Audio

Race and Jews – Part 2

Audio 21 October 2014 Tanstaafl 1 Comment

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.

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 11

Audio 7 October 2014 Tanstaafl 1 Comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“Whenever I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun.” is the transliteration to English of a phrase used by Hanns Johst, a German playwright and SS officer. The more direct translation from German would be, “When I hear culture…I unlock my Browning.”

The meaning is clear enough from the context in which the phrase is used – an angry reaction to the perception of a swindle, a fraud, especially when perpetrated by deceitful use of words or concepts.

When I read Yockey’s thoughts on culture and race…I reach for my gun.

Picking up in Imperium, page 281, in the section titled “Race, People, Nation, State”:

From this point the fundamental misunderstanding of the 19th century materialistic interpretation of race appears clear and distinct:

282

Race is not group anatomy;

Race is not independent of the soil;

Race is not independent of Spirit and History;

Races are not classifiable, except on an arbitrary basis;

Race is not a rigid, permanent, collective characterization of human beings, which remains always the same throughout history.

The 20th century outlook, based on facts, and not on the preconceptions of physics and mechanics, sees Race as fluid, gliding with History over the fixed skeletal form determined by the soil. Just as History comes and goes, so does Race with it, bound in a symbiosis of happening. The peasants now tilling the soil near Persepolis are of the same race as those who planted or roamed there a thousand years before Darius, regardless of what they were called then, or what they are called now, and in the time between, a High Culture fulfilled itself in this area, creating races now gone for ever.

This last error — the confusing of names with unities of history or race — was one of the most destructive made by 19th century materialism.

Yockey makes a combination of fallacious, misleading and simply wrong assertions here, most of which we have previously addressed.

Race is only partly anatomical, there are characteristic mental/personality traits as well. Race is only weakly influenced by “soil”, usually over the course of many generations. “Chinatown” is a one word argument for that. As with species, race is classifiable on an objective basis. Racial characteristics cluster at a range of scales, especially when correlations between traits are considered. Contrary to Yockey, it is not science or rationalism which promotes the false notion that race (or species) are rigid and permanent. This is more properly attributed to dogmatic religious beliefs such as creationism.

If the present-day inhabitants of Greece have the same collective name that the population of the same area had in Aristotle’s time, is anyone deceived into thinking that there is historical continuity? Or racial continuity?

Yes, just about everyone is deceived by name games.

As far as the Race-History symbiosis is concerned, names are accidental. They do not indicate any sort of inward continuity by themselves. The same is true of language.

Once the idea is grasped that what we call history really means High History, that this is the history of High Cultures, and that these High Cultures are organic unities expressing their inner possibilities in the profuse forms of thought and happening which lie before us, a deep understanding follows of the way in which History uses whatever human material lies to hand for its fulfillment. It puts its impress on this material by creating historical units out of groups hitherto often very

284

[d]iverse biologically.

We see just how lopsided in favor of Amorphous Abstractions and against “human material” Yockey was, imagining more substance and agency in the former than the latter.

We have seen that Race influences History as well as the converse. We come to the hierarchy of races.

The materialists could, of course, not succeed with all their attempts to make an anatomical classification of races. But races can be classified according to functional abilities, starting from any given function whatever. Thus a hierarchy of races can be based on physical strength, and there is little doubt that the Negro would stand at the top of such a hierarchy. There would however be no point in such a hierarchy, because physical strength is not the essence of human nature in general, and even less of Culture-man in particular.

For some insight on Yockey’s attitude toward the negro consider this bit of biographical information from Alex Kurtagic’s Remembering Francis Parker Yockey 18 September 1917 – 16 June 1960):

In 1935 he was involved in a car accident, which led to his being assaulted by several Afro-Americans and losing his front teeth. According to a local newspaper, he was hospitalised, but released the following day. The incident shaped his racial views thereafter.

Continuing with Imperium, page 285:

The fundamental impulse of human nature — above the instincts toward self-preservation and sex, which man shares with other Life-forms — is the will-to-power. Very seldom is there any struggle for existence among men. Such struggles as do occur are nearly always for control, for power. These take place within couples and families, clans, tribes, and among peoples, nations, States. Therefore the basing of a hierarchy of races on strength of will-to-power has a relation to historical realities.

When I hear human nature…I reach for my gun. Yockey himself had earlier warned against this idea. At page 202, just before the section we discussed in Yockey on Liberalism – Part 2 he writes:

The name “humanity” became thus a polemical word — it described everyone except the enemy.

. . .

But yet the word humanity excludes no one, semantically speaking. The enemy is also human. Therefore humanity can have no enemy, and the “one State” liberals and the “humanity” intellectuals were involved in the very sort of thing they wished to abolish — politics and war. “Humanity” was not a peace word, but a war slogan.

We come to the fundamental disjunction between political thinking and mere thinking about politics. All intellectualistic thinking about politics posits a certain great non-existent characteristic of human nature.

204

The Two Political Anthropologies

The touchstone of any political theory whatever is its attitude to the fundamental ethical quality of human nature. From this standpoint there are only two kinds: those which posit a “naturally good” human nature, and those which see human nature as it is on the other hand.

When I hear the word will-to-power…I reach for my gun. The positing of certain great non-existent characteristic of human nature – like will-to-power – is typical of the philosophizing I’ve encountered since digging into Yockey.

Will to power:

The will to power (German: der Wille zur Macht) is a prominent concept in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The will to power describes what Friedrich Nietzsche may have believed to be [[[the main driving force in humans: achievement, ambition, the striving to reach the highest possible position in life]]]; these are all manifestations of the will to power. However, the will to power was never systematically defined, and its interpretation has been open to debate.

Having derived the “will to power” from three anti-Darwin evolutionists, as well as Dumont, it seems appropriate that he should use his “will to power” as an anti-Darwinian explanation of evolution. He expresses a number of times[21] the idea that adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, behind the desire to expand one’s power—the will to power.

Back to Imperium again, where Yockey explicitly identifies the men behind the “19th century materialism” he condemns:

Such a hierarchy can have, of course, no eternal validity. Thus the school of Gobineau, Chamberlain, Osborn and Grant was on the same tangent as the materialists who announced that there is no such thing as Race, because they could not discover it with their methods. The mistake of the former was to assume the permanence — backwards and forwards — of races existing in their time. They were treating races as building-blocks, original material, and ignoring the connections of Race and History, Race and Spirit, Race and Destiny. But at least

286

they recognized the existing racial realities of their time, their sole mistake consisting in regarding these realities as rigid, existing rather than becoming. There was also in their approach a remnant of genealogical thinking, but this sort of thinking is intellectual and not historical, for History uses the human material at hand without questioning its antecedents, and in the process of using it, this human material is placed in relation to the vast, mystical force of Destiny. This remainder of genealogical thinking tended to create divisions in thought between Culture-peoples corresponding to no divisions in actuality. The further materialistic tendency developed to extend the principles of heredity which Mendel had worked out for certain plants to the subject of human Race. Such a tendency was doomed to be fruitless, and after almost a century of barren results, it must be abandoned in favor of the 20th century outlook which approaches History and its materials in the historical spirit and not in the scientific spirit of mechanics or geology.

Nevertheless the school of Gobineau at least started from a fact, and this brings it much closer to Reality than the learned fools who looked up from their rulers and charts to announce the demise of Race.

Yockey wasn’t ignorant. He was an intelligent and knowledgable man who rejected the material, biological reality of race. In making his argument he went beyond simple denial. He explicitly named the most prominent advocates of race science and he misrepresented their arguments. Yockey distorted the truth. He claimed the racialists had produced no results. He strawmanned their premise as “permanence” and their interests as purely materialist.

Yockey was the one “on the same tangent”, or to be more blunt, on the same side as the prototypical anti-“racists”. Like the anti-“racists” Yockey opposed the scientific understanding of race rooted in genealogy, in biology. He used the same fraudulent style of argument they did, posturing as if he were advocating facts and reality even as he was actually contradicting them.

As much as Yockey talked about spirit, he failed to note the quintessentially European spirit, the objective, inquisitive, rational and honest Aryan nature which inspired the racialists he named. He also failed to recognize the deceptive spirit of their antagonists, the very jewish nature of the anti-“racist” Boasian cultural anthropologists he did not bother to name. He exaggerated and thus distorted the anti-“racist” argument too, giving the false impression that his ideas and arguments about race were distinct from theirs. But they were in fact very similar.

Like the Boasian anti-“racists”, Yockey did not assert that race does not exist. They undermined race by redefining it and attacking it’s significance. They argued that science had shown race is arbitrary, impermanent, not deeply rooted in biology, when in fact science was (and still is) increasingly revealing exactly the opposite. They argued the primacy of culture. They asserted that race is a product of culture, a mere “social construct”.

Yockey was not simply wrong about race. He was profoundly, fundamentally wrong. He argued against a biological understanding of race in the same way and to the same end as the jews, a racial group which is biologically distinct from and implacably hostile toward Whites/Europeans/Aryans, and whose parasitic interests are served by such obfuscation and disguise.

Though the work of the racialists Yockey disparaged pre-dated his by up to a hundred years, their understanding of race was closer to the truth, more in touch with fact and reality than his.

Arthur de Gobineau is best known for his book The Inequality of Human Races, published in 1853. On page 121 Gobineau directly contradicts of Yockey’s assertions about the influence of soil on race:

After the Arabs, I will mention the Jews, who are still more remarkable in this connexion, as they have settled in lands with very different climates from that of Palestine, and have given up their ancient mode of life. The Jewish type has, however, remained much the same ; the modifications it has undergone are of no importance and have never been enough, in any country or latitude, to change the general character of the race.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain is best known for his book Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Here is Chamberlain’s view on the “permanence” of race:

The Aryan, or ‘noble’ race was always in the process of creation as superior peoples supplanted inferior ones in evolutionary struggles for survival.

Also:

Adolf Hitler was an avid student of his “Foundations”, and praised him as “The Prophet of the Third Reich”

Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. was a prominent paleontologist, eugenicist and “distinguished Aryan enthusiast”. He was a conservationist, longtime president of the New York Zoological Society, and son of Henry Fairfield Osborn, who was a geologist, paleontologist, and eugenist, and the president of the American Museum of Natural History.

And finally, Madison Grant:

is most famously the author of the popular book The Passing of the Great Race in 1916, an elaborate work of racial hygiene detailing the “racial history” of Europe.

Grant’s work was embraced by proponents of the National Socialist movement in Germany; Passing was the first non-German book ordered to be reprinted by the NSDAP when it took power, and Adolf Hitler wrote to Grant that, “The book is my Bible”.

Yockey has long passed as an eccentric type of spiritualist-racialist, a sympathizer and apologist for national socialism. Yet he opposed and argued deceptively against fact, against reality, against the very understanding of race which underpinned national socialism. In this respect, Yockey was in fact a charlatan.

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 10

Audio 30 September 2014 Tanstaafl 12 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Continuing with Imperium, in the section titled “Race, People, Nation, State”, page 274:

The materialistic race-thinking of the 19th century had particularly heavy consequences for Europe when it was coupled with one of the early 20th century movements of Resurgence of Authority.

Any excrescence of theoretical equipment on a political movement is a luxury, and the Europe of 1933-2000 can afford none such. Europe has paid dearly for this Romantic concern with old-fashioned racial theories, and they must be destroyed.

Yockey blamed “materialistic race-thinking” for the “heavy consequences” of the war. Just as the jews did at the time. And since the war their narrative has become the dominant narrative: nationalists and racists are the cause of war and suffering, not the jews, who paint themselves as powerless “scapegoats” but who are in fact powerful enough to shift and assign blame to others.

Race has two meanings, which will be taken in order, and then their relative importance in an Age of Absolute Politics will be shown. The first meaning is an objective one, the second subjective.

The succession of human generations, related by blood, have the clear tendency to remain fixed in a landscape. Nomadic tribes wander within larger, but equally definite, bounds. Within this landscape the forms of plant and animal life have local characteristics, different from transplantations of the same strains and stocks in other landscapes.

The anthropological studies of the 19th centuries uncovered a mathematically presentable fact which affords a good starting-point to show the influence of the soil. It was discovered that for any given inhabited area of the world there was an average

275

cephalic index of the population. More important, it was learned, through measurements on immigrants to America from every part of Europe, and then on their children born in America, that this cephalic index adheres to the soil, and immediately makes itself manifest in the new generation. Thus long-headed Jews from Sicily, and short-headed ones from Germany, produced offspring with the same average head measurement, the specifically American one. Bodily size and span of growth were two other characteristics in which all types whatever in America, Indians, Negroes, white men, were found to have the same average, regardless of average size and growth-span of the countries or stocks from which they came.

What Yockey accepted and presented as “mathematically presentable fact” was in fact pseudo-scientific fraud perpetrated by an anti-“racist” jew. See Race and Fraud: Franz Boas.

From these and other facts, both comparatively new and of ancient observation, it is apparent that the landscape exerts an influence on the human stocks within its bounds as well as on the plant and animal life. The technic of this influence is beyond our ken. The source of it we do know.

Beyond Yockey’s ken. As we saw in Part 4 and Part 5, Yockey refused to accept the idea that “the landscape exerts an influence on the human stocks” when it was described as Darwinism, the technic being gradual adaptation via natural selection. But oddly enough here we see he accepted and promoted the false claims Boasians made that physical attributes can change “immediately”.

Page 276:

Race in a man is the plane of his being which stands in relationship to plant and animal life, and beyond them, to the great macrocosmic rhythms. It is, so to speak, the part of Man that is generalized into, absorbed into the All, rather than his soul, which defines his species, and sets him off from all other forms of existence.

Life manifests itself in the four forms: Plant, Animal, Man, High Culture. Distinct though each is, yet it is related to all the others. The animals, subject as they are to the soil, retain thus in their being a plane of plantlike existence. Race is the expression of the plant-like and also of the animal-like in Man. The High Culture, by being fixed for its duration to a landscape, retains also a connection with the plant world, no matter how defiant and free-moving are its proud creations. Its high politics and great wars are an expression of the animal and human in its nature.

As discussed in Part 6, we can see evolution dividing the living from the non-living, with consciousness being what separates humans from animals. Furthermore, that the highest form of conscious is self-awareness, a collective consciousness and teleological concern.

Some of the totality of human characteristics are soil-determined, others are stock-determined. Pigmentation is one of the latter, and survives transplantation to other areas. It is not possible to list all of even the physical characteristics according to such a scheme, for the data has not been gathered. But even so, it would not matter to our purpose, for the most important element also in the objective meaning of race is the spiritual.

No. Biology is most important. Both physical and mental characteristics are heritable. Beyond that, you can change your memes, but you cannot change your genes.

On page 277 Yockey touches on the a common theme of anti-“racism”, the species/categorization problem. See Race and Genetics – Part 2.

To what race does a man belong? We know at first glance, but exactly what sign tells us this cannot be materially explained. It is accessible only to the feelings, the instincts, and does not yield itself to the scale and balance of physical science.

We have seen that race is connected with landscape and with stock. Its outer manifestation is a certain, typical expression, a play of features, a cast of countenance. There are no rigid physical indicia of this expression, but this does not affect its existence, but solely the method of understanding it. Within wide limits, a primitive population in a landscape has a similar look. But closer scrutiny will be able to find local refinements, and these again will branch down into tribes, clans, families, and finally individuals. Race, in the objective sense, is the spirituo-biological community of a group.

Thus races cannot be classified, other than arbitrarily. The materialistic 19th century produced several classifications of this arbitrary kind. The only characteristics used were, of course, purely material ones. Thus, skull-form, was the basis of one, hair and speech type of another, nose-shape and pigmentation of another. This was at best mere group anatomy, but did not approach race.

This “mere group anatomy” is a strawman.

Anatomical attributes are merely the most visible and tangible, thus most amenable to measurement and statistical analysis. Race scientists were also well aware that personality traits differed by race. See, for example, Race and Genetics – Part 4 and Part 5.

Yockey demonstrated his own awareness of the many more or less subtle physical attributes of race:

We have seen that race, objectively used, describes a relationship between a population and a landscape, and is essentially an expression of cosmic beat. Its prime visible manifestation is the look, but this invisible reality expresses itself in other ways. To the Chinese, for instance, smell is a hall-mark of race. Certainly audible things, speech, song, laughter, also have racial significance. Susceptibility to disease is another racially- differentiated phenomenon. The Japanese, Americans, and Negroes have three different degrees of resistance to tuberculosis. American medical statistics show that Jews have more nervous disease, more diabetes, and less tuberculosis than the Americans, and that in fact the incidence of any one disease shows a different figure for the Jews. Gesture, gait, dress, are not without racial significance.

But the face is the great visible sign of race. We do not

279

know what it is that conveys race in the physiognomy, and attempts to reach it by statistics and measurements must fail. This fact has caused Liberals and other materialists to deny that race exists. This incredible doctrine came from America, which is veritably a large-scale racial laboratory. This doctrine really only amounts to a confession of total inability of Rationalism and scientific method to understand Race or subject it to order of the type of the physical sciences, and this inability was known before by those who have clung to facts and resisted anti-factual theories.

But he was very wrong about race denial. It came from jews like Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu, and their useful idiot goyim. Not “America”. It was the fraudulent pseudo-science of jews which politicized and ultimately derailed true race science – the use of rationalism and scientific method to understand race.

Though Yockey saw the anti-“racial” degeneracy of the “Hollywood type”, he failed once again to note its jewish origins:

This instinct for racial beauty, needless to say, has no connection with the decadent erotic-cults of the Hollywood type. Such ideals are purely individual-intellectual,

280

and have no connection with Race. Race, being an expression of the cosmic, is informed throughout with the urge to continuity, and a racially ideal woman is always thought of, quite unconsciously, as the potential mother of strong sons. The racially ideal man is the master who will enrich the life of the woman who secures him as the father of her children. The degenerate eroticism of the Hollywood type is anti-racial: its root-idea is not Life- continuity, but pleasure, with the woman as the object of pleasure, and the man as the slave of this object.

Here’s how he related his notion of spiritual race to the jews:

This brings us to the most important phase of the objective meaning of Race in this age: History narrows or widens the limits of race-determinacy. The way this is done is through the spiritual element in Race. Thus a group with spiritual and historical community tends to acquire also a racial aspect. The community of which its higher nature partakes is transmitted downward to the lower, cosmic part of the human nature. Thus in Western history the early nobility tended to constitute itself

281

as a race to complement its unity on the spiritual side. The extent to which this proceeded is still apparent wherever historical continuity of the early nobility has been maintained to the present day. An important example of this is the creation of the Jewish race that we now know in the millennium of ghetto-existence in Europe. Leaving to one side for the moment the different world-outlook and culture of the Jew, this sharing by a group, whatever the basis of its original formation as such, of a common fate for centuries will hammer it into a race as well as a spiritual-historical unit.

Race influences History by supplying its material, its treasures of blood, honor, and strong instincts. History in turn influences Race by giving to units of high history a racial stamp as well as their spiritual one.

Revilo Oliver was referring to this passage when he wrote:

When Yockey concluded that the Jewish “race” (in his non-biological sense of the word) was formed by the ghettoes of Mediaeval Europe, he probably did not know that the historical record extends over twenty-five centuries. There is no reason to suppose that the Jews who migrated to the Mediaeval cities and established their ghettoes aroused more resentment among the Christian populations than the Jews who settled on an island in the Nile near the First Cataract aroused among the native Egyptian population in the fifth century B.C.

To be fair, Yockey did seem to understand that the jews originated outside of Europe and long before the middle ages. On page 169 of Imperium he wrote:

The most tragic example of Culture-parasitism for the West has been the presence of a part of a nation from the Arabian Culture scattered through the entire body of the West. We have already seen the entirely different content of the nation-idea in that other Culture — nations there were State, Church, and People all in one. The idea of a territorial home was unknown. Home was wherever the believers were. Belonger and believer were interchangeable ideas. This Culture had attained to its Late Civilization phase while our Gothic West was barely emerging from the primitive.

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 9

Audio 23 September 2014 Tanstaafl

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Recalling Yockey’s observation, previously discussed in Part 4:

The proud Civilization which in 1900 was master of 18/2Oths of the earth’s surface, arrived at the point in 1945, after the suicidal Second World War, where it controlled no part whatever of the earth.

In Yockey’s view this “crisis of the Western Civilization” was caused by the conflict between “the 19th century outlook” and “the 20th century outlook”.

As I have tried to point out throughout this series focused on Yockey, the real cause of the crisis has been the jews, who all along have been perfectly conscious of their own separate identity and interests as a people, not as some amorphous Capitalized Idea. Though jews had possessed considerable political power at various times and places previously, their struggle to take direct control over “the Western civilization” in its entirety became overt during the 19th century. Until the mid 20th century their ambition was overtly resisted. Since then jewish rule has not been challenged or even seriously questioned. It is taboo to even speak of it.

War Looms – RPO on FPY is an addendum to this examination of Yockey. I’d like to reiterate and call attention to a few of the points Revilo Oliver made:

… 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.

… If we look for this rational view of the world in other civilizations, we find no trace of it

This characteristic rationalism is what Yockey actually misidentified as the problem.

Oliver on Yockey and Spengler’s misunderstanding of race:

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.

In sum, the argument that great men are great because they are driven by irrational instincts, which are heritable, is an argument for importance of biological race.

On Spengler’s total misunderstanding and Yockey’s shallow understanding of the jews:

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 [WWII, Nuremberg trials], 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 touched on an example of Yockey’s blindness to jewish influence in the 19th century the last time, in Part 8:

From Cromwell to Joseph Chamberlain — the beginning and the end of that high political tradition which built the great British Empire, which at its highest point exerted its control over 17/20th of the surface of this earth — England was the example of the possibility of tradition in politics as well as in philosophy, music, and the arts of form.

A pair of articles by Andrew Joyce outlines the increasing influence jews had over this empire. Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1:

We should first bring the Anglo-Jewish elite, referred to by Macaulay, into sharper focus. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore.[14] At its head “stood the House of Rothschild.”[15] This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood,” and among them “conversion and intermarriage [with non-Jews] was rare.”[16]

By the mid-1830s, English Jews led by the Cousinhood began to press for the removal of Christian oaths in Parliament and this for their ability to enter the legislature.

In 1858 a “damp jew”, Benjamin Disraeli, became leader of the House of Commons and removed its “Christian oath” restriction. By 1874 Disraeli was prime minister.

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 2:

By 1899, Britain found itself at war with the Boers of the Transvaal over the vague cause of securing political rights for foreign gold miners.[41] Because of the obvious shared ethnic heritage of the mine owners and the diplomats who trod the path to war, “the view that the war was a Jewish war was commonplace among its opponents.”[42]

This opinion was reinforced by the fact that one of the conflict’s earliest supporters was J.H. Hertz — Chief Rabbi in South Africa. Hertz would later be rewarded for beating the war drum with an appointment to no less a position than “Chief Rabbi of the British Empire.”[43] In February 1900, Members of Parliament were openly acknowledging the Jewish complexion of the hostilities, with John Burns emphatically declaring before a full House of Commons that “Wherever we examine, there is a financial Jew operating, directing and inspiring the agonies that have led to this war…the British army which used to be used for all good causes…has become the janissary of the Jews”[44] — a comment that rings true today as a description of the American armed forces as a tool of Israel and its powerful American lobby in the war in Iraq and the looming war with Iran.

The same year, the Trades Union Congress issued a statement that the war was being fought to “secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews who have no patriotism and no country.”

Here we see the flaw in Yockey’s historiography. The empire Yockey saw as an exemplar of “the Western Civilization” was actually a political organism which danced to the tune of a judaized elite. As Yockey described:

The Law of Sovereignty is the inner necessity of organic existence which places the decision in every important juncture with the organism, as opposed to allowing any group within to make the decision.

Returning to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (Murphy translation), Volume I – A Retrospect, Chapter 11: Nation and Race, page 240:

All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.

The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.

He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.

Hitler saw culture as an expression of a people. The inverse, which Hitler identified as the most profound cause of decline for a culture/civilization, is the belief Yockey espoused.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light