Review: Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem [Part One of Two]

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


‘Wagner himself asserts about Nietzsche that a flower could have come from this bulb. Now only the bulb remains, really a loathsome thing.’
Cosima Wagner, 1878.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s puzzling stance on Jews and Judaism has perplexed me for the better part of a decade, so I was intrigued and optimistic about Princeton University Press’s 2015 publication of Robert Holub’s Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism. Broadly speaking, I’m sympathetic to certain elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly its rejection of equality and the concept of the ‘will to power.’ However, I can’t say I ever came close to describing myself as a ‘Nietzschean’ in the same way that the late Jonathan Bowden was fond of doing. One of the reasons for my hesitation in claiming affinity with Nietzsche’s worldview was that I couldn’t escape the impression that its nihilism was often destructive ‘for the sake of it,’ a quality that has endeared it to the Left, past and present. Then there was Nietzsche’s, to my mind unforgivable, habit of lauding the Hebrew over the German. More importantly though, I couldn’t perceive any true coherence or solidity in Nietzsche’s writing beyond his celebrated aphorisms. Taken as a whole, the philosophy of Nietzsche was apt to strike me as too intentionally fluid; too deliberately open to interpretation. Nowhere was this non-committal stance more apparent than in Nietzsche’s sparse, vague, contradictory and often quite opportunistic references to Jews and Judaism.

As one might expect of a philosopher as enigmatic as Nietzsche, his work has been approached awkwardly and suspiciously by scholars and ideologues alike. His attitudes towards Jews, in particular, have been debated, discussed and fought over from the very beginning of his public career. Nowhere, and at no time, was a consensus ever reached. During the Third Reich he was both ‘recruited for the cause’ by some, and rejected outright by others. His foundational place in the National Socialist philosophical canon was thus never assured, primarily because of his nihilism, his hostility towards Nationalism, and his ambivalence regarding Jews. Confusion still reigns. Modern scholarship has been divided between those who condemn Nietzsche outright as a ‘racist’ reactionary and a proto-Fascist, and those who highlight his vocal opposition to political anti-Semitism as thus seek his social exoneration and academic rehabilitation. As noted above, elements of Nietzsche remain strongly attractive to the Left. Therefore, where total exoneration of anti-Semitism has been found difficult, blame for ‘corrupting’ Nietzsche and shaping him as an ‘anti-Semite’ has been attributed variously to his one-time guru, Richard Wagner, or his sister Elisabeth, who married Bernhard Förster, perhaps the leading figure in nineteenth-century political anti-Semitism. The result of these battles has not been a clarification of the historical record, but an ever-thickening web of biased interpretations, white-washing, and pseudo-history.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Holub’s book postures as an attempt to disentangle Nietzsche from the tug-of-war waged on all sides by those who have wished to claim or condemn him, and who have represented his position on Jews and Judaism with biased motives. The book essentially claims to offer the clearerst picture yet on what exactly Nietzsche thought and felt about Jews and Judaism. The first chapter, ‘The Rise and Fall of Nietzschean anti-Semitism,’ returns to the primary problem facing such a project by dealing exclusively with how others, over historical time, have interpreted Nietzsche’s attitudes towards Jews. I found this one of the more interesting chapters of the book. The story begins in Nietzsche’s own lifetime when he was initially suspected of anti-Jewish leanings not because of the content of his writings but because of his brother-in-law and also his publisher, Ernst Schmeitzner, who published anti-Jewish content and was a well-known supporter of political anti-Semitism. More crucial however was the fact that Nietzsche was considered an acolyte of Richard Wagner’s cultural mission, at least until the early 1880s. Since Wagner’s circle was widely associated with anti-modernist, anti-Enlightenment, and anti-Jewish tendencies, these naturally came to be associated with Nietzsche also. Quite apart from the fact Nietzsche’s public remarks on Jews “were infrequent and ambiguous,” based purely on such associational links, many of the leading political and social agitators against Jews in Germany prematurely assumed that Nietzsche was firmly among their number.

NietzscheNietzsche’s general reception during his lifetime was mixed to say the least. His oppositional attitude, his polemics against the status quo, and his vaguely defined (yet epic-sounding) vision of the future attracted praise from an assorted collection of writers. There was, it seemed, something for almost everyone in his philosophy. He drew commendation from Greek scholars for his treatment of tragedy; plaudits from those who agreed with his stance on morality; and admiration from those who delighted in his cutting critique of the hypocrisy of middle-class norms. Those who resented Christianity could find what they wanted in his “ruthless criticism of the Church and its oppressive restriction on human development.” Although he heaped scorn on anarchists and socialists, it is a telling feature of Nietzsche’s abstractions that his writing nevertheless appealed strongly to both. Germany’s conservative nature at that time made Nietzsche’s adversarial quality infinitely more attractive to the Left, and even in the United States he was received primarily as sympathetic to the ‘working-class struggle’ and a champion of individual liberties. Leftist intellectuals chose to ignore Nietzsche’s disparaging comments on socialism, anarchism and feminism because they were so enraptured with his critique of the institutions of middle-class society, which they also hated. Since Jews also hated the culture and institutions of Christian middle-class German society, it should come as no surprise that we also find Jews among his earliest supporters. Like the anarchists, socialists and feminists, some Jews simply chose to block out less appealing aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy, and it is interesting that most of the earliest Jewish comment on his work studiously avoided discussion of its alleged anti-Jewishness.

However, there were some murmurs from wary Jews. Max Nordau, cofounder with Theodor Herzl of the World Zionist Organization, was a searing critic of Nietzsche but tended to avoid directly confronting any anti-Jewish qualities he may have perceived in the philosopher’s work. Nordau instead labelled Nietzsche an “egomaniac” and specifically cited his condemnation of Jews, ‘Israel,’ and Christianity for overthrowing earlier moral systems with a ‘slave morality’ as “insane gibberish,” “delirious sallies,” and “fabulous stupidity.” The French Jewish intellectual Bernard Lazare more openly accused Nietzsche of anti-Semitism in his L’Antisemitisme: Son Histoire et ses causes (1894) for practically the same reason, writing:

After [Eugen] Dühring, Nietzsche, in his turn, combatted Jewish and Christian ethics, which according to him are the ethics of slaves as contrast with the ethics of masters. Through the prophets and Jesus, the Jews and Christians have set up low and noxious conceptions which consist in the deification of the weak, the humble, the wretched, and sacrificing it to the strong, the proud, the mighty.

Negative attention from Jews was rare however. More vocal contemporary opinion on Nietzsche’s attitudes towards Jews came from the anti-Jewish ideologists themselves. These opinions were often shaped as much by personal relationships as by considered philosophical or ideological evaluation. Theodor Fritsch, author of The Anti-Semitic Ten Commandments, made numerous failed attempts to solicit support from Nietzsche before publishing a series of frustrated criticisms of his philosophy. Similar treatment followed from Eugen Dühring and his disciple Ernst Jünemann. Jünemann was particularly worried by the fact that Nietzsche appeared to be enjoying Jewish promotion: a sure sign to the former that there was something rotten in the writings of the latter. He would write in 1897:

The writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who several years ago fell into a state of deep derangement, are currently being purchased and read with great enthusiasm by the public since Hebrew advertisements in particular have propped him up, and Jewish opinion, as is well known, is unfortunately fashionable, which is evidence of how low the intellectual and moral level of today’s dominating social powers have sunken.

Jünemann represented Nietzsche’s philosophical trajectory as a “steady decline into insanity and Judeophilia.” Jünemann outlined “a promising beginning when [Nietzsche] engaged productively with Richard Wagner and Arthur Schopenauer, [but] he strayed from the nationalist and anti-Semitic path in his aphoristic period and descended into irrational argumentation and pandering to Jewish interests in his last writings.” Jünemann attacked Nietzsche for arguing that Jews “are the true bearers of culture and the creator of values,” and raised suspicion over the fact Nietzsche’s fame and financial fortunes improved significantly following his public repudiation of Wagner. Faced with a philosophy that amounted to a “Jewish junk shop” of ideas, the German public would have to decide whether Nietzsche was a master psychologist and Nature a “comedian,” or rather that Nature was true and honest and Nietzsche was “spiritually and morally defective.” Jünemann was clear in his opinion that Nietzsche had no place in the movement.

But Jünemann’s rejection was not entirely representative of contemporary nationalist opinion. There were substantial numbers of völkisch figures who found Nietzsche’s statements about Jews and race difficult to reconcile with their own worldview, but who nonetheless found value in the same oppositional aspect of his work that appealed to the Left. One of them, Adolf Bartels, argued in his 1902 essay “Friedrich Nietzsche and Germanness” that the latter’s attacks on German society were fundamentally different from similar pejorative statements by Jewish writers like Heinrich Heine whose arguments sprang from racial animus. Instead, argued Bartels, Nietzsche had gotten carried away in the heat of a “highly spiritual and ideal temperament.” The philosopher had become “ensnared” in Europeanism and the Enlightenment and had mistakenly turned away from nationalism. Although rejecting the anti-Semitic movement, Nietzsche was merely acting against his brother-in-law, and in truth he was well aware of the ability of Jews to “easily obtain power over Europe and its nations.”

But Bartels’ apologetics for Nietzsche’s work were weak and unconvincing for most nationalists, and Nietzsche’s first great adoption by völkisch elements only occurred during World War I. It was during this great European conflagration that his ruminations on war, battle, struggle and related notions found an urgent resonance. Again, quite apart from specific content, the context of the times allowed for the flexibility of his vague works to lend themselves to militaristic and ethnocentric interpretations. Seizing on the new trend, the Germany Army circulated 150,000 of the cryptic Thus Spoke Zarathustra to the troops, and forty thousand copies of the tome were sold in 1917 alone. Mussolini soon announced his enthusiasm for Nietzsche and asserted that the Fascist movement was the concretization of a national “will to power.” Oswald Spengler, author of Decline of the West (1918) declared Nietzsche, along with Goethe, one of his greatest inspirations. Nietzsche had been transformed, by context more than content, into a Nationalist.

During the Weimar period nationalists displayed a desire to ‘keep’ Nietzsche. Franz Haiser admitted in The Jewish Question from the Standpoint of Master Morality (1926) that Nietzsche was “culturally leftist and contradictory” but argued without further elucidation that he “is irreplaceable for us.” One of the most important texts incorporating Nietzsche into the Right was Alfred Baeumler’s Nietzsche the Philosopher and Politician (1931). Baeumler was a close associate of Third Reich intellectual Alfred Rosenberg, and his monograph was by some degree the most important National Socialist work on the philosopher, running into several editions. Baeumler lauded Nietzsche’s opposition to Wilhelmine Germany, but, in relation to the philosopher’s position on Jews, he was forced to “employ strained arguments that are never entirely convincing.” In the end Baeumler resorted to arguing that Nietzsche only praised the Jews in order to goad the Germans to greatness. The gulf between Jünemann and Baeumler starkly illustrates how literally anything could be read into Nietzsche’s work. Even more stark is the fact that while he was lauded by many in the Third Reich, Nietzsche continued to be admired by the Frankfurt School in exile in the United States.

The post-war period would witness yet another radical re-interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. Liberals had by this time started believing the awkward völkisch reading of Nietzsche and were now confronted with the task of either condemning or somehow absolving the newly discovered ‘racist’ philosopher. Many settled on blaming his sister, Elisabeth, who, as noted, had married a well-known anti-Jewish activist and had forged a relationship with Hitler himself. Writers like Henning Ottmann and R.J. Hollingdale hastened to argue that Elisabeth (a “virulent Christian anti-Semite”) had produced editions of Nietzsche’s work that emphasized themes “friendly to the ideas of National Socialism.”  Elisabeth’s ‘influence’ was of course a lie built on top of another lie — that Nietzsche was a bona fide ‘anti-Semite.’ In a post-war West obsessed with its ‘racist’ past, using Elisabeth as a scapegoat provided the means for Leftist Nietzsche enthusiasts to absolve the object of their admiration from the most grievous accusation that could possibly have become attached to him.

Holub’s analysis of these arguments is quite excellent. Using archival correspondence, he deconstructs entirely the notion that Elisabeth in any way doctored her brother’s work after his death, and throws significant doubt over the stereotype of Elisabeth as a violent, fulminating fanatic. Holub’s portrait of Elisabeth is balanced and often sympathetic. This interesting first chapter ends by pointing out that Nietzsche has been claimed by so many, so often, and with so many differing motives, that any sense of clarity on his position regarding Jews has been lost. The only way to regain this clarity, Holub argues, is to return to a close analysis of primary texts and contextual factors, and the rejection of all received wisdoms, including the conventional understanding of terms like ‘anti-Semitism.’ With the slate now ostensibly cleared, we move forward to Holub’s history of Nietzsche’s true view of Jews and Judaism.

Holub surveys an unprecedented amount of Nietzsche’s private and public correspondence as well as his published writings to write what amounts to a biography of Nietzsche’s attitudes towards Jews. Chapter Two, ‘Youthful Remarks and Encounters,’ is an enjoyable stroll through Nietzsche’s childhood and very earliest writings. A survey of his family tree debunks the accusation, made by Jünemann, that he had Jewish ancestry. His childhood town of Röcken had no Jewish inhabitants, and in the whole of Prussian Saxony Jews constituted just 0.3% of the population. It is perhaps not surprising then that Jews are entirely absent from Nietzsche’s writings and correspondence right up until he moved to Leipzig to enrol at the University, at the age of 25, having first completed a degree at the University in Bonn.

Leipzig was a city famous for its trade fairs, which attracted a large influx of Jewish traders and merchants. For the first time, Nietzsche was exposed to a significant number of Jews in one place. Coming from a ‘Jew-free’ environment, Nietzsche is actually the perfect case study for the rational development of negative attitudes towards Jews. A handful of letters to his mother and sister dating from this time reveal that he regularly emphasized the unsavory impact of the Jewish tradespeople on the city. Importantly, he does so without referencing ‘stereotypes’ or appealing to Christian traditions about Jews. Nietzsche’s commentary is much more journalistic. His attempts to finish a book are hindered by the disruption of the trade fair, and “everywhere you look there are Jews and associates of Jews.” Writing on the final day of the fair in October 1868 Nietzsche expresses relief that the city will soon be free of “the smell of fat and the numerous Jews.” Remarks like these are fairly self-explanatory. To Nietzsche, the crowds, the exchange of money, and the influx of a foreign people among the citizens of Leipzig were simply unhealthy and unwanted distortions of the city’s normal, healthier life.

Holub’s analysis, however, follows the standard Jewish-academic line. He can’t accept that anti-Jewish feeling can be this logical or natural, and so he argues instead that Nietzsche’s remarks “must have emanated from personal contact with friends and acquaintances.” No evidence is presented in support of this argument. Holub is left perplexed about where the remarks could have come from because “during his student years there is no evidence that Nietzsche read or pursued authors who exhibited Judeophobia or texts that contained Judeophobic themes.” The simple fact that Nietzsche, like many Leipzig citizens, found this mass orgy of Jewish trading distasteful is overlooked in favor of theoretical abstractions about ‘anti-Semitism.’ Disappointingly then, very early in the book Holub reveals that a primary thesis underpinning the study is that anti-Semitism is simply an ideological, psychological, and prejudicial virus that is contracted from others rather than a natural reaction to direct experience with Jews. My initial enthusiasm for the book began to evaporate at this point.

Chapter Three, ‘The Wagnerian Vanguard,’ covers Nietzsche’s early relationship with Richard Wagner. By the time Nietzsche had been introduced to Wagner, the latter had already become well known for his animus towards Jewish influence on German society. Many Leftist apologists for Nietzsche have found easy prey in Wagner. The maestro, more than anyone, is held responsible for an increase in Nietzsche’s alleged hostility towards Jews. Although Holub postures his book as a retort to scholars like these, he actually makes essentially the same argument. Referencing the innocent college letters from Leipzig, Holub writes that as a young man “Judeophobia was not well developed in [Nietzsche’s] writing or thought, but it formed an unstated background for his intellectual endeavors, ready to be activated by the right person. Wagner was that person.”

Nietzsche first met Wagner, via mutual friends, following an invitation from the composer in 1868. Wagner played from the Meistersinger and the small group discussed Schopenhauer until late evening. The pair instantly hit it off, and when Nietzsche received his professorship at Basel in 1869, he became a frequent visitor at Tribschen, where Wagner and his family lived until 1872. While 1869 was a pivotal year for Nietzsche’s career, it was also a memorable one for Wagner. In 1850 Wagner had published the essay Jewry in Music under the pseudonym K. Freigedank (K. Freethought). In 1869, despite advice from his friends and even his wife, Wagner re-published the piece as a pamphlet, divulging his authorship of the original and adding further thoughts and reflections. The move provoked a predictable storm, as influential Jews moved quickly to destroy the composer. His operas were disrupted, and the every organ of the Jewish media was used to annihilate his reputation.

Nietzsche never personally commented on ‘Jewry in Music,’ but his correspondence reveals that he did read it in its entirety and that he claimed to agree with its message. When a friend wrote to him admiringly of the pamphlet in 1870, Nietzsche replied: “That we are now also in agreement with regard to Richard Wagner is for me completely reliable evidence of how we belong together. Because it isn’t easy and demands a vigorous, manly courage not to be led astray by the alarming racket. … Our ‘Jews’ — and you know how widely this concept extends in particular despise Wagner’s idealistic manner.” Although overlooked by Holub, the last sentence prefigures an ambivalence in Nietzsche’s attitudes to Jews that would last throughout his life. True, Jews were an oppositional element of society, but they were difficult to define. A German, to Nietzsche, could be just as ‘Jewish’ as a Rothschild if he or she displayed enough ‘Jewish’ traits. This certainly opened the door to a justified critique of those non-Jews serving Jewish interests, but by blurring the boundaries and obfuscating the role of race and ethnicity, Nietzsche also moved dangerously close to an erroneous worldview.

Though perhaps ambivalent towards the Jewish Question, Nietzsche was undeniably in tune with Wagner when it came to animosity towards those aspects of modernity most closely linked with the rise of the Jews in Germany: the hegemony of journalists, the press, newspapers, new ‘trends’ in art, and the stock market. He was a critic of both Berthold Auerbach and Felix Mendelssohn, whom he argued produced works typified by foreignness, jargon, mawkishness and internationalism. Even if we accept that Wagner had some influence on Nietzsche in adopting certain positions in the ‘culture war,’ we can by no means place too much weight on the composer’s influence. At Basel one of Nietzsche’s closest colleagues was the historian Jacob Burckhardt, described in one dedication as “my honored friend.” Burckhardt was unequivocally opposed to Jewish emancipation, and believed that everything of worth in European culture was due to its Greek and Roman heritage rather than the Jewish tradition. He would have baulked at the idea of Europe as a ‘Judeo-Christian’ cultural entity, and he was firmly convinced that Jews were responsible for the worst manifestations of modernity. Early in his career Burckhardt wrote to a friend that the presence of Jews in a theatre would be sufficient to entirely destroy his enjoyment of the event.

Although Holub makes the argument that Nietzsche was awed by the likes of Wagner and Burckhardt and adopted their views out of star-struck mimicry, I read a quite different history in the evidence provided. I do not believe that Nietzsche ever became as fully versed in the Jewish Question as many of his contemporaries, but I do see a gradual learning process between 1868 and 1873 where he gains a grasp of the fundamentals. In addition to this, he continually articulates a natural and impulsive distaste for aspects of Jewish culture and behavior. His letters to his mother show that he associated Jews with unsavory business practices, tastelessness, and low cultural attributes. Writing to his mother about a tour around Switzerland in 1872, he describes his fellow travelers before commenting “unfortunately there was a Jew among them.”

In 1872 these feelings and ideas came closest to intellectual expression. In January and February of that year Nietzsche delivered two lectures, ‘The Greek Music Drama’ and ‘Socrates and Tragedy.’ Despite their fairly innocuous titles, the lectures dealt with key aspects of the Wagnerian cultural program: that modern opera had become greatly distanced from its ancient cultural roots, and that Jews were having a deleterious impact on contemporary art and culture. Nietzsche, taking his cue from Wagner, argued that genuine tragedy was mysterious, instinctive and profound. It was also able to be conceived and appreciated only by Europeans. By contrast, ‘Socratism,’ identified with rationalism and dialectic, eradicates instinct and with it art. ‘Socratism’ had also become a historical force in its own right, in the form of this-worldly Judaism. Nietzsche would conclude his second lecture by stating:

Should the Teuton have nothing else to place at the side of that vanished artwork of the past except the ‘grand opera,’ something akin to the ape appearing next to Hercules? This is the most serious question of our art: and anyone who, as a Teuton, does not understand the seriousness of this question, has fallen into the Socratism of our times, which, to be sure, is neither capable of producing martyrs, nor speaks the language of the wisest Hellene. This Socratism is the Jewish press: I’ll say no more.

Go to Part 2 of 2.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

70 Comments to "Review: Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem [Part One of Two]"

  1. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 1, 2016 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Thanks. Typo fixed. Mod.

  2. Dex's Gravatar Dex
    February 1, 2016 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

    I have been saying this for years.
    Jews don’t have a problem cutting off their tribesmen if they do not march to the proposed beat.
    Then, we have this high falluting (not sure how to spell falootin’) Yale graduate Jared Taylor of American Renascence who embraces Jews. No wonder Jews call us stupid cattle.

    • FranksandBeans's Gravatar FranksandBeans
      February 6, 2016 - 9:27 pm | Permalink

      Yes, you are right. On Amren, the website run by Jared Taylor, you mention the J word or any other words used instead of the J word, you comment gest deleted.

  3. Veritas's Gravatar Veritas
    February 1, 2016 - 3:05 pm | Permalink

    “Then there was Nietzsche’s, to my mind unforgivable, habit of lauding the Hebrew over the German.”

    “Jünemann represented Nietzsche’s philosophical trajectory as a “steady decline into insanity and Judeophilia.” Jünemann outlined “a promising beginning when [Nietzsche] engaged productively with Richard Wagner and Arthur Schopenauer, [but] he strayed from the nationalist and anti-Semitic path in his aphoristic period and descended into irrational argumentation and pandering to Jewish interests in his last writings.” Jünemann attacked Nietzsche for arguing that Jews “are the true bearers of culture and the creator of values,” and raised suspicion over the fact Nietzsche’s fame and financial fortunes improved significantly following his public repudiation of Wagner. Faced with a philosophy that amounted to a “Jewish junk shop” of ideas, the German public would have to decide whether Nietzsche was a master psychologist and Nature a “comedian,” or rather that Nature was true and honest and Nietzsche was “spiritually and morally defective.” Jünemann was clear in his opinion that Nietzsche had no place in the movement.”


    My goodness, this critic of Nietzsche could apply to virtually any philosemite in contemporary America and the current “Western” world … even those philosemites on the (putative) far-Right.

    And, analogously, like Herr Jünemann said regarding Nietzsche should have had no place in the German Nationalist movement back then, philosemites in Europe and America should have no place in Our Nationalist movement today.

  4. February 1, 2016 - 11:32 am | Permalink

    Jünemann represented Nietzsche’s philosophical trajectory as a “steady decline into insanity and Judeophilia.”

    Is not the non-Jew’s “Judeophilia” a most virulent form of insanity? Is not any self-destructive proclivity by definition insane? Therefore it might be more accurate to posit the following: “Nietzsche’s steady decline into Judeophilia led to his insanity”.


    As I write this, I once again feel a need for a “catchy,” monosyllabic term to replace those like “gentile,” “goyim,” and “non-Jew”. A non-biased term that when used, will invariably address and connect the non-Jew’s issues with it’s Jewish creators e.g. multiculturalism, feminism etc..

    At the same time, such a term should differentiate the Jew as opposition to all others. Think of the term “Jew” in a reversed form. The same concept, but from a non-Jew perspective.

    Think of how the “J” term reflects, both positively and negatively, on everything related to Jews. For Jews and non-Jews alike, the word “Jew” says it all.

    As with the “J” term, such a term should not be hyphenated and yet ideally be able to be prefixed or suffixed with a group designation something like “whitexxxx or xxxxxGerman.”

    Maybe we could have a contest to come up with the term. The winner gets to accompany John Hagee on an all expense paid junket to Jerusalem where they will be ceremoniously spit upon by Jews.

    • Veritas's Gravatar Veritas
      February 1, 2016 - 3:17 pm | Permalink

      “Nietzsche’s steady decline into Judeophilia led to his insanity”.


      Perfectly stated Arch.

      May this be the ultimate fate of all treasonous, groveling philosemites who betray their Aryan folk and birthright, and sell their “souls” (heh – that’s if they even have one) to the devil — for a mere 30 pieces of silver, and a bowl of porridge.

      “Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        February 1, 2016 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

        We’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore!

  5. Highway to Valhalla's Gravatar Highway to Valhalla
    February 1, 2016 - 9:09 am | Permalink

    The problem with folks like @John is they are very selective of Christian history.

    The fact is Christianity is the originator of human rights, universal brotherhood, end of slavery, equality of the races etc.

    I am with Nietzsche and Darwin.

    • John's Gravatar John
      February 1, 2016 - 1:04 pm | Permalink

      You made a bunch of statements but you didn’t elaborate on any of them. Jews hate Christians more than any other group. Why? Can you find any information where the Jews give a crap about any Norse religion?

      The entire New Testament makes it clear that Jews and Christians are enemies and for centuries Christians blamed the Jews for killing Jesus.

      Until the 1960s, the West had laws that kept non-whites out so who changed the laws? Professor MacDonald makes it pretty clear that it was the Jews who worked long and hard to liberalize America’s immigration laws and also those of countries such as Australia:

      Richards observes that this “hesitating shift towards a non-discriminatory Australia” triggered “a social and demographic revolution” in Australia[xxv] In both America and Australia, Jewish intellectual movements and political activism were pivotal in driving this revolution. The national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges this, noting that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.”

      And of course we all know who’s behind the mass migration of third worlders into Europe:

      See also: Ephesians 6:5-9

    • Veritas's Gravatar Veritas
      February 1, 2016 - 3:40 pm | Permalink

      The fact is Christianity is the originator of human rights, universal brotherhood, end of slavery, equality of the races etc.

      Sorry, but this is dead-wrong.

      Please tell me where in the actual Bible does it say, advocate, or encourage for any of these things…???

      Like so many, you are confusing politically-correct Churchianity with (biblically correct) Christianity – and nowhere in actual Scripture does it speak of “human rights”, “universal brotherhood”, abolishing slavery, or “eequality” of the races. (The Bible, in fact, speaks of slaves respecting their masters – so get the propaganda straight.)

      All those lies are not Biblical Christianity but in fact *Free Masonic* sophistry, surreptitiously and erroneously assumed to be “Christian”.

      • February 1, 2016 - 9:53 pm | Permalink

        “human rights, universal brotherhood, end of slavery, equality of the races”

        Not sorry, but you are dead right. These warm, fuzzy, yet smarmy slogans are actually communist concepts upheld by atheist Jews. Such was the case of the revolutionary French socialist slogan “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” a system which upheld the very same form of socialist terrorism as the later Jewish Bolshevists.

        Socialism is a Jewish tribal concept that hearkens back to the earliest tribal affiliations of the Jew. Advanced cultures have never embraced socialism as it has never worked successfully on any scale beyond that of a tribe or commune and even then, it doesn’t work. I once lived on a commune that collapsed because more were willing to live off the workers, than were willing to work – but that is another story.

        Of course, some will point to the success of Germany’s national socialism, but the German National Socialist was an odd socialist duck that never insisted on enforced communal property in the “pure” form espoused by communist Jews.

        The Jew’s twisted version of their idea of egalitarian socialism is “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine.” This idea can be attributed to the biblical story of Joseph – “and take your father and your households, and come to me, and I will give you the best of the land of Egypt, and you shall eat the fat of the land.” You work and from your efforts, we live a better life than you.

        The practicality of this idea was tested by the Jew’s earliest priesthood who used the Tabernacle and its sacrificial system to live off the efforts of those tribal members who raised the sacrificial animal and grain tributes. Since the priests had god, and the common sheep herder did not, for the small price of 10% of the sacrifice, the priest would intervene with god on the sinner’s behalf, while invoking forgiveness for all the wrongs the sinner had committed. The Federal Reserve and its IRS enforcement arm is nothing, but a complex extension of the original sacrificial system. In fact their pyramidal organizational structures are taken directly from the Temple’s original priesthood.

        Socialism is nothing but enforced altruism. The Jews insist on enforcing socialism because they know the percentage they will demand and extract from the people is untenable. Few, if any, will ever give everything they have to help others and that is exactly what communism took from the people – Everything. It is what Jews have always insisted on from those with whom they live.

  6. Art's Gravatar Art
    January 31, 2016 - 10:33 pm | Permalink

    ” You can’t blame Christianity for what’s happened to the West because it wasn’t primarily Christians that worked to change the immigration laws …”


    There were different kinds of Christians, and they even killed each others for religious reasons during the centuries.

    Jews supported those Christians that were good for their own interests. Can you blame them for that?

    In any case, many influential western leaders, like Churchill, believed that Christians have to serve the “chosen people”, because Jews allegedly have a special relation with the God of Christians.

    The “Christian” Disraeli believed that God punishes nations and people who do not treat Jews as a special chosen people.

    Churchill mentions this fact in his paper “Zionism vs Bolshevism”.

    According to Churchill Bolshevism was a punishment for the alleged “anti-Semitism” of Russians.
    This superstition is an important dogma in Christianity, and people, and Christians like Churchill played a decisive role in the destruction of the West.

  7. Art's Gravatar Art
    January 31, 2016 - 9:21 pm | Permalink


    Nietzsche wrote insulting things about nearly all great nations.

    According to his opinion Anglo – Saxons were a nation of primitive “hereditary alcoholics”, he could not stand the “primitive language” of these drunkards, he made insulting jokes about “English lyrics”, he believed that English songs should be prohibited, because the language of these drunkards was not designed for lyrics.

    Today German pop-stars, like Scorpions, refuse to sing anything in their native German, because they believe that English sounds better.

    Nobody takes the insulting statement of Nietzsche about Anglo -Saxons seriously.

    Yes, Jews believe that the most important question about Nietzsche was his opinion about Jews, and this is understandable.

    But why are non-Jews so bothered about the alleged “anti-Semitism” of this great thinker?


  8. stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
    January 31, 2016 - 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Any hold Jews have over us is a function of the treason of our own elites. The Jews surely cannot be blamed for acting in their own interests, even if it harms us – the ones to blame are Western elites who use the Jews to maintain their position of authority over the rest of us. All this focusing on Jews is wasted energy – the problem can only be solved by replacing our elites by others who put the interests of Western man at the forefront.

    • John's Gravatar John
      February 2, 2016 - 7:20 am | Permalink

      “The Jews surely cannot be blamed for acting in their own interests, even if it harms us”

      What are their interests? Why do their fundamental interests differ from, say, the interests of the Danes living in America? Is it of vital importance to Danish Americans to control the money, the media, the government and the courts and to fundamentally alter our society in so many ways e.g., culturally and demographically?

  9. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    January 31, 2016 - 3:22 pm | Permalink

    “Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words:think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzsce-ism. To us Jews at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim.” Regardless of whoever crafted the protocols, they regarded Nietzsche as relevant.

  10. John's Gravatar John
    January 31, 2016 - 3:17 pm | Permalink

    You can’t blame Christianity for what’s happened to the West because it wasn’t primarily Christians that worked to change the immigration laws back in the 1960s although, today, most people who call themselves Christians have been brainwashed by the Jew media just like most everyone else. Here’s a brief summary of the history of America’s immigration laws and the radical change in 1965 wasn’t pushed primarily by Christians. Changing the law was just another part of the Jewish lead counter-culture revolution of the 1960s. See also Matthew 18:17.

    Naturalization Act of 1790

    The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

    Immigration Act of 1924

    The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Jews, in addition to prohibiting the immigration of Arabs, East Asians, and Indians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was ‘to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity’. Congressional opposition was minimal.

    Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

    … the McCarran-Walter Act, passed over President Truman’s veto in 1952, which, while it opened naturalization to Asian immigrants for the first time, continued the immigration quota system based on national origin introduced in 1924

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 also known as the Hart–Celler Act

    With this Act, the Jews finally succeeded in liberalizing America’s immigration laws which allowed third worlders to flood in by the tens of millions resulting in white school children becoming the minority for the first time in 2014.

  11. Art's Gravatar Art
    January 31, 2016 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

    “…unfortunately with Christianity we also have a welcoming and embracing culture that has reduced the west to defencelessness both against Mohamadean and Jew.”


    Christianity originated as a religion of Slaves, and it is no wonder that to be a Shabbat Goy is quite normal for many Christians.

    Nietzsche could see this problem, and his philosophy was in many regards prophetic.

    • John's Gravatar John
      January 31, 2016 - 3:26 pm | Permalink

      “Christianity originated as a religion of Slaves”

      Yeah, I don’t remember that. The apostles weren’t slaves and Paul even had Roman citizenship.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      January 31, 2016 - 4:00 pm | Permalink

      California’s Proposition 187 [1994] was anti-welcoming and anti-embracing. It passed 59% to 41%. So much for suicidal Whites.

      It was overturned by a jewess Federal “judge.” Will of [White] people stomped.

    • melvin polatnick's Gravatar melvin polatnick
      January 31, 2016 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

      Many mayors of small towns and large cities are Jews. It has nothing to do with Judaism but the belief that Jews are not biased and fair. It is true that Jews are an intelligent outsider who will bring division between white corporations to a fair conclusion. Hatred of Jews will prevent them from assimilation, they are needed to remain as outsider arbitrators.

      • John's Gravatar John
        February 1, 2016 - 12:40 am | Permalink

        Do you live in Bizarro world?

      • John's Gravatar John
        February 1, 2016 - 1:10 am | Permalink

        I Googled “melvin polatnick” and I suspect he’s just a troll.

  12. Dex's Gravatar Dex
    January 31, 2016 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

    When will the (white) European World stop bowing to Jews?
    Every white country, including tiny New Zealand, is controlled by Jews.
    It seems hopeless.
    All the talk does not change anything.
    Because of the influence of Christianity, the Europeans are so easily manipulated by Jews. I will not waste time in enumeration of the Jew Gods that the white world worships. This includes Superman, by the way.

    • John's Gravatar John
      January 31, 2016 - 3:30 pm | Permalink

      “It seems hopeless. All the talk does not change anything.”

      I understand exactly how you feel but you gotta have hope. There was a Reuters news article just a couple of days ago titled: “Forty percent of Germans say Merkel should resign over refugee policy: poll” so maybe there is hope.

      • February 1, 2016 - 11:42 am | Permalink

        Hope is a useless diversion. It’s hopeless to hope. Fortitude is the answer. Don’t hope, press on against all odds. And when you think the battle is won, tighten your helmet chinstrap.

    • January 31, 2016 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Because of the influence of Christianity, the Europeans are so easily manipulated by Jews.

      At first Christianity was put upon us Europeans, than is was possible to use it as a deadbringing tool against us. But: Everything can be used against us, if we do not care about it. — The most important factor (linchpin) in the game of life on earth is this one: There are several different groups and all of them have their own interest to live and to prosper. And there is a variety of methods and tools to gain advantage in this game/struggle/fight. All this different methods are justified in the case that they bring the survival and well-being of the group. Lying, deceiving, bribing, all this is justified if being made onto an outgroup, onto a competitor. Therefore, in case a foreign group speaks to us that we “should help the nonwhites by letting them into Europe by the tenmillions, that will be good for our soul” not a second I will take this for serious. I will take this as that what it is: an attempt to kill us. — So, as you said, it is not Christianity alone that makes us weak, but it is Christianity combined with a kind of sillyness of us whites. It is “not” the bad will from an outgroup: That outgroup has every right in the world to deceive us in order to get an advantage. From their point of view it is normal to do this. It is our fault if we allow foreigners to fool us again and again. Within a few decades we whites might be extincted, but not because of Jewish propaganda and money or the mass explosion in numbers of the nonwhite people in Africa: All this we can handle in case that we awake. The only danger is that we (=a significant number in the USA and Europa) will awake to late. The white folks can only get extincted by their own dumbness. — Of cause, this is the very clue to our survival: make the message of Kevin MacDonald or David Duke and many others well known to a significant number of our people.

      • John's Gravatar John
        February 1, 2016 - 12:52 am | Permalink

        “That outgroup has every right in the world to deceive us in order to get an advantage.”

        I don’t accept your reasoning at all. The “outgroup” has their own country now and can survive there but that’s not enough for them – they literally want to rule the world but before they can do that they have to weaken the peoples they want to rule. Do I have to subjugate my neighbor in order to survive? No!

        French economist, Jacques Attali, who is a former adviser to President Mitterrand wrote a book titled “A Brief History of the Future: A Brave and Controversial Look at the Twenty-First Century” where he espouses setting up a world government.

        From pages 269-270 of his book:

        Look Magazine 1962

        • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
          February 2, 2016 - 1:41 pm | Permalink

          Karlfried seems to be advocating might-makes-right

          If accepted, life becomes “whatever you can get away with.”

          Sort of like today’s cesspool.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      January 31, 2016 - 3:52 pm | Permalink

      “. . .Because of the influence of Christianity, the Europeans are so easily manipulated by Jews. . .”

      The jew information hegemon, combined with threats of force for dissenters, is the main problem.

  13. Art's Gravatar Art
    January 31, 2016 - 1:16 pm | Permalink

    “…anti-Semitism is simply an ideological, psychological, and prejudicial virus that is contracted from others rather than a natural reaction to direct experience with Jews”.

    Nietzsche was proud of his Slavic roots, he believed that only some Germans (like himself) were talented, and only because of the admixture of Slavic blood.

    Nobody cares about his anti-German statements, but everybody is obsessed about his statements about Ashkenazi Jews, who are neither Semites nor the descendants of Hebrews.

    Yes, even the Sephardic Jew Walter Rathenau called these Ashkenazi Jews “eine asiatische Horde auf märkischem Sand” (an Asian Horde on Prussian soil).

    The term “anti-Semitism” is just a linguistic fraud, it is time to use more adequate terms in serious analytical publications.

    • John's Gravatar John
      January 31, 2016 - 3:33 pm | Permalink

      “Nietzsche was proud of his Slavic roots, he believed that only some Germans (like himself) were talented, and only because of the admixture of Slavic blood.

      He was cuckoo – let’s be honest.

      • Veritas's Gravatar Veritas
        February 1, 2016 - 9:46 am | Permalink

        He was probably very envious of the Germans as well, and likely had a complex about it to boot.

  14. tyler kent's Gravatar tyler kent
    January 31, 2016 - 11:45 am | Permalink

    I believe Mr. Joyce misunderstands the Left’s motives with regard to Nietzsche. The Left has expropriated Nietzsche in order to dishonestly subvert him. There is nothing in Nietzsche that could give comfort to any left-wing morality or politics. His denunciations of equality, feminism, democracy, socialism, anarchism, are clear, unequivocal, forthright, and profoundly antithetical to any left-wing ideology. The left has adopted only his analysis of power relationships, but while doing so, has taken sides with those whom Nietzsche disparaged the most, mainly the weak. Famed homosexual Marxist and sadomasochist left-wing hero Michel Foucault let the cat out of the bag when he said, “What serious use can we make of Nietzsche?” One political science professor, Tracy Strong at University of California, San Diego, asserted that Communist China and Cuba represent “the very Nietzschean proposition of creating new men.” That is blatantly preposterous, as explained in “The Use and Abuse of Friedrich Nietzsche” in Vol. 6, No. 2 of the OQ.

  15. John's Gravatar John
    January 31, 2016 - 11:22 am | Permalink

    If Nietzsche was alive today, Israel wouldn’t grant him citizenship, or more significantly nationality, because he was not Jewish. The Jews (everywhere) go on and on about antisemitism but work endlessly for the wholesale destruction of Europeans and Christianity. One can only hope that they will once again get what they deserve.

  16. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    January 31, 2016 - 10:37 am | Permalink

    Libs have been better critical theorists of power than the Cons have been.


    (Mod. Note: Gubbler, weren’t you warned about confusing long essays with on-topic comments about the main article? Yes, you were, so the huge bulk of this comment was deleted.)

  17. tyler kent's Gravatar tyler kent
    January 31, 2016 - 9:14 am | Permalink

    The Occidental Quarterly explained Nietzsche’s views of nationalism in a book review in Vol. 6, No. 2, “The Use and Abuse of Friedrich Nietzsche”:

    “With the decline of the power of aristocracies and monarchs, the rise of nine-teenth century nationalisms was driven mainly by liberal bourgeois democratic movements that Nietzsche saw as part of a headlong rush into the decadence and triumph of “herd morality.” His criticism of that sort of nationalism might well have been subsequently shared by the National Socialists who, seeing themselves as revolutionaries in political competition with patriotic “conservative” parties, often issued their own criticisms of what they called “bourgeois nationalism.” In any case, Nietzsche detested popular mass movements of any sort, and he saw Europe’s various nationalisms as a divisive threat to the unity of the larger European culture encompassing Europe’s peoples, and to the emergence of what he hoped would become known as European man. He saw himself as a “good European” who longed for Europe to become “a political and economic unit.” He feared that “the neurosis called Nationalism” would be responsible for “this eternal subdivision of Europe into petty states, accompanied by petty politics” and rob Europe “of its meaning and intelligence.” This view is consistent with the post–Second World War politics of fascist leader Oswald Mosley, who, after his release from a British prison where he had been confined for advocating peace, campaigned for a united Europe as a counter-pole to the two giant world powers, the capitalist U.S. and the Communist U.S.S.R. His slogan was, “Europe, a nation!” Nietzsche was quite willing to accept the unification of Europe by force, if need be. He saw Napoleon as “a superior force of genius and will strong enough to weld Europe into a political and economic unit” that might “rule the world.” One of his many—and frequent—criticisms of the Germans is that they, “with their Wars of Independence, robbed Europe of the meaning, the marvelous meaning, of Napoleon’s life.” Whether Nietzsche would have endorsed the German National Socialists’ titanic but ultimately doomed struggle to unite Europe into an international force recruited to fight Russia’s Bolshevik army, we can never really know. Nevertheless, his denunciation of nationalism must be considered within the context of his larger devotion to and concern for the preservation and enhancement of European culture (even to the extent that it might “rule the world”), a concern he shared with the National Socialists in their struggle against democracy and communism.”

  18. tyler's Gravatar tyler
    January 31, 2016 - 8:04 am | Permalink

    The author is mistaken. Nietzsche was NOT a nihilist.

    • Dex's Gravatar Dex
      January 31, 2016 - 1:40 pm | Permalink

      Why was he not a nihilist?

      • tyler kent's Gravatar tyler kent
        January 31, 2016 - 7:17 pm | Permalink

        Oversimplified, but essentially correct is this synopsis: Nietzsche sought to say “yes” to life, wanted to promote values that he thought enhanced and ennobled life. He believed that the death of God would lead Europeans to see that without God, there is no cosmic, immutable foundation for values and morality, and lead men to question the value of life and drive them to nihilism and embrace meaninglessness. Nietzsche believed superior men who could face life without God should assert and create their own values, and even breed (in both the eugenic and cultural sense) the “ubermensch.” His philosophy sought to rescue the West from the nihilism that he suspected the death of God would lead to.

  19. BlackedOut's Gravatar BlackedOut
    January 31, 2016 - 6:04 am | Permalink

    I remember Ayn Rand writing a negative comment on Nietzsche. Given that Ms. Rosenbaum applauded the state of Israel despite her apparent non-interventionism, I take this as being in Nietzsche’s favor.

  20. Last Saxon's Gravatar Last Saxon
    January 31, 2016 - 5:57 am | Permalink

    One more thing.

    Richard Harwood was really Richard Verrall.

  21. Last Saxon's Gravatar Last Saxon
    January 31, 2016 - 3:21 am | Permalink

    Concise and precise.

    I concur with one commenter below.

    The case for Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a Germanised Englishman, influencing AH whom he actually met, is more solid.

    Nietzsche with his Darwinist biological determinism-like ideas fits well into the Anglo-American-French propaganda of WWI whose main aim was to portray the “Bosch, Huns and Krauts” as pagan savage brutes and the other side as Christian Saviours who were trying to save Europe from a German Dark Age.

    This is the same propaganda the Church used against our Norse ancestors – “From the Fury of the Norsemen” prayers and so on.

  22. January 30, 2016 - 11:11 pm | Permalink


    Voice of Europe – Kai Murros — TRANSCRIPT

    In this short inspiring speech Kai Murros describes how Europe has been poisoned and betrayed by a traitorous “elite” that is destroying European peoples through a long term process of mass propaganda, creating self-hate and loathing that has pacified us into inaction, while also deliberately opening the gates of Europe to hordes of aliens. Murros believes that this vicious conspiracy will not stand and Europeans will awake and retake Europe back! The speech is accompanied with dramatic graphics creating a very professional “propaganda” effect.

    Continued here: Voice of Europe – Kai Murros — TRANSCRIPT


  23. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    January 30, 2016 - 3:29 pm | Permalink

    I too found this article well-written and educational.

    “Disappointingly then, very early in the book Holub reveals that a primary thesis underpinning the study is that anti-Semitism is simply an ideological, psychological, and prejudicial virus that is contracted from others rather than a natural reaction to direct experience with Jews. My initial enthusiasm for the book began to evaporate at this point.”

    I wonder if there are any mainstream books published these days that do not assume that anti-Semitism is an irrational “virus”. No doubt if a Jew moves into a neighborhood, and soon finds his neighbors upset with him, and then moves again, and finds the same thing, and moves again, with the newest neighbors becoming upset at him, this is all simply proof that everyone he happens to live next to is an anti-Semite. His actions could not possibly have been involved in creating the hostility. The only explanation is that non-Jews are susceptible to sudden bouts of irrationalism caused by a psychological “germ” that spreads unpredictably.

    • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
      January 31, 2016 - 3:53 am | Permalink

      […] this is all simply proof that everyone he happens to live next to is an anti-Semite. His actions could not possibly have been involved in creating the hostility. The only explanation is that non-Jews are susceptible to sudden bouts of irrationalism caused by a psychological “germ” that spreads unpredictably.

      There is an aggressiveness in Jews that is disconnected from conscious awareness and control. Others can see the aggressiveness, but the Jew himself cannot.

      It is like that weird syndrome that sometimes occurs after a stroke in the right-hemisphere of the brain. In addition to being paralyzed in the left side of their body, they “disown” it. When asked by the doctor to move their left arm, they claim their own left arm isn’t really theirs. The patient will say something like “That’s not my arm, doctor– that’s your arm.”

      With the Jews, its like: “That’s not my aggression, Gentile— that’s your aggression.”

      When you attempt to reason with a Jew, you are asking him to control his aggression— which is like asking a right-hemisphere stroke patient to move his left arm. Its as if the Jew was born with a stroke in the part of the brain that controls aggression. Its not the same as a stroke, but the principle is similar.

      (It might sound like I’m being humorous here, but I’m actually serious.)

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        January 31, 2016 - 12:37 pm | Permalink

        Some sort of BS [blind spot] is surely involved. I call it the blind spot of narcissism.

        Two choices are “seen” as possible- either I am [a] god, or I am nothing. Other choices- sane and rational choices- are out of sight. So they must work at being at the top of the social heap- to avoid “death.”

        I posit two types of self interest- rational [valid] and narcissistic [invalid]. I think that those having legitimate self interest are capable of making these distinctions but that narcissists are not- due to the blind spot of narcissism.

        A test for narcissists- ask this question: “What is the difference between rational self-esteem and narcissism?” I imagine they would be perplexed and incapable of understanding the question. “Huh? Huh? It all involves high personal regard- it’s all the same.” “You are trying to make a distinction without a difference.” And so on. In fact, this distinction may be one of the more important of all.

        Draw a 4×8 rectangle and split it in half. Write rational self interest in one square and narcissism in the other. Cut out the narcissism square, pretend it is rubber, and stretch it to 4×8. What happened to the RSE square? It’s gone! Invisible. All that is left is narcissism with its blind spot!

        And I submit that this narcissism is the base of jewish psychology. The blind spot means that they cannot understand their own psychologies.

        If you inform them [I presume] that they can have all the rational self-interest they want- but that narcissism must go- they think you want to annihilate their entire being, as narcissism is their entire being.

        To be alive [to them] IS to be narcissistic. Narcissism becomes a mental axiom.

        Take Henry Kissinger [please]. Can anyone imagine Henry having a regular job, like air-conditioning repairman? If he had a regular job- it means he is not God. The only alternative is nothingness. Being a regular person would be “seen” as a form of death. Rational career choices and a middle-class life cannot be seen due to the blind spot of narcissism.

        Rational self-interest is pro-reality- narcissism is anti-reality.

        • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
          January 31, 2016 - 2:56 pm | Permalink

          I presume the blind spot would stop jews from understanding the cognition of others- namely, of Whites. We can understand them [without using jewish psychoanalysis] whilst they cannot understand us.

        • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
          February 3, 2016 - 1:25 am | Permalink

          I agree that the Jews are blind to their own nature, perhaps permanently so.

          The Jews are very aggressive; but the Jews can’t see the aggression in themselves— instead they see aggression in the world around them. To me, this is the base of Jewish psychology. This denial of aggression in themselves looks like a kind of selfishness— which is what I think you mean by narcissism. But I don’t think that selfishness or narcissism is what it really is.

          I think there is something in the Jewish brain that causes them to misinterpret their own intentions in relation to the intentions of others— a displaced awareness of aggression, a crisscross between internal and external agency, akin to a hallucination. Their brains are playing a trick on them, and the Jews themselves don’t have a clue. That’s my theory, anyways— I don’t seem to have any takers on TOO (but that’s okay.)

          Perhaps whether Jewish malfeasance is deliberate, or whether it is unconscious doesn’t matter as we are faced with the same aggressive Jew who complains of aggression in the world around him while denying aggression in himself— the same “paranoid/aggressive” Jew— the same Jew who cries out in pain as he strikes us.

          (Still, I wish I knew *exactly* what is going on in their minds, even if doesn’t make any difference.)

      • February 1, 2016 - 12:18 pm | Permalink

        A fascinating observation and analogy. The Jew as a disease is perhaps the best approach to take. Man has a tendency to elevate himself over the rest of creation when he has no right or reason to do so. This is a hardwired form of egotism. Yet, like all biological organisms, humans and their social structures are subject to the same biological laws governing all life.

        Thus the Jew’s parasitical predation upon host cultures is no different than the parasite Sacculina, a parasitic castrator of crabs, or the predatory Cuckoo that robs the songbird of it’s own young.

        Parasitism is a natural occurrence throughout nature that, by definition, leads to the destruction of the host. No doubt, the Jew’s host nations would be better off were they to approach the subject from a more detached observational viewpoint instead of allowing themselves to be embroiled and distracted by emotional side issues.

        Doctor: “Test show you have serious case of Jews. Historical studies have shown that left untreated, the disease results in the patient’s death.”

        Patient: “What can I do?”

        Doctor: “We can begin with Jewbantherapy whereby we make the environment economically and politically unhealthy for the parasite. However, this treatment is poisonous to both you and the parasite, therefore side effects can be quite devastating to the body, but there really is no choice as the parasite has firmly attached itself to all your functional organs.”

        Patient: “How long do I have?”

        Doctor: “If left unchecked, its hard to say. Maybe a few months or a few years at best. Of course there is no guarantee the treatment will work. As we saw with Germany, when the patient sought to remove the parasite from their body, the parasite responded by calling on external resources which quickly destroyed the host body for the parasite. Therefore the prognosis is not good.”

        Patient: “I’ll have to think it over doctor. Right now our big game is on and I don’t want to miss it. I’ll call you later in the week.”

      • Vig's Gravatar Vig
        February 1, 2016 - 1:34 pm | Permalink

        Dear Sgt. Pepper,
        With great joy I read your comments! Your idea of something in the brain of the “chosen” going out of order is really hitting the truth as far as I perceive it.
        And in this case the confirmation comes from the east, from the Tibetan spiritual traditions. I studied for twenty years with Tibetan Healers and came to realise that they have an understanding of the human psyche that goes way beyond the regular modern medicin.
        The affliction of what I call the “Jewish Mindset” is rooted in the severe damage that the act of circumcision creates in the mind of a just born baby. Even western medicine admits it these days.Tibetans know in which part of the brain it is and where you can see the signs of it in the eyes. It is an eastern ” science” in a way.
        The outer effect , the symptoms are extreme ambition and a perverted sexuality. The naturality of their “drive system” is completely upset. That is their blind spot. Even some Jews like the Frenchman Roger Dommergue acknowledge this.

        I explained this in detail in three articles I wrote for Renegade : “The Jewish Mindset” by Vig. I hope you can read it because it is impossible to explain in a short text.
        The whole world is still unconscious about the monstrosity that circumcision really is We can talk and discuss as much as possible but as long as we dont improve anything in the biological and psychlogical aspects of our minds and bodies, what Friedrich Nietzsche definitely was aiming at, everything will be in vain.


        Link to Vig’s article at Renegade Tribune

        • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
          February 2, 2016 - 3:56 am | Permalink

          Your idea of something in the brain of the “chosen” going out of order is really hitting the truth as far as I perceive it. […] The affliction of what I call the “Jewish Mindset” is rooted in the severe damage that the act of circumcision creates in the mind of a just born baby.

          I don’t think it has anything to do with circumcision.

          I believe that the Jewish mindset has a neurological basis, is genetic, and is a product of their evolutionary history. I believe that Jews– both male and female— are born with this neurological trait— and they have this trait regardless of whether they are circumcized or not. In short, I believe that their brains are wired differently– and this wiring takes place in the womb.

  24. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 30, 2016 - 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Joyce,

    In your researches perhaps you ran across a 2013 monograph called Will to Power, Nietzsche’s Last Idol, by Jean-Etienne Joullié. (For reasons best known to himself, the author, who now teaches in Sydney, does not spell the second part of his given name with an acute accent over the initial E. Go figure.) I read it in proofs, and to the limited extent that I recall it, it was a largely sympathetic and quite interesting study—though whether it is worth the small fortune it now costs to purchase it in any form, whether via Amazon (per the link) or, is a question I leave to others to answer.

  25. Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
    January 30, 2016 - 12:57 pm | Permalink

    OT — “lost” comments for older TOO articles

    Comments for older TOO articles are available on the “wayback machine”, I just found out.

    For example, it was recently lamented that the comments were no longer available for the 2010 article on circumcision by Christopher Donovan.

    Here is the Donovan article on the TOO website, without the comments:

    Go to the wayback machine:

    Type the current article URL (see above) into the search box. Go to the july 30 2012 snapshot (that’s the snapshot I went to.)

    And you get the Donovan article, including the comments:

    (The article is great, but the comments are a treasure trove in this case.)

    You may have to poke around to find what you’re looking for (i.e. look at different snapshots.)

  26. William's Gravatar William
    January 30, 2016 - 12:06 pm | Permalink

    “and specifically cited his condemnation of Jews, ‘Israel,’ and Christianity for overthrowing earlier moral systems with a ‘slave morality’ ”

    When one sees scantily clad German girls welcoming with flowers what might be their future rapists one marvels at Nietzsche’s insight.

    It seems that evolutionary psychology is suggesting that without religion there is low fertility, unfortunately with Christianity we also have a welcoming and embracing culture that has reduced the west to defencelessness both against Mohamadean and Jew.

    • PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
      January 31, 2016 - 4:37 am | Permalink

      Clearly our people need a religion, ie. a binding together that transcends everyday nationalism. It is said that Judaism, Islam and most sects of Protestantism are religions of “the will”, whereas Confucianism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy are religions of “obedience”. There seems to be truth in that observation. Protestantism has decayed into a perverse will to self destruction, while Catholicism has decayed into a perverse obedience or compliance with destruction.

    • January 31, 2016 - 7:45 am | Permalink

      One of Christianity’s planks (arguably) is that it aimed to lower fertility: think of the emphasis on virginity, the need for marriage, the support for monks, nuns, anchorites, hermits, priestly celibacy etc. The first Christian country was (I quote Arthur Kemp) Egypt; it may well be that it gave way to Muslims as a result of relatively low population. I expect there were mixed motives, but, as now, faced with fast breeders of mediocre quality, it seems to have been a wrong strategy.

  27. T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
    January 30, 2016 - 11:53 am | Permalink

    . . .published the essay Jewry in Music. . .

    . . .every organ of the Jewish media was used to annihalate his reputation. . .

  28. Vig Scholma's Gravatar Vig Scholma
    January 30, 2016 - 11:25 am | Permalink

    Great article and good comments!
    What Andrew Joyce says is very balanced and insightful in a psychological way. As someone who has read almost all of Nietzsche s works in German His words come very close to my understanding of Nietzsche s ideas of the Jewish essence.

  29. Stogumber's Gravatar Stogumber
    January 30, 2016 - 8:55 am | Permalink

    The most vicious attacks against Elisabeth Foerster have been pointed against her posthumous edition of “Der Wille zur Macht”. I wonder if Holub has to say something new about this edition.

    By the way, I indeed think that Heine and Nietzsche had the same reason to switch to anti-German attacks. They belonged to the huge number of publicists and politicians which, over centuries, felt that the German public hadn’t honoured them and followed them to the level they deserved it. It’s one of the most widepread reasons for Anti-Germanism, and – I suppose – for all kinds of anti-ethnicism.

    • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
      January 30, 2016 - 10:13 am | Permalink

      Very astute comments. Yes, Holub does remark upon that edition. He states that her input was based on studious attention to Nietzsche’s own private notes and not, as has been claimed, on her own alleged ideological priorities. Holub goes into more detail that I can devote attention to here. In Holub’s book Elisabeth emerges as a very harshly treated individual indeed, at least by the majority of modern Nietzsche historians. You would probably agree with this conclusion.

  30. January 30, 2016 - 8:33 am | Permalink

    The notion that National-Socialist propaganda made extensive use of Nietzsche is false. It is a residue of Anglo-American propaganda of the First World War that portrayed the Germans as godless Nietzscheans.

    Nietzsche is mentioned not once in Mein Kampf, and gets only two brief mentions in Alfred Rosenberg’s Myth. N-S propaganda could not make extensive use of Nietzsche, for one thing, because he was anti-Christian, and very few Germans in the 1930s and 40s were not Christian. I once lived in the home of an elderly German woman who had been a member of the Hitler Youth and NSDAP, and she had no clue even who Nietzsche was!

    There is some indirect influence by way of Houston Stuart Chamberlain, who never ceased to be a Christian of some sort. Nietzsche is credited, I think, with bringing the idea of man as a biological entity into philosphy. Nietzsche also seems to be highly regarded by German psychologists of the early 20th century, but not by the German masses.

    Nietzsche’s criticisms of the Germans are mostly based on disappointment about the direction that German culture had taken between the Franco-Prussian War and the First World War. This period is called the Gilded Age.

    I had a professor once who took great delight in quoting Nietzsche’s criticisms of the Germans, as if this would refute any possibility of agreement between Nietzsche and Hitler. The problem with that argument is that National-Socialists also criticize Germany’s Gilded Age for its superficiality and materialism. So, actually Nietzsche and the National-Socialists agree in at least some of those criticisms.

    Nietzsche’s attitude toward Jews seems to pass through three phases. First he was a somewhat naive German nationalist, then he went to the opposite extreme of looking for good things to say about the Jews, then finally in his last works he makes many observations that would strike most people as anti-Semitic, like saying that Christianity was a Jewish conspiracy.

    I think that the fundamental mistake is to treat Nietzsche as some great authority to be quoted, when in reality he was a man groping for answers, whose pronouncements are always tentative and therefore, perhaps worthy of pondering, but inherently not authoritative.

    • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
      January 30, 2016 - 10:16 am | Permalink

      Excellent comments. Your theory on Nietzsche’s “phases” is very, very close to my own. I explore this in more detail in Part Two.

      • January 30, 2016 - 3:44 pm | Permalink

        I also think that his personal experiences with Jews had something to do with his reversion to a critical attitude. Paul Ree crossed him in some way.

        • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
          January 31, 2016 - 12:15 am | Permalink

          Precisely Hadding. This is a major focus of Part Two.

    • John Rolin's Gravatar John Rolin
      January 30, 2016 - 11:01 am | Permalink

      Yes Nietzsche, like all philosophers, groped for answers thus leaving a scattered logic that was cherry picked by those wanting to self-promote. His insanity during the latter part of his life is the logical outworking of this scattered logic. It reminds me of a definition one of my Professors gave of a philosopher.
      ” A philosopher can be defined as a blind man searching in a dark room for a black cat that isn’t there.”

Comments are closed.