Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective, Part 1

Brenton Sanderson


Whether the Jews comprise a religion, a nation, an ethnic group, or a race (or a combination of these) has always been central to the Jewish Question. The recently published Jews & Race — Writings on Identity and Difference 18801940 (edited by Mitchell B. Hart) is an anthology of Jewish writing which offers a fascinating insight into Jewish racial thinking during a period when hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory was generally accepted throughout the West. Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, Western anthropologists posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlative set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Given the consistent results from over 90 years of IQ testing of different racial groups (as defined by external traits like skin color) and other race-based life history statistics, we know this methodology, long dismissed by those within the Judeo-Marxist intellectual establishment as “pseudoscience,” to be entirely valid.

The Jewish socialist writer Chaim Zhitlowsky expressed the orthodox view in 1939 when he noted that “it is understood that each Volk is endowed with certain characteristic traits, some bodily, some mental. Such traits are transmitted hereditarily from generation to generation, and determine how in fact a people receive the phenomena of the external world and how it reacts to these phenomena. On such traits depend the particular and specific national customs or manners, insofar as the blessed children of a people, the most gifted by nature, bring forth human cultural treasures.” The study of racial differences was held by Zhitlowsky to be necessary “in order to clarify the fundamental role of biology in human progress. Here the history of culture must be considered with racial descent in thinking about the creator of culture, and it is not a superfluous or meaningless thing to take [the biological] into account.”


As Kevin MacDonald points out in The Culture of Critique, this approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. Although Boas was influential at least by the 1920s in academic departments of anthropology, in his book The Sacred Chain, the Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted how “Since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.” This new ideology represented a radical shift in Jewish thinking given that race, racial purity, and the reality of ethnic interests lie at the heart of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Cantor acknowledged the racial basis of Judaism:

Racism is itself a central doctrine in traditional Judaism and Jewish cultural history. The Hebrew Bible is blatantly racist, with all the talk about the seed of Abraham, the chosen people, and Israel as a light to the other nations. Orthodox Jews in their morning prayers still thank God daily that he did not make Jews ‘like the other peoples of the earth.’ If this isn’t racism, what is? That highly regarded medieval book, Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, is blatantly racist. Halevi will not even allow that a convert to Judaism is the equal of a natural-born Jew. Martin Buber, the much-praised theologian and mystic, was still talking in the early 1920s about the distinctiveness of Jewish ‘blood’. Early Zionism was greatly affected by a positive view of racism. Herzl was inclined that way, and his close associate Max Nordau, for two decades a prominent Zionist leader in Europe, was the author of a classic of racist theory, Degeneration.

From about 1830 to 1900 Jews in Western Europe, especially in Britain, benefited rather than suffered from racist attitudes. Jews of Sephardi origin, if they were affluent, were regarded in aristocratic circles as esoteric creatures possessing superior bloodlines, and intermarriage with a converted Jew was entirely permissible in the best social and political circles. The behaviour of the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is an example of this attitude. Far from trying to play down his Jewish ethnicity, Disraeli, the shrewdest of politicians emphasized it by turning up in Parliament in a hairdo and clothes that fit the racial stereotype of a Mediterranean Jew.

According to Cantor, Darwinian race theory only lost Jewish support when Jews felt threatened by the emergence of a variant “of hierarchic Social Darwinism, which had wide acceptance as a legitimate sociology between 1880 and 1920. Darwin’s population biology was regarded in the late nineteenth century as scientifically verifiable. … It was popular in Britain as sustaining [what Cantor regards as] the myth of the white man’s burdensome privilege of ruling over the coloured races” The key rationale for the emergence of Boasian anthropology as a Jewish intellectual movement was the fact that: “In the 1890s Social Darwinists, including some in universities, began to turn out hierarchic tables in which Jews were placed near the bottom of the list of races, just above blacks.” Cantor notes that “If universalist multiculturalist equality rather than Social Darwinism had been fashionable,” then this “polemic against the Jews would not have been possible, of course.”

Norman Cantor

It is hardly surprising in this intellectual milieu that Jews would resort to embracing “a cultural pluralism that removed the claim for the superiority of one culture over another” and which protected Jews from anti-Jewish claims that Jews were an inferior race. Jewish support among for Boasian anthropology — an explicitly antiracist “science” — grew as the expanding and prosperous Jewish communities in the West “suffered a severe check in the 1920s and 1930s from anti-Semitic discrimination and the closing of opportunity, particularly with regard to open access to the learned professions.” With this and the rise of the National Socialists in Germany, it became clear that White ethnocentrism and group cohesion was bolstered by hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory, and that this was antithetic to Jewish ethnic interests. The overthrow of this theory (and the resultant diminution of white ethnocentrism and group cohesion) was, as Kevin MacDonald points out, an ethno-political campaign that had nothing to do with real science. The “shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences” resulted from “an ideological shift rather than the emergence of any new empirical data” (CofC, p. 21).

Franz Boas

The Boasian revolution in anthropology represented such a dramatic departure from preceding Jewish thinking about race, that an examination of Jewish racial writing from 1880 to 1940 forces us, notes Hart, “to reorient the way we think about the normative narrative of the Jewish past” according to which historians have “told the story of the relationship between Jews and race largely within the framework of victimhood,” whereby “racial science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was one of the chief weapons used against Jews.” The abandonment of Darwinian race theory by Jewish anthropologists from the 1920s and 1930s necessitated that they obscure the inherently racial nature of Judaism, in order to forestall charges of hypocrisy. Yet Hart admits that race is still “one of the building blocks of contemporary Jewish identity construction” and that “biological and genetic arguments possess a power for many Jews as they seek to explain to themselves and others just what it is that constitutes Jewishness.” He acknowledges that “even though such thinking may have been submerged or made invisible for fifty years, many Jews still “think with blood” about Jewish belonging. He cites Susan Glenn who noted how “Throughout all the de-racializing stages of twentieth century social thought, Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.”

With the steady accumulation of population genetic studies demonstrating just how threadbare the Boasian assumptions really are (Boas was known for his antipathy to genetics), Hart is forced, despite his leftist politics, to concede that “race” is a meaningful concept after all:

The assertion that the Jews are not a race would appear at present to be fairly unproblematic, at least if we look at science as our guide to such matters. Since many biologists have told us that races in general do not exist in any “real” or natural way — that they are, rather, a cultural or social construct — then it seems patently absurd to consider the Jews a race. As Steven Kaplan has asked, if there are no races how can Jews be a race? Yet, it turns out that things are not that simple. Science, it seems, has not made up its mind on the issue of race. Some researchers in genetics now insist, as the philosopher Ian Hacking has written, “that stereotypical features of race are associated with ancestral geographic origin and, to some extent, with genetic markers.” In other words, “race” might not be just a social construct after all, though it certainly is that. Race no longer exists in the older version of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but modern genetic research may be in the process of redefining notions of identity that reanimate the “racial.”

Implicit here is an admission that the vast post-WWII literature spawned by the Boasians denying the reality of race — which has profoundly influenced Western politics and culture — is based on a series of false assumptions that are increasingly hard to sustain in the face of population genetic research confirming the reality of race and racial differences. Likewise, the idea that Judaism is not a group evolutionary strategy (implicit in claims Judaism is just a religion) cannot be credibly sustained in the light of studies like that of Atzmon et al. (2010) which confirm that Jews are a distinct genetic community. This study examined genetic markers spread across the entire genome, and showed that the Jewish groups (Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi) share large swaths of DNA, indicating close genetic relationships. Although each Jewish group in the study (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek and Ashkenazi) had its own genetic signature, each was more closely related to the other Jewish groups than to their non-Jewish countrymen. Atzmon and colleagues found that the SNP markers in genetic segments of 3 million DNA letters or longer were 10 times more likely to be identical among Jews than non-Jews, and that any two Ashkenazi Jewish participants in the study shared about as much DNA as fourth or fifth cousins.


Of course, Judaism could still be a group evolutionary strategy even if Jews were not a genetically separate group, providing that Jews believed that they were and behaved accordingly — which is exactly what they did believe and behave like for millennia before recent population genetic studies confirmed what they had always assumed. Hart includes an essay by the Zionist writer Robert Weltsch who neatly summed up this longstanding hyper-ethnocentric Jewish mentality when he noted in 1913 that: “When it comes to the unity of the Jews, there is one irrefutable proof: the consciousness of this unity, which is an inner experience that every individual Jew possesses.”


Hart, who is professor of Jewish History at the University of Florida, concedes that Jewish texts dealing with race have always been “unavoidably political,” and notes that “racial narratives written and disseminated by Jews about Jews [during the 1880–1940 period] were intended in part as a direct polemical response to anti-Semites. Jewish racial thinkers believed that they could use racial science as an intellectual weapon against their enemies.” This tendency is clearly evident in a review by writer and Zionist activist Moritz Goldstein’s of Ignaz Zollschan’s book The Racial Problem, with Particular Attention Paid to the Theoretical Foundations of the Jewish Racial Question (1909), where Goldstein was less concerned with the validity of Zollschan’s arguments than with their potential for providing a “scientific justification of all that we, as modern Jews, believe and must believe if we wish to retain our self-esteem in the face of those who despise us, and if we are supposed to have trust in the future of our Volk.” Goldstein admired how “This author [Zollschan] permits himself no emotional expressions, no mysticism, and no hypotheticals,” and yet he could “sense a passionate temperament and an enthusiastic partiality pulsating beneath that cool façade.” Goldstein aptly defined the Jewish culture of critique in his review, pointing out that: “What would be essential here [in utilizing Zollschan’s ideas] would be to reply to those value judgments that are so hostile to us with our own counter judgments.”

Indeed, in reading the essays and articles that make up this volume, one is struck by the continuity between the pre- and post-Boasian Jewish discourses on race in the way that Jewish ethnic politics is embedded into purportedly “academic” writing. We find early versions of arguments that have become ubiquitous in the post-WWII anti-White cultural and political context. For example, we find the proposition that the Western nation state is, of moral necessity, based solely on a set of abstract ideas (democracy, legal equality etc.) and not on racial or ethnic kinship. For instance, in his article entitled Reflections on the Jews (1891), the French-Jewish rabbi and scholar Isidore Loeb declared that “it is certain that race does not enter into the idea of a nation as an indispensable factor.” Instead, he insisted that “all scholars agree that the unity of a nation is not founded on the unity of race,” but rather on “a group of people united by the same allegiances, the same historical memories, the same aspirations for the future, attaching all these feelings to a common homeland, real if not ideal, and having a defined political existence.” Anticipating the neoconservatives, with their cynical invocation of the kind of moral universalistic arguments they know appeal to White people, Loeb maintained that

it is absolutely impossible to find any reason to justify exceptional laws for a group of people, in particular, for the Jews. The principle of human brotherhood, of equal rights for all men, is the foundation of every modern state. Outside this principle, there can only be arbitrariness and injustice, and a state that is not founded on justice cannot even be conceived of.

Presumably, the modern ethno-nationalist state of Israel would have been inconceivable to Loeb — though I strongly doubt it. Also prominent in pre-Boasian Jewish writing on race are attempts to depict the different European ethnic groups as being already so intermixed as to render the distinctive European ethnic identifications virtually meaningless. This argument was ostensibly deployed to suggest that efforts to exclude Jews as racial/ethnic outsiders, with incompatible group interests, are somehow senseless given that the various European nations have no cohesive racial/ethnic basis to begin with. Why, then, should the various European ethnic groups care if an alien people, like the Jews, live within their borders and add another ethnic element to the existing mix? In an early call for multiculturalism, Loeb in his Reflections on the Jews (1893) argued that European nation states, which “are formed of an amalgam of diverse races,” had a moral obligation to accept Jews and other non-assimilating groups:

Between a French or German Jew and a French or German Christian there is assuredly less of a difference, if there is one at all, than between a Frenchman and a German, a German and a Slav. But even if this difference were more obvious, there would be no reason to drive Jews out of a country and to refuse them civil and political rights. Every nation is composed of different races, and therein the Jewish race can find a legitimate place.

A classic example of the widespread pattern of Jews espousing patently insincere and ethno-politically motivated views for greater benefit of the Jews was the infamous testimony of the American Jewish Committee and Union of American Hebrew Congregations before the United States Immigration Committee in 1910. Here the judge and cofounder of the American Jewish Committee, Julian Mack, together with the lawyer and Jewish community leader, Simon Wolf, asserted under oath that there is no such thing as “Jewish race,” and that the practice of classifying Jews as a race on US immigration forms should therefore cease. The patent mendacity of this testimony embarrassed some Jews at the time, including the American Zionist newspaper The Maccabaean, which condemned Mack and Wolf in an editorial for having

attempted to have their interpretation of the facts of Jewish history fastened upon the entire Jewish citizenship of this country not for personal reasons, but in order to retard the growing anti-Jewish feeling which, they declare, will result in immigration restriction should the American people become aware of the number of Jews who come to this country. Though their motives are prompted by interest in the welfare of the Jewish people, we cannot permit them to utilize arguments, and to misinterpret facts, in a manner to bring the Jewish people of this country into contempt with the legislators who are now considering the immigration situation. Without entering into the merits of [the] argument, which was advanced by them not as matters of conviction, but primarily as matters of policy, we desire to dissociate ourselves from their point of view, from their logic, and from their policy. … We believe that if anything could stimulate prejudice against the Jews it would be the shifting, unmanly, and undignified pretense of representatives of a people who, against fact and history, and against their own private convictions, disown their racial and national birthright.  …

By asserting boldly a theory that there is no Jewish race, but only a conglomeration of people professing the Jewish religion, Judge Mack and Mr. Wolf, and the organizations they represented, uttered a statement, which, if true, would exclude from among our ranks many who are devoted to the ranks of the Jewish people but who are not religionists in the accepted meaning of the term. We believe we speak in the name of the entire Jewish people when we say the Jewish people, native born and naturalized in this country, are not ashamed to have themselves or their brethren classified as racial Jews.

It was this kind of shameless ethno-political expediency from Jews like Mack and Wolf which prompted Madison Grant to characterize Jewish immigrants to the United States as “ruthlessly self-interested whereas American Nordics were committing racial suicide and allowing themselves to be ‘elbowed out’ of their own land.”


The results of recent population genetic studies like that by Atzmon et al. mentioned above essentially confirm the views of the majority of Jewish writers represented in Jews and Race. Hart notes how “questions about Jewish racial purity and mixing constitute a crucial component of many — perhaps most — of the texts in this volume.” For instance, in a 1907 article entitled The Jewish Racial Question, the physician, writer and Zionist Elias Auerbach observed that:

The Jewish race is very homogeneous around the world. It is not uniform, as no civilized race (Kulturrasse) is, but its variations do not differ fundamentally from one country to another. A different fate, a distinct environment, did not result in the blurring of a common and wholly durable type, and indeed the Jews can demonstrate more clearly than any other race how overwhelming an influence heredity has, when compared to assimilation, in the matter of a race’s fate.

The Austrian-Jewish anthropologist and physician Ignaz Zollschan, was equally convinced that the Jews had mostly retained their racial homogeneity in the Diaspora:

The Jewish nation has propagated itself in an essentially pure manner from the time of Ezra until today, and for more than two thousand years represents an ethnically peculiar race, which was not diluted by foreign blood. It is self-evident that a few drops of foreign blood must have found their way among the Jews during the long time in the Diaspora. But these admixtures were too insignificant to have any essential influence upon the ethnic character of the nation. Thus the Cohanim, who were absolutely excluded from mixed marriages, are typically the same as the other Jews. The state of affairs can best be described in one sentence: a great deal of blood was exported from Jewry, but little indeed was imported from outside. And, consequently, we can assume with certainty, that the blood that flows today in the veins of the Jews is the same as that of two thousand years ago.

The onetime Director of the Bureau of Jewish Statistics in Berlin, Arthur Ruppin, agreed with this assessment, noting that “An English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese Jew is still a Jew based on features, regardless of the nuances he presents: that is to say that they have all the same characteristics of shape and proportion — in a word, that which essentially constitutes a type.” Highlighting the fundamental nature of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, he also made the obvious point that “Among all other Völker, religion and race have very little to do with one another; whereas, among the Jews, religion is a certain indicator of racial affiliation.”

Arthur Ruppin

Ruppin traced the Jews’ racial homogeneity back to Judaism’s historical roots when “In Palestine itself, Ezra placed particular importance on keeping the pure families clear from intermixture with foreign elements, and made sure that foreign Volk elements would be purged. Therefore at the time of the Second Temple’s destruction the Jews in Palestine were racially constituted more or less as they had been at the time of the destruction of the First Temple.” Elias Auerbach likewise made the point that “throughout all the historical books of the Bible and the numerous speeches of the prophets, there occurs a constant repetition of the warning against mixing with neighboring peoples.” Given this constant repetition, Auerbach is compelled to make

the point vigorously that in general, over the course of the entire racial history of the Jews, the most rigorous opposition to racial mixing does not stem from other peoples but from the Jews themselves… It is only by knowing and taking into consideration this tendency that we are able to make anthropological use of the historical facts, for it is this tendency alone that allowed the Jews to remain unscathed [unaffected] by their long wanderings in exile, the enormity and length of which would have long since brought other races to the point of dissolution. The active reserve displayed by the Jews is, notably, taken to such lengths that it is forbidden for them to proselytize, because religious equality [between Jews as a race and other races] would do away with the most powerful barrier against physical intermixing… With the sort of racial pride that the Jewish nation, on the basis of all our sources, evinces to a high degree, we should hardly wonder that measures against the influx of foreign types into the race were put in place.”

Alfred Nossig, a Polish-Jewish writer and social scientist active in Zionist politics, posited in an article entitled The Chosenness of the Jewish in the Light of Biology (1905) that the idea of divine “chosenness” was the single greatest intellectual innovation of the early Hebrews because, though this, they hit on the key to the long-term survival of the Jewish people. The natural corollary of ‘chosenness’ was ‘endogamy’ which became the lynchpin of Judaism as a highly effective group evolutionary strategy. For Nossig, that the ancient Hebrews could devise such a brilliant idea is testament to the genius of his ancient forebears, noting: “Just like the idea of God as the highest abstraction of being, this idea [of chosenness], too, is obviously nothing more than the product of Jewish intellectual and moral ability, a result of the mental efforts of the Jewish Volk – and this despite the fact that the Bible presents it as divine revelation.”

The result of this intellectual achievement was that Jewry became “…intoxicated by the idea of its own chosenness” and the first and most striking result of this idea was “the fact of the continuing survival of the Jews, and their exceptional vitality and reproductive power. The Mosaic concept of an ‘eternal people’ appears to have been realized. This alone already demonstrates that the chosenness of the Jews is something other and deeper than the ordinary racial pride that could not prevent the decline of other, far more powerful peoples. It brought about the eternal existence of the Jewish Volk through the biological effects of its intellectual ideals and its moral law.” The German anthropologist and ethnologist Curt Michaelis dismissed Nossig’s claims, arguing that the idea of “chosenness” stemmed exclusively “from the racial pride of the Jews,” and, assessing the problems this presented for non-Jews, observed that “Emboldened by this concept, the racial pride of the Jews becomes biogenetically fatal. It brought about isolationism, strict laws of endogamy, and contempt, cruelty, and hate for all other peoples.”

Go to PART 2. 

Essays cited in this review from Mitchell Hart’s (Ed.)  Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880–-1940 (Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts, 2011).

Auerbach, E. (1907) ‘The Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 207-218.

Goldstein, M. (1913) ‘The Jewish Racial Problem,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 317-322.

Loeb, I. (1893) ‘Reflections on the Jews,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 49-59.

Nossig, A. (1905) ‘The Chosenness of the Jews in the Light of Biology,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 259-267.

Ruppin, A. (1908) ‘The Mixed Marriage,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 219-223.

Ruppin, A. (1930) ‘On the Origins and Race of the Jews,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 71-80.

Unsigned editorial from The Maccabaean (1910) ‘”There Is No Jewish Race!” The Testimony of the American Jewish Committee  and Union of American Hebrew Congregations before the United States Immigration Committee,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 285-296.

Weltsch, R. (1913) ‘Concerning Racial Theory,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 311-316.

Zhitlowsky, C. (1939) ‘Jews and Jewishness,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 323-330.

Zollschan, I. (1914) ‘The Significance of the Mixed Marriage,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 226-237.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

49 Comments to "Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective, Part 1"

  1. Leo Braun's Gravatar Leo Braun
    February 6, 2012 - 8:14 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust: “For fear of the Jews, biologists will whisper only in private that race differences in genes, behavior, and mentality are real and important”!

    • In his book, Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People, Jon Entine maps some of these discoveries onto the span of Jewish history (from ancient times through the Jewish diaspora). In the process, he tries to respond to Mark Twain’s observation: “All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains! What is the secret of his immortality“?

  2. Poetryboy's Gravatar Poetryboy
    February 3, 2012 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust: Oh, you are seeing ghosts everywhere now. Symbolism and allegory are tricky things. They are often real, but we must be careful not to project our what’s in our own mind onto art. Still, I bet you’d be cool to talk with in person!

  3. Richard's Gravatar Richard
    February 3, 2012 - 9:25 pm | Permalink



    In my previous comment, the one right above this one, I accidentally wrote:

    It would surprise me, though.

    I meant to write “It would not surprise me, though.”

  4. Richard's Gravatar Richard
    February 3, 2012 - 9:23 pm | Permalink


    Thanks for your comment, John.

    Until very recently, I had never even heard of the theory that the ancient Israelites or Hebrews were White.

    It would surprise me, though.

    A few years ago the History or Discovery channel did some tv program in which they got so-called experts to create a digital image of what Christ probably looked like. The face they decided on had the appearance of a caveman — not even an attractive caveman. It’s almost as if some people want to put an ugly image of Christ in our minds. If you do a quick search for it, it’s not difficult to find.

    I love the idea of a White Christ. It would not shock me.

  5. Dr. Faust's Gravatar Dr. Faust
    February 3, 2012 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

    The movie Dune and the more recent television mini-series are worthwhile entertainments but de-emphasize Herbert’s meditations on behavioral genetics and on weaponization of religion so as to promote ingroup endogamy/eugenics.

    Even after reading the entire series, I did not come to my current view on Herbert’s judeocritical intent until I read KM’s Judaism trilogy and learned to appreciate Judaism as a eugenic algorithm.

    Herbert’s Fremen are, of course, following an Islam-derived religion. But Herbert has Judaicized them in subtle ways and I believe they are meant subtly to depict the ultra-Orthodox Jewish mentality. They are extremely secretive, such that the Empire has never been able to take an accurate census and has vastly underestimate their numbers; they are superstitious, supremacist, hyper-ethnocentric, insist on blood purity, fanatically obsessed with maximizing and retaining possession of their tribal water reserves (here water=money), and have established de facto control of Spice (=oil) production by the sandworms (=Arab oil-producing states), which they have secretly domesticated and turned into weapons of war. Like the Bene Gesserit (=secular Jewish elites) they wield vast power behind the scenes. Importantly, the Fremen have a Bene Gesserit priestess as their chief religious figure.

    In the fifth or sixth Dune novel (it’s been a while since I’ve read them) Herbert has the Jews themselves (!) make an explicit appearance and a Bene Gesserit leader explicitly asserts that Judaism was a template for the Bene Gesserit.

    Another important judeo-critical science fiction allegory, I believe, is H.G. Well’s The Time Machine. (Morlocks=Jews). It’s a short, frightening read.

    Poetryman, I wish I were able to disclose personal details without fear of thereby losing my livelihood. Perhaps in a couple of decades I will be in a position to do so.

  6. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    February 3, 2012 - 7:46 pm | Permalink

    @Happy Black History Month!: “The Jews are outraged that a negro voodoo priest masquerading as a Christian wrapped himself it the Torah and got proclaimed a King by a fake rabbi.”

    This isn’t just the a succinct summation of what’s going on here…

    This is Art and should be joined with music. Or put on a poster – something designed to go viral on Facebook…

  7. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    February 3, 2012 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert: “A powerful Mafia based on questionable myths is still a powerful Mafia. ”

    Persuasive, fact-based post, Mr. Ryckaert. Thank you.

  8. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 2, 2012 - 9:50 pm | Permalink

    Long before I ever had reason to think ill of any Jew, I did wonder at my own sense of repulsion at some Jewish faces. Now I wonder if it is a folk memory?

  9. pessimist's Gravatar pessimist
    February 2, 2012 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

    @Joe Webb:

    Boas’s visage reminds me of a lunatic or someone very untrustworthy. He’s not the only Jew like that, many of them have rather openly unsavory character traits coupled with facial features(probably a result of too much inbreeding) often resulting in clownish faces such as Greenspan’s or a degraded physique and funny gait.

    Oh, yeah it’s clear there that a lot of Jews have some European blood in them. It’s a result of bringing in select Goy women and girls into their family(which happened in pre-WWII Poland, where wealthy Jews would purchase promising young Polish girls from their peasant parents for a sizable chunk of silver coins). It would surprise me in the least that such practices were common in countries with a strong and unmonitored Jewish presence.

  10. February 2, 2012 - 8:44 pm | Permalink

    @Freedom Cobra:

    I’ve been reading your blog for months now and you do a wonderful job of fighting the (often willful) ignorance and misconceptions surrounding NS.

    Thank you. Nothing beats consulting primary sources. The failure to do this has been a major factor in allowing Jewish falsification of history to succeed.

  11. Happy Black History Month!'s Gravatar Happy Black History Month!
    February 2, 2012 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Sadly, the best Black History Moment of Black History Month hits the news only two days into the festival. How will they top this?

    Don’t you just get all jittery when the Diversity’s weakness for justifying all your prejudices goes on full display right before your very own eyes?

    This story is a humdinger- right in the afro ATL on the second day of Black History Month.

    The Jews are outraged that a negro voodoo priest masquerading as a Christian wrapped himself it the Torah and got proclaimed a King by a fake rabbi.

    But don’t Jewish agitprop orgs tell us they “fight anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defend democratic ideals and protect civil rights for all,” and that they “fight hate, teach tolerance, and seek justice,” or, as the Bremen Jewish Heritage and Holocaust Museum in da ATL says it, “celebrating Jewish culture, embracing diversity, and promoting social justice”?

    Then why the outrage over “Reverend” Eddie Long’s new worship habits? Maybe he’s just catching up with the Jews’ forcing Interfaith services into “Christian” churches. Shouldn’t the Jews welcome his vibrant and enriching contribution to Jewish worship practices?

    The outrage is because Jews deeply resent negro appropriation of their forms and symbols. If anyone feels superior to the negroes, it must be the Jews.

    Jews intentionally ruined Christian churches through the struggle for racial integration, and they won’t let it happen to themselves. They’ll stay pure and let everybody else mongrelize. They worry about how Eddie Long is tarnishing their exclusive brand.

    “The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.’ ” Stopping the defamation of Jews by condemning a negro king takes precedence over giving the negro fair treatment and declaring him the great new leader of the Interfaith movement between voodoo and Judaism.

    But more telling is the claim by the fake rabbi (but not a fake Jew) that he was “restoring” Eddie Long. That’s the old Abrahamic claim that Jews bring justice and judgment to the world, so that through the Jews, Christians become restored Christians through the hands of Jews.

    “My message was about restoring a man and to encourage his walk in the Lord,” Messer said. “It was not to make Bishop Eddie L. Long a king.”

    Why would a “Christian” go to a Jew for anything?

    Obviously, this a all show business and marketing for the disgraced negro voodoo priest Eddie Long, whose legal troubles have filled da ATL news of late and crowded out the really important negro crime and corruption stories.

    “The connection of the Torah scroll to the Holocaust and then to Eddie Long is incomprehensible to me,” said David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University. Gushee is a scholar of the Holocaust and has visited Auschwitz several times.

    “What was the point? Was it to signal that Eddie Long was suffering persecution like the Jews at Auschwitz?” Gushee asked.

    Negroes can never be allowed to climb higher than their allotted rung on the victimhood ladder than the Jews will allow. Mentioning Auschwitz in connection with negro suffering is verboten- that’s more tolerance of equal suffering than is permissible. Jews must always maintain their morally superior position in the victimhood hierarchy. They are highly vigilant against encroachments. The ADL regularly blasts anyone who uses the word “Holocaust” outside of approved contexts.

    “In his statement Thursday, Ralph Messer said Sunday’s presentation ‘was simply a way of bringing honor to a man who had given his life to the Lord and had given so much to his church, the Atlanta metro area and throughout the world.’ ”

    Wrapping a negro in a Torah may have lifted the negro, but it definitely disgraced the Torah!

    “You can’t attack [Long],” Messer said Sunday. “He’s sealed. Wherever he turns, the power of God is there. … It’s not him, it’s the king in him.”

    That statement defies comment.

    “A lot of things could have been done to shore that up, but this particularly bizarre ritual was deeply disturbing,” Gushee said. “One problem with Messianic Judaism, in which leaders attempt to fuse Jewish and Christian traditions and symbols, is that it can easily stray into profound insensitivity.”

    Sounds like Interfaith is only permissible within the limits drawn by Jews. When things progress too far along logic lines of inevitability, the Jews call it “insensitivity”.

    But not once did accuse Long of “anti-Semitism”. That career-destroying hate charge is reserved only for White Humanity.

  12. Poetryman's Gravatar Poetryman
    February 2, 2012 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust: Thanks for the reply Dr. Faust!

    That’s interesting. I sensed subtext about Jews too when I read Dune, but I thought it was Harkkonnen=Hebrews and Fremen=Palestinians. I admit you make a strong case with regard to the Bene Gesserit, though. I only have read the first book–other people have told me they go sharply down-hill after the first–so I wasn’t able to form a complete picture of the Bene Gesserit. Maybe that is developed in the subsequent books to a greater degree?

    It’s a fascinating topic, how ubiquitous allegory concerning Jews is in the Scifi/fantasy literature. There is an ongoing dialectic on the “Jewish Question” in the fantasy literature as well, beginning with George MacDonald’s Princess and the Goblin thru Tolkien’s story of Eol the Dark Elf. Much to be inferred from all this. It would make a fascinating article for this website. I wish you would develop your thesis on Dune into a short article.

    Also, Slan by Van Vogt, which I’m sure you’ve read, is an interesting meditation on this question as well. Allegory is typically used in a political context when criticizing a totalitarian regime, where open criticism would cause one to be prosecuted. That writers feel the necessity to cloak criticism of Jews in allegory is strong testament to their power to quash their critics.

    Dr. Faust, what sort of doctor are you?

  13. Mike's Gravatar Mike
    February 2, 2012 - 7:06 pm | Permalink

    My previous post has been removed, even though what I said is true, and I used no personal insults, epithets or prpfanities in saying it; so I can only conclude that there are things that cannot be said about jews, even here. Shame on you!

  14. Freedom Cobra's Gravatar Freedom Cobra
    February 2, 2012 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott

    Hans F.K. Günther arrived at the same conclusion. Jews really are a nation unto themselves. Günther also noted that their greatest capacity to harm us comes from the ability to steer us down the wrong path. Yockey deemed them “culture distorters” that twisted our folkways into dysgenic practices. Hitler stated that the Jew is the greatest threat to the Aryan. It’s a simple phrase at first glance but Yockey and Günther add depth to this.

    We are unbeatable when facing external foes. We are too honest and open for our own good sometimes. Our greatest strengths and weaknesses stem from this. National Socialism created a fine balance between individual and collective values. Amazingly it was a work in progress! If only they won! I’ve been reading your blog for months now and you do a wonderful job of fighting the (often willful) ignorance and misconceptions surrounding NS.

  15. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 2, 2012 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust: For the time-challenged, does the movie Dune capture any of these elements you mentioned?

  16. Dr. Faust's Gravatar Dr. Faust
    February 2, 2012 - 5:33 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust:

    Oops. . .above should be “or Biochemistry” instead of “as Biochemistry”!

  17. Dr. Faust's Gravatar Dr. Faust
    February 2, 2012 - 5:28 pm | Permalink

    [Sorry if this is a repost–having trouble submitting this for some reason.]
    The way to freedom from Jewish domination is religio-political-technological innovation that explicitly or implicitly enforces endogamy and eugenic practices.

    I think Herbert is arguing (not just in Dune but in the other five books) that the primary concern of non-Jewish elites must be to deliberately guide gene-culture evolution to defend against the Jewish group evolutionary strategy of manipulating outgroup religio-political ideology towards dysgenic outcomes with the aim of permanent despotic rule.

    Basically, only a few non-Jews can see through the Jewish-promulgated nonsense and chart their own course. But most people need a religious or political system to guide them. It doesn’t matter whether a group adopts as a starting point Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, as Biochemistry, so long as a cultural protocol is developed that defines and stabilizes behaviors among group members that enforce a group genetic boundary (endogamy) and enact a eugenic algorithm. Once a firm foundation is built on those two principles, gene-culture evolution can take it from there.

    A culture that parts ways with endogamy will be dissociated from its genetic substrate and perish. A culture that prohibits eugenics will be dominated by those that promote it.

    While I agree with Mickey Meadows that a trading algorithm would be nice, a eugenic algorithm and the religio-politico-cultural superstructure to allow the ingroup to deem eugenic endogamous mating choices (or someday genetic engineering) to be just and noble and beautiful, would be infinitely more valuable.

  18. Ritchard's Gravatar Ritchard
    February 2, 2012 - 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Great clear headed comments and thanks for the tip on “The Brigade”.

  19. fender's Gravatar fender
    February 2, 2012 - 2:17 am | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust:

    So the way to victory is for all Whites to convert to Islam? Because if you honestly think Herbert was writing an allegory about Jewish domination in Dune, that’s the conclusion you have to come to.

  20. Dr. Faust's Gravatar Dr. Faust
    February 2, 2012 - 1:32 am | Permalink

    Here’s a blog on the recent paper on rapid evolution of multicellularity.

    A detailed discussion of the Dune novels as subversive Judeo-critical allegory would be worthwhile but would take this thread too far off topic.

    Briefly, the escapist genres of science fiction (and fantasy) offer plausible deniability in raising taboo subjects, by transposing them onto alien species or galaxies far far away. Frank Herbert took advantage of this plausible deniability (as did Nancy Kress in her “Beggars” series), in order to safely address the Jewish Question. The Dune novels are essentially a warning that the greatest danger to humanity is eternal subjugation by a hostile, sociopathic, super-human elite, because their utopia/dystopia (depending on whether you are ruling or ruled) leads to eternal dysgenic stagnation–a closed, static, and predictable future. The heroes try to avert this hellish, totalitarian outcome and seek to return humanity to “The Golden Path,” which essentially represents an open unpredictable future in which humanity and its many distinct superhuman descendants radiate through an infinite universe and thereby become forever invulnerable to despotic (i.e. Jewish) exploitation and control.

    The Bene Gesserit are an enduring, secretive, endogamous, eugenically-focused, vengeful, conspiratorial group of matrilineally-defined priestesses with mind-control abilities, who have infiltrated centers of power by exploiting the base instincts of lesser human beings. They have covertly accumulated tremendous wealth and power by deceit, assassination, seduction, blackmail, economic blockade, financial manipulation, mass atrocity, torture, false flag terrorism, and the cynical manipulation of historical records and religious belief. They set up a millenia-long program of selective breeding to produce a superhuman Messiah prophecied to deliver humanity into their hands. Ring any bells?

    The heroes (who all belong to the Atreides, i.e. implicitly White/Hellenic clan) are motivated by a universalistic impulse to win for humanity maximum freedom and dignity. They master the tactics and strategies of the power-mad villains, turn the tables, then finally renounce despotic power (like Tolkien’s Frodo destroying the One Ring). This renunciation secures The Golden Path.

    Herbert has many other interests and the Dune novels are not just about the Jewish Question.

    To anyone who might be interested in reading the Dune novels: read only the original six. The so-called “Dune” novels written by Brian Herbert and a collaborator after Frank Herbert’s death are unreadable dreck.

  21. European's Gravatar European
    February 2, 2012 - 1:10 am | Permalink

    A fascinating article and one could touch or ponder questions to many points made. Intriguing indeed and a wealth.
    One thought came to my mind reading the article, because the spiritual and biological aspect can not be easily separated. From my experience Jews do identify as a “people hood”. One does not join a Religion, but primarily the goals of a people, a gene pool, that happens to be religious, or has its strength thru the religious aspects and disciplines.
    This brings me to the word “Replacement”. We know “Our replacement” we are experiencing thru Jewish efforts. A victim hood mentality always creates and produces more victims, we know that. For Centuries Europe was predominantly a Christianized Culture. The Catholic Church preached that Christians were the new Jews, a New Creation thru the forgiveness of sin. Jews detested this article of faith as it indicated that “They” were being replaced by a Religion and the God of Christianity, which is often misunderstood as being Jesus, although he is the Teacher or Rabbi, as to a “Type” of a new Man, and interpreted in Judaism as the coming of the Messiah, which in fact they rejected as having appeared. The old has passed away etc. etc. thru this new Man. Europe adopted this believe, taught it, fought for it, made grave mistakes and misinterpretations etc, and collided with Judaism, on the Race or People hood issue, on Old (Hebrew) or New Testament, Replacement Theology etc. etc . But Europe became a Christianized People, how ever imperfect. After WWII, and as I remember living in Germany being free of hostile outsiders, (but occupied) though everyone was in shock and trying to recover from war, loses etc, some lost their faith, some gained it in spite of all the destruction. One can say that a good percentage is still religious in rural areas, where mainstream politics and modern perversions did not enter or affected the family unity as it has done in the bigger Cities. Yes, destroy the family unity, the religion second, and replace it with perverse values, you then have countered the Faith Principle of the New Man thru forgiveness which ties one to a life force that binds Christian People together as a People or Church, the same way as Jews and Judaism. That was middle class Germany from my experience. That inner experience noted in the essay is also the Christians by Nature of abiding in the Spirit of Life. (May or may not be different from the Jewish experience on Mount Sinai. For the most part today’s Jews have no experience other then their new found freedom to terrorize or silence the Gentiles.). For Jews to destroy the people/Gentiles of the Christian faith would be a major victory for them. Since Jews do not know who is, or who is not a Christian in reality, (theologicaly impossible to know, since even they are pre-ordained, by a time only known to God) all whites pay the price the same way as all Jews pay the price. (what a vicious cycle, and what a similarity)
    The question has always been then and now, which is the better. Jews claim their method of deception and what ever justifies their perpetual victimhood, or Christianity of the new Man, new mind, new beginning, creative life, not the return of a Temple etc. If Christianity could learn to leave Israel alone, it is not Christianities destiny or responsibility, we then could have a legitimate counter-culture, if it focuses on living the life of family etc. but do away with some of the literalness that is so destructive to Christianity. A course in the making of Torah, the New Testament, with all the loop holes, unknown etc. a course in History of the Church, to learn from the wrong doings of the church, (not in judgement or condemnation, but as one would see or learn to understand the humaness of a imperfect parent ) could change the way people think about the Bible without losing Faith/Love in the validity, and in the potential of succeeding in creating a better tomorrow for all people to enjoy. Primarily for ourselves, or our own people first, as well as for those who wish to contribute positively in/to our endeavors. LET’S NOT LEAVE IT TO THE JEWS TO DO THIS FOR US, as they have been. They destroy what we positively have build for us. Christianity does not operate out of a victim hood mentality; it seeks, no matter how hard it is sometimes to forgive, maybe not until the next generation, but it pursues to forgive nevertheless. It is the assurance hoped for, and divine grace aids us, if we have the will to take that course, not to give up, and we will succeed. Jews create thought processes out of victim hood and apply them to all people, or revenge on those never having done anything to them. We are not the same; the mind-set is not the same. Not that we could not learn from the thought processes of misfortune or their fortune, the same way they learned from us throughout their Diaspora. Christianities goal is not a Temple as a Building, the building or Temple, the investment is in the New Man, it is in family, children, a Community, healing, art, sciences and music, a way of life, an organic whole and a society.
    Judaism celebrates the destruction of their enemies in one of their holidays which is actually forbidden. Judaism can never be our way of life ever, nor are we to return to Judaism as Christians. Christians-ity is the genetic-biological new Creation that is of a new creative Order, in seeking justice, but not revenge, grace, and not exploitations from the guilty etc. it is our Christian GOAL and much much more.
    We need to learn to focus on what we can do for ourselves, and go do it, instead of what is being done to us, becoming the victim. I read and hear too much of the later here.
    But I am learning immensely from the essays, and also from many of the posters. Thank you, as I am taking R & R for a while.

  22. Richard's Gravatar Richard
    February 1, 2012 - 10:56 pm | Permalink

    I know some people do not have a lot of trust in Wikipedia, but I want to share something from Franz Boas’s Wikipedia page:

    Although his grandparents were observant Jews, his parents embraced Enlightenment values, including their assimilation into modern German society. Boas’s parents were educated, well-to-do, and liberal; they did not like dogma of any kind. Due to this, Boas was granted the independence to think for himself and pursue his own interests.

    There is something about that quote that feels important to me, so I wanted to share it.

  23. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 1, 2012 - 10:07 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: Good question about Cantor’s purported racial hierarchy tables. Does The Sacred Chain substantiate this claim?

  24. HarryO's Gravatar HarryO
    February 1, 2012 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

    The straining at genetic/biological (i.e. “scientific”) underpinnings to conclude race reality (racial distinctiveness with all that flows from it – in a word – culture) invites a sneering laugh. The patent obviousness of the proposition to a man who isn’t blind, deaf or mentally defective is naked to the world. Why not “seriously” discuss whether sexual drive is a salient cause of human reproduction? I am not scorning the science, per se, here, but rather the mad, ideological torpor that imbues Whites in this bizarre, Orwellian era. They are no longer able to believe what their eyes and ears represent to them or experience ought to instruct them in. And to think that such a large part of this enthrallment derives from the exertions of the one in the Portrait of Dorian Grey (the photo of Boas above). His countenance is so overwhelmingly repulsive that it is a marvel that anyone could stand in his presence let alone be enamored of his persona regardless of his touted cogent intellect and forceful personality.

  25. February 1, 2012 - 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Here’s the link that I meant to include: Hansjoerg Maennel, “Folk and the Jewish Question,” Politische Fibel [Political Primer], (1940 edition).

  26. February 1, 2012 - 9:12 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    All in all we cannot maintain that all Jewish groups are genetically closely related thus forming a “race”.

    National-Socialist doctrine on the Jews was as follows:

    “The Jews are a folk, not a race. They are often portrayed as a race in order to emphasize their distinctness. They are a folk completely alien to us Germans, with an entirely different racial composition. The chief racial components of Jewry are the Armenoid (vorderasiatische) and Semitic (orientalische) races. In the course of their history they have mixed themselves with almost all other races of the world.” (HYPERLINK Hansjoerg Maennel, Politische Fibel (1940 ed.), transl. Hadding Scott)

    It seems to be mainly by contrast to Europeans (especially Northern Europeans) that the Jews in modern times could seem to be a race, because their non-European, preponderantly Levantine, ancestry sets them apart. In the same way, by contrast, the Ashkenazi Jews that brought European admixture back to the Levant may strike other Levantines as European. It’s primarily difference from native populations that makes Jews seem to be a race.

  27. February 1, 2012 - 8:49 pm | Permalink

    “In the 1890s Social Darwinists, including some in universities, began to turn out hierarchic tables in which Jews were placed near the bottom of the list of races, just above blacks.”

    I wonder who turned out such a table and what the criterion of such a table could have been.

    Alfred Ploetz, the German Darwinist who coined the term racial hygiene (Rassenhygiene) certainly did not regard the Jews as near the level of Negroes. In his 1895 work that, according to Robert Proctor, started the racial hygiene movement in Germany, Ploetz wrote:

    “… the hygiene of the totality of mankind coincides with that of the Aryan race, which — apart from some smaller races, like the Jewish race, which is most likely for the most part Aryan anyway — represents the culture-race par excellence, the furtherance of which is synonymous with the furtherance of humanity in general.”

    Hitler himself, judging by his own statements, regarded the Jews as a social and political problem rather than a matter of racial hygiene. He said to Max Planck:

    “I have nothing at all against Jews themselves. But the Jews are all Communists, and these are my enemies– it is these that I am fighting…. all Jews stick together like burrs. . . It is up to the Jews themselves to draw a dividing line between the different kinds. But they have not done that, and therefore I must proceed uniformly against all Jews. ” (Quoted by Austin J. App, A Straight Look at the Third Reich, from “Max Planck and Adolf Hitler”, Bulletin of American Association of University Professors, Autumn, 1959, p. 439)”

    So, it seems to me that Jews are peddling a really ridiculous strawman representation, if they expect us to believe that steps taken against the Jews by National-Socialist Germany were based on some notion on the part of Darwinists that Jews were hereditarily near the intellectual level of Negroes. That is not even close to being correct.

  28. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    February 1, 2012 - 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Did I recently see something of a genetics nature that stated that roughly speaking, Ashkenazis have about 50% European genes and 50% Semitic genes? That of course would vary between individuals.

    Look at phenotype in, say, Finkelstein. He could pass for a perfect aryan. The jewnutjob editor of that southern Jewish newspaper who just called for whacking Obongo, and then apologized faintly by further exhortations for jews to wise up to pending Destruction from Iran…he has a long head, looked like blue eyes, and so on.

    Then there are jews who look jewish in the extreme. It would be interesting to map their individual genomes. This mapping is getting cheap. Maybe Tom Friedman could lead a Goodwill campaign that would establish commonalities between Palestinians, Jews, and Whites. He could call it Genetic Diversity make us All One People. (REcall that it was Tom Friedman who announced a couple weeks ago in his NYTimes column that Aipac owned Congress…bought and sold…something like that.)

    I also recall an article a few years ago in some technical medical journal or genetics journal that demonstrated that Jews and Palestinians shared a large part of their genes. I further seem to recall that Outraged Jews demanded that the article be rescinded, even to the point of libraries instructed to excise the article in their copies of the journal…presumably with a razor blade.

    On a personal note, I just did an interview on Voice of Reason, which may or may not be any good. Stan Hess led the chat. Joe

  29. Poetryman's Gravatar Poetryman
    February 1, 2012 - 8:12 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust: Dr. Faust, that is an interesting post. I wish you would provide some reference about the unicellular to multicellular transistions–are you just making this up? Also, please elaborate on the allegory in Dune. I think I follow you, but put it in concrete terms please. Thanks.

  30. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 1, 2012 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust: Compliments for this in particular:
    “This does not require achieving an ethnostate first, as proven by the Jews in diaspora. It does require survival.”

  31. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 1, 2012 - 7:42 pm | Permalink

    @Dr. Faust: Good points, thank you.

  32. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 1, 2012 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article. Reading about the communality of DNA between non-familial Ashkenazim (fourth, fifth cousins, etc.) reminded me of this:

    “After his first luncheon meeting with the Chairman, then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich describes Greenspan as a little man—slightly stooped, balding, large nose, wide lips, a wry smile, and wearing thick glasses. He is the man we always see on CNN crossing the street from the Fed building on his way to testify before the Congress. Greenspan is Jewish and from New York and reminds Reich of his uncle Louis but with the voice of his uncle Sam. Reich, a Jewish liberal then and today, actually likes the guy. Yet, at the end of the lunch, the Secretary realizes that Greenspan had gotten exactly what he wanted and Reich never asked him the questions he intended to, and didn’t get the answers Reich imagined he would give”

    Alan Greenspan: The Oracle behind the Curtain, pp. 75-6.

  33. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 1, 2012 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

    The assault continues. Downton Abbey, a pleasant trip into an all white world offered by PBS, is called “cultural necrophilia” by the “British historian” Simon Schama. It portrays women who are intelligent, gracious, lovely and fully human. They are so strange they maintain a sense of obligation to family and community, as well as each other, and even love men! It is very popular here in America. Can’t let those young women in American entertain any romantic illusions. Who knows what that would lead to?

  34. Dr. Faust's Gravatar Dr. Faust
    February 1, 2012 - 5:41 pm | Permalink

    The greatest lie told by organized Jewry is that they do not view and seek to maintain themselves as a superior race. For fear of the Jews, biologists will whisper only in private that race differences in genes, behavior, and mentality are real and important.

    Recently scientists have shown that it is remarkably simple to rapidly evolve (through genetic mutation and environmental selection) multicellular organisms from single-celled ancestor colonies. The trick is several generations of growth in conditions that favor survival of cooperative versus selfish cells.

    Talmudic Judaism is a social organism (with Jews as “cells”) that evolved in ancient Babylon through just such a process (except genetic and cultural evolution occurred in tandem). It is the human equivalent of a colony of naked mole rats, burrowing in diaspora into the host population, with the Kohanim and other Orthodox Jewish groups corresponding to the fertile, insulated breeding pairs, and less observant Jewish groups or secular Jews corresponding to the workers, defending the breeding pairs from enemies.

    No other human group has adopted an evolutionary strategy based on ingroup eugenics, outgroup dysgenics, and permanent cultural warfare. The rise of Enlightenment Liberalism, Science, Technology, Industrial, Capitalism, and crucially Mass Communication handed organized Jews an enormous windfall advantage by weakening bonds of religiosity and ethnonationalism amongst non-Jews. They are seeking to make this transient advantage permanent through cultural warfare (such as by Boas and his crew) against rival groups, advocating universal atomistic individualism and dysgenesis.

    The only effective counterstrategy is one that will lead to the evolution of rival social organisms based on religio-cultural practices strictly respecting eugenic principles. This does not require achieving an ethnostate first, as proven by the Jews in diaspora. It does require survival.

    A religious/social engineering genius, or group thereof, who can inspire followers to revere endogamy and eugenics (amongst themselves) irrespective of the cultural weapons marshalled against them, will thereby create a human group with a hope of someday toppling the Jewish hegemony.

    (This is the lesson that the prescient science fiction writer Frank Herbert was trying to get across covertly in his six-novel Dune saga. The Jewish homologs were master manipulators of ordinary humanity, aiming for total control via monopoly of endogamy and eugenics. They were only thwarted by counter-eugenic groups.)

  35. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    February 1, 2012 - 4:58 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: Buy a copy of The Brigade and read it, and you’ll connect the dots.

    I promise!

  36. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    February 1, 2012 - 4:57 pm | Permalink

    @Joe Webb:
    Now that you commented on Boas’ appearance I cannot lag behind. To me the utterly neurotically distorted traits in his face combined with the fearful glance in his eyes, like that of a cornered animal, betray an extreme form of paranoia which was probably the main source of inspiration for his attempt to deny the meaning of race (for Whites of course). It is remarkable to what lengths these people are prepared to go to avert “dangers from goyim” (real or imaginary). In the process they ruin our civilization.

    To return to his appearance, yes many of these people look like walking caricatures, often more of a frightening than of a funny sort.

  37. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    February 1, 2012 - 3:45 pm | Permalink


    What sort of steel do you think we need. Or put differently, what sort of battlefield do you see before us?

    In WWI Turing put a massive dent in the German side by inventing a code breaking algorithm.

    The sort of steel I think we need (and can produce and may already have) is the sort that invents us another algorithm also capable of putting a massive dent in the other side (while making our side massively more powerful).

    For example, a revolutionary market trading algorithm. Something that blows the current paradigm away, and in the process transfers massive wealth away from the people we don’t want to have wealth, into the hands of people we do want to have wealth.

    That’s the sort of steel I’m thinking of. What’s your steel?

  38. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    February 1, 2012 - 3:42 pm | Permalink

    laughs dept: the image of Boas should grace the cover of Mad Magazine if it still exists.

  39. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    February 1, 2012 - 3:34 pm | Permalink

    @Farnham O’Reilly: I am in the process of reading Harold Covington’s book ‘The Brigade’ at the present time – and I just worked my way through ‘Oscar Night’, and even though it was late at night, much later than I am accustomed to being awake, after I put the book away and turned out the light – I laid there in bed and savored the fictional account what the future might conceivably bring for our people.

    If only we can identify the cowards and wimps and intellectual narcissist snobs in our so-called ‘leadership’ ranks and issue them pink slips, and replace them with White men of iron and steel.

  40. Farnham O'Reilly's Gravatar Farnham O'Reilly
    February 1, 2012 - 3:19 pm | Permalink

    @john: @Luke: I am grateful for the work that went into this wonderful article; bit by bit we are sowing good seeds that will blossom.

    John, a solid ‘amen’ to your comment, and Luke, another ‘amen’ to you, too!

    We are moving along better than we think right now; it will help even more when we can regain more of our confidence and sense of humor.

  41. Flossie's Gravatar Flossie
    February 1, 2012 - 2:44 pm | Permalink

    @Tom: Hmmm. And isn’t Cyprus and its neighboring islands thought to be the site of the last known Neanderthal habitats?

  42. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    February 1, 2012 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    I remember reading one of the ancient historians, or geographers who thought that the Jews had originated on Cyprus. That gene map sure makes a case for it.

    Maybe, Moses’ smarter brother took a boat for Cyprus, rather than walk out into the desert. LOL.

    Anyone ever stumble across the citation?

  43. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    February 1, 2012 - 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Noam Chomsky, in this video, talks about Social Darwinism and credits Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin with founding sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Click on

  44. Freedom Cobra's Gravatar Freedom Cobra
    February 1, 2012 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps we are witnessing the final synthesis in the dialectic between biological and cultural race. Biological race builds culture which then shapes biology again. A truly eternal recurrence if you will.

  45. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    February 1, 2012 - 11:36 am | Permalink

    A very good review by Sanderson, and some incisive comments, Franklin & Luke.

  46. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    February 1, 2012 - 10:15 am | Permalink

    @john: Point taken, but when the rubber hits the road – what difference does it really make to the situation Whites face today? We are having our butts kicked up and down the battlefield by this enemy of ours, they’ve probably managed to physically kill off somewhere near or over 200 million of our race during the last 100 years alone – via World Wars I, II, the Korean War, Vietnam, multiple undeclared wars in the Middle East, with a very real possibility of WW3 starting up if we attack Iran. Plus, with DU contamination of probably 99% of our military personnel, they are as good as dead already, from cancers that they’ll be sure to get in the near future – and then, let’s factor in the 100 plus million estimated white fetuses that have been aborted worldwide since Roe v. Wade and the jewish run abortion industry went global. Let us also factor in the stupid Whites who drink the jewish media miscegenation hemlock and engage in dysgenic race mixing and produce mongrelized offspring, instead of marrying and mating within their own group and producing white babies. Or, how about the huge number of racially awake, racially proud White men – who have never had children, because of the fact that White women have been brainwashed by the jews to reject the racially healthiest men of their species? And, then there are the White females who drank the jewish feminism hemlock and refused to have kids because they were told that careers were more important.

    And, remember, John: Those Whites who died in all those jewish wars and those whites babies who were aborted – represent Whites who were desperately needed to carry on our race by mating and having children – and they were eliminated from our gene pool forever. The same thing can be said for the other categories of childless White men I cited. Those genes are lost forever and will die, when those Whites pass away.

    Depressing to think about, isn’t it? This is why I tend to get so exasperated with the factions within our movement who insist on promoting pacifism and ‘turn the other cheek’and spreading lame notions about ‘if we could only get the right candidate to come along on a White Horse’, who will save us from this evil enemy who seeks our total extermination from this planet – everything will eventually be alright. This is not going to be a winning strategy, and hasn’t been from the very beginning. We are running out of time.

    Its time to go on offense, but first we have to figure out a way to get our defensive team to get off the field and for them to hit the bench, before they manage to lose this battle for us completely.

  47. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    February 1, 2012 - 9:54 am | Permalink

    IMHO – from an intergroup strategy POV I imagine it was the emergence of eugenics behind the Jewish decision that the very existence of whites was against jewish interests. Eugenics threatened to fatally undermine the central Jewish strategy of maintaining a genetic edge on the host population. If you think about it, that would have been seen as absolutely disasterous and somehting that must be prevented from happeneing at all costs.

  48. john's Gravatar john
    February 1, 2012 - 9:14 am | Permalink

    One HUGE and very basic problem here – jews are NOT the seed of Abraham. The jew as we know it is NOT a Biblical Israelite. Period. They even admit it amongst themselves – see the jewish almanac.
    [hint – read the Bible and it’s description of Israel and the seed of Abraham in general; only one group of folk fit and it certainly isnt the jew. Then look in the mirror…]
    When the writers and readers here begin to understand who THEY are, and who the jew is, then most of these types of questions become astonishingly simple and clear.

  49. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    February 1, 2012 - 4:36 am | Permalink

    looking at the genetic map in this article we notice that there is overlap between Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Moroccan Jews but not of this group with the group of Iraqi, Georgian, Azerbaijan an Iranian jews, let alone with the Yemenite Jews, who are totally isolated. Other Jewish groups such as Ethiopian Jews (Falasha), Jews from India (Bene Israel) or China (Kaifeng Jews), or Ugandan Jews (Lemba) who all look the same as their non-Jewish neighbours are not even on the map. All in all we cannot maintain that all Jewish groups are genetically closely related thus forming a “race”. Of course local groups could attain some homogeneity due to persistent endogamy but all Jewish groups together are simply too diverse to constitute a race. A Jewish “race” is as much a myth as their socalled “chosenness” by that petty little mountain demon, called Jahweh whom their supposed ancestors met during their wanderings in the Sinai desert. But myths when fanatically believed in can be potent incentives for an evolutionary group strategy. It is this group strategy that we are confronted with and have to fight against. A powerful Mafia based on questionable myths is still a powerful Mafia.

Comments are closed.