A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” — Part 2

Brenton Sanderson

Part 1.

Götz Aly’s envy theory of German “anti-Semitism”

As mentioned in Part 1, the central thesis of Why the Germans? Why the Jews? is that German hostility toward Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was motivated by German envy at the rapid social and economic advancement of Jews. Aly builds upon the thesis of his previous book, Hitler’s Beneficiaries, where he argued that popularity of the National Socialists can be ascribed to the fact that “the majority of Germans profited materially in either direct or indirect fashion from the expropriation of the Jews.”[i]

Aly notes that the same argument was originally put forward by the Jewish intellectual Siegfried Lichtenstaedter, who, in attempting to account for the rise of National Socialism and its anti-Jewish policies in Germany, proposed in 1937 that the NSDAP “was a party of social climbers.” Jews were hated because they were competition for “survival, honor, and prestige.” “Anti-Semitism” in Germany owed its aggressive force, he claimed, to envy and the desire for social betterment. If Jews as a group were perceived as being “disproportionately happier” than other groups, Lichtenstaedter wrote, “why shouldn’t this give rise to jealousy and resentment, worries and concerns about one’s future, just as is all too often the case between individuals.”[ii]

Theodor Herzl

Theodor Herzl

This same essential argument was also advanced by the pioneering Zionist leader Theodore Herzl. Kevin MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that Herzl argued that “a prime source of modern anti-Semitism was that emancipation had brought Jews into direct economic competition with the gentile middle classes. Anti-Semitism based on resource competition was rational.” Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let itself be subjugated’ by formerly scorned outsiders that they had just released from the ghetto.”[iii]

What made Germany’s Jews so enviable, Aly argues, was the way that they took advantage of the new economic opportunities that arose in the course of the nineteenth century, as the old feudal order gave way to the modern world. Nevertheless, in order to avoid the unpalatable conclusion that the German “anti-Semitism” of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was therefore rational, Aly argues that the underlying cause of this envy-fuelled hostility toward Jews resided exclusively in the psychological inadequacies and malformations of the Germans themselves. Thus, for him, it was German mental deficiencies, rather than any Jewish behavior, that propelled the German nation down a path that would supposedly culminate in “the Holocaust.”

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

German feelings of inferiority, political immaturity and national anxiety, combined with the resentment over the Treaty of Versailles, made them, in Aly’s view, receptive to the siren song of Hitler’s National Socialist Party, which emphasized entitlements for ethnic Germans at the expense of the Jewish interlopers. Aly asserts that even if many Germans did not initially agree with the National Socialists’ anti-Jewish views, they were reassured by Hitler’s visions of economic progress, self-sufficiency, and upward social mobility and signed up for a “criminal collaboration” between the people and their political leadership.

Aly’s envy theory of German anti-Semitism is ultimately grounded in a belief in Jewish intellectual superiority and German inferiority, which, ironically enough, was a view held by many nineteenth-century German “anti-Semites.” For instance Wilhelm Marr (who coined the term “anti-Semitism”) conceptualized Jews as “not a small, weak group, they are a world power! They are much stronger than the Germans.”[iv] Foreign observers like the British historian John Foster Fraser similarly proposed in 1915 that German academics were falling over themselves to keep the Jews out because the competition “between the sons of the North with their blonde hair and sluggish intellect and the sons of the Orient with their black eyes and alert minds” was so unequal.[v]

A constant refrain throughout Aly’s book is that the dimwitted Germans simply lacked the intellectual firepower to compete effectively with Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He claims, for instance, that: “Untalented Christian students, non-innovative entrepreneurs, and businessmen who got their numbers mixed up” simply couldn’t compete with “intellectually superior” Jews.[vi] Elsewhere, he asserts that

relative to their Christian peers, they [Jews] overcame the initial obstacles to social betterment with ease, even though legally they became fully equal everywhere in Germany only in 1918. Conversely, Christian social climbers were in an inferior position vis-à-vis Jews, who were objectively disadvantaged but subjectively better equipped to deal with new social demands. As Gentile Germans began to call for state protection from economically and intellectually superior Jews, laws were passed and administrative procedures were found to secure the privileges of the Christians. But such protectionism only highlighted how slow and incompetent many Gentiles were. Public failure was embarrassing, and people who were fearful, who had emerged as the losers of social change, and who were plagued by feelings of inferiority became modern anti-Semites.[vii]

An analogous view to this was advanced by the early twentieth century Jewish neurologist Abraham Meyerson who posited that it was this Jewish intellectual superiority, rather than their ingroup-oriented morality and behavior, which was the primary cause of European anti-Semitism, insisting that “with the downfall of the Roman Empire the Jews and Arabs alone kept the torch of culture and science lit. In other words, the Jew was easily superior in these matters [science and culture] to his uncouth warrior-like hosts. This superiority brought about a jealousy, fear of the ability of the Jew; a fear that has never been stilled, though the culture of the Western races has reached a very high plane; a fear that yet actuates most of the hostile feelings of neighboring races.”[viii]

Paradoxically, elsewhere in his book, Aly admits that these “untalented,” “non-innovative” and “incompetent” Germans “achieved remarkable intellectual and (somewhat later) economic and technological breakthroughs in the nineteenth century.”[ix] Peter Watson, the British intellectual historian and author of the monumental book The German Genius, has pointed out that Germany in the nineteenth century was “the first modern educated country,” and the one that invented the institutionalization of scientific and technological research — something which was pivotal in shaping modern industrial civilization. Observing how the oft-repeated claims of Jewish intellectual superiority in Germany in the nineteenth century are “overdone,” he maintains that, with regard to the development of music, philosophy, poetry, and science in Germany in the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century, “Jews played a very small part” (and, one might add despite Aly’s statement above, a non-existent role in the Middle Ages when Jewish communities were completely isolated from surrounding cultures and absorbed in religious writings).

Layout 1

In addition to their alleged intellectual deficiencies, Aly proposes that the sources of the pathological envy of the Germans of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries resided in their “weakness, timidity, lack of self-confidence, self-perceived inferiority, and excessive ambition.” He offers no real evidence that these traits were typical German traits during this time, but ascribes these traits to the “innate insecurity of German national identity” which resulted from the relatively late development of the German nation compared with other European states.

It is true that, for various historical reasons, the Germans had a difficult time coalescing into a nation. Most histories of Germany begin by recounting the exploits of the Germanic peoples in Italy, France and Spain rather than just telling the story of the Germans in Germany. The geographically fragmented origins of the German people are reflected in the various names others have given them — they were “Saxons” to the Finns, “Niemcy” or “Swabians” to the Russians and Poles, “Germans” to the British, “Allemands” to the French, “Tedeschi” to the Italians, with the Germans themselves adopting the last root for their “Deutsche.”[x] Aly accurately notes that:

In 1806, Germans were less a people than a collection of peoples, cleft by the existence of numerous small states, each with its own history. Germans lived between the Curonian Lagoon, on the eastern Baltic Sea, and the Vosges Mountains in Alsace, between the Belt and Scheldt Rivers, in Southern Tyrol, and a long way up the Danube River into Eastern Europe. They formed the largest cultural, linguistic, and ethnic group in Europe. Located exactly in the middle of the continent, German territory was the scene of various migrations, wars and religious conflicts.[xi]

The political unification of the German lands was delayed for many decades by the Thirty Years’ War which devastated the infrastructure and decimated the population of the states that would eventually comprise the German Empire. In addition to the harrowing experience of the Thirty Years’ War, Germany also suffered greatly a century and a half later due to the wars between revolutionary France and other European powers. Napoleon played off regional and dynastic interests against each other, and demanded massive war contributions from them — both in men and material. The new social order Napoleon instituted in many German states contributed to new divisions. Aly notes that: “For the vast majority of Germans, the French occupation was a time of executions and murders, inflation, and lasting economic deprivation. More than a few communities were still paying off debt accumulated during that period in the late nineteenth century; some wouldn’t succeed in clearing the books until the rampant inflation of 1923.[xii]

Germany 1618

An additional barrier to German unity was the sectarian divide between the Catholic south and the Protestant north. If that weren’t enough, there were also linguistic barriers: as late as the early nineteenth century it was still unclear whether the Upper Saxon dialect of today’s eastern Germany or the lower Saxon one of the central regions would serve as a basis for High German. And it wasn’t until 1934 that the interior minister Wilhelm Frick succeeded in establishing “German” as a designation of nationality on passports, and not until 1938 — when Hitler presided over the unification of Germany and Austria into the greater German Empire — that the dream of a unified German state was finally (and briefly) realized.

In contrast to the painfully slow evolution of German national unity and identity, Aly claims that “Jews in fact possessed the sort of deep, meaningful roots that patriotic Germans were forever frantically digging for.”[xiii] He approvingly quotes the Zionist writer Heinrich York-Steiner who, in accounting for the rising popularity of the National Socialists in 1932, declared that “From the era of the Hohenstaufens on down to today, Germany’s political and social position has been uncertain, unstable and erratic … . This position in world history accounts for German’s ambivalence towards foreigners. What they lack is the strength that comes from constant development, from a nationally evolving self-confidence. The German today is a helot, tomorrow a conqueror, and he acts out his feelings in displays of ethnic hyperbole.”[xiv] Endorsing this view, Aly claims that Germany’s unique history engendered weakness and self-doubt and also pent-up aggression and xenophobia.

While “Prussian militarism” was a real phenomenon, Aly’s characterization of the Germans of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as “immature, aggressive bullies” only became the stereotypical view in the Anglosphere during World War I. Prior to that, Germans were noted for their Innerlichkeit or inwardness. The influential French writer and Salon leader, Madame de Stael, portrayed the Germans during the period of the Napoleonic Wars as a nation of “poets and thinkers, a race of kindly, impractical, other-worldly dreamers without national prejudices and disinclined to war.” The English historian, Frederic William Maitland, regarding the Germans of the nineteenth century, noted that “It was usual and plausible to paint the German as an unpractical, dreamy, sentimental being, looking out with mild blue eyes into a cloud of music and metaphysics and tobacco smoke.”[xv] Americans likewise held a benign view of Germans prior to the twentieth century, with one American historian noting that “whether seen in their newly minted nation [after 1871] or in this country [i. e., German immigrants to the United States], the Germans were generally regarded as methodical and energetic people who were models of progress, while in their devotion to music, education, science, and technology they aroused the admiration of Americans.”[xvi]

Aly ignores all of the laudatory descriptions of the German character prior to World War I which contradict his preferred unflattering characterizations. He claims that, compared to the Germans, the English and the French “followed a very different trajectory” and that this explains why “anti-Semitism” was less prevalent and intense in these nations. He conveniently omits any mention of how Jews were expelled from England and France (in the latter case on numerous occasions) during the Middle Ages despite the English and French supposedly having enjoyed more secure national identities. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that, prior to World War I, the French evinced far greater hostility toward Jews than did the Germans. In France the Dreyfus affair sparked anti-Jewish riots in more than thirty towns. Nor does Aly mention that Jewish historians typically have little positive to say about English or French attitudes toward Jews.

The real reason why hostility to Jews eventually reached a greater intensity in Germany compared to England and France was likely a product of the relative size of the Jewish populations in these nations. Kevin MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that Jews only represented a tiny percentage of the population of England in the nineteenth century — only 0.01 percent. They also played a remarkably small role in the economic development of that nation — the notable exceptions being their domination of the diamond and coral trades. He notes that: “Throughout this period England remained an ethnically homogeneous society, without ethnically-based resource conflict. However, there was anti-Semitism, directed both at the “cousinhood” of wealthy Jewish families and, later in the century, Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe.”[xvii]

Pre-World War II England is held in the historical memory of Jews as a society convulsed with “anti-Semitism.” The Jewish historian Norman Cantor, for instance, proposed that “the thick anti-Semitism of the time, spreading slowly upwards from the Gentile lower classes, who competed with immigrant Jews, to the ruling classes, was pervasive and bitter. There were severe limitations on the entry of Jews to the better private schools, to Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and to the learned professions. The Jews were made to feel alien and unwanted.”[xviii] He also claims that the British government “was deeply concerned that Christian young men conscripted to fight in the war were not perceived as being sacrificed for the Jews. In addition to this general caution, high officials in the foreign and defense ministries were personally and openly anti-Semitic.”[xix]

Norman Cantor

Norman Cantor

As for Winston Churchill, while he “was a highly intelligent man and something of a personal philo-Semite,” in the end he did “not raise a finger for the Holocaust-threatened Jews” because “he was hypersensitive to the depth of anti-Semitism in his society and haunted by a fear that special efforts to save the Jews would raise cries of ‘it is a Jew’s war’ and ‘British Christian boys are dying to save the rotten Jews.’ He backed off completely.”[xx] Meanwhile, the Jews in Britain “that could have intervened to help Eastern European Jewry were inhibited and distracted by the wall of hate in their own ambience.”[xxi] England is putatively a land of painful historical memories for Jews like Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland who claims that the map of England is “pockmarked with the sites of medieval Jewish torment: Lincoln, Norwich, York.’[xxii]

Ignoring all this, Aly claims that Germans were, among European nationalities, uniquely hostile toward Jews and that “their particular brand of anti-Semitism” was a byproduct of their “innate insecurity of national identity.”[xxiii] They compensated for this innate insecurity through immoderate displays of national and ethnic pride. He asserts that at public celebrations on Hitler’s birthday in 1933, “Germans were delighted to hear themselves described as the ‘premier people on earth,’” and he opines that: “A nation that feels the need to boast like this lacks inner equilibrium.”[xxiv] The author apparently feels no need to judge Jews by the same standard, or to point out that the Jewish scriptures amount to one long hyperbolic (and often genocidal) assertion of Jewish superiority.

Paradoxically, Aly points out that these “innately insecure” Germans were regarded by Jews in the early nineteenth century as far more benign than the natives of various eastern European countries with supposedly more secure national identities. Aly notes that

in the nineteenth century, Jews who migrated to Germany from neighboring countries in Eastern Europe felt great relief when they crossed the border. They appreciated the legal protections, economic freedom, and educational opportunities offered first by Prussia and later by the German Empire. Anti-Jewish pogroms, which continued well into the twentieth century in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, had died out in Germany, while the absence of governmental restrictions helped make the country a magnet for Jewish migration. By 1910, Germany had twice as many Jews as England and five times as many as France.[xxv]

So what changed to prompt an upsurge in German hostility toward Jews throughout the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries? After Napoleon emancipated Jews from most legal restrictions in the Western German territories in 1806 and they entered mainstream German society, Germans were confronted for the first time with the social and economic effects of unfettered Semitism. In 1806, the Jews in Prussia had owned almost nothing. By 1834, 13 percent of them were part of the nascent upper middle class, while more than 50 percent were firmly middle class.[xxvi] This, not surprisingly, triggered a reaction among large sections of the native population. Aly notes that:

This reversal was motivated by the fact that Gentile Germans were compelled to face what we might call, somewhat polemically, Jewish challenges. Bit by bit over the course of the 1800s, artisans, court-appointed merchants, owners of medium-sized farms, pastors, civil servants, and other respected figures had lost influence. The remaining trade guilds devolved into selfish monopolies that put the brakes on economic development; Berlin artisans, for instance, sought to use legal trickery to preserve their traditional privileges. Despite their efforts, the old social center was gradually replaced by a new middle class of lawyers, doctors, managers, publishers, brewers, stock brokers, theater directors, and department store owners. Their ranks contained a disproportionate number of Jews.[xxvii]       

Prior to 1806, Germans and Jews had limited contact in society. This situation gradually changed throughout the nineteenth century as the urban Jewish population surged. Between 1811 and 1875, Berlin’s Jewish population increased by a factor of fourteen. It wasn’t, however, simply a question of the growing numbers and rapid Jewish economic advancement, it was also the “social strife” that accompanied the Jewish penetration and eventual domination of mainstream German society and which prompted “constant discussion of the Judenfrage.” Aly notes that, post emancipation, “Jews were regarded less as adherents of an alien, barbaric faith and more as members of a secular socioeconomic group that disproportionately profited from modern life.”[xxviii] The realization quickly dawned on average Germans that Jews were not just a religious community but an endogamous ethnic group which had adopted a highly successful group survival strategy.

This realization intensified over decades, especially following the advent and diffusion of evolutionary thought in Germany after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 (the German translation of which appeared in 1860). Alfred Kelly has documented how Darwinism was a huge sensation in Germany, noting how “Darwinism became a kind of popular philosophy in Germany more than any other country, even England. Darwinism caught on rapidly in the German scientific community; indeed, Germany, rather than England, was the main center for biological research in the nineteenth century. …  It also offered the richest environment for Darwinism to expand beyond the confines of science.” Darwin himself commented that “The support I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.”[xxix]

German origin of species

Title page of the first German edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1860)

Kevin MacDonald has noted that in Germany in the nineteenth century there were several “detailed proposals for gentile group strategies in opposition to Judaism.”[xxx] One nineteenth-century German publication characterized Judaism as “a political, social and business alliance for the purpose of exploiting and subjugating the non-Jewish peoples.”[xxxi] After citing statistics on the percentages of Jews among employers, and among students in institutions of higher education, the German nationalist Adolf Stoecker stated that “should Israel grow further in this direction, it will completely overcome us. One should not doubt it; on this ground, race stands against race and carries on — not in the sense of hatred but in the sense of competition — a racial struggle.”[xxxii]

This line of thinking eventually attained its clearest and strongest expression in the ideology of National Socialism. In his unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler outlined his conception of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, noting that:

The Jews, although they are a people whose core is not entirely uniform in terms of race, are nevertheless a people with certain essential particularities that distinguish it from other peoples living on the earth. Judaism is not a religious community; rather, the religious ties between the Jews are in reality the current national constitution of the Jewish people. The Jew has never had his own territorially defined state like the Aryan states. Nonetheless, his religious community is a real state because it ensures the preservation, propagation, and future of the Jewish people. …

Just as every people possesses, as the basic tendency of all its earthly actions the obsession with preserving itself as its driving force, the same is true of the Jews. But here the struggle for survival takes various forms, corresponding to the entirely different natures of the Aryan peoples and the Jews. … The existence of the Jew himself thus becomes a parasitic existence within the life of other peoples. The ultimate goal of the Jewish struggle for survival is the enslavement of productively active peoples. To reach this goal — which, in reality, the Jews’ struggle for survival has represented throughout the ages — the Jew uses every weapon that is in accordance with the entirety of his character.[xxxiii]

MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that National Socialism was a group evolutionary strategy that in several key features mirrored Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Germany after 1933 saw the conflict of these two opposing group strategies.[xxxiv] Aly repudiates the arguments of the German geneticist Fritz Lenz which directly mirror the moral precepts of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy directed at preserving the race. Lenz had observed that “in the long run, the only forms of life that can survive are those whose race can also be preserved,” and the ethical imperative was therefore to ask of every action or non-action: “Is it good for our race?”[xxxv] The Romanian revolutionary Nicolas Balescu had similarly argued in the mid-nineteenth century that: “For me, the question of ethnic solidarity is more important than the question of freedom. A people can use freedom only when it’s able to survive as a nation. Freedom can be easily regained, if it is lost, but not ethnic identity.”[xxxvi] According to Aly, such thinking is “based on massive feelings of inferiority and envy.”[xxxvii]

Go to Part 3.

[i] Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 1.

[ii] Ibid., 4.

[iii] Ibid., 54.

[iv] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1st Books Library, 2004), 171.

[v] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 57.

[vi] Aly, Why the Germans?, 223.

[vii] Ibid., 222-23.

[viii] Abraham Meyerson, “The ‘Nervousness’ of the Jew,” In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 177-178.

[ix] Ibid., 221.

[x] Watson, The German Genius: Europe’s Third Renaissance, the Second Scientific Revolution and the Twentieth Century (London: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 429.

[xi] Aly, Why the Germans?, 46-7.

[xii] Ibid., 43-4.

[xiii] Ibid., 220.

[xiv] Ibid., 221.

[xv] Peter Birks & Arianna Pretto, Themes in Comparative Law: In Honour of Bernard Rudden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 265.

[xvi] David G. Haglund, Ethnic Diasporas and the Canada-United States Security Community: From the Civil War to Today (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 170.

[xvii] Aly, Why the Germans?, 176.

[xviii] Ibid., 360.

[xix] Ibid.,361.

[xx] Ibid.,361-62.

[xxi] Ibid., 349.

[xxii] Jonathan Freedland (2005) Journey into the Heart of Belonging (London: Hamish Hamilton, 2005), 9.

[xxiii] Aly, Why the Germans?, 219.

[xxiv] Ibid., 7.

[xxv] Ibid., 1.

[xxvi] Ibid., 29.

[xxvii] Ibid., 65-6.

[xxviii] Ibid., 3.

[xxix] Alfred Kelly, The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwin in Germany, 1860-1914 (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 5; 21-23.

[xxx] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 165.

[xxxi] Ibid., 171.

[xxxii] Ibid.

[xxxiii] Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (Enigma Books, 2003), 233-34.

[xxxiv] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 163.

[xxxv] Aly, Why the Germans?, 213.

[xxxvi] Ibid., 57.

[xxxvii] Ibid., 206.

Print Friendly
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

53 Comments to "A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” — Part 2"

  1. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 23, 2016 - 12:08 am | Permalink

    This is a very good series of articles. Thanks to Mr. Sanderson.

  2. Gaylord Retclyffe's Gravatar Gaylord Retclyffe
    January 21, 2016 - 9:22 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what people think about Horst Mahler’s Hegelian approach to the problem of Germans and Jews:

    • January 22, 2016 - 10:25 am | Permalink

      I don’t know about anyone else; I find it incomprehensible. I have to wonder whether Hegel was encouraged by Jewish media in Germany precisely because his gibberish led to timewasting, whereas Fichte and others were comparatively direct in their analyses. To this day, German speculation is hobbled, shackled to Hegel’s inability to be direct. Just as speculation on social matters in the west is hobbled by Jewish timewasters – Marx, Marcuse, Chomsky, ‘new left’, Derrida – a vast host emitting smokescreens.

      • January 23, 2016 - 12:13 pm | Permalink

        Augustine mentions ‘men’ who “have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at will, so as to produce the effect of singing”.

      • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
        January 25, 2016 - 9:43 am | Permalink

        A century ago, the American psychologist William James experimented with nitrous oxide (aka “laughing gas”.) The weird mental state produced by the gas distinctly reminded him of Hegelianism.

        From this James concluded that Hegel was psychotic.

        I think James was right.

  3. Director's Gravatar Director
    January 21, 2016 - 5:55 am | Permalink

    When Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy said that “Multicultrualism has failed” we should not have celebrated.

    We should have asked, “failed to do what and to whom?”

    It’s obvious now that the Multiculturalism failed to utterly destroy the whites.

    Now we get direct Rape Armies.

  4. January 21, 2016 - 2:56 am | Permalink

    Götz Aly is a German historian. He is seen as a liar and falsifier by many people. But he gets some newspaperspace by a German press which is seen as a liar-press by many people. He is part of a very large system which tries to keep the German folk in dumbness. — Thank you, John, for writing over the rebuild of Germany in 1948-1960 when we had 99% Germans in our country and less than 1% “helping” foreigners of any kind. We Germans can do very well without the multikulti-religion which some foreigners want to purge over the world. — Nonetheless, the question of today is not whether we Germans have some national traits slightly other than our neighbours: We white folks belong together. We want to live, our children shall live. That is our common aim and duty. Anything that either stands opposite to this task or that tries to derail our efforts from this main point away into the direction of minor important points (“Ablenkungsmanöver”), is a potentially deadly attack on our lives as European folks and white race.

    • royalbrecht's Gravatar royalbrecht
      January 25, 2016 - 3:59 am | Permalink

      As tough as, –

      “…Nonetheless, the question of today is not whether we Germans have some national traits slightly other than our neighbours: We white folks belong together. We want to live, our children shall live. That is our common aim and duty. Anything that either stands opposite to this task or that tries to derail our efforts from this main point away into the direction of minor important points (“Ablenkungsmanöver”), is a potentially deadly attack on our lives as European folks and white race.”, –

      this is to practice sometimes, (thinking of Polish, Russian and other Baltic people here in Iceland, who still regard Hitler and National Socialism as the ultimate evil) I do my best to suppress my animosity towards their short shortsightedness and ignorance and try to educate them as best I can.
      And believe it or not, I have gotten to the point where they all occasionally greet me with the typical Hitler salute! And one key point that has worked, on balance, in my favour is our general agreement on the Islamic invasion issue!
      As mentioned in TOO articles many times, the Slavs, from the Bulgarians to the Latvians and everyone in between, all agree:
      “North Africans NOT Wanted!!!”

      The Jews paint the National socialist movement as one born in a drunken beer cellar and spreading to the people from there, but like it or not, if the thieves and the low classes become cognizant of who is responsible for their disposession we will have greater success

  5. Stogumber's Gravatar Stogumber
    January 21, 2016 - 1:31 am | Permalink

    Back to Aly.

    Inferiority and superiority feelings were much more volatile than Aly thinks. Gentile inferiority feelings became strong only in and after the “decadence” period around 1900 (take Thomas Mann’s Buddenbrooks, who are inferior to the competing Jews). That’s partly a consequence of Jewish journalists propagating Jewish superiority (take “Stadt ohne Juden”, which predicts that Vienna without Jews wouldn’t work at all). But even the few years under Hitler countered this development successfully: Germans understood that they still were fine engineers and could manage their banking system as well as any Jew.
    Then, Aly looks at “historical change” as an absolute, and as the ultimate standard from which to deduce a person’s qualities: the superior person is the person who copes best with historical change. But historical change is man-made: the more Jews became powerful, the more they could decide what kind of changes happened or didn’t happen. And as man-made, historical change is a matter of judgment: Gentiles were completely entitled to criticize those changes and not to cope with them deliberately.

    • FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
      January 21, 2016 - 11:17 am | Permalink

      Very good points, Stogumber.
      Same goes for money and wealth, both human-made constructs, and to link a person’s moral, intellectual, or evolutionary qualities and worth/value to them is supremely foolish and ignorant, and frankly disingenuous and false. One cannot buy morality, salvation, intelligence, creativity, respect, or genius, etc. This, Jews cannot understand it seems or refuse to accept, and this is their greatest flaw, and makes them so dangerous, but ultimately also so impotent and pitiful. They still believe that Man/they can conquer Nature. Money really has a dysgenic quality, because it distorts Nature in the regard, that it can shield persons, who are not evolutionarily/genetically superior to pass on their genes in greater numbers, when they should not be able or allowed to do so under natural and healthy circumstances.
      Social Darwinism really is Money/Wealth Darwinism, and is not true natural evolutionary Darwinism.

      • FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
        January 21, 2016 - 1:40 pm | Permalink

        Jews (many of whom are consciously/openly or subconsciously/secretly Social Darwinists) should realize the following, because it would save them, and us Whites a whole lotta trouble (emphasis added):
        Evolution and Philosophy
        Does evolution make might right?

        Summary: Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.

        Another such view is “Social Darwinism”, which holds that social policy should allow the weak and unfit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy but morally right. The only real connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is the name. The real source of Social Darwinism is Herbert Spencer and the tradition going back to Hobbes via Malthus, not Darwin’s own writings, though Darwin gained some inspiration on the effects of population growth from Malthus. The claims made by Social Darwinists and their heirs suffer from the ethical fallacy known as “the naturalistic fallacy” (no connection to naturalism in explanations and the study of knowledge mentioned above). This is the inference from what may be the case to the conclusion that it is therefore right. However, while it is certainly true that, for example, some families are prone to suffer diabetes, as mine is, there is no licence to conclude that they should not be treated, any more than the fact that a child has a broken arm from a bicycle accident implies that the child should have a broken arm. David Hume long ago showed that “is” does not imply “ought”.
        In fact, diverse political and religious opinions characterise social musings based upon evolutionary biology. For example, the 19th century Russian anarchist aristocrat Pyotr Kropotkin wrote a book called Mutual Aid [1902, cf Gould 1992] in which he argued that evolution results more in cooperation than it does in harsh competition. His views are echoed in recent use of games theory to show that, in some cases at least, cooperation is a stable strategy for certain populations to adopt [Axelrod 1984].


      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        January 21, 2016 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

        The problem is the fake money, and Keynesian economics.

        This gives losers access to White Creations, which does make evolution go backwards. It produces survival of the least fit.

        Why do White wealth creators exchange their products for printing-press “money”? They aid and abet the notion of something-for-nothing. . .

        Folks continue to put up with this funny money for one main reason- government lying about consumer prices. Housing circa 1980 took 47% of the Consumer Price Index. So housing was removed and replace with “owner’s equivalent rent.” Other elements of the Index that rise at high rates are removed or lied about in various ways. This gives the sense of inflation being a non-problem.

        • FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
          January 21, 2016 - 7:34 pm | Permalink

          Good points, T.J.,
          I personally support authentic Keynesianism, not New or Military Keynesianism, which you described. I also do not support Military Darwinism for population control. I support preventive measures, such as birth control, abortions, no pre-marital sex, etc. Therefore I am a supporter of Planned Parenthood, etc.

          I think the real problem is ”Financialization”, which I consider to be a Jewish ”innovation/invention”, which includes deregulation of financial markets, banks, globalization, etc. Jews disproportionately benefit from financialization, due to their dominance on/of Wall Street, the City of London, etc.:

          Financialization is a term sometimes used in discussions of the financial capitalism that has developed over the decades between 1980 and 2010, in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity), and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.

          Financialization describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce all value that is exchanged (whether tangible or intangible, future or present promises, etc.) into a financial instrument. The intent of financialization is to be able to reduce any work product or service to an exchangeable financial instrument, like currency, and thus make it easier for people to trade these financial instruments. Workers, through a financial instrument such as a mortgage, may trade their promise of future work or wages for a home. The financialization of risk sharing is what makes possible all insurance. The financialization of a government’s promises (e.g., US government bonds) is what makes possible all government deficit spending. Financialization also makes economic rents possible.


  6. January 21, 2016 - 12:53 am | Permalink
  7. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    January 21, 2016 - 12:08 am | Permalink

    We need to better define this term called ‘antisemitism’. ‘Antisemitism’ is problematic in the same way ‘racism’ is. It’s a zero sum game. You must love Jews in order to be good, and all other options are evil.
    The way the term ‘racism’ is used offers the same stark choices. You either oppose ‘racism’ and are a good person, or you are an evil ‘racist bigot’. There are no gradations of meaning and truth between those two extremes.

    In some ways, ‘racism’ is even more problematic because it takes what should be a neutral term and twists it to mean ‘hateful racial supremacism’. But ‘-ism’ merely means belief or consciousness. So, race + ism should just mean ‘belief in the existence of races(and possibly racial differences) or racial consciousness’. But because a neutral-sounding term has been thus twisted, people are apt to believe that “any thought about races and racial differences means you’re KKK or Nazi.”
    But surely, the so-called race-realists, who should really just be called race-ists, are not radical racists committed to an extreme ideology or program. Sure, there are some people like that. There are some Neo-Nazis, there is the nutty Nation of Islam that believes whites were created by an evil scientist named Yakub, and there are extreme Zionists who see gentiles as subhuman cattle.

    But most people who believe in the reality of races and racial differences do NOT think like that. They have likes and dislikes in regard to other races, but they don’t harbor supremacist, let alone genocidal, views of other races. They are more interested in compatibility and survival. They want to survive as a race, and they believe that their survival as a people is incompatible with huge numbers of foreign races.
    But then, Jews seem to agree on this point when it comes to the issue of Israel because they fully support Jews-only immigration policy to Israel.
    Also, all honest people can’t help but notice that some races are certainly more prone to crime and violence due to a number of factors: naturally more aggressive, lower IQ, and/or physically stronger.

    The problem with the term ‘antisemitism’ is it implies that anyone who dislikes Jews or is critical of them is evil and wicked and irrational.

    Now, I would not have a problem with a term like ‘antisemitism’ IF it meant “disliking, hating, or condemning Jews for no rational, sane, or justifiable reason” I suppose some people are indeed like that. Some people have a fetish for hating other races and cultures. Even without knowing anything about another people, they just feel hostility because others are ‘different’. Or some people may have reasons for hating Jews, but the reasons aren’t moral. Suppose someone is envious of Jews for being so good in math and science, and suppose this envy gradually turns into hatred. As envy is natural to our mental makeup, we can understand the existence of such emotions. Nevertheless, hatred based solely on envy would be ignoble. After all, it’s not the Jews’ fault that they are smart and brilliant in many fields. (On the other hand, if someone were to notice that Jews possess superior intelligence and are using that advantage to exploit and harm his people, his hatred would be based on the valid interest of group survival. It’s like a poor man who hates a rich man purely out of envy is being ignoble. But if the poor man hates the rich man for using his riches to denigrate and harm the poor man’s folks, the poor man’s hatred is morally justified.) So, if ‘antisemitism’ simply means “disliking or hating Jews for irrational, insane, or immoral reasons”, I can accept the meaning.

    But it is not used in such manner. It is used on ANYONE who dislikes, hates, or criticizes Jews and Jewish power. It doesn’t matter if the person has valid or compelling reasons for not liking Jews, distrusting Jews, being suspicious of Jews, being critical of Jews, and hating Jews.
    The way ‘antisemitism’ is used, you are evil just for the fact of disliking or hating Jews. Your reasons don’t matter. You could have the best and most compelling reasons in the world. You are still wrong and evil because you don’t love Jews.

    So, it doesn’t matter if you’re, say, a Palestinian. It doesn’t matter if your people had nothing to do with WWII and the Holocaust. It doesn’t matter if your people were ethnically expelled from your own ancestral land and are still living under brutal & humiliating Zionist occupation. Because you dislike or hate Jews, you are an ‘anti-semite’ not unlike the Nazis.

    Now, the Nazis hated and killed even innocent Jews who did nothing wrong. Hitler decided that every Jew is evil and to be hated for his or her Jewishness.
    In contrast, Palestinians hate Jews for a simple historical reason. Jews stole their land and forced them to live under imperialism and colonization. But according to the logic of ‘antisemitism’, such reasons don’t matter. You can have the best and most compelling reasons in the world for hating Jews. You are still evil and a ‘Nazi’ because the logic of ‘antisemitism’ says ANYONE WHO HATES JEWS FOR ANY REASON IS EVIL.

    Now, imagine there is a guy who just hates Jews for the hell of it. Suppose he gets a kick out of hating people, and he finds pleasure in hating and hurting Jews.
    Next, imagine someone else who has no ill feeling toward Jews. But suppose Jews jump him, beat him up, rape his wife, and burn his house down. Suppose he comes to hate Jews for that reason.

    Surely, the second person’s hatred of Jews is different from the first person’s hatred of Jews.
    But the logic of ‘antisemitism’ overlooks all such considerations and bundles the two hatreds together. According to the logic of ‘antisemitism’, it is an article of faith that there can never ever be a good or decent reason for hating Jews. We must have faith in the Jew like Job had faith in God. Even when God did horrible things to him, Job was supposed to be devoted to God. We are supposed to view Jews the same way. It doesn’t matter what Jews do to us. They can financially rob us, they can seduce and encourage our daughters to dress and act like prostitutes, they can open up the gates of immigration and flood our nations with foreign hordes, they can desecrate the meaning of marriage by promoting and pushing ‘gay marriage’, they can encourage black rage and make excuses for black violence against whites, they can foment wars all over the Middle East and kill millions, and etc.
    Whatever Jews do, no matter how much their actions hurt us, we are supposed to love them, adore them, pledge loyalty to them, praise them, honor them, and worship them. It’s like the robot David in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is imprinted to love Monica or ‘mommy’ no matter what she does to him. She can desert him in the middle of nowhere, but his only wish in the entire world is to be with ‘mommy’ again and win her love.

    The problem with the term ‘antisemitism’ is that it equally applies to those with crazy reasons for hating Jews and to those with rational reasons for hating Jews. I would say Palestinians have very good reasons for hating Jews. And given Jewish behavior in the US, EU, Russia, and the Middle East since the end of the Cold War, I think many people have very good reasons for disliking, distrusting, or even hating Jews.

    To be sure, there is sometimes no distinct boundary between rational hatred of Jews and irrational hatred of Jews. Germans during the Weimar period had good reasons to feel hostile toward Jews. But sometimes, the compelling reasons got mixed with crazy ones. Hitler himself had some compelling reasons for hating Jews, but he also had some crackpot theories about race that were cuckoo-bananas. And in the Alt Right, we have some people with good reasons to hate Jews but also some people who have both good reasons and bad reasons. They can plainly see that Jewish power has done a lot of damage to white identity and interests, but they also fall for crazy Holocaust Denial theories and/or wax romantic about the degenerate Hitler. While Hitler had some good qualities and good ideas, one has to be nuts to deny his major role in WWII that led to the deaths of 50 million white people. And no matter how one may feel about Jews, the Holocaust is no joking matter. It’s true that many Jews have exploited the Holocaust most cynically, and it’s also probably true that the number of dead Jews come nowhere near 6 million. But many innocent Jews were killed in the most horrific manner, and decent people should not making light of such stuff. Some things are beyond the pale, and being glib about historical tragedies does honor to n one.

    Anyway, the politics and morality of hating Jews should be like hating any other group.
    Indeed, when it comes to all groups except Jews and Negroes(and maybe homos), we are permitted the choice of hatred/hostility on justifiable grounds. One is not forced to accept as article of faith that Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Mexicans, Saudis, Poles, Germans, French, Japanese, Indians, and etc are good and noble. We may like or dislike such people based on observation, experience, and knowledge.
    So, if you went to China, Russia, or India and returned with the observation that you generally don’t like those people whom you find barbaric or stupid, you will not be denounced or penalized. People will think that, based on your personal experience and observation, your assessment of a people turned out to be either generally favorable or generally hostile.

    There is no term such as anti-Sinicism to suggest that one’s dislike of the Chinese is always evil because some article of faith demands that you believe that Chinese are always good and that all people must love and praise Jews.

    You can be pro-Chinese if you believe that Chinese are a good people beneficial to your own, OR you can be anti-Chinese if you believe that Chinese are a bad people hostile to your people. It is up to you to decide based on observation, experience, and knowledge.

    And indeed, Jews have strong opinions about every people. Jews often generalize about white Americans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Iranians, Venezuelans, Italians, Germans, and etc. And we see nothing wrong with Jews forming opinions(often negative and derogatory) such as those. We would never demand Jews to believe that we or any bunch of gentiles are always good and always must be loved, praised, and etc.
    No people have the right to demand that all other peoples love, praise, and never judge them. A people making such a demand would be acting like god, like big brother.

    Now, Jews often say they have negative feelings about Germans and Russians because of what the Germans and Russians did or are doing. Germans carried out the Holocaust, and Russians had anti-Jewish attitude and policies. Okay, we can understand why Jews would feel that way. Given their history and experiences, we can see why they harbor such feelings about Germans and Russians.
    We would never say Jews have no good reason to dislike Russians or Germans. We would never say Jews must praise Germans and Russians all the time and never ever criticize them as a people, culture, power, or history.

    But surely, every people have their own history. Just as Jews surely had negative experiences with certain peoples, it is no less true that gentile populations had negative experiences with Jews and observed many examples of bad Jewish behavior. So, surely gentile groups have some good, rational, and moral reasons for not liking Jews. I mean it would be crazy to say Palestinians have no good reason to hate Jews. And given all the foul things Jews have done in Germany and Russia, the gentiles had as many legit reasons for hating Jews as Jews surely had legit reasons for hating Russians, Germans, and other goyim.

    This is true of any two peoples. Germans surely have some reasons for disliking Poles, and Poles have some reasons for distrusting and disliking Germans. Japanese and Chinese feel the same way. We don’t say Chinese must love Japanese and never ever condemn Japan because doing so would be ‘anti-nipponic’. We figure Chinese have reasons to hate Japan over WWII and for working with US to contain China. And if Japanese fear and dislike China today, we figure it has to do with China’s growing power, arrogance, and hypocrisy. So, there may be good reasons why Chinese don’t like Japan, and there may be good reasons why Japanese don’t like China. No problem.

    Same goes for HIndus and Muslims in India and Pakistan. Given their troubled history, we understand why both sides have grievances and have lots of reasons to hate the other side. Hindus remember Muslims acting badly, and Muslims remember Hindus acting badly.
    So, both sides have some legit reasons for hating one another.

    But when it comes to Jews, it’s as if there can never ever be any good reason to dislike, distrust, or hate Jews. It doesn’t matter what Jews do with their control of Hollywood, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, US government, US foreign policy, big media, control of courts, control of academia, and etc. We must be like innocent children believing in Santa Claus and uphold as an article of faith that Jews are always wonderful and can never do any wrong. We must love the Jew like people in the USSR had to love Stalin.

    This is why the use of ‘antisemitism’ is so problematic.
    With no other people — with the exception of blacks — are we required to love, respect, and praise without condition.
    With most peoples, whether we like them or hate them is incumbent on their attitudes & behavior and what their power means to our interests. So, we may like the Russians or hate the Russians. We may like the Chinese or hate the Chinese. We may like the Iranians or hate the Iranians. It all depends on what they do and what they mean to us.
    While all of us surely denounce someone who says, “I hate Russians for the hell of it”, “I hate Chinese simply because I love to hate”, or “I hate Iranians because I feel like it”, we can understand why someone might hold a generally negative view of those people for certain rational, empirical, or political reasons.

    But we have no choice when it comes to Jews. Even when Jews do us wrong, they are wonderful and we must love them. If Jews do wrong and if we notice it, we are at fault for the mere fact of noticing. It’s like daring to notice that the emperor has no clothes.
    in contrast, Jews are free to pass generalized judgment on the rest of humanity. It’s like Anne Applebaum has written vicious things about Russians in general, but she still has her esteemed place in academia and media. Jews can say that certain national groups are deficient in morality, ethics, culture, character, and etc. Such observations are regarded as intellectual, critical, academic, or journalistic. But if someone were to make similar assessments about Jews, he or she would be condemned as irrational, rabid, virulent, deranged, demented, and etc.

    Now, I’m willing to concede that some people just like to hate and that such people may hate Jews for no good reason. Some people just get a kick out of being bigoted.
    I’m also willing to concede that some people may have had good reasons to dislike or hate Jews, but they allowed their hatred to get the better of them and fester into all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories or even nonsense like Holocaust denial and making apologies for the Nazis. Even justifiable hatred can degenerate into crazy obsessions. It’s like Lawrence of Arabia had good reasons to hate Turks, but he went too far when he ordered the Arabs to mow down every retreating Turk. And even though Americans had good reasons to hate the Japanese following Pearl Harbor, they might have gone too far with firebombing entire cities and dropping two nukes.
    And even though Arabs had good reason to resent and hate American imperialism in the Gulf, the likes of Osama bin Laden went to extremes in carrying out terrorist attacks in the US — if indeed Osama and gang really were behind those attacks.

    But it’s simply not true that most people who harbor negative feelings about Jews are demented, deranged, rabid, and nuts. It’s not true that they hate Jews just for the insane joy of hating Jews. If anything, many such people began with neutral or even favorable opinion of Jews but gradually came to hate Jews because of overwhelming evidence of bad Jewish behavior. And as long as we are forbidden to express our rational dislike or hatred of Jewish behavior, bad Jews will be shielded and protected, thereby emboldened to act worse and worse. And that means that there will be even more rational and sane reasons to hate Jews.

    Likewise, the term ‘racism’ has a negative impact on national discourse. Because the way it is used by the media, academia,and government, there can never be a good, rational, or existential reason for disliking, distrusting, or hating blacks. We are supposed to worship MLK, believe in noble-tragic black holiness, and admire all blacks. So, it doesn’t matter that blacks commit so much crime, act so wild and crazy, exhibit so much hostility and arrogance. We must overlook all of that or even praise such behavior as ‘badass’ and
    ‘cool’ in our mindless and unconditional love for the Negro.

    So, while blacks are allowed to like or dislike a people based on the latter’s attitude and actions toward blacks, all non-black groups must take it as an article of faith that blacks are always noble, holy, and wonderful.
    Indeed, even when blacks burn down cities and attack white people and other non-blacks, we are supposed to make excuses for black behavior and tell ourselves that such black rage is justified as an act of revolution and resistance against ‘racism’.
    Given such twisted logic, is it any surprise that so many blacks have gotten worse and worse in their attitude and behavior.
    Blacks now believe that they are deserving of love, admiration, and respect even when they act like total louts.

    If blacks treat you bad and if you notice that blacks act like shit, YOU are the guilty one. As far as the theory of ‘racism’ is concerned, there can never be a good reason for disliking or hating blacks. Never ever. So, even though the reason why black students are suspended more than non-black students is due to bad black behavior, we are supposed to pretend that black students are innocent victims of ‘institutional racism’. So, even though Pamela Deen used the word ‘ni**er’ in reaction to a black man robbing her with a gun, the narrative made her our to be the bad person for noticing violent black behavior.

    it’s so crazy.

    So, we need to create a new way of social discourse. We need to distinguish between ‘antisemitism’ defined as hating Jews for no good reason and ‘anti-Jewishism’ defined as hating Jews for good reasons based on foul Jewish behavior in so many industries and institutions.

    For example, how can any decent person not be appalled by Sheldon Adelson’s proposal to drop a nuke on Iran? And how can decent people not be outraged by so many key Jews in the media, academia, and government tolerating and even supporting someone like Adelson and allowing people like him to play such a prominent role in US politics?
    When we survey Jewish behavior in America, there are many good reasons to dislike Jews, distrust Jews, hate Jews, and revile Jews.
    No, it’s not ‘antisemitism’ because we are not hating Jews just for the hell of it.
    It is anti-Jewish-ism because we have come to hate Jews for all the foul things Jews have done and are doing.

    Sure, we have a responsibility to not allow our justified hatred to turn into something deranged and pathological.
    It’s like just because you have good reasons to hate someone doesn’t mean that you should kill him and burn his house down.
    You have to control your anger and keep it rational and moral.

    But we deserve the same rights that Jews have in regard to other peoples. Jewish perception of gentile groups is not unconditional. We don’t say Jews must never dislike, criticize, or hate Russians, Germans, or Iranians. We fully understand that Jewish attitudes about such people will be informed by their own history, observations, interests, and experiences.

    Then, we too should have the same right in relation to Jews. Our feelings about Jews must not be unconditional. We should have the right to develop our own view of Jews based on our histories, observations, interests, knowledge, and experiences.
    For Jews to demand that we love, praise, and respect them regardless of their behavior, attitudes, and agenda is to tell us that we must worship Jews as perfect race of gods.

    Of course, what is most ironic about Jews bitching about ‘antisemitism’ is that they complain about all these ‘antisemitic stereotypes’ but then go about doing their utmost to fulfill them. It’s like a black guy screaming and hollering that white folks have this ‘racist’ perception of blacks as being too loud and obnoxious.

  8. Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
    January 20, 2016 - 8:21 pm | Permalink

    The “envy” theory is just another facet of the monomaniacal delusion of “superiority”, the result of an arrested psychological development at the phase of “egocentrism” (in terms of Piaget’s genetic epistemology) where the child sees things pretty much from one point of view: his own! It is actually a projection of their own inferiority complexes on the goyim. The neurotic aspect of it derives from the obscure knowledge that they are, in fact, neither ‘elected’, nor ‘superior’. That explains their frantic attempts to convince themselves, against all evidence, of their illusory ‘election’ and lying ‘promises’ of mastery over the goyim.

    P.S. The name of the Romanian revolutionary was Nicolae Balcescu.

    • Amasius's Gravatar Amasius
      January 21, 2016 - 2:14 am | Permalink

      Really, if they’re so superior, why do they follow us around wherever we go? Why can’t they ever build their own societies? Even after we kick them out, they just come right back. (I don’t count Israel as an independent society since it wouldn’t exist without US and German foreign aid.)

  9. John's Gravatar John
    January 20, 2016 - 6:01 pm | Permalink

    “German feelings of inferiority, political immaturity and national anxiety”

    Three things come to mind

    1) Germany did pretty well for itself after WWII having completely rebuilt itself within 20 years without the help of Jews or other foreigners and in spite of the fact that the US, England and France took thousands of the best German scientists and engineers along with virtually all of Germany’s scientific and technological know-how (search for the document “Secrets by the Thousands” on the scientistsandfriends.com web site).

    2) Today, Jews are moving to Germany by the thousands looking for a better quality of life.



    3) Even though the US has four times Germany’s population and millions more Jews, some years Germany exports more (by value) than the US.


    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      January 21, 2016 - 12:52 pm | Permalink

      Compare: Jews coming en masse in Germany from Israel, no Germans or Italians coming back in the lands that were German or italian since centuries. And no Russians coming back to Russia after fleeing the USSR ( or very few of them).
      So why Jews are coming back to Germany ?

  10. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    January 20, 2016 - 4:36 pm | Permalink

    In a way, we are all liberals, and that is a good thing. Liberalism in the best sense means being open-minded, adventurous, experimental, and curious. And we should all be like that. To merely stick with conventional wisdom or received truth means a total lack of imagination, critical faculty, and fascination with the new, different, and strange.

    So, why do we have a problem with Liberalism as it exists today? One reason is, of course, that much of so-called Liberalism is really illiberal and uses PC to censor free speech. It is also hypocritical because, even as Liberalism pressures white gentiles to look beyond white interests/identity, it encourages Jews and certain other ethnic/racial groups to guard and promote theirs. And of course, one can be destroyed for not going along with PC. Sailer said PC is a war on noticing, but PC demands that we NOTICE what Jewish power can do to us. So, even though we are not supposed to talk about Jewish power, we are supposed to NOTICE what it can do to us if we deviate from PC. It’s like Hebrews couldn’t say ‘Yahweh’ but had to fear His power at all times. We can’t say ‘Jews have supreme power’ but we better at if they do at all times because it has control of finance, media, government, law, entertainment, high-tech, and etc. It can kick our ass.

    But there is genuine form of (classic)liberalism in our society, and it is called libertarianism. It is anti-PC, for total free speech, and defends individual liberty(and universal human right) above all other considerations. So, it isn’t hypocritical like Liberalism that is dominated by PC as molded by the ethno-power of Jews.

    Now, if liberalism is a good thing(with its openness, experimentation, curiosity, intellectualism, and etc), why do we have problem with libertarianism’s form of classic liberalism?

    It’s because we know in our hearts that, even though liberalism offers many advantages and strengths, it cannot serve as the core foundation of a people, culture, and civilization. We need liberalism as a tool and instrument, as a way of navigating in the larger world of new possibilities and challenges. But it must ultimately serve something more real and substantial.

    The real difference is not between Conservatism vs Liberalism. (There are few absolutist-conservatives around, and no such exists in the Alt Right because Alt Right likes to think about stuff and challenge tired dogmas of both ‘right’ and ‘left’.) The real difference is between liberals-with-roots and liberals-without-roots. It’s about rooted liberalism vs rootless liberals(libertarians) vs Liberal Inc of PC(that makes no sense whatsoever.) Alt Right is really more like ‘liberals with roots’ than ‘conservatives’. Alt Right is for new ideas, experimentation, curiosity, and free discourse, but it believes that its liberalism must be rooted in identity, history, and heritage. In other words, the liberalism of any people should be an extension/expansion than an extermination of identity.

    Liberalism is like the growing branches and sprouting leaves of a tree, but sure, branches and leaves are extensions/expansions of the trunk and roots in the ground. Indeed, the conceptual ideal of branches and leaves without the trunk and the roots would be ridiculous. After all, the tree first grew from a seed in the soil. And the tree remains standing because it has deep roots in the ground. And without a strong trunk, the tree cannot support the expanding branches and leaves.

    So, liberals-with-roots or rooted liberals understand the need for the branches and leaves to grow, to feel the winds from other lands, and to strive toward the sun. But they also understand that, in order for the tree to be able to do all those things, it needs a solid trunk and deep roots in the soil. And of course, Jews understand this all too well about themselves since they have a deep sense of historical and genetic roots. Even as Jews have adopted and used liberalism, they never severed themselves from the Jewish trunk and Jewish roots. How else could they have maintained their genetics and culture for 3,500 yrs? Why else did they never give up on returning to the Promised Land? Jews know that if they had totally abandoned their genetic-cultural-historical-spiritual roots and totally embraced bloodless & rootless liberalism, they would have eventually lost out and vanished as a people and culture long time ago. As a people interested only in abstract ideas, they would might have had a vague sense of destination but no sense of home or origin.

    But then, a sense of the future is far less interesting and meaningful without a sense of the past. Indeed, imagine taking out the Genesis and the early books of the Bible. The Bible would be far less compelling. Its power derives from the sense of origins & development and how the early myths continues to inform the obligations and destiny of Jews. And even when Jews stopped believing in the literal truth of the Torah, they still valued its historical and cultural value. Imagine if humanity were to leave earth for another planet and then decided to totally forget that it had originated on another planet called Earth. How impoverished such people would be in terms of memory and identity.

    Liberalism allows us to explore, but we need a sense of home or, at least of origins. if we have a sense of origins, we will continue to know what we are even if we are exiled from our home or if our home is destroyed forever.

    Just because astronauts go exploring space and maybe other worlds in the future doesn’t mean that they should forget that they originated, evolved, and came from the planet Earth. It is the knowledge of roots on Earth that gives humanity its meaning. Even if the Earth were to be destroyed in some future date and mankind were to colonize another planet, the true meaning of mankind will derive from the knowledge that it had originated and evolved on Earth.
    Animals have no such memory. If monkeys in Africa are relocated to some jungle in South America, they would soon forget their original habitat, and the next generation would ONLY know the new habitat in South America. Animals have territorial instinct and even a proto-tribal instinct among social creatures like chimps and wolves, but their perceptions and feelings can never turn into the stuff of culture, myth, history, or identity. It’s all about brutal survival.

    In contrast, humans do have extensive memory and use language to keep the memory of earlier generations alive. Animals have no sense of origins and history. Animals have no use for meaning. But humans are useless without meaning, and most of human meaning comes from history, heritage, roots, and origins, all of which come to form a sense of identity. Also, there is rich identity and shallow identity. Being a Trekkie is an identity. So is being a gamer, deadhead, or Star Wars fan. And some people may choose such as their main identity, but they are fooling themselves because such attachments are shallow, trivial, or juvenile, no matter how feverish the fandom may be at the moment. Fads should not be the core identity.

    In contrast, certain identities are rich in meaning, deep in history, evident in the genes, and considerable in arts, culture, memory, and myth. They have lasting value and should be the basis of the true meaning of a people. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying video games or some rock band, but if one’s core identity is about addiction to the fleeting pleasures of games or pop music, he or she is a fool who thinks humanity is all about fun, fun, fun and being young forever. Imagine making Beatlemania or Michael-Jackson-fandom as one’s main identity. Nothing wrong with enjoying the music of the Fab Four or the wacky-jacky, but fandom is come and go. Of course, one can include Beatles as part of British culture and history, and indeed the great thing about national culture is that they can incorporate the achievements in literature, music, and the arts over the course of history. So, even though it would be foolish to choose Beatlemania as one’s core identity, one can include the Beatles music as part of British arts, music, history, and culture.

    Liberalism must grow out of something. It must be an extension of something. Liberalism may persuade us to change something about ourselves for improvement and advancement, but it must never tell us to reject, deny, forget, or terminate what we are. Liberalism can help us steer toward a better future, but we need to know where we came from and what we are, and those considerations must inform where we want to go and need to go. Imagine if someone on a ship were to volunteer to undergo amnesia in the name of rootless liberalism. He would still have the ship on which to explore the world, but without a sense of origins and identity, what would his destination be? How can you use liberalism to serve your interests if you don’t know who or what you are? Why did Odysseus’ men stop thinking of using their free will to return home? Because they came under semi-amnesia from eating lotus. Libertarians are like lotus-eaters. If you eat the lotus, you get eaten by the locusts.


    Imagine a proud Germany that uses liberalism to make Germany better. It would be open to new ideas and open to experimentation. Germans being proud Germans, their primary goal would be to make Germany a better nation for Germans. It would be a rooted liberalism or liberalism rooted in history, identity, heritage, and culture.

    Now, imagine a Germany that uses liberalism to reject the very concept of Germany. This Germany of rootless liberalism would be open ideas and ways, but then for what? To serve what? If Germans no longer know what they are, there would no longer be any reason to serve Germany, defend Germany, or make Germany better. Maybe every German will just see himself or herself as a rootless ‘individual’, but if that is the end-all of identity, there is no need for past/history and no need for future/destiny. After all, only a cultural consciousness that survives over many generations develops into unique identity: “Our ancestors were Germans, we are Germans, and our descendants our Germans. We received an identity from our ancestors, it defines what we are, and we bequeath this identity and culture to our descendants…” No individual, however great, formed a new identity all by himself. And even great individuals like Jesus and Muhammad meant for their new visions to be passed down and remembered generation after generation.

    Rooted Germans could used their sturdier form of liberalism to think up new ideas and experiment with new possibilities. But ultimately, their rooted liberalism would be serving something bigger than any individual. An individual lasts just a lifetime whereas a race and culture can last for for eons. A biography doesn’t make an identity or history. It is part of larger identity and history.

    Some might argue that individuals should embrace the larger identity of the ‘human race’ or ‘humanity’, but then, the Goldilocks rule comes into effect. Just like Goldilocks had to find the midway between extremes, humanity is best served by settling for the midway between the extreme of libertarian individualism and the extreme of universal collectivism. It is egotistical and petty to put oneself at the center of everything and too much of a burden to think and care about all of humanity in every corner of the world. Let each person belong to his or her nation and do his/her best to do good for that nation, and may all nations get along together in peace and cooperation. The nation-state is the best building block for a peaceful international order. Nation-state is the more stable and enduring form of human organization and identity, at least its composition is sound. The best kind of nation-state favors homogeneity over diversity over a fixed territory. It is more about history and identity than about ideology though all nation-states have a need for some kind of guiding ideology. In other words, capitalism and democracy should serve the identity and history of the people of a nation, not the other way around. Nation-state is the source of power.

    Indeed, why was much of the world so vulnerable to imperialism during the Age of Empire? Because much of the world hadn’t formed into nation-states yet. So, the peoples who had formed into nation-states had a great advantage over those that hadn’t.

    This was true in Europe as well. Why was Germany vulnerable to Napoleon’s France? Because Napoleon ruled over a united French nation-state whereas Germany was divided into many principalities. Why did Austrians rule over non-Austrians who made up 75% of the Austro-Hungarian empire? Because non-Austrians hadn’t yet formed into nation-states.

    Why was the British Empire able to gain control over so much of Asia, Africa, and Middle East? Because those parts of the world had no nation-states. The eventual fading of European empires around the world had to do with the emergence of nation-state-ism in the Third World. Once every part of Asia, Africa, and Middle East gained a sense of nation-state-ism, the peoples of those regions could more effectively unite and organize to drive out the imperialists whose power derived from their own nation-states. Indeed, British imperial power was an extension of British nation-state-ism, and French imperial power was an extension of French nation-state-ism. And those great powers gained domination mostly over people without nation-state-ism who were divided and scattered among themselves.
    (Today, the Middle East is vulnerable because the nations created there were poorly constructed to be diverse than homogeneous. Therefore, the Zio-Globalists have been able to exploit the divisions within Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It goes to show that nation-state-ism isn’t enough. It has to be well-formulated and well-constructed along the basic rules of stability, i.e. homogeneity of a people over a certain territory makes for greater stability, peace, and cohesion. Zionist Israel has been more stable than Apartheid South Africa because majority Jews ruled over minority Arabs in Israel whereas ruling minority whites were vastly outnumbered by savage blacks. South Africa violated the cardinal rule of stable-nation-state-ism. Generally, it helps for the rulers to be of the majority population than of the minority population. The reason why American Jews elites are so paranoid and hysterical is because they are a minority ruling elite. So, in order to play divide-and-conquer, they keep trying to increase gentile diversity and make non-whites hate whites.)

    The reason why Italian power faded was Italy wasn’t able to unite into a nation-state until much later. It had city-states, and some Italian city-states had colonies abroad, but a city-state could only do so much. It couldn’t sustain the kind of power that the UK and France could.

    And Germany finally became a great power because Germans united into a single nation-state. Prior to unification, the Germans were afraid of French power. But once Germany was united, it could withstand French might and even defeat France, as happened under Bismarck. Indeed, the last thing that the French wanted was for the various German principalities to unite into a single nation-state entity, as such would grow far more powerful. (Rule of stable-nation-state-ism is “unite with people of shared race, culture, and language”. The reason why Prussia came to be on better footing that the Austrians was because Prussia mostly united with German provinces whereas Austrians united with non-Austrians. So, if the Prussian enterprise of absorbing other German provinces led to the creation of an organic nation-state, the Austrian way led to an empire than a nation-state. When Hitler was uniting with Germanic folks in Rhineland, Austria, and Sudetenland, he was popular and loved by new members of greater Germany. But things changed when Germany took over Czech areas and half of Poland. The non-Germans felt like subject peoples and indeed were treated as such.)

    The problem with empire is that it makes some people feel like masters while other peoples feel like subjects. Austrians felt more privileged than non-Austrians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Turks felt more privileged than non-Turks in the Ottoman Empire.
    In contrast, a nation-state makes everyone in the nation feel like they are part of the same community despite class differences.

    The problem with the US is that, with increasing diversity and with an elite made up mostly of Jews-homos-and-mulattoes, many white Americans are feeling like subjects in an empire than as organic members of a nation-state. Whites once felt like they were part of a white American nation. Now, so many whites feel like they are subjects in an empire ruled by Jews and their homo/mulatto allies. Sure, there are white elites in the GOP, but they mostly cucks. Trump is better but even he hasn’t dared to talk about Jewish power which is the real power in America.

    Anyway, we are all liberals and that is a good thing. But we are rooted liberals, not rootless liberals.

    Liberals without roots may flatter themselves for being freer thinkers for being unfettered by identity and heritage, but people without roots have no compelling reason to think about anything since they are not guided by passion. After all, people use their minds to serve a certain objective, and their commitment is fueled by emotions. No one does stuff just to do stuff; no one commits to anything just for the hell of it. One reason why North Vietnam won over South Vietnam was the North knew it was fighting for national pride and independence whereas people in the South were told they were fighting for some vague American concept of ‘liberty’ as represented by chewing gum, beer, and prostitution of their women. Furthermore, one’s ultimate purpose in life isn’t only about what you’re willing to live for but what you’re willing to die for. It may well have been that plenty of south vietnamese were willing to live for what the Americans offered, but few were willing to die for it. In contrast, those in the North were willing to die for what they felt in their hearts.

    Now, on an instinctive level, we all understand that our decisions are driven by some kind of a purpose. After all, we eat to feed ourselves so we can survive. We are like zombies in George Romero movies. We know we have to keep eating in order to survive.
    In a way, individualism is a form of self-tribalism or micro-tribalism. Each individual is into serving his or her own interests.

    To the extent that each of know we must eat and seek shelter, we do have a sense of purpose in life. It is to stay alive and seek some pleasure in life. But is that all? If that is all there is to life, we would be no different from animals that are content to have shelter, food, and some fun.

    Humans need more because we have a sense of memory, culture, and history. We need to belong to a larger community.
    Historical experience has shown that certain communities are more resilient than others. Russians tried Russian-ness as identity, communism as identity, and post-communist globo-capitalism as identity. Russian-ness proved to be more meaningful, stable, and resilient. Jews tried all bunch of ideologies, but nothing has been more resilient Jewishness as an identity, history, and culture. We all need ideologies and -isms, but they must serve the identity, not the other way around. For example, we can make good use of capitalism and democracy, but they must serve a people and culture. Democracy in Japan should serve the Japanese, democracy in Turkey should serve the Turks. Socialism in Sweden should serve the Swedes. Socialism in Switzerland should serve the Swiss.

    Also, people without identity end up being shallow and trashy, especially when times are good. If we have a sense of history, we would be reminded that our affluence didn’t come from nowhere. It is the product of many centuries of hard work, struggle, sacrifice, trial and error, and tragedies. So, we would value what we have, and we would use our freedom and wealth more wisely. We would take good care of it and pass it down to our descendants to do the same. But if one has no sense of identity and history, one would just see his wealth and freedom as means to indulge oneself. It’s like rich spoiled kids of rich folks end up being stupid and rotten. Their parents didn’t ground them in a sense of identity, history, and heritage. If you know something about your ancestors and what they went through, you would not blow all the wealth and freedom bequeathed to you on yourself. But if you have no memory, then you will be like Adam Sandler in BILLY MADISON and act like a total jerk.

    It is because white folks have forgotten their identity that so many of them blew their great inheritance of freedom and wealth on trivialities and degraded themselves in imitation of stupid trash like Lena Dunham. And in a way, this goes for blacks too. Because so many blacks know nothing but trash culture, rap, hip hop, and consumer-culture, they have no sense of their own roots and history, no sense of what their ancestors went through to gain civil rights and freedom. Since the late 60s, blacks have used their newfound freedom to indulge in amnesiac degeneracy and trashiness. Even when it comes to black cultural treasure troves like blues and Jazz, whites have done more than blacks to maintain the memory, tradition, and appreciation.

    But there is another problem with rootless liberalism. Liberals-without-roots may feel liberated from their identity, history, and culture. They may feel free as cosmopolitan individuals without the burden of tradition, obligation, or loyalty. But human nature being what it is, it craves for something bigger than oneself, something compelling and potent. It’s like even people who reject God/religion go about seeking for its substitutes because there is something in our nature that is worshipful of something deemed holy, higher, or transcendental.

    So, even white liberals who’ve chosen to be rootless eventually find themselves seeking to identify with something bigger than their anemic rootless selves. Since they’ve rejected their own identity, they begin to fixate on OTHER identities.
    It’s like Tom Cruise in LAST SAMURAI, in having rejected whiteness, tries to more Japanese than the Japanese. It’s like the white guy in AVATAR identifies with the big blue folks of another planet. It’s like the younger brother of the bourgeois guy in RAGTIME comes to identify with blacks and joins a black terrorist outfit.

    It’s like white cuckservatives who reject their own race and culture are so passionate about Israel, Israel, and Israel. It’s like white Libs who reject their own identity and culture identify so strongly with stuff like reggae culture and homo community. They no longer hoist the flag of white power but they sure love to wave the flag of homo pride and worship. In the absence of their own tribalism, they’ve latched onto the tribalism of another people. (It’s like Lawrence of Arabia latches onto the dream of Arab nationalism. Initially, we notice that he is more liberal and open-minded than the other British. But as he begins to fight for the Arabs, he becomes like the most passionate ‘Arab’. Indeed, he wants to kill the Turks more than the Arabs do. He is even willing to favor Arab interests over British interests. In a way, he becomes a white man who is serving another race of people. Yet, he also exults in being served by the Arabs who see him as like a god. He feels both humbled and deified. We see this duality among white Liberals. On the one hand, they are like sappy dorks serving other races. But they also get a kick out of playing the role of the ‘great white man’ who is bringing the light of progress to all the darkies around the world.)

    In this sense, what we are seeing in Germany and Sweden isn’t entirely a case of anti-nationalism. It is a strange phenomenon of cuck-nationalism. Since Germans are no longer allowed the pride of being German, their thwarted tribal passions latch onto the identities of Jews, homos, or ‘Syrians’. Since Germans cannot draw the water of pride from their own ethnic well, they try to draw it from the well of Jews, homos, Negroes, and ‘Syrians’. Germans may not be aware of the psychological dynamics of what is really going on, but just like American cuckservatives experience tribal emotions through the surrogate of Israel, many Europeans(especially Northern Europeans and the French) get the high of tribal passion by supporting the cause of the Other, such as ‘Syrians’.

    Likewise, white males in the US are forbidden to feel masculine pride. So, as cucks, some of them invite Negroes to hump their white women. Though white males feel humiliation, they also experience a perverse kind of male pride through the surrogate of the Negro who unapologetically feels and acts like a ‘real man’.

    And in a way, what happened in Cologne was a kind of cuckfest. Though, on some level, German and European males were offended by how the invader-hordes treated white women, on another level the European males subconsciously thrilled to the sight of ‘real men’ asserting their masculinity and pride over white women who are now a bunch of whores and sluts.

    Germans are really messed up because their cult of Holocaust Guilt is really a perverse form of tribalism.
    National shame is a corollary to national pride.
    If national pride is wrong because it is built on the tribal notion of German greatness based on race, culture, and history,
    then national shame is also wrong because it is premised on the tribal notion of guilt by race, culture, and history.

    Holocaust Guilt doesn’t blame only the German individuals who took part in the Holocaust. It says that ALL Germans past-present-and-future are guilty of the Murder-of-Jews since they all share the same blood and are part of German history.

    If the cult of National Pride says that even the worst Germans are deserving of pride, then the cult of National Shame says that even the best Germans are deserving of shame. Under the cult of radical National Pride, a German individual can be a total shit and loser, but he can invoke his Germanness to feel so great about himself. Under the radical cult of National Shame, a Jew can accuse even the nicest and kindest German born after WWII of being part of the Evil Race of people called the ‘Germans’.

    Holocaust Guilt is about blood-and-soil but to instill shame than pride. (It might be called blood-and-spoil)
    If Hitler said anyone with German blood was the best simply for having German blood, Jews say anyone with German blood is the worst simply for having German blood. Holocaust Guilt judges Germans not on the basis of what they do as free-willed individuals but on the basis of their blood. So, it doesn’t matter how good and decent you are as an individual German. It doesn’t matter if your ancestors resisted the Nazis and if you were born long after WWII. In the eyes of Jews, your blood makes you a Nazi.

    If indeed Germans are really all about rejecting their identity, history, and culture, they should also abandon the cult of Holocaust Guilt since it is too is a tribal form of German identity based on guilt and evil. Germans infected with Holocaust Guilt may not feel tribal pride but they certain feel tribal shame.

    If the current Liberal German logic is that Germans should feel no special affinity for German history, culture, and identity, then the Germans should not only give up their pride but also their guilt. After all, WWII and the Holocaust are part of German history. If indeed Germans are no more German(due to race and history) than non-Germans are — if indeed, just about anyone can become ‘German’ — , then it makes no sense to associate German-ness with the Holocaust. Rejection of German history and identity means rejecting not only the matters worthy of German pride but matters worthy of German guilt.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      January 20, 2016 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

      No individual, however great, formed a new identity all by himself.

      “. . .Man is a being of self-made soul. . .” ayn rand, jewess

      A great circularity- a man would already have to be in existence before he tried to “make his soul”- that is, he would have to use the soul that he already has. . .

      This is an example of what these “Objectivists” call the stolen concept- these knuckleheads cannot even see it in miss rand’s writing.

      Human meaning comes from the fact that humans can form concepts, whilst animals cannot.

    • Free Thinker's Gravatar Free Thinker
      January 21, 2016 - 5:37 am | Permalink

      Tamuldic Nonesense .

      • Free Thinker's Gravatar Free Thinker
        January 21, 2016 - 5:43 am | Permalink

        “Tamuldic Gibber” might be another discription . Physics has become the same . Tamuldic Gibber using partical accelerators ???

  11. Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
    January 20, 2016 - 3:03 pm | Permalink

    In my experience with Jews it is actually the opposite. Aly wrote: THEY are envious of anyone who appears to be more clever, more educated, better at work, etc. They start to suspect, they try to undermine what you do or plan to do, they put you in a bad light with your chief, they use all possible ways and tools to compete, counteract, demoralise you, but always keeping a smile, feigning friendship and loyalty, until you find yourself
    ousted, fired, alone in the dark. Unless you realise that before it’s too late and start behaving consequently. First af all, keeping a safe distance from them, while looking from another job, another school, another club…
    It seems to me that few people actually live and work
    in close proximity to a Jew, even in USA. Because as soon as you find yourself in this situation, you quickly realise how much he/she can become subtly nasty if he/she feels in competion with you, even though this is not real. Then the fight begins and ends with him/her or you dead.
    After such an experience, I perfectly understood Germans under Weimar Republic and NsDAP rule. I finished for sympathizing with them.

    • January 20, 2016 - 11:47 pm | Permalink

      More or less exactly the same issues / problems / threats / subterfuges are present when trying to deal with Indians (Hindus).

      • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
        January 21, 2016 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

        But Indians too get you fired?

        • January 22, 2016 - 12:59 am | Permalink

          Yes. Comments from several contributors are in the TOO archive from about 10 months ago, which offer recollections and personal experiences to this issue. Their strategy closely resembles the ‘Jewish’ strategy that you have just described.

    • Walter's Gravatar Walter
      January 21, 2016 - 6:38 am | Permalink

      100% spot on. Same experience myself.

    • royalbrecht's Gravatar royalbrecht
      January 21, 2016 - 8:15 am | Permalink

      Jews in Hamilton, Canada, where I grew up, dominated the waste management, metals recycling, commercial and high-rise residential real estate, judiciary, local mass-media media, automotive parts retailers (both used and new), and “used” goods (including pawn brokers) industries.

      In all areas except the judiciary and mass media (where surgically enhanced, cosmetically and costume disguised, mentally under-performing lackeys or other Jews [but I repeat myself] were employed) Jews employed an overabundance of ex-convicts, illiterate mix-breed drop-outs and drug addicts to act as their property managers, yard workers, security personnel and other lower-level fetch it men and women.

      Many of these workers would steal from the patrons (especially notable in the metals industries) or turn a blind eye to stolen metals (copper cable from road side telecom projects, stolen vehicles, that were turned in for recycling, etc…).
      As this local lackey cohort eventually became wise to the fact that they were actually working for Jews who were consistently underpaying them and not only ripping off their legitimate customers but contributing to their income by turning a blind eye to stolen goods (or possibly even directing gangs as to where the best things to steal were) they slowly became disgruntled and started to steal from the Jews themselves. It was at this point that Jews started to replace the locals with cheaper and more fearful Asian imported wage-slaves.

      In my late teens, most workers were unionized and got fairly high wages and did fairly professional work (okay…, professional by Canadian standards, not German ones), but by my late twenties the unions were well on their way to being broken and had taken a back seat to non-unionized replacements.

      Today, Canada is basically an ecological rape in progress by a collection of well balanced ethnic cohorts in a race to the moralistic bottom where everyone is afraid to say what is really going on.
      And forgive me for saying so, but as much as I know I am supposed to differentiate between ethical Whites and the rest of the rabble, there is a part of me that feels Shadenfreude that Canadians are actually reaping what they have sewn in that they joined a war effort against a German nation that resisted this exact same Jewish orchestrated deformation within their own society during the 1930s and ’40s.

      The point being that yes, Jews do work hard and do secretly and not so secretly patronize each other based on ethnic grounds, but I believe a vast majority of their gains originate from stolen or otherwise criminal activity that is either covered up or legalistically minimized through their similarly gotten oligopolies in the legal spheres.
      If this is what one calls superiority, then yes the Jews are, IMO, superior thieves and liars.

      • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
        January 21, 2016 - 1:08 pm | Permalink

        I spent half my life with no personal knowledge of Jews, so thinking a lot of good of them. Then I came just to Hamilton to attend a Master Programm at the local McMaster University, and there I met lots of them, And I started to note a pattern and initially I felt embarassed to admit it to myself, but then I had to aknowledge that some of the ” antisemitic” critiques of them were..well,
        well founded. Then I came back to Italy and again I happened to meet other Jews in my job. And again the same pattern as in Hamilton. Finally I ended up reading
        Prof MacDonald’s books and all became clear to me. He
        was describing the same Jews I have met in Canada and now in Milan, exactly the same. First friendly and
        helpful and then suddenly, as as soon as they felt
        menaced by myself ( a completely wrong idea) in their
        professional position, envious, devious, trying anything
        to get me out. The in-group against the out-group. In the end I was out, but on my own decision. I was too frustrated, too disillusioned, too angry and bitter to
        continue with them as colleagues. I preferred to save my
        health and my soul and find another job. But from then I
        started to understand German people in those times (and French, and Polish, and Russian, and English, and Spanish, and Italians…).

        • royalbrecht's Gravatar royalbrecht
          January 22, 2016 - 1:49 am | Permalink


          Nice to meet you!

          I often read your comments and they are usually spot on but did not know you once lived in my place of birth.
          It is somewhat gratifying to know that someone out there can understand where I came from.
          I lived in the thick of that hornet’s nest of Jews and craven Limey scum (as far as I know) as the only one who dared to openly accuse them of what they were and whistle-blow on their holocaust lie from the very first day that it hit the CBC and went viral on a national level.
          You were there two years while in your mid twenties I assume and became disillusioned and returned home.
          Imagine the heat I took living in that neighbourhood starting as a preschooler and having no where to run to while even my closest relatives were accusing me of “thinking too much of myself”!
          Talk about going insane!

          The outcome; I had to learn how to fight and stand on my own as even my closest German friends and relatives abandoned me one by one.

          Do I hold a grudge?
          Damn right I do!
          Do I want justice?
          Damn right I do!
          Do I want those fukkers dead and buried?
          Damned right I do!

          It is for this reason that although I understand the odds that TOO is up against if it supports the likes of Holocaust whistle blowers, there is something bitter tasting in my mouth about a site and a group of scholars who will not abide by the “Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God!”

      • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
        January 22, 2016 - 10:25 am | Permalink

        Hi, Roy,
        I was in Hamilton in my mid-thirties, but apart from that, all the rest is how you described. And the University milieu is full of Jews and Indians and Arabs and Pakis and Iranians etc.etc. And I, as an Italian, was looked down and had to work the double, pay attention to every and each rule, and listen continuously to jokes about Mafia ( as you know, Milan is in the North of Italy), Berlusconi, wine, oil, pasta, etc.etc. Go figure !

        • royalbrecht's Gravatar royalbrecht
          January 25, 2016 - 3:44 am | Permalink

          Oh God…, please do not remind me…, post traumatic stress disorder lapses kick in…

          However, if you were paying attention, Hamilton Centre is an isolated NDP (New Democratic party) strong hold in a sea of Jew-Liberal and Jew-Consevative proxy-controlled electoral seats…, especially on the federal level.

          As Jew-conducted, Anti-White and “Diversity-by-shotgun” as the university climate may be, Hamilton Centre is host to the “salt of the earth” working class tradesmen and children of European immigrants.
          These people, if they know you and trust you, will openly acknowledge the destructive role that Jews play in the society.
          In that electoral district, words like “the banks, “insurance companies”, “oil companies”, “big business” are really code words for “the Jews”.
          Hamilton is one of the few places nationally that the people at large know about “the Jews”, even though they are afraid of talking about them openly.

  12. Outin Theopen's Gravatar Outin Theopen
    January 20, 2016 - 11:40 am | Permalink

    (Slightly off-topic.)

    Has anyone here ever thought about setting up an international business platform (network) exclusively aimed at White Nationalists? Entrepreneurs dedicated to our cause would be able to get together, bundle their strengths, expand their operations, and thereby generate funds to help further our cause.

    Think about how the organized Jewish community operates. Almost all the organizations furthering Jewish interests depend upon tax-deductible gifts made by generous “philanthropists.” You know, those so-called “pillars of the Jewish community” who employ their (ill-gotten) wealth to further the collective interests of their people. And it works. It works formidably.

    So, why not imitate the tribe in this matter?

    Who will be the economic pillars of our community?

    (A few days ago I posed the same set of questions in a comment at Counter-Currents. The reason for repeating the matter here is that I would like as many people as possible to start thinking about these questions. Perhaps the Occidental Observer can take the lead in working towards the realization of a White Nationalist business network, or at least devote some space to the idea.)

    • January 20, 2016 - 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Money = Jews

      You must realize the golden rule, i.e. he who controls the gold makes the rules. If money is involved, especially substantial sums, within days Jews will be all over it. One cannot start any form of real wealth production or accumulation that will create or assist a nationalist cause, or any cause antithetical to the Jew’s agenda. Whenever the Jew’s collective immune system is challenged, they quickly mass to undermine the attempt.

      There are numerous examples where Jews have brought in agencies like the treasury department and the IRS to harass and destroy those who have even mildly countered their agenda. Churches have been denied their tax exempt status, David Duke was railroaded on gambling/tax evasion charges.

      Jews not only control the lion’s share of America’s wealth, they own the system that creates the money. In such an environment how is it possible to talk of using the Jew’s financial methodology against them? In fact the last guy who did this was Adolf Hitler and look what they did to him and his extended family of Germans.

      It will take some sort of mass awakening among at least 10% to 20% of the people before action can be taken that will not be suicidal. The last time a miracle of this magnitude was recorded was in the gospels. One will need to have many friends among the masses before they will be able to escape the Jew’s vengeance.

      Look at the past reactions of the masses in cases like The Branch Davidians, Robert Matthews, Richard Butler and later his attorney Edgar Steele. When the moment of truth came, all these people stood alone. Few, if any, among the common people supported their actions, let alone stood in their defense.

      No one I know of considered standing up to state, “right or wrong, these are my people.” In every case the masses supported the government and I don’t call it the Zionist American Government (ZAG) for nothing. The comment among the masses invariably runs to the other end of the spectrum, “Right or wrong, it’z my government.”

      As long as this remains the prevailing viewpoint, no doubt those openly opposing the Jews, and using their shekels against them, will most likely wind sharing a vat of boiling hot excrement with Jesus.

      • January 21, 2016 - 12:36 am | Permalink

        Arch … as usual, I cannot fault your logic, nor your continuing and reliable grasp of reality and real-politik. But I would rather not see a very sound proposal by Outin Theopen made “still-born” so quickly.

        Clearly, we cannot destroy their ZOG/ZAG system, by acting within their system! Sure, while exploiting their many sub-systems we can weaken them, as we gain strength and more converts, but we will ultimately have to act outside of their system(s) to enact the coup de grâce.

        Our primary strategic failure has been our continued use of their fraudulent money-printing Ponzi-scheme. Indeed, most of us still use the word “Dollar” to describe its currency, yet anyone who has done his/her homework will know there are now NO US dollars in circulation. There have been no dollars in circulation since John F. Kennedy’s “Greenback” initiative was aborted by his assassination.

        You can still acquire authentic US Dollars, by purchasing a Dollar Silver Coin from a bullion dealer … but the paper currency most visitors to this website use, and the paper currency the remainder think of as a key FOREX indice, is actually and truthfully, a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. I am always amazed how people stubbornly refuse to read those words printed clearly on each note!

        The Californian Attorney, Ellen Brown, has written extensively on how to build an alternative system to the current banking system. She supports the concept of State Banks, Thrift Banks, Coops, and other local initiatives. Consult her website and her published work for more info.

        In Britain there is an ongoing campaign to resurrect the Bradbury Pound, which used to be legal tender circa 1914. Indeed, up until the 1930s, it was legal for private banks in Britain to issue their own currency; subject to each bank meeting certain reserve requirements.

        I have deep knowledge of Information Technology. I can inform all TOO readers there are initiatives either brand new, or in the pipeline, which could render Jewish constructed/owned/operated companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Yahoo totally obsolete within months. All it would take is widespread adoption.

        I already have an email account where I can communicate with others having a similar account (i.e., with the same service) in complete privacy. The entire message is encrypted, including the attachments.

        The technology already exists for people to build mesh networks (private Internets) simply using readily available Wi-Fi units. For implementation and adoption, all that is required is knowledge and cooperation between participants. Plus of course, some leadership. Theoretically, these could be extended to cover entire States, regions, nations, and ultimately internationally. Of course, they’d be subject to sabotage by ZOG/ZAG agents, but we would deal with them by forming our own lethal militias.

        About 20 percent of any ZOG/ZAG controlled population could cut their expenditures in Jew-owned supermarkets by shopping instead at their local Farmer’s market, or by shopping in the nearest town market, which are traditionally operated by sole-traders. Walk your talk! The main resistance to this idea will come from young women, who have grown too used to strolling down the air-conditioned isles of giant food halls wearing high-heels, mini-skirts, and other finery. So, in order to survive we will also HAVE to destroy this malignant cancer known as Radical Feminism.

        Even those with small gardens can now grow surprising quantities of high quality food by creating a “vertical garden”. There are numerous guidelines and DIY tutorials available on the Internet. Hydroponics is another way of growing high-quality crop locally, even when the soil quality is poor, or you are living in Nevada. Best way is to organize a cooperative (or a club) because a group effort will ensure its success.

        Bitcoin is potentially one way of getting ourselves out of the Jewish Monetary System. But Bitcoin is not alone. There are other crypto-currency solutions, either already in operation, or on the horizon. Again, it just requires more people to understand this is not a scam, and that the entire concept really is grounded and beneficial. Putting it another way, if we all adopted Bitcoin during the upcoming month of February, at least one major Zio-criminal bank would be caused to collapse.

        In addition to which, there already exist forms of gold that can be used in exchange for goods and services. But people are too scared of taking such initiatives. So more education is needed.

        We must stop feeding the monster we foolishly keep feeding! The entire Jewish Matrix could be made to collapse into dust within a few months. It is a house of cards. But we will never succeed at doing this until we first get our own house (and houses) in good order.

        Either we fight this war properly, or we shall end up like the Afrikaners, who we’ve already betrayed.

      • Outin Theopen's Gravatar Outin Theopen
        January 21, 2016 - 12:43 am | Permalink

        I agree that we should not lose eye of the fact that in most Western nations our enemies are in firm control of the reins of government and are backed by the full strength of the state. I am therefore convinced that we will never again regain control of our governments. In light of reality, I think it is vain to keep up this hope.

        As long as we remain a bunch of atomized individuals struggling to survive in an ever more hostile environment, what can we achieve politically? I say we should lay more stress on economics, on securing the resources necessary to support strong and healthy White families, with the long-term goal of furthering the collective interests of our race. Politically we have lost already, and neither a Trump nor a Putin, nor a Le Pen will be able to change that. We should not hope for a messiah to come and save us, to “make us great again.”

        Blacks thought to have found such a savior in Obama. Well, what did they gain in the end? Nothing. They lost. Sure, they have become an even greater nuisance to White Americans than they were before, but is it not evident that as a race they have failed? They placed their hope on a force outside of themselves. This never works.

        Fact of the matter is that we are looking at a world that is increasingly hostile to our people. The Jews are on top now. And from what I can see, they are determined to force us into their former position. Considering their immense power, they will most likely succeed in this aim.

        The sad fact is that most of us are mere keyboard warriors wielding bits and bytes while fighting on a cyberspace battlefield that disappears the moment our enemies decide to shut it down. When the lights go out, we are all on our own again.

        We all know that if current trends continue, we are likely to become a minority in our own homelands within a generation or two, perhaps sooner. If we wish to survive as a people, we have to switch our current group evolutionary strategy to one that is better suited to a despised minority.

        I do not propose that Whites should engage in business with the open purpose of funding our cause. What I would like to see is racially conscious Whites engaging in business with other enlightened Whites in order that all involved parties may generate an income sufficient to support a racially conscious family. Whatever money is left for charity can be donated to organizations fighting for our collective interests.

        You see, I am in business myself. Everyday I meet entrepreneurs and professionals of whom I know nothing aside from their published credentials. Where do they stand on racial matters and the Jewish Question? How can I find out? One does not discuss such topics. This means that I may unwittingly sign a contract with someone that in one way or another harms our cause.

        You see what I am aiming at? If I had a way of finding trusted business partners that are firmly “on our side,” then I would prefer to engage in business with them, even if they did not offer the best deal.

      • PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
        January 21, 2016 - 4:24 am | Permalink

        To every problem there is a solution. We haven’t found the solution yet, but we are making progress, not fast enough as we only recently succeeded in overcoming inertia.

      • January 21, 2016 - 11:05 am | Permalink

        There are timezone problems, causing some comments to fall into an inconvenient order.

        @Outin Theopen and @PaleoAtlantid. Kindly scroll up and read my January 21, 2016 – 12:36 am comment.

        I am not suggesting I have found the ultimate winning strategy, but I modestly do believe I have just outlined a practical and readily implementable strategy (c/w with some very doable tactics) that if adopted would set us all on our merry way.

        You see, I am in business myself. Everyday I meet entrepreneurs and professionals of whom I know nothing aside from their published credentials. Where do they stand on racial matters and the Jewish Question? How can I find out? One does not discuss such topics. This means that I may unwittingly sign a contract with someone that in one way or another harms our cause.

        My dear “Outin Theopen”. The answer to your concerns is for us to reignite the age of the Guild. We form guilds specific to various types of businesses or professions which are racially based. They can be secret or semi-secret. Most other distinct racial groups have them and the United Nations applauds!

        If you ever visit Singapore you will find at least 3 Chinese Societies predicated on specific racial backgrounds, and they each own properties where they meet regularly to celebrate anniversaries and hold committee meetings, etc. We can do the same. In this way, you will (eventually) be able to readily distinguish those who would likely not harm our cause.

        Remember … If you cannot bring yourself to handle and absorb change, and plenty of it, then you aren’t in the game. New thinking … new thinking … and more new thinking!

        Or alternatively, resurrect what used to work well for us in the distant past before we collectively lost our heads and handed the reigns of our power over to aliens pretending to be “one of us”.

        • Outin Theopen's Gravatar Outin Theopen
          January 22, 2016 - 4:54 am | Permalink

          Dear Anglo Saxon,

          I thank you for your insightful comments. I have read them attentively and will make of a study of the things you mention.

          My problem with your proposal to resurrect a “guild” system is that the establishment of even so much as a single guild would require a lot of discussion, debate, and quarreling over leadership, hierarchy, and other such typically “political” things. I also fear that much precious time and energy would be wasted on purely symbolical things such as mottoes, coats of arms, uniforms, secret handshakes, and other such things of secondary importance. And I can already foresee endless disputes over ideological matters. In this scenario actual business would thus be relegated to a subordinate position.

          My alternative is a business platform operated as a non-profit organization. Aside from its stated mission of supporting a range of pro-White initiatives, such as for example the Occidental Observer, this organization would focus solely on business matters. It would broker contracts between members and take a cut whenever a deal is struck. Fees generated in this manner would be collected, invested and eventually distributed among designated recipients.

          I understand that my proposal reeks of Kugel and Gefilte fish, but such a Semitic scheme would have more chance of succeeding in our Jewish dominated world than the resurrection of a noble but outmoded institution based on apprenticeship and refined craftsmanship.

          Another possibility would be a WN forum exclusively aimed at facilitating business matters. Such a forum would enable WN businessmen, entrepreneurs, and merchants, to meet each other and establish business relations that are to their mutual benefit. Access to such a forum would require a small monthly fee. The funds generated in this manner would be employed as described in my earlier proposal.

          I would be willing to invest in the realization of such a forum.

        • January 23, 2016 - 12:45 am | Permalink

          Dear Outin Theopen,

          Your ideas / proposals have great merit IMHO. Perhaps there will be room for both Guilds AND all that you have suggested? Whatever the case, we must elect to do less talking, and far more doing. Having read the tone and wisdom in your posts I can happily assume you will agree with me there.

          It is absolutely necessary for us to meet physically, and not just “in the ether”. If this is to be a global initiative, then we will have to set up semi-independent franchises, branches, or lodges that must first swear to uphold some central tenets that are common to all. Membership criteria will have to be strictly defined, and based upon a broad genetic description, but narrow enough that all ‘Jews’, half-castes, and ‘mongrels’ are denied.

          We must also allow for adjustments and modifications, so there will have to be at least a notional Supreme Council whose members serve for limited (fixed) terms, and who meet to take legal, political, geopolitical, and financial advice. Their function will be to review the activities of all the nodes (franchises) in the network, whether they be established in Australia, Argentina, the State of Montana, Northern Ireland, or Germany, etc.

          We will require legal advice because once established there will be legal challenges mounted against our very existence. We will be accused of all manner of evil crimes. So we must be ready to counter such scurrilous behavior right from the beginning.

          Such meetings could be securely held online using conferencing software that is NOT Skype. And video copies sent to all paid-up members. But such a council would also have to periodically meet in the physical realm. Like the Olympic Games, the location venue will need to be rotated in accordance with who can afford to act as hosts. Ideally we should always meet at venues near to places having some symbolic/historical value to our race.

          I also fear that much precious time and energy would be wasted on purely symbolical things such as mottoes, coats of arms, uniforms, secret handshakes, and other such things of secondary importance.

          Yes, I acknowledge and share your concerns. But on the other hand, we do need to involve ourselves in such matters. It’s unavoidable. People respond more strongly to symbols, gestures, and mottoes than they do to strings of text. So, we will have to do it if only to add gravitas to the Membership Cards each of us will carry with pride.

          Yes, I know that implies the setting up of databases. But hell, people are already posting their life-stories on Facebook. All what we would need is proof of I.D., proof of eligibility, name, address, and the membership payment, plus a (preferably secure, meaning encrypted) email address. Perhaps for our own safety, and to limit infiltration, we would need to task lodge leaders with the responsibility to vet each applicant personally, via interview. This is very normal. My application to join my professional institute was vetted along similar lines.

          And I can already foresee endless disputes over ideological matters.

          So can I. But if good reasons / explanations are given, and if the alternatives are starkly spelled out, then disputes could/will be reduced.

          Personally, I believe all Christian motifs should be denied from any such initiative. Christianity has already failed us as a race, and may well be one of the contributory factors in our global decline.

          I would NOT advocate people should or must believe in Asatru or Odinism, before being allowed to join the kind of initiative we are discussing. For one thing, I personally am not (yet) actively involved in either Asatru or Odinism. But I do recognize the beauty and power of their symbolism as being the only symbolism that truly represents the ethnic-European soul, wherever they are living.

          For that reason, I would urge any future discussion of our ideas to take this into account. The Runic Alphabet absolutely MUST feature prominently within our future movement because that is the only alphabet that will unite all ethno-Europeans, whether they live: in Russia, Croatia, France, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Texas, England, or wherever else.

          The Runic Alphabet (and its associated symbols) carry little negative baggage so they will not grate on the senses of any of us. Christianity (as it is currently practiced) is dying a natural death. Why? Well because for so long as it exists, we shall remain tied via an umbilical cord, to the ‘Jew’ and to ‘Judaism’.

          But we are set free the moment we adopt and embrace the symbolism and wisdom contained in Asatru / Odinism / the Runes … our true and authentic soul identity!

          Ardent Christians of the Gospels (the New Testament) need not get upset. Asatru is actually a compatible belief system. It is the influence of the Old Testament we need to junk. Whatever alleged wisdom the Hebrew Bible contains is eclipsed by the superior and simplified wisdom contained in the ancient Nordic and Germanic traditions of our distant forefathers. Remember, real Christianity was constructed on the beliefs and assumptions of the ancient Germanic beliefs.

          Please keep your eye on technology as it continues to advance. We will definitely be able to network both globally and securely, so long as we reject the popular social media traps of Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn. Which are all in ‘Jewish’ hands. Yahoo and Microsoft are the same also.

          How to avoid those is a topic for another in-depth discussion.

          I will leave you (on this occasion) with an old Viking Proverb:

          If you don’t live for something, then you die for nothing.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        January 22, 2016 - 11:50 pm | Permalink

        Paper money regimes have never lasted. No doubt this present one will last a while longer than the localized regimes of yore, being a worldwide phenomenon. But at some stage a Russia or a China or a Switzerland will bite the bullet and link their national currency to gold or silver and put a brake on the financial sector’s predominance. The consequent deflation will hurt the borrowers (typically the government and the big end of town) and reward the savers (the little guy).

  13. Man Against Time's Gravatar Man Against Time
    January 20, 2016 - 11:16 am | Permalink

    Fantastic series, thank you for reviewing this book and refuting the commonly accepted views it promotes that are destroying Germany (and the rest of the West as well).

    I normally don’t like making arguments based on quotes or putting a lot of stock in them (that’s something the left loves to do), but the quote at the end is an excellent exception: “Freedom can be easily regained, if it is lost, but not ethnic identity.” Those of us that support this site and identify with the “alt-right” really understand this, and it seems more and more people are beginning to realize this as well. Trump wouldn’t be as popular as he is if a large percentage of White Americans didn’t realize this deep down.

    The cuckservatives don’t get this, much to the delight of their jewish masters, and will deny this until the end. The left and their jewish masters are terrified that the goyim will figure this out and will be willing to sacrifice freedom, democracy, and egalitarianism for the preservation of our race. The holocaust has been arguably the deadliest weapon used by the jews in the 20th century, but we may be witnessing the beginning of its impotency. If we can just “step over” it and keep our thinking focused on the future instead of the past, then our people may awaken yet.

  14. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    January 20, 2016 - 10:43 am | Permalink

    What is missing from the book, and virtually any other book about anti-Semitism anywhere, is the inconvenient fact that failure to be a sycophant, is considered to be anti-Semitic.
    Other inconvenient truths have been known for decades, such as Benjamin Freedman pointing out that Germany had been stabbed in the back by “the Jews” during WWI and at Versailles. Also missing is the banking system, run by the usual suspects, created the hyper-inflation that collapsed the German economy. Anecdotally, the German grandmother of a grade school friend, used to rant about how all of the German businesses were bought up by Jews during this time,
    Also missing is the explanation of how there were so many Jews in the higher ranks of the “NAZI” military, as was discovered by Mark Rigg 20 years ago. Here is an old article outlining Rigg’s discoveries: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/03/NSJews.html

    I will repeat Robert Faurisson’s mantra on any negative topic related to Germany (or Europeans in general) – the Holocaust makes everything possible.

    • January 20, 2016 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

      Another inconvenient truth is the disproportionate influence of Jews. It’s all very well to say Jews were .01% or whatever of Britain beofre 1880 or whenever. But Jews and the bank of England were able to affect the entire British Empire, and carry out e.g. the destruction of Peking summer palace, and foist opium on China.
      …….. I simply can’t believe Jews in Germany worked hard etc. the French Revolution was moved by pure theft, and much of Europe’s money must have ‘found its way’ to Jews. The system must have operated much as Jews and Bank of England, and Jews and the Fed now. naturally no supporter of Jews will stress their theft and crime.

      • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
        January 20, 2016 - 2:48 pm | Permalink

        French Revolution, Napoleonic wars, villages and communities indebted for years since then…ask the Rothschilds !

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      January 23, 2016 - 12:04 am | Permalink
      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        January 23, 2016 - 9:15 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the link. I recall reading an article similar to that some years ago.
        I have long held the opinion, that the “round-up” of Jews in Europe during the 1940s was more on the basis of whether they identified as citizens of a country that happened to be Jews, as opposed to Jews who lived in the country.

  15. January 20, 2016 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    There is a bizarre disconnect in these kind of theories. How can one hate those whom they do not know? I once tired to show an acquaintance of mine one of Denierbud’s hollowhoax videos. After about a minute, he jumped up in a huff and turned off the video exclaiming, “This guy is talking down to me! I won’t listen to anyone talking down to me.” I pointed out how the narrator had never met him and therefore didn’t know him, so how had he arrived at that conclusion?

    How could a disconnected voice on a video possibly be “talking down” to someone he doesn’t know? Yet he insisted the guy was “talking down” to him and he would not stand for it. This same individual told me that I hated Jews because I was jealous of their success.

    His allegation left me speechless. What was there to envy about this ugly race of parasites wrecking America and western civilization? But then I realized this individual is highly materialistic. He typically projects his materialism onto others. For him it is a logical conclusion that since so many Jews have more money, then I must envy them for their wealth. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

    Still, how people arrive at the conclusion one hates Jews because they take time to inform others of historical facts is beyond me. Yet this is a typical charge levied against those who speak of the Jew in any manner other than one of adulation. I know many conservatives that vehemently hate every one of the Jew’s policies. Yet when one questions them about the Jews, they are seemingly oblivious to their presence. When you tell these conservatives, in so many words, “it’s the Jews stupid,” they look at you like you’re crazy and offer up explanations like, it’s not the Jews. You’re just jealous because they’re smarter and more successful than you. The only thing standing between these people and reality is their total lack of comprehension of the Jew’s massively negative impact on their lives. So how can it be these people hate those of whom they are unaware?

    The idea that one hates Jews out of envy is spurious. The reason for the enmity between Jews and ALL the races that have interacted with them, is because of the Jews deadly pernicious actions. One only needs to examine the Jews slaughter of the local citizenry to see exactly why people hate Jews. The Palestinians do not hate Jews because they envy them. If they hate Jews, it is because the Jews have stolen their land, walled them off in a massive concentration camp, poisoned their wells, ruined their homes and are practicing slow genocide against their race.

    The Romans did not hate the Jews because they envied them, but because they were a rebellious thorn in the side of the empire that constantly disrupted its peace and commerce. The English did not drive the Jews from England for over three hundred years because they envied them. They banned them from England because of the grossly negative economic impact these “tax farmers” had on the English people.

    The Russians did not hate Jews because they envied them, if they hate them, it’s because they took over the country ruined its commerce and slaughtered 66 million of their citizens in the most horrible manners imaginable. The Germans did not hate Jews because they envied them. If Germans hated the Jews, it was because they were obvious leeches sucking what little blood remained in their prostrated state. The Jews took their businesses, stole their farms and homes, and worst of all, tried to bring about the same type of revolution that had killed so many native Russians.

    Here is a list of countries that have driven the Jews out. Are we to believe that these countries did this merely because they envied the Jew?

    Africa (1147, 1790)
    Arabia (624)
    Austria (1298)
    Babylon (586BC)
    Bavaria (1551)
    Belgium (1370)
    Czechoslovokia (1745)
    Denmark (not allowed in until the 17th century)
    Egypt (1571BC, 38BC, 3BC, 66)
    England (not allowed in until the 12th century, expelled in 1290)
    France (561, 1182, 1242, 1306,1394,1540, 1682)
    Germany (1012, 1096, 1146, 1298, 1510, 1614, 1935-revoked citizenship)
    Hungary (1360, 1582, 1717)
    Italy (1492, 1540, 1550, 1846)
    Iraq (not allowed to emigrate to until 2003)
    Lebanon (Jews not allowed entrance)
    Palestine (70, 324)
    Lithuania (1495)
    Netherlands (1444)
    Norway (1814)
    Poland (1453, 1772-Pale of Settlement)
    Portugal (1498)
    Prussia (1510)
    Rome (315,379)
    Russia (1772-Pale of Settlement, 1881)
    Saxony (1349)
    Slovakia (1380, 1744)
    Spain (612, 694, 1391, 1492-1968, officially)
    Sweden (until 1782)
    Switzerland (1939)
    Syria (Jews not allowed entrance)

    • Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
      January 20, 2016 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

      Bingo on that assessment, Arch. It is indeed very difficult to reach out to zombieized Whites about vital racial issues, especially the JQ. Most Anglo/Whites are deeply brainwashed about this issue, and actually take umbrage at any attempt to clue them in, as you experienced with your acquaintance. Jewish media control means Jewish mind control, period, and this perverse situation has existed in the English speaking world for close to 100 years. White people’s biggest problem is obviously their deep intellectual toxification, and their unbelievable cluelessness about it. The resentment of any contrary concept, is their childish defence mechanism, which guards their apathy and intellectual sloth. This is one of the main reasons that Jews regard Whites as “gullible Goyim”.

  16. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    January 20, 2016 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    If we are going to talk about Darwin and Herzl, we will need to talk about Hess.

    Some quotes from Rome and Jerusalem:

    “Social institutions, like spiritual outlooks, are a racial creation.

    All of past history was concerned with the struggle of races and classes. Race struggle is primary; class struggle is secondary.”

    “The proper understanding of this persecution of Jews must evoke a return to Judaism. It shows only too plainly there exists between them and the European peoples as great a wall of separation as at the time of the blackest religious fanaticism.”

    “The German wants to possess his fatherland for himself exclusively.”

    “Life is a direct product of race.”

    “The entire literature of the Jews must be understood only from this genetic viewpoint of the Jewish people.”

    “The “tolerant” Judaism must teach humanitarianism to intolerant Christianity.”

    Moses Hess, 1862

    available at Wikisource, or inter library from Xavier University
    (no, I am not Catholic)

    • Henry's Gravatar Henry
      January 20, 2016 - 2:08 pm | Permalink

      I agree re Hess but you’ve left out perhaps his most telling quote:

      Hess wrote:

      The race war must first be fought out and definitely settled before social and humane ideas become part and parcel of the German people, as was the case with the Romance peoples which, after a long historical process, finally defeated race antagonism

      See p. 80, The Revival of Israel: Rome and Jerusalem, the Last Nationalist Question

Comments are closed.