember that Johannsen and Weismann did their research and made their fundamental distinctions before anything was known about the molecular-level mechanics, the DNA and biosynthesis within cells. I am perhaps still misunderstanding some subtlety here, but it seems that the more recent biological discoveries of DNA and the general one-way rule inside cells, Crick’s central dogma, have now firmly established the “material basis of the genotype”.

Setting aside the poisonous effects of politicization on science, which I get a whiff of in the wording of the Embryo Project Encyclopedia article on Johannsen, I think much confusion and defensiveness arises when scientists who are attempting to detect patterns and declare “rules” are confronted with a not-so-clean-cut reality. Reality tends to fit some coarse rules but also, due to the interaction of so many moving parts at different scales, turns out to be more complex than scientists at first imagine.

This does not make science or the broader rational pursuit of making sense of reality useless. When farmers who domesticated animals thought of and discussed heredity in terms of bloodlines, they weren’t entirely wrong, they just didn’t appreciate the finer details. Though they were ignorant of those details they were still able to manipulate the rules of reproduction and inheritance as they understood them.

Let’s make sure we understand what the terms genotype and phenotype mean by consulting some other sources. An article titled Evolution 101: Genotype versus Phenotype at says:

An organism’s genotype is the set of genes that it carries. An organism’s phenotype is all of its observable characteristics—which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment.

It goes on to provide the example of two cats, one with the usual ears and one with deformed ears, a difference rooted in their genes. As an example of a phenotype being altered by the environment it mentions flamingos, whose pinkness is not encoded in their genotype but results from the food they eat.

Wikipedia’s page on Genotype-phenotype distinction is more of the same, but adds an important aspect of phenotype that we haven’t mentioned yet:

“Genotype” is an organism’s full hereditary information. “Phenotype” is an organism’s actual observed properties, such as morphology, development, or behavior.

Behavior is not something most people think of as concrete in the same sense the physical shape or composition of a protein or cell or body is. “Anti-racists” have constantly and consistently tried to minimize and even deny the heritability of behavior, or personality traits. Though behavioral traits are less tangible, literally more difficult to see than material traits, the heritability of both is a fact that even semitically correct Wikipedia cannot yet erase.

Richard Dawkins coined the term extended phenotype to include all effects a gene has, inside and outside the body. Common examples include things like the dams and dam-building behavior of beavers, and the webs and web-spinning behavior of some spiders. It also includes the civilizations and civilization-building behavior of some races of humans.

Another type of extended phenotype Dawkins identified, which is also evident in humans, is the:

action at a distance of the parasite on its host. A common example is the manipulation of host behaviour by cuckoo chicks, which elicit intensive feeding by the parasitized host birds. These behavioural modifications are not physically associated with the host but influence the expression of its behavioural phenotype.

Dawkins summarizes these ideas in what he terms the Central Theorem of the Extended Phenotype:

An animal’s behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes “for” that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.

I’ll bet in their thinking about life, neither Weismann or Johannsen ever dreamed of something so bizarre. Unless maybe they understood something about the jews.

We’ll wrap up this installment with one last pair of terms which are also in line with our germ and soma theme. The terms are haploid and diploid. Diploid cells have two complete sets of DNA, one set from each parent. All soma cells are diploid. Haploid cells, in contrast, have only one complete set of DNA. In animals the germ cells, the gametes (sperm and eggs), are haploid.

Image source: The Cellular Basis of the Immortality of Species.

A Genetics Primer – Biosynthesis


Race is rooted in biology. Physical and mental traits are heritable, mixed together and passed from parents to their children. The first hominids to domesticate animals must have had some grasp of this truth. Over time the understanding deepened and became animal husbandry, the science of breeding. What even pre-historic humans understood about animals they must have also seen applied just as well to themselves.

For a very long time racial inheritance could be thought of and described only metaphorically, using terms such as blood lines, with the importance of the semi-predictable recurrence of heritable traits encapsulated in terms such as pedigree.

Today we have a much more concrete idea of how heredity works, which is to say the biochemical mechanics of the process, or genetics. But in order to understand these workings we must learn a fair number of technical terms and concepts. Many racialists pick up this knowledge in bits and pieces. Unfortunately, in such circumstances we may need to hear or read a technical term many times before we come to appreciate what it means and how it relates to other terms. To make this process easier for beginners, and to help flesh out and reinforce the understanding some of you already have, I will attempt to lay out and connect here the most elementary terms and concepts of genetics.

Even though I will try make this as straightforward as I can, if much of this information is new to you, you will probably find it difficult to make sense of it all in one go. You may want to listen more than once. You may also find the text on the program page for this podcast more useful than usual, as it spells out all the technical words and provides many links you can follow to drill deeper than I intend to go.

Let’s start with biochemistry.

Biochemistry, sometimes called biological chemistry, is the study of chemical processes within and relating to living organisms. By controlling information flow through biochemical signaling and the flow of chemical energy through metabolism, biochemical processes give rise to the complexity of life. Over the last 40 years, biochemistry has become so successful at explaining living processes that now almost all areas of the life sciences from botany to medicine are engaged in biochemical research. Today, the main focus of pure biochemistry is in understanding how biological molecules give rise to the processes that occur within living cells, which in turn relates greatly to the study and understanding of whole organisms.

Biochemistry is closely related to molecular biology, the study of the molecular mechanisms by which genetic information encoded in DNA is able to result in the processes of life.

Yes, we’re interested mainly in the subset of biochemistry having to do with genetics, i.e. molecular biology:

Molecular biology chiefly concerns itself with understanding the interactions between the various systems of a cell, including the interactions between the different types of DNA, RNA and protein biosynthesis as well as learning how these interactions are regulated.

We’ll get to proteins in a minute.

RNA and DNA are chemicals, or more specifically biochemicals, or organic chemicals. These are very different from the relatively simple inorganic chemicals you may recall studying in chemistry class. Even the smallest amount of a simple inorganic chemical, such as water, contains billions of identical and relatively small molecules moving about loosely. Each molecule of water is just two hydroden atoms joined with an oxygen atom – which is why it’s called H2O. RNA and DNA molecules are far bigger and more complicated. They’re called macromolecules because they actually consist of millions of smaller molecules joined together in a long, thin chain.

DNA is an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid. It is:

a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acids compose the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix.

RNA stands for ribonucleic acid, a nucleic acid similar to DNA. RNA has:

biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes. … Like DNA, RNA is assembled as a chain of nucleotides, but unlike DNA it is more often found in nature as a single-strand folded unto itself, rather than a paired double-strand.

That’s already alot of jargon to digest. Let me just reiterate the most important point: DNA and RNA are, together with proteins and carbohydrates, the very essence of everything that we call life. And you could say that DNA is the essence of the essence.

As an aside, the Swiss scientist Friedrich Miescher first discovered the nucleic acids in 1869. They’re called nucleic acids because they’re normally found only in the nucleus of a living cell. Miescher knew that, and suspected that the nucleic acids could have something to do with heredity, but he didn’t know how. In fact most of what we’re describing here was discovered long after 1869.

All we need to say here about carbohydrates is that they’re a class of biochemicals that perform numerous roles in living organisms. They serve mainly as fuel for metabolism, both as an energy source and as building blocks. The most abundant carbohydrate, cellulose, is a structural component of the cell wall of plants and in many forms of algae. Ribose is the carbohydrate that forms the backbone of RNA. Deoxyribose is a similar carbohydrate that forms the backbone of DNA.

DNA, RNA and proteins: The three essential macromolecules of life are all directly related. And it’s a circular relationship.

You can think of DNA and RNA as blueprints and proteins as workers. The chemical structure of DNA is more durable and redundant than RNA, thus DNA is the form the blueprints are kept in for long-term storage. When it’s time to build something, special proteins called polymerases attach to the DNA double helix and crawl along a portion of it – unzipping, copying, and rezipping – to produce a single short strand of RNA. This is called transcription.

A strand of RNA is essentially a partial, disposable copy of the DNA blueprints. Special proteins called ribosomes latch onto the RNA and use it as a template to manufacture protein molecules. This translation is called protein synthesis or biosynthesis.

(DNA Learning Center provides two excellent, narrated animations illustrating DNA transcription to RNA [source] and RNA translation to protein [source].)

What kinds of protein are produced? All of them. DNA includes the plans for every protein that life needs to live and reproduce, including the polymerases and ribosomes and other proteins that do all the work. Note the apparent chicken-and-egg problem. Polymerases and ribosomes are needed to build the polymerases and ribosomes. Biochemists understand alot about how biosynthesis works, and it’s actually more complicated than I’m describing. But it’s still a mystery to them how this complicated chemical mechanism ever get started.

To understand more precisely how DNA and RNA act as blueprints we need to describe their structure in more detail. As already mentioned, these macromolecules are long, thin chains of smaller molecules. The smaller molecules are called nucleobases or just bases. There are only four types. In DNA they are adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. In RNA uracil takes the place of thymine.

For our purposes it’s not important to remember the full names of these bases, much less their chemical structure. In fact, they are usually simply abbreviated as A, G, T (or U), and C. What is important is that you can think of these four bases as a four-letter alphabet in which information is encoded into DNA and RNA.

Recall that during translation a ribosome translates a bit of RNA into a protein. It actually does this by “reading” the sequence of bases one triplet at a time. AAC, GCG, UGA, … there are 64 unique combinations. Each different combination causes the ribosome to add a different kind of building block to the protein it’s assembling. These building blocks are called amino acids.

Recall that proteins, like RNA and DNA, are macromolecules. What happens is the ribosome combines these amino acids to form a greater number of even larger building blocks called peptide chains (AKA “polypeptides”). These chains are then assembled into the vast number of different proteins needed for life.

One interesting aspect of RNA translation is that it produces only about 20 different amino acids, because some of the 64 combinations of base triplets actually translate into the same amino acid. For example, UUU and UUC both translate into the amino acid abbreviated Phe. This redundancy provides some tolerance for mutations. If one base in the genetic sequence somehow changes into another there’s a chance that it will not have any noticable effect on the protein being manufactured.

Beyond DNA, RNA and proteins the next larger building blocks involved in the biomechanics of life are cells. There are two distinct types of cellular organization – the prokaryotic and eukaryotic – and a surprising relationship between them:

Living things have evolved into three large clusters of closely related organisms, called “domains”: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. Archaea and Bacteria are small, relatively simple cells surrounded by a membrane and a cell wall, with a circular strand of DNA containing their genes. They are called prokaryotes.

Virtually all the life we see each day — including plants and animals — belongs to the third domain, Eukaryota. Eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotes, and the DNA is linear and found within a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells boast their own personal “power plants”, called mitochondria. These tiny organelles in the cell not only produce chemical energy, but also hold the key to understanding the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.

The complex eukaryotic cell ushered in a whole new era for life on Earth, because these cells evolved into multicellular organisms. But how did the eukaryotic cell itself evolve? How did a humble bacterium make this evolutionary leap from a simple prokaryotic cell to a more complex eukaryotic cell? The answer seems to be symbiosis — in other words, teamwork.

Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the “great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter” of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it.

DNA-based life seems to have developed in several steps, each with an increasingly complex structure. First came the single-celled prokaryotes, then some prokaryotes joined to form single-celled eukaryotes, and then eukaryotes somehow joined in multicellular arrangements to form all the larger organisms – the plants and animals.

Actually, there’s another chicken-and-egg problem here. Even the most primitive life, the prokaryotes, need DNA. Yet DNA cannot function outside of the protection of a cell. So how did this arrangement come into being in the first place? Once again biochemists don’t really know.

The key difference between prokaryote and eukaryote are the mitochondria, the little vestigal prokaryotic “power plants” embedded in each eukaryotic cell. While each eukaryote contains the DNA it needs to build everything else it needs – that DNA does not include the instructions for building the mitochondria. The mitochondria have their own DNA.

Race and Jews – Part 7


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.