Auster on the Jewish Problem

When I was a liberal Larry Auster was one of the few authors who helped me in changing my worldview… at fifty! Although Auster and I have had strong disagreements in the past regarding the Jewish Problem, the recent article by Kevin MacDonald, “Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America” merits reposting here. Keep always in mind that, although Auster converted to Christianity, he is ethnically Jewish.

At The Occidental Observer webzine MacDonald wrote:



Lawrence Auster is one of those rare Jews (Paul Gottfried is another) who seems to have an appreciation for the traditional people and culture of America and an understanding of the role of Jews in White dispossession—not that Auster and I haven’t had our disagreements (“Lawrence Auster gets unhinged”).

Auster recently posted a chapter originally written in 1998 on the role of Jews in the multicultural transformation of the U.S. and the decline of White America (“Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”). He hits pretty much all the right notes. Auster often has a way of phrasing things and choosing quotations from prominent Jews that cut to the heart of the matter—almost like painting pictures that are worth a thousand words.

His dissection of Alan Dershowitz is classic—the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of Dershowitz’s fanatic ethnocentrism that is entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. Dershowitz unabashedly gives Jews the right to alter America in the direction of multiculturalism to suit their interests, as well as to disregard the Constitution and the attitudes and interests of White America; Dershowitz simultaneously condemns the ethnocentrism and group feelings of non-Jewish Whites while supporting Jewish ethnocentrism, endogamy, and sense of group interests in America as well as the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. To say that Jews like Dershowitz have no respect for the traditional people and culture of America is a gross understatement; they see the world from a completely Jewish perspective in which the rights, culture, and traditions of non-Jews at best count for nothing. At worst, they are the appropriate target of hatred, scorn, and ultimately, one fears, far worse; indeed, Auster describes Dershowitz as “openly hostile to America’s historic civilization.”

Dershowitz is an example of extreme ethnocentrism where it is impossible to see the world except in terms of Jewish interests. Here’s Auster on Dershowitz excoriating WASP law firms for not hiring ethnically obsessed Jews like Desrhowitz:

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this! [Auster’s emphasis]

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America. And because of the elite status of American Jews, this is very important indeed. Jews matter.

One thing that struck me is that nothing much has changed for the better since 1998. Despite the rather old references, Auster’s article is up to date because the processes he describes are ongoing. If anything, they have become more extreme. For any given example that he lists, there could be dozens more gleaned from the intervening 15 years. Nothing fundamental has changed.


“Jews re-made America”

Because of the Jews’ tragic history as a persecuted people, and because of their own ability, through their leading role in American intellectual life, to set the terms of permissible discourse, it is impossible in today’s society to have an honest discussion on the subject of Jewish cultural impact. While every other ethnic group can be spoken of in a critical light, if only to a very limited extent, nothing that is even implicitly critical is allowed to be said or inferred about Jews

One may wonder exactly what the Jews’ “tragic history as a persecuted people” has to do with this—one should at least phrase it as perceptions of persecution because Jewish historical memory is profoundly tinged by Jewish ethnocentrism (see, e.g., the work of Andrew Joyce on the Russian pogroms, the Limerick affair in Ireland, and Jewish writing on historical anti-Semitism). But it’s certainly true that 15 years later it’s still impossible to have an honest discussion of Jewish influence on culture (Joe Sobran’s classic statement on the subject dates from 1996). And, given the intellectual shoddiness of the Jewish intellectual movements that have dominated intellectual circles throughout the West (psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, critical theory, and Marxism) much more than talent is involved here. In fact, the limits on permissible discourse on Jews are maintained by exclusion from the mainstream media because of Jewish influence and by the threat of job loss and other negative repercussions for those who publicly criticize Jews.

In particular, Jews have used their power to disestablish the traditional idea of America as having a European ethnic and a cultural core based on Christianity.

The Jews also (as few people recognize, because the subject is forbidden) changed America in some profound and not always positive ways. In terms of national identity, Jews were instrumental in the reformulation of America as a universalist society based strictly on ideology rather than on peoplehood, a change that set the stage for mass Third-World immigration and the much more profound redefinition of America as a multicultural society. In terms of morality, many Jewish intellectuals, writers, and entertainers deliberately undermined the older Anglo-American Victorian ethos, a program of moral/cultural subversion that climaxed in the Sixties counterculture and the dominant nihilist culture of the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of politics, Jews were instrumental in replacing the old American order of Constitutional self-restraint with the statist politics of unrestrained compassion.

Auster highlights the chutzpah underlying Jewish activism in overturning public expressions of Christianity, beginning in the late 19th century—the topic of a recent academic book confirming Auster’s comments. He also cites David Hollinger’s important work showing the role of Jews in altering the attitudes of American intellectuals in the direction of secularism, universalism, and ethnic pluralism. The result of the ascent of the Jews was that

the elite universities had changed from guardian of the old Western order to its subverter. [See also here.] This transformation in the universities then reverberated through the rest of the culture, stripping America’s public institutions, entertainments, symbols, and manners of the Christian and bourgeois values they had once embodied. America’s transition from a Protestant culture whose public institutions, celebrations, and symbols reflected Christian belief, to a pluralist, secular society with no identity at all, was complete.

Auster cites Jews who unabashedly celebrate the Jewish role in the displacement of White America with no fear of anti-Semitism—yet further examples of the overt expressions by Jews of Jewish power tabulated in Andrew Joyce’s recent article. Auster mentions sociologist Earl Raab’s pride in the Jewish role in changing the bias toward Northwestern Europe in U.S. immigration laws, and he notes Rabbi Abram Goodman’s comments that “Now I witness a Harvard that has been thoroughly cleansed and Judaized.” Auster comments that “thus an American Jew in 1997 unselfconsciously boasts of eliminating America’s former Christian culture, describing this elimination in terms (“thoroughly cleansed and Judaized”) not unlike those once used by the Nazis about the Jews.” Indeed, as Ron Unz has shown, Jews are now vastly overrepresented at Harvard controlled for their academic achievement, while non-Jewish Whites are underrepresented by a factor of at least 15 compared to Jews, again based on academic achievement. I rather doubt that Goodman (or Dershowitz, for that matter) is shedding any tears for Harvard’s egregious discrimination against non-Jewish Whites—discrimination that is far greater than historical discrimination against Jews who, even before the end of WWII, were admitted to Harvard at levels far above their percentage of the population. Our new hostile elite is far more corrupt than the old elite—and far less representative of the population as a whole.

The Judaization trumpeted by Rabbi Goodman means the destruction of the European cultural heritage of America:

Now that their enemies have been scattered and silenced, the left and the minorities can admit that their real agenda all along was not simply inclusion, equality, justice, or tolerance toward Jews and other minorities, but the destruction of the Christian culture.

And, of course, it goes beyond the destruction of culture to the destruction of the political power of White America—a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly apparent in U.S. elections. The entire process has never been about the pursuit of moral ideals; it has always been about ethnic hard ball, and the end result is the displacement of White America, its culture and its people.

The Jewish Role in Unleashing Displacement-Level Immigration to the U.S.

Auster is quite aware of the role of Jews in the demographic displacement of White America (see also here), noting particularly that Jewish immigration reformers not only wanted to end the bias in favor of Northwestern Europe but to ease the immigration of as many non-Whites as possible (see also here, p. 291). He focuses (as do I; see previous link, p. 285ff) on an extraordinary article from 1952 in Commentary by Harvard historian Oscar Handlin in which Handlin essentially deplores the fact that non-Jewish immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe do not have the same hatred against the traditional people and culture of America that Jews have. Auster takes Handlin’s argument to its logical conclusion:

If an immigration law that is designed to preserve the nation’s ethnic majority is racist (because it implicitly puts down other groups), then the same must be true of any manifestation of the ethnic majority, including its very existence. After all, if a nation still has an ethnic majority, and a culture that reflects that majority, doesn’t that impute inferiority to all people not related by blood to that majority? Therefore the only way to procure real democracy is to turn the ethnic majority into a minority, which is to be accomplished (and since 1965 has largely been accomplished) by immigration…

The 1965 Immigration Act, the culmination of a forty-year, largely Jewish-led campaign, was not simply a piece of “liberal” legislation (i.e., an act aimed at formal equality) which later turned out to have unforeseen, radical consequences. As early as 1952, the liberal idea of equality before the law was already linked in the minds of Jewish immigrationists with the radical project of dispossessing America’s white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian majority.

The hatred of Jews extends also to other White cultures. Auster notes literary critic Leon Wieseltier’s rejoicing at the displacement of traditional English culture by the Muslim onslaught:

Wieseltier is not exactly shy in his hatred. He mocks an Englishmen’s fears about the survival of English culture. He rejoices at the thought of Englishmen being discomforted, disoriented, and displaced in their own country by Muslims. If anyone is driven by an ethnic animus, surely it is Wieseltier and the many Jews who think and feel as he does.

Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Of course there is a massive hypocrisy about all this: “The Jews feel that they have a right to homogeneity and collective survival. But, as we have seen, the Jews deny this same right to white gentiles” [Auster’s emphasis]. This desire to destroy and vilify the ethnic ties among non-Jewish Whites while maintaining their own is deeply rooted in Jewish tribalism. “It is a blind, unreasonable, unappeasable force.” Exactly. TOO has an archive of 39 articles related to Jewish double standards related to ethnocentrism and we repeatedly discuss the legitimacy of White identity and interests. But the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of American Jews are completely tone-deaf when it comes to a hypocrisy that is so obvious that a child could see through it.

Auster seems to adopt a cultural explanation of Jewish ethnocentrism, attributing the pervasive double standards to deep immersion over the centuries in a tribalistic culture represented by the Talmud and its very different ethical treatment of Jews and non-Jews. (My view is that Jewish culture reflects biological influences—the deep ethnocentrism and collectivism at the heart of Middle Eastern culture [see here, p. 24ff], abetted by selection within the Jewish community that effectively excluded less ethnocentric Jews [see here, passim].)

As a result, Jewish patriotism toward America is always contingent on whether America meets specifically Jewish interests. The interests of the nation as a whole, much less the interests of the descendants of the White Europeans who founded the country, are completely irrelevant. “Over and over, Jewish-American patriotism seems to be based on some factor extrinsic to America itself” such as America’s role in defeating Hitler or supporting Israel.

Jewish Subversion of Traditional American Culture Via Media Influence

Auster also highlights another theme of TOO—the Jewish role in the subversion of the traditional culture of America resulting from their control of Hollywood. In a comment on the movie Outbreak reminiscent of Edmund Connelly’s work on the “Jews to the rescue” theme of Hollywood movies like Independence Day, “the Jew now cast as action hero—and his brilliant black sidekick heroically foil the plot.” There is also the denigration of WASPs as stereotypically evil also documented by Connelly (see above link): “the anti-WASP animus in film and TV had evolved into a formalized demonology. The cold-hearted, inhuman WASP—the WASP as super-Nazi—has been a regular fixture in one suspense/action movie after another.” The bottom line is that

Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon.

Provoking Anti-Semitism

Auster acknowledges that the Jewish role in the dispossession of Whites and their culture will likely lead to anti-Semitism:

[Another prospect] will be an upsurge of anti-Semitism among marginalized whites, many of whom will blame the Jews (not without cause) for the ruin of white civilization. Having acted all along on the ludicrous and hostile assumption that the white American majority is a potential neo-Nazi force that must be dispossessed, Jews will hardly be in a position to complain about real anti-Semitism when it appears among whites who have actually been dispossessed.

Despite his awareness of the forces that have dispossessed White America, Auster is very concerned to deflect anti-Semitism, even though he understands that anti-Jewish attitudes are completely expectable.

To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity—this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such.

Auster’s basic argument is that not all Jews have been involved in or support these transformations, and a certain percentage of Whites (such as David Hollinger, about whom Auster says “he barely conceals his pleasure at Christianity’s being pushed aside”) have welcomed or at least acquiesced in these transformations. (It remains to be seen how much pleasure White Americans will have in majority non-White America where a very large percentage of non-Whites, including Jews as described here, have historical grudges against them. I rather doubt that pleasure will be a majority opinion among Whites.)

Nevertheless, we should be clear. These transformations could not have occurred unless there was overwhelming support for them among the vast majority of Jews and within the organized Jewish community. Indeed, there is far higher consensus among Jews on issues related to White dispossession than even on Israel, where there are beginning to be cracks in the unified support among American Jews for whatever Israel does. While there is a certain analogy between Auster and Gottfried on one hand and Philip Weiss and Peter Beinart on the other as opponents of the mainstream Jewish community on issues related to White dispossession and Israel respectively, the letter have been far more active in trying to convert other Jews and they speak for far greater numbers of Jews on Israel-related issues than Auster or Gottfried do on issues related to White dispossession. And in any case, the mainstream Jewish community remains as staunchly anti-White and pro-whatever-the-government-of-Israel-wants as ever.

Auster cannot point to any significant Jewish organization that has dissented from the dispossession of White America. (To be sure, groups like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews have played no role in the dispossession of White America, either in favor or in opposition, since they live in a hermetically sealed world completely cut off from the rest of the society.) Nor can he point to any other identifiable group that promoted these cultural changes. While it is true that Europeans are more prone to individualism and moral universalism than other groups and this made them more susceptible to dispossession (see here, p. 14ff), there can be little doubt that Jewish activism is ultimately responsible for the displacement of White Americans (see, e.g., here).

The fact that some Whites have greeted these changes is expected (although it is certainly short sighted and selfish), given the fact that in contemporary American society the media environment (the constant propaganda of Whites as evil noted by Auster; see also here) and the rewards (e.g., career opportunities for White university administrators or corporation CEO’s who promote multiculturalism) and punishments (e.g., job loss and ostracism resulting from opposing multiculturalism) overwhelmingly favor the changes wrought by the Jewish hostile elite. The power of the hostile elite is now institutionalized and strongly defended from attack, particularly against attacks by disaffected Whites. As noted above, a key marker of Jewish power is that Jewish power, unlike the power of any other group, has been successfully relegated to outside the boundaries of acceptable discussion.

Moreover, Jewish influence extends far beyond the organized Jewish community. The very large influence of Jews in the media, resulting in the invidious portraits of Whites and Christianity and positive portrayals of everything Jewish (see here, p. 53ff), has been the work of individual Jews and informal Jewish networks, not Jewish organizations.

The same can be said of the Jewish networks involved in the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique—movements that collectively undermined the concept of America as a White, Christian nation. Indeed, the crux of the issue, displacement-level non-White immigration, is a consensus issue among all Jewish organizations and among all Jews from the far left to the neoconservative right. As Auster says about neocon Norman Podhoretz, he “does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as ‘one nation, many peoples’—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.” And remember, Podhoretz, is what passes as a conservative among Jews. The hatred for the White establishment among neocons as they were climbing the ropes of power is legendary (see here, p. 4).

Righteous Anger

So what is the appropriate reaction to all this among White Americans? Recently Bill O’Reilly has been harping on “righteous anger” as an entirely appropriate response to the rather mundane issue of President Obama’s failure to propose specific budget-cutting measures. Given the cataclysmic consequences to White America, righteous anger at the Jewish community is an entirely appropriate response for Whites whose cultural and demographic displacement is well-advanced as a result of Jewish activism. This is, after all, the mirror image of the hatred that is such a prominent characteristic of the mainstream Jewish community, as noted here in the discussion of Dershowitz, Wieseltier, Handlin, and Rabbi Goodman and reflected in the theme of Jews as a hostile elite. (Whites expressing righteous anger at what Jews have done to America are likely to experience far more negative consequences than did these Jews for openly expressing their hatred toward White America—a telling indication of Jewish power.)

No one would think it unjustifiable if a people becomes angry when they are physically invaded, reduced to a minority, and their culture taken away from them. Although not the result of physical invasion, the end result of this Jewish onslaught is exactly the same.

There is no more grievous crime against a people than the crime being committed against White America. Righteous anger is an appropriate response indeed.

Jewish-controlled media – Why?

The blogger Armor linked the below article by William Pierce in the previous thread but the question remains: How on Earth could whites handed over no less than their culture-creating medium to an alien tribe?

For goodness sake!: Why? I for one blame the latest phase of Western Christian civilization for such treachery (for a very brief reason see: here).

Pierce said:

There are so many things worthy of comment today that it’s difficult to make a choice.

Certainly, one of the more significant things is the world’s reaction—or lack of reaction—to the election of Ariel Sharon to be Israel’s prime minister, as soon as he can put together a government. Do you remember the reaction of the mass media, the politicians, the leaders of the Christian churches, and all the rest of the big shots when Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party won enough parliamentary seats in the Austrian elections a little over a year ago to have a role in the Austrian government? Some countries recalled their ambassadors. Politicians around the world were shaking their fingers at Austria and announcing that they would not tolerate Haider’s participation in the Austrian government. Trade embargoes against Austria were threatened. And the reason? Haider had broken some taboos by making statements the Jews didn’t like. He had said that there had been many decent people fighting on the German side during the Second World War, including people in the SS. He had said that some of Hitler’s economic policies in the 1930s had made good sense. And he had called for a cutoff of immigration into Austria.

Now, Haider is not made of very stern stuff, and when he was criticized for his statements, he apologized and back-pedaled. But his apologies had not been enough, and the electoral success of his party resulted in a continuous barrage of sensationalistic media attacks against him and the ostracism of Austria by everyone who stepped to the music of a Jewish drummer.

So now Ariel Sharon is set to become the prime minister of Israel. Sharon is the man who, as Israel’s minister of defense in September 1982, during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, made the arrangements for the slaughter of more than 3,000 Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps just outside Beirut. The Palestinian fighters had evacuated the camps, leaving their women and children behind, after being assured by the U.S. government of Ronald Reagan that their families would be safe. As the Jews moved in, radio communications among Israeli military commanders were monitored in which they talked about carrying out “purging operations” in the refugee camps. Then the Jews surrounded the camps with their tanks so no one could escape and sent in the butchers. For two days they kept the camps sealed while the slaughter went on. They kept the camps illuminated with flares at night to assist the murder squads. That was Ariel Sharon’s work: more than 3,000 murdered women and children, murdered in a characteristically Jewish way after tricking the men into leaving their families unarmed and defenseless.

But the massacre of refugees in Sabra and Shatila that gave Sharon the nickname “Butcher of Beirut” wasn’t his only work. Long before 1982, when Sharon was an Israeli army general, he was notorious for the atrocities he and his troops committed. He liked nothing better than to sneak into an undefended Jordanian village at night with his soldiers and go on a throat-cutting rampage. After the reaction to his butchery in Sabra and Shatila in 1982, Sharon was obliged to resign as defense minister and leave politics for a while. But when he decided to run for prime minister last year, he prepared the way by deliberately provoking the violence and killing that have been so much in the news in recent months. At a moment when things were already extremely tense, he marched up to Jerusalem’s TempleMount with a large contingent of armed bodyguards who chased away Moslem worshippers and caused outrage among Palestinians. This outrage predictably erupted into stone throwing by Palestinian children and the shooting of Palestinian civilians by Jewish soldiers. Barak couldn’t restore order, and so Sharon beat him in last week’s election and won the chance to become prime minister in his place.

And where is the outrage among the politicians who were wagging their fingers at Jörg Haider a little over a year ago? Where are the sensational media stories about Sharon’s criminal history? Why are the church leaders who condemned Haider’s “immoral” statements now silent? Who is threatening to recall an ambassador from Israel or to cut off trade with Israel?

This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Israel’s atrocious behavior but about the hypocrisy and utter dishonesty that characterize virtually all of those outside Israel who occupy positions of power and influence. And it also is a lesson about the nature of our mass media, a lesson about the motivations of the men who control the media. The conventional wisdom is that the media are liberal, that the men who determine their policies are liberals, leftists. But that isn’t so. The truth of the matter is that the media are not liberal: they are Jewish. The men who control them are not liberals: they are Jews. And that is why the media reacted the way they did to Haider’s electoral success in Austria and to Sharon’s success in Israel. Understand? If you believe that you have any other explanation for their behavior, tell me about it.

Well, I could talk all day about this subject—about the absolutely fundamental problem for the whole world that this Jewish control of the media is—but let’s talk about some other things today. There have been lots of new Black-on-White crimes that the media bosses have decided that you don’t need to hear about. An unfortunately high percentage of these crimes have been against young White women. In Little Rock, Arkansas, for example, a serial rapist has raped at least eight White women at gunpoint during the past five weeks. I say “at least eight” because eight victims so far have come forward and given matching descriptions of the Black rapist to police. I have no idea how many other women have been too afraid or too embarrassed to go to the police or simply are unable to give an adequate description. Anyway, we have a Black rapist on the loose in Little Rock who has brutally raped at gunpoint at least eight White women in the last five weeks, and it’s not news outside of Little Rock.

Three months ago, back in November of last year, I told you about the disappearance of Lucie Blackman in Tokyo. Lucie was an exceptionally attractive 21-year-old English girl—a tall, slender, blue-eyed blonde—who went to Japan as a tourist and ended up working as a “hostess” in an exclusive Japanese businessmen’s club. And then she disappeared. In November I told you that although no trace of her had yet been found, Lucie almost certainly had been drugged, raped, and murdered by a Japanese real estate tycoon, Joji Obara, with whom she had been seen leaving the club. Obara liked tall, blonde girls and already had raped a number of them and gotten away with it. Well, now Lucie has been found. That is, her head, her torso, and her hands have been found embedded in a concrete block a little over 200 yards from Obara’s waterfront luxury apartment. It’s big news in Japan, but I’ll bet you hadn’t heard about it. I mean, what a story! Tall, beautiful English girl, wealthy father, predatory Japanese rapist who is a business tycoon, girl’s dismembered body discovered in concrete block near tycoon’s apartment, and it isn’t news in America!

Listen, this is another subject I could spend all day talking about. I have detailed reports on my desk right now of half a dozen other cases of White women raped or murdered or both by Blacks here in the United States in the past few weeks, and the news has been covered up except in the immediate areas where the crimes took place. I believe that it’s worthwhile continuing to talk about these crimes even after I’ve made my point because there always are new listeners who need to be convinced.

After I reported on the mass rape and murder of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by two Blacks a few weeks ago, I had a number of new listeners write to tell me that they hadn’t believed me when they heard my broadcast, so they had checked it out themselves and were astounded to find out that it was true. They hadn’t thought it possible that anything so horrendous could be or would be covered up. They hadn’t believed that any responsible person—the news director for any national news medium, for example—would want to cover up such a thing. I believe that every time I talk about something like the Wichita massacre I help a few more people discover just how serious a problem we’re facing.

And certainly it’s a serious problem when the people who control the national media deliberately distort the news, suppressing some news and exaggerating other news, in order to mislead public opinion. That is a serious problem. But I’m afraid that often I am guilty of not probing the nature of the problem deeply enough. I’ll give you an example. Members of my organization, the National Alliance, have been distributing some of our publications in Little Rock recently, calling attention to the rising incidence of Black crime against White people. This is a bit of a sensitive issue in Little Rock at the moment because of the series of Black-on-White rapes there I mentioned a minute ago, and while the consciousness of the White citizens of Little Rock is up a bit, we are seizing the opportunity to provide some information to them to which they otherwise might not be as receptive.

Well, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that a majority of the White citizens of Little Rock—and every other city in the United States—are not receptive to any information or idea that is Politically Incorrect, no matter how atrocious the situation. They will cling to Political Correctness like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. They will think what they are told to think and say what they are told to say by Authority. They are lemmings.

After one of our distributions in Little Rock a couple of days ago I received a letter from a lemming there. He began his letter:

Get out of Little Rock! The last thing this city needs is a bunch of ignorant, shortsighted, ill-bred bigots tainting the rest of us with hate. I was disgusted when I saw hundreds of your organization’s pamphlets littering the driveways of normal, decent people here. Et cetera.

He went on to tell me in a prissy, self-righteous way that he is a White conservative who always votes Republican. He also said, however:

Give up your dream of a White nation. It is not going to happen, and it shouldn’t. The world is a diverse place, and it is the better for it.

That, of course, is the party line of both the Democrats and the Republicans, with perhaps a barely detectable difference in emphasis. “Diversity is good. More diversity is better” is the Politically Correct party line. The lemmings believe it because they have heard it directly from their TV. Their favorite sports stars and Hollywood celebrities say the same thing. Al Gore and George Bush say that they believe it, and, by golly, so does every lemming. And the lemmings never heard either Al Gore or George Bush say a bad word about Black rapists who prey on White women. Their TV never has told them anything about Black rapists.

Undoubtedly they are against rape—at least, the respectable, Republican lemmings are. Presumably, the lemmings who have voted for Bill Clinton in the past can’t be very much against rape. But even the Republican lemmings will suddenly have very mixed feelings when the racial aspect of rape is raised. They know that it’s okay for them to be against rape. But it’s not okay to talk about or even think about Blacks raping White women. That hints of not being sufficiently enthusiastic about the wonderful diversity that has been growing like a rapidly metastasizing cancer in our society for the past 40 years or so. The Correct party line is that diversity is all good; there must be no reservations about that: nothing that questions the goodness of diversity.

I mean, just imagine where talking or even thinking about Blacks raping White women might lead. One might think back to a time where Blacks raping White women was virtually unheard of, because, for one thing, Blacks weren’t permitted to hang around White neighborhoods, and for another thing, for a Black to lay a hand on a White woman meant certain death. One might then begin thinking about how and why such a big change has come about over the past 40 years. One might begin thinking about the relationship between the increase in diversity and the increase in the incidence of Blacks raping White women. Oooh! Very Incorrect thinking!

It’s easy to see why the Republican lemming who wrote to me from Little Rock is upset. He is afraid that if I and other National Alliance members talk about the racial aspects of rape in Little Rock it will, to use his words, “taint the rest of us with hate.” Which is to say, that if National Alliance members in Little Rock make a big enough fuss about Blacks raping White women there, and people in Little Rock start thinking about it and talking about it, people in other parts of the country may suspect that the folks in Little Rock are “tainted with hate.” They will suspect that the Republican lemmings of Little Rock aren’t sufficiently enthusiastic about increasing diversity there. I believe that, unfortunately, the Republican lemming who wrote to me is more concerned about that than he is about stopping the rape of White women by Blacks.

Ten years ago I used to think that the way to straighten out the thinking of Republican lemmings was to hit them up alongside the head with a piece of two-by-four or with a sturdy, oak table leg. Then as I learned more about lemmings I realized that wasn’t really necessary. Trauma and privation certainly aren’t bad things when people need to be reoriented, but what is far more effective is simply to change their authority figures. Lemmings don’t need to have their thinking straightened out with a piece of two-by-four, because in a very important sense of the word they don’t think.

The Republican lemming who wrote to me didn’t look at the evidence, think about it, and then come to the conclusion all by himself that more diversity is better. That’s what his TV told him, and he’s just parroting it back. Lemmings no more think about what they’re saying than talking parrots do. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re stupid. This Little Rock Republican may be able to program his own VCR and figure out his income taxes all by himself, but when it comes to the question of Political Correctness, he does not think. It’s a conditioned reflex.

I’ve talked with you before about this lemming phenomenon, but it’s an extremely important idea, and it leads to some very important practical conclusions, so I want now to run quickly through the idea once again. First, in the struggle for racial survival in which we are now engaged perception is extremely important. It is essential for people to believe that our struggle can be won. Many people who should be working with me or actively supporting me look at all of the people parroting back what they hear on TV, and they compare that 96 or 97 or 98 per cent of the White population with the very small number of people who are willing to speak out against Sumner Redstone’s plan for a more diverse America, and they are discouraged. They conclude that it’s hopeless, that the odds against us are too great, that the forces of lemminghood are too strong. And so they give up. They won’t fight back.

But you know, that’s the wrong way to look at the struggle. It’s not us versus the lemmings. It’s us versus the people who tell the lemmings what to think. And that’s a very important distinction. I’m reminded of something I saw as a small boy. It’s the scene in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and her friends discover that the seemingly all-powerful wizard is not so powerful after all without his illusions and special effects. The Jews are primarily illusionists. They work behind their television screen to create the illusion that everyone agrees with their poisonous ideas and is happy with the way Jews are pushing things: the illusion, for example, that every “normal, decent” person is happy with the trend toward more and more “diversity.” But pull the plug on their television, so that the illusions no longer appear on their screen, and one finds them not so formidable a force after all. And the lemmings, without being told what to think, can only mill around in confusion.

Which is not to say that the lemmings in their mindless millions are not dangerous and can be ignored. The point is that we don’t have to convert the lemmings. We don’t have to persuade them. We just need to whip the illusion-masters. Then the lemmings can be turned 180 degrees in a matter of weeks. The same lemmings who now call for more diversity—and really believe what they are saying—will be calling for racial cleansing and a homogeneous White America—and really will believe what they will say, when the mass media have been taken away from the Jews and returned to the control of our own people.

And that is why I emphasize over and over on these broadcasts the importance of being able to communicate with our people, the importance of breaking the Jewish monopoly control on the dissemination of information and ideas and images and illusions. The key to the survival of our people—the key to returning our people to moral and spiritual and racial health, the key to salvaging what is left of our civilization and our culture and restoring them to health and progress—is, first, to be able to compete effectively with the Jews in communicating with the non-lemming two or three or four per cent of the population able to think for themselves; and then to smash the Jews’ grip on the media with which they control the thinking of the lemmings.

That certainly is not an easy task—but it’s a much more feasible task than trying to make the lemmings think for themselves, and it is more feasible than trying to convert the lemmings while the Jews are still in control of their machinery of illusion. So what we do now is continue to build our own media—continue to gain more listeners every week to these broadcasts; continue to build our ability to disseminate leaflets wherever they may reach anyone with an open mind; continue to make books and other printed material and audio material and video material available to people seeking the truth—and to do this faster than the Jews can move forward with their efforts to ban the First and Second Amendments, thereby outlawing their competition and assuring the perpetuation of their monopoly control of the minds of the lemmings.

We’ll talk more about this in later broadcasts, because it is by far the most important task for the survival of our people.

________________________

Originally a broadcast, “Sharon, Rape, and the Wizard of Oz” was eventually published in Free Speech – February 2001 – Volume VII, Number 2.

Holocaust debate

Below, “Creepy History” by Jeffrey L. Thurston, an Amazon book review of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, a 2002 book by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, and my abridgement of the long debate after Thurston’s review.

What caught my attention of the debate is that Michael Smith, one of the commenters who played devil’s advocate by questioning Holocaustianity, is not racialist but a typical liberal living in the Bay Area. Smith even endorses equality, feminism and, like many leftists, is extremely outraged by the treatment of the North American natives by the European colonizers.

Thurston wrote:

This book delves into a creepy subject but as usual with the subject of Holocaust Denial it does not seek to refute the Holocaust Deniers—rather it tries (again as usual) to make the Deniers the subject. There is little head on argument or discussion of the supposedly outlandish claims of Deniers. This book should have been all about the historiography of the Holocaust—this would have gone a long way to actually rebutting the points that Deniers always make (points about actual numbers and mechanics and historical sources). Instead it simply shows us how Official History is made and why it can’t be wrong.

In real life skeptics (of all people) should be skeptical of official politicized history. My research into Joe Stalin has shown me how the Official Version is often based on bizarre historiography. In making the book mostly about the Deniers nothing convincing is offered to counter the revisionist aspect of Holocaust “Denial”: those who say the Holocaust’s numbers have been exaggerated and those who question its mechanics.

Many people lumped in with Deniers have honest questions. The Official Version of Holocaust and the world’s reaction to Holocaust Denial have evolved into a very strange mix of fear and well—denial! It is illegal to deny the Holocaust in many supposedly “free” Western nations. If the subject were so open and shut then why do there have to be laws protecting free minds from it?

The rather simple arguments that Deniers (or revisionists) make are difficult to rebut—period. The Official Version must stand—period! On pain of the Law! And the Holocaust has morphed into the main casus belli of WWII and now of all world history—the sufferings of a tiny fraction of WWII’s victims are the subject of much of popular WWII history in the United States. I challenge people who are true skeptics to delve into this subject with an open mind. You might be surprised as I was.

Davros said…

I live in Britain, where there are no Holocaust Denial Laws and, in general, Holocaust Denial is not really a big issue. Indeed, you will find a lot of sympathy for the idea that Holocaust Denial Laws do indeed stifle freedom of speech and give Holocaust Deniers ammunition to say they are being repressed and their human rights denied.

Michael Smith said…

I have to agree that the book encourages readers to believe that official history is objective, self-correcting, and infallible. What a crock! The authors conflate skepticism about mass gassing chambers with outright denial of the Holocaust. That’s a sleight-of-hand job. So-called “deniers” are skeptical about mass gassing chambers, not about violent treatment of Jews per se.

David Irving is not a Holocaust “Denier.” He’s appeared at some of their gatherings but does not consider himself one of them, nor do they accept him as one of their own.

Flat earthers can be shown a picture of the round earth to demonstrate the error of their ways. Where can one get a picture of a mass gassing chamber that was used by the Nazis?

In the Irving-Lipstadt case defense attorneys specifically refused to present an affirmative case for homicidal gassing chambers. If one had existed, they’d have presented it. But there are no photographs to present, no material remains of a homicidal gas chamber, no documents that directly refer to mass extermination by gas. It’s all “proven” by inferential speculation, the same way 9/11 Truthers “prove” that the twin towers were brought down by controlled explosives.

DWD said…

“The sufferings of a tiny fraction of WWII’s victims are the subject of much of popular WWII history in the United States.” – Jeffrey L. Thurston

I’d hardly consider at least 10% of the total death toll of the war (50-70 million) coming from European Jews (5.1-5.9 million, more than 70% of all European Jews killed) to be a tiny fraction and something to be glossed over. These were not civilian deaths by battlefield accidents, friendly fire or even incidents of soldiers gone wild in a frenzy of killing. This was systematic, planned destruction, cold and methodical.

Michael Smith said…

Systematic planned destruction is what modern war is all about. And civilians routinely do most of the dying. The Nazis are far from the only ones guilty on this count.

There is a lot of ground between “glossing over” the killing of Jews in WWII, and elevating Jewish deaths to the prime concern. Why are Jewish deaths so often considered the prime concern? Because of the (alleged) homicidal gas chambers, the (alleged) assembly line of death, the (alleged) motive of total extermination. But all that has been called into question because of the lack of corroborating physical and documentary evidence, and Denying History fails to acknowledge that fact. Smearing the “Deniers” as racists is just a diversion.

Romeo said…

This is probably a dead thread, but I thought that I would ask. If the Holocaust never happened where did everyone go? How do you explain the disappearance of 6 million people? Some people say it was less that 6 million. Fine. How do you explain the disappearance of 4 million, 2 million, or even 500,000 people? Where did they all go? Or are all these people in on some grand conspiracy?

Michael Smith said…

Holocaust revisionism is basically related to two main questions: the gas chambers and the six million. So the question isn’t really “Did the Holocaust happen?,” but rather, “Were there homicidal gas chambers?” and “How many Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis?” No one denies outright that systematic and murderous brutality occurred, which is what is implied in the statement “the Holocaust didn’t happen.”

There is lots of dispute about the numbers. Many would not accept your assumption that millions are unaccounted for. Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial says it has the names of 3 million Jews who died in Europe (from all causes) during WWII. What about the other three million? In any case, how does it follow that if Jews are missing they must have been systematically exterminated in Nazi gas chambers? There are many ways to die, especially in a war zone.

Regarding the Holocaust as “the worst thing that ever happened” is directly related to the gas chamber question. If it were widely accepted that there were no homicidal gas chambers in WWII, there would be no credibility whatsoever to the idea that the Holocaust was the worst thing ever.

Davros said…

Ok, it’s quite clear that most of you haven’t actually read the book you are discussing. You keep making the same points all deniers make about the gas chambers but completely ignore many other aspects of the holocaust such as the activities of the Einsatzgruppen: mobile killing squads that killed over one million people. We know how many they killed because they documented it.

Oh, and about the numbers of people The Yad Vashem Archives (see here [link]). Say they currently have approximately 3.8 million people registered as murdered. I’m sure it was an innocent mistake but you accidentally left out 800,000 people. Furthermore, as I’m sure you know, the total number of dead is an estimate, not a certain number. There is a brief overview of the numbers here (link).

Finally about this “how does it follow that if Jews are missing they must have been systematically exterminated in Nazi gas chambers?” As already established, not all Jews were killed in camps. The evidence of atrocities at the camp liberations, the testimonies at Nuremberg, the reports coming out from Poland and Eastern Europe during and after the war, the information held in the German and Russian archives all point to a systematic destruction of Jews and others such as Roma, homosexuals, political activists, etc.

The main point that is made in the book that you clearly have not read is that there is a vast amount of evidence that converges on the inescapable conclusion that there was a widespread coordinated attempt to eradicate millions of people during the course of the Second World War.

Anybody attempting to deny this would have to have a similarly strong case that shows the evidence we have points inescapably to another conclusion. So far, none have been brought forward.

I confidently expect there never will be.

Michael Smith said…

I’ve read the book. I criticize it not out of ignorance but because it’s a bad book, based on the same “cumulative proof” reasoning as David Ray Griffin uses to establish that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives on 9/11. When you say that the evidence “converges” on the preferred conclusion, you are using Griffin-style reasoning. Evidence should logically require a conclusion, not merely “converge” on it.

Yad Vashem is still 2.2 million names short of the widely accepted 6 million figure, and this, only sixty-five years after the end of the war? The last time I checked they were 3 million names short, but the point remains that they haven’t got confirmation of six million Jews killed in WWII, much less in “the Holocaust,” however that clumsy term is interpreted. The Einsatzgruppen existed, but the “gas vans” thesis is disputed.

“Systematic destruction” is what war is all about. Nobody denies that systematic destruction occurred at the hands of the Nazis in WWII. The issue is whether poison gas was used to exterminate 6 million Jews in accordance with a deliberate Nazi intention to produce this result using an industrial assembly-line of death. The latter thesis is very much disputed.

“Widespread attempt to eradicate millions of people during the course of the Second World War” doesn’t mean very much. Obviously, the Allies and the Axis both engaged in widespread atrocities, killing tens of millions of people. But that obvious fact carries with it no implications about the existence or non-existence of homicidal gas chambers.

Romeo said…

So for the deniers: my first question was if there was no Holocaust what happened to all the people? Didn’t get any convincing answers on that one. The only response that I got was that it was only 3 million. As if that was okay. “Oh they only killed 3 million people.”

Why are deniers denying the gas chambers? There are pictures of these gas chambers. There are records for purchases of Zyklon B. What is there to deny about the gas chambers?

Michael Smith said…

You don’t read very carefully. I didn’t say “it was only 3 million.” I said Yad Vashem (last time I checked) only had three million names of Jews who died in Europe during WWII. Given that the commonly accepted figure for “the Holocaust” is six million, I asked, what about the other half? And I never said it was OK to kill even one person, let alone three million.

What happened to all the people is a question that can’t be answered unless we know to which actual people the question refers. Without claiming to know what the exact figures are, my own guess is that large numbers of Jews perished in the camps as a result of the collapse of German power on the Eastern front. This need not imply an extermination plot, much less one that employed homicidal gas chambers. Revisionists question the existence of homicidal gas chambers because their presumed existence is based on inferential speculation of the David Ray Griffin variety.

You are mistaken. There are no photographs of homicidal gas chambers said to have been employed by the Nazis to kill upwards of two thousand Jews at a time. Records for the purchase of Zyklon B don’t prove for what purpose the Zyklon B was used. Both sides in the Holocaust non-debate agree that Zyklon B was used for fumigation purposes.

There is nothing to deny in the homicidal gas chambers, but there is plenty to question. Organized Jewry clearly puts a higher value on Jewish life than that of any other group. And the gas chamber/mass extermination story has been a major form of moral capital for Israel for decades.

Flim Buff said…

No documents that refer to mass extermination by gas? No material remains of gas chambers? Well, so far you are 0 for 2 in the truth and accuracy department.

Michael Smith said…

You omitted a crucial word. This is what I wrote: “no documents that directly refer to mass extermination by gas.” The Nazis made no direct reference to extermination by gas. The theory is that they employed euphemisms to disguise the extermination program, which was not planned in advance nor organized by any central agency. The Nazis were telepathic improvisers guided by no blueprint and supported by no budget for a plan of extermination involving millions of victims.

There are material remains for small fumigation chambers, but not for the homicidal gas chambers allegedly used to gas 2000 Jews at a time. Show me a picture of one of those.

Davros said…

Michael,

A few points I want to raise about your arguments:

“There are material remains for small fumigation chambers, but not for the homicidal gas chambers allegedly used to gas 2000 Jews at a time. Show me a picture of one of those.”

Here you go:

Here are the material remains of one of the only 2 gas chambers that are known to have been able to hold up to 2000 people at a time. As you probably know, these chambers were blown up by the SS On January 20, 1945.

Here is a much better preserved chamber from the book you claim to have read. Alongside the pictures are reasons why we know it’s a killing gas chamber and not a delousing facility. One of those is also shown for comparison [Davros added a link to the reviewed book that presently only redirects to the main page of the book].

“When you say that the evidence ‘converges’ on the preferred conclusion, you are using Griffin-style reasoning. Evidence should logically require a conclusion, not merely ‘converge’ on it.”

Convergence was certainly good enough for Judge Charles Gray when dismissing the Irving v. Lipstadt libel case:

“Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews” (from Section 13 of the Judgment of the case).

It’s interesting that you claim that the authors use the same method of “cumulative proof” that David Ray Griffin uses. Now, you may have an advantage over me here—I’ve only read one of his books, A New Pearl Harbor. In that he has no theory to converge the evidence on. He merely states that his book is an attempt to clarify the dire need for an in-depth investigation into the events of the 11th of September whilst relying on evidence based on books by other Truthers. He looks at competing theories but sides with none of them nor provides his own.

You stated that “Yad Vashem is still 2.2 million names short of the widely accepted 6 million figure.” As you should know from the book you claim to have read, the six million number is arrived at using a variety of means as described on pages 176-178. Briefly, the addition method— totaling up the numbers known to have been killed, subtraction, taking pre-war demographics and subtracting emigrations, the numbers liberated from camps and the numbers left in areas after the war. Finally, recapitulation cross-checking these numbers.

The methods documented vary between 4.5 million and 6.2. The lower figure is from Reitlinger 1953, the highest is Benz 1991. “Moreover, as we can see in the most recent figures—those from Benz—revisions, based on more accurate data, have increased, rather than decreased, the estimate”, p. 178.

The method employed by Yad Vashem is not a systematic review of demographic data, rather a collation of victims names and stories—many submitted by survivors on their behalf.

In fact they state very clearly on their website that not everyone will be accounted for. This from their FAQ:

When will there be 6,000,000 names in the database?

Never. Some Jews left no trace. They were murdered with their entire families, so there was no one left to submit pages of testimony for them; or they left no documentary traces; or the traces they left were destroyed, either during the war, or afterwards. In the 1960s and 1970s, archivists sometimes burned entire collections of what were perceived, unfortunately, as documents with no lasting value.

You then go on to state “The Einsatzgruppen existed, but the “gas vans” thesis is disputed.” This is not even an argument. What part of the Holocaust is not disputed by someone? It’s interesting you mention the gas vans when mass shootings were much more common. See pages 182-186 of the book you claim to have read.

You seem to be fixated on gassings. A quote from Gitta Sereny on page 182 puts this into context:

“[F]or most of the world, including most Jews, the term ‘Final Solution’ has mainly or entirely been identified with gas chambers in occupied Poland, or even more narrowly, those in Auschwitz. For almost half a century, the murder by shooting of between one and a half million and two million Jews in the occupied Soviet territories has somehow been treated differently. Grotesquely, more often than not, these murders by shooting have been neatly classified as ‘acts of war,’ an extraordinary misconstruction of history which plays straight into the hands of revisionists.”

Which I think neatly sums up what you’re trying to do here when you state:

“Obviously, the Allies and the Axis both engaged in widespread atrocities, killing tens of millions of people. But that obvious fact carries with it no implications about the existence or non-existence of homicidal gas chambers.”

You also make this statement:

“The issue is whether poison gas was used to exterminate 6 million Jews in accordance with a deliberate Nazi intention to produce this result using an industrial assembly-line of death.”

The book explicitly states (p. 128) that approximately 3,062,000 people died in gas chambers. You appear to ignore the approximately 50% of people killed by other means. I can only think you are trying to assert the “No gas chambers, no holocaust” argument.

You may well have read the book but you seem to have ignored most of the evidence presented in it and bring none to support any of your arguments when you attempt to refute it.

Michael Smith said…

Those photos would only persuade someone who already believes in the homicidal gas chamber thesis. The sleight-of-hand of interchangeably referring to cremation ovens and gas chambers is particularly unconvincing. Cremation ovens do not carry with them implications of murder.

Charles Gray did indeed fall for the convergence style of reasoning. That in itself proves nothing, except perhaps his gullibility. (But he also said there is little real evidence for the homicidal gas chambers, which is why speculative reasoning is said to be necessary.) I’ve reviewed the Irving-Lipstadt case in an article on my blog: “Must We Loathe David Irving?” At legalienate.blogspot.com I’ve also reviewed the book we are here discussing. See “Gas Chambers, 911, and the Perils of Orthodoxy” on the same blog.

In Griffin’s Pearl Harbor book he outlines the difference between a convergence theory and a deductive proof. I think it’s in the beginning of the book. An indirect proof is useful for Grand Juries to decide whether there is a preponderance of evidence against someone with which to bring them to trial. However, once at trial, a higher standard of proof is needed to convict someone. That higher standard of proof is lacking in the Holocaust story vis-à-vis homicidal gas chambers.

There’s plenty of room for doubt about the six million figure, which your wide variation in educated guesses confirms.

I’ve never denied the shootings on the Eastern front. I merely mentioned in passing that revisionists question the gas vans thesis, as they do. However, mass shootings are common in Euro American history, extermination by gas is not. It is the gassing claim that gives the Holocaust its alleged uniqueness.

It wasn’t revisionists who invented the homicidal gassing claim. If this claim has led to an unfair de-emphasis on mass shootings in the East, it’s the fault of the proponents of Holocaust orthodoxy. But again, mass shootings are common. Look at what happened to the indigenous nations of North America, for example, also often misdescribed as “acts of war”—far more thorough destruction than what happened to the Jews of Europe, but there are no Holocaust memorials to them. Quite the contrary. It’s buried history and most of it is probably irrecoverable.

You seem fixated on regarding mass murder by the Allies as inherently good because the Axis powers were inherently bad. But liquidating whole cities with firebombs and atomizing hundreds of thousands of Japanese are no more “acts of war” than wholesale shootings of civilians by the Nazis. Get rid of the double standard if you want to understand history. Michael Shermer can’t do this, unfortunately.

I’m not ignoring the Jews who were killed by various other means, merely pointing out that the argument with the revisionists centers on the homicidal gas chamber question and the six million figure.

I’ve read the Shermer book and commented on its faulty approach at some length. He’s a true-believer in the-Allies-are-inherently-good approach to history, and it shows. He’s a cheerleader.

Marius Rowell said…

The “You’re as bad as I am” defense wouldn’t keep you off death row in any US court, even though you are perfectly right in pointing out how the extermination of native North and South Americans by European invaders is equally unacceptable. White Europeans really deserve the bad rap they get from the rest of the world, and I’m speaking as one of those white Europeans.

Michael Smith said…

It’s the job of historians to determine the facts and account for them, not denounce atrocities. This is very difficult to do when relevant historical documents derive from an occupying army intent on convicting its defeated enemy, and criminal penalties attached to those who publicly challenge the military court’s findings. This is what happened in post-WWII Germany.

It’s unacceptable to kill civilians under any circumstances, but all sides violated this moral standard during WWII. Why pretend that only the Nazis did?

The mass gassing thesis has never been properly substantiated. There is no forensic evidence of mass homicidal gassing chambers, no open discussion of extermination by gas in the Nazi archives, and no extermination order. The theory is that a bunch of telepathic improvisers spontaneously annihilated millions of Jews in gas chambers (whose physical remains somehow vanished into thin air).

Obviously, many atrocities were committed against Jews during WWII. But that does not necessarily mean they were physically exterminated in gas chambers.

An excellent treatment of the whole subject, drawing on revisionist and establishment Holocaust scholars, is Samuel Crowell’s The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, just published by Nine Banded Books.

Definitely there is a religious ideology at work here—questioning the official view of the Holocaust is quite literally blasphemous in quite a few European countries.

K. Grimm said…

I have followed this fascinating discussion all the way from the original book review and it is obvious that the subject generates heated emotion. One thing does stand out clearly though. While those in support of Mr. Thurston are posting detailed and reasoned arguments, his opponents, with the notable exception of Davros, are responding emotionally often with sneering comments that add nothing useful to the discussion and fail to address the points being raised.

That being said, I am not convinced by Mr. Thurston’s assertion that the Holocaust has been over emphasized in order to justify modern Israel’s actions in defense of itself. I have no sympathy with those anti-Zionists who wish to portray Israel as some sort of criminal nation. Also, I still believe, until I see substantial and convincing evidence to the contrary, that the Nazis did engage in industrial-scale extermination of despised peoples (mostly Jews), whether by poison gas or not.

The treatment of the Holocaust as “the most evil act in the history of the world” perpetrated by “the most evil regime in the history of the world” led by “the most evil man in the history of the world” is a narrative that suits many vested interests other than Israel. These include those on the Left who wish to divert attention from the appalling atrocities committed by communist revolutionaries the world over. By defining Nazism as “extreme right wing” we obscure the fact that the Nazi movement was in fact both anti-capitalist and socialist. Nazism in the popular mind has become the opposite of socialism rather than a particular variety of socialism bound up with German nationalism. This “extreme right wing” definition also has the useful function of placing a toxic warning on all right wing politics—i.e. don’t take the road to the right because it will ultimately lead to genocide.

Then, of course, there is the question of the murderous brutality of the Allies aerial bombing strategy. This is more easily justified when it is portrayed as a desperate but necessary method to help bring down “the most evil regime in the history of the world.” As for the civilians targeted for slaughter, well they did put into power “the most evil man in the history of the world” and supported “the most evil regime in the history of the world” so they had a price to pay.

Michael Smith said…

Israel is not acting in defense of itself. It is attacking. It always has.

The Holocaust obsession has certainly been important political capital for Israel, whether or not one thinks it is “overemphasized” to justify specific policies.

Israel is a criminal nation. Reserving rights and rewards for Jews and “redeeming” the land by robbing it from its indigenous owners and giving it to Jews “ingathering” from all over the world is not merely incredibly unjust, but frankly insane.

“I still believe, until I see substantial and convincing evidence to the contrary, that the Nazis did engage in industrial scale extermination of despised peoples (mostly Jews)”

This is backwards. A rational man does not believe until he sees evidence to substantiate what he is asked to believe. He doesn’t adopt a belief lacking in such evidence and then demand that others dissuade him from believing it. The important question is always the state of the evidence, not our subjective preferences.

The Nazis engaged in wholesale killing. All sides did in WWII. But whether these killings were acts determined more by the state of war than by Nazi ideology is a debatable question. I don’t see anything to be gained by insisting that debate be stifled in favor of a preferred conclusion.

Appalling atrocities of communists? There is as much shrieking hysteria on that topic as there is on the alleged Nazi gas chambers. We need to develop the capacity to see that all kinds of governments engage in atrocities, not just Nazis and Communists. And we need to debunk the hysterical treatments that insist that enemies of our favored states are composed exclusively of bloodthirsty killers that live only to skewer babies on swords and throw grandmothers to the sharks. Atrocities abound, but the scale and nature of the killing is often suspect, and the idea that “democratic” states don’t engage in the most hideous atrocities is sheer bunk.

Your justification for mass killing of German civilians is the standard one. But it’s unconvincing. From the standpoint of the indigenous peoples of North America, U.S. citizens are as guilty of unforgivable atrocities as the German people were under Hitler. So that means it would be OK to engage in saturation bombing of U.S. cities?

K. Grimm said…

If Michael Smith imagines that I am justifying the mass killing of German civilians then he has misunderstood my comment. In my last paragraph I had intended to say that the victorious Allies focused on the evils of Nazism to help justify the “murderous brutality of the area bombing strategy.” I did not say that I thought this strategy was justified. I had hoped that putting “the most evil regime in the history of the world” in quotes would avoid any ambiguity. I have read a great deal about the bombing of Germany and have been astonished at cold calculating way in which civilian populations were deliberately targeted, even when the Bomber Command had, towards the end of the war, achieved a high enough level of accuracy to focus on military targets.

An example may be useful here: if the bombing strategy used against Dresden were to be viewed as though it were a Luftwaffe plan to wipe out a British city it would be condemned as pure evil. The plan: destroy a major city, known to be a haven for refugees fleeing the advancing armies and thus create terror in an already desperate population.

The first wave of bombers would set the city ablaze by focusing on the old town centre with its highly flammable buildings. The fire would be so extensive as to overwhelm the fire fighting abilities of the city and lead to firefighters being summoned from neighboring towns. As these were arriving in the city the second raid would begin, thus catching and destroying the fire services and eliminating the ability of the population to fight the fires. The result would be an unstoppable fire storm. Next day, daylight bombers would be sent in to “pound the rubble.”

Then, to ensure maximum terror, low level fighters would be sent in to strafe the city, shooting anyone they could see—man, woman or child.

It may be assumed that the Dresden story is well known but in my experience this is just not the case. Most people I have discussed this with believe that Dresden was just a bombing raid that got out of control because the Bomber Command did not realize just how powerful their weapons had become.

I am not aware of “shrieking hysteria” on the topic of communist atrocities. On the contrary, the subject seems to get far less publicity than the evils of the Third Reich.

I will re-emphasize my original assertion: socialists / communists / the liberal left have propagated (very successfully) the idea that Fascism & Nazism are the opposite of socialism. We are routinely made aware of their evils and given the idea that they represent the political right in its purist form. Mr. Smith’s casual dismissal of communist atrocities is one commonly expressed by left-wingers. It can be paraphrased thus: “Everybody is already well aware of the evils of communism. Lets move on. There is nothing to discuss here.” The trouble is that, in fact, there is very much to discuss here and people generally are nowhere near as aware of the evils of communism as they are of the evils of Nazism. My impression is that Michael Smith is offended and embarrassed by discussion of Communist atrocities and would like to suppress debate on this issue by pretending that no debate is necessary and that those who try to raise the matter are guilty of “shrieking hysteria.”

It is strange to assume that there has been no discussion of the atrocities committed by democratic states. For most of my adult life I have been hearing about the evils of American actions in Vietnam with very little publicity given to the evils perpetrated by the communist north. In fact the popular image of that war is the one the media have chosen to take from the movie Apocalypse Now—i.e. the plucky Vietnamese, with minimum resources suffer the insane warmongering of the most technologically advanced nation on earth. I do hope Mr. Smith does not think that this is my view! For that matter, as I do not hold the childish opinion that our enemies are devils and we are fighting on the side of the angels I really don’t need to be “educated” out of this position by Mr. Smith.

Rather slyly, Mr. Smith states that Israel is a criminal nation. Surely, it would be more honest to say that he believes that Israel is a criminal nation. However, this would put his comment on a par with my own remark about Nazi extermination policies and would thus be open to equal criticism. Of course I have seen evidence of what I am asked to believe and have been (and still am) prepared to consider both sides of the argument. For the record, and I hope this is not so ambiguous as to be misunderstood, I am opposed to laws banning holocaust denial and loathe any attempts to “stifle debate in favor of a preferred conclusion.”

Michael Smith said…

Yes, I had assumed you were justifying the mass killing of Germans. My mistake. Sorry.

Kemp on the Jews

Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race
by Arthur Kemp:


The saga of the European Jews

Anti-Semitism—or, more accurately, anti-Jewishness—was not an invention of Hitler nor of his National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Anti-Jewish sentiment has always stalked the Jews, where-ever they went: it seems as if their very presence always elicited a negative and hostile response from virtually all the nations in which they settled. Anti-Jewish sentiment existed long before Christianity, and the introduction of that religion and its distortions merely provided another means of expression for the latent anti-Jewish feeling which always followed the Jews like a shadow.

Origins of anti-Jewish sentiment. The origins of this original anti-Jewish feeling lie within the nature of Jewish society itself: exclusively ethno-centric with a binding religion and inward looking culture, the Jews always managed to maintain themselves as an isolated community in all of the nations in which they settled. This tradition has maintained itself to this day.

For this reason, Jews tended to live together in tightly knit communities in cities: these Jewish blocks came to be called ghettoes, and it is important to realize that the first ghettoes were entirely voluntary Jewish neighborhoods. This was then re-inforced by religious laws limiting membership of the Jewish community by race—only people born of Jewish women could be accepted as Jews. This is another practice which has survived to the present day—people of no direct Jewish ancestry can only become Jews with great difficulty, and even then a large section of the Jewish community, the orthodox Jews, will not recognize converts as true Jews.

Finally, the well-known Jewish propensity for business and the ability to accumulate vast amounts of money—a phenomena well known to this day—was the source of much original anti-Jewish feeling. Gentiles (or, Goy as the Jewish Talmud) refer to non-Jews of all races, with the literal translation of cattle—which in itself is an important insight of how the writers of the Talmud viewed the outside world.

The true origins of anti-Jewish feeling therefore lies in a combination of three major factors:

• the self imposed isolation of the Jewish people;

• the open hostility to Non-Jews as espoused in their ethno-centric and tightly binding religion; and

• the propensity of their financial dealings.

Thus it was that the first anti-Jewish outbursts occurred long before the introduction of Christianity. Christianity merely added to these emotions: as the wave of Christian fanaticism swept Europe, all sense of reason or rationality was lost, and, forgetting that Christianity itself had sprung from Judaism, the Christians gave vent to their long simmering dislike of the Jews by accusing them of being the killers of Christ to boot.

The hostility was however, reciprocated: the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical writings added to the Old Testament, contains many violently anti-Gentile remarks, comparing non-Jewish women to whores and providing specific instruction on how it is permissible for Jews to cheat non-Jews in business.

Both Christians and Jews then, altered their religious teachings in attempts to whip up hostility to each other in a bizarre semi-religious and semi-racial clash.

Jews occupy high posts in Moorish Spain and Portugal. After the decline of the Roman Empire, Jews started settling in larger numbers in Western Europe, with many Sephardic Jews crossing over from Africa into Spain. Hot on their heels came the Muslim Moors, who gave the Jews favored status in Moorish occupied Spain: Jews came to fill the highest position in the Moorish republic of Granada in Spain and owned one-third of all the real estate in Barcelona.

When the Moorish occupation of Spain was finally ended, the Christian victors did not take kindly to what they correctly saw as Jewish collaboration with the Moors. This led to the Spanish version of the inquisition, which was primarily aimed at Jews who had falsely converted to Christianity in an attempt to escape the revenge attacks on Jews carried out by the victorious Christian armies. Finally, the Jews were formally expelled from Spain in 1492, the same year that Christopher Columbus set foot in the Americas.

France. As avid supporters of the French Revolution, Jews were rewarded when the National Assembly enfranchised Jews in 1791, simultaneously stripping all restrictions which had been placed on them.

Napoleon Bonaparte was given much support by Europe’s Jews in his campaigns across Europe, for where ever he went he lifted whatever restrictions there had been upon the Jews. Once again, this was only good for Jews over the short term. The downside came when Napoleon was finally beaten: Jews were associated with the destruction that his military adventures had wrought; virtually all of the reforms he had instituted were reversed as a result.

However, by the 1860s, most of the Jewish communities in Western Europe had more or less been de-ghettoized, and Napoleon’s reforms had for the greatest part been re-instituted.

Jewish domination of media in the West. Whether by deliberate plan or accident, the situation has arisen whereby Jews have ended up dominating the mass media forms of both the USA, and to a slightly smaller extent, of Western Europe. The ownership of the mass media by a small group of Jews is well documented and full details are easily obtainable on the Internet.

This Jewish domination of the media can, and does, have serious consequences, so vividly illustrated by the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. These events were triggered exclusively by the unflagging US support given to Israel against the Palestinians.

The fact that the USA—and much of the West—continues to support Israel at any cost, including the deaths of thousands of its own citizens, is the surest evidence yet of the power of the Jewish lobby in both the mass media (which generates “public opinion”) and of the Jewish lobby’s famed control over the US government, and to a lesser extent, the governments of Western Europe.

The expulsion of the Jews

The Spanish Jews were amongst the first to feel the full effects of the fall of the Moors from power in Spain. In 1492 Isabella and Ferdinand formally expelled all Jews from that country, punishing the Spanish Jews for having actively collaborated with the Moors during their 780 year long occupation. The victorious Moors (who, because of their common Semitic ancestry with the Spanish Jews and the already poor relations between the Jews and the Goths) employed several Spanish Jews in their administration of Spain in some of the highest posts, even though there were occasional outbursts of anti-Jewish feeling amongst the Arabs themselves.

In the city of Grenada, the last to fall to the White armies, the Spanish were enraged to learn that the Moorish king’s prime minister and most of his leading advisors were Jews. A massacre of Jews in the city followed that discovery. This alliance between a number of Spanish Jews and the Moors inflamed the anti-Semitic feeling amongst the subdued Goths even further; a sentiment which would later flare up in the form of the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.

The Inquisition. When Spain was finally liberated from the non-White Moors, the long suppressed anti-Jewish sentiment broke out in full fury. In that year all unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from Spain, and the infamous Spanish Inquisition, set up to enforce Christendom, was used to persecute Jews, who, because of their collaboration with the Moors, were regarded as the implacable enemies of White Spain.

Earlier Isabella had obtained from the Pope in Rome a dispensation to establish the Inquisition in Spain, which soon turned into a fully fledged anti-Jewish campaign under the name of Christianity. The first hearings against the Conversos were held in February 1481 in Castile; it combined with the outbreak of the bubonic plague. Many Christian fanatics linked the outbreak of the plague to the start of proceedings against the Conversos, and the Jews were blamed for the plague as well as their other real or imagined crimes, which included accusations that they had betrayed the city of Toledo to the invading Moors by opening the city gates at a crucial junction in the siege of that city.

The leading Conversos held a secret meeting to resist the Inquisition with force. Isabella’s spies however found out about the planned rebellion and arrested the ringleaders, most prominent amongst them a rabbi named Diego de Susan. He, along with six other Jews, was tried for subversion, found guilty and executed by burning at the stake in late 1481.

The Conversos then broke rank in panic, and starting fleeing Spain in large numbers, some going to Italy, but many going to Muslim held Turkey, where they once again enjoyed special status. Much property belonging to the Converso Jews—who by some estimates made up as much as 20 per cent of Spain’s pre-Inquisition population—was seized by Isabella and added to the state treasury.

After the expulsion of the Moors and the Jews, Spain entered its Golden Age. It created a huge empire, and along with Portugal, became one of the most powerful nations in Europe.

The First Great Brothers’ War

The World Zionist movement, a nationalist Jewish organization founded by European Jews to create a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, saw an opportunity open up with the British occupation of Palestine, and persuaded the British foreign minister, Lord Arthur Balfour, to issue a public promise in 1917 to the effect that Britain would support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This public promise became known as the Balfour Declaration.

In return for this undertaking, the World Zionist Movement then promised Britain that it would marshal the world’s Jews behind the Allied cause and, more importantly, endeavor to use their influence to bring the United States of America into the war. In this way, considerable pressure was brought to bear on the American government to enter the war against Germany, although by this stage they hardly needed much prompting.

The United States enters the war. While the World Zionist Congress was actively working behind the scenes with the powerful Jewish lobby in the American government, the course of the war at sea presented the American president, Woodrow Wilson, with an opportunity to enter the war against Germany, despite his presidential election campaign having been specifically fought on a non-interventionist ticket.

In February 1917, the US broke off diplomatic relations with Germany and formally declared war in April. The timing of the US entry into the war—virtually simultaneously with the Balfour Declaration—is too good to be coincidental. By June 1917, more than 175,000 American troops were already in France; by the end of the war more than two million Americans had been deployed in France.

Waves of fresh American troops captured 14,000 exhausted and virtually starving German troops at Saint-Mihiel, and then pushed on through the Argonne forest, breaking the German lines between Metz and Sedan.

With this major defeat, the German government asked for an armistice in October 1918—this attempt to end the war failed when the American president Woodrow Wilson insisted on negotiating only with a democratic German government. The British then pushed home an attack in Belgium and Northern France and early in November American and French forces reached Sedan. By early November, the Hindenburg line had been broken and the Germans were in disarray.

The suppressed link – Jews and communism

The creation of the Soviet Union was to impact upon history for the greater part of the 20th Century—and an understanding of the sub-racial and ideological divisions it caused is crucial to understanding not only the events of that century, but also to understanding the flare up of anti-Jewish sentiment which culminated in the creation of the Third Reich in Germany.

For the Soviet Union’s best kept secret was that the Bolshevik elite had one outstanding characteristic: it had an inordinately large number of Jews in its controlling body.

Virtually all of the important Bolshevik leaders were Jews: they included the “father of the revolution,” Leon Trotsky (whose real name was Lev Bronstein: in an attempt to hide his Jewishness, he adopted the name Trotsky); Lev Kamenev, the early Bolshevik leader who later went on to become a leading member of the Politburo, was born with the surname Rosenfeld; Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Petrograd Soviet, was born with the surname Apfelbaum; and many other famous Communists of the time, such as Karl Radek, Lazar Kaganovich; and Moses Urtisky, (the head of the Cheka) who all changed their names for reasons similar to that of Trotsky.

The Bolshevik’s Party’s Central Committee chairman, Yakov Sverdlov, was also Jewish—and it was he who gave the order to the Jewish Soviet secret policeman, Yurovsky, to murder the Tsar—Yurovsky personally carried out this order.

As if the Russian Revolution was not enough, the originator of the Communist ideology itself, Karl Marx, was also a Jew, with his family name in reality being Levi.

The large Jewish role in the Russian revolution, combined with the fact that Marx had been born a Jew, was manna from heaven for the European anti-Semitic movement, and the link between Jews and Communism was exploited to the hilt, particularly by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist (Nazi) movement in Germany during the 1920s.

It was not only in Germany that the association of Jews with Communism was made: all over the world Jews became associated with radical political movements, sometimes justifiably so, other times not. Nonetheless, the presence of so many Jews in the creation of the Soviet Union played a massive role in justifying anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe prior to, and with, the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Directly after the First World War, there were another three specifically Jewish Communist revolutions in Europe itself:

• the German Jew, Kurt Eisner, led a short lived communist revolution in Munich, Bavaria from November 1918 to February 1919 (at the same time that Adolf Hitler was an unknown soldier in that city—the effect of being a first hand witness to a Jewish and Communist-led revolution helped to cement Hitler’s anti-Communist and anti-Jewish feelings);

• the short lived Sparticus uprising in Berlin (September 1918 to January 1919) led by the German Jews, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg; and

• the short lived Communist tyranny in Hungary led by the Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen), from March to August 1919.

These incidents all helped to identify Jews with Communism in the public mind: in this light it becomes perfectly explicable why the Nazi Party was able to win support on an anti-Communist and open anti-Jewish platform.

Jews in the later Soviet Union. Jews retained their leading roles in Soviet society until growing anti-Semitism within the Communist Party itself led to a change in policy. Trotsky was the first major Jewish casualty: he split with Stalin over the issue of international socialism and the need to spread the revolution: he was forced into exile in 1929. He was then assassinated in Mexico City in 1940, allegedly by a Stalinist agent.

By the middle 1930s, Stalin had started purging the Soviet Communist Party of other important Jews. The period immediately following the end of the Second World War and the creation of the state of Israel saw another rise in Soviet anti-Semitism: by 1953, Stalin had started purging all Jews in the Soviet hierarchy who were also Zionists.

The Communists, quite correctly, saw Zionism as Jewish nationalism and contrary to the interests of an international socialist brotherhood. Many leading Russian Jews were also fervent Zionists: and it was this group that was then targeted for persecution, and who became famous throughout the rest of the lifetime of the Soviet Union as the victims of Soviet anti-Semitism.

Zionism, as an expression of Jewish separatism was declared a crime against the Soviet state, and Zionist organizations were forced to close down their operations inside the Soviet Union. East Germany, as an official Soviet satellite, was forbidden by Moscow to make any reparations payments to the Zionist created state of Israel for the treatment of Jews by the Nazi government.

Not all Russian Jews were Zionists: those who were not, were generally left alone and some did achieve prominent positions within the post Stalin Soviet Union. Many thousands of Jews did however leave the Soviet Union—estimates putting the total number at over the one million mark, with most settling in Israel or the United States.

The Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel, by Jews, is available at most large public libraries and is in English. This reference book for all things Jewish is quite open about the Jewish role in Communism, particularly early Communism, and contains a large number of admissions in this regard.

The Volume 5 of the 1971 edition of the
Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel,
from where all of the extracts below have been taken.

Under the entry for “Communism”: in Volume 5, page 792, the following appears: “The Communist Movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II.” On page 793, the same Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to say that “Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to reveal that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as “not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to describe the overwhelming role Jews played in creating the Soviet Union. On page 792 it says: “Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime”.

On page 794, this Jewish reference book then goes to list the Jews prominent in the upper command of the Russian Communist party: these included Maxim Litvinov (later foreign minister of Soviet Russia); Grigori Zinoviev, Lwev Kamenev, Jacob Sverdlov, Lazar Kaganovich, and Karl Radek, amongst many others.

The organizer of the Revolution was Trotsky, who prepared a special committee to plan and prepare the coup which brought the Communists to power. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, this committee, called the Military Revolutionary Committee, had five members—three of whom were Jews. The Politburo—the supreme governing body of Russia immediately after the Communist Revolution—had four Jews amongst its seven members, according to page 797 of the Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica.

While many have alleged that Lenin was also Jewish, or at least of part Jewish origin, there is little concrete evidence of this. However, Lenin was ardently pro-Jewish, branding anti-Semitism (correctly) as “counter revolutionary” (Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798). A statement against anti-Semitism was made by Lenin in March 1919 and was “one of the rare occasions when his voice was put on a phonograph record to be used in a mass campaign against the counterrevolutionary incitement against the Jews,” according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798. One of the first laws passed by the new Soviet Communist government was to outlaw anti-Semitism (Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798).

Winston Churchill on the Jewish role in communism. The preponderance of Jews in the inner sanctum of the Communist revolution in Russia was in fact well known at the time that the revolution took place: it is only in the post Second World War II era that this fact has been suppressed.

A good example of the contemporary awareness of the Jewish nature of early Russian Communism can be found in the writing of the young Winston Churchill, later to become prime minister of Great Britain, who, in 1920, was also working as journalist.

In 1920, Churchill wrote a full page article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920 detailing the Jewish involvement in the revolution. Churchill discusses in this article the split between Jews: some are Communists, he wrote, while others are Jewish nationalists. Churchill favored the Jewish nationalists, (and of course they indeed fall foul of the Jewish Communists, eventually becoming bitter enemies) and he appealed to what he called “loyal Jews” to ensure that the Communist Jews did not succeed. Churchill went even further and blamed the Jews for “every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century”, writing:

This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.

Churchill also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky (Bronstein) of wanting to establish a “world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination” in this article.

Churchill was not the only journalist to note the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution: Robert Wilton, the chief correspondent for the London Times, who was stationed in Russia at the time, wrote in his book The Last Days of the Romanovs (Hornton Butterworth, London, 1920, pages 147, 22-28, 81,118, 199, 127, 139-148) that “90 per cent” of the new Soviet government was composed of Jews. The correspondent for the London Morning Post, Victor Marsden, went further and actually compiled a list of names of the top 545 Bolshevik officials: of these, Marsden said, 454 were Jews and only 23 Non-Jewish Russians (All These Things, A.N. Field, Appendix B pages 274-276).

The US Army’s telegrams . The American Army Intelligence Service had its agents in Russia at the time of the Communist Revolution, and the Jewish nature of that revolution is accurately reflected in those reports.

An American Senate subcommittee investigation into the Russian Revolution heard evidence, put on congressional record, that “In December 1919, under the presidency of a man named Apfelbaum (Zinovieff), out of the 388 members of the Bolshevik central government, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest (with the exception of a Negro from the U.S.) were Jews” (U.S. Senate Document 62, 1919).

[Kemp includes here photocopy images of these telegrams from official US National Archives, and then he adds:]

Both describe the domination of the Bolshevik Communists by Jews, using the words “Fifty per cent of Soviet Government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type.”

Copies of documents from the US National Archives are freely available to anyone from the Washington DC, USA, office.

However, none of these authorities quoted above dared to use quite the language of a US Military Intelligence officer, one captain Montgomery Schuyler, who sent two reports to Washington in March and June 1919, describing in graphic detail the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution. Both these reports were only declassified in September 1957 and the originals are still held in the US National Archives in Washington, open for public inspection.

The first report, sent from Omsk on 1 March 1919, contains the following paragraph: “it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type”.

The second report, dated 9 June 1919, and sent from Vladivostok, said that of the “384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

Both these American army military intelligence reports are freely available from the US National Archives in Washington DC. The importance of this information does not need to be overemphasized in the light of the crucial governing role the commissars played in the running the early Soviet society.

It therefore came as no surprise when anti-Semitism was duly entered into the Soviet law books as a death penalty crime.

Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

MacDonald’s latest article

Manny Friedman: Jews “own a whole freaking country”; and yes, that includes the media.

Well, it turns out after all that Jews do control the media—and a whole lot besides. So says Manny Friedman, writing in the Times of Israel. Of course, we at TOO have known this for quite a while, but it’s nice to hear it from a Jew, even though it’s in a Jewish publication and intended to be part of a Jews-only dialog.

The thing is, it’s okay for someone like Friedman to say it (or Joel Stein, writing in the LATimes and linked by Friedman). But it’s definitely not okay for someone like me.

In fact, Friedman is typical of Jewish writers who inhabit a completely Jewish universe when they talk about anything relating to Jews. Friedman is well aware that non-Jews who talk about such issues should prepare for a wall-to-wall, no-holds barred, 24/7 campaign against them:

The funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!

Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?

I don’t see any “funny parts” to this, and I’m not sure “irony’ is the right word here. How about “ethnic strategizing,” as in “Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the ethnic strategizing of this?”

And what does being a “bigot” have to do with anything? The working philosophy of the ADL is that bigots are non-Jews who thinks Jews control the media or anything else. And underlying that philosophy is the idea that public awareness of Jewish control would be bad for the Jews. Bigots are people who think that Jews use their control to influence many other aspects of culture in ways that are not in the interests of non-Jews: That the Israel Lobby has virtually made the US into a client state subservient to the interests of Israel, including the Iraq war and a looming war with Iran. Or that Jews use their control of the media to undermine public Christianity and traditional Western sexual mores, and to promote things like multiculturalism that are quite opposed to the interests and attitudes of White Americans. Or that Jews are an integral part of what Pat Buchanan calls the “casino capitalists.”

Buchanan, although avoiding the ethnic angle, only mentions Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs when discussing post-1995 problems.

This new predatory elite has exported American jobs and repeatedly obtained lucrative bailouts when things get bad.

Fortunes are lost and made overnight. Names appear on the list of richest Americans no one has ever heard of. Cheating and corner-cutting are constantly being unearthed. Broker- and banker-gamblers in their 30s amass and flaunt nine-figure fortunes.

When WASPs were the dominant elite in America, their many Jewish critics never had any compunctions about calling them by name and probably loved using what Andrew Fraser calls the “subtly, perhaps deservedly derogatory acronym” of ‘WASP’. But our new Jewish elite cannot tell its name despite the fact that they “own a whole freaking country”—a rather large and powerful country in which the vast majority of the population are not Jews.

Friedman says the reason for Jewish angst about discussions of Jewish power is

because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world.

Right. Jews understand that there are huge conflicts of interest over the construction of culture, whether it’s foreign policy, the sexualization of culture, immigration, multiculturalism, or the role of Christianity in the public square. Quite simply, Jews have different attitudes and perceived interests, and they have been pushing in different directions than White Americans for the entire last century. Massive amounts of money, propaganda, and organizational effort have gone into this effort. This effort has been transformative.

Abe Foxman (quoted in the Stein article) would love to have Americans believe that there are a lot of executives in Hollywood who just happen to be Jewish and that’s the end of it. But it’s far more than that. Jews have fundamentally different attitudes and perceived interests when it comes to the construction of culture, from religion to foreign policy. It wouldn’t matter that Jews are an elite if they had the same attitudes and perceived interests as the traditional people and culture of America. But they don’t, and they haven’t ever since they arrived en masse a century ago. Indeed, in general Jews have an atavistic hostility toward the traditional culture of the Christian West.

Jewish organizations do everything in their power to prevent an honest discussion of Jewish power. And that is completely understandable. Do they really want to advertise to White America that Jews have had a preponderant role in making Whites a minority, in promoting the ideal of multiculturalism, in making America a client state of Israel, in the sexualization of culture and in legalizing and promoting pornography, in banning Christianity from the public square, in obliterating traditional American conservatism in the Republican Party, and in predatory financial practices that are destroying the American economy…?

Likely not. But one can bet that to the extent that there will be any discussion of Jewish power, it will be more or less exclusively within the confines of the Jewish community. (Here’s a recent WND article titled “Who Stole Our Culture?” that fails to come to grips with the powerful ethnic component of the correct answer, despite their emphasis on the central role of the notoriously Jewish Frankfurt School.) Friedman publishes his article in an Israeli newspaper (which is completely ignored by the MSM in the US) and links to Joel Stein (whose article sank like a rock and certainly did not ignite a national discussion on the consequences of Jewish media domination). Neither Friedman nor Stein would dream of linking to The Occidental Observer or anything remotely similar to back up their claims. Yet our discussions are far more extensive, nuanced and well-sourced than anything put out by Friedman or Stein.

Non-Jews should have a robust role in the discussion of all these issues. Here’s Steven Walt criticizing Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism (in an otherwise favorable review) for addressing only Jews in the discussion of American attitudes toward Israel:

I think it is unfortunate that Beinart chose to direct his book almost entirely toward the American Jewish community. That is his privilege, and it’s possible that the best way to get a smarter U.S. policy would be to convince American Jewry to embrace a different approach. Yet Beinart’s focus also reinforces the idea that U.S. Middle East policy—and especially its policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — is a subject that is only of legitimate concern to Jewish-Americans (and Arab-Americans) and can only be legitimately discussed by these groups. In fact, U.S. Middle East policy affects all of us in countless ways and it ought to be a subject that anyone can discuss openly and calmly without inviting the usual accusations of bigotry or bias. I’m sure Beinart would agree, yet his book as written sends a subtly different message.

Right. We all have a right and even a duty to discuss these subjects because they affect our vital interests. But, like Walt and John Mearsheimer when their book on the Israel Lobby came out, doing so invites the worst sort of hostility from Jewish critics—accusations that it was shoddy scholarship and a throwback to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

It is a compelling measure of Jewish power that Jews are able to so effectively suppress discussion of Jewish power. The power of no other group is off limits for public discussion. I can’t resist quoting Joe Sobran’s 1996 classic:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls [then the dominant team]. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. 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. (Joe Sobran [1995]. “The Jewish establishment.” Sobran’s [September]:4–5).

The reality is that Jews cannot afford to have these issues discussed openly and honestly because doing so would not only threaten their power. It would create a huge backlash, since Jewish power has been so deeply antithetical to the interests of Whites in America and elsewhere. So they sit on an ever more explosive powder keg. Shoring up their defenses, but unable to go back even if they wanted to (which they don’t). Pouncing mercilessly on anyone who gets off the reservation. With 100,000,000 non-Whites in America who are rapidly increasing as a percentage of the population, there are simply too many facts on the ground at this point to go into a low-key retreat.

[See e.g., this video presently featured at The Occidental Observer]

The external controls keeping the non-Jews in line are certainly very powerful. As Cooper Sterling’s recent article shows (and as Friendman acknowledges), individuals who cross the lines imposed by the SPLC (a Jewish organization in all but name) or the ADL face dire economic and social consequences.

However, Jewish control goes far beyond the ability to punish behavior and attitudes they don’t like. Ultimately the whole edifice depends on massive self-censorship by non-Jews. Jews also need to use their position in the media to continue the incessant propaganda that reinforces the current dispensation— that diversity is a strength and is good for everyone, that all humans are essentially the same so that importing millions of Africans, Asians, and non-Whites from Latin America would have no effects on the fundamental character and institutions of the West, that Jews are powerless and that they are morally and intellectually superior victims of irrational hatreds, that Israel is an embattled democracy with a strong allegiance to the same values Americans hold dear, etc.

Implicitly at least, Jews realize that they need to use their media power to make these messages into psychological reflexes so that all White people, including especially respectable, well-educated White people, will feel shame and guilt for even thinking politically incorrect thoughts. In this, of course, they have been incredibly successful. We never see the end of guilt-ridden, self-flaggelating, ethnomasochistic Whites who look up to the New York Times for moral enlightenment. (Here’s a NYTimes “news article” from yesterday intended to induce guilt for opposing oppose massive non-White immigration to Greece: “Greek Far Right Hangs a Target on Immigrants.” Wall-to-wall. 24/7.)

It’s a long story why Whites are so susceptible to such manipulations. But yes, it matters who runs the media.

This is a short list of things that could possibly challenge the dominance of the current system:

• Victory by a European Nationalist Party, such as Greece’s Golden Dawn (the focus of the NYTimes article), Hungary’s Jobbik, or France’s National Front. If one European country manages to have a nationalist revolution and manages to withstand the severe pressures that would be immediately arrayed against it, there would be a transformative effect on the rest of the White world.

• The effect on the rest of the White world would be especially powerful as the costs of multiculturalism inexorably rise throughout the West and Western economies suffer from the effects of our predatory financial elite. There is a palpable anger in White America and throughout the White diaspora. It is unfocused or maladaptively focused (e.g., Christian Zionism). And it is without effective leadership. But it is a powerful force waiting to be harnessed.

• The rise of new media, able to avoid the stifling conformity to the culture of Western suicide being preached by the mainstream media throughout the West. Our word is getting out, even though it is to relatively a tiny audience, many of whom are already converted. If our media becomes obviously influential and a threat to the current regime, there will be powerful attempts to destroy it.

• But those on our side are increasingly intellectually confident and possessed of an intense moral fervor about the legitimacy of our cause. In the long run, such people are the worst enemies of the current zeitgeist. As recent research on opinion change shows, a small, confident, morally self-assured minority can dramatically alter the opinions of the majority. This has been the secret of Jewish success in influencing the culture of the West. But the ugliness of Israel and the egregious hypocrisy of American Jews on everything related to Israel are pretty much impossible to hide at this point. The emperor clearly has no clothes.

It’s not over until it’s over.

♣

The original article and comments can be read at
The Occidental Observer, here.

See also MacDonald’s “White pathology”.

The Red Giant

In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there. —We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.

—Nietzsche

Excerpted from an entry that Conservative Swede posted in his blog a few years ago:

I’m an island. I do not belong anywhere. I’m questioning the meaning of my blogging. I’m questioning the moniker I have adapted. “Conservative” like whom? Like View from the Right? Like Paul Belien? Like Gates of Vienna? No, no, and no. And definitely not like Majority Rights or Jim Kalb. And of course not like neocons and paleocons.

We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die. The world I live in consists of Christians and liberals. It’s their world and I do not belong to them. I leave their limited wars, knee-jerk Islam apologism and World War II mythology to them. They are not about to change. On the contrary, they are continuously generating new problems with their way of acting.

There were certain sites, certain bloggers, even certain countries, that I had put hope in. But now it has become clear that they are all part of the same big train of lemmings. Bye bye! Denmark, nope. Brussels Journal, nope. View from the Right, nope. Gates of Vienna, nope. This is the way it goes in the world of liberals & Christians. It’s their world. I can do nothing but sit on the side and laugh at it. They are too stuck in their inner fears and hang-ups to be able to do anything useful. They will do what they are programmed to do: demise.

So what’s the future for people like me? Because even if I belong nowhere politically, I belong somewhere socially and ethnically. Well, the world is being homogenized. Tomorrow the whole world will be like the Third World. People like me, of European ethnicity, will have no home, no nation. We will live like the Jews as elites in other people’s nations (preferably a non-Muslim nation).

These people are just not prepared for a proper fight. They are too much driven by superstitious fear and emotions. And there is not exactly anyone else around.

The historical demise of Christianity

Excerpted from 2009
discussion threads
at Gates of Vienna:

I [Conservative Swede] have written: “People today live in a historyless now-bubble-world, and have forgotten about all previous such complete reversals [revaluation of meta-ethical values], many of which happened in the last century.” Therefore the widespread and deep sense of hopelessness, I forgot to add. It’s hard to conceptualize a situation outside of the bubble, or the bubble not being there, when living inside of the bubble. However, history provides us with numerous examples of such reversals, of bubbles bursting, and of course new bubbles being built (we are bubble mammals after all).

This is my happy message, my gospel. People just need to let go their precious beliefs and myths, these huggy teddy bears. When deeply invested in the core beliefs of the bubble, it becomes impossible to look outside of the bubble, to think of a world without the bubble, and everything looks utterly hopeless. Well, it’s not. On the contrary, the bubble will burst.

Commenter said:

As a student of human nature, surely you know that the only way to get someone to “let go” is to offer him a better belief system.

CS [Conservative Swede] said:

On the contrary. Study paradigm changes both in the history of science and in political history, and you’ll find that it’s not until the prevailing paradigm collapses that the reconstruction work of a new paradigm begins. It’s exactly the prevailing paradigm that stands in the way of the change! Surely intellectual work has always been done beforehand by single individuals, but it cannot reach the collective level until the prevailing paradigm has fallen and the revolution takes place.

Commenter said:

The West needs to regain its free mind and healthy skepticism.

CS said:

There are no myth-free societies. What we would see after a change won’t be a society of people with “free mind and healthy skepticism”. What we’ll see is a society where people are driven by new collective myths. The idea of a society of people with free minds is… just that: a myth.

Commenter said:

I don’t believe we will ever change, there’s no white horseman coming, no revolution, only death.

CS said:

You are illustrating here exactly what Larry Auster described: How, when looking at things from within our present belief system, a reversal looks impossible. But that’s not how things work in a human society. What will be met by death are the institutions upholding the current order and belief system: the institutions in Brussels, the United Nations, the dollar hegemony, America as the world police, NATO, etc. The mental bubble will burst, and change will happen, after quite an amount of blood, death, catastrophe and traumas, of course.

Many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. Instead, the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied. At this point no white knight is needed. But there will be a number of black and gray knights involved. But the motor behind it will be the collectively changed Zeitgeist, not any white horseman.

Commenter said:

Geert Wilders is a sort of white horseman, and if people changed over the last decades they might change again. Presently many people are reading Robert Spencer and Mark Steyn. The paradigm may shift again.

CS said:

Here I disagree. Wilders is no white horseman and paradigms just don’t change that easily. However, Wilders and Spencer are doing a great, and very important job, in greasing the machinery, to catalyze the process. Due to their honesty they are bringing up the inner contradictions of the current paradigm to the surface, helping it to gradually self-implode. In the way of their bravery they are indeed white horsemen. But they are not going to save us. Far from it. As I said: first things will have to go terribly wrong, then we can save ourselves.

People think that they can get anywhere with combining an anti-Islam position with hate, despise and fear of Germans, in accordance with the great mythological narrative since World War II that our current paradigm is built upon. They can’t. By their hate, despise and fear of Germans their feet are still firmly stuck in the mud of the current paradigm. And furthermore, hate of Germans is the blueprint for hate of white people in general in this prevailing mythology. So by continuing to hate/despise/fear Germans, the westerners continue to gravitate towards white guilt and self-hate. These myths strike people at the sub-conscious level, which makes them defenseless against this gravity. It’s not until the westerners thoroughly revise their view on World War II that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.

Commenter said:

But non-transferred hate toward the truly guilty is most healthful and natural.

CS said:

Indeed it is. If I’m trying to generalize I think especially people of Protestant background have a problem with this. Or rather, they cannot allow themselves to hate unless it’s approved from authorities or the collective. This means, the left hates what they are “supposed” to hate. The right however—as I pointed out already above when discussing Wilders—loathes the ways of the left and commit themselves to act morally correct, that is, in this case abstaining from hatred. As you said, hate is a most natural and useful force. As I said above, any struggle or war comes down to psychology: the will power to win is what makes the whole difference between victory and defeat. And hate makes people stay committed to their will power to win. The left uses this all the time, an also always win. So to summarize, the left uses hate, they are prepared to bend any moral rule for the “higher moral good” and descend into any low level of dirty tricks and brutality; they take over the institutions to control the course of the country even if they are not in power. The right on the other hand tries to play it fair, morally and in a non-hateful way. And therefore always loses.

Unlike how it is presented, the relation between left and right is not symmetrical. Instead the left is the norm, and the people to the left are the holy people of secular Christianity. The right is just dancing along, effectively not being much more than an alibi for the whole setup, dancing in circles around the left, who is the one setting up the direction of “progression”. Occasionally pulling the break, but never setting up a new general course. The direction of the course is built into the paradigm, and never fundamentally questioned by the right.

Another evidence for the asymmetry between left and right is how right-wingers fear and loathe to be associated with any person or organization even slightly to the right of themselves (they feel that this would totally undermine their reputation), while willing to make connections magnitudes further into the left. Such as appearing in left-wing media, which often makes these right-wingers hilarious, since they feel they have gotten a stamp of approval thereby; while they can be paralyzed by fear of the thought of being published in a right-wing magazine just slightly to the right of themselves.

Continuing on the theme of hate, America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater. However, historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.

After World War II European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms were American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.

In the 50s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed by America in Western Europe. Adorno’s The F-Factor describes European conservatism as a psychological pathology related to fascism.

But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn’t live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americanism wasn’t born in Europe but also imported from the US. The problem for America was that in their quest to end all “evil” empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves, for example by inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and “holier than thou”. And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of World War II.

The turning point came by the end of the 60s—the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism, but as “evil” right-wing countries.

We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In World War I and World War II America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one. So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed. But not based on restoring any other patriotism, but by going even deeper into deranged progressivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated, while if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it’s seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia).

So this gives a background to why Wilders, Vlaams Belang, etc. have a pro-American and pro-Israeli profile, and even stress these patriotisms more than their own. So far I’m fine with that. Just because it has to be so. As I pointed out above: Wilders is exactly what he has to be (in this stage). But here comes the problem.

When the threat of Islam is added to the historical situation I gave above, there are westerners who wake up from their deranged progressivism. But they generally revert back to the 50s (myself I reverted to before World War I). In the face of the Islamic aggression their patriotism gets heightened. But this is a patriotism based on a narrative based on hate of Germany and Russia.

So when intensifying this American patriotism in order to build-up the necessary hate against Islam, the hate against Russia and Germany heightens simultaneously. There does not seem to be a way to slide this parameter up without this happening. NATO was after all built on the motto of “Keeping Russia out, Germany down, and America in.” And since this narrative in its previous step is based on de-legitimization of European patriotism in general, and how hate and demonization of Germans is the blueprint for white guilt and self-hatred, we have a more general problem here too.

Not all awakened people react like this. But even the people that don’t, they stay within the frames of the permitted patriotisms (as described for Wilders above), and therefore find no basis to effectively oppose the belligerent types, when they intensify their hate against Russia, Germans, etc. And for the reasons I described above these sort of strong voices come exclusively from America and Israel (no one else would be allowed according to the paradigm). And for the same reason, the people in the anti-Jihad network who do not descend into this sort of destructive hatred and belligerence, do not voice any strong objections against it, and mostly no objections at all. Europeans cannot speak like this, but instead we see for example Wilders aligning himself with these sort of strong American and Israeli patriotic voices.

My point is that the front line of the current stage of the anti-Jihad movement is therefore full of inner contradictions. This is why Wilders, even under the best conditions, can never be anything more than a Kerensky. A rule of Wilders or his kind will succumb from its inner contradictions. Nevertheless, I consider this a necessary step, as a way of lock-picking our current paradigm.

As I described above, France and Britain hold a slightly more privileged position in this setup, having been the allies of America in World War II—not being delegitimized until 1956. Thus under certain conditions they are allowed to operate in a very restrictive sphere of remnants of their former colonial empires. But of course only with approval from America. Falkland can be OK (if a list of requirements are fulfilled). But India would never be OK, obviously. France and Britain were once shining examples of Enlightenment progressivism. But when America emerged as the greatest power, no one could match her as the beacon of egalitarian progressivism. After all France and Britain had been colonial powers, so they just had to fade away. Consider that the superpower of the world (America) had once been a colony itself! There was no longer any legitimacy for France and Britain.

But nevertheless, due to the background described above, they are considered much more benevolent and not at all as dangerous as Russia and Germany. Thus we can find these small exceptions to the general picture, but it does not change the general picture. Britain and France started off as allies of America. They even set up NATO together. Many Brits still consider America as an ally, and NATO as something good for British interests. They are wrong of course.

Commenter said:

Russian military action is never, ever seen as acceptable. Not under any circumstances, no matter what.

CS said:

Well then imagine Germany doing that…

Baron: regarding what you wrote about hate I agree with what you say. There are two points to be made. And for the purpose of this let’s see hate as a tool:

(1) Is it sinful to use hate as a tool? No!

(2) Now to the practical side of it, which you covered. Is it always practical to use hate as a tool? No it’s not always practical. Typically it does not make sense to build up hate in a situation where you have nowhere to direct it. So in this sense the fire needs to be controlled. But on the other hand, once the conditions are right, and the matter is truly about survival, then it can be useful to use the hate full throttle. Because if your enemy is more passionate they will win. So for the purpose of that it is good to have clarified that hatred is not sinful.

♣

This is the fundamental error by the right-wing. They truly believe that the left-wingers want to destroy our civilization, want to be dhimmified, etc. But this is not what the left-wing perceive themselves as doing. They see themselves as maximizing goodness. And we’re talking of Christian goodness here, ’cause the Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left-wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West”.

Commenter said:

Many of the seemingly crazy excesses now on display are not so much a perversion of Western civilization as a fulfillment of it.

CS said:

And when I say “finish” above, there are a couple of layers to that word.

Commenter said:

So what we will have to concentrate on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne, a networked sanctuary where what is good and valuable can be stored and kept for use in a future time after the chaos is over—if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

CS said:

This is a beautiful analogy. And precisely as I see the things. Only, of course, that I want to save the Vikings from Christianity, rather than the other way around.

Commenter said:

…if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

CS said:

Oh, about this I’m confident and positive, as I have already said. There’s surely no way to stop the chaos coming. But just as surely, from the ashes of the chaos, a fantastic renaissance will grow. We will prevail, severely hurt yes, but with an ironclad inspired spirit. I just hope the chaos will start soon enough, so that I will be able to live when the turnaround happens.

My conclusion is that we’ll have to revert far back in history in order to find something sustainable to build on, to cut off the rotten and infected areas. For some things a hundred years, for some a thousand years. It’s definitely not enough to revert the social revolution of the ’68.

Commenter said:

Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.

CS said:

This is a very important sentence which conveys so very much, if we just examine it closely. Not only the liberals, but also most people (anti-liberals), who see and fear the fall of the liberal world order, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased.

But neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. This is what [my worldview] is based on, what Chechar refers to as my optimism. It’s just following the conservative principle you gave here. But unfortunately the effect of the current belief system is so strong even on anti-liberals, that they cannot see that.

So it’s the liberal layer (on top of evolution, culture, and traditions) that will get peeled off, together with those traditions that led to liberalism in the first place.

The fall of this liberal world order will hit us hard (together with the destruction that liberalism has already caused). But we won’t suddenly just disappear. And as long as we are around we have millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition on our side.

Even if there would be only 100 millions left of us, we are the best people in the history of mankind. As Huntington pointed out, we have always been superior in the ability to apply organized violence. As soon as the will power is there, we can achieve anything we please. We can rule any continent where we choose to live, as long as the liberal layer gets peeled off. And it’s bound to come off, since it’s just a cosmetic layer. The reason that it has not come off yet is that it has not yet become obvious to the collective mind that it has failed. But that is about to change.

♣

Norse mythology is a much more useful mythological narrative than Christianity, which does not only mean adherence to universalist individualism and the importation of a foreign god (and in its final stages the importation of a lot of other immigrants), but also has a mythological narrative where the survival of our own people hold no significance whatsoever.

The only people that are guaranteed to survive until the end of days in Christianity are the Jews. Swedes, Italians etc., are of no significance whatsoever. We see all these tenets of Christianity manifested around us today: even in how the struggle for ethnic survival of the Jews is accepted within our current paradigm, while it is not accepted for the other people of our civilization. Each ethnic group needs her great mythological narrative, starting with the birth of her people and guaranteeing their existence until the end of times. Without such a narrative the dissolvement of the ethnic group eventually becomes self-fulfilling: there’s nothing holding it together.

We see this happening around us in the very now with eager work to dissolve our countries and ethnic groups. In Christianity the Germanic people cannot (as a people) have a relation with god, only the Jewish people has. Germanic (and other) people can only have a relation with god as individuals. People are directed by myths more than anything else, so with a narrative where your ethnic group is of no importance, it will eventually become self-fulfilling (i.e., the opposite effect of self-confidence as a group).

Commenter said:

In that case, I would be very interested to hear what you propose should be done to save western civilisation.

CS said:

And there is your assumption again: that the Western Christian civilization should be saved, that it can be reformed, be mended; while I’m assuming that the current order, the current belief system, will self-implode. And as the current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization, which has reached a dead end, this means the end of Western Christian civilization as such. Yes, we are seeing something like the fall of Rome before us.

I’ve been clear about this from the very beginning. For example, three days ago I wrote: “Likewise many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. But instead the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied.”

Yes: the Western Christian civilization is exactly the problem, and the problem is solved by it going away.

What we should hold on to are our ethnic groups and European civilization and culture in the deeper sense. Western Christian civilization is a novelty and now it failed. Western Christian civilization is just the tip of that iceberg. It’s just a way of politically organizing our peoples. We should not save this format, but save the matter.

The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I’m saying: (i) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and (ii) it’s all over now.

It is unsustainable for Germanic people to keep Christianity. It would indeed mean their death. And since the Western Christian civilization is all about Germanic people meeting Christianity, the necessary turnaround for Germanic people also means the definitive end of Western Christian civilization. Africans and Italians sticking to Christianity does not make a Western Christian civilization.

When I talk of Christianity I use it in the same sense as Huntington or Qutb. That is, it doesn’t matter those who claim to be atheists, they are equally much Christians in this perspective. In fact, you will find that they stick to Christian ethics even stronger than the nominal Christians: trying to be holier than thou, as if trying to get in line before the nominal Christians to the heaven they don’t believe in.

Medieval Catholicism was nicely mixed and balanced with Roman and Greek components. The explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels was kept secret from the general public. The Protestant Reformation changed that. Christianity became purified into its Hebrew component, and the explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels were set free. This purification was taken even further, and completed, by the Puritans and the Quakers that left across the Atlantic, to found America. And these are the people who rule our civilization today.

There are several reasons why Christianity leads to secularism in its latter phases. Let me get back to that if there is interest, since this is becoming very long as it is.

Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity. (I have written much about that in my blog.) With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

Thus the Western Christian civilization caused the population explosion in the Third World. It is entirely caused by the Western Christian civilization, since these Third World countries were completely unable to do this themselves. Christian ethics commands that every single human life should be saved if possible. Before, more than half of the children in Third World countries died. Now virtually all survive, and we have the population explosion.

What this will lead to is the following:

With the dollar collapse and the complete breakdown of our economical (and then political) world order, mass starvation will spread like a wildfire across the southern hemisphere. This since their population numbers are not supported by themselves, but entirely backed by us. It will all fall apart.

So the concrete effect of Christian ethics here is to make the number of people that will die in starvation and suffering as high as possible once it hits (we are speaking of billions thanks to Christian ethics). Only the devil himself could think out such a brutally cruel scheme, and Christian ethics of course, in which case it’s according to the idiom “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

But that’s not enough. This mass starvation, where we can expect something like 2/3 of the people dying in the Third World countries, will slash these societies into pieces, and they will meet a complete breakdown.

In the alternative scenario, where the Christian ethics would have kept its fingers away, these countries would have supported themselves: every year many children would have died at a pretty constant pace. But this is a stable phenomenon that does not at all threaten the stability of their societies. When the Western economical order falls apart, they would not be the least affected.

But Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. They cannot keep their fingers away. So they are dooming them to mass starvation in the billions and complete breakdowns of their societies. This is the concrete effect of Christian ethics.

At this point it wouldn’t help putting back god and Christ into the equation. Instead we need to leave Christian ethics.

I have already stated how Western Christian civilization = Germanic people + Christianity. I will now clarify why specifically Germanic people need to leave Christianity.

Look at the phenomenon of clan mentality around the world. In many places around the world it is strong, in Europe it is not. But even within Europe there are clear differences. Indeed we find clan mentality in Southern Europe, while there’s none of it in Northern Europe (among Germanic people).

There are historical reasons for this. In the cold north people lived far apart. Human contacts were few, and strangers were therefore treated with friendliness. This was the best survival strategy in this context. However, the Mediterranean area was crowded, and there was always competition about land and resources. The best survival strategy in such a context was to stick to your clan, in this tight competition.

The whole point of Christian ethics, when it works well, is to have a balancing effect on the morality of people. In the Mediterranean area it had a balancing effect on the natural clan mentality, leaving a good result. However, Germanic people, as described above, have a natural altruism. When combined with the unfettered Christian ethics of the latter stages of the Western Christian civilization, it creates an interference that goes completely out of bounds. The morality of Germanic people has reached a point where it has to be balanced back, or we will perish. To create this balance Germanic people have to leave Christian ethics. (Romance and Slavic people can keep Christianity. It’s not a matter of life or death for them.)

What we are witnessing in the present time is the great tragedy of Germanic people.

With the lack of clan mentality, we find that Germanic people are the ones that most faithfully turn their loyalty towards the nation. But due to the inherent universalism of Christianity, we see in the current incarnation of Western Christian civilization how nations are considered illegitimate and gradually being dissolved. The nationalist loyalty of the Germanic people becomes redirected to universalist loyalty; still lacking of clan mentality.

Germanic people do not use the power of their family to solve problems. They go to a higher level, the authorities. To use the power of your family to solve a problem is here considered a sin, we are supposed to abide to the law. In Italy or Spain people do use the power of their family to solve problems.

There is an abundance of stories in blogs from Northern Europe of kids who go through their whole school time being beaten up by Muslim on a weekly basis. The furthest the parents of these children would do is to bring up the problem with the authorities (and possibly having a “dialog” with the Muslim parents). Which of course will do nothing about it, since the belief system of the authorities doesn’t allow for it. And even so the parents never use the power of their family to deal with the problem. They are programmed to abide to the law and the order.

I cannot see this happening in Italy or Spain. There is a whole different mentality. There would be an outrage, and the whole family would be engaged in the matter. Mostly not going into mafia methods, but in some places yes.

Germanic people are simply wired the wrong way to being able to survive in a multiethnic context. Or to be exact: Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are. We managed fine in the age of the great migrations and as Vikings.

Now we are entering a world of multiethnic societies at a planetary level. And the Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are constitutionally unfit for this. Unless we leave Christian ethics, we will perish. Or rather, those who cling to Christian ethics will perish, according to the law of the survival of the fittest. But enough Germanic people will leave Christian ethics, for Germanics to survive as a people.

Leaving Christian ethics has nothing to do with becoming secular (as I explained above). To the contrary, it makes it worse! What is needed is to introduce another great mythological narrative into the minds of the Germanic people. This is the only way to replace the moral grammar of Christianity. Something with roots in our long history. This must be done by political means, by a regime with such a focus. But given that focus, it’s not such a big thing to achieve. There are numerous historical examples of how to do it. And it only takes a generation to make the change (even less). And in a dire situation, after a major trauma, it will be even easier.

♣

“…to replace the moral grammar of Christianity” (cited above). And thus we are speaking of the deepest level of a paradigm change here. Our very concept of good and bad, our moral grammar, has to be transformed.

In sort of perspective, even the apparent moral tautology “We should strive for what is good, and fight against what is bad” no longer holds true.

Our very concepts of good and bad is what has to be transformed. It’s hard to think outside of this box. But that’s the whole point of the word paradigm. It’s a box that it is virtually impossible for people in general to think outside of. I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a deeper understanding of the concept paradigm. It’s truly a mental box we are trapped within. In the same way we are about to witness the transformation of our whole grammar of morality, quite as our grammar of morality was different before the Age of Christianity.

When the paradigm shifted from Newton to Einstein, it didn’t mean the end of science. I just meant the end of a scientific era, which became replaced with a new one. In the same manner the fall of the Western Christian civilization does not mean the end of European civilization in the larger sense. It just means a new era. Quite as when the Roman-Greek civilization was replaced by the Western Christian.

Watching Eagle also contributed, further above, in completing this picture for us in describing how America “was the champion of human fertility rates for nearly 250 years. The fertility rates of this nation soared like a fighter jet with full afterburners, from the Pilgrims to the Civil War.”

Commenter said:

The latter, being literalists, conceived of themselves as the direct successors to the ancient Israelites who had been given divine authority to kill the Caananites and establish Israel. The Protestants looked on themselves as the New Israelites and the Native Americans as the New Caananites to be wiped out.

CS said:

It’s sad indeed that Christians have to imagine themselves as Israelites in order to become truly good fighters, which implies effective total war, and the psychology of will power to win at any cost.

Once again it is the same pattern of Christianity that I discussed above, when discussing permitted patriotisms. Our own ethnicity is utterly insignificant in the Christian narrative, while the Jewish ethnicity holds a pivotal position. So Christians have to use this substitute ethnicity to find true confidence and strength.

Good total war has been waged by Christians when imagining themselves as Israelites aiming for building the New Jerusalem. They can also fight limited war in the name of the universal good, or for the sake of Israel (for example the crusades).

But war by Christians in the name of their own ethnicity is considered illegitimate; well, not even of importance.

In Christianity we cannot be ourselves. We have to pretend we are someone else.

I still think the Russians can use their Christianity in an efficient way, just since their Christianity hasn’t been washed through the Enlightenment, quite as the American pilgrims and the Boers, discussed above, hadn’t. Nor Spain of La Reconquista, of course. But we can stay assured that the Christians having been washed through the Enlightenment—and then the Industrial Age, liberalism and secularism—won’t be able to see themselves as Israelites. So this strength is not coming back within the context of Christianity.

Why not be ourselves instead? Replace the current mythological narrative with one where we are ourselves. After all, that is the simple truth: We are ourselves. Christianity is based on deception and distortion of reality.

Another way to go, for those unable to imagine themselves as the Israelites, is at least to make Christianity universal instead of Jewish. Such as we saw recently here at GoV in how many people in Poland for example do not see Jesus as Jewish.

There’s no way to win within the frames of Christianity…

Commenter said:

I agree that Christianity is at the end of its tether and is unable to assert itself without breaking its own value system. Probably something similar must have happened in India during Muslim invasions, where Buddhist ideas of compassion and Karma (you get what you deserve, because you produced the cause) left them completely defenseless. They indeed had no narrative that would support their collective existence.

CS said:

This is an excellent historical comparison. An universalist religion of goodness is replaced with the original national gods, when faced with a threat of existential magnitude.

Commenter said:

Altogether, CS, yours is the most complete argument for the death of Christianity I can imagine, certainly more complete than what Nietzsche has ever written.

CS said:

Thanks, that’s a very nice thing to say. Of course, I had an unfair advantage, since I could read Nietzsche, but he couldn’t read me.

Commenter said:

I am always impressed by the fact that the further North you go in Europe, where people are more Germanic, the more harmonious mastery of mind over nature you can see.

CS said:

Yes, we have focused on fighting nature instead of each other. All due to our historical situation. If we didn’t fight nature we died. If we hadn’t isolated our house and stored up well for the winter we died. Out of this a special kind of cooperation between people grew. A traditionalist form of egalitarianism, which apart from Sweden and Norway we only find in America (this is an interesting topic in itself, but no time for that now). However, if you put unfettered Christian ethics on top of that…

Commenter said:

Corruption is almost non-existent [in Scandinavia], which I think is quite a feat!

CS said:

Implied by the lack of clan mentality. But in our current habitat this mentality is exactly what is killing us.

♣

A necessary condition for such a Germanic project—and for the renaissance of Europe altogether!—is the return of Germany. Germany today is the planetary bully victim, bound and caged in many layers of chains and bars. Not permitted to show even a single shred of national self-confidence. We won’t see that until American troops have left Germany, and the whole NATO regime has been reversed. But it will come. Rest assured.

Above is the first step, and, let’s say, how far I think we’ll come in this century.

For the beginning of the next century, we will be in a situation with China as the great power. There will also be competition with Russia. Probably China will be first in occupying the oil fields around the Persian Gulf, but we will be competing with them about it.

America together with France and Britain will be utterly discredited, seen as the guilty ones for the greatest treason in the history of mankind against their own people (as Fjordman put it); while Germany was completely innocent in this, and will hold the morally superior position.

France might no longer exist, having first been overrun by Muslims, and then reconquered by Germanic people.

The United States will no longer exist. But the Confederation of the Northern US States will be a natural ally to the Germanics.

Maybe there will be something as a Germanic empire at this point. Or maybe even two, one German speaking and one English speaking. But I’m not as sure about the English speaking one (I’m not saying people won’t speak English, only that there might not be a separate empire with English as the official language).

I’m sure we will be able to interact well with both China and Russia. Within the context of power balance, like in the good old days before Woodrow Wilson’s idiotic idea of an organized world peace.

Commenter said:

But you have to be very optimistic to believe that the current European Zeitgeist will do an 180º turn.

CS said:

In fact, 180º turns are very common. You mention the failure of Hitler’s Nazism. Well, after World War II the mythological narrative of the Western Christian civilization mandated doing everything 180º opposite to Nazism. Things that had been the most natural, such as European nationalism, was turned around 180º. And this is the derangement syndrome we now suffer severely under. Once this American/Anglo/French totalitarian horror show has crash landed, I can assure you a 180º turn away from their position. Another example is the French Revolution, which was a 180º turn—even 180 degrees away from normal sanity and common sense.

Will American troops reside in Germany forever? No. When it comes to the imminent fall of the current order, there are too many factors in motion at the same time that each alone has the potential of making it fall: dollar collapse, ethnic civil war, Iranian nukes, weak and paralyzed leadership.

Commenter said:

Larry Auster, the subject of this thread, is bolder in realizing this than those in other counter-jihad, conservative websites.

CS said:

While Auster is more insightful than the most, he’s still stuck on mending the Western Christian civilization. For him Christianity is a constant that he is unable to reflect about. His blog is good for following the complete failure of American conservatism. And also for racial issues (i.e. the failure of the American way of dealing with racial issues). The rest is not very useful, and he believes in the strangest things, for example astrology. His position on Islam is also too weak. Quite as the Catholic Church he’s caught in the Abrahamic trap. And he’s too cross-eyed about “liberalism” to see things clearly.

♣

I find Germanic people boring and square, but sort of brilliant (history clearly shows that). After about a decade out in the cold, I have once again taken Germanic people to my heart because I can see their great tragedy. I think I can see their dilemma and how to solve it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for Poles, Spaniards and Celts to take an interest in this for the political stability it would give to all of Europe, once the current order falls. Without it there would be a huge power vacuum.

Who would expand into that? Russia, China, Islam? Or first Islam, then Russia, and finally China? That’s the good thing with the day the American troops leave Germany, because at that time the Germanic European will be forced to immediately build a strong military power. And you could imagine how many of the good things that we have discussed here would be catalyzed by that.

When I say that I want Christian ethics to go away, it’s not because I want to see a 180 degree turn away from it. Instead it is Christianity that ended up in steep imbalance. What I want to do is to balance things back. So what I have suggested is:

1) A new great mythological narrative where our own ethnic group is given the pivotal position; 2) A constitution where citizenship is reserved for people of our ethnic group. 3) Alien ethnic groups, typically from the Third World, that do not identify with our ethnic group, will have to be removed one way or the other.

Auster might sound strong at first glance, but upon closer examination he’s not. He’s still stuck in the liberal reservations stemming from Enlightenment thinking (yes, our current belief system). He wants to build his solution on America and Christianity. He’s still into saving and mending the Western Christian civilization. Accordingly, he’s still more worried about how we view ourselves according to the prevailing (and self-defeating) moral grammar, rather than dealing with real problems in a proper way. If Auster is the best America can produce, it’s definitely the end of America. It’ll be China that deals with it.

Commenter said:

Germany might be the Aragorn indeed.

CS said:

Have you been reading my blog? My take on “Lord of the Rings” is there.

Commenter said:

And I am just a silly hobbit.

CS said:

I’m just a silly hobbit too. But remember how the hobbits held a pivotal position in that book.

♣

I think it is clear that the people won’t turn away from the current belief system with less than a major catastrophe.

But this time the catastrophe is not something as benign as a “Western civil war”, but something of a higher magnitude, and of real external threats (which we are not the least prepared for). If we had only been facing something as harmless as World War I or World War II, I wouldn’t have been speaking of the end of the Western Christian civilization. If there only had been two strong sides of the West fighting each other to death, we wouldn’t have been facing this discontinuity of our civilization.

But now it is our very belief system that makes us unable to fight and defend our civilization. And the threat is external, and when we lose, it means this discontinuity. Losing here means losing our dominant position, not that everything is lost.

Our current empire will fall, that is, America, and not to another Western empire as before—since this time there is no one standing in line—but to external forces.

The reason that I welcome this is that I see it as inevitable. I cannot wait to come out on the other side and once again have a thriving culture with all the achievements that you have mentioned and also cherish: freedom, art, science, etc. Without anything to struggle for, such achievements will not be made. However, if we do not meet a major catastrophe within the next twenty years, we will be silently walking into our demographic eclipse, something that could indeed mean the end European civilization and the values that you have talked about.

The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands.

If this process continues we will end up in diaspora as the Jews. And with white people as a mere 2-3% of the world’s population and without our own homeland, that’s indeed the end of European civilization altogether, and we can say goodbye to the manifestation of all these values that you and I cherish.

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes (population explosion etc.). So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. If it would continue a few decades more it will mean the definitive goodnight for all of us.

So to summarize: When I speak of civilization as in the Western Christian civilization, I speak of a concrete manifestation, an empire. And when I speak of civilization as in European civilization, I speak of the existence and self-government of white people, and the values and life style that is integral in our beings. But now we have come to a point where the former is the greatest threat to the latter.

In Aristotelian terms European civilization is the matter to the Western Christian civilization, which is the form. That is, white people is the matter for the current Western Christian “empire”. But now the form is suffocating the matter.

Commenter said:

“It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.”

Why do you say this? Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s, before the radical feminists almost took away our highest divine right from us: women? If lots of women would still be with us at home having lots of beautiful kids, as the Pope likes, the present problem wouldn’t exist, would it? Doesn’t the sexual revolution is to blame for the demographic winter? And isn’t Islamization of the West a mere by-product of our dwarfing ethnicity? If so why do you blame Western Christian civilization? Rome fell precisely because infanticide (the abortion of classical times) and contraception was practiced massively since the times of Julius Caesar. However, since Constantine and Theodosius the Church made enormous efforts to stop infanticide.

I agree that a major catastrophe is needed. That’s why, as I have iterated elsewhere, every morning I wake up with yearning dreams of mushroom clouds above Western cities to wake me up—and waking up the West. But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?

Yes: I know you want to delve deeper into the root cause. But I still think that solid arguments based on demographic winter show us that the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s. In mean, the West was still healthy the year in which I was born! (maybe because you were born after that you haven’t seen the healthy West with your own eyes). We tried to trick the god Eros through contraception and the liberation of women. We are suffering now for having messed with the laws of Nature. Our present problems with a revived Islam are Venus’ revenge.

Curious, eh, that I am not a Christian—like Tannhäuser I look for the grotto of Venus—yet I admire conservative Protestants and Catholics on this issue?

CS said:

You need to read more carefully, because you missed my point. I repeat what I said:

The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands. It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.

Our declining birth rates have a slow effect in comparison with the exponential growth that the population explosion and demographic Jihad means.

And it’s exactly because of Christian ethics that people, like for example you, entirely look at our own birth rates (narrowly blaming feminism etc.), instead of focusing on the much bigger and alarming problem caused by us: the population explosion in the Third World.

For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, it causes the population explosion in the world. It’s a deeply held doctrine within Christian ethics that every single human life across the planet must be saved if possible. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet. But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only for us but also for them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s?

Sure it was. But the better our lives got, the more we destroyed, and the faster we destroyed it. It was exactly in the ’50s that this problem started. In the ’50s people of European descent was 30% of this planet, today we are just a little more than 10%. Not by us decreasing (in fact we are more than in the ’50s) but by the rest of the planet exploding in numbers, from 3 to 7 billion people—all caused by us.

The population of Africa is four and a half times higher than in 1950. And the population in Asia almost three times higher.

As I have already explained: With a highly developed industrial society, the Western people got a huge surplus of resources, and much more time at their hands. Since Christian ethics mandates what it does, they have since went around the world to save every single little life that they could: using Western medicine, modern fertilizers, GMO crops, and all other means possible, in order to keep as many alive as possible. Thus the population explosion.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity.

But it took all these centuries until we had an industrialized society that made it possible to enact. And because of that Christian ethics mandated that we caused this Third World population explosion. Something that could never have achieved themselves, which makes our deed so deeply irresponsible in so many ways, just because it’s artificial. Which means (i) they are not adapting their life-style accordingly but continue and continue to explode in numbers, and (ii) they are completely depending on us, which means their societies will totally break apart once our economic world order collapses.

That means that we will have to remove the industrial society, if we want to keep Christian ethics. Think over which one you appreciate the most.

But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?… the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s.

No, this is not a matter of reverting the ’60s revolution. It goes far deeper than that. You know, the ’60s revolution wasn’t brought to us by extraterrestrials. There is an internal logic to our civilization, and its ideals, that led to that. It wasn’t an accident. Start looking at the French Revolution.

In general your answer is about rejecting the ’60s and going back to older Christian values, rejecting for example abortion and contraception. But this is just a stronger version of the Christian dogma to save every single human life possible. If anything it would just make the Third World population explosion worse! The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form. And if you bring in more deeply Christian people, it will only make it worse.

Commenter said:

When I studied a thick biology text at college, the photo of a Western doctor in the book caught my attention. He was vaccinating dozens upon dozens of black children in Africa!

Instantly I harbored the thought to drop out. How on Earth would a sane person do that, I told myself silently? That deranged altruism was, to my heart, like an industrial factory that produced hundreds of thousands of poor people, like a clon army: future adults who’d have a miserable life anyway. “How am I studying a hard science when the values of mankind are so, er, psychotic,” continued my soliloquy.

Of course, it’s impossible that the liberal mentality understands the mind of a post-Christian individual.

CS said:

First the dollar bubble will burst, and soon after the population explosion bubble. At this point people will see that Christian ethics caused this whole thing, and it will be utterly discredited.

This narrow-minded dogma of saving every possible life, will instead have caused more death and suffering than if Christian ethics hadn’t meddled with the situation in the first place. It’s like a plan the devil had thought out. To give birth to billions of people that could then be killed in one single blow in mass starvation.

What this Christian dogma hasn’t taken in consideration is that each society needs to be self-dependent. Because sooner or later there comes hard times. And if we have made them utterly dependent of us, what they will face then is death, since they cannot support themselves.

So what this Christian dogma will have caused is the death of societies. So much simultaneous death will kill also the societies. This would never have happened if this Christian dogma hadn’t entered the picture in the first place. A constant degree of child deaths, while being self-dependent in the traditional way, would have been the best thing for these societies. And wouldn’t have hurt them; and neither have hurt us.

I think that once it has happened, people will see this point clearly, and change their ways.

“Feed the world” beats saving the resources of our planet (i.e. actually saving the planet), according to the moral grammar of our current belief system. Quite as multiculturalism and Islamophilia beats for example feminism (as they say: “Race beats gender”). Our moral grammar is full of such hierarchies, from which the priorities are derived, once the objectives end up in conflict with each other. To save every single possible human life is one of our deepest dogmas. But try to discuss overpopulation with these anti-CO2 freaks (i.e. 90% of the Westerners). Even when believing in their theory about “global warming by human CO2” it would be clear that this problem would be strongly connected to overpopulation. But to address that as a problem is an utter taboo for these people.

And just a general note: People here at Gates of Vienna focus on the immigration problem. But mass immigration is just the local projection of this much larger and more fundamental problem of which I’m talking of here, that is, the planetary population explosion and our attitudes towards it (which also caused it). It won’t help to address the immigration problem without addressing this global problem. That is, it won’t help to be a lonely, purely Polish, if surrounded by Arabs, Pakistanis and Africans all along the border.

What is happening across the world is the large scale version of what is happening within our countries. Our relative numbers are diminishing by theirs increasing exponentially, in both cases.

♣

Things will not be able to turn around until the current belief system breaks apart, and makes a 180 degree turn. The main thing we can do today is to thoroughly prepare for that moment. These preparations also help protecting ourselves from violence and hardships in any sort of context. So no matter what future scenario one envisions, I’d say that the breakdown of the current belief system is not that far away.

I’d give it around a decade.

Mark Steyn

Steyn at the center, wearing a Kippah with Jews at Toronto

This month at Toronto, the famed author Mark Steyn said that Western society is complicit in a resurgence of anti-Semitism that may lead to a second Holocaust, for which humankind will have no excuses. “There is something profoundly wicked in the contortions that Europeans are willing to make with respect to their own complicated history with the Jewish people,” said Steyn. “We are on the verge of the biggest, most disgusting and evil event of all, in part because of the complicity of the West” (see the Jewish Tribune article where these statement and many other similar statements by Steyn on “anti-Semitism” have been recorded).

Either Steyn is playing the fool by willfully setting aside from his consciousness the vast pool of information about the role of the Jews in the ongoing Western collapse, or he has not heard this sort of info during his long career as an intellectual who presumably defends our civilization. There’s no third possibility.

Considering that Steyn said every recorded word at Toronto assuming that any anti-Semitic sentiment must be pathological, it is impossible to discuss what he said this month without basic information about the Jewish Problem.

If the Jewish Problem (1) does indeed exist, Steyn is either playing the fool or simply someone who has not heard of the Jewish Problem throughout his life, as stated above. On the other hand, if (2) the Jewish Problem is sheer white nationalist paranoia, Steyn’s recent statements make sense from the historical and ethical viewpoint. Everything has to do with these two possibilities.

The long quotation that below comprises most of this post—9,000+ words—conveys the idea that #1 is the right approach to understand Steyn’s mind.

Rather than a quotation it’s a series of excerpts that I typed directly from an academic work by Albert Lindemann, a Jewish scholar who specializes in anti-Semitism and acknowledges the reasons why Jews have been so disliked.

No ellipsis added between unquoted excerpts:


___________________________________________

Note of February 23, 2013. I have moved the long book quotation elsewhere.

Quotable quotes (Letter G)

A people or a civilization that abandons its will to power inevitably perishes. —Guillaume Faye

The following quotations come from several articles and comments authored by our friend Greg:

When we are a minority, there is not going to be affirmative action for us. And when that sinks in, we have arrived at White Nationalism.

*   *   *

White Nationalism can appeal to the most powerful passions that drive mass political movements: resentment, victimhood, anger, hatred of a system designed not merely to swindle and degrade us, but ultimately to destroy us… We need to stoke their resentment and outrage until they are fighting mad… But when the time for politics comes, it will necessarily be a form of modern mass politics fueled by resentment.

*   *   *

Nationalism for Israel makes Israel stronger; internationalism for everybody else makes Diaspora Jewry stronger.

*   *   *

To win this battle, it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters who cannot return to normal society to enjoy the fruits of victory. We need leaders who are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to this cause. I don’t believe there is an immortal soul, but psychologically speaking what passes for it are immortal scruples or absolute principles other than victory. All these need to be slain and sacrificed on the altar of victory.

9/11: White nationalist paranoia

“We believe whatever we want to believe”

—Demosthenes

Further to my May 7, 2011 piece “Oh silly truthers…”

In the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks I am becoming increasingly disappointed with the irrational will to believe whatever we want to believe in the nationalist movement.

I’d be delighted that Mossad, the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, orchestrated the attacks. That could certainly boost legitimacy to our agenda among non-nationalist whites. But my cognitive processes are not dissociated enough from reality to make such a gigantic leap of faith and dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

My field of expertise is not racialism or politics but deep psychology, especially the trauma model of mental disorders caused by poor parenting. How did I become dragged into that field? It’s a long story. But for the moment let me confess that I am a triple apostate: since my teenage years I gave up Christianity, then a cult, Eschatology, and finally a pseudoscience, parapsychology (for a brief summary see here). The whole spiritual odyssey to give up faith in these beliefs destroyed my life, as many other lives are being destroyed among those who fall in destructive cults as a defense mechanism resulting from a failed intent to escape from the abuse at home.

That’s why I am indebted to Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Alcock and many other skeptics of the paranormal who taught me how to think critically about extreme claims, whether religious, paranormal or conspiratorial. The last time I saw them, in a 1994 Seattle conference, I had the pleasure to experience a handshake from Carl Sagan, author of The Demon-Haunted World, a book that encourages laypeople to learn critical thinking. During that event I also attended a conference debunking the conspiracy theories about the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Hadn’t all of these skeptics vaccinated my mind against magical thinking I’d still be immersed in it. Unfortunately, only through a dark night of the soul it’s possible to realize that we believe whatever we want to believe, and that those beliefs are not always rational or based on fact. Which means that the truthers in the nationalist movement won’t ever make an honest effort to listen the other side: they are forfeiting their dark night.

I gave up paranormality after more than fifteen years of belief in the paranormal precisely because at one point of my live, from 1990 to 1995, I made a serious effort to listen to those skeptical scholars who held diametrically opposed views of my cherished beliefs. Many white nationalists are not that honest; not even close to a mile. They won’t ever use such amount of time to listen to the other side.

Not all white nationalists are truthers of course (see e.g., this splendid summary by Ted Sallis published yesterday on how America became a madhouse after 9/11). But a substantial segment of the nationalist population believes in nuts like those ridiculed in this video.

Let me recontextualize what I’m trying to say. I admire Hitler and the Nazis. For Third Reich sympathizers like me the big question is, Were Jews slaughtered in World War 2? If Irmin Vinson’s approach to the so-called holocaust represents a quantum leap forward from mere denialism, a denialism almost ubiquitous in white nationalism, I believe it’s high time to apply the same flawless logic to the tragic events of a decade ago.

But most nationalists are no match to Vinson’s honesty…

Postscript of September 14

A featured author is now saying at Majority Rights that because I wrote this entry I must be… a Jew! After days of controversy he clings to his belief. He supports the claim that I am Jewish on the basis… of my criticism of the truth movement!

Well, this is magical thinking to be sure, or the deductive fallacy to use more academic language.

This is how paranoids and paranoiacs reason: If something major happens in the political world (e.g., the assassination of a president; an Islamic terrorist attack) there must be a conspiracy involving someone in the American government. If a critic is skeptical of any of these conspiracy theories, he himself must be part of the conspiracy (e.g., a Jewish blogger pretending to be a non-Jew).

Naturally, since paranoid modes of thought are endemic at Majority Rights I won’t ever comment there again. But I decided to write this postscript to show how this affaire corroborates my view that there is indeed a flaw in the white nationalist psyche.

Fortunately, not every nationalist suffers from paranoid delusions, as proven in the Johnson article that I republished here, and in the comments by Matt in this entry’s thread. It’s a pity though that those who subscribe to Aristotelian modes of thought are a minority in the movement.

Irmin Vinson on the Holocaust

If nationalists continue to be reluctant to debunk the postwar narrative about Hitler and the holocaust, and by this I don’t mean to deny that several genocides were committed against various ethnic groups in the twentieth century (including Jews), the white people won’t see the light. Ever.

Irmin Vinson’s articles on Hitler and the holocaust are essential reading for anyone who is remotely willing to see through the lies with which the elites have been brainwashing us for over sixty years. Although the latest Vinson article published by Counter-Currents Publishing deserves a more detailed reading, since it is more than seven thousand words, below I have cut it by less than a half. Take it as an invitation to print and read the full articles linked above (Counter-Currents has a friendly-printer option if you just reduce the size of the letters).

No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

♣

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the suffering of European Jewry during the Second World War lacked a name. It was just suffering, terminologically indistinguishable from, say, the suffering of Ukrainian peasants during Stalinist collectivization, or even the suffering of German civilians at the hands of the Red Army. The suffering of an American soldier crippled on D-Day, the suffering of a Jew starved at Bergen-Belsen, and the suffering of a German woman crucified on a barn door all belonged to the same broad generic category of wartime deaths and wartime suffering. In the Western democracies historians and the public at large paid, naturally enough, more attention to first two than to the latter, more attention to our suffering than to theirs, but no one believed that ours deserved a special name.

Beginning in the 1960s, during the course of the Civil Rights Revolution, that changed. One group, until then numbered on our side, the Jews, began to distinguish their suffering from everyone else’s.

“Holocaust,” the English version of “Shoah,” was first deployed to describe distinctively Jewish suffering during the 1961 Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, a trial consciously conducted as an educational enterprise, and it was not until the late 1960s that “Holocaust” began its ascent into public consciousness in the English-speaking world, propelled by a steadily growing number of essays and books bearing the term, most authored by Jews. In 1968 the Library of Congress replaced “World War, 1939-1945 — Jews” with “Holocaust, Jewish (1939–1945)”; in 1978 the influential television mini-series Holocaust appeared, watched by almost a hundred million Americans, its advertising financed by Jewish organizations; and in the same year President Carter established a commission, chaired by professional “survivor” Elie Wiesel, to create a national museum in Washington memorializing Jewish suffering in Europe. Holocaust remembering accelerated rapidly in the decade that followed, and by 1991 Rabbi Michael Berenbaum, then project director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, could boast, accurately, that World War II was merely a “background story” to the Holocaust. The contrary view, that the Holocaust was a footnote (“point de détail”) to the war, is now illegal in France and much of Europe, as the French nationalist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen discovered. The old view of World War II has not only been supplanted; in some countries it has literally been criminalized.

The Jewish Holocaust was a run-of-the-mill horror in a century that saw many horrors, no worse than the Armenian holocaust, or the Cambodian holocaust, or the Russian holocaust, or the Rwandan holocaust, or the Ukrainian holocaust.

Whose suffering gets publicly commemorated is a political decision based not on the magnitude of the suffering but on the political lessons that the commemorators hope to privilege.

There should be no real mystery why this occurred. Holocaust education in the public schools, Holocaust Studies programs at most major universities, a Week of Holocaust Remembrance in mid-April, annual Holocaust commemorations in fifty states, a Holocaust Museum on the Washington Mall, Holocaust documentary after Holocaust documentary, Holocaust film after Holocaust film — all testify either to the absolutely unprecedented character of Jewish suffering during World War II, a suffering that dwarfs all pseudo-holocausts into pitiable insignificance, or else to the power of Jews to foist their racial agenda on White Gentiles. Since the first alternative should be unthinkable — the death-tolls of Soviet and Chinese Marxism were twenty million and sixty-five million respectively, according to the Black Book — no one can seriously discuss contemporary “Holocaust mania” without also discussing Jewish power.

[Norman] Finkelstein has, however, no intention of discussing Jewish power, and he resolves the problem, in his own mind, by recourse to a fantasy common across the mainstream political spectrum, from Rush Limbaugh on the Right to Noam Chomsky on the Left — the fantasy of Israel as a valuable strategic resource, “a proxy for US power in the Middle East” necessary to ensure cheap oil and docile Muslims. Because the Holocaust deflects legitimate criticism of the Jewish State, Finkelstein argues, incessant remembering of the Holocaust also serves American foreign-policy objectives.

It is difficult even to conceive how this Israeli proxy is supposed to function, and there is no evidence that it does function, witness the price of oil, a devastating oil embargo in the 1970s, and the conspicuously undocile Muslim terrorists who now regularly attack Americans. But the proxy’s phantom existence enables Finkelstein and some others on the Left to identify their anti-Zionism as a species of anti-Americanism. Leftist criticism of Israel becomes de facto criticism of American geopolitical objectives. The latter are, Finkelstein imagines, really responsible for the billions shipped annually to Israel, and Zionist lobby groups in Washington, motivated not by distinctively Jewish group loyalty but by the raceless pursuit their own political agendas, are only the willing facilitators, “marching in lock-step with American power.” The unexamined assumption — that support for Israel benefits the United States — remains unexamined. No one need discuss Jewish power, Finkelstein has convinced himself, because Jewish power is only a useful tool in the hands of much more powerful non-Jewish “ruling elites.”

Finkelstein’s implausible thesis was necessary, from his perspective, only because the fact, if openly acknowledged, of strong Jewish racial loyalties will inevitably lead anyone who thinks seriously about the political abuse of the Holocaust to anti-Semitic conclusions. Incessant Holocaust promotion by Jews has some obvious ulterior motives, none of which has anything to do with American foreign-policy objectives: to delegitimize nationalism within majority-White nations; to legitimize Jewish nationalism in the Jewish State; to immunize Jews from criticism; to extract money from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, etc. Holocaust remembering is, in short, part of a racially self-interested agenda — it helps Jews and hurts us.


The Lessons of the Holocaust

The Jewish Holocaust, we are told endlessly, teaches universal “lessons,” and there are now taxpayer-funded Holocaust museums throughout the West, along with an extensive miseducational apparatus, designed to impart these supposedly crucial “lessons,” applicable (so we are instructed) to everyone everywhere. But the principal “lesson” that the Holocaust teaches is, undoubtedly, the lethal consequences of any racial or national consciousness among Whites. Because White racialism and intolerance and nationalism led to the Holocaust, White racialism and intolerance and nationalism must be eradicated, to avoid future holocausts. In terms of practical politics a politician who opposes Third World immigration on racial or even on cultural grounds has failed to learn the “lessons of the Holocaust”; the largely successful Jewish campaigns to tag Patrick Buchanan and Jörg Haider with the “Nazi” label/libel are recent cases in point.

The Holocaust Museum in Washington announced its anti-White objectives early on, even before its construction: “This museum belongs at the center of American life because America, as a democratic civilization, is the enemy of racism and its ultimate expression, genocide.” Genocide is, according to Jewish Holocaust lore, the natural outcome of any racial self-assertion by people of European descent, and American democracy is, by Jewish fiat, devoted to the extirpation of every vestige of our racial consciousness. That, not surprisingly, is what organized Jewry has wanted all along, as Kevin MacDonald has thoroughly documented.

In theory, the “lessons of the Holocaust” should teach Jews that Israel cannot ethically remain an explicitly Jewish state, committed to the preservation and advancement of a single Volk, rooted in land, tradition and blood, but must instead become a multiracial “state of its citizens,” bound together only by abstract political principles and an eagerness to celebrate diversity, like the nation-less anti-nations most Diaspora Jews now demand that their host populations become. In practice, needless to say, few Jews and no major Jewish organizations allow logical consistency and the lessons of the Holocaust to interfere with their racial self-interest. On the contrary: “The heart of every authentic response to the Holocaust,” writes philosopher Emil Fackenheim, “…is a commitment to the autonomy and security of the State of Israel.” Whereas in Israel Jews have formed a Jewish State for themselves and permit no one but Jews to immigrate into it, not even the Palestinian Arabs they ejected in 1948, in the Diaspora they campaign for multiculturalism and Third World immigration. Jews hate all nationalisms save their own; they are nationalists within Israel, but anti-nationalists everywhere else.

Broad Jewish support for Zionism in Israel, coupled with strident opposition to any form of racialism or nationalism in the Diaspora, is the defining hypocrisy of contemporary Jewry. Finkelstein, like the late Israel Shahak, is not guilty of it. He is a principled man: He opposes racialism in the United States, so he also opposes it in Israel. Yet he is apparently unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, his own anti-racialist debt to the “shelves upon shelves of [Holocaust] shlock” under whose weight American libraries are currently groaning. What has been, beyond any doubt, the most politically significant lesson of the Holocaust, the evil of White “racism,” is almost completely absent from his text [The Holocaust Industry], appearing only in two sentences in the final chapter:

Seen through the lens of Auschwitz, what previously was taken for granted — for example, bigotry — no longer can be. In fact, it was the Nazi holocaust that discredited the scientific racism that was so pervasive a feature of American intellectual life before World War II.

Auschwitz did not, of course, scientifically discredit scientific racism, but it is certainly true that the academic study of racial differences has been discredited by its association with German National Socialism, although the facts themselves remain indifferent to the lessons of the Holocaust. It is also true that “bigotry is no longer taken for granted,” but this bland summary of the sea-change in post-war attitudes to race requires a translation. Finkelstein, like most multiracialists, believes that the majority-White nations of the West are still riddled, from top to bottom, with bigotry and systemic “racism.” The fight against White “racism” has scarcely begun; the lessons of the Holocaust have only taught us that bigotry should no longer be taken for granted.

Thus in the midst of a culture soaked in White guilt, Finkelstein recommends more of the same, while presenting his proposals as part of a radical assault on a conservative Holocaust Establishment too timid to berate the goyim with the severity they deserve. “We could,” he says, “learn much about ourselves from the Nazi experience,” and he helpfully suggests additional atrocities that we might, if so inclined, also commemorate: European “genocide” in the Americas; American atrocities during the Vietnam war; American enslavement of Blacks; murderous Belgian exploitation of the Congo. All of these suggestions for atrocity commemoration have a feature in common that should not be too difficult to discern, and with the likely exception of the last, each could be dutifully recited by any well-indoctrinated schoolboy, thanks to multicultural miseducation.

Finkelstein has further suggestions. We could also contemplate, while learning much about ourselves from the Nazi experience, how “Manifest Destiny anticipated nearly all the ideological and programmatic elements of Hitler’s Lebensraum policy”; how German eugenics programs, commonly regarded as precursors of the Jewish Holocaust, merely followed American precedents; how the Nuremberg Laws were a milder variant of the Southern prohibition of miscegenation; how “the vaunted western tradition is deeply implicated in Nazism as well,” Plato and Rousseau being the proto-Nazis Finkelstein has in mind. Clearly, learning from the Nazi experience means learning to see the Nazi in ourselves and in our history.

Here Finkelstein’s self-described radical critique of Holocaust orthodoxies has a parasitical relation to what it purports to debunk, tacitly relying on alleged Holocaust uniqueness in order construct a tenuous guilt-by-association which would be laughable in any other context. Hitler opposed “birth control on the ground that it preempts natural selection”; Rousseau said something similar. Most American states once had eugenics laws sanctioning the sterilization of mental defectives; the Nazis had similar laws. Leo Strauss called this form of non-reasoning the reductio ad Hitlerum. We are expected to see, and unfortunately most Whites will indeed see, not discrete ethical issues but a sinister pattern that establishes culpability.

Yet the sinister pattern of culpability only exists if the Holocaust remains, on account of its unparalleled evil, the terminus toward which all of Western history was directed; the pattern ceases to exist if the Holocaust is dislodged from its position high atop a hierarchy of suffering. Substitute the Judeo-Bolshevik slaughter of Ukrainians for the Jewish Holocaust [see e.g., here] and you will also select a different set of sign-posts leading to a different unparalleled evil.

Since Finkelstein does not practice what he preaches, avoiding the implications of his own call to democratize suffering, his preferred Holocaust lessons turn out, as we have seen, to be not much different from the anti-racialist lessons that Holocaust promoters already teach. Elie Wiesel would have no objection to most of Finkelstein’s pedagogy of White guilt, though he would of course insist that Jews need not be among its pupils. White guilt is a given for both; they differ only on how we should best commemorate it and on whether Jews should be included among the group to whom the requisite lessons must be addressed. We are, Finkelstein and Wiesel agree, morally obliged to “confront” and “remember” Nazi crimes, even though the confronting and remembering will be “difficult” and “painful,” because we were somehow complicit in them, and in this both articulate what is now surely the core dogma of Holocaust propaganda.

“[To] study… the Holocaust,” says Marcia Sachs Littell, director of the National Academy for Holocaust and Genocide Teacher Training, “is also to study the pathology of Western civilization and its flawed structures.” Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, Holocaust theologian, goes further: “The guilt of Germany is the guilt of the West. The fall of Germany is the fall of the West. Not only six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. In it Western civilization lost its claim to dignity and respect.”

Such expressions of anti-Western animus, routine in Jewish Holocaust writing, would be very difficult to reconcile with Finkelstein’s account of the genesis of Holocaust remembering, namely that organized Jewry “forgot” the Holocaust throughout the 1950s and then, in order to become valued participants in American statecraft, tactically “remembered” it in 1967, so that “Jews now stood on the front lines defending America — indeed, ‘Western civilization’ — against the retrograde Arab hordes.”

Anti-Western animus is, on the other hand, very easy to explain within the socio-political context of the decade when, by all accounts, the Holocaust received its English name and began its ascent into popular consciousness. American Jewry’s decision to remember the Holocaust was dependent on White America’s willingness to listen. A speaker normally presupposes an auditor, and vocal Holocaust remembering likewise presupposes receptive Holocaust listening. Jews had no intention in the 1960s and they have no intention now of remembering their Holocaust in the absence of a non-Jewish audience.

American Jews conveniently recovered their forgotten Holocaust memory at the very historical moment when racial victimization in the past began to confer political power in the present. The religion of the Holocaust was the Jewish version of anti-White identity politics. To number yourself among the wretched of the earth was a source of political power during the Civil Rights Revolution, and it continued to be a source of political power in the decades that followed.

Jews had played an instrumental role in fomenting the Revolution, and by remembering the Holocaust they enlisted themselves, citing an impeccable pedigree of suffering at the hands of Whites, among the minority groups eligible to receive its moral capital, while relieving themselves of membership, largely nominal in any case, in the White oppressor race, against whom the Revolution was and still is directed. Through the Holocaust the most successful ethnic group in American history not only joined the various aggrieved minorities staking out a claim against the Euro-American majority, but also pushed itself to the front of the line.

Since Jews are more intelligent and much more politically powerful than other aggrieved minorities, they have elevated their wartime victimization above all other victimizations, while surrounding it with a deceptive, often eloquent language of humane universalism. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust, philosopher Paul Ricoeur writes, are “delegates to our memory of all the victims of history,” a formulation which in practice means that all of history’s other victims can be safely ignored or consigned to a small, dark corner in your local Holocaust museum, being somehow included in the representative suffering of the Jews.

Thus this exceptional piece of Holocaust lore from Yad Vashem’s Avner Shalev: “We add our voice to those who believe that the Holocaust, because of its Jewish specificity, should serve as a model in the global fight against the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic hatred and genocide.” The sentence is logically incoherent but its meaning is clear: Jewish specificity ensures universality. And the political subtext is also clear: In the holy war against “racism,” one race of victims is far more equal than the rest.

* * *

Insofar as we accept, as far too many of us do, the false moral burden to feel racial guilt over German wartime atrocities, real and fictional, we have internalized Jewish ethnocentrism, learning to see ourselves through Jewish eyes. We should therefore learn our own “lesson of the Holocaust” — that the descendants of both the winners and the losers of the Second World War now have a common interest in repudiating the old mythology of unique Nazi evil, along with the anti-Western Holocaust industry which has fastened itself on it.