Review: Leaving the Jewish Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History by Todd M. Endelman

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


Leaving the Jewish Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History
Todd M. Endelman
Princeton University Press, 2015

“A Jewish question would still exist, even if every Jew were to turn his back on his religion and join one of our major churches.”
Karl Eugen Duehring, 1881

At the heart of the Jewish Question lies an extraordinary level of ethnocentrism. The tremendous capacity of Jews for mutual co-operation and the reinforcement of group identity is one of the behavioral markers that set them apart from most other human populations. This is the case even in comparisons with other populations that, like the Jews, have historically performed roles as ‘middle man minorities.’ Jewish ethnocentrism has thus deservedly been the major focus of attention when scholars or activists have decided to investigate Jewish group behavior. In general these investigations have rested on the obvious expressions of ethnocentrism — clannishness in business, Jewish endogamy, group political strategies, and the manifestation of Jewish group allegiance even in secular cultural contexts (‘Jews without Judaism’).

By contrast, the story of those Jews who ostensibly left both Judaism and their community, apparently cutting all ties with their ethnic group, has been little explored or discussed in explorations of Jewish ethnocentrism. This story is, however, an important one, and it becomes even more important in a contemporary context in which Jewish intermarriage, particularly in the United States, is reaching unprecedented levels.

Key to understanding Jewish ethnocentrism should be an assessment of its strength, not just in terms of its obvious successes and manifestations, but in terms of its failures — when did it fail, how often did it fail, and why? I chose to read Todd Endelman’s Leaving the Jewish Fold as part of my own deeper investigation into this issue — to probe the weaknesses of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy for a future book project on that theme. However, rather than being surprised, I found that it largely confirmed my pre-existing theoretical framework. Endelman merely confirms that Jewish conversions to religions other than Judaism have historically been extremely rare and, despite the title of the book, the author provides very little evidence to suggest that the ‘assimilation’ undertaken by those Jews who ‘left the fold’ was radical, or even genuine. To use Endelman’s terminology, ‘drift and defection’ has always been a small, though passionately resisted phenomenon on the periphery of Jewish populations, serving paradoxically at times, like anti-Semitism, to reinforce group cohesion at the core. But in the overwhelmingly majority of cases an extremely high level of ethnocentrism is a constant feature of Jewish history.

The book is neither entertaining nor intellectually stimulating. Leaving the Jewish Fold is the third book by Endelman that I’ve read, following his Radical Assimilation in English Jewish History, 1656–1945 (1990) and The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000 (2002). His histories tend towards the type of overview perspective that can be useful when trying to get to grips with major events and personalities, but which lack insight or real interest even on a potentially oppositional level — his stances and arguments are often so weak (or non-existent) that they are difficult to detect. This makes his work slightly more factually correct than, for example, the work of the late ethnic activist Robert Wistrich, but ultimately less ‘fun’ to engage with or argue against. The fact that Endelman continues to be published by elite academic publishing houses like Princeton University Press should be regarded as a symptom of ongoing Jewish influence in Western academia [discussed further here] rather than being suggestive of the quality of his work. Like earlier examples of his work, Leaving the Jewish Fold is for the most part a collection of anecdotes and statistics, derived almost exclusively from published secondary sources, and often involving very little or no original research. The structure and narrative cohesion in this instance, where the material concerns Jews who ostensibly abandoned Jewish life, is haphazard and often confusing. As just one example, during his weak first chapter on the medieval period Endelman inexplicably plucks anecdotes from the eighteenth century.

The potentially interesting subject of renegade or ex-Jews is for the most part wasted in Endelman’s hands. His writing is dry and lacking in creativity, but more importantly Endelman is very much the typical Jewish historian. By this I mean that his oeuvre can be read as part of the ‘lachrymose history’ school that dominates Jewish historiography. Accordingly, Endelman’s histories take place in a framework in which Jews are blameless victims of the irrational and unrelenting hatred of Whites. A curious aspect of all such histories is that they tend to focus more on the alleged injustices perpetrated by Whites than the actual historical actions of Jews. Such examples of ‘Jewish history’ are therefore more often histories of an alleged ‘European evil.’ Although it takes extremely careful reading to discern, the confused and contorted premise underpinning Leaving the Jewish Fold is that, historically, Jews have only left the Jewish fold due to material or psychological torture by the surrounding population. While the majority of Jews were somehow able to withstand such putatively awful treatment, weak Jews on the margins — poor, isolated, or somehow psychologically ‘different’ — ultimately drifted away or defected among ‘the nations’ in search of reprieve. Resource competition between Jews and Europeans, perhaps the defining factor in the development of anti-Semitism, simply doesn’t feature anywhere in Leaving the Jewish Fold as a subject of serious analysis.

Endelman’s first chapter, concerning ‘Conversion in Medieval and Early Modern Europe,’ sets the tone for the central premise of Jewish victimhood. In common with the vast majority of Jewish historians, Endelman appeals to psychoanalytic terminology and themes in order to explain both the origins of anti-Semitism (as he sees them) and the nature of European society. As such, Endelman employs the canard that Christianity bears the responsibility for creating anti-Semitism and ‘infecting’ the European population with it. Placing Europeans ‘on the couch,’ he writes that the early Church’s “failure to convince the Jews that their own scripture substantiated Christian belief was a source of anxiety,” and that Church leaders needed, “for both psychological and theological reasons, to assert Christianity’s uniqueness.”[1] In a similar vein, Endelman argues that “by the thirteenth century, the medieval Western church was at the height of its powers. It was self-confident and expansionist, keen to combat a Jewish enemy that was by and large a product of its own imagination [emphasis added].”[2] Jews are thus presented as the innocent victims of a strange kind of psycho-theological ‘virus.’ The only two redeeming elements of the first chapter are references to early examples of Jewish crypsis, and the fact that Endelman inadvertently concedes the role of resource competition in the fate of the Jews.

On a personal level I find crypsis to be one of the most interesting aspects of resource competition between Jews and Europeans, and indeed of the Jewish Question more generally. To date, the only comprehensive and convincing academic treatment of this phenomenon is contained within the sixth chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism  (“Jewish strategies for combatting anti-Semitism”). MacDonald notes (2004, 218) “there is a long tradition within Judaism that highly prizes the tradition of crypto-Judaism.” Crypto-Judaism is essentially the process by which Jews persist in following the Jewish religion and/or traits associated with it after an ostensible ‘conversion’ to another religion. While Endelman does not discuss crypsis as such, he nevertheless makes reference to instances of the phenomenon. For example, he writes:

The Visigoths, who conquered Spain in the mid-fifth century, belonged to the Arian sect, in contrast to the majority of the Spanish population, which was Roman Catholic. In 587, the Visigoth king embraced Catholicism and he and his successors pushed relentlessly to unify the kingdom religiously. In 613, Sisebut ordered the forced conversion of all the Jews in the kingdom. In a foretaste of the well-known event centuries later, the policy was a failure. The converts were not absorbed into the Catholic population but instead remained a clearly defined group, often loyal to their old creed.[3]

Crypsis was a strategy most frequently employed when the prospects for ongoing group cohesion looked relatively positive. In more turbulent circumstances, for example during the Crusades, the break-up of communities was a real possibility (making a group cryptic strategy less viable) and, as a result, the most common and extreme reaction to the prospect of conversion was mass communal murder-suicide. Jews would rather die than be absorbed culturally and genetically into the surrounding population. Such spectacles were both surprising and horrifying to European witnesses. It has been astutely speculated that the sight of Jewish men butchering their own families, in order to avoid baptism, played an important role in the development of the Jewish ritual murder accusation (My deeper thoughts on this particular subject, discussed on the Third Rail podcast, can be accessed here).

Endelman notes that “From the Crusades on, most Ashkenazim chose martyrdom (or exile, if it was an option) over conversion when faced with the choice.”[4] This is obviously indicative of an extraordinary level of ethnocentrism and commitment to the group. Indeed, it is an excellent marker of group selection among Jews: Defection is not an option no matter what the consequences to the individual (here, 73–74). Endelman cites one Jewish historian as remarking that Jews viewed the prospect of genuine conversion as “a betrayal of communal values, a rejection of Jewish destiny.”[5] Even the English word ‘conversion’ doesn’t adequately convey how strongly-identified Jews view the prospect of leaving Judaism/Jewry and becoming part of another group, since it merely refers to the process of leaving and becoming. In English then, conversion implies a future. By contrast, Endelman explains “the Hebrew word for convert in premodern Ashkenazi usage — meshumad — reflects the loathing with which conversion was regarded, for its root (sh-m-d) means utter destruction [emphasis added].”[6] (At this point in the text I was left wondering about the potentialities of a scenario in which Europeans possessed, instead of the anodyne “mixed marriage,” integration,” or “immigration,” a vocabulary that was intrinsically hostile to racial and cultural dilution.)

The insincerity of Jewish conversions, together with the widespread involvement of Jews in usury, contributed to the growing belief that Jews could not, and should not be allowed to, function in European societies. The result was a wave of expulsions: in 1182 (Île-de-France), 1223 (Normandy), 1253 (French royal domains), 1288 (Gascony), 1289 (Naples, Sicily, Anjou and Maine), 1290 (England), 1306 (French royal domains — again), 1322 (French royal domains — for the third time), and 1492 (Castile and Aragon). Given the strength of Jewish ethnocentrism during the medieval and early modern periods, and the intensity of resource competition between Jews and Europeans, it is unsurprising that Endelman finds that even cryptic conversions and assimilations were extreme rarities.

Endelman’s second chapter, ‘Conversion in the Age of Enlightenment and Emancipation,’ is more interesting than the first. In the post-Enlightenment context, the barriers of religion were weaker than in the medieval and early modern periods, and the focus on Jewish self-definition shifted to the sphere of civic life or being a ‘citizen.’ This was necessarily complicated by the fact Jews, a collectivist and corporate Levantine people oriented toward collective behavior and rights, were presented with opportunities to join societies based on idiosyncratically European precepts of individual freedom and personal responsibility. During this period, Jews ‘left the fold’ more frequently than in prior ages, but the manner in which they did so was guided by what Endelman describes as “strategic reasons.”[7] Rather than converting to save one’s life (e.g. Glückel of Hameln describes a Jewish thief in Norway who converted to avoid being hanged), Jews now converted to obtain social, economic or political privileges or advantages. The period witnessed the birth of “Jews without Judaism.” These were Jews who abandoned belief in the Jewish god but who cultivated different forms of ‘Jewishness.’ (For more on this shift, see my discussion of the role of Spinoza as a secular Jewish god.)

Endelman’s second chapter is largely concerned with anecdotes of wealthy Jews who found themselves in “despair” at not being able to reach the heights of European society. A small minority decided that undergoing baptism or campaigning for full legal equality, irrespective of their personal piety or sense of patriotism, would be a means of removing some of the stigma of Jewishness. Few of these societal or confessional changes brought the desired effect, and even at the highest and ostensibly most integrated levels Jews continued to socialize almost exclusively with other Jews. Endelman cites the English politician Thomas Babington Macaulay has having written to this sister following a costume ball at the home of Jewish financier Isaac Lyon Goldsmid (1778–1859): “A little too much of St. Mary Axe [a Jewish district in London] about it — Jewesses by dozens, and Jews by scores…The sound of fiddles was in mine ears, and gaudy dresses, and black hair, and Jewish noses were fluctuating up and down before mine eyes.”[8]

The quiet contempt felt for Jews in European society was a significant obstacle to their entry into European power structures. However, it was increasingly rare in the post-Enlightenment period for this contempt to be translated into fully articulated legal obstructions. Although it was common to discuss issues of ‘blood’ during this period, systematic racial understanding was relatively weak compared with the century that would follow. Entry to positions of power was thus, by the 1820s at least, largely a bureaucratic affair. A certificate of baptism, acting like a kind of proto-Green Card, was more or less sufficient for Jewish entry into politics and the professions. Endelman writes that “baptism was a prerequisite for a public career,” and cites Heinrich Heine as remarking “the baptismal certificate is the ticket of admission to European culture.”[9]

If these quotes convey a purely strategic, mechanical view of the process of conversion then they are truthful to their context. The majority of ‘converts’ in the period remained Jews in every meaningful sense, and many carried an open contempt for the Christian religion they professed to join. Very often they also possessed a barely concealed contempt for the naivety of the society that set such a weak and ultimately meaningless (but nevertheless irritating) barrier to their personal or tribal ambitions. The Jewish Hegelian Eduard Gans remarked to a friend that “if the state was so stupid as to bar him from devoting his talents to it unless he confessed to believing something that he did not believe, it would have its wish.”[10] In another example, Heinrich Heine found it incomprehensible that Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (grandson of Enlightenment celebrity, and promoter of ‘tolerance’ and ‘pluralism,’ Moses Mendelssohn) was apparently a sincere Christian (having been baptized as a child on the instructions of his father, who renounced Judaism) despite having a personal fortune and thus experiencing no obstacles to career advancement. Heine, an adult ‘convert,’ was particularly disdainful of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy’s decision to compose Christian music, writing to the composer: “If I had the good fortune to be the grandson of Moses Mendelssohn, I would never employ my talents to set the urine of the Lamb to music.”[11] The gospel of his new religion was thus, to Heine, nothing more than ‘piss.’

Heine was no exception. Endelman cites cases of Jews writing to pastors and priests requesting ‘dry baptisms’ in which they would merely have to subscribe to vague universal principles rather than study Christianity or profess belief in its central tenets. David Friedländer, the Jewish banker and disciple of Moses Mendelssohn, became infamous for his ‘dry baptism initiative,’ in which he requested the development of a special form of conversion for Jews in which baptism was reduced to “a mere form…necessary for the admission of a member into a society.”[12] Thousands of similar requests came from Jewish students, academics, and those with political aspirations. At the lower end of the social scale, Jews often abused the naive missionary zeal of Christian societies eager to procure Jewish converts. The period saw the rise of the ‘professional convert,’ who would travel from church to church, undergoing tens of baptisms in order to reap the monetary gifts often associated with them. Reading such accounts can be infuriating not only in terms of the Jewish behavior described, but also that of one’s own hopelessly gullible, endlessly altruistic forebears.

Endelman’s third chapter, ‘Conversion in the Age of Illiberalism,’ covering the period 1860–1914, details more strategic conversions. Particularly notable is Leopold Kronenberg (1812–78), the Prussian Jewish banker, who later moved to Warsaw and converted to Catholicism in order to obtain a tobacco monopoly.[13] Endelman struggles with the unpleasant nature of Jewish history in Poland and Russia at this point, noting that the May Laws of 1882 were introduced in “the interest of protecting the peasantry from Jewish ‘exploitation.’”[14] The fact that this Princeton-published academic should feel the need to place ‘exploitation’ in scare quotes is indicative of the problematic nature of the Jewish academic monopoly on the writing and publishing of Jewish history and the history of anti-Semitism. Endelman presumably finds it very difficult to accept that his ethnic group, hitherto described in his text as blameless victims, were in fact exploiters — a historically verifiable fact clearly articulated in John Klier’s Cambridge-published Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–1882 (2011), and well-attested in Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents.

One searches in vain for the genuine convert, or even the genuine secular ‘world citizen’ in Endelman’s text. Moving into the early twentieth century, he discusses ‘institutional integration’ and ‘social mixing.’ These developments did little to change the texture of Jewish social life:

In recalling his upper-middle-class youth in late-Imperial Berlin, the fashion photographer Erwin Blumenfeld (1897–1969) noted that his freethinking, atheist parents contentedly lived within “invisible walls,” associating exclusively with other Jews, and “were probably not even aware of it themselves.” Very rarely “a stray goy happened to find his way into our house,” and when one did “we had no idea how to behave.” The absence of Gentile visitors also characterized the Berlin home of Gershom Scholem (1897–1982). Despite his father’s allegiance to liberal integrationism, “no Christian ever set foot in our home.”

The example of Gershom Scholem was so striking that Kevin MacDonald discussed him extensively in Chapter 8 (249–252), on self-deception among Jews. For example:

Scholem may have developed his self-deception in his family, which, if it is at all representative of assimilating German Jewry, illustrates the self-deception involved for many Jews in establishing personal identity in a modern Western society. His father Arthur was an ardent assimilationist who forced his son to move out of the house when Gershom was charged with treason for demonstrating against Germany’s war effort in World War I. However, Arthur’s assimilation was perhaps not as complete as he conceived it to be.

[Gershom] should have been used to incongruities: his mother owned a kosher restaurant, but his father had renamed himself Siegfried in honor of Wagner’s opera. In the Scholem house, customs were similarly mixed up. Arthur forbade Jewish expressions, but his wife used them anyway. Friday night was a family night when prayers were said but only partly understood, and Arthur scorned Jewish law by using the Sabbath candles to light a cigar after the meal.

 On Passover, the family ate both bread and matzo. Arthur went to work on Yom Kippur and did not fast. He praised the Jewish mission to spread monotheism and ethics, and he disparaged conversion. But the family celebrated Christmas as a German national festival and sang “Silent Night.” Arthur insisted on his German identity, but almost all his friends were Jews, and no Christian ever set foot in his home. And when Gershom became a Zionist, his parents bought a portrait of Herzl and put it under their Christmas tree. (Rubin 1995a, 32–33) p. 252

Despite the very low level of conversions, their strategic nature remained common. Conversion remained a ‘Green Card’ to the urban professions. The Semitics scholar Daniel Khvolson (1819-1911) is reported to have replied, when asked if he converted out of conviction, that “yes, he was convinced that it was better to be a professor in St. Petersburg than a melammed in Eyshishok.”[15] The Berlin theater critic and philosopher of language Fritz Mauthner (1849–1923) wrote in 1912 that he had never witnessed a genuine Jewish conversion and that “in the vast majority of cases the convert is brought to profess a creed in which he does not believe out of higher or lower reasons of expedience.” This understanding was so widespread among Jews that some Jewish communal organizations even permitted Jewish ‘Christians’ to obtain office in them — a perfectly reasonable policy given that these individuals remained, in every meaningful way, Jews.[16]

Endelman’s discussion of the period 1945–present, which takes up the remainder of Leaving the Jewish Fold, is moderately interesting but under-developed, and continues to take the form of successive anecdotes/brief biographies. This format, and the fact that Endelman refuses to contextualize such cases within the obviously relevant framework of Jewish ethnocentrism, lends the book a very tedious air. Endelman’s habit of treating every fake conversion or strategic intermarriage (often into European aristocracies) as if it were genuine and worthy of Jewish lamentation also becomes unbearably irritating. Citing steadily increasing intermarriage statistics, Endelman begins to imbue his narrative with a kind of weary moralism that would perhaps be admirable if the European right to survival was also indulged. Endelman writes at his conclusion, “I value Jewish tradition and continuity.” One envies the ability of Jewish scholars, and other ethnics, to voice such sentiments. We can only too well imagine the suspicion or open hostility that might follow a European academic who chose to state, in a book published by an elite press, that he valued European tradition and continuity.

Endelman’s book is, for the most part, about something that never really occurred. Very few Jews in history have ever truly ‘left the Jewish fold.’ Some converted for convenience, for money, and for opportunity. In the secular age an even larger number developed new methods to continue group association and achieve group interests. Throughout, the strongly committed and highly cohesive core of the Jewish population has always remained stable, powerful, and influential, and even those Jews at the fringes have always been relatively safely within its orbit.

This hasn’t prevented panics. Indeed, the high level of demographic concern among Jews, emblematic in Endelman’s book and often alluded to, is itself a key indicator of the unusual strength of Jewish ethnocentrism. In a very recent example, Arutz Sheva ran an article titled “The Disappearing Jews” in which it was argued:

We are killing ourselves. It’s called “assimilation” and we can no longer turn a blind eye to what is happening. Let me share a few facts from an article I saw recently on Aish.com. In American today, 71% of non-Orthodox marriages are intermarriages. 71%!!! According to Aish.com, 83% of the children from these marriages will intermarry as well. You need to stop and think about that for a moment. Simply put, it means that our non-religious brothers and sisters are in a process of self-destruction. They are disappearing. By the way, the US intermarriage rate in 1950 was 6%. By 1974 it had risen to 25%. And today? Simply out of control. The numbers get even worse when you read about fertility rates. The general US population has a fertility rate of 2.1 but the Jews are different: Orthodox Jews are 4.1, Conservative Jews are 1.8, Reform Jews are 1.7 and Jews of no religion are 1.5. You realize that when 2 parents have less than 2 kids, they are vanishing. …There are 5.5 million Jews in America today and experts believe that in 20 years, that number will be 2.5 million — a loss of 3,000,000 Jews!!! …The first thing we need to do is figure out a way to cure this epidemic. It’s an emergency call to save lives because if not, the number 6,000,000 will pale in comparison to what we did to ourselves.

However, as I noted in my 2015 blog postThe Myth of Jewish Population Decline, the global picture of the Jewish Diaspora’s demographic is one of growth. For example, the Pew Research Center notes that Germany is now home to 35,000 more Jews than in the 1930s. Jews, of course, now also possess an ethnostate in the form of Israel. The global picture for Whites looks bleak by comparison, and it is quite perversely ironic that Jews, who have done a great deal to engineer White demographic decline, should entertain such fanciful extinction narratives.

To conclude, I might also point out that Jewish influence has very rarely relied on the power of numbers or the size of the Jewish population. Jewish influence operates much more in terms of networking and co-operation among a relatively small number of cohesive and capable players. Judaism as an ecological strategy, as Kevin MacDonald points out in chapter seven of A People that Shall Dwell Alone, is also heavily reliant on high-investment parenting — relatively small numbers of children receiving high levels of care and education. Worries about Jewish birth-rates, as expressed in the Arutz Sheva thus seem redundant in light of historical trends. In the past I have used the analogy of the onion to explain that extreme outer layers of the Jewish community may at times peel away, but for the most part the entity remains whole and intact. ‘The Jewish Fold’ retains its power.


[1] Endelman, Leaving the Fold, pp.20-21.

[2] Ibid, p.24.

[3] Ibid, p.23.

[4] Ibid, p.26.

[5] Ibid, p.26.

[6] Ibid, p.26.

[7] Ibid, p.51.

[8] Ibid, p.79.

[9] Ibid, p.69.

[10] Ibid, p.68.

[11] Ibid, p.70.

[12] Ibid, p.64.

[13] Ibid, p.97.

[14] Ibid, p.103.

[15] Ibid, p.118.

[16] Ibid.

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

36 Comments to "Review: Leaving the Jewish Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History by Todd M. Endelman"

  1. Charlie's Gravatar Charlie
    October 10, 2017 - 3:37 am | Permalink

    As with whatever many monikers he goes by Brother Nathaniel Kapner, Milton Kapner, Bro Donate, etc… there is NEVER an actual conversion. There is only monitoring the Goyim, IP Trapping for the Tribe. The conversion and “seeing the light” is a sham. Once a Usury Fink, always a Usury Fink.

    • JM's Gravatar JM
      October 10, 2017 - 4:33 pm | Permalink

      @Charlie
      Bro Kapner’s done more to expose the goings on of the tribe than your nasty assertions would suggest, Charlie. How about some serious evidence instead of throwing around cheap smears?

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        October 10, 2017 - 7:47 pm | Permalink

        @JM:

        Charlie’s styling “Brother” Nathanael as a “Usury Fink” may not be particularly elegant or endearing, but his characterization of what the man might well be up to is anything but a cheap smear.

        First of all, Nathanael’s self-description as a religiously vowed Orthodox monk has only the diciest corroboration. Second, one might reasonably ask what specific Tribal goings-on he has exposed that would otherwise have remained hidden.

        Third—and to me the most troubling—is Nathanael’s claim to be the object of Jewish retaliation for his revelations. How specifically has he suffered from Jewish outrage? One need think only of such men as Kevin MacDonald, Ron Paul, Jim Caviezel, Bradley Smith, and a fortiori, David Irving to get a sense of the magnitude of private and public disruption that Jews’ displeasure can produce. If any evidence can be produced that Nathanael’s tribulations have been remotely as grievous as these men’s, I shall happily join you in applauding him as vigorously as you do.

        In the meantime, a prudent man might do far worse than read him with caution and skepticism—and with one hand carefully securing his wallet.

        • Luke's Gravatar Luke
          October 11, 2017 - 8:06 am | Permalink

          “In the meantime, a prudent man might do far worse than read him [Brother Kapner] with caution and skepticism—and with one hand carefully securing his wallet.”

          Bingo, Pierre! And, Kapner is most certainly focused like a laser beam on the wallets of his gentile fan club, who he is constantly hounding for donations.

          A few years ago, there was a minor stink that arose from an attempt by Kapner and the now retired Rev. Ted Pike – to persuade (snooker is a better word to use) the growing pro-White, White race realist, White Nationalist community to place their loyalty, devotion and primary allegiance to the religion of Christianity ahead of their loyalty, devotion, and primary allegiance to the survival of the White European race. Well, having been an honor graduate of the Dr. William L. Pierce American Dissident Voices weekly radio lectures – I immediately recognized what Kapner and Ted Pike were trying to do.

          Pierce had done several very outstanding ADV broadcasts, wherein he described how the Christian Preachers in the churches in the former Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe – played an instrumental and horrifically treasonous role in convincing the White Rhodesians to vote to end apartheid and surrender control over the nation that Whites had built to black rule under Robert Mugabe. These Christian judas goats assured their White congregations that their lives would not change in any negative or dramatically dangerous way and that these blacks would be both capable and industrious and would treat the White minority in a benevolent fashion. In other words, these Christian preachers convinced their White congregations to put their Christian faith ahead of any concerns for their racial survival, and besides that, these preachers also told their followers that to be concerned about their racial survival was ‘racist’ and ‘good Christians’ should never, ever do or think anything that was ‘racist’.

          Well, those gullible White Rhodesians took the bait and voted to turn their nation over to black rule and life has been a living nightmare ever since. Robert Mugabe has dispatched gangs of black thugs who have attacked the White farmers, murdered a sizeable number of them, raped, tortured, and mutilated White men, women, and even children – in a deliberate and premeditated campaign of racial terrorism – to drive the farmers off their land.

          To make a long story short, both Ted Pike and Brother Kapner had to eventually back off and admit that Whites should never be discouraged from being concerned for their racial survival and that survival of their people should not take a backseat to their itch to be a bible thumper.

          Oh, and there one other thing about Kapner that I would like to share. He does touch on a lot of very good issues and does a great job of exposing what his fellow jews are up to. This makes him a very good stepping stone for Whites who are still blue pilled. But, after watching and listening to Kapner for a decade or so – I have come to conclude that his role is to keep Whites clinging to Christianity, and that is due to the fact that Christianity serves to weaken the vital sense of racial awareness within those who fall under its influence.

          I have long felt that Christianity has been so thoroughly corrupted and compromised by the Cultural Marxists – that it has become one of our enemy’s most deadly weapons in their quest to genocide White European people.

          Hence, I believe that Kapner’s role is to keep as many Whites as possible clinging to Christianity.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            October 11, 2017 - 11:39 am | Permalink

            I believe that Kapner’s role is to keep as many Whites as possible clinging to Christianity.

            As I’m sure you know, Luke, I don’t agree at all with this conclusion of yours, but I am truly glad whenever and to whatever extent we find ourselves on the same page.

            I’m in favor, as I suspect you are, of postponing any and all postponable arguments till the happy day when the fons et origo of our troubles has been, at the very least, rendered maximally impotent.

          • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
            October 11, 2017 - 11:55 am | Permalink

            I don’t think there is a conscious intent from the side of Kapner to thwart racial thinking of Whites. He is simply authentically Christian and Christianity is not and never has been a racial faith. For the same reason are the non-Jews Ted Pike and E. Michael Jones, though both highly critical of Jews, not racial thinking Christians. Not everything is a conspiracy. By its very nature Christianity cannot be made into a pro-White racial faith.

            Brother Nathanael doesn’t say anything that is not already known to those who have studied the Jewish Question. His value, like that of “ex-Jew” Gilad Atzmon, is that a Jew is saying it. As such he can be tolerated.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            October 11, 2017 - 9:29 pm | Permalink

            JM: “Be careful about making ‘persecution’ a sole criterion for authenticity as it is easily feigned.”

            I, for one, didn’t do so, JM, although I certainly think the point you make in the quoted sentence is sound. The three dubia I raised are tied to Nathanael’s integrity, not, strictly speaking, his sufferings or the quality of his revelations.

            All in all—and despite my skepticism that Nathanael is indeed “authentically Christian”—I now think that Mr. Ryckaert’s comment just above cuts closest to the bone.

        • JM's Gravatar JM
          October 11, 2017 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

          @ All
          I have time to answer all constructive criticisms as one.

          The goings on of all the Western Christian churches in falling into line with the contemporary global plans of the Money Power hardly need further exposure. They are clearly done for in the eyes of most serious nationalists/patriots. What is left for many are memories of better times and for some few, the hope of a revolutionary revival. But Kapner is Eastern Orthodox, a religion which is still strongly nationally based and whose future is tied up with that of its own people and that of their nations. In Russia after 1917, the church had to be deeply persecuted and infiltrated in order to suppress its link with the people and nation. Yet it was never defeated and its authority was used in the war effort against the invading Germans. Its revival today under Putin is an essential part of the recreation of the Russian nation. I think there cannot be much doubt that Kapner chose Orthodoxy for a good reason: its loyalty to the people of the nation.

          Be careful about making ‘persecution’ as a sole criterion for authenticity as it is easily feigned.

          @Luke: “…after watching and listening to Kapner for a decade or so – I have come to conclude that HIS ROLE is to keep Whites clinging to Christianity, and that is due to the fact that Christianity serves to weaken the vital sense of racial awareness within those who fall under its influence. ”
          That is ONE of his roles. As to it, the question is whether this is a conspiracy or collateral to his role as a genuine convert. I cannot say, but I have followed him fairly closely for a decade and suspect the latter and even then it must be kept in mind we aren’t talking about western Christianity, though as has been said, all strands of Christianity have a chink of excess universal charity in their armour in the context of the present full on conspiracy of racial replacement and its corollary, national extinction. Perhaps this might be regarded as a significant sign of Christianity’s lack of true authenticity, even though it served racial and national integrity quite well until recently, otherwise we wouldn’t be here cursing (at least) its Western variants.

          BTW: I haven’t given him a cent, though what is wrong with soliciting donations for a good cause? After all, as an ‘ex-Jew’ he could be expected to do it with gusto.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            October 11, 2017 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

            Dear JM: I accidentally misplaced my brief reply to this comment of yours; it lies just above rather than here, where it should be. I apologize for so doing.

        • October 12, 2017 - 9:08 am | Permalink

          @Franklin Ryckaert – Gilad Atzmon is NOT an “ex-Jew”. He hate to be called ISRAELI.

          There has never been an “ex-Jew” in the West. In fact, Pope John Paul II born to a Polish Jew mother), Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (born to German Jew parents), and Pope Francis – all believe that Christian salvation is through Jews.

          Francis has claimed that “every good Christian has a Jewish soul”. He also claimed that Jews didn’t kill Jesus.

          Christians around the world will celebrate Easter on Sunday, April 16, 2017. On Palm Sunday, Pope Francis like his predecessor Benedict XVI exonerated Pharisees of their part in crucification of Jesus and blamed Roman Governor Pontius Pilate for nailing Jesus to the Cross.

          Contrary to that the New Testament (Matthew 27:19-24) and Jewish Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) state that Pontius Pilate was not interested in sentencing Jesus to death as he didn’t believe Jesus to be an ‘existential threat’ to Roman occupation of Palestine (watch a video below).

          https://rehmat1.com/2017/04/16/pope-francis-exonerates-jews-of-crucification/

    • Charlie's Gravatar Charlie
      October 12, 2017 - 6:46 am | Permalink

      It’s more important to note what Kapner a.k.a. Bro Donate prevents from being said rather than his propelling his mental illness on the readers. Kapner will ALWAYS delete criticisms of Israhell. He will always being staunchly anti-Catholic (red flag that a jew is amongst you – i.e. Catholicism is the jew’s mortal enemy and i.e. why they founded the KKK to attempt to prevent Irish Catholics from fleeing the British Genocide of White Irish Catholics). Kapner’s missives are “believeable” if one opens their mind to circus antics. He dances around with a crucifix as if he were a circus clown, openly mocking the image of Christ being murdered by the Christ Killers. He does so where one white glove as if he were a circumcised, hook nosed, Michael Jackson. The “man” which is a stretch to call him that is a sideshow freak. His claims of persecution of been dismissed by the very usury finks that he names as delusions. The tribe has openly admitted that they tried to seek help for Kapner but Kapner became a stalker and a law enforcement issue for them and that is why they dismiss him. His claims to be a Christian are bogus as any true Christian can spot a faker a mile away. Also, keep in mind as a tribe member he is NOT White. The jew is a Caucasian not a White European. Always shun the pretender in your midst as they are a interloper and a confederate.

  2. October 10, 2017 - 4:27 am | Permalink

    Jewish Shari’ah, Halakhah, says that a person born to a Jewish mother will remain Jewish even if he converts to other faiths or became an atheist.

    American Jewish author Alan Levin in his 2015 book, Crossing the Boundary: Stories of Jewish Leaders of Other Spiritual Path, explains that cult identity.

    Normally, when a Jew, Christian or a Hindu leaves his/her parents religion and adopts Islam – it’s known ‘conversion’ – abandoning all nationalistic and cultural ties with Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism. However, Alan Levin claims that if a Jew adopts Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism or Agnosticism – he cannot shed away his inner Jewishness and love for state of Israel.

    In the book, Alan Levin chronicle the stories of fourteen Jewish-born individuals who became Sikh, Sufi, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu chant master, visionary artist, Advaita teacher, Pagan witch, interfaith minister, Catholic priest, and a leader of a syncretic Brazilian church. However, they never abandoned traditions of their tribe, Holocaust or Israel.

    https://rehmat1.com/2017/09/25/book-born-jew-forever-jewish/

  3. October 10, 2017 - 4:47 am | Permalink

    Very interesting. This author goes right to the relevant daily issues with immense background. One feels very refreshed and uplifted after reading his articles.

  4. October 10, 2017 - 4:53 am | Permalink

    I’m surprised after all Dr Joyce’s reading that he seems to pick out “roles as ‘middle man minorities’” as characteristic of Jews. One of their most outstanding achievements has been inventing and spreading religions (hasn’t it?). It’s not surprising they don’t take Christianity seriously, since they invented it and got our ‘endlessly gullible and altruistic’ forebears to pay, as their descendants still do.

    • October 10, 2017 - 6:07 am | Permalink

      Professor emeritus Bernard Starr (City University of New York, Brooklyn College) in an article entitled, “Who founded Christianity?” published on December 24, 2016 – claimed that it’s not Jesus or even St. Paul (Saul) who invented Christianity – but Jews.

      “Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or Paul say he is rejecting Judaism and starting a new religion. In fact, the term “Christian” doesn’t appear at all in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), which chronicle Jesus’ spiritual mission; and only later, three times in the rest of the New Testament. The first utterance of the word “Christian” occurred when Paul was teaching in Antioch more than a decade after the crucifixion,” said Starr.

      https://rehmat1.com/2016/12/27/jew-scholar-we-invented-christianity/

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        October 10, 2017 - 10:35 am | Permalink

        (1) Starr, like you, Rehmat, hates the very idea of the Incarnation and spits upon the Trinity. Thus, the idea that he would make impartial reference to a “spiritual mission” for Jesus, whom Starr’s beloved Talmud describes in the foulest and most sexually depraved terms imaginable, is a joke in poor taste.

        (2) By the way, my own soon-to-be-completed scholarly paper demonstrating that Bernard Starr is a Jewish supremacist and Christophobe will be offered first to you, Rehmat, because of your sterling reputation for pursuit of the truth without fear or favor.

        (3) You should write for Wikipedia, Rehmat. The Sayanim Sams and Hasbara Harrys there have as little regard for basic rationality as you do.

        • October 10, 2017 - 4:27 pm | Permalink

          Hi Pierre de Craon – I don’t know about Starr, but I don’t believe in “incarnation”, simply because I’m not a Hindu.

          One doesn’t need a PhD to figure out that Starr, like John Hagee is a Crypto Jew.

          I never trusted Wikipeadia – because it’s an Israeli Hasbara project.

          What I think of Christianity? You are welcome my views below ….

          https://rehmat1.com/2009/01/10/searching-for-jesus-as-eh/

    • October 10, 2017 - 3:23 pm | Permalink

      Christianity is more of an argument than a religion. It’s an argument for [the] embodied oral tradition [of Judaism].

      “When gentiles who do not possess the Law carry out its precepts by the light of Nature, then, although they have no law, they are their own law, for they display the effect of the law inscribed on their hearts. Their conscience is called as witness, and their own thoughts ARGUE the case on either side against them or even for them, on the day when God judges the secrets of human hearts through Christ Jesus. So my gospel declares”.
      Paul in Romans 2:14-16

      I added the brackets to indicate that embodied oral tradition precedes Judaism in the Rig Veda and in Zoroastrianism.

    • JM's Gravatar JM
      October 10, 2017 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

      @Rerevisionist
      “It’s not surprising they don’t take Christianity seriously, since they invented it…”
      Oh God, what a madhouse!
      Maybe you should blame the Greeks too because – very early on – they were more important than the Jews in refining Christianity to its modern form.
      If you want and Atheistic interpretation of Christianity, we can say it was a Jewish-Greek then Roman conspiracy.

      • October 10, 2017 - 6:28 pm | Permalink

        Maybe you should reply to the comment that they invented Christianity. I should make it clear that the ORIGINAL probably Roman ‘Christianity’ had nothing to do with Jews. But they took it over and it’s hard to see why they would take it seriously apart from its implicit proof that goyim are gullible, in the face of intense propaganda.

  5. Mr Curious's Gravatar Mr Curious
    October 10, 2017 - 8:37 am | Permalink

    SNOW BUNNY (noun) – A dumb White ho who gives her earnings to google. She gets cash for nails, hair, condoms in return.

    SNOW BUMMY – A dumb White ho who gives his money to google. He gets his flag peed on, his anthem desecrated and his entires race & culture mocked in return.

  6. OO reader's Gravatar OO reader
    October 10, 2017 - 12:55 pm | Permalink

    I read this book when it first came out. I agree that conversion does not seem to dampen the ethnic ties of Jews and that conversion is often insincere.

  7. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    October 10, 2017 - 4:14 pm | Permalink

    “Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patients soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary”…..”The safest road to hell is the gradual one”…..”We want cattle.” – The Screwtape Letters; C.S. Lewis
    These excerpts were instructions given by senior demon Screwtape to the novitiate demon Wormwood. Although a satirical work of fiction, dedicated to J. R. R. Tolkien, rereading it in the light of what’s going on today, I’m struck by the insight C.S. Lewis had in 1942, sadly becoming prophesy. Interestingly, the Jews appear to have shut their ears to demon mutterings, and have prospered at our expense.

  8. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    October 10, 2017 - 6:56 pm | Permalink

    It’s not even true that all is good for Jews. They are high-parenting group. This was a huge advantage in the past. Now that Whites too have become high-parenting, Jews have lost all advantages that come with high-parenting, and kept the disadvantages that come with it, like a disastrous demographics. The little Jews are not happy at all. They know that the Holocaust paradise is over, and they’re being singled out again. With so much information around, there’s no much room for manipulation. Otherwise said, everybody is manipulating everybody, which is how Jews get lost.

    Also. Given the very high over-overrepresentation of Jews in all institutions, it’s very easy to conclude that Jews have overshot their IQ. This is typical of… Borderline Personality Disorder, together with the fact that they have a marginally higher IQ than the average of the population. I am completely unimpressed by my Jewish professors and Jewish students.

    I think Jews are actually in real decline, and Netanyahu has voiced this as well. The Jewish dilemma is this now. To keep the high-parenting they have to go where the quality education is. There they get assimilated. If they keep low-parenting, like it is the case, comparatively, with the Orthodox Jews, they will be cut out of the halls of power.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      October 16, 2017 - 4:15 am | Permalink

      Ger Tzedek: ” With so much information around, there’s no much room for manipulation.”
      This is a very important major new factor coming into play in recent decades, that did not exist previously. I have seen views expressed in Youtube (ie for the masses) that I never even heard mentioned for decades before in any newspaper.

      It is actually incredible to watch videos and to realise that the elite managed to hide all this for decades. Thus the people are becoming informed and the narrative is less controlled. The question is whether or not the left will regain control of the internet as they are trying to, or will the urge of the people to hear other narratives overwhelm the left’s attempts to regain control.

      “I think Jews are actually in real decline”
      Perhaps networking is becoming less important. In past centuries you HAD to get a recommendation or help in order to enhance your career. An example of this practice being rejected – and the results proving successful – was when the civil servants who administered British India were chosen on the basis of an exam alone and no family connections helped. And then the grammar school system also followed this principle, where you got a leg up by personal qualities (you passed the entrance exam) rather than by connections.

      Today family influence is less important, as one can be successful without any help.

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        October 16, 2017 - 4:20 am | Permalink

        The question is whether or not the left will regain control of the NARRATIVE, not the internet, as they never controlled that, although they are making intensified efforts at present to do so, and Obama would have helped them a lot.

  9. Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
    October 10, 2017 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

    How come Jacob Frank got no gig in the reviewed book ?

  10. October 11, 2017 - 7:10 am | Permalink

    There’s another point understated by Dr Joyce’s review, which is the way Jews historically got themselves established. In Russia and E Europe there were large population pools of Jews. In what now looks a big mistake, the Tsar liberalised education; the result was Jews absorbed stuff in their mechanical way, took over positions here and there, and then where possible promoted only Jews, in a population-replacing way. Very like the modern US ‘education’ system. And very unlike being just a ‘middleman’.

    • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
      October 12, 2017 - 12:43 am | Permalink

      I think you’re over-emphasizing my use of the term middleman minority, which appears only once in the essay (at the beginning) and where I make it clear that Jews are not a typical middleman minority even if, historically, they performed roles which overlapped with those performed by other human populations occupying that category. The emphasis is on ethnocentrism. What you’ve said confirms this, though you’ve phrased it in the tone of disagreement.

      • October 13, 2017 - 5:54 am | Permalink

        Yes, I’m sorry to seem aggressive. The problem we all have is that ‘ethnocentrism’, ‘Ethnic networking’ etc are such pallid expressions. Imagine (e.g.) watching Russians starve to or be beaten to death by Jews in subzero temperatures: describing this as “Jews applying their ethnic networking” is itself a triumph of propaganda.

  11. gjjd's Gravatar gjjd
    October 11, 2017 - 6:33 pm | Permalink

    I recently read that the number of Jews in America is greater than it ever has been. Apparently the Jews who marry out still end up passing Jewish identity to their kids. Perhaps the kids can just tell that it is far better to be Jewish in our world now. In any case, the Jewish community is more of a clique or clan than a coherent cultural or religious group, so “Jews of color” and 95% European Jews does not matter to them.

    • Andy's Gravatar Andy
      October 12, 2017 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

      Looks like the number of self-identified Jews is going to decline a lot over the next 20 years in the US. Marrying out is their main problem apparently:-

      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20982

      We have an organised Jewry which is deeply entrenched in the halls of power and a rapidly shrinking population of self-identified Jews, at least in the US, though I gather the same process is in play in the UK judging from this Telegraph article from 2006:-

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535182/Is-this-the-last-generation-of-British-Jews.html

      There has been some commentary in the British mainstream media relating to sheer extent of Jewish power and influence. The link below is for the UK current affairs programme ‘Dispatches: Inside Britain’s Israeli Lobby (2009) ‘:-

    • Lou's Gravatar Lou
      October 12, 2017 - 10:14 pm | Permalink

      I once was ‘truth bombed’ by a stranger on the street.
      She started gabbing to me.
      Her tale ‘I am a jew in L.A. and the Jew charities wont help me. They only help jew immigrants.’

      Kid you not.

  12. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    October 16, 2017 - 5:30 am | Permalink

    Andrew Joyce: “At the heart of the Jewish Question lies an extraordinary level of ethnocentrism. The tremendous capacity of Jews for mutual co-operation and the reinforcement of group identity is one of the behavioral markers that set them apart from most other human populations.”

    Contrast this with examples from the opposite end of the spectrum – individualistic westerners who adopt some race such as Indians or Africans and then devote all their energies to helping this foreign race, with a passion so intense and altruistic that they risk their own lives and that of their children (missionary children dying from tropical diseases) to help these other races.

    And the fact that they get not one letter of thanks from the groups that they help after doing this for years does not dent their affection for these other races or their loyalty to them. Anything that goes wrong is always explained away in terms of faults in their own white race who ‘provoked them to attack us’ or ‘exploited them’ (by giving them schools and hospitals? Oh that’s right, we did not give them enough) and they are just reacting.

  13. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    October 16, 2017 - 5:35 am | Permalink

    Andrew Joyce: “to probe the weaknesses of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy”

    This is an important point mentioned by Andrew Joyce – we must not view all strategies as winning ones in the long term just because they are successful for a while. Strategies that were fine-tuned and developed in desert tribes by natural selection, and then transposed to the West, might not be winning strategies in the new environment in the long term. They might be for a while, eg while the West is feeling generous and rich and easy to parasite on, but in the long term can in fact be bad strategies, just as the parasite that kills its host is not acting in its own best interest in the long term. Some hosts will in the end just die (eg as white S. Africans are submitting to their fate, so the Africans will simply kill off the goose that gives them the golden eggs, ie it is not a good long-term strategy for the blacks over there to genocide the whites, but this does not stop them), but other hosts will react against the parasite instead of accepting its own death.

    There are many examples of populations carrying bad genes that cause self –harm, and which nevertheless cannot be got rid of by natural selection as one might expect would happen. This is because (1) Humans have few children and put all their energies into making sure their 2 children survive, not into having 10 children and letting nat selection join in the process and get rid of most of them. So as a race we are ‘locked with’ the hand of cards that we were dealt with at some time in the past. (2) The prevailing culture prevents better genes from taking a hold. The person with genes for non-corruption (ie genes for honesty) in India is turned on by the rest. The fact that they would all be better off if they chose the best people for top roles instead of their cousin makes no difference to them – they are locked into this way of thinking and the culture stops the better genes from conferring survival advantage. They would rather the doctor at the hospital be their own incompetent cousin who kills half his patients due to clumsiness than a competent person with nimble fingers and a high IQ, but from the wrong caste. I think they would still want this to be the case even if they themselves were going to be admitted to that very same hospital. ie tribal loyalty is higher even than self-interest.

    Another example of genes being common in the gene pool and which are also bad for the population is Westerners not wanting children. This gene is common and up until now nat selection did not mind it being so common, as it was never allowed a say (such types were still pressurised by society into having children, plus, there was no contraception) . But now all of a sudden it does matter, whereas in the past it did not, so now in the West there is indeed intense natural selection pressure causing the people who do not want children (but might still want the sex and/or marriage) to die out and remove this newly revealed own-race-harming tendency from the gene pool.

  14. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    October 16, 2017 - 5:41 am | Permalink

    “and extreme reaction to the prospect of conversion was mass communal murder-suicide. Such spectacles were both surprising and horrifying to European witnesses.”

    Surely this serves to demonstrate differences in races that are so profound that only genetic differences can explain them. At the height of the protestant versus catholic conflicts I doubt that any parent actually stabbed their own children for converting, or if they did, they would not have been greeted with general approval from the rest of the community. The reaction would be horror and disbelief and condemnation. I feel the Western congregations are perhaps slightly ill at ease with the notion of Abraham willing to sacrifice his own son ‘because of his religion’, and congregations gave a sigh of relief when God said he was only joking.

    Perhaps this demonstrates the way the ethnocentric put group loyalty so high that it is higher than loyalty to their own children and higher than self-interest.

    Individualists are loyal to cultural ideas, (eg the Westerners have accepted the current culture of self-hate) but not so loyal to it that they will stab their own children from this loyalty. Ethnocentrics will go this extra step, so their loyalty to tribe is more permanent and greater than the individualist’s loyalty to culture. This is partly because culture is plastic whereas tribal loyalty is something that cannot change.

    Therefore in India and Pakistan hundreds/thousands of children are killed every year in honour killings by their own parents, or with their consent. There was TV documentary and when such individuals ended up in prison the guards and other prisoners respected them. Contrast this with the way a Westerner who kills their own children are viewed, ie despised.

    This profound difference in the behaviour of races can only be explained by genes, as it is so great that it leads to general acceptance in the race for the killing your children in India, which would never, never become accepted as honourable in the West. This proves that the race/family loyalty is greater for them than love for the child (to say nothing about aversion to stabbing someone to death or strangulation, taking several minutes, in cold blood, while they beg for their lives, someone you raised from a baby). Further emphasised by the fact that they often get three or four family members involved, brothers, uncles, grandma. Ie not one lone person – they all are of one mind. Imagine for a second a professional successful white person (ie had a job and a house as opposed to being criminal scum with hardly a brain) who did stab their own 16 year old daughter after planning it beforehand ie when and where, what cord to use, put it in the drawer ready for tomorrow. Imagine 5 years later remembering the day they strangled their child to death – surely the murder would torment them and drive them insane or to suicide. Unlike these families in Pakistan who seem to retain their equanimity after the event, ie it does not seem to trouble them, and they feel calm that family honour has been restored.

    Surely these details of the killing process and peace of mind after it in the years that follow demonstrate that their thought patterns must be significantly different.
    Only different genes can explain such profound differences in thinking.

    And note that in this child-killing phenomenon, the Jews are able to do the same, so they are genetically more like the arabs and Indians in this respect than they are the westerners.


Comment Policy
Comments that include personal insults, epithets, or profanity may be censored. Comments that promote or suggest illegal activities will be censored.


Comment Formatting
<b>BOLD</b>
<u>UNDERLINE</u>
<i>ITALIC</i>
<a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net">HYPERLINK</a>

<blockquote> BLOCKQUOTE </blockquote>

Leave a Reply