Liberalism, 16

Classical and modern

Enlightenment philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. Thomas Hobbes attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in a post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a state of nature—a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the State—he constructed the idea of a social contract which individuals enter into to guarantee their security and in so doing form the State, concluding that only an absolute sovereign would be fully able to sustain such a peace.

John Locke, while adopting Hobbes’s idea of a state of nature and social contract, nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a tyrant, that constituted a violation of the social contract, which bestows life, liberty, and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory.

To these early enlightenment thinkers securing the most essential amenities of life—liberty and private property among them—required the formation of a “sovereign” authority with universal jurisdiction. In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued, humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires. This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but they all shared the belief that liberty was natural and that its restriction needed strong justification. Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with Thomas Paine writing that “government even in its best state is a necessary evil”.

As part of the project to limit the powers of government, various liberal theorists such as James Madison and the Baron de Montesquieu conceived the notion of separation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Governments had to realize, liberals maintained, that poor and improper governance gave the people authority to overthrow the ruling order through any and all possible means, even through outright violence and revolution, if needed.

Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have continued to support limited constitutional government while also advocating for state services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a greater role for government in the administration of economic affairs.

Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated from human interactions, not from divine will. Many liberals were openly hostile to religious belief itself, but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper on its own, without official sponsorship or administration by the state.

Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals also have obsessed over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals—from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill—conceptualized liberty as the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others. Mill’s On Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed that “the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way”. Support for laissez-faire capitalism is often associated with this principle, with Friedrich Hayek arguing in The Road to Serfdom (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.

tom green

Beginning in the late 19th century, however, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version, and it was first developed by British philosopher Thomas Hill Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasizing instead the complex circumstances that are involved in the evolution of our moral character. In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, giving the opportunity for genuine choice. Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:

If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been… one might be inclined to wish that the term “freedom” had been confined to the… power to do what one wills.

Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a duty to promote the common good. His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as L.T. Hobhouse and John Hobson.

In a few years, this New Liberalism had become the essential social and political program of the Liberal Party in Britain, and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand suffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the democratic decision-making process were liable to the tyranny of the majority, a concept explained in Mill’s On Liberty and in Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville. As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the rights of minorities.

Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism, and toleration. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle, Voltaire commented that “equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things”. All forms of liberalism assume, in some basic sense, that individuals are equal.

In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume that they all possess the same right to liberty. In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are equal subjects before the law.

Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge on their understanding of equality. American philosopher John Rawls emphasized the need to ensure not only equality under the law, but also the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their aspirations in life. Libertarian thinker Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of Lockean equality instead.

To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and toleration. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterize a stable social order. Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in the way that people think; in fact, their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonizes and minimizes conflicting views, but still allows those views to exist and flourish.

For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree. From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Spinoza condemning “the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars”. Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society will contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.

By Way of Deception

Thou Shalt Do War

 

wlp_bas_relief

by William Pierce

The motto of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: “By way of deception thou shalt do war.” That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world’s most ruthless and feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and world affairs.

The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp. When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate every Gentile nation over which they gain power:

And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them… thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)

Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews’ holy books that we can only assume that they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.

Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler. Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America’s gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.

How are we to make sense of this apparently conflicting evidence?

Is the Jew in the U.S. Congress who cites the rising murder statistics and then demands that the government confiscate all privately owned firearms trying to deceive us as to his intentions? When he talks peace and disarmament is he really thinking war against the Gentiles?

And what of the carefully cultivated media image of the Jew as a gentle, inoffensive victim of bigotry, always being persecuted but never persecuting others? Is that also deception? And even if it is, does it necessarily mean that beneath the Jew’s mask of benevolence and innocence hides the malevolent visage of a cunning predator? Perhaps for every bloodsucking Jewish swindler like Ivan Boesky or Michael Milken there is a Jewish benefactor of mankind like polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk, and for every bloody-handed Jewish gangster like Ariel Sharon, Meyer Lansky, or Yitzhak Shamir there is a Jewish Nobel Peace Prize winner like Menachem Begin, Henry Kissinger—or the appropriately named Elie Wiesel.

Or are we also being deceived when the Salks and the Kissingers are held up to us as reasons for not condemning all Jews for the transgressions of some?

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Does that injunction mean: “If you must wage war—if it is impossible to avoid war—then you stand a better chance of winning by being tricky”? Or does it mean: “Thou shalt wage war, and thou shalt deceive”?

The answer to this question is important. If it is the former—if the Jews, as a whole, are not malevolent, if they have broken with their Old Testament tradition and no longer feel that their racial mission is to destroy all other peoples, but they merely feel that when forced to defend themselves they are justified in using all means, including deception, then we may be able to live on the same planet with them, at a distance. We don’t have to like them or agree with their policies, but we can see the possibility, at least, of some sort of peaceful coexistence, once a separation of peoples has been accomplished.

In seeking the answer we should keep in mind that deception is, in itself, hostile. A policy of systematic deception is tantamount to a policy of war. If we discover that the Jews (as a whole, not just a few swindlers among them) have been deceiving us deliberately and systematically over an extended period of time on any matter of substance, then we may infer that they regard the relationship between us as one of war, and we should respond accordingly.

The pursuit of this inference may be the only path to an unmuddied answer. After all, how do we know that someone is waging war against us? If he makes an open declaration of war and then begins shooting and bombing us, the matter is clear enough. But if, because he always follows a policy of deception, he declares that he is not at war with us and only has our best interests at heart, we may have difficulty in deciding whether the injury he causes us is deliberate or inadvertent.

Suppose he undertakes courses of action which damage us in ways somewhat less directly than shooting and bombing—ways such as bringing hordes of non-Whites across our borders, breaking down the barriers to racial mixing in our society, encouraging permissiveness, undermining our institutions, promoting cultural bolshevism—all the while claiming that he does not regard these things as harmful. If we were a more practical people we might pay less attention to what the Jew says and more to what he does; we might stop worrying about his motive, judge him on the basis of the effect his presence has had on us, and then act accordingly.

Unfortunately, there are many who cannot in good conscience take a stand against the Jew without knowing what is in his heart—and the Jew is aware of this. We must catch him deliberately lying to us, deceiving us systematically and massively, in order to infer that his intent is hostile.

That’s one reason why the unraveling of the “Holocaust” myth is so important to us—and why the Jew clings so desperately to every lie in its fabric.

We should draw some sort of conclusion from the consistency of the Jew’s actions. Virtually everything he does is harmful to us. Without much exaggeration we can say that whenever the Jew takes a stand on a new issue, the proper position for us is on the other side.

Everyone who has read any Jewish literature—i.e., literature by Jews about Jews—has encountered the traditional Jewish character who whenever he must make a decision about something the goyim have done asks himself: “Is it good for the Jews?” That’s an admirable trait in any person, Jew or Gentile: always being concerned first about the welfare of his community, of his tribe, of his race. The Jewish author more often than not sprinkles a bit of dissimulation over it, however, suggesting that it may be unfashionably parochial, but it is excusable on the grounds that the Jews have been obliged by bitter experience to be wary of anything the Gentile does.

It goes without saying, of course, that the same author would regard it as totally inexcusable for a Gentile to use a similar criterion: to ask himself about some policy or action of the Jews, “Is it good for the White race, for Gentiles?” Such a character could only be cast in the role of villain.

And what we never encounter in Jewish literature is a Jewish character weighing a Jewish policy by asking himself: “Is it bad for the goyim?” Unspoken though it may be, however, it seems that this criterion plays as large a role as the first in determining Jewish policies. Perhaps to them it is just another way of saying the same thing—although they are very careful not to phrase it that way. At least, they have been since the Second World War; before that they sometimes seemed to think that the goyim couldn’t read, and chutzpah got the better of discretion. In 1924, for example, the prominent Jewish publicist Maurice Samuel, author of a score of serious books on Jewish matters and recipient of numerous awards from Jewish organizations, wrote in his You Gentiles, a book addressed to his hosts:

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.

Even here, however, there is deception, with the will to destroy masked as piety.

Think of the enormous demographic and social changes which have transformed our world since the Second World War. In 1941 the United States was for all practical purposes a White country. Blacks and other minorities existed, but they were not seen in White residential areas, White schools, White recreational facilities, or most White workplaces. They had a negligible influence on the political process, on public morality, and on the national culture. Racial intermarriage was illegal in most jurisdictions and extremely rare everywhere. America’s city streets were safe by night and by day. There was no drug problem; the use of marijuana, heroin, and other drugs was confined almost entirely to Blacks and mestizos, in their own, separate communities. Teenage pregnancy (among Whites) was as rare as a public display of homosexuality. Schools were orderly, disciplined, and safe.

America had its problems, of course. Whites, even when they are in control of their own destiny, are not angels. Greed, meanness, superstition, and stupidity were reflected in a thousand social and cultural ills. A thoroughly corrupt political system, inevitable in a democracy, provided the country with its top political leaders and public officials. Blacks and other racial minorities, though invisible and powerless, were a festering sore which eventually would have to be dealt with.

The country, however, was still White and gave every indication of staying that way; in the years immediately prior to the war immigration to the United States was predominantly White, with immigrants from Europe outnumbering those from Asia and Latin America combined by five to one. America’s problems were still soluble and Western civilization was still viable, still capable of being cleansed and renewed. Furthermore, in Germany a man was showing the race the way to save itself.

In response to that man’s efforts most of the Western world engaged in an all-out war to destroy him, his works, and his followers. His ideas and teachings became anathema, and the half-century which followed was dedicated to justifying the slaughter and destruction of the war by promoting the antitheses of those ideas and teachings.

He had taught that the White race is the most progressive race and is inherently superior to the non-White races in its civilization-building capacity, and so the elevation of the social and economic levels of non-Whites at the expense of Whites became the premier postwar goal.

He had taught that racial mixing is a crime against Nature, that our race must strive above all else to maintain the integrity of its gene pool, and so racial mixing became the postwar fashion: schoolchildren were bused to achieve mixing in the schools, forced housing laws were passed to achieve residential mixing, laws against miscegenation were struck down everywhere, and the immigration laws were changed to bring a new flood of non-Whites into the country.

He had taught that the building of self-discipline in young people, the strengthening of their will-power and of their ability for self-control, is the most important task of a nation’s educational system, and so in postwar America discipline became a dirty word, and permissiveness became the norm.

He had taught that, just as races differ in their innate abilities, so also do the individuals within a race, and that a healthy and progressive society must conform its institutions to this natural inequality among its members. Consequently, in postwar America egalitarianism became the new religion, and leveling the aim of government. To seek out the best and brightest, in our schools and elsewhere, and give them the recognition and the special training to enable them to move upward to positions of leadership—even to admit the possibility that some were better and brighter than others and could contribute more to civilization—became taboo.

He had taught a healthy, complementary relationship between men and women, with the former as providers and protectors and the latter as nurturers, and the new society he built in Germany was family centered, with laws and institutions aimed at strengthening the family and helping it to provide a sound environment for healthy children. Therefore, after his works were destroyed the victors denounced sexual complementarity as “repressive” and brought women out of the home and into the workforce by the millions, with children relegated to day-care centers. Every sex-role distinction was officially discouraged or outlawed, even to the point of bringing women into the armed forces on an equal footing with men. Feminism and homosexuality flourished with governmental protection.

Today we can see the consequences of these postwar policies all around us, and it is a matter of public record that the Jews have been the primary instigators and propagandists for each of these policies without exception.

They had non-Jewish collaborators in abundance, of course. The legislator primarily responsible for the change in postwar immigration patterns, the late Jewish Congressman from Brooklyn, Emanuel Celler, for many years chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, chose as a co-sponsor for his 1965 immigration bill the Gentile Senator from Massachusetts Edward (Teddy) Kennedy.

The “civil rights” revolutionaries who were organizing “sit-ins” and “freedom rides” during the 1950s and 1960s received their financing, their legal assistance, and their media support from Jews, but without an utterly corrupt and unprincipled Gentile collaborator in the form of Lyndon Johnson, first as Senate majority leader (1955–1961) and later as President (1963–1968), the series of legislative coups which made the agenda of the revolutionaries the law of the land would not have come so easily.

Collaboration has come from Blacks as well as Whites. Many of the organizations pushing for legislated “equality” between Blacks and Whites have been headed by Blacks in recent years. The most venerable of them, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was given its first Black president as long ago as 1975, after an unbroken succession of Jews (although the separate NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which bills itself as “the legal arm of the civil rights movement,” is still strictly kosher, with a Jewish chief).

In no area of endeavor have the Jews had more willing non-Jewish collaborators than in the postwar promotion of permissiveness. Jews Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin may have been the most flamboyant spokesmen for permissiveness during the 1960s with their “if it feels good, do it” and “kill your parents” maxims for young Americans, but dozens of well-known Gentiles were right on their coattails, from “New Age” guru Timothy Leary with his campaign to popularize LSD and other psychedelic drugs to soft-porn publisher Hugh Hefner and his advocacy of “the Playboy philosophy.”

It is, after all, hardly the case that Jewry forced its way into America with tanks and machine guns and compelled the unwilling Aryans to stand by and watch while their civilization was destroyed and their race corrupted by the Semitic invaders. From the beginning the prey collaborated with the predators at all levels: the primitive Bible-beaters who for generations have been taught by their own kind that the Jews are “God’s Chosen People” and that it’s bad luck to cross them; the jaded, self-indulgent great grandsons and great granddaughters of an earlier generation of hard-headed, hard-working pioneers and entrepreneurs, eager to be amused and titillated by every new fashion in ideology, art, music, or lifestyle dangled before them by wordy, alien hucksters; hungry opportunists in business, in education, and in the cultural establishment, ready to take the part of the obnoxiously pushy but admirably well-organized strangers, once those strangers had established sufficiently strong beachheads to be able to offer favors in return; and, of course, the politicians, democracy’s inevitable maggots, who are ready to ally themselves with the Devil himself if they think they can gain a temporary personal advantage by doing so.

It is clear that when cleanup time comes there’s as much weeding to be done in our own garden as in any other race’s. An inattentive observer might even conclude that the Jews are no more blameworthy for the bad directions taken by our society than our own worst elements are; that as opportunists they merely look for ways to turn the weaknesses they find in us to their own advantage.

Did they push for opening our borders to the Third World because they had a long-range plan to mongrelize us, or were they merely going along with greedy and irresponsible elements of our own race who wanted to keep the cost of labor down?

Have they been the principal promoters behind every destructive fashion in painting and music in order to cut us loose from our cultural moorings, thereby confusing our sense of identity and making us easier prey, or simply because they have recognized the lack of aesthetic discrimination on the part of our consuming masses and are as eager as the confidence men of any race to sell the suckers whatever they’ll buy?

Do they use their control of the entertainment industry to promote the acceptance—and in many cases the approval—of homosexuality, feminism, and interracial sex as a way of softening us up morally and preparing us for slaughter, or are they simply trying to please and thereby win as customers for their commercial sponsors the more degenerate elements of our population?

An inattentive observer might be stumped by such questions. A more attentive observer, however, will note the details, the specifics, as well as the generalities, and he will understand that those details, taken together, are not consistent with simple opportunism but only with war by way of deception.

Forcing the stream of immigration into America after the Second World War to change from White to Brown and Yellow has most notably kept the cost of farm labor down, but Jews are not farmers, and it is difficult to see how they could expect to benefit economically from this change. The influx of non-White immigrants also has kept the cost of certain other types of labor down—restaurant workers, unskilled construction workers—but the connection to any vital Jewish business interest is tenuous at best.

There can be no doubt that culture distortion has been enormously profitable for Jews. With a controlling economic interest in every facet of the popular-culture industry from art galleries to music records, tapes, and compact discs, they make money from nearly every product that the culture-consuming public can be persuaded to buy. And since no one has ever lost a nickel by underestimating the taste of the public, the deliberate Jewish debasement of art and music is understandable on the grounds of greed alone. But the specific directions are not.

In the production and promotion of what might be called “consumer music,” for example, the one great change which has taken place since the Second World War has been the ascendancy of African rhythm over European music. Fifty years ago one could walk into any record store catering to the general public and find 78-rpm phonograph discs with a number of different types of music: classical, hillbilly (a form of White American folk music known today as “bluegrass” and subsumed under the more general heading “country and western”), numerous samples of genuine folk music from Europe, the religious music of the more primitive Christian fundamentalists (“gospel”), and a wide-ranging selection of “popular” music. The last category contained everything from the songs of Stephen Foster to the vacuous, fluffy stuff of the musical comedies which were especially popular then.

Jews already had established a strong beachhead in popular music production—Sigmund Romberg, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin—but, at least, most popular music, even that composed by Jews, was still based on European forms. Jazz was for all practical purposes the only non-White music being peddled to White consumers, and it constituted a relatively small minority of the wares—although the “swing” and “big band” forms into which jazz evolved took a larger share of the market. Still, much of the available music was White in form and origin, with classical music still prominently represented.

By the end of the Second World War jazz-influenced popular music was evolving away from its Black roots into hybrid forms that most people considered more White than Black. The introduction of the long-playing record, which for the first time permitted people to listen to an entire symphony without changing records, and of high-fidelity sound systems even brought about a renewal of public interest in classical music. At this point the people controlling the music industry could have moved in any of a number of directions. They chose to put their heaviest promotional efforts behind another music form with Black roots: rock ‘n’ roll.

Rock also evolved, of course. Today in its many forms, some of which have moved rather far from their Black origins, it dominates consumer music. And the masters of the industry have begun pushing yet another non-White music form, more blatantly Negroid than anything heretofore: rap.

Today one must look hard to find even a handful of classical cassettes or compact discs in the music section of a K-Mart or other consumer emporium. European folk music can be had only from a few specialty stores. The majority of the music offered to the consuming public is in some significant sense non-White.

Economic democracy might be invoked to explain, at least in part, the displacement of structure by rhythm, as the taste of the average consumer has become more primitive. But it is clear that deliberate promotion has had much to do with this trend. Why have the promoters so consistently chosen directions which weaken and dilute the White cultural heritage?

Certainly, the feminists, homosexuals, and race-mixers are pleased to see themselves depicted on television and cinema screens as people of a morally superior sort, as role models for the younger generation of goyim. Perhaps they even show their appreciation by buying more of the products of the sponsors of Star Trek, True Colors, and other brave, new television productions. But feminists, queers, and interracial couples still make up only a rather small minority of the population, despite the best efforts of the media masters. Wouldn’t it make better economic sense to cater to the majority? There are as many approximately normal consumers who feel at least a twinge of disgust when a television program tries to persuade them that hard-drinking, hard-swearing female soldiers or cops are “normal” as there are bull-dykes who will run out and buy the sponsor’s brand of beer. And there certainly must be more healthy viewers who seethe with suppressed rage when they see a White woman kissing a Black man on the screen than there are avant-garde sickos who applaud such an abomination.

No, opportunism does not explain the Jews’ destructiveness. There is no doubt that they are opportunists. But their opportunism is too consistently destructive. They have too inerrant an instinct for what will be bad for the goyim.

Can their behavior be explained in terms of an alien brand of idealism—an idealism which evolved in the marketplaces and bazaars of the Middle East over the last five thousand years and is natural for them, but which leads to disaster when applied to European society and institutions? Was their support for communism from the middle of the last century up until its recent collapse really based on their sympathy for the oppressed proletariat and their desire for social and economic justice, as they claim? They themselves have been oppressed, they say, and so they have a natural sympathy for the underdog. They will tell you that the reason they promote feminism, argue for the acceptance of homosexuals, and demand the integration of Blacks into every facet of our lives is that their religion requires it of them; the ethics of Judaism is egalitarian, and it specifies that each man be judged only by his or her character.

Undoubtedly there have been naive, starry-eyed idealists among communism’s Gentile propagandists—at least, in those countries which had not yet experienced communism in practice; the great American writer Jack London was one, and there certainly may have been a few Jewish idealists of Marxism as well. But only a person who has no knowledge of communism in practice can believe that those who engineered its revolutionary triumph in Russia or commissared its institutions in Eastern Europe after the Second World War were seekers of justice for the workers.

As for the claim that Jews have an affection for justice and equality greater than that of other races, we only need to look at the ways in which this alleged affection manifests itself in that part of the world where it should be seen in its purest form: namely, Israel and the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Ask any Palestinian about Jewish justice!

Judaism, of course, is unequivocally opposed to feminism and homosexuality—for Jews. Furthermore, it is a race-based religion, which defines its adherents in terms of their bloodline and declares them inherently superior to all other races. How does their promotion of feminism among the goyim, for instance, square with the well-known Jewish prayer, “I thank you, oh Lord, for not having made me a goy, a slave, or a woman,” which is recited every day by the Orthodox faithful?

In the Talmud, that authoritative compendium of the Jewish oral law, there are a thousand other reminders to the Jew that he is absolutely superior to all other life forms:

Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of the Jews. (Vayikra Rabba 36)

The Jews are human beings, but the goyim are not human beings; they are only beasts. (Baba Mezia 114)

Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form and is condemned to serve the Jew day and night. (Midrash Talpioth 225)

So much for Jewish egalitarianism. Jewish solicitude for Blacks in America today is as much a fraud as was the claim of Jewish sympathy for the oppressed proletariat of Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution.

What truly lies in the Jewish heart was revealed by an exceptional Jew, Baruch Spinoza (like Ostrovsky, a renegade), who wrote in the 17th century:

The love of the Hebrews for their country was not only patriotism but also piety and was cherished and nurtured by daily rites until, like their hatred of other nations, it was absolutely perverse… Such daily reprobation naturally gave rise to a lasting hatred, deeply implanted in the heart: for of all hatred, none is more deep and tenacious than that which springs from extreme devoutness or piety and is itself cherished as pious. (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chapter 17)

The Jewish role in the non-Jewish world and the Jewish motivation for the policies pursued by the Jewish community would be much easier to perceive if the Jews acted in a more consistent and straightforward way: if they spoke with a single voice and spoke truly, saying what really was on their minds. But, then, consistency and straightforwardness would violate the cardinal rule: By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Nevertheless, on a somewhat higher plane of subtlety, there is a consistency in the Jews’ inconsistency. On virtually every major issue—political, social, cultural, moral, or what have you—where there are two principal sides or factions, Jews will be found pushing in both directions and serving as spokesmen for both factions—but with a difference.

Consider: For many years prior to Mikhail Gorbachev’s recent dismantling of the Soviet power bloc and the general recognition of Marxism as a fraudulent, unworkable system, communism’s principal apologists and apparatchiks in the West were Jews. So were a number of anti-communist spokesmen.

During the Second World War, of course, the communists could do no wrong in the eyes of the West’s controlled media, because they were helping to destroy the man about whom the Jewish media masters had nightmares. Thus, while Soviet butchers were torturing thousands of patriots to death in the police cellars of the Baltic countries and liquidating the Polish leadership stratum at the killing pits in the Katyn woods, Jewish communists in the United States were stealing the plans and test results from America’s atomic bomb program and sending them to their colleagues in the Soviet Union.

After the war was over, however, and a reaction began to set in among White Americans as they realized that the communist beast they had unleashed against Eastern Europe might end up devouring them too, it was time for Jews to begin hedging their bets: it was time for the media to begin quoting “responsible” anti-communists. (The “responsible” ones were those who failed to mention the Jewishness of the system they were speaking out against.)

While the memory of Jewish atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was still fresh and Jewish communist sympathizers such as Robert Oppenheimer were being weeded out of America’s atomic weapons program, Jewish scientist Edward Teller became the spokesman for anti-communist Americans who wanted a strong, nuclear-armed America able to stand up to the Soviet Union. Three decades later, after Jews had rooted for the Viet Cong communists throughout the war in Vietnam, Jews began flocking to the neoconservative movement to speak up for an America strong enough to defend Israel’s interests in the Middle East against the Soviet Union’s Arab clients there. Often they were the same Jews who had been cheering for the Reds a year or two earlier. That really confused the goyim.

Consider: Whenever a gaggle of eggheads gets together in some area to sponsor a classical-music FM radio station as a sole outpost of European culture in a sea of African rock-and-rap rhythm or sub-dimwit gospel bleating, there surely will be a Jew or two among them. And when they are interviewed by the local press, it surely will be one of those Jews who is quoted. That helps to spike any nasty rumors as to who’s behind all of the garbage-music programming at the other stations.

Consider: As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the madness of Political Correctness which has infected America’s colleges and universities is Jewish through and through. And many of those who are urging their colleagues to hold the line against Political Correctness also are Jews (at least, the ones appointed by the media to be spokesmen for academic freedom are). This not only ensures that the Jews manning the PC barricades won’t be criticized as Jews for wrecking our universities, but it preempts those who might try to swing things too far back toward academic freedom.

Consider: While Jew Howard Metzenbaum in the U.S. Senate and Jew Charles Schumer in the U.S. House of Representatives spearhead the legislative drive to strip Americans of their right to armed self-defense and are unanimously and vociferously supported in this effort by the Jewish media, a tiny, Milwaukee-based, Jewish pro-gun group calling itself Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) manages to attract far more attention to itself than its size ordinarily would merit. JPFO is not just a group of pro-gun people who coincidentally happen to be Jews; it is a group of people who are shouting to the world: “Hey, look at me; I am a Jew, and I am in favor of gun ownership.” Whenever a JPFO spokesman is quoted in the news media—which is often enough to give the impression that his organization is right up there with the National Rifle Association, fighting for gun owners’ rights—he flaunts his Jewishness.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in any contest it’s a good strategy to control your principal opposition. That way you can put on a great show of bad guys versus good guys struggling against each other, but you are always in a position to make the contest go in either direction you want and only as far as you want. Not only do you preempt any real opposition, but you keep the goyim fooled and deflect any criticism of your role in the affair.

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

The deception is masterfully done. It suffices to keep most of the people fooled most of the time. Only a careful study of the details of a number of different social phenomena in which Jews are involved parts the veil of lies and trickery sufficiently for us to see a clear pattern.

The pattern is this: Jews come into any homogeneous society—and such was America at the beginning of this century—as outsiders, as strangers. The society is effectively closed to them. They cannot easily penetrate its institutions. They cannot get their hands on the levers of power. If they try they are noticed, suspected, and resisted. And they always must try. In this they apparently cannot restrain themselves.

To make way for themselves, to open up possibilities for penetration and control, they must break down the structure of the society, corrupt its institutions, undermine its solidarity, weaken its sense of identity, obliterate its traditions, destroy its homogeneity. Thus they inevitably will be in favor of democracy, of permissiveness, of every form of self-indulgence and indiscipline. They will be proponents of cosmopolitanism, of egalitarianism, of multiculturalism. They will oppose patriotism (except when they are inciting their hosts to fight a war on behalf of Jewish interests). They will agitate endlessly for change, change, change, and they will call it progress.

And no matter what they are for or against they will have at least some of their number taking the opposite side: If they are promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality, they also will have a few prominent Jewish publicists bemoaning the downfall of traditional morality and warning of the consequences of the confusion of sexual roles. If their aim is to neutralize the universities as institutions for passing on the historical, intellectual, and cultural traditions of our people to a new generation of potential leaders, at the same time that they are organizing Red Guard brigades to enforce Political Correctness they will have a contingent beating the drums for tradition and free inquiry. If they are working feverishly to disarm White Americans in order to prevent the latter from exercising their right of revolution they will go to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for a contrary statement now and then.

What does all of this prove? In the strictest sense of the word, nothing; it is only suggestive.

If you watch a person flip a penny five hundred times, and it always comes up tails, you cannot be absolutely certain that the penny has two tails. But you at least ought to suspect that someone has been working on that penny in his machine shop.

If you study the historical record and observe that every matter of importance in which the Jews have been involved turns out badly for us, even though there are usually a few Jews on our side of the matter, you cannot be absolutely certain that the game is rigged. But you at least ought to suspect that the Jews are following their ancient maxim and waging war against us by way of deception.

— February, 1992

Infanticide in the historical Israel

Below, a Spanish-English translation of pages 602-608 of my book Hojas Susurrantes. For a broader context of the subject of infanticide, see the Metapedia article (here).


In the past, the shadow of infanticide covered the world, but the Phoenicians and their biblical ancestors, the Canaanites, performed sacrifices that turn pale the Mesoamerican sacrifices of children.

The Tophet, located in the valley of Gehenna, was a place near Jerusalem where it is believed that children were burned alive to the god Moloch Baal. Later it became synonymous with Hell, and the generic name “tophet” would be transferred to the sacrificial site of the cemetery at Carthage and other Mediterranean cities like Motya, Tharros and Hadrumetum, where bones have been found of Carthaginian and Phoenician children.

Semitic-offering-to-molech

According to a traditional reading of the Bible, stories of sacrifice by the Hebrews were relapses of the chosen people to pagan customs. Recent studies, such as Jon Levenson’s The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity have suggested that the ancient Hebrews did not differ much from the neighboring towns but that they were typical examples of Semitic peoples of Canaan.

The cult of Yahweh was only gradually imposed in a group while the cult of Baal was still part of the fabric of the Hebrew-Canaanite culture. Such religion had not been a syncretistic custom that the most purist Hebrews rejected from their “neighbor” Canaanites: it was part of their roots. For Israel Finkelstein, an Israeli archaeologist and academic, the writing of the book of Deuteronomy in the reign of Josiah was a milestone in the development and invention of Judaism.

Josiah represents what I call one of the psychogenic mutants who firmly rejected the infanticidal psychoclass of their own people. Never mind that he and his aides had rewritten their nation’s past by idealizing the epic of Israel. More important is that they make Yahweh say—who led the captivity of his people by the Assyrians—that it was a punishment for their idolatry: which includes the burning of children. The book of Josiah’s scribes even promotes to conquer other peoples that, like the Hebrews, carried out such practices. “The nations whom you go in to dispossess,” says the Deuteronomy, “they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.” (12: 29-31). “When you come into the land that the Lord is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering.” (18: 9-10).

This emergence, or jump to a higher psychoclass from the infanticidal, is also attested in other books of the Hebrew Bible. “The men from Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men from Cuthah made Nergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima; the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim” (2 Kings: 17: 30-31).

There were kings of Judah who committed these outrages with their children too. In the 8th century B.C. the thriving King Ahaz “even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites” (2 Kings 16: 1-3). Manasseh, one of the most successful kings of Judah, “burnt his son in sacrifice” (21:6). The sacrificial site also flourished under Amon, the son of Manasseh. Fortunately it was destroyed during the reign of Josiah. Josiah also destroyed the sacrificial site of the Valley of Ben Hinnom “so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech” (23:10). Such destructions are like the destruction of Mesoamerican temples by the Spaniards, and for identical reasons.

Ezekiel, taken into exile to Babylon preached there to his people. He angrily chided them: “And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children and made them pass through the fire” (Ezekiel 16: 20-21). The prophet tells us that since his people wandered in the desert they burned their children, adding: “When you offer your gifts—making your sons to pass through the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, O house of Israel? As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I will not let you inquire of me” (20:31). Other passages in Ezekiel that complain about his people’s sins appear in 20: 23-26 and 23: 37-39.

A secular, though inspired by Jung, way to see God is to conceive it as how the ego of an individual’s superficial consciousness relates to the core of his own psyche: the Self. In the following diatribe by Ezekiel (16: 35-38) against his people we can hear this inner daimon, the “lord” of the man Ezekiel:

Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the Lord! This is what the Lord says: Because you poured out your lust and exposed your nakedness in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood in sacrifice, therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see all your nakedness. I will sentence you to the punishment of women who commit adultery and who shed blood; I will bring upon you the blood vengeance of my wrath and jealous anger.

When a prophet—that is, an individual who has made a leap to a higher psychoclass—maligned his inferiors, he received insults. Isaiah (57: 4-5) wrote:

Whom are you mocking? At whom do you sneer and stick out your tongue? Are you not a brood of rebels, the offspring of liars? You burn with lust among the oaks and under every spreading tree; you sacrifice your children in the ravines and under the overhanging crags.

Ezekiel wrote in the 6th century B.C.; Isaiah in the 8th B.C. Although Julian Jaynes would say that their visions were bicameral, it has been said that some of those diagnosed with schizophrenia have a much higher moral standard of values than the average individual. The very psalmist complained that people sacrificed their children to idols. But what exactly were these sacrificial rites?

Since the 10th century B.C. the spoken tradition of what was to be collected in biblical texts centuries later complained that Solomon “built a high place for Chemosh, the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites,” and that his wives made offerings to these gods (1 Kings 11: 7-8). And even before, from the third book of the Torah we read the commandment: “Do not give any of your children to be passed through the fire to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God.” (Leviticus 18:21). A couple of pages later (20: 2-5) it says:

Say to the Israelites: “Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.”

Despite these admonitions, the influential anthropologist James Frazer interpreted some biblical passages as indicating that the god of the early Hebrews, unlike the emergent god quoted above, required sacrifices of children. After all, “God” is but the projection of the Jungian Self of a human being at a given point of the human theodicy. Unlike Larry S. Milner, a Christian frightened by the idea, I do not see it impossible that the ancient Hebrews have emerged from an infanticidal psychoclass to a more emergent one. In “The Dying God,” part three of The Golden Bough, Frazer calls our attention to these verses of Exodus (22: 29-30):

Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

A similar passage can be read in Numbers (18: 14-15), and this one (3: 11-13) seems revealing:

The Lord also said to Moses, “I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine, for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether man or animal. They are to be mine. I am the Lord.”

The psychohistorian Howard Stein, who has written several scholarly articles on Judaism since the mid-1970s, concludes in an article of 2009 that the gathered information suggests a particular interpretation. According to Stein, the substrate of fear for the slaughter “helps to explain the valency that the High Holiday have for millions of Jews world-wide,” presumably echoes of very ancient happenings.

In contrast to what we were taught in Sunday school as children, Moses did not write the Torah: it was not written before the Persian period. In fact, the most sacred book of the Jews includes four different sources.

Since the 17th century thinkers such as Spinoza and Hobbes had researched the origins of the Pentateuch, and the consensus of contemporary studies is that the final edition is dated by the 5th century B.C. (the biblical Moses, assuming that ever existed, would have lived in the 13th century B.C.). Taking into account the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible—for example, Isaiah abhorred animal sacrifice—it should not surprise us that the first chapter of Leviticus consist only of animal sacrifices, which the “Lord” called holocausts to be offered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. After killing, skinning and butchering the animal, the priest incinerates everything on the altar “as a burnt offering to the Lord; it is a pleasing aroma, a special gift presented to the Lord.” A phrase that is repeated three times in that first chapter, it also appears in subsequent chapters and reminds me those words by Cortés to Charles V about the Mesoamerican sacrifices (“…they take many girls and boys and even adults, and in the presence of these idols they open their chests while they are still alive and take out their hearts and entrails and burn them before the idols, offering the smoke as the sacrifice”). In the book of Exodus (34:20) even the emerging transition of child sacrifice to lamb sacrifice can be guessed in some passages, what gave rise to the legend of Abraham:

For the first foal of a donkey, they should give a lamb or a goat instead of the ass, but if you do not give, you break the neck of the donkey. You must also give an offering instead of each eldest child. And no one is to appear before me empty-handed.

Compared with other infanticidal peoples the projection of the demanding father had been identical, but the emergency to a less dissociated layer of the human psyche is clearly visible. As noted by Jaynes, the Bible is a treasure to keep track of the greatest psychogenic change in history. The Hebrews sacrificed their children just as other peoples, but eventually they would leave behind the barbaric practice.

isaac sacrifice

After the captivity in the comparatively more civilized Babylon in 586 B.C., the Jews abandoned their practices. In his book King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities, published in 2004, Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that child sacrifice was part of the worship of Yahweh, and that the practice was condemned only after the exile. Like their Christian successors, the Jews had sublimated their filicidal desires in the Passover ritual. Each year they celebrate the liberation of their people and remember how Yahweh killed the firstborn Egyptians: legendary resonance of the habit of killing one’s eldest son.

But the biblical Moloch (in Hebrew without vowels, מלך, mlk), represented as a human figure with a bull’s head was not only a Canaanite god. It also was a god of the descendants of the Canaanites, the Phoenicians. The founding myth of Moloch was similar to that of many other religions: sacrifices were compensation for a catastrophe from the beginning of time.

Above [i.e., in my book] I said that Plutarch, Tertullian, Orosius, Philo, Cleitarchus and Diodorus Siculus mentioned the practice of the burning children to Moloch in Carthage, but refrained from wielding the most disturbing details. Diodorus says that every child who was placed in the outstretched hands of Moloch fell through the open mouth of the heated bronze statue, into the fire. When at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. Agathocles defeated Carthage, desperate and immersed in the most abject magical thinking the Carthaginians began to burn their children in a huge sacrifice as a tactical “defense” before the enemy. The sources mention 300 incinerated children.

Blake-Moloch

Had I run a career of film director, I would feel the obligation to visually show to humanity their infamous past by filming the massive red-hot bronze statue while the Greek forces besieged the city, engulfing child after child, who would slide down to the bottom of the flaming chimney. In addition to Carthage, the worship of Moloch, whose ritual was held outdoors, was widespread in other Phoenician cities. He was widely worshiped in the Middle East and in the Punic cultures of the time, including several Semitic peoples and as far as the Etruscans. Various sacrificial tophets have been found in North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, outside Tyre and at a temple of Amman.

Terracotta urns containing the cremated remains of children, discovered in 1817, have been photographed numerous times. However, since the late 1980s some Italian teachers began to question the historicity of the accounts of classical writers. Tunisian nationalists took advantage, including the president whose presidential palace near the suburban sea is very close the ruins of the ancient city of Carthage.

The Tunisian tourist guides even make foreigners believe the Carthaginians did not perform sacrifices (something similar to what some ignorant Mexican tourist guides do in Chiapas).

Traditional historians argue that the fact that the remains are from very young children suggests sacrifice, not cremation by natural death as alleged by the revisionists. The sacrificial interpretation of Carthage is also suggested by the fact that, along with the children, there are charred remains of lambs (remember the biblical quote that an evolved Yahweh implies that the slaughter of sheep was a barter for the firstborn). This suggests that some Carthaginians replaced animals in the sacrificial rite: data inconsistent with the revisionist theory that the tophet was a normal cemetery. To make matters worse, the word mlk (Moloch) appears in many stelae as a dedication to this god. Had there been simple burials it would not make sense to find these stelae dedicated to the god of fire: the graves are not marked with offerings to the gods.

Finally, although the classical writers were bitter enemies of the Carthaginians, historical violence is exercised by rejecting all accounts, since the time of Alexander to the Common Era. The revisionism on Carthage has been a phenomenon that is not part of new archaeological discoveries, or newly discovered ancient texts. The revisionists simply put into question the veracity of the accounts of classical writers, and they try to rationalize the archaeological data by stressing our credulity to the breaking point. Brian Garnand, of the University of Chicago, concluded in his monograph on the Phoenician sacrifice that “the distinguished scholars of the ridimensionamento [revisionism] have not proven their case.”

Nonetheless, I must say that the revisionists do not bother me. What I cannot tolerate are those individuals who, while accepting the reality of the Carthaginian sacrifice, idealize it. On September 1, 1987 an article in the New York Times, “Relics of Carthage Show Brutality Amid the Good Life” contains this nefarious phrase: “some scholars assert, the practice of infanticide helped produce Carthage’s great wealth and its flowering of artistic achievement.” The memory of these sacrificed children has not been fully vindicated even by present-day standards.

The Carthaginian tophet is the largest cemetery of humans, of boys and girls in fact, ever discovered. After the Third Punic War Rome forced the Carthaginians to learn Latin, just as the Spanish imposed their language to the conquered Mexicans. Personally, what most worries me is that there is evidence in the tophets of remains of tens of thousands of children killed by fire over many centuries. I cannot shudder more over imagining what would had become of our civilization had the Semitic Hannibal reached Rome.

P.S. for this blog:

And the traitors of today are planning to make a movie depicting the non-Aryan Carthaginians as the good guys and the Romans as the bad guys of the film…

Die Götzen-Dämmerung, 2

Gotzen-Dammerung-cover

Plato goes further. He says with an innocence possible only for a Greek, not a “Christian,” that there would be no Platonic philosophy at all if there were not such beautiful youths in Athens: it is only their sight that transposes the philosopher’s soul into an erotic trance, leaving it no peace until it lowers the seed of all exalted things into such beautiful soil.

Another queer saint! One does not trust one’s ears, even if one should trust Plato. At least one guesses that they philosophized differently in Athens, especially in public. Nothing is less Greek than the conceptual web-spinning of a hermit—amor intellectualis dei [intellectual love of God] after the fashion of Spinoza. Philosophy after the fashion of Plato might rather be defined as an erotic contest, as a further development and turning inward of the ancient agonistic gymnastics and of its presuppositions... What ultimately grew out of this philosophic eroticism of Plato?

A new art form of the Greek agon: dialectics. Finally, I recall—against Schopenhauer and in honor of Plato—that the whole higher culture and literature of classical France too grew on the soil of sexual interest. Everywhere in it one may look for the amatory, the senses, the sexual contest, “the woman”—one will never look in vain…

SS Pamphlet

Der Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler
SS/SS-Hauptamt (1943?)

 
The development of German culture has not followed a steadily rising course. Decades of no growth are followed by periods of slow but steady progress, then new ideas suddenly appear that transform our culture in fundamental ways. A new view of the world opens up, giving us entirely new ideas of our nature and our environment that can only gradually be investigated. They give our people the opportunity for new growth, new flowering, new possibilities.

The 15th and 16th centuries during the Middle Ages were a period when the Nordic spirit found characteristic expression in the Copernicus’ teaching that the earth revolved around the sun. The earth, which formerly was thought to be the center of the universe, became a small planet that was just as subject to the harmony of eternal laws as the course of the stars. The former world of appearances collapsed, and the Nordic spirit opened the door to a new scientific worldview. As a result of his revolutionary discovery, the worldview the Medieval Church had so successfully built to control people’s minds gradually fell apart over the following centuries. Today’s scientifically-based worldview freed us from the spiritual domination of the priesthood. We owe to it our great advances in technology, the sciences, and economics.

Today we are in the middle of another revolutionary epoch. Revolutionary scientific understandings of genetics and race have found political expression in the National Socialist world view. Once again a world of appearances collapsed, which had concealed from our eyes the true nature of humanity and the connections between body, soul, and spirit.

The foundation of the Christian worldview is the doctrine of the separation of body and soul; the soul and spirit belong to a world independent of the physical, free of natural laws, and they are even to a certain degree able to free the human body from its natural setting.

It is a major shift when racial theory recognizes the unity of body, soul and spirit and sees them as a whole that follows the eternal laws of nature.

A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work. Ideas about humanity and peoples that have endured for millennia are collapsing. The Nordic spirit is struggling to free itself from the chains that the Church and the Jews have imposed on Germandom. And it is not only a spiritual battle, for it finds expression in National Socialism’s struggle for power, as well as in today’s battlefields to the east and west. The coming victory will bring a fundamental change in our view of the world, and opens the way for Nordic mankind to a new and greater future.

The enemies of the National Socialist worldview
and their doctrine of the equality of humanity


The Churches

The Christian Church taught the equality of humanity from the beginning, and realized it in the areas it dominated. The Jew Paul was above all responsible for the idea, despite his pride in his pure Jewish ancestry. He won the inhabitants of the Roman Empire for the new faith.

The Roman Empire experienced considerable racial mixing, which encouraged the rapid spread of the doctrine of racial equality. Anyone could become a Christian, whether Roman, Greek, Jew, Negro, etc. As Christians they were all the same, for the important thing was that they belonged to the Church and accepted its teachings. The only differences that counted were those between believers and unbelievers, and between priests and the laity within the Church. Since all men were created in God’s image, all needed to be won for the Church. The goal is a unified humanity united in an all-encompassing Church led by the priests. The clearest expression of this comes in Pope Pius XI’s statement on 29 July 1938: “One forgets today that the human race is a single, large and catholic race.”

This religious doctrine did not come from the native religion of a race or of a racially pure people. It developed in the Orient during a period of racial chaos from the most varied cultures and found its final form under Byzantine influence.

Does the same soul dwell in these differing bodies?

Being absorbed into the Christian community and receiving Christian education did nothing to change or improve the nature or life styles of the various peoples, however. They were only rendered uncertain of their true nature, meaning that foreign influences interfered in areas where only blood should speak, for example the relations between men and women, spousal selection, the relationship between family and people, indeed in relations to foreign customs and life styles.

In over a thousand years, Christianity has not succeeded in raising the cultural level of Negroes or South American Indians. But the Church has built walls where none should exist, for example those between Germans of varying confessions. And it has torn down walls that nature established by blessing marriages between Aryans and Jews, Negroes and Mongols. It took millions of valuable people from their god-ordained roles in the people’s community and put them in monasteries or the priesthood. Its doctrines are responsible for the fall of races, peoples and cultures.

The healthy instincts of the German peoples resisted its foreign teaching from the beginning, or tried to give it its own stamp. Nordic people fought against it for centuries. Meister Elkhart said over 600 years ago: “The divine is in me, I am a part of it; I can recognize God’s will without the help of priests.” Luther told Christians to listen to themselves and act according to their consciences. But the tragedy of the Reformation is that began as a German revolution, but ended in a battle over dogmas, and Luther finally bound the conscience to the Jewish teachings of the Bible.

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and many other scientists began the battle between modern science and Church dogma, The Nordic scientific spirit can only accept as true what is in accord with science and experience. Today even the once immovable Church is asking questions about the equality of humanity. The National Socialist worldview, based on the knowledge of the laws of inheritance and the inequality of the races, will succeed in overcoming this ancient false teaching and return the German people to its native worldview.

Liberalism

The French Revolution (1789) introduced Europe to a new guiding idea, summarized in the phrase “Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood.”

It was an uprising of racially inferior elements who took over ideas that in part had entirely different racial origins, and could only be perverted by them. The Jews had a decisive influence.

Like the Church, liberalism taught that all people were equal, that there were no value differences between the races, that external differences (e.g., body type, skin color) were unimportant. Each person, regardless of race, might be a hero or a coward, an idealist or a materialist, creative or useless to society, militarily able, scientifically able, artistically gifted. The environment and education were the important elements that made men good and valuable. If one provided the proper environment and freed people from their chains, the peoples would join to develop their abilities in a unified humanity, and eternal peace would result. Therefore liberalism demanded equality for all, the same opportunities for everyone, in particular the Jews, equality and freedom in the economic sphere, etc.

We Germans have seen where such doctrines lead. Liberalism tore down the structures that held races and peoples together, releasing the destructive drives. The result was economic chaos that led to millions of unemployed on the one side and the senseless luxury of economic jackals on the other. Liberalism destroyed the people’s economic foundations, allowing the triumph of sub-humans. They won the leading role in the political parties, the economy, the sciences, arts and press, hollowing out the nation from inside. The equality of all citizens, regardless of race, led to the mixing of Europeans with Jews, Negro, Mongols, and so on, resulting in the decay and decline of the Aryan race.

All that Nordic civilization had won from the powers of darkness in the areas of culture, science, and freedom was threatened at the instant when the Jews and other inferior elements gained power. European domination of the world collapsed as the result of the World War, and the best of the Germanic peoples, the Germans, faced the danger of decline. Adolf Hitler alone rescued Germany and all of Europe from this fate.


Marxism

The most dangerous opponent of our worldview at present is Marxism, and its offspring Bolshevism. It is a product of the destructive Jewish spirit, and it is primarily Jews who have transformed this destructive idea into reality. Marxism teaches that there are only two classes: the owners and the property-less. Each must be destroyed and all differences between people must be abolished; a single human soup must result. That which formerly was holy is held in contempt. Every connection to family, clan and people was dissolved. Marxism appeals to humanity’s basest drives; it is an appeal to sub-humans.

We have seen firsthand where Marxism leads people, in Germany from 1919 to 1932, in Spain and above all in Russia. The people corrupted by Liberalism are not able to defend themselves against this Jewish-Marxist poison. If Adolf Hitler had not won the battle for the soul of his people and destroyed Marxism, Europe would have sunk into Bolshevist chaos. The war in the East will lead to the final elimination of Bolshevism; the victory of the National Socialist worldview is the victory of Aryan culture over the spirit of destruction, the victory of life over death.


The Jew

The Jews were behind the teachings of equality by the Church, Liberalism and Marxism. They were the first and most fanatic proponents of the idea. The Jew Paul spread the Christian doctrine of equality. Freemasonry dominated the intellectual world of the French Revolution, and Liberalism grew out of Freemasonry. The Portuguese Jew Ricardo, the “father of classical national economics,” is the prophet of the liberal economic theory of free trade and economic piracy. The foundation of Marxism and Bolshevism is Das Kapital, by the Jew Mardochai (Marx).

How did the Jew gain this destructive power over the European peoples? The Jews are a mixed race. The essential characteristic that separates them from all other races and peoples is the instinct for parasitism.

The Jews themselves are most clear about this. Karl Marx, the author of Das Kapital says:

What is the essential trait of Jewry? Practicality, self-interest.
What is the culture of the Jew? Haggling.
What is his God? Money.

The Jewish philosopher Spinoza said: “What we require is simple: that we control everything necessary for our own good.”

The parasitic nature of the Jews is clear in its ability to adjust to the host peoples. A characteristic example is the relationship of the Jew to language: Even before our era the Jewish people had changed its language several times. Wherever they went, they took on the host language, though they were generally unable to conceal their racial additions.

Yet the Jews are one of the most racially conscious peoples. The laws of the Old Testament and the Talmud strongly prohibit marriage with non-Jews. Leading Jews have always stressed the importance of race and racial purity. Even the Soviet Union, otherwise opposed to race, had passed measures to protect Jewish blood.

The most familiar statement comes from the Jew Benjamin Disraeli (originally d’Israeli, later Lord Beaconsfield), the longtime British prime minister:

No one may be indifferent to the racial principle, the racial question. It is the key to world history. History is often confusing because it is written by people who did not understand the racial question and the aspects relevant to it… Race is everything, and every race that does not keep its blood from being mixed will perish… Language and religion do not determine a race—blood determines it.

His parasitic nature led the Jew to hold his own race pure, and to strike other races at the core of their being, their racial nature. Only when a people’s racial purity has been destroyed is the Jew able to develop freely and without restraint.

Disraeli’s political policies prove that many Jews consciously work to destroy racial purity. He made Queen Elizabeth Empress of India, creating an opening in England for oriental life styles. He misled the English people with the notion of an Oriental Empire, thereby dulling and falsifying English racial instincts. The Jew also betrayed the peoples of Russia with images of heaven on earth, leading to race mixing to a vast degree, greatly speeding up a process of decay already in progress.

The Jew could realize his plans for world domination only when Russia had become weak, without instincts, without culture. That is how we understand Mommsen’s description of the Jewish people as the “ferment of decomposition.” As a result, there can never be peace, but only combat, between the Jew and racially aware peoples. Europe will have defeated this threat only when the last Jew has left our part of the planet. The Führer’s words at the beginning of the war will be fulfilled: The German people will not be destroyed in this war, but rather the Jew.



The racial question as the decisive question for our people

Whenever the existence of a people is threatened, the foundation of their development and rise becomes important. The history of every great nation shows a clear idea of its uniqueness and a rejection of foreign races. This attitude is as innate in people as it is in animals. This becomes problematic only when peoples disobey god-ordained laws, when the destructive ideas of equality destroy their instincts, when racial mixing develops. It is then usually too late to turn around, and the decline of the peoples can no longer be stopped. Warning voices were raised in the 18th and 19th centuries when Liberalism began to destroy the peoples of Europe. Gobineau recognized with sure perceptiveness the danger of race mixing. H. St. Chamberlain followed him, as did many others, above all Hans F. K. Günther, who wrote The Racial Nature of the German People.

We owe these Nordic scientists this revolutionary knowledge: Humanity is not equal. Just as plants and animals are of different types, so, too, are people. Each of these types inherits certain characteristics, which distinguish it from all other types, from all other races. Racial differences are physical, spiritual, and intellectual. The most important differences are in the spiritual and intellectual areas, in life styles. Racial science is further supported by advances in genetics. Nordic scientists probed ever deeper into the secrets of life and nature. Gregor Mendel was the first to discover the laws of genetics, opening the way to understanding one of God’s greatest secrets, the nature and continuation of life.

Genetics tells us that characteristics are passed unaltered from generation to generation, and that spiritual and other characteristics are inherited along with physical ones. The environment can only influence what is already present in the genes. Unlike animals, a person does not have a single environment, but also lives in the cultural world of his race and people. This too determines the development of his inherited traits. His culture comes from his inheritance. Therefore, the race to which we belong determines the life we are born into, and the life we pass on.


Racial differences

Races differ not only in their natures, but also in their values. Some races have great creative gifts; others over the centuries never raise themselves above the most primitive level. Think of the fruitful plains of the Ukraine, and imagine what German industry and German ability could have done with them! Compare them with the sandy soil of Mark Brandenburg. The smallest village there displays a culture that towers over Bolshevism’s model cities and collective farms.

Caption: A Russian Village in the fertile Ukraine,
a German farm on land wrested from the sea.
The environment does not form people…
…people form the environment.

The accomplishments of the Nordic race are the highest of any race in Europe. This is shown in many splendid cultural monuments, not only on European soil, but also deep in Asia and Africa. The investigations are at an early stage, but we already know that there is hardly a nation in North Africa, the Near East, Iran, India and as far as Turkistan that does not show wonderful evidence of Nordic cultures. It must fill us with pride that in our own homeland, in Germany, culture has bloomed in unbroken lines for more than 5000 years, created by people of our blood, our nature, our ancestry.


Race is the decisive force in the life of the peoples

Race is the decisive and molding force in the life of the nations. Language, culture, customs, piety, traditions, life style, but also laws, governmental forms and economies, the whole variety of life is racially determined.

Only racially higher peoples are creators and bearers of a high culture. Only they determine the course of events. Inferior races have no history. They lack the necessary ability, the ability to master their own fate. Only racially advanced peoples have this ability; races that do not have the courage to make history have no history. The life of a people does not develop mechanically, nor does it develop steadily. It is a constant struggle with nature and the environment, and above all with other peoples. It is an eternal battle, an eternal struggle. There is no unified, gradual development of all peoples to a common goal. Cultures rise and fall and peoples vanish without others being able to build on their foundation. Each people have unique racial elements that determine its life style and culture, elements that only it can develop and fill with new life.

Peoples are creative and significant only as long as they preserve and keep pure their racial inheritance. The decline of a people’s culture is always the result of race mixing and a decline in racial quality. Any change in the racial makeup of a people leads to a change in its nature and its culture. If the race that gave a people its nature is debased by mixing with foreign and inferior races, the people’s culture will perish and can never again be restored to full life.

A philosophy that assumes human equality and teaches that all of humanity is part of a common, step-by-step process of development is an error or else a conscious lie. There is no common development of all of humanity. The results of all serious investigations provide evidence against this viewpoint.


Human history is the history of peoples

The history of peoples is racially determined. It is racial in nature.

It is equally false to think that cultures, like individual organisms, follow the laws of growth and decline—that every culture must eventually perish. History provides many examples of peoples that endure for millennia, reaching ever new levels, as long as they maintain their racial purity. Only those peoples perish that ignore their culture—those who act against the law of blood, those that do not maintain the purity of the leading and guiding race.

Since the rise or fall of a people’s culture depends above all on the maintenance, care, and purity of its valuable racial inheritance, every responsible statesman must be concerned with racial policy, and do everything possible to maintain the purity of the racial inheritance for the future. Adolf Hitler was the first statesman in history to recognize this and base his policies on it. The world-spanning war that the German people are waging under his leadership is the battle of the Nordic Race against the forces of chaos and racial decay. It is decisive for the future of our Germanic culture, for the purity of the racial elements that make our culture, and for the fate of Europe as a whole.


The triumph of racial thinking

The new scientific understanding of the importance of blood for the existence of the German people and its culture did not win without a struggle. Our people’s thinking was misled by the forces of the Church, Liberalism, Bolshevism, and Jewry. Only the victory of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist worldview enabled the German people to think racially. The worldview appeals to the Nordic blood inheritance of each German. We have it to thank for the enormous progress of our people after 1933, and for the unprecedented triumphs of its army in building a new order in Europe and the world. Destroying Jewry will remove the final cause that led to the decline and fall of Europe and its culture.

When National Socialism took power in Germany, most citizens did not understand the revolutionary significance of racial science and genetics. The victory of racial thinking in so short a time is astonishing. Scientific knowledge often requires decades, even centuries, to enter a people’s thinking. The worldview Adolf Hitler developed, based on these incontrovertible scientific results, enabled the greater part of our people to be persuaded of the correctness and decisive significance of racial thinking.

Even in other parts of the Germanic world where the influence of Liberalism has been the strongest and most persistent (e.g. Sweden ) people are realizing the historical significance and value of common Nordic blood and the importance of keeping it pure. They recognize that even today the North Germanic peoples are endangered.

The other peoples of Europe too, above all our allies, are recognizing the importance of racial thinking. A racial manifesto of leading Italian scientists in Fascist Italy on 14 July 1938 affirmed racial thinking clearly.

The seventh of ten points is: “It is time for Italians to openly affirm racial thinking. Italian racial policy must be Italian in nature, and follow the Aryan-Nordic model.” Point 8 said: “It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the Mediterranean peoples of Europe on the one side and the Oriental and African peoples on the other. Point 9 said: “The Jews are of non-Italian blood.” Point 10 added: “The pure European physical and spiritual traits of the Italians may not be altered. The pure European character of the Italians will be changed by mixing with any other non-European race, which is the carrier of a culture other than the ancient Aryan culture.”

This racial manifesto clearly recognizes the biological differences between the human races, and draws the necessary conclusions from that scientific knowledge. It is not a mere imitation of National Socialist thinking. Its significance is that a second great power, building on its own scientific foundations, recognizes the significance of racial thinking and sees maintaining the purity of its good blood as its most important task.

Practical measures soon followed the manifesto. An example was the 1938 law that banned marriages between Italian citizens and the colored (“colonial subjects”).

Each of Europe’s peoples must return to the source of its existence and affirm its racial uniqueness if it is to be renewed in the way the German people has been under National Socialism.

In recent years, most European peoples have found the will to protect their racial purity against mixing. The Jews are increasingly excluded from economic life, and marriages with Jews are forbidden. Examples are Slovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Croatia, and Bulgaria.

Halfway solutions always prove useless. When any kind of back door is left open, the Jew gets around the intentions of the lawmakers. European nations are increasingly coming to the realization that the Jewish question can be solved only as a racial question, and that only racial thinking consistent with natural laws can guarantee the life and characteristics of the individual peoples.

Adolf Hitler introduced a new era in the history of Europe and the world. A new world is rising. The barriers of centuries are falling. Empires are declining and a new order under the leadership of young people is rising. The spiritual revolution of our age is just as significant. The spiritual and political boundaries have probably never been clearer than they are today. The lines are clear everywhere.

The Second World War is a struggle between two worldviews and two ways of life. Our enemy hates us because we have recognized that the single raw material that cannot be replaced is the raw material that the German people have more of than any other people on earth, our good blood, which is our Nordic inheritance. They hate us because they know that we hold the key to victory, to our future, and to the eternal Reich of all Germans.


Race and people

“The human soul does not exist independent of the body, as the Church teaches. Body and soul are an inseparable unity. The living body is the manifestation of the soul.” We do not want to be the last of a millennia-old advanced culture that ends with us, but rather “members of an unending chain extending from our most ancient ancestors to our distant grandchildren.”