Differences between the Eastern European immigrant community in the US and the older German-Jewish establishment — and their commonalities

Kevin MacDonald


Eastern European Shtetl Jews; photos from “Rare Photographs and Images of Shtetl Life

In his VDARE article of April 22, “Eastern European Jews And The Case Of the Marginalized Elite,” Paul Gottfried claims that I fail to make important distinctions among Jewish groups:

Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. …We are clearly dealing with a group that embraces all kinds of Leftist causes, most of which have a destabilizing effect on what remains of a traditional Christian society. Let me repeat: I don’t find anything about this behavior that has characterized all Jews at all times (unlike MacDonald).

This article summarizes some of my comments on different groups of Jews, some of which may have gotten a bit lost in the shuffle. In fact, beginning with my first two books on Judaism, I have repeatedly discussed differences among Jewish groups (e.g., IQ differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic groups in chapter 7 of A People That Shall Dwell Alone). This includes the important distinction between Eastern European Jews and Western European Jews, beginning with Chapter 6 of Separation and Its Discontents (1994) on Jewish strategies to minimize anti-Semitism.

It has often been critically important for Jews to be able to present a divided front to the gentile society, especially in situations where one segment of the Jewish community has adopted policies or attitudes that provoke anti-Semitism. This has happened repeatedly in the modern world. A particularly common pattern during the period from 1880 to 1940 was for Jewish organizations representing older, more established communities in Western Europe and the United States to oppose the activities and attitudes of more recent immigrants from Eastern Europe (see note 20). The Eastern European immigrants tended to be religiously orthodox, politically radical, and sympathetic to Zionism, and they tended to conceptualize themselves in racial and national terms—all qualities that provoked anti-Semitism. In the United States and England, Jewish organizations (such as the American Jewish Committee [AJCommittee]) attempted to minimize Jewish radicalism and gentile perceptions of the radicalism and Zionism of these immigrants (e.g., Cohen 1972; Alderman 1992, 237ff). Highly publicized opposition to these activities dilutes gentile perceptions of Jewish behavior, even in situations where, as occurred in both England and America, the recent immigrants far outnumbered the established Jewish community.

This difference between the Eastern European immigrant community and the German-Jewish establishment in the US is a central theme of “Jews, Blacks, and Race” (in Samuel Francis (Ed.), Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of Our Nation and Our Time [The Occidental Press, 2006]):

Anti-Jewish attitudes that had been common before [World War II) declined precipitously, and Jewish organizations assumed a much higher profile in influencing ethnic relations in the U.S., not only in the area of civil rights but also in immigration policy. Significantly this high Jewish profile was spearheaded by the American Jewish Congress and the ADL, both dominated by Jews who had immigrated from Eastern Europe between 1880 and 1920 and their descendants. As indicated below, an understanding of the special character of this Jewish population is critical to understanding Jewish influence in the United States from 1945 to the present. The German-Jewish elite that had dominated Jewish community affairs via the American Jewish Committee earlier in the century, gave way to a new leadership made up of Eastern European immigrants and their descendants. Even the AJCommittee, the bastion of the German-Jewish elite, came to be headed by John Slawson [in 1943], who had immigrated at the age of 7 from the Ukraine.

The AJCongress, a creation of the Jewish immigrant community, was headed by Will Maslow, a socialist and a Zionist. Zionism and political radicalism typified the Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. As an indication of the radicalism of the immigrant Jewish community, the 50,000- member Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order was an affiliate of the AJCongress and was listed as a subversive organization by the U.S. Attorney General. The JPFO was the financial and organizational “bulwark” of the Communist Party USA after World War II and also funded the Daily Worker, an organ of the [Communist Party USA], and the Morning Freiheit, a Yiddish communist newspaper. Although the AJCongress severed its ties with the JPFO and stated that communism was a threat, it was “at best a reluctant and unenthusiastic participant” in the Jewish effort to develop a public image of anti-communism—a position reflecting the sympathies of many among its predominantly second- and third-generation Eastern European immigrant membership. Concern that Jewish communists were involved in the civil rights movement centered around the activities of Stanley Levison, a key advisor to Martin Luther King, who had very close ties to the Communist Party (as well as the AJCongress) and may have been acting under communist discipline in his activities with King.

On the other hand:

The Southern Jewish community was relatively small compared to the much larger Jewish population that immigrated from Eastern Europe between 1880 and 1924, and had relatively little national influence. Southern Jews immigrated in the 19th century mainly from Germany, and they tended toward political conservatism, at least compared to their Eastern European brethren. The general perception of northern Jews and southern blacks and whites was that southern Jews had adopted white attitudes on racial issues.

Moreover, southern Jews adopted a low profile because southern whites often (correctly) blamed northern Jews as major instigators of the civil rights movement and because of the linkages among Jews, communism, and civil rights agitation during a period when both the NAACP and mainstream Jewish organizations were doing their best to minimize associations with communism. (Jews were the backbone of the Communist Party USA, and the CPUSA agitated on behalf of black causes.) It was common for southerners to rail against Jews while exempting southern Jews from their accusations: “We have only the high-type Jew here, not like the kikes in New York.”

And in conclusion:

Throughout this essay I have noted the contrast between the German-Jewish immigrants who came to the U.S. in the mid- to late-19th century and the massive Eastern European Jewish immigration that completely altered the profile of U.S. Jewry in the direction of political radicalism and Zionism. The former group of [German-Jewish] immigrants rather quickly became an elite group, and their attitudes, as in Germany, were undoubtedly more liberal than similarly situated non-Jews of the time [see Chapter 5 of Separation and Its Discontents). Nevertheless, they tended to political conservatism and, whether living in the North or the South, they did not attempt to radically alter the folkways of the white majority, nor did they engage in radical criticism of non-Jewish society. I rather doubt that in the absence of the massive immigration of Eastern European Jews between 1880 and 1920 that the U.S. would have undergone the radical transformations of the last 50 years.

The Eastern European immigrants and their descendants were and are a quite different group. These immigrants originated in the intensely ethnocentric, religiously fundamentalist shtetl communities of Eastern Europe. These groups had achieved a dominant position economically throughout the area, but they were under intense pressure as a result of anti-Jewish attitudes and laws. And because of their high fertility, the great majority of Eastern European Jews were poor. Around 1880 these groups shifted their focus from religious fanaticism to complex mixtures of political radicalism, Zionism, and religious fanaticism, although religious fanaticism was in decline relative to the other ideologies. Their political radicalism often coexisted with messianic forms of Zionism as well as intense commitment to Jewish nationalism and religious and cultural separatism, and many individuals held various and often rapidly changing combinations of these ideas.

The two streams of political radicalism and Zionism, each stemming from the teeming fanaticism and passionate ethnocentrism of threatened Jewish populations in 19th-century Eastern Europe, continue to reverberate in the modern world. In both England and America the immigration of Eastern European Jews after 1880 had a transforming effect on the political attitudes of the Jewish community in the direction of radical politics and Zionism, often combined with religious orthodoxy. The immigrant Eastern European Jews demographically swamped the previously existing Jewish communities in both countries, and the older communities were deeply concerned because of the possibility of increased anti-Semitism. Attempts were made by the established Jewish communities to misrepresent the prevalence of radical political ideas among the immigrants. However, there is no doubt that immigrant Jews formed the core of the American left at least through the 1960s; as indicated above, Jews continue to be an important force on the left into the present. One expression of the passionate ethnocentrism the immigrant Jews and their descendants is hatred directed at the non-Jewish world. In other words, at the conscious level, the Jewish activists who had such a large effect on the history of racial relations in the U.S. were motivated to a considerable extent by their hatred for the white power structure of the U.S. because the white power structure represented the culture of an outgroup….

Indeed, my curiosity about Eastern European Jews led to my essay “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,” which delves into the details about the demographic profile of Eastern European Jews, the extreme economic and political pressures they lived under, and the radical attitudes that resulted (religious fanaticism with roots in Hasidism, leftist political radicalism, and intense commitment to Zionism). (Indeed, the psychological intensity and the aggressiveness of these immigrants impressed me so much that I included them as traits that facilitate Jewish activism [“Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” p. 24ff].) The interesting thing about this phenomenon is that this Eastern European population had overshot its ecological niche, so that poverty was widespread. But despite this, they continued to have very high fertility, which I theorize was due to their intense collectivism and ethnocentrism rooted in the religious fundamentalism that typified this population prior to their attraction to political radicalism and Zionism). (On the other hand, individualists typical of Western societies tend to delay marriage and have fewer children during times of economic hardship [e.g., the depression of the 1930s].)

The result was a “feed forward” process in which Jewish economic desperation and anti-Jewish attitudes and restrictions on Jews increased over time, as Jews, never abandoning but rather expanding their economic niche of middleman minority, became increasingly ruthless and aggressive in their business practices. (For example, Albert Lindemann notes the effects of the influx of a number of Russian Jews to Atlanta in the early twentieth century — often described as “barbaric and ignorant” by the established German Jewish community. These Jews often owned saloons and were accused of selling liquor to Blacks, thus contributing to public disorder. After the race riot of 1906, the liquor licenses of several Jewish-owned saloons were revoked” [from my review). And finally, commenting on Jews in Czarist Russia, Lindemann noted that Jews were often in the position of managing peasants for Russian aristocrats and in lending money and providing alcohol to them as innkeepers. Stereotypes of Jews as prominent in the liquor trade, usury, prostitution, and criminal activity were hardly figments of anti-Semitic imaginations (from my review).

This thesis was previewed in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique (1998) and contrasts with the views of David R. Verbeeten who, as summarized by Gottfried, attempts to find the roots of Eastern European Jewish radicalism as deriving from their experience in America:

Ultimately this population explosion in the context of poverty and politically imposed restrictions on Jews was responsible for the generally destabilizing effects of Jewish radicalism on Russia up to the revolution. These conditions also had spill-over effects in Germany, where the negative attitudes toward the immigrant Ostjuden contributed to the anti-Semitism of the period (Aschheim 1982). In the United States, the point of this chapter is that a high level of inertia characterized the radical political beliefs held by a great many Jewish immigrants and their descendants in the sense that radical political beliefs persisted even in the absence of oppressive economic and political conditions. In Sorin’s (1985, 46) study of immigrant Jewish radical activists in America, over half had been involved in radical politics in Europe before emigrating, and for those immigrating after 1900, the percentage rose to 69 percent. Glazer (1961, 21) notes that the biographies of almost all radical leaders show that they first came in contact with radical political ideas in Europe. The persistence of these beliefs influenced the general political sensibility of the Jewish community and had a destabilizing effect on American society, ranging from the paranoia of the McCarthy era to the triumph of the 1960s countercultural revolution.

The immigration of Eastern European Jews into England after 1880 had a similarly transformative effect on the political attitudes of British Jewry in the direction of socialism, trade-unionism, and Zionism, often combined with religious orthodoxy and devotion to a highly separatist traditional lifestyle (Alderman 1983, 47ff). “Far more significant than the handful of publicity seeking Jewish socialists, both in Russia and England, who organized ham sandwich picnics on the fast of Yom Kippur … were the mass of working-class Jews who experienced no inner conflict when they repaired to the synagogue for religious services three times each day, and then used the same premises to discuss socialist principles and organize industrial stoppages” (Alderman 1983, 54). As in the United States, the immigrant Eastern European Jews demographically swamped the previously existing Jewish community, and the older community reacted to this influx with considerable trepidation because of the possibility of increased anti-Semitism. And as in the United States, attempts were made by the established Jewish community to misrepresent the prevalence of radical political ideas among the immigrants (Alderman 1983, 60; SAID, Ch. 8).

Understanding this group is indeed critical for understanding Jewish influence in the West as well as the political dynamics of Israel. It is also critical to understanding the role of Jews in Bolshevism. In my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, I noted:

Slezkine devotes one line to the fact that Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century (p. 115), but this was an extremely important part of Eastern Europe’s “Jewish problem.” Anti-Semitism and the exploding Jewish population, combined with economic adversity, were of critical importance for producing the great numbers of disaffected Jews who dreamed of deliverance in various messianic movements—the ethnocentric mysticism of the Kabbala and Hasidism, Zionism, or the dream of a Marxist political revolution. Jews emigrated in droves from Eastern Europe but the problems remained. And in the case of the Marxists, the main deliverance was to be achieved not by killing Judaism, as Slezkine suggests, but by the destruction of the traditional societies of Eastern Europe as a panacea for Jewish poverty and for anti-Semitism. In fact, the vast majority of Jews in Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were hardly the modern Mercurians that Slezkine portrays them as being. Slezkine does note that well into the twentieth century the vast majority of Eastern European Jews could not speak the languages of the non-Jews living around them, and he does a good job of showing their intense ingroup feeling and their attitudes that non-Jews were less than human. But he ignores their medieval outlook on life, their obsession with the Kabbala (the writings of Jewish mystics), their superstition and anti-rationalism, and their belief in “magical remedies, amulets, exorcisms, demonic possession (dybbuks), ghosts, devils, and teasing, mischievous genies.” These supposedly modern Mercurians had an attitude of absolute faith in the person of the tsadik, their rebbe, who was a charismatic figure seen by his followers literally as the personification of God in the world. (Attraction to charismatic leaders is a fundamental feature of Jewish social organization—apparent as much among religious fundamentalists as among Jewish political radicals or elite Jewish intellectuals.)

After the Revolution, the shtetls disgorged huge numbers of Jews who then became an elite in the USSR, with disastrous consequences for the Russian people, including most notably prominent roles in the secret police (hence the subtitle of my review, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners.” I conclude:

Nevertheless, the critical issue for collective guilt is whether the Jewish enthusiasm for the Soviet state and the enthusiastic participation of Jews in the violence against what Slezkine terms “rural backwardness and religion” (p. 346) had something to do with their Jewish identity. This is a more difficult claim to establish, but the outlines of the argument are quite clear. Even granting the possibility that the revolutionary vanguard composed of Jews like Trotsky that spearheaded the Bolshevik Revolution was far more influenced by a universalist utopian vision than by their upbringing in traditional Judaism, it does not follow that this was the case for the millions of Jews who left the shtetl towns of the Pale of Settlement to migrate to Moscow and the urban centers of the new state. The migration of the Jews to the urban centers of the USSR is a critical aspect of Slezkine’s presentation, but it strains credulity to suppose that these migrants threw off, completely and immediately, all remnants of the Eastern European shtetl culture which, Slezkine acknowledges, had a deep sense of estrangement from non-Jewish culture, and in particular a fear and hatred of peasants resulting from the traditional economic relations between Jews and peasants and exacerbated by the long and recent history of anti-Jewish pogroms carried out by peasants. Traditional Jewish shtetl culture also had a very negative attitude toward Christianity, not only as the central cultural icon of the outgroup but as associated in their minds with a long history of anti-Jewish persecution. The same situation doubtless occurred in Poland, where the efforts of even the most “de-ethnicized” Jewish Communists to recruit Poles were inhibited by traditional Jewish attitudes of superiority toward and estrangement from traditional Polish culture.

In other words, the war against “rural backwardness and religion” was exactly the sort of war that a traditional Jew would have supported wholeheartedly, because it was a war against everything they hated and thought of as oppressing them. Of course traditional shtetl Jews also hated the tsar and his government due to restrictions on Jews and because they did not think that the government did enough to rein in anti-Jewish violence. There can be little doubt that Lenin’s contempt for “the thick-skulled, boorish, inert, and bearishly savage Russian or Ukrainian peasant” was shared by the vast majority of shtetl Jews prior to the Revolution and after it. Those Jews who defiled the holy places of traditional Russian culture and published anti-Christian periodicals doubtless reveled in their tasks for entirely Jewish reasons, and, as Gorky worried, their activities not unreasonably stoked the anti-Semitism of the period. Given the anti-Christian attitudes of traditional shtetl Jews, it is very difficult to believe that the Jews engaged in campaigns against Christianity did not have a sense of revenge against the old culture that they held in such contempt. …

The situation prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American Communists and their sympathizers assumed power. The “red diaper babies” came from Jewish families which “around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.” Indeed, hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews and the image of enslaved ancestors as victims of anti-Semitism have been the Jewish norm throughout history—much commented on, from Tacitus to the present.

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. …

There is a certain enormity in all this. The twentieth century was indeed the Jewish century because Jews and Jewish organizations were intimately and decisively involved in its most important events. Slezkine’s greatest accomplishment is to set the historical record straight on the importance of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but he doesn’t focus on the huge repercussions of the Revolution, repercussions that continue to shape the world of the twenty-first century. In fact, for long after the Revolution, conservatives throughout Europe and the United States believed that Jews were responsible for Communism and for the Bolshevik Revolution. The Jewish role in leftist political movements was a common source of anti-Jewish attitudes among a great many intellectuals and political figures. In Germany, the identification of Jews and Bolshevism was widespread in the middle classes and was a critical part of the National Socialist view of the world. As historian Ernst Nolte has noted, for middle-class Germans, “the experience of the Bolshevik revolution in Germany was so immediate, so close to home, and so disquieting, and statistics seemed to prove the overwhelming participation of Jewish ringleaders so irrefutably,” that even many liberals believed in Jewish responsibility. Jewish involvement in the horrors of Communism was also an important sentiment in Hitler’s desire to destroy the USSR and in the anti-Jewish actions of the German National Socialist government. Jews and Jewish organizations were also important forces in inducing the Western democracies to side with Stalin rather than Hitler in World War II.

Another very important, perhaps critical, reason for the persistence of leftist radicalism among the Eastern European Jewish immigrants was that their cousins had done so well in the USSR. In short, Bolshevism was good for the Jews. It wasn’t until the Trotskyists/proto-neocons became aware of anti-Jewish purges from their elite positions after World War II that there was a significant Jewish movement in opposition to the USSR. On the other hand, the many Jewish apologists for Stalinism were the focus of anti-communist campaigns (e.g., Joe McCarthy).

The Jewish involvement in Bolshevism has therefore had an enormous effect on recent European and American history. It is certainly true that Jews would have attained elite status in the United States with or without their prominence in the Soviet Union. However, without the Soviet Union as a shining beacon of a land freed of official anti-Semitism where Jews had attained elite status in a stunningly short period, the history of the United States would have been very different. The persistence of Jewish radicalism influenced the general political sensibility of the Jewish community and had a destabilizing effect on American society, ranging from the paranoia of the McCarthy era, to the triumph of the 1960s countercultural revolution, to the conflicts over immigration and multiculturalism that are so much a part of the contemporary political landscape.

It’s worth noting, however, that the contrast between conservative, assimilating German Jews and their radical cousins can be taken too far. I have already noted how the older established German-Jewish community, led by the American Jewish Committee, often attempted to minimize public perception of their more radical brethren, so they were by no means entirely at odds with their Eastern European cousins. The American Jewish Committee was a fiefdom of German Jewish establishment, composed of wealthy pillars of the Jewish community. Moreover, the activism of the AJCommittee went beyond shielding their radical co-ethnics.   They had a long record opposing restrictions on immigration prior to the rise of the Eastern European immigrants and, despite their misgivings about their behavior, made a special effort to facilitate the immigration of Eastern European Jews. Indeed, on the critical issue of immigration, I can’t see any important differences between the older German-Jewish establishment and the newcomers. From Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique:

The opposition of Jewish organizations to any restrictions on immigration based on race or ethnicity can be traced back to the nineteenth century. Thus in 1882 the Jewish press was unanimous in its condemnation of the Chinese Exclusion Act (Neuringer 1971, 23) even though this act had no direct bearing on Jewish immigration. In the early twentieth century the AJCommittee at times actively fought against any bill that restricted immigration to white persons or non-Asians, and only refrained from active opposition if it judged that AJCommittee support would threaten the immigration of Jews (Cohen 1972, 47; Goldstein 1990, 250). In 1920 the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution urging that “the Nation . . . keep the gates of our beloved Republic open . . . to the oppressed and distressed of all mankind in conformity with its historic role as a haven of refuge for all men and women who pledge allegiance to its laws” (in The American Hebrew, Oct. 1, 1920, 594).

The American Hebrew (Feb. 17, 1922, 373), a publication founded in 1867, to represent the German-Jewish establishment of the period, reiterated its long-standing policy that it “has always stood for the admission of worthy immigrants of all classes, irrespective of nationality.” And in his testimony at the 1924 hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, the AJCommittee’s Louis Marshall stated that the bill echoed the sentiments of the Ku Klux Klan; he characterized it as inspired by the racialist theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. At a time when the population of the United States was over 100 million, Marshall stated, “[W]e have room in this country for ten times the population we have”; he advocated admission of all of the peoples of the world without quota limit, excluding only those who “were mentally, morally and physically unfit, who are enemies of organized government, and who are apt to become public charges.”

Louis Marshall epitomized the pro-immigration activism of the German-Jewish establishment of the period — activism that went far beyond aiding their Eastern European brethren. And even though the Eastern European Jews came to dominate Jewish organizational life by the 1950s, there were echoes of these conflicts during the 1960s. From Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique:

Jews also tended to be the most publicized leaders of campus protests (Sachar 1992, 804). Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Rennie Davis achieved national fame as members of the “Chicago Seven” group convicted of crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Cuddihy (1974, 193ff) notes the overtly ethnic subplot of the trial, particularly the infighting between defendant Abbie Hoffman and Judge Julius Hoffman, the former representing the children of the Eastern European immigrant generation that tended toward political radicalism, and the latter representing the older, more assimilated German-Jewish establishment. During the trial Abbie Hoffman ridiculed Judge Hoffman in Yiddish as “Shande fur de Goyim” (disgrace for the gentiles)—translated by Abbie Hoffman as “Front man for the WASP power elite.” Clearly Hoffman and Rubin (who spent time on a Kibbutz in Israel) had strong Jewish identifications and antipathy to the white Protestant establishment.

In short, I agree with Paul Gottfried. The distinction between the Jews deriving from Eastern Europe and the previously existing Jewish community are often important. As noted above, in the absence of the very large number of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, the transformative effects of Jewish activism on the US would not have occurred. The German-Jewish elite did indeed have influence far beyond their numbers, but their tiny numbers and relatively conservative attitudes would have prevented them from having the transformative effects that their much more numerous—and much more radical—Eastern European cousins had.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

69 Comments to "Differences between the Eastern European immigrant community in the US and the older German-Jewish establishment — and their commonalities"

  1. E.'s Gravatar E.
    April 25, 2017 - 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Minorities are a problem. Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, but not much in the way of Occidental race-advocating non-subservient Red Pilled.

    “Come Together Fight Back”, because the hostile anti-Occidental / “Diversity” culture is still the status quo.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/tom-perez-swearing-trump/

    “Come Together Fight Back”. Wow, will there ever be an era again when the average Occidental will say & act that openly for their group’s interests.

    Perhaps only when pure Occidentals are a super-minority and loath their comparatively recent ancestors, and the cultural & racial hegemony of “Liberalism” will have already succeeded in both essentially explicit and de facto White Genocide.

  2. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    April 25, 2017 - 1:54 pm | Permalink

    It is simply false and non-scientific to state that, “the transformative effects of Jewish activism on the US would not have occurred” absent “the very large number of Eastern European Jewish immigrants” but present the ‘German’ Jews.

    It happened everywhere else they didn’t come!

    More likely, given the trajectory already in place it would have happened in the U.S. eventually anyway, all else being equal.

    But given that all else would not infact have been equal, because this even more destructive form of Jewry would only have migrated to the next best option and proceed to model European destruction there instead, we should assume we can split the difference.

    So what? The distinction that matters is us vs. Jews.

    • curri's Gravatar curri
      May 1, 2017 - 9:10 am | Permalink

      It is simply false and non-scientific to state that, “the transformative effects of Jewish activism on the US would not have occurred” absent “the very large number of Eastern European Jewish immigrants” but present the ‘German’ Jews.

      It happened everywhere else they didn’t come!

      “It” happened to countries in the American sphere of influence. It long ago became trite to observe how “Americanized” Western Europe had become. Japan and Korea are more resistant due to radically different (i.e., non-Western) culture.

  3. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    April 25, 2017 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

    There are differences between the politics of long established Sephardim in England and the Ashkenazim in the USA.

    • PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
      April 26, 2017 - 4:03 am | Permalink

      Really? Please enlighten us regarding these ‘differences’.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        April 26, 2017 - 1:43 pm | Permalink

        Re PaleoAtlantid

        The differences are partly ethno-genetic and partly historical in relation to date and reason for settlement; there was even disapproval of the Ostjuden for their habits and religious practices. There was resistance to both Communism and Zionism in those circles in earlier times.

        You can do your own research into the history of Sephardim in England, and the opinions of its prominent politicians and others. Start by Googling: “Sephardim of England” and then look up the various books and monographs on the subject.

        Also, the national contexts of the UK and USA were different.

        Of course, one can just lump all Jews together as a unified enemy, and ignore actual facts and quotations in studies just because they are presented by Jews who of course are the main historians, especially among themselves, in this field.

  4. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    April 25, 2017 - 2:10 pm | Permalink

    “In short, I agree with Paul Gottfried. The distinction between the Jews deriving from Eastern Europe and the previously existing Jewish community are often important.”

    They are important to Gottfried for racial reasons, he feels they’re a speed-bump on the road toward antisemitism and White Nationalism. But on a pro-White blog, those differences are totally immaterial.

    Get with your own program!

  5. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    April 25, 2017 - 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Seems a new strategy ”blame the zionists, not [ALL] the jews”

    Blame the eastern european jews, not ”ALL” jews.

    • Aitch.'s Gravatar Aitch.
      April 26, 2017 - 8:45 am | Permalink

      Henry Makow, who I’m not in a position to evaluate, promotes the same idea. So does Gerard Menuhin. What do readers of this forum think of them?

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        April 26, 2017 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

        You want us to evaluate the cognitions of some jews?

        If we do so we would be doing their bidding- as usual.

      • Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
        April 26, 2017 - 8:14 pm | Permalink

        Jews were so traumatized from being bullied in Eastern Europe that they dedicated the next 100 years to the total elimination of Europeans and the West, Bullied so terribly that it radicalized them politically and psychologically. “It’s never really our fault. We were bullied into this worldview.” So tired of that broken record. And I don’t believe it either.

        • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
          April 27, 2017 - 6:09 am | Permalink

          Sandman – They have long memories. In Breitbart the Jewish readers’ comments often reveal a very strong sense of anger and hostility to the West based not on just a few hundred years – but based on what the Romans did to them! (I wonder if there is a single ‘thank you’ letter anywhere in the archives to the US for the billions it gives them).

          When Jewish bloggers on Breitbart started going on about historic grievances of the Jews I would reply along the lines of “So are you saying what happened in the past justifies why some Jews are hostile towards the West today?”

          And they never did like this question mentioning their hostility and would go into denial. In the end they started getting very abusive to me just for me asking this sort of question without any personal comments or bad language on my side, but plenty from them. Then one day after asking them why most Jews in the West vote for political parties that strongly support mass-immigration into the West from Africa and the Middle East, Breitbart banned me, even though I broke no house rules, but of course the abusive posters who broke all the house rules about personal abuse kept their accounts open.

  6. JM's Gravatar JM
    April 25, 2017 - 9:03 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t see this piece by Paul Gottfried, but he’s made similar claims earlier and elsewhere (I think in a talk on youtube) where he gave the appearance (to me) of trying to take command of the discourse. His criticism of Dr MacDonald is in two related parts:
    “….it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews.”
    and “…I don’t find anything about this behavior that has characterized all Jews at all times (unlike MacDonald).”
    The latter is a claim about an alleged ahistorical approach, a lack of concreteness, in MacDonald’s writings.
    I think that the documentation to the contrary contained in this article demonstrates that this criticism is unfounded.

    • JM's Gravatar JM
      April 25, 2017 - 11:24 pm | Permalink

      Caricature of MacDonald’s position @ posn. 7-

      • Thomas Montgomery's Gravatar Thomas Montgomery
        April 27, 2017 - 9:02 am | Permalink

        This is a very good video by paleoconservative scholar Paul.Gottfreid.

        • April 28, 2017 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

          It is a very good video and Paul Gottfried is a very intelligent man.

          I understand the source of the radicalism, I just cannot understand how it has managed to infect our Republic to the extent that it has.

  7. AT's Gravatar AT
    April 25, 2017 - 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Wow. So Hitler did what he did based on his experience with his Jews. Can you imagine what would happen if he had to live with Eastern European Jews? Mein Gott!

    • rosa's Gravatar rosa
      April 28, 2017 - 2:23 am | Permalink

      Actually he knew both types. Austria and Germany after WWI were full of Eastern Jews (Ostjuden) flying from USSR.

  8. Forever guilty's Gravatar Forever guilty
    April 26, 2017 - 12:10 am | Permalink

    Well, there are fast virulent types of cancer and more benign slow ones. The fast and virulent strain appears to be winning..

  9. April 26, 2017 - 4:55 am | Permalink

    Reading these congested half-informed masses of text … and noting the complete omission of some of the most important 20th century events, such as the Fed, and two World Wars … and noting persistent errors, e.g. on pogroms, McCarthy, the Depression as an act of nature, and omission of deliberate assistance to migrating Jews … I see we have a long way to go!

  10. helvena's Gravatar helvena
    April 26, 2017 - 5:06 am | Permalink

    It was the refined, cultured, German jew Jacob Schiff who funded the Bolsheviks. Same pig different lipstick.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      April 26, 2017 - 3:15 pm | Permalink

      Jacob Schiff also controlled the NAACP and financed Japan in stead of Russia which led to its defeat in 1905. See : Tomato Bubble, Jacob Schiff, the most powerful man in US history : http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html

    • JM's Gravatar JM
      April 26, 2017 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

      @helvena
      “It was the refined, cultured, German jew Jacob Schiff who funded the Bolsheviks. Same pig different lipstick.”

      And the same group funded the National Socialists: http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/BrueningMS.html
      Quote:
      AFTER THE war Winston Churchill (in his History) wished to quote from a letter written to him by Chancellor Heinrich Brüning, then residing at Oxford, England, on August 28, 1937, about the big industrialists who had supported the Nazis before and after their accession to power.
      Brüning was reluctant to provide any ammunition that might be used against his fellow Germans in “the so-called war crimes trials.” He felt [he wrote] that Friedrich Flick and the IG Farben company were blameless, having been forced to make their contributions after the Nazis came to power; and added,
      “I did not and do not even today, for understandable reasons, wish to reveal that from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”
      Brüning [wrote that he] also knew that French sources, including the Schneider-Creusot works and both French intelligence services, had paid one half of Hitler’s revenue from 1921 until 1932; that the SA and SS had before 1933 been equipped largely with revolvers and machine guns made in the United States.
      (Source: Letter from Heinrich Brüning to Daniel Longwell, February 7,1948; Longwell collection, Butler Library, Columbia University, New York City)

      • Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
        April 27, 2017 - 5:10 am | Permalink

        Implying that Hitler was some kind of illogical tool of Kardelian-like Jewish creation is ludicrous. If some of these Jews & other people did in fact help finance the NSDAP, they were likely hedging their political bets, and Hitler outwitted them big time. Then, realizing that Hitler was indeed a serious “anti-Semite”, world Jewry and their minions, (Churchill, FDR et al) organized the demonization, gang rape and crucifixtion of NS Germany, a nation smaller than the state of Texas.

        Expatriate political looser Brüning might have said anything to rationalize his situation, as he had previously fronted for the same Berlin Jewish cabal. Furthermore, the equipping of the SA & SS with ‘U.S. made firearms’ sounds like a fanciful urban legend.

        • JM's Gravatar JM
          April 28, 2017 - 1:01 am | Permalink

          Implying? Just stating facts in need of explanation. The lesson is probably as you state. It appears that Trump, Le Pen, all the “Right” who might gain office at the moment, are subject to the same attempts. Whether they will outwit them is more problematic.
          And maybe Brüning resented the competition for Jewish funds. He should have stayed and the lesson learned about the prerequisites for the German economic miracle (widely recognised by many contemporary Western economists) would not have been learned for later use.

        • Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
          April 28, 2017 - 2:15 pm | Permalink

          I have studied the history of Germany from 1870 to now. I have collected many books, foreign and American publications. One thing you said about A. Hitler that I am totally convinced of was his almost supernatural power in OUTWITTING PEOPLE. He seemed to have a talent for outwitting every type of personality one could think of, Many people that were close to him, testified to this talent of his. This was one conclusion I came to after all of my reading on the Hitler era in Germany. The man had the instincts of the devil when it came to understanding what people wanted and used that understanding to get what he wanted.

      • helvena's Gravatar helvena
        April 28, 2017 - 4:19 am | Permalink

        @JM – Hitler was happy to take jewish donations, he didn’t hate jews. What Hitler was was honest enough to realize jews would never live, as a group, as equals with Germans, they would always want to be overlords. Hitler loved the Germans, his people. If Hitler had hated the jews he would have just rounded them up and shot them like the jewish Bolsheviks did to the White Russians.

        • JM's Gravatar JM
          April 29, 2017 - 6:56 am | Permalink

          @helvena
          Hence, I presume, the willingness and ability (and reciprocated on the part of the Jews) to craft and implement the Transfer Agreements, an exercise which also fits Bobby’s characterisation.

    • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
      April 26, 2017 - 8:24 pm | Permalink

      Exactly,

      All Jews in America or elsewhere, however much annoyed by the “barbaric and ignorant” effluents of the shtetls, jumped like one to denounce, condemn, ask for sanctions and severe punishment against the barbaric anti-semitism of the Tsars, of Stalin, of the Russians peasants. All of them raised money for ‘helping’ the endangered species.

  11. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    April 26, 2017 - 5:16 am | Permalink

    “In short, I agree with Paul Gottfried.”

    This is a very disappointing statement by Kevin MacDonald.

    I hit vdare.com every day and saw the Gottfried article and my impression of it was that Gottfried was up to the usual, and increasingly easy to recognize, jewish trick of trying to split hairs and con the White gentiles into succumbing to that tired old and repeatedly dis-proven theory that there are ‘good jews and bad jews’. This is the standard jewish strategy of trying to get racially healthy Whites to relax and drop their guard and allow some ‘friendly’ jews to slither into their movement or organization, whereupon they very quickly work to do one or more things:

    1. Elbow aside the legitimate White leadership of the movement, and take it over and then steer it in jew friendly directions.

    2. If they fail to achieve goal #1, then they will work from the inside to sow seeds of division, stir up conflict, spread nasty rumors and innuendo about the White leadership and try to generate suspicion, distrust and foment in-fighting between the various factions. The goal here is to create so much tension and conflict that the organization or movement becomes ineffective and is unable to advance the pro-White agenda and then it will eventually collapse, destroyed from within.

    3. In lieu of goal #2, jews, being inside the pro-White movement or organization, will sometimes linger and not try to cause any major problems that might call attention to themselves – but, their presence will result in the organization or movement being encouraged to suppress any discussion of the jewish question and White members who cross this line will often get booted out of the movement. This results in the movement being rendered totally ineffective because discussion of the #1 enemy of all White Europeans is prohibited and there is no possible way for Whites to ever secure a future for their children if they cannot identify and attack their most deadly enemy.

    The sad fact that Whites around the world have repeatedly fallen for smooth talking B.S. artists like Gottfried and allowed their movements, organizations, and political parties to be infested with these fake and devious ‘friendly jews’ – is the primary reason why pro-White movements have continued to fail and never make any real headway in their battle for the survival of White European mankind. Every time White Nationalist oriented movements embrace jews and let them in, those movements fail. There is not one example that can cited to prove my statement to be wrong.

    Let’s check the score card, jews vs racially healthy White politicians:

    1. USA: Trump wins. Although not any sort of White European Nationalist himself, exuberant White nationalists worldwide hoped Trump’s win would set fire to the White racial survival movements worldwide. Within less than 3 months, Trump has flip flopped and reversed himself on so many of his campaign promises and surrounded himself with a huge swarm of liberal jews and is in the process of morphing into Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton all rolled into one. Some WN’s are now suspecting that Jared Kushner is the acting President.

    2. Austria: Hofer ‘loses’ a close race with Van Der Bellen, who was a jew stooge and who is committed to the jooz White genocide agenda.

    3. The Netherlands: Wilders loses by a huge margin to Rutte, who is a kwanservative jew stooge who is committed to the jew White genocide agenda.

    4. Germany: Merkel’s party recently won a German state election, although whether that is a sign that Merkel will cling to power in 2017 is still unclear; Merkel, of course, is fully on board with the jews White genocide agenda.

    5. Great Britain: BREXIT was approved by the indigenous White British voters, jew butt licking Cameron stepped down as a consequence, but was replaced by Theresa May, who is an even bigger jew butt licker (if that is possible) than Cameron was – and she recently made some comments that even after BREXIT is initiated, she may not go along with it’s prohibitions on massive and unrestricted third world invasions of Great Britain. May is fully on board with the jews White genocide agenda. Some voices in the WN movement now say they believe that BREXIT has a very high probably of being thwarted.

    6. Now we have France and, just as in the case of Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK – there is a pro-White European Nationalist candidate who is scaring the crap out of the jews and who poses a threat to their White genocide agenda.

    Score thus far: Whites 1(?) , jews 4. My best guess tells me that the jews are going to find some way to cheat Le Pen out of a win and install another one of their White genocide committed puppets in France. Actually, 3 months into the Trump Administration, considering his shocking 180 degree reversal on literally every major campaign promise and the fact that Kushner is apparently running the White House – the real score is Whites 0 and jews 5. Soon to be Whites 0 jews 6, and even if Le Pen were to somehow win – I’ll bet she will morph into an exact replica of Trump and flip flop 180 degrees on everything she said to get elected.

    7. Conclusion: Minus massive, ruthless, uncompromising violence of a 1776 revolutionary nature and the targeted removal of every last white genocide supporting scumbag – the White race will be exterminated and physically rendered extinct on this planet at the hands of the spawns of satan. Whites are NOT going to vote their way off the jews genocide agenda.

    I don’t like sounding so pessimistic, but the facts speak for themselves. Elections are not the answer, folks.

    • JRM's Gravatar JRM
      April 26, 2017 - 11:13 am | Permalink

      @Luke: excellent pragmatic analysis!

      I think when we see an intellect like Prof. MacDonald’s say “I agree” with a NAXALT argument, we have to liken it to an expert biologist agreeing that the difference between alligators and crocodiles are significant and worth documenting. Whereas, the non-specialist may be content with the knowledge that he should not swim in the water with either species.

      • Luke's Gravatar Luke
        April 27, 2017 - 3:13 am | Permalink

        Excellent point, JRM. I had not thought of it from that angle.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      April 26, 2017 - 1:19 pm | Permalink

      https://youtu.be/nKDs7TVKCRI
      The chess pieces appear to be already in place in Le Pen’s case.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      April 26, 2017 - 3:44 pm | Permalink

      With a comment like that you should run for president!

      I can’t vote for you as I stopped voting 49 years ago!

    • Henry's Gravatar Henry
      April 26, 2017 - 4:07 pm | Permalink

      Nothing to add. Brother Luke speaks for me.

    • April 27, 2017 - 11:22 am | Permalink

      Luke, excellent comment.
      Even the “very well integrated” foreigners can do very much harm to their host-folk. And even in the case that they do not intend to do harm to their host-folk. I tell you a part of German history to illustrate this fact.

      Berlin, around the year 1900. The German Jew James Simon was one of the richest men in Berlin. He often visited Kaiser Wilhelm II ad they spoke about things. He did give much money to German museums. And he financed privately the expdition of Ludwig Borchard, who had sucess and found the “Nofretete” (Nefertiti), now on Berlin, see picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti_Bust#/media/File:Nofretete_Neues_Museum.jpg
      Even after WWI he stayed in contact with Wilhelm II, than ex-Kaiser in the exile in the Netherlands. Also he founded many helping organisatons in Germany, bathes, houses for ill people and more. All these things were positive for Germany and the world.

      And besides being German and doing good things for Germany, he also was a Jew and he did good things for Eastern European Jews. He was president of the “Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden”
      and with an immensely large international network he organised the shift of several hundred thousand East European Jews to the USA. The Hilfsverein organised everything, from the transport from Russia to Hamburg, later the transport to the USA. Also clothing, medical support, everything. It was only by this efficiently working organisation that such large masses of people could come in very short time into the USA. James Simon was a leading part of that organisation.

      Now look at the follow-effects: Like a lever, these large number of people multiplied the Jewish influence in the USA, than there came from this changes in the politics of the USA, leading to the USA entering world wars one and two, financing the Bolshevic revolution. You can draw a line from James Simon helping his brethren to this catastrophic effects that arose as consequenses.

      This example shows how lines of things interact, how they have a show-side and a dark-side.

  12. Blaine's Gravatar Blaine
    April 26, 2017 - 9:53 am | Permalink

    And let us not let our fellow Europeans forget that white genocide is liberal genocide.

  13. April 26, 2017 - 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Luke really ought to pay more attention. Off the cuff three “good Jews” – and probably far better men than Luke:

    * Daniel Horowitz (author of Stolen Sovereignty)
    * John Sack. (author of An Eye for an Eye)
    * Edwin Rubenstein (frequent contributor to VDare.com)
    * Alfred Lilienthal (author of The Zionist Connection, etc.)

    … That was four Jews you moron!

    I threw in an extra Jew in case one of them turns out to be a Gentile who converted to Judaism, LOL.

    • helvena's Gravatar helvena
      April 28, 2017 - 4:06 am | Permalink

      @ Mark. In ANY parade you will find a jew elbowing his way, by one means or another, to the front.

  14. Sheila's Gravatar Sheila
    April 26, 2017 - 8:57 pm | Permalink

    *…generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior …*
    (Wait…I never recall you doing that…)

    • ariadnatheo's Gravatar ariadnatheo
      April 27, 2017 - 4:43 am | Permalink

      What is illogical about generalizing on Jewish behavior based on general traits of Jewish behavior? Eastern European Jews may not have the table manners of their Western European brothers. They tend to be well, uncouth, and given to overt manifestations of iconoclasm against white Christian culture. In fact it sometimes takes them one or two generations before they wish to join (or found their own) exclusive gold clubs. But the core of their mentality is the same: Jewish supremacism and the push to infiltrate, subvert and ultimately replace white Christians in positions of leadership in politics, media and culture.

  15. JM's Gravatar JM
    April 27, 2017 - 2:01 am | Permalink

    I was led to believe that the problem was – genetic – and couldn’t be contracted by conversion!

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      April 30, 2017 - 4:25 pm | Permalink

      @ JM

      From sexy shiksa to faithful froy. Mr & Mrs Kushner reportedly attend a Chabad shul and celebrated Pesach together inside the White House. Luther spoke of the Babylonian captivity of the Pope. Are we now seeing the Zio-con captivity of Mr President?

  16. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    April 27, 2017 - 7:30 am | Permalink

    Possibly I’m reading an unintended innuendo into Dr. Macdonald’s final sentence, “The German Jewish elite did indeed have an influence…” Considering their power and wealth yet small numbers, and their full support for the mass migration of their less sophisticated yet aggressive eastern european tribal brethren, it could be interpreted as having set up base and a trusted position in enemy territory they sent for their foot soldiers.

  17. Aitch.'s Gravatar Aitch.
    April 27, 2017 - 7:52 am | Permalink

    Disappointing responses to the question I asked yesterday. I was hoping for some thoughts on whether Makow and Menuhin can be taken seriously.

    • April 29, 2017 - 3:05 pm | Permalink

      The SPLC is starting an absurd legal campaign. You’ll know Makow and Menuhin are serious when they speak out and act against the SPLC.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        April 30, 2017 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

        Henry Makow on Twitter, August 26, 2015: “The SPLC is not a ‘hate group watch dog’. It is a hate group, representing Illuminati Jews & Masons who hate Americans.”

        The SPLC is indeed a hate(ful) group, but I do not endorse all the wild conspiracy notions that Makow asserts.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      April 29, 2017 - 3:22 pm | Permalink

      @ Aitch
      May one invite informed views also on Gilad Atzmon and “Brother Nathanael”?

  18. Thomas Montgomery's Gravatar Thomas Montgomery
    April 27, 2017 - 9:06 am | Permalink

    New genetic data has come out in 2013 that is very significant and basically supports Gottfried’s position. Ashkenazi Jews really are a genetically distinct tribe separate from gentiles and other Jewish tribes.
    Here are Razib’s cogent comments. You can download the 2013 Xue et. al. paper.
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-origins-of-ashkenazi-jews-near-resolution/

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      April 30, 2017 - 4:08 pm | Permalink

      The considerable amount of DNA data on Jewish populations now available more or less confirms the phenotype analysis of Ashkenazim and Sephardim by Dr John R. Baker, “Race” (Oxford 1974), ch.14, “The Jews”, pp.232-247.

      • helvena's Gravatar helvena
        May 1, 2017 - 6:06 am | Permalink

        Pg. 246 RACE by John R. Baker:
        the jews
        “The reader who has studied the evidence presented in this chapter will agree
        that the meanings of the word ‘Jews’ cannot be satisfactorily summarized: the
        subject is too complicated. Nevertheless, certain conclusions do stand out.
        Various communities scattered over the world are Jews simply in the sense that
        tbey adhere to a particular religion (in various forms); they are not definable on
        an ethnic basis. These communities, however, comprise only a very small
        proportion of those who call themselves and are regarded by others as Jews.
        The great majority are persons of Ashkenazic stock. Many of these do not
        practise the rites of the Jewish religion. Whether they do or do not, they show
        in their physical characters a genetic relationship to the Armenians, and they
        must be associated with the Armenid subrace, even though there has been an
        Orientalid element in their remote ancestry. They are thus related to the
        Assyrians and Hittites of antiquity, as well as to the modem Armenians. They
        do not constitute, and never have constituted, a subrace of their own, because
        there are and always have been persons who do not call themselves Jews and
        are not regarded by others as Jews, but who belong to the Armenid subrace. ”

        Armenid subrace, not jewish subrace. So all-in-all they are just a social club.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          May 1, 2017 - 3:14 pm | Permalink

          Baker needs to be read in full. He develops the taxonomy started by the NS anthropologist Hans F. K. Guenther, who also pointed out that the Jews do not constitute a single “systemic race”; he called the Armenids “Hither Asiatics” and the Orientalids “Orientals”. This was endorsed by other NS scientists such as Fritz Lenz, Eugen Fischer, Otmar von Verschuer &c.

          The different clusters of Jews, of course, have to varying degrees connected together genetically over many centuries. They are not “just” a “social club” of otherwise random individuals. See e.g. Carleton Coon, “The Races of Europe” (1939/2011); Harry Ostrer, “Legacy: A genetic history of the Jewish people” (2012); Richard Lynn, “The Chosen People” (2011).

        • helvena's Gravatar helvena
          May 2, 2017 - 5:37 am | Permalink

          @ Ashton. Ok, thanks for the information. What do you believe Hitler thought about the jews?

  19. rosa's Gravatar rosa
    April 28, 2017 - 2:29 am | Permalink

    I have met Italian Jews (who are genetically and historically different from Ashkenazi and Sephardim), Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews. Initially they all seem different, but after a while, and above all if they believe you’re impinging their way, they are totally the same. Some seem clever, more educated and refined, others more ruthless and uncouth, but in their real feelings , beliefs and thoughts about us, they are really indistinguishable.
    P. Gottfried in that article, as G. Israel (an Italian intellectual Jew passed away some time ago) are simply a disillusion for us and a delusion for themselves.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      April 28, 2017 - 3:17 pm | Permalink

      @ Rosa

      “Impinging” is a factor. They quarrel among themselves to an exceptional degree, politically and religiously, but unite when they perceive a general threat. The situation is more difficult after WW2 on account of the generalized “criminalisation” of all Jews, whatever their variations or personal conduct, by the Nazis, and the manipulations of the Zionists after Israel was forced into the Muslim “House of ‘Peace'”.

      The paradox of continual conflict was neatly expressed by the late UK Rabbi Hugo Gryn who once wrote that they never feel secure unless they are supreme.

      I am not suggesting a do-nothing response, let alone a capitulation to undesirable activities, but instead rational, astute, accurately informed counter-strategies from the moral high ground.

      Paranoid delusions, pathological hatred and unsubtle threats of violence are not only useless but play right into the hands of propagandists, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, who are neither stupid nor powerless, but hyper-vigilant and unscrupulous.

      • helvena's Gravatar helvena
        April 29, 2017 - 7:16 am | Permalink

        @Ashton. “criminalisation” good to have quote marks around that, because criminalization is what the jews would have us believe. But
        did the NSDAP criminalize all jews, really? With 150,000 self-identified jews in the German army, some as high ranking officers. And what about the Rykestrasse Synagogue in Berlin? Why negotiate with criminals? There were 3,000 jews living, working, receiving food rations cards, and a working jewish hospital in Berlin 1945. Hitler no more hated the jews than we hated the Japanese. In fact it could be reasonable argued that the jews were treated better under the NSDAP than the Japanese were treated under our democracy. At least the NSDAP paid for the property the took. Japanese-American land was simply confiscated. I think we need to drill out this tooth about exactly how badly the jews had it under the NSDAP. We too easily accept the notion that it was horrible when in fact it may have been just uncomfortable.
        http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2013/01/can-somebody-please-help-me-i-seem-to.html

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          April 29, 2017 - 2:43 pm | Permalink

          @ helvena

          I dismiss exaggerations and fabrications, and refer only to the authentic statements from Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and other Nazi leaders, spokesmen and propagandists; plus legislation and policies enacted on the record accepted as factual by common consent including revisionist scholars.

          Detailed discussion of arguments about the wartime homicidal use of gas is neither feasible nor desirable here – what is relevant is the post-WW2 exploitation of “The Holocaust” as a means of undermining western nations while at the same time protecting Israel.

        • helvena's Gravatar helvena
          April 30, 2017 - 7:41 am | Permalink

          @Ashton. No, the problem is much more than exploitation of a debated event. The entire *event* needs to be contextualized and when that happens the *event* is normalized. The NSDAP didn’t *holocaust* the jews anymore than the Spanish or the Romans did.

          Kenneth said…

          I always remember a comment left by wintermute at Majorityrights several years ago:

          [Those] who believe that we are in a forced choice between “(1) setting the record straight on Hitler; or (2) saving the West” have it completely ass-backwards. Without a massive and ongoing revision of the rather clumsy Holocaust narrative that emerged in the mid-seventies (but not, it will be noted, in the memoirs of those who orchestrated the war, like Churchill), there will be not any WN movement, or saving of the White race. The ball and chain around every White person’s ankle is marked “Hitler”, and when the true story of those years is widely disseminated, things will begin to change, but not before. Any movement towards gentile group association is associated, in the Pavlovian way, with WWII imagery, and until that imagery is properly contextualized, there simply is no way forward.

          Irmin Vinson expresses similar sentiments in his fine article “Some Thoughts On Hitler”

          http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/some-thoughts-on-hitler/

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          May 3, 2017 - 2:25 pm | Permalink

          Helvena asks me what Hitler thought about the Jews. A reasonable place to start is “Mein Kampf” and many books quote his subsequent authentic statements. As for “hatred”, it is worth reflecting on the Nazi propaganda movie “Der Ewige Jude” (available on-line) and its contemporary German descriptions. I do have my own thoughts about his inner motivations and philosophy, too long to develop here. I agree with a great deal, though not everything, in “Some Thoughts on Hitler & Other Essays” (2012) which forms a small part of the most complex mosaic.

  20. Dave Libori's Gravatar Dave Libori
    April 28, 2017 - 9:41 am | Permalink

    Any religious/ethnic group that has as a moral underpinning the belief that only they are true humans, has a huge advantage over all other competing groups. Since all moral inhibitions that make a society work can be safely shunned, when dealing with the outgroup, gives this group a huge advantage. It is akin to a game in which certain players don’t have to follow the rules, while everybody else does. However, this concept works only as long as those who don’t follow the generally accepted rules are only a small minority and their success remains mainly unnoticed, hence the desire of the Jewish community to control the public discourse and the suppression of any facts that might awaken the general public. In this setting a state like Israel is doomed, since there are not enough goyim cattle to farm, however, by creating a “global” community, the Jewish community can still continue to put itself outside the general norms and retain “little” Israel as an entity that does not have to follow the rules (because they are special) everybody else has to adhere to. It is the same concept, only expanded to a national level.

  21. HK Wills's Gravatar HK Wills
    April 29, 2017 - 12:36 pm | Permalink

    I must differ with Dr. McDonald this once. When he made his appearance on V-dare, a site heretofore unfamiliar with the Jewish role in America’s immigration disaster, I thought it would not be long before a dishonest and self-serving Jewish response would appear. They could not allow this inroad to be made and their culpability exposed. And sure enough it did: Goffried asserts that Jews, generis, are not a unitary biological threat, but rather only some ideologically motivated Jews are a threat. Nice try Schlomo. This goes against centuries of testimonials about the Jews, and most importantly an evolutionary analysis of their long run collective behavior, which analysis is the most illuminating and coherent.

  22. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    April 30, 2017 - 8:15 am | Permalink

    “Rerevisionist” repeats on this site his libel that I am a “Jew puppet”. This is such complete nonsense that it tells us something more about a man who believes that nuclear weapons are a “Jew myth” &c.

    My views are my own, open to revision if refuted with facts or reason, based on extensive study over many years; and expressed without fear of or favor to anyone. I speak as I find, and do not “include personal insults” in my own comments. I welcome debate and regard mere defamation as the response of those who cannot answer effective criticism.

    It is true that I do not regard all Jews as evil or all evils as Jewish. But I have no Jewish ancestry, affiliation or associates. I am an Englishman originally christened in an Essex church, though no longer religious, and helped, for example, to found the anti-immigration Majority Rights organization before leaving London for East Anglia. And I do not hide behind a pseudonym.

  23. WhiteAbyss's Gravatar WhiteAbyss
    May 5, 2017 - 6:39 am | Permalink

    Great article. However your missing the point. Your not going to resonate with uneducated, average Whites if you talk about Jews. You have to show Whites why our culture is worth preserving, and how immigrants do have a different attitude that is not compatible with White society. If you could do a scientific study with accurate statistics on pet theft, from time before and after mass immigration, you would find pet theft has gone through a massive increase since large numbers of Asians and Latin Americans have been allowed in. It is not uncommon now for whole streets to wake up with the family dog missing. This is always put down to ‘illegal dogfights’ but the media never acknowledges who is perpetuating these crimes. It’s the Asians who do it to consume the dog meat, just as it is documented they steal dogs in Asia for consumption, they are doing it here. It’s the Latinos stealing them for fighting. If you could resonate with the animal welfare set, you could have a realistic chance at making Whites see the world differently. http://www.rense.com/general61/imm.htm

Comments are closed.