The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary, Part One of Three: The Enlightenment and Jewish ‘Emancipation’

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


I was recently contacted by the social media group ‘Smash Cultural Marxism,’ who asked me for a list of recommended readings on the Jewish Question. Because this was the latest in a number of similar requests, I thought it best to make a public offering in this regard, since the finished product is likely to be more polished, more complete, and ultimately more useful than I could otherwise offer in an individual email. The following ‘prose bibliography’ takes it for granted that readers are very familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald, as well as popular contemporary texts by David Duke and E. Michael Jones. Nevertheless, at the outset I’d like to state that the Culture of Critique series represents a unique and significant leap forward in our understanding of Jewish group behavior, and also in the way we write about and explore this phenomenon. I should stress also that I refer to the entire series, rather than just the extremely popular third book of MacDonald’s trilogy. Taken together, these works offer an unparalleled and truly comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of Jewish group behavior, and its impact on surrounding societies. I would urge readers to read Separation and Its Discontents in particular. This text, the second of the trilogy and my personal favorite, tends to be under-appreciated because of its blockbuster follow-up, but it really is essential reading for developing an understanding of reactions to Jewish behavior — and the context and methods of Jewish counter-reactions. As much as the following bibliography will be of use to many readers, there is currently no better starting point for this subject matter than that offered by Kevin MacDonald.

Of course, the sum of Kevin MacDonald’s work stands in the immediate foreground of a long, though often under-appreciated, historical tradition of intellectual attempts to understand Jewish interactions with European societies. This bibliography is an attempt to shed light on the context, content, and significance of some works that may not be immediately recognizable to the majority of readers. It is not intended to be exhaustive, and inevitably there will be readers who feel that this or that text should have been included. Again, the following bibliography is a creation peculiar to its author, and it bears the imprint of the author’s own tastes, preferences, and range of reading. Selection has also been necessary due to the constraints of space and the sheer volume of available literature. Non-Jews have been discussing Jews and Jewish behaviour for millennia – in letters, pamphlets, speeches, policy documents, art, and books. Recent years have seen the further development of podcasts, documentaries and, dare I say it, memes. I have chosen here to discuss only books and important pamphlets, and I have limited my selection to those produced during and after the Enlightenment period. Earlier texts have been omitted for a number of reasons, the most important being that they often contained more Christian theology than empirical analysis. Although many often also contained trenchant sociological observations, the vast majority of these texts were ultimately influenced by supernatural understandings which, in my own opinion, often obstructed meaningful solutions to very problematic interactions.

A good example in this regard is Martin Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). Like many pre-Enlightenment Christian critics of Jews, Luther began as an ardent philo-Semite. This had less to do with real interactions with Jews than it had to do with a kind of religious opportunism. The authorities of a new religion or sect, or the religious who find themselves amidst a sea of disbelief, are liable to seek converts wherever they may be found. Luther’s early pro-Jewish writings and sermons were based on a desire to convert Jews to his Protestant faith, and a very naive belief that this conversion would be forthcoming. In Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) Luther wrote “We ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. … We are but Gentiles , while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord.” The inevitable spurning of Luther’s proselytising resulted in an overly-emotional reaction in the form of On the Jews and Their Lies and a large number of bitter sermons, in which Luther overlaid socio-economic grievances that he had previously ignored. While there is much to critique in Luther’s work, perhaps his most egregious error was his interpretation of the status of Jews. Like many other Christian writings on the Jews, Luther appealed to the notion that Jews were a ‘Judas people’ cursed by God for their role as the ‘persecutors and enemies of Christ.’ Indeed, Luther wrote that Jews are “Judas’ kin, who see nothing but God’s anger in their misery. They remain in distress eternally; they descend into the abyss of hell.”

This Christian theological narrative of lowly, downtrodden, punished Jews would later be strategically adopted by Jews themselves as a badge of innocence and victimhood, but even in Luther’s lifetime it bore little relation to reality. While the notion of a punished Jewry may have comforted 16th century Christians in a theological sense, it remained a fact that, aside from periodic expulsions, Jews were becoming increasingly entrenched in European societies. If anything, Luther’s invective led to a false sense of security among Europeans — a misplaced conviction that such a ‘cursed’ people would never be permitted by God to acquire power, wealth and influence over Christ’s own people. For example, at roughly the same time Luther had been positing a people condemned to earthly subjection, Jews were busy establishing their Amsterdam community — soon to become one of the most influential centers of Jewish trade in Western Europe. In Eastern Europe the Jewish population was about to double. In the Ottoman Empire, their influence was at its peak. For all his bluster then, Luther’s challenge to the Jews was ineffective in his own lifetime, and even proved counter-productive by later centuries. Thus, and speaking more generally, while explicitly Christian critiques of Judaism are worthy of attention and study, there are some fundamental interpretive problems with theologically-influenced works like that of Luther, which in turn render them more problematic than later works of the post-Enlightenment era which placed greater emphasis on rationalism and empiricism.

One of the first significant works of rational critique against Judaism came in the form of an essay by Voltaire (1694–1778) titled simply ‘Jews.’ Like Luther, though in a different sense, Voltaire seeks to deal with the Jewish Question from the starting position of religion. In particular, Voltaire’s primary frames of reference for his critique of Jewish culture and behavior are rooted in his understanding of the nature and history of Judaism. In this work, which first appeared in the author’s Oeuvres Complètes in 1756 (vol. 7, ch. 1), Voltaire stated that “the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world has ever seen.” From a political point of view, Jews were described as “contemptible,” while the Hebrews of the Bible “have ever been vagrants or robbers, or slaves, or seditious.” The original hatred of the goyim is said to be rooted in the ancient extermination of the tribes of Canaan by the Hebrews, a genocidal event that spawned a vicious cycle of mutual resentment between Jews and the peoples of the world. Jews, according to Voltaire, are a people without philosophy, and that “was not famed for any art.” In terms of mathematics and astronomy, “the people of Peru and Mexico measured their year much better than the Jews.” Their sojourns in Babylon and Alexandria led to the development of skill in “no art save that of usury.” Voltaire’s critique was very original for its time, and it retains a powerful and aggressive aura even today. For that reason alone it should be considered required reading.

However, in my own opinion, a more broad and well-reasoned response to the Jewish Question from this period can be found in Johann David Michaelis’s Arguments Against Dohm (1782). The ‘Dohm’ in question was Christian Wilhelm von Dohm, a German scholar in constitutional law, statistics, and history who moved in the Enlightenment circles of Berlin and had forged a friendship with the diminutive hunch-backed Jewish intellectual Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786). With the decline of the power of individual monarchs and the rise of the centralized state, Mendelssohn was very active in popularizing the removal of ‘civil disabilities’ for Jews, and for the admission of Jews to full citizenship – useful acquisitions in a society slowly transitioning to bureaucratic and democratic government. Mendelssohn was also very keenly aware that there would be limits to the value of his own voice. In much the same way that Freud would employ the services of the non-Jew Carl Jung to carry his “message” to the Gentiles, historians agree that it was Mendelssohn who strategically pushed his associate Dohm into carrying the Jewish case to the Prussian public. In 1781 Dohm dutifully obliged, publishing Concerning the Amelioration of the Civil Status of the Jews, which did little more than parrot many of Mendelssohn’s arguments with the prefix “my fellow Germans.”

The effort provoked a strong response from Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791), a German Bible scholar and professor of Oriental languages at the University of Goettingen; his expertise in Hebrew and Semitic languages was almost without parallel in Europe during his lifetime. Michaelis’s response to Dohm was in many respects ahead of its time. Leaving aside theological arguments, Michaelis argued against the granting of civic equality to Jews by appealing to crime statistics, sociological observations and evaluations, and to political and economic considerations. He wrote that “We can see principally from reports of investigations of thieves that the Jews are more harmful than at least we Germans are. Almost half of those belonging to gangs of thieves, at least those whose existence is known to us, are Jews, while the Jews are scarcely 1/25th of the total population of Germany.” Michaelis also hinted at aspects of what we now understand as a group evolutionary strategy. To Michaelis, Judaism instilled a national pride designed to prevent Jews from “mingling with other peoples.” The Mosaic Laws would ensure that Jews “will never become fully integrated in the way that Catholics, Lutherans, Germans, Wends, and French live together in one state.” A Jew could “never be a full citizen with respect to love for and pride in his country, and he will never be fully reliable in an hour of danger.” The Jew’s “messianic expectation of a return to Palestine” would ensure that “the Jews will always see the state as a temporary home.” This doubtful loyalty to the state was further evidenced by the fact “Jews will not contribute soldiers to the state.”

A similar line of argument, that Jews comprised a state within a state, was promoted by the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) in his 1793 work On the French Revolution. One of Fichte’s chief observations was that Jews possessed a significantly higher degree of ethnocentrism than their host populations: “It is a people whose most humble member elevates his ancestors higher than we exalt our entire history.” Perhaps even more important was the existence of a separate code of ethics among the Jews, in which the group was solidified and positioned against non-Jews: “It separates itself from all others in its duties and rights, from here until eternity.” Fichte complained about “sugar-sweet words about toleration and human rights and civic rights,” which act only to facilitate the removal or downgrading of the rights of natives. Regarding the question of extending explicit forms of civic and political power to Jews, Fichte worried that the extraordinarily high level of ethnocentrism within the dispersed Jewish nation might make it a more powerful ‘state’ than any of its more formal and concentrated European counterparts. He asked: “Does this not recall to you the notion of a state within a state? Does the obvious idea not occur to you, that the Jews alone are citizens of a state which is more secure and powerful than any of yours?”

The Jewish push for political advancement in Western Europe provoked other insightful assessments. In France, while the Revolution was still ongoing, there was a robust and lengthy debate on whether Jews should be considered full citizens on a par with Frenchmen in the new state. There was even significant debate with the Assembly as to whether Jews were included within the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. On December 23, 1789 a debate was once more held in the Assembly on the subject. The proceedings witnessed statements from both pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish speakers, but the most notable speech of the day came from Anne-Lois Henry de la Fare, bishop of Nancy, Lorraine, and opponent of the Jewish case. His speech was reprinted as an influential pamphlet: l’Opinion de Monsieur l’Evêque de Nancy, député de Lorraine, sur l’ admissibilité des juifs à la plénitude de l’état civil et des droits des citoyens actifs (1790). As well as echoing some of the arguments made elsewhere by figures like Michaelis, de la Fare explained that Jews and Frenchman had opposing interests, often resulting in violence because of the Jewish tendency towards monopoly, nepotism, the communal accumulation and hoarding of wealth, and extremely high levels of ethnocentrism. In Alsace and Lorraine the Jews lived almost exclusively from the proceeds of trade and money-lending. According to de la Fare: “The people detest them; in Alsace the Jews are often the victims of popular uprisings. In Nancy, four months ago, people wanted to pillage their homes. I went to the site of the agitation and I asked what complaint they had to make. Some claimed that the Jews had cornered the wheat market; others, that the Jews banded together too much, that they bought the most beautiful houses and that soon they would own the whole city.”

The Assembly proved incapable of coming to a definite decision on the Jewish position in the new state, and the matter was left to fester, resulting in the de facto granting of full political equality to Jews. However, the matter would arise again in 1806. Count Louis Mathieu Molé (1781–1855), Napoleon’s informal advisor on Jewish affairs, resurrected the discussion as part of a personal effort to rescind Jewish ‘emancipation.’ Responses to the Jewish Question often reflect some aspect of the background of those responding. For example, Luther’s fiery rhetoric was a reflection of his preacher’s penchant for the bellicose sermon, while the academic Michaelis responded to the Jewish Question with statistics and finely tuned evidence-based argument. To Molé, a diplomat, the Jewish Question was merely a facet of politics, to be negotiated via conferences and the formulation of policy. He persuaded Napoleon to convene a ‘Grand Sanhedrin’ — a kind of ‘Elders of Zion’ meeting — where Jewish leaders from across France would be compelled to attend and answer questions about the nature of Judaism and Jewish culture as it related to interactions with Frenchmen. Each of these Jewish notables was issued with Molé’s Instructions to the Assembly of Jewish Notables (1806), a summons to attend the Sanhedrin and a list of questions they were expected to answer. The message to the Jews was abrupt: “Called together from the extremities of this vast empire, no one among you is ignorant of the object for which His Majesty has convened this assembly. You know it. The conduct of many among those of your persuasion has excited complaints, which have found their way to the throne: these complaints were founded on truth; and nevertheless, His Majesty has been satisfied with stopping the progress of the evil.” Molé put to the Jewish leaders a number of questions concerning, among other things, intermarriage, loyalty to the state, Jewish attitudes to the laws of the state, and the practice of usury. Molé stated “You will hear the questions submitted to you, your duty is to answer the whole truth on every one of them.”

But, of course, the answers were far from truthful, even if they were masterfully crafted works of Talmudic argumentation. After engaging in prolonged huddled deliberation, the Sanhedrin delivered its responses, coated in saccharine obsequiousness, via its president Abraham Furtado. They were a tangle of lies. On intermarriage the Sanhedrin responded, with a sudden fondness for literalism, that the Law of Moses “does not state that the Jews can only marry among themselves,” but merely excluded marriage with the seven Biblical Canaanite nations. On the question of how Jews saw Frenchmen, the rabbis responded: “In the eyes of Jews Frenchmen are their brethren, and are not strangers.” On usury, the rabbis claimed that their religion forbade the lending of money at interest “to our fellow-citizens of different persuasions, as well as to our fellow Jews.” A total fabrication. Miraculously, however, the response of the rabbis, and perhaps some deeper influence yet to be discovered, was sufficient to extinguish the efforts of Molé at this stage. Jewish influence in France under Napoleon was able to grow largely unchecked, and not until the Dreyfus Affair of the late nineteenth century would political discussion of the position of Jews in France again reach such a height.

The defeat of Napoleon did contribute to a renewed focus on the Jewish Question elsewhere in Europe. The Congress of Vienna (September 1814 to June 1815) convened European leaders to discuss the political structure of Europe following the defeat of Napoleon, but it also led to the formation of the German Confederation. The formation of the Confederation was important in relation to the Jewish Question because Prussia had, in 1812, ‘emancipated’ its Jews, allowing them to be “considered as natives,” thanks to the networking of wealthy and influential Jews close to Emperor Frederick William III. At the Congress of Vienna, it was suggested by Prussia that their 1812 decree concerning the Jews be applied to the remaining thirty-five states in the Confederation — prompting widespread discussion in the German lands about the desirability of such a prospect. The matter dragged on long after the conclusion of the Congress of Vienna, and in 1831 it provoked ‘The Paulus-Riesser Debate.’ Heinrich Paulus was the non-Jewish professor of Oriental languages and theology at the University of Heidelberg, and a staunch opponent of Jewish emancipation. Gabriel Riesser was a bitter Jewish journalist who had been banned from holding a university position in Hamburg, and thereafter devoted himself to overcoming barriers to Jewish advancement in the German lands.

The ‘debate’ between the two figures lasted around two years and took the form of published essays in which the position of the opponent would be presented and then argued against. These debates are required reading not only because they offer insight into a crucial period in the evolution of the Jewish Question as a political problem, but also in the sense that they provide a glimpse into the development of the now-familiar Jewish reliance upon abstract values in order to mask group self-interest. The opening salvo from Paulus was The Jewish National Distinctiveness, while the strongest statement of Riesser’s position can be found in Defense of the Civic Equality of the Jews against the Proposals of Herr Dr. H.C.G. Paulus. The arguments of Paulus against Jewish emancipation can be summarized as an objection on the grounds that Jews consider themselves to be a separate, ‘chosen’ and superior race with no sympathy for the ‘idea’ of the nation or its citizens. Since the state (a political entity) was a form of apparatus designed to advance the interests of the nation (a biological entity), permitting the entry of an alien people into the machinery of the state (admission to the franchise, the bureaucracy, and the levers of power) would ultimately prove detrimental to those the state was originally intended to serve. In an attempt to counter this quite powerful and resonant argument, Riesser employed a set of tactics developed and finely tuned decades earlier by Moses Mendelssohn and his associates: the appeal to universalism and a primitive kind of multiculturalism. Riesser denied that Jews were anything other than a religious grouping and asserted that they in no way constituted a nation. As a mere religious denomination, Jews deserved to be admitted into a kind of multicultural Germany along with other religious denominations like Protestants and Catholics. He argued that the new German state should be founded not on the principle of serving the biological nation, but on abstract values like ‘justice, liberty, and equality.’ In a tactical manoeuvre that will be familiar to all of us, Riesser felt that the only argument necessary to counter the position of Paulus was that Paulus was a religious bigot, opposed to the advancement of ‘human values, tolerance, and a love of mankind.”

Go to Part 2

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

51 Comments to "The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary, Part One of Three: The Enlightenment and Jewish ‘Emancipation’"

  1. May 10, 2017 - 9:22 am | Permalink

    Thank you for Part One, Dr. Joyce. I look forward to Parts Two and Three. I shall first commence reading Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy. I wait with bated breath to see if Michael Hoffman’s work “made the cut” in your bibliography, in particular, “Judaism Discovered”. You did mention E. Michael Jones, a contemporary and complement to Mr. Hoffman. Kudos and congratulations for this undertaking!

  2. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    May 10, 2017 - 9:54 am | Permalink

    Do you believe jews have disproportionate proportion of psychopaths as well other mentally dangerous people OR is the average jewy that is already ”psychopathic-ish”**

    • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
      May 10, 2017 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

      I asked you Joyce. What do you think?

    • Alicia's Gravatar Alicia
      May 11, 2017 - 6:56 am | Permalink

      @Santoculto, ju have asked a very important question. Judging from their lack of compassion for animals that manifests itself in kosher slaughter, I’m inclined to believe that the genius tribe is endowed with a- at least per capita- larger number of psychopats than white people.

      • May 11, 2017 - 9:25 am | Permalink

        This is a non-argument. In the first place ritual slaughter is a religious issue, and the Jews who cause all the trouble in Western society are not the least religious, most of the elite and all leftists hate religion even though they exploit it. In the second place, is it really more humane to shoot a bolt into an animal’s brain than to cut its throat? In the third place, the RSPCA was founded by a Jew.

        • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
          May 11, 2017 - 3:17 pm | Permalink

          Are you sure about it?? Are you sure secular and religious Jews are not unite against goym?? And the Talmud “learning’s”??

          The differences between religion and ideology are tiny.

          Yes no have a “humane” way to kill other life SPECIALLY when this life is not malignant. But yes we can select psychopathic-like “animals” (literally “no souls”) to keep a proteined diet instead believe all chickens or all cows are the same, have the same psychological inborn features.

      • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
        May 11, 2017 - 2:14 pm | Permalink

        I also believe that many of them are “non (explicitly) violent” psychopaths because many classical psychopath/ human predators would be disastrous for them to keep them behind the shadows. But I also try to understand if the avg jewy /Jew Joey (~ 50% of every population) is already a psychopath-leaning. Sometimes I think they are like white illibs with a psychopathic elite and a prevalence of functioning psychotic/ and morally ambiguous, in other words, nothing good here. But based on general attitudes of them, more visible in USA, pushing anti white and globalitarian agenda but still support Israel… Tell me that otherwise the avg stupid white illib they are very clever. Most them know what’s going on, approve and don’t care about white people or any other people.

        • Marc's Gravatar Marc
          May 12, 2017 - 9:42 pm | Permalink

          Right next to Jews, I would also place MUSLIMS as being about equally(if not even more!)psychopathic!… The level of unspeakable cruelty towards both Humans(especially the female ones!) and Animals through the entire Muslim World is simply STAGGERING!!… Muslims deliberately practice a type of dysgenic inbreeding since more than 14 centuries, making of most of them blood-thirsty psychopaths, with an inborn lust for violence and murder.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      May 11, 2017 - 10:23 am | Permalink

      SC- I’ve read the question 5/6 times and am Not Sure [the guy in Idiocracy] what you are driving at.

      You seem to be asking- is the jew problem- a fraction are very psychopathic, with other jews being “normal”?? Or is some degree of psychopathy widespread amongst jewry??

      youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q

      • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
        May 11, 2017 - 2:17 pm | Permalink

        That’s my question and because they are genetically close I doubt we will no have a common psychological factors among them.

  3. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    May 10, 2017 - 10:25 am | Permalink

    “…Molé put to the Jewish leaders a number of questions concerning, among other things, intermarriage, loyalty to the state, Jewish attitudes to the laws of the state, and the practice of usury. Molé stated “You will hear the questions submitted to you, your duty is to answer the whole truth on every one of them…”

    What stupid naivety ! You have doubts about a notoriously dishonest group and then you ask them if they really are dishonest. What kind of answer do you expect ?

    • Ian's Gravatar Ian
      May 10, 2017 - 1:30 pm | Permalink

      Spot on, as usual, Mr. Ryckaert. Thank you again for inserting clarity and real meaning.

    • Alicia's Gravatar Alicia
      May 11, 2017 - 6:36 am | Permalink

      You have, as always, hit the nail right on the head, Mr Franklin Ryckaert. Our naivety is exactly what has made us the true victims in the hands of the eternal sufferers!

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 11, 2017 - 11:54 pm | Permalink

      No offense meant, Mr. Ryckaert, but perhaps Molé was being neither stupid nor naive. (You may, of course, know much more about Molé than I do, as Dr. Joyce assuredly does. His is a name from that era previously unknown to me.) I say this because the form of the tribunal he set up sounds to be identical to the form Jews had used since Old Testament times.

      In such tribunals, there was no equivalent of our Fifth Amendment; i.e., no provision allowing the accused or a witness to refuse to answer lest he incriminate himself. Rather, obtaining self-incrimination was seen as part of the process. If the accused, while denying the veracity of the charges brought against him (as many or perhaps most doubtless did), was nevertheless adjudged guilty, the penalty for perjury was then added to whatever other sentence he received. In practice, this provision of Jewish legal jurisprudence really created the template of inflationary “justice” familiar to any competent observer of Soviet or US (especially federal) criminal and even civil proceedings. In light of the richly merited comeuppance accorded James Comey this week, one need only think of what that smug bastard did to Martha Stewart only a dozen or so years ago to get a good sense of Judaism’s jurisprudential legacy!

      [An obiter dictum. There is another example, one with more universal significance than any other. Anyone who has read the four Gospels’ accounts of the Passion will recognize typical Jewish kangaroo-court justice in the Sanhedrin’s trial of Jesus presided over by the high priest, Caiaphas, who also acted as lead prosecutor. When paid professional perjurers played the game at only a semi-pro level, in stepped Caiaphas, who unilaterally declared the testimony of Truth Incarnate to be self-evident blasphemy and called for a directed verdict of conviction.]

      I can’t say that I know what Molé hoped to gain by using the Jews’ own adjudicative model, nor do I feel competent to hazard a guess. (I’d like to think Molé’s goal was to rub the Jews’ noses in their own hypocrisy, but who knows? he may simply have been trying to put them at ease.) But unless Dr. Joyce is mistaken—I’m not suggesting he is—Molé sure seems to have been flummoxed by the influence the plainly guilty Jews were able to bring to bear. As he was only twenty-five at the time, perhaps he ought to be cut some slack for the inadequacy of his worldliness.

  4. May 10, 2017 - 12:16 pm | Permalink

    How about you forget everything you’ve ever read about the Jewish Question and check out my work on victim narratives?

    https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/djetc/new-trend-intro.html

  5. May 10, 2017 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    As with Alan Donelson, I’m grateful too.

  6. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    May 10, 2017 - 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Question: Are White race realists who care about the survival of their race, their culture, their civilization, and who are worried about securing a future for their children and grandchildren EVER going to do anything in pursuit of solving those concerns BESIDES writing endless, long winded articles like this?
    ——-
    (Mod. Note: “Luke”, stop kvetching about my favorite TOO author and other readers who enjoy his writing. Go do something yourself, then report back and let us know if you’ve saved Western Civ., or whatever you think we all “should” be doing to save your derrier.)

    • Luke's Gravatar Luke
      May 11, 2017 - 6:13 am | Permalink

      If it matters, Joyce is my second favorite author – right behind my number one favorite, Edmond Connelly. But, if you reread my comment you’ll note that my concerns are not confined to my derrier; I specifically expressed my concerns for the future of White children and White grandchildren. Which includes your children and grandchildren, plus any that Mr. Joyce might have now or someday bring into this world.

      Am I the only pro-White guy who is staring at the fact that Whites have just been shut out and have lost 6 (soon to be 7 once Merkel steals another election) consecutive elections to the jewish White genocide team and, as a result, who is getting pretty frustrated with this string of defeats?

      Obviously, the White team needs a new game plan because the one we are currently working from is not working for us. If it was, wouldn’t we have a least a couple of wins?

      BTW: Comments that offer even tame hints about what Whites might do that would work are usually not approved by the moderator. Meanwhile, we see our enemies expressing themselves and their intentions towards our race with impunity:

      —–
      (Mod. Note: “Luke”, the first sentence in your “BTW” paragraph above is not true. There are very, very few suggestions in comments which make concrete proposals. Many hypotheticals, for sure, and they are almost always approved. Very few comments aren’t approved here, and those which are not approved are those which severely depart from the “tone” that the site owner wants. TOO is a place for intellectual discussion, not low-level internet crap-throwing.

      Your previous comment on which I left a note, to which your comment above is a response, did NOT make any concrete proposal or tell us what YOU have done and how well it worked (or not). It was basically a side-handed complaint about “long essays”, or some such. “Long essays” is what TOO does! The comments on this site exist for the purpose of making on-topic comments about the thoughts in a “long essay”. They are not for attacking the structure of TOO, its owner or its authors. By complaining that SOMEONE ELSE should “do something other than write long essays”, you are whining. Go do something yourself, then report back to TOO on how well it worked. You might gain some support that way. But complaining about the efforts of others? Not so much.)

      —–

      Texas A&M Professor: “Some White People May Have to Die” So We Can Solve Racism

      http://redherald.com/texas-professor-white-people-may-die-can-solve-racism/

      Let’s use a football analogy. Does anyone think that, during last year’s Super Bowl – that the New England Patriots and Tom Brady could have managed to engineer the greatest comeback win in NFL history – if a few of those players on the Patriot’s team not gone up and down the sideline and ‘kvetched’ at their dejected and demoralized teammates to get their heads screwed on right, stop making stupid mistakes, and concentrate as hard as they needed to in order to pull out a win?

      I was listening to Limbaugh the other day, and he was bloviating at some length, trying to explain why it is that the pathetic GOP has never been able to really beat the Democrats – not even when they have been given control of all 3 branches of the Government. The Democrats have suffered nearly a 1,000 political office defeats since Obama was elected – and the clear majority of the states are now governed by the GOP – but, based on the way the RINOs cave in to liberal demands and liberal agendas – the Democrats are still running the country.

      Limbaugh concluded that the GOP are traumatically and perhaps psychologically programmed to see themselves as ‘losers’. They have been permanently hardwired to have a defeatist attitude, and Rush said this dates back to the 1930s. So, all they do is whine and complain and offer up endless excuses to their increasingly angry and disgruntled base who are getting fed up with never winning.

      I wonder sometimes if this ‘defeatist’ attitude has become the dominant one within White Nationalist circles. If I get criticized for expressing a sense of frustration over not having any major ‘wins’ for our White team, maybe so. I happen to define ‘winning’ as more than being able to put good ideas and good arguments together on paper and which are enjoyable for people within our audience to read and pass around. I want to see some of these ideas turn into concrete action and make solid and measurable progress in overturning and reversing the damage that our enemy has done to our race and to our civilization.

      • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
        May 11, 2017 - 8:39 am | Permalink

        Luke,

        Nothing is going to change until the European male stands up for himself. We will have to “go loud!” We will have to “kick” the door in.

        (Mod. Note: Mr. Adkins, at the risk of too much “mod noting”, I concur. One of the goals of TOO has been to re-morale-ize Whites, at least those who read and comment at TOO. Any efforts that support and make “real” that goal are lauded. At the same time, any efforts to “black pill”, or further de-morale-ize Whites is counter-productive. Less pessimism! More optimism! It’s a very “White Thing” to say “all hope is lost”; right before we WIN.)

        • David's Gravatar David
          May 11, 2017 - 11:52 am | Permalink

          Do I dare enter here? Okay, I could not resist.

          I think I can find some comfort in this exchange. But, if I might be permitted, I will humbly offer some “spinal tweaks.” Yes, Luke did rant a bit, but I did not take it as “black pilling.” I myself employ this genre of exhortation occasionally, as some of you may recall. Such vituperations are just that, a genre–like a good drill sergeant. A good drill sergeant saves your behind on the day of battle. And I do sit back with docility, or teachability, and let others do the Sgt.-Ermey thing to me as well–I hope this absolves me of the charge of completely being a P.I.T.A. I need it to keep my head screwed on straight and hearing exhortations seems to help. But lots of abrasion has given me pretty tough skin.

          Oh, I suppose Luke could have used a bit more Vaseline. He could of arranged an Easter basket with a mixture of fruits, sour and sweet. (Dang, I wish I could take my own advise more often.)

          In one of my recent T.O.O. posts I suggested, as an exercise, that we all try to provide Commentary Plus. What do I mean? I mean commentary, or analysis, about what is. By al means, give us those novel or reinforcing diagnoses on the plight of Western civilization (or any civilization) in light of the favorite themes of T.O.O. But, then, given your prescient insights (I mean that, or I won’t not be coming here to learn stuff–and I learn stuff in abundance), perhaps you could extend your hypotheses and models of things “as they are” to make some predictions and some recommendations for action.

          I do not mean this as an absolute rule. I could not live up to that myself. But I do think, if I might say so and not of any special merit on my part, that I have a long history of integrating theory and action, philosophy& politics. The Greeks called this ‘phronesis’ and it was considered the next step of development in the virtues–starting as we all do with an initial preference for either action or theory.

          In fact, I happen to be paying a heavy price for my commitment to this as I type this–but I we will prevail, in this I am quite confident. But enough about that before I get side tracked.

          Bu this is another thing. We need to hear the stories of action wedded to good theory. Sometimes we hobble our own warriors with (okay, trigger warning) Goyish resentment of story-telling. Too many Europeans take true narration of our war stories and displays of wounds as “boastful.” There are heavy doses of stuff that we have gotten from Catholicism or Protestantism that inoculate us against sharing these experiences. We have been crippled by what I believe are models of false humility–and I am no enemy of the church, just its critic. Sorry, I was supposed to mockingly write that as ‘shaaaaaring’. But I see relaying these stories of theory-action, failure-triumph & learningas functioning blueprints for empowerment. They are battle plans. Narratives and admonitions of things tried include–if honest and not, indeed, braggadocios–that quality of Greek tragedies that warn others of the pitfalls to be avoided.

          I have been very happy with the moderator’s work here. Maybe I have just been lucky. I do notice on a variety of social media platforms, perhaps GAB excepted, that people tend to treat engagement and conversation as an adversarial system. And I can see in my own self that sometimes my initial response to a written post is of the order of: “Why—that ignorant, S.O.B., what a stupid comment…” Then, tempered by many years in a litigious swamp, I collect myself and respond, “Dear Sir, might I suggest…” I don’t always get it right, of course, but I try.

          I think, too, that there is a built-in reluctance in all areas of our lives and we react like sea anemones brushed by the slightest touch with a vigorous retraction whenever someone starts talking about action. Action involves another level of commitment. It is usually much more public. Until recently, you could not wind up in jail for thinking. Action can get one fired, divorced, or in prison (or all three if you work for your wife’s company).

          I have started and led a number of organizations. I’ll tell you, it is a big worry what some goofball might do. Even moderating a site takes some attention to people advocating violence or illegal nonsense.

          I organized & led a big rally in San Francisco. I had to promise a Captain in SFPD that the rally outside of Mayor Willey Brown’s office would not encourage violence and that I was responsible for damages. This responsibility really brought this idea hope to me.

          As far as I know, this rally–which turned out to be a two-day event–was the first time in U.S. history that conservatives took to the streets. We have seen in subsequent years, with the Tea Party and with numerous other responses (organized or self-defensively reactive), that “conservatives” no longer view such behaviors as ‘verboten’. So, my point is, overcoming the first-time barrier was huge.

          Yes, our team is very cautious due to legitimate concerns about liability and appearance. Urging action has to be done carefully. Lot’s of preparatory C.Y.A. is absolutely required by prudence–especially given the real threat posed by infiltration by agent provocateurs. As for appearance–we too often defeat ourselves with trying to calculate counter-perceptions two, three and more levels beyond. This is detrimental, in my opinion. I always recommend acting and letting the perceptions slowly correct over time, let the chips fall where they may. Let one’s own temporary disadvantage become the enemy’s ultimate loss.

          We do, then, need now to move from analysis alone to analysis plus action. This stuff really is so simple. And I hope my “scary” comments about potential exposure does not induce paralysis–precisely what I am trying to reverse.

          Again, I come back to the concept of phronesis: prudent and practical wisdom. But our notion of prudence has been corrupted. I think, but am not sure yet, that I may have discovered a historical angle on how the Catholic Church is partly responsible for this (I am exploring this topic as an article or Minds.com video). Prudence is not synonymous with NOT acting. It does, instead, refer to acting, and in only some cases reserving overt action. So we have lots of indwelling barriers to doing “things.” A stifling parenting style is another frequent cause.

          What is more, some of reluctance to act politically is paralleled, and caused, by our neurobiology. Our basal nuclei (formerly ‘basal ganglia’) are situated in the motor system of the brain as an inhibitory guard against the outflow of action commands. When we move, particularly our limbs, it is much more of a story about the few activities that have risen to a certain level of neural “authorization,” one might say, so as to gain release to travel down the spinal cord. Our brains are much more about inhibition, the big, No!, No!, No! machine.

          Back to political life and phronesis, we absolutely need sites like T.O.O. and many other fine instruments for elevating our theory to the level of authority, in prudence and knowledge, to wisely open the gates and let the knights of judicious action sally forth on their well-considered sorties.

          Therefore, I think we are learning how to at least aim for, and sometimes strike, the bull’s-eye of well-crafted analysis, admonition, exhortation and praise. It takes practice.

          So, thank you all, you no-good sonsabitches.

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        May 11, 2017 - 9:48 am | Permalink

        (Mod. Note: T.J., your gracious correction of my grammatical oversight is much appreciated. It’s “fixed”. Of course I “know” how that works, but lost sight of it in an overly long “mod note”. Thanks for keeping an eye on things!)

      • May 11, 2017 - 7:39 pm | Permalink

        I can only say this.

  7. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    May 10, 2017 - 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Johann Fichte should rank above Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce as a seer. Thank you Dr. Joyce.

  8. John King's Gravatar John King
    May 10, 2017 - 4:27 pm | Permalink

    At some point, I would love to read some work on the mechanisms of how networks of Jewish intellectuals are supported by their ethnic benefactors. This seems to me to be of quite central importance in the twentieth century, although doubtless it has its manifestations very early on.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 11, 2017 - 10:19 pm | Permalink

      @John King:

      KM has written extensively on this topic. For instance, he and others have shown that the New School for Social Research in New York was an academic scam set up by well-funded Jews as a postgraduate-degree-granting racket to inflate or completely falsify the credentials of their arriviste Tribal cousins—in short, a diploma mill.

      • May 15, 2017 - 5:35 am | Permalink

        It must have been a successful practice run. Most of the US educational system is now a ‘diploma mill’.

  9. May 10, 2017 - 6:51 pm | Permalink

    A very informative piece, Dr Joyce. Just curious, what do you think of Albert Lindemann’s 1997 Esau’s Tears? He seems to expand in a thick, academic book what you say in this article (and I guess the next ones).

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      May 16, 2017 - 3:13 pm | Permalink

      May I intervene here?

      The Lindemann book is worth reading because it makes a change from the “tearful victim” narrative, let alone the modern version of human history that makes “The Holocaust” the pole event.

      Other books by Jews worth reading that do not blame Gentiles exclusively for the so-called “longest hatred” include:

      1. Bernard Lazare, “Antisemitism: Its history and causes” (1894). There is a 1995 edition with an introduction by the late Robert Wistrich that tries to dampen its effect, but retains a useful bibliography.
      2. Norman Cantor, “The Sacred Chain” (1995). Some odd errors such as his maximum estimate of WW2 Jewish deaths, but frank about many embarrassing matters. Also, a useful booklist.
      3. Gilad Atzmon, “The Wandering Who?” (2011). The author has been “accused” of “racism” but this is not the case.

      The four books noted here have their idiosyncrasies and are not in ideological lockstep. But then, “four Jews – five opinions”.

  10. Tom Rogers's Gravatar Tom Rogers
    May 10, 2017 - 7:35 pm | Permalink

    I recommend ‘You Gentiles’ by Maurice Samuel.

    • Cov's Gravatar Cov
      May 10, 2017 - 8:53 pm | Permalink

      I read that, it’s very revealing.

  11. May 11, 2017 - 4:32 am | Permalink
  12. Old Ez's Gravatar Old Ez
    May 11, 2017 - 4:53 am | Permalink

    Michael A. Hoffman II, “Judaism Discovered” and a compendium thereof called “Judaism’s Strange God’s.”

  13. May 11, 2017 - 10:02 am | Permalink

    Judaism’s Strange Gods is a condensed version of Judaism Discovered. Michael Hoffman, an equal opportunity historical revisionist if there ever was one, has just announced publication and ordering for another major work, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. [www.revisionisthistory.org]. FULL DISCLOSURE: I receive nothing from Mr. Hoffman. I do support his work through donation, a subscription to his excellent newsletter, and purchase his books.

  14. David's Gravatar David
    May 11, 2017 - 11:53 am | Permalink

    Ah, did I forget to mention, …and senses of humor?

  15. Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
    May 11, 2017 - 1:03 pm | Permalink

    May I be permitted to balance Dr. Joyce’s markedly Catholic view of Luther with a Protestant one? The key is Luther’s study of the Talmud:
    “As a young man, Luther befriended Jews and invited rabbis into his home. He believed that every person, Jew or Gentile, needs the grace and love of Jesus Christ who, alone, can heal them of their sins and give them eternal salvation. He taught that kindness toward the Jews might win them to Christ. Luther even wrote a manuscript, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew”, advising Christians to be kind and loving toward Jews.

    However, as the years went by, Luther became more knowledgeable about the true teachings of the Jews, teachings they had hidden from the Gentiles and from him. He was aghast to discover that the compassion and love he held toward the Jews was not returned. In fact, he discovered that Judaism was rife with hatred toward Jesus and Christians.

    Luther was encouraged by a wise Jew who had converted to Christianity to read and study carefully the Babylonian Talmud. When he did so, he was horrified to learn what was in this awful, man-made text that is the most holy book of the Judaic religion. This was what the rabbis actually were teaching to their people.

    The Talmud, Luther realized, cut like a dagger into the heart of Christianity. The Talmud encourages Jews to cheat and deceive Christians in legal matters, including advice to lie in court and to steal, bribe, and rob the Christians. Luther saw that the Talmud was one of the most, wicked and depraved books in all the world.”

    http://www.texemarrs.com/112014/burden_of_luther.htm

    • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
      May 11, 2017 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

      “So, Luther determined that he would warn the Christian Church concerning Judaism and the Jews. He would reveal what the rabbis actually taught and explain how devilish were their rituals and doctrines. One of the results was the powerful book we have published, “On the Jews and Their Lies”. Far from being anti-Semitic, it is full of truth and facts.
      In his final sermon, delivered just prior to his death, Luther stated:

      “You, Milords and men of authority, should not tolerate but expel them…If they could kill us all, they would gladly do so; in fact many of them murder Christians, especially those Jews professing to be surgeons and doctors. They know how to deal with medicaments in the manner of the Italians—the Borgias and Medicis—who gave people poisons which brought about their deaths in one hour or a month…
      As a good patriot, I wanted to give you this warning for the very last time…”

      http://www.texemarrs.com/112014/burden_of_luther.htm

  16. goilk1983's Gravatar goilk1983
    May 11, 2017 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

    ‘a list of recommended readings on the Jewish Question’

    The Singerman Index, aka “Antisemitic Propaganda” (1982) by Robert Singerman.

    Looking forward to the post-1981 supplement.

  17. May 11, 2017 - 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Earlier texts have been omitted for a number of reasons, the most important being that they often contained more Christian theology than empirical analysis. Although many often also contained trenchant sociological observations, the vast majority of these texts were ultimately influenced by supernatural understandings bullshit which, in my own opinion, often obstructed meaningful solutions to very problematic interactions. (Text has been edited for clarification purposes)

    Amen Brother!

    “…Molé put to the Jewish leaders a number of questions concerning, among other things, intermarriage, loyalty to the state, Jewish attitudes to the laws of the state, and the practice of usury. Molé stated “You will hear the questions submitted to you, your duty is to answer the whole truth on every one of them…”

    What stupid naivety ! You have doubts about a notoriously dishonest group and then you ask them if they really are dishonest. What kind of answer do you expect ?”

    Amen Brother!

    Let us pray:

    “All vows, obligations, oaths or anthems, pledges of all names, which we have vowed, sworn, devoted, or bound ourselves to, from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement (whose arrival we hope for in happiness) we repent, aforehand, of them all, they shall all be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, void and made of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor have any power; the vows shall not be reckoned as vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths.”

    • May 11, 2017 - 8:14 pm | Permalink

      The authorities of a new religion or sect, or the religious who find themselves amidst a sea of disbelief, are liable to seek converts wherever they may be found.

      B – I – N – G – O! This is exactly why Saul/Paul incorporated the “gentiles” into his ministry. There simply were not enough Temple (read Jew) followers to fill out his ranks.

      Paul was the classic Jewish opportunist who switched horses when it was clear his horse was losing the race. As Saul, he saw the potential to grab the immense power and wealth of the collapsing Temple.

      In classic Jewish form, he changed his name and his “politics” by replacing YHVH with Jesus and then positioning himself as the new kohein gadol (high priest) who would be the main conduit to his new “living” God. That was the reality of Paul’s conversion.

      What most people don’t realize is that initially the “gentiles” were actually Jews who, like Jesus, refused to pay sacrificial tribute to the Temple. (Actually Jesus ultimately paid the Temple tribute by offering himself as the bloody, paschal sacrifice.)

      What’s curious is how the Jews are silent about Paul. They hate Jesus and have him slow cooking in a vat of hot excrement. Why don’t they have Saul/Paul swimming in an adjoining vat?

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        May 12, 2017 - 3:26 am | Permalink

        The Jews are silent about the fate of ALL THE APOSTLES, because they used their Pharisee spy network to hunt down and murder them one by one. And even though St. James son of Alphaeus bent over backwards to please the Jews for all of his life, they were still not satisfied, and demanded that he renounce Christ as the Son of Almighty God. When he bravely refused, they threw him off a parapet, and when he didn’t die, they beat him to death on the ground with fuller’s clubs.

        What’s curious is how Christians make atheists gnash their little teeth in rage, while Muslims send them scurrying into a corner.

    • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
      May 12, 2017 - 2:15 pm | Permalink

      “What stupid naivety ! You have doubts about a notoriously dishonest group and then you ask them if they really are dishonest. What kind of answer do you expect ?” Amen Brother.

      The purpose of the statement is to have them declare they have answered truthfully. When they vary from their answers, a fraud has been committed. Unlike today, Monarchs and governments were actually prepared to do something about it.

  18. May 12, 2017 - 7:48 am | Permalink

    This is the big mistake – confusing Torah-true Jews with a powerful and at times vicious political lobby. You can see the same thing with women and feminism. Check out my work on victim narratives when all will be revealed.

    • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
      May 12, 2017 - 10:38 am | Permalink

      Wrong. The public have not yet discovered that “Torah-true Jews” take the sinister Kol Nidre Vow, just as they have not yet discovered that Hindus, Muslims & Sikhs ALL WORSHIP KALI the Cannibal Goddess of Death, and that the notorious “Thuggee” Assassin Gangs, composed of Hindus, Muslims & Sikhs, were committing RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICES TO KALI. The Sikh “Rumal” handkerchief they still wear on their heads was used for GARROTING VICTIMS by tying a coin into the middle, and their Sikh kirpan daggers were used for disembowelling, so they could offer up the victim’s heart to Kali. Thank Heaven the valiant British Military Intelligence Officers wiped out the Thuggee Assassin Gangs before leaving India, where they are reportedly once more operating while the Indian government turns a blind eye.

      • Marc's Gravatar Marc
        May 12, 2017 - 9:28 pm | Permalink

        To say that “all” Hindus and Muslims(???!!!)”worship KALI” just shows your total ignorance of Hindu religion! There are so many different currents and sects in Hinduism, most of them quite peaceful and elevated in spirit, such as the Vedanta school, Vishnuism, and many others. Muslims of course, with their sick, proverbial misogyny, would NEVER “worship” ANY “Goddess” of ANY kind!…

        • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
          May 13, 2017 - 11:45 am | Permalink

          “Vande Mataram is a poem composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1870s, which he included in his 1881 novel Anandamath. The first two verses of the song were adopted as the national song of India in 1937.

          An Ode to Durga [=KALI] as the Mother goddess, it was written in Sanskrit and Bengali. The title ‘Vande Mataram’ literally means “I praise thee, Mother” or “I bow to thee, Mother”. In 1950 (after India’s independence), the song’s first two verses of the song were declared the “national song” of the Republic of India, distinct from the national anthem of India, Jana Gana Mana.”

          “Kali’s dangerous role in society outside the moral order is increased by her association with criminals. Not surprisingly, Kali plays a central part in Tantrism, especially the left-hand path, and dominates Tantric iconography, texts, and rituals.
          Unlike mother goddesses who give life, Kali takes life. She feeds on death and must be offered blood sacrifices.”

          http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/kali.html

        • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
          May 13, 2017 - 12:45 pm | Permalink

          The Kaaba of Mecca is build over an apsidal temple to Durga, and the remains of the apse are still visible just outside the later cubic building (see diagram in Kaaba entry of Wikipedia).

          “Muslims worship Hindu Gods Siva and Hindu Goddess Allah (Durga):
          1. Adopting Hindu deity moon God Allah as the deity of Islam.
          2. Making Hindu Moon God Siva’s temple Kaaba as the holiest place of Islam.
          3. Making the black stone as the most holy stone of Islam and making touching and kissing of it as a blissful act of Sunnah.
          4. Adopting the Hindu pilgrimages Haj and Umra as the highest worship in Islam.
          5. Shaving the heads as Hindus do for pilgrimages.
          6. Circumambulating the Siva/Kali temple Kaaba 7 times as Hindus did.
          7. Adopting the Hindu concept of washing all the sins by making the holy pilgrimage.
          8. Collecting holy water representing Ganga Lal (Zamzam water) as Hindus do to take holy blessings home.
          9. Wearing white seamless cloth during pilgrimage as Hindus wear during their religious ceremonies and pilgrimages.
          10. Celebrating the completion of worship of Siva temple Kaaba by giving it the Hindu Sanskrit name of EidEid.
          11. Including all night worship of moon God Allah (Durga) called Jagratta as part of Islam (and also modern Sikh wedding ceremonies).”

          http://sanatansatyam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/lord-shiva-and-kabbah-in-mecca-hinduism.html

        • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
          May 13, 2017 - 3:46 pm | Permalink

          One last shocker: Tibetan Buddhists also worship Cannibal Kali! “Palden Lhamo”, also called “Palden Lhamo Kalideva”, which indicates that she is an emanation of the goddess Kali, is “the tutelary deity of Tibet and its government”, celebrated all over Tibet and Mongolia, and the potent protector of the Dalai and Panchen Lamas and Lhasa.” She looks like a kind of hideous blue spider riding through a sea of blood, using the skin of her own son as a saddle-blanket, and often depicted drinking blood from human skulls. The monks consult her on choosing the next Dalai Lama. “Quite peaceful and elevated”, did you say? Well, that’s what we were all led to believe, weren’t we?

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        May 18, 2017 - 2:38 am | Permalink

        @ Bramble

        All Muslims do not worship the goddess Kali.

        The “comparisons” cited are quite irrelevant to the actual Islamic religion, philosophy and practice as taught by the Quaran, Hadith and Sharia regulations.

        Muslims waged a genocide against Hindu idolatry.

  19. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    May 13, 2017 - 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Joyce you’re articles are ALWAYS tremendously informative.

    I know I’m not the Doctor but in an answer to Santoculto. There’s one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from everyone else. There’s a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud “great enlightenment” basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they’re Jews and their lives don’t matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    They’ve been thrown out of every single country that they’ve been to in any numbers. Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don’t have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    Even if it’s wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew’s behavior will make sense.

    In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity”. Here’s a chapter you should read. It’s about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he’s able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. “They’re pulling a Stanley”. The whole book is on the web and worth reading.

    http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

    I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam’s Razor. Their behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog of psychopaths. I don’t know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck. It’s a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths. Even if I’m wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths.

Comments are closed.