Review of Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism

I had known about Douglas Rushkoff’s treatment of Judaism; Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism, for some time and had always meant to read and review it.[i] A video of Rushkoff discussing his take on Judaism surfaced online discussing the infamous ‘Barbara Spectre moment’ — that is a political gaffe from the tribe’s mouth. We can say these “Spectre moments” are when a Jewish activist candidly discusses Jewish cultural activism on non-Jews and their nations. Here’s Rushkoff’s Barbara Spectre Moment:

The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true, we don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state, we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people; these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that.

 

In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force, we’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real and that’s very upsetting to people.”

The central reason Jews like Rushkoff and Barbara Spectre allow themselves to speak candidly about Jewish social engineering is because they believe that by manipulating predominantly non-Jewish societies they are doing the world a service — they are in fact doing God’s work. By undermining their host nations so as to bring about conditions of disunity, Jews like Rushkoff and Spectre believe that in performing this role of “a corrosive force” “breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people,” they are performing a mitzvah as part of their god-ordained task of tikkun olam. A mitzvah is translated as a ‘commandment’ but more commonly means a good deed done from religious duty. Rushkoff describes tikkun olam as “a poetic way of expressing the responsibility Jews have to ‘heal the earth.’[ii] In my two part essay on integration, “Manspreading for Lebestrum,” I discuss the HBO series Show me a Hero, based on a book by Jewish New York Times writer Lisa Belkin about the integration struggle in Yonkers between the NAACP and their Jewish lawyers versus the ethnic Whites of Yonkers. Again we discern the same underlying self-justification:

Belkin seeks to frame the issue of integration in terms of a progressive Jewish solution to the Jewish problem, while fully retaining her Jewishness. When asked about the overtly Jewish role in integration, Belkin neither denies nor downplays the Jewish role. Instead she invokes the Jewish religious principle of Tiklun Olam, a Hebrew phrase meaning ‘repairing the world.’ Tiklun Olam, was described by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in terms of a Kehilla (community) of Jews in galut (diaspora) successfully influencing their non-Jewish neighbors.”[iii]

What Jews like Rushkoff, Spectre and Belkin affirm is that what “anti-Semites” claim; that Jewish manipulation and its corrosive effects are real; they agree that Jews influence various things but they give it a benign interpretation;  the “anti-semite” is simply a gentile with the wrong interpretation of why Jews do what they do. Jews know better. “The Jews’ unique position as perpetual outsiders led them to adopt and promote a wide range of cosmopolitan and inclusive business strategies and ethical standards.”[iv] Thus, diaspora Jews living in host nations seeking to ‘influence’ their non-Jewish neighbors in a manner which is demonstrably detrimental to their hosts by acting against the authentic bonds of organic society—Tonnies’ Total Gesellschaft.  It just so happens that these actions are beneficial to Jews, as Rushkoff acknowledges. A Jewish attitude like “A fluid society with ever-changing boundaries served them better than a closed or static one in which outsiders and new ideas were feared”[v] is interpreted by Jews as a gift or a service they are rendering onto their Gentile neighbors.

Rushkoff and Belkin make Jewish social engineering into a fundamental religious precept inherent in Judaism rather and sometimes partially acknowledged as a diaspora social-political strategy to weaken the host; “It is not only our tradition, but our explicit obligation to act as stewards for the greater society.”[vi] To this end Rushkoff discusses the widely known Jewish role in desegregation and integration; “In 1952, the American Jewish Congress worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) to target unfair housing policy. Through a series of legal battles, American Jewish Congress attorneys ended the whites-only policy of New York City’s Stuyvesant Town, setting an important legal precedent against discrimination in housing projects that received any amount of public aid.”[vii]

What is interesting is that Rushkoff subtly acknowledges the self-serving and contingent strategic basis of such practices, something Karl Popper, the Jewish philosopher of the ‘Open Society,’ never could. Popper in his The Open Society and its Enemies, expressed the same desires for a universalist, cosmopolitan, pluralist, liberal society, yet Popper rightly concluded that these values were largely the opposite of the Jewish religion, which according to Popper,[viii] and almost all students of comparative religions (e.g., Hegel) is a tribal supremacist ‘closed society.’ On the other hand, in Rushkoff’s deconstructionist, self-serving interpretation of Judaism, it becomes the wellspring from which ‘open society’ values spring. While Popper denied the very Jewish strategic basis of his viewpoint, conservative Jew Malachi Haim Hacohen, who is a foremost Popper scholar and critic, points towards Popper’s assimilated Ashkenazi Jewishness as the main source of his political viewpoint: Cosmopolitanism appealed to Popper and liberal Jews precisely because of their life in between cultures and their indeterminate identity. Claiming membership in an imagined cosmopolitan community, Popper rejected Jewish identity. “I do not consider myself ‘an assimilated German Jew,’” he told a critic of his Autobiography, “this is how ‘the Fuhrer would have considered me.”[ix]

Enlightenment philosophers, especially Voltaire, often portrayed the Jew as the counter-universal.[x] Popper refused to see the Jewish basis for his commitment to Kant’s cosmopolitanism. He would have sided with Marx and declared, “the question is not the emancipation of the Jews, but, rather, emancipation from the Jews… The emancipation of the Jews . . . is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism.” Whereas Popper considered Judaism as a tribalist cult of a ‘closed society,’ Rushkoff seeks to re-interpret and thus salvage Judaism by imagining that the social engineering that Jews have been engaged in during modernity is actually the philosophical and moral foundations of Judaism itself. Jews are able to successfully carry out radical changes in society because of their internal cohesion, their sense of mission as Jews, while the changes they bring about are specifically designed to fragment the internal cohesion, the ‘we-ness’ of their hosts. The very success of the Jews working as groups of Jews undermines their stated principles of tolerance and plurality as inherently beneficial. Thus, the changes they established in immigration, desegregation, and integration can only be viewed as acts of subversion.

The problem here is that Jewish tribalism and secular universalism are antithetical, and hence assimilated Jews, especially if they are conscious of maintaining their Jewishness, are involved in a kind of fraud and deception (or self-deception). Nevertheless, Rushkoff in the face of all prevailing evidence (which he himself acknowledges), writes:  “True enough, my entire premise is contradicted by the many ways our own myths and customs have always been profoundly steeped in racial and ethnic assumptions. There are as many warnings in the Torah to kill our tribal neighbors as there are encouragements to embrace them [actually it’s weighed quite a bit more to the killing side]. A good number of our most observant members ground their faith and pride in the Torah’s plentiful admonitions not to mix with other, lesser people”[xi]  Rushkoff explains the Jewish strategy: “Anti-semites are not entirely unfounded in their claim that Jews are behind a great media conspiracy… If there is an agenda underlying Jews’ dedication to expanding the role of media in people’s lives, it is to promote an intellectual perspective and the value of pluralism.”[xii] ‘Intellectual perspective’ as used here is obviously a euphemism for the values and perspectives of the Jews. “Media, then, at its best, is a form of mass education” meaning brainwashing. “The more interconnected a society, the more likely it was to engage in complex transactions requiring Jews’ service. And the more inclusive and tolerant a society, the more likely it was to include the Jews, too.” Is this not saying diversity is good because it is good for the Jews?[xiii]


[i] It was some years ago that I first encountered Rushkoff. I read his Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take it Back. This was a part of a resurgence of far-left anti-corporatism, such as Jewish author Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and the film The Corporation (2003) by Jewish-Canadian filmmaker Mark Achbar. Having never abandoned a belief in socialist leanings and the negative effects of unbridled capitalism there was something to glean out of these student day forays of mine.

I recall even now that the central problem with Rushkoff’s book was the superficial quality of it; he attempted to fill pages buttressing his specious arguments with name-dropping and platitudes instead of real critical analysis to give the book the illusion of weight rather than internal cohesion. It had the same kind of swindling fraudulent quality as Jonah Lehrer’s work.

[ii] ” Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 36.

[iii] “Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 1 and 2 – Alex Fontana.” 30 Sep. 2017, https://alexfontana.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/manspreading-for-lebensraum-part-1-and-2/. Accessed 28 Feb. 2018.

[iv] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 06.

[v] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 07.

[vi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 04.

[vii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 41.

[viii] “Hearing as a young boy the biblical story of the Golden Calf, said Popper, he had recognized the roots of religious intolerance in Jewish monotheism. The Hebrew Bible was the fountainhead of tribal nationalism. Oppressed and persecuted, exilic Jews created the doctrine of the Chosen People, presaging modern visions of chosen class and race. Both Roman imperialism and early Christian humanitarianism threatened the Jews’ tribal exclusivism. Jewish orthodoxy reacted by reinforcing tribal bonds, shutting Jews off from the world for two millennia. The ghetto was the ultimate closed society, a “petrified form of Jewish tribalism. Its inhabitants lived in misery, ignorance, and superstition. Their separate existence evoked the suspicion and hatred of non-Jews and fueled antisemitism.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History, 71(1), 105-149.

[ix] “The ambiguity of Austrian nationality gave Jews an opportunity missing elsewhere for negotiating Jewish and national identity. Jews were the only ethnic group to adopt enthusiastically the official Staatsgedanke.

The politics of Jewish identity was notoriously contentious, but poor Galician traditionalists and re-fined Viennese assimilationists, orthodox rabbis and liberal scholars, Zionists and socialists, all declared their loyalty to the dynasty and the supranational empire. “Jews are the standard-bearers of the Austrian idea of unity,” stated the liberal Viennese rabbi Adolf Jellinek.” Hacohen, M. (1999). Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and “Central European Culture”. The Journal of Modern History, 71(1), 105-149.

[x] Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243.}

[xi] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print. 176.

[xii] Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing sacred : the truth about Judaism. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003. Print.  8.

[xiii] If real unity comes from a shared sense of ‘we’ that is internal cohesion, prior to the changes wrought about by special interests groups in the Anglosphere’s immigration policies (1965 US, 1967 Canada, 1972 Australia) collectively neologized as “globalized integration strategy,” (GIS) immigration was dictated in terms of racial-cultural preference. As such the idea of the melting pot was one based on shared culture, race and civilizational bloc. The idea was to create a melted European-American. As such the bio-politics of Europe have been left behind in favor of what I have elsewhere called “elective affinities.” Elective Affinities denote the linear and interconnected tradition of Western Civilization and peoples – we feel ourselves to be a part of European Civilization. As such the crude biological determinism of Nordic supremacy has betrayed the more rational argument of in-group preference,  ‘a shared sense of we’ as Charles Maurras put it.  “Jews threatened the integral nation not by their blood but by their own nonlinear history and alternative tradition, by the disruption to integral form their presence within the nation provoked in the nation-work. The Jew is the ultimate figure of the non-Greek or anti-Greek (and thus the non-French or anti-French…”) See: Carroll, David. French literary fascism : nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the ideology of culture. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1995. Print. 88.

Maurras is essentially holding the same views as Voltaire: “The nucleus of Voltaire’s view of the Jews, however, amounts to this: there is a cultural, philosophical, and ethnic tradition of Europe which descended, through the human stock of that continent, from the intellectual values that were taught by the Greeks. Those were in turn carried to all the reaches of the European world by the Romans. This is the normative culture of which Voltaire approved. The Jews are a different family, and their religion is rooted in their character.” See: Arkush, Allan. “Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity.” AJS Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 223–243. With Rushkoff,, the Jew can  have his cake and gets eat it too.

58 replies
  1. F2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.ranklin Ryckaert
    F2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.ranklin Ryckaert says:

    “…we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people; these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that…”

    The “god” of Judaism is himself a tribal god of a tribal people. First he was the “god” of a family, the “god” of Abraham , Isaak and Jacob. Then he became the “god” of a tribe, forbidding the worship of other tribal gods, who were considered just as real. Finally he was considered as the only god, but still bound by tribal allegiance to the Jews. This he has remained to this day : a contradictory god who is at the same time universal and tribal. If Rushkoff wants to “smash idols”, he should begin by smashing the idol of his own tribal god.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Bravo.

      But of course, no Jew has the capacity – and most certainly not the inclination – to understand or accept that level of gross, shameful self-deceit and moral hypocrisy.

      We are, in so many ways, so much BETTER on a very fundamental moral level than they are – or have ever been.

      • Ger Tzedek
        Ger Tzedek says:

        You inherit the morals, they inherit the Earth, no matter on what vile methods they got it. This is the mindset that you must change before we win.

        • T. J.
          T. J. says:

          What is a Ger Tzedek?

          In the Talmud, ger is used in two senses: ger tzedek refers to a “righteous convert”, a proselyte to Judaism, and ger toshav, a non-Jewish inhabitant of the Land of Israel who observes the Seven Laws of Noah and has repudiated all links with idolatry. In Modern Hebrew, the unqualified term ger means ger tzedek

          So this person is an admitted convert to Judaism. . .

          • Ger Tzedek
            Ger Tzedek says:

            Current meaning is “righteous goy”. I could potentially convert, if I wished, but they’d prefer to dissuade me.

            I didn’t convert to Judaism for the same gut feeling as Saint Vladimir the Great, king of Kiev. He told Jews, in my own words, “you have been chastised by God. How dare you preach to others? We don’t want to lose our fatherland.”

            I have heard Jews lament that if King Vladimir the Great had converted to Judaism, world history would have been a different one. It wouldn’t have been. In fact, the king of Khazaria converted to Judaism, and lost his fatherland.

    • James
      James says:

      If you are smashing Judaism and even say Islam but defending Christianity as some supposed ‘moral and “pro white” religion you would be wrong. Europeans are doomed so long as they think An imported slave master religion will save them. We need a new post Christian thinking and I believe it will happen given the fall of Christianity.

  2. GeorgeKocan
    GeorgeKocan says:

    This essay provides some background material which I do not recall reading in E. Michael Jones’ book, “The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing.” In the 60’s, I remember well seeing almost every day a University of Chicago sociologist, aptly named Philip Houser decrying the segregated housing in Chicago and claiming that allowing black persons to move into ethnic neighborhoods was good for Chicago and the world. During this time THE REV. Dr. Martin Luther King came to Chicago and affixed his own version of Martin Luther’s 95 theses on the door of city hall, where the Catholic mayor Richard J. Daley presided. The moral imperative was “open housing.” In retrospect, it should be obvious that the whole business amounted to ethnic cleansing, the cleansing of Catholics from the neighborhoods and allowing Southern Protestants to replace them. Among the literati the term “ethnic cleansing” of course is never used. That put the immoral onus on the so-called civil rights lobby, which prefers the term, “white flight,” as if Catholic Europeans and others caught in the forced emigration were somehow unreasonable in fleeing crime and other maladies which came with social and moral disruption.

  3. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    It is quite a curious analysis that casts Jewish mass media control as essentially the product of the Jewish missionary spirit that motivates them to fix the world. On this perspective, they get to look very much like the faith-propelled Christian missionary. Finally though, I find this analysis very unconvincing. For instance, our Jewish media foist cultural and racial diversity on us, but spare themselves from it, as witness the tight control on who is allowed to become a citizen of the criminal state of Israel.
    I’m sorry, Mr Fontana, but it seems to me that you are putting too good a face on the Jewish pursuit of exclusive media ownership.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      With the greatest of respect, I think you have misunderstood our Author’s emphasis. At every point in his essay, he is simply re-counting the flawed views of Rushkoff, Belkin et al, and summarising their incorrect, invalid, immoral, unchangeably JEWISH view of their own behaviour, as regards the complete monopoly of media and it’s primary purpose for forced re-education – ie White brainwashing.

      Nowhere does Mr Fontana state or imply that he accepts that disgraceful and self-deceitful Jewish self-justification. I certainly concur with his clearly-implied personal view – that in fact the standard Jewish behaviour – their neurotic, self-obsessed, self-congratulatory and utterly immoral, remorseless, satanic evil in weakening, undermining and destroying the fabrics of societies so very much better and more humane than their own tell any intelligent observer all he needs to know about the true character and aims of the timeless, rootless, loyalty-free, destructive, international wandering Jew.

      And as has been pointed out repeatedly by much better commenters than me, eventually their committed, ruthless, genocidal anti-White racism by any political, religious or social means possible will meet precisely the same end as it has always met in the past. Come the day.

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        Dave, I commented on the ‘analysis that casts Jewish mass media control as essentially the product of the Jewish missionary spirit that motivates them to fix the world …’. And that analysis is the author’s.

  4. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    The reason why they speak so candidly is because of the arrogance of their confidence. This is what does them in. This is another typical trait of people (and cultures) who suffer from (or enjoy) Borderline Personality Disorder. While they are the consummate liars and deceivers, occasionally the mask slips. This especially happens when they are at the peak of their disdain for their victims.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          I am not going to read 500 pages. Why did you bring this up?

          One possible answer among several: others might be interested in reading it, O Righteous One.

          Comments add value to an article in direct proportion as those commenting at least make a stab at offering reflections of use to others. But the vanity and solipsism that underlie the quoted comment and Ger’s other diarized wails—usually amounting to Je suis tout seul, et personne ne m’aime—make a mockery of reflection.

          The earlier reference to Borderline Personality Disorder is revealing in its irony. The gentleman is evidently so far inland in his own personality quirks that one may legitimately wonder whether he has ever seen its border.
          ——–
          (Mod. Note: Pierre, thank you for this: “Comments add value to an article in direct proportion as those commenting at least make a stab at offering reflections of use to others.” That’s why the comments here even exist!)

          • Ger Tzedek
            Ger Tzedek says:

            Could have written the comment un-nested. I thought it was related to my comment.

            Je suis tout seul par choix. Comment aurais-je pû étudier autant sans solitude? J’ai pas bésoin de ton amour. Vous comme communauté semblez touts seule et aucun juif vous aime. Même les blancs vous ignorent.

            Vanity, I have some. Just compare the two of us. If you are so arrogant, Mr Nobody, why shouldn’t I? I will stop glorifying you guys and only mind my own personal interest.

            Qui finisce male.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Ger Tzedek – I think you are correct in your explanation of why they commit these own-goals. The same applies to the left – own goals all the time. We must not assume that the enemies of civilisation always use the best tactics.

      Another example of bad tactics and own goals is the way the left and allies are not simply being ‘pro-black’ any more, they are now openly anti-white. Eg there was a lot of this in the Oscar ceremony (I saw Mark Dice’s report on this on Youtube). No way is this open hostility and open racism by lefty whites against whites a good tactic. They should have carried on pretending they were only ‘caring people’ concerned for blacks and did not hate whites. They used to take this stance and did very well out of it, especially when deceiving the young. Now their open hostility to whites is a bad tactic, on a par with B Spectre’s moment . So this unrestrained hatred of whites from lefty whites is another example of over-confidence and bad tactics. This change in the behaviour of the left to reveal their hatred for whites has been quite marked and quite recent. It is a very strange phenomenon. Another of those things that no-one would ever have predicted.

      Another example of bad tactics that could backfire is the enemy within opening the borders of Western countries to the third world too wide too quickly, which could cause the sleeping voters to wake up and stop lying down on the floor to be trampled on more slowly over a longer period. By actively kicking them and jumping up and down on the sleeping sheeple, they are in danger of waking them up so they stop voting for their own destruction. Before this the left were using better tactics, a longer game. They got carried away and now the pendulum is starting to move.

      • Michael Adkins
        Michael Adkins says:

        pterodactyl,

        “This change in the behaviour of the left to reveal their hatred for whites has been quite marked and quite recent. It is a very strange phenomenon.”

        They’re acting this way because they think they have won. A good example is the near violent reaction by the corporate media to Mr. Trump.

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          Maybe they think this because they live in a bubble world surrounded by others like themselves.

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          Michael Adkins – it is actually quite a hard sell to persuade the people to turn against themselves and to vote to become third world, and they can only sell this message to the people whilst the people remain safe and wealthy, and if circumstances change the people will readily snap out of their self-hate-state and will revert to one of self-interest.

  5. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    Thanks, Alex. Very good research and insight. This brings to mind another explicit, early mega ‘gotcha moment’ with Maurice Samuel’s 1924 book, You Gentiles.

  6. T
    T says:

    The central reason Jews like Rushkoff and Barbara Spectre allow themselves to speak candidly about Jewish social engineering is because they believe that by manipulating predominantly non-Jewish societies they are doing the world a service…

    It’s always the same story with empire building and it’s no different with the biggest one of them all, ie the global multi-cultural one now nearing completion. Most persons don’t wish to tell themselves that they’re people might well be violating all sorts of boundaries, typically other people’s, while simultaneously lying, cheating, stealing, even at times engaging in murder, etc, to obtain ever more wealth and power. They don’t wish to look at the unpleasant avarice and greed driving it. Instead, they tell themselves they have an absolute rightness of cause, and that these other people(s) are ‘barbarians’ whom we must unilaterally ‘gift’ with ‘civilization’, though these unsolicited gifted civilisations are often of a rather dubious nature and the people on the receiving end already had their own ordered universe that they were quite content with. It can be summed up with ‘we’re going to give you civilisation, but first we gotta kill you’ and ‘it’s all for you own good.’

    Vercingetorix and his Gauls experienced the same with Julius Caeser and the Romans.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Vercingetorix and his Gauls experienced the same with Julius Caeser [sic] and the Romans.

      Oh dear.

      One need hardly be a fan of Caesar or Caesarism to spot the simplism here. Almost fifty years ago, a historian (later a friend), a man who was then even more Francophile than moi-même, said that he regarded the historically recent adoption of Vercingétorix as France’s first hero as at best an instance of daylight madness, more likely an attempt at putting lipstick on a pig.

      As nearly as I can recall them, his exact words were as follows: “What’s to be next? Will the English respond by making the bloodthirsty Boadicea their earliest national heroine?” We both laughed heartily at the prospect.

      Happily for my friend, he didn’t live long enough to see Boudicca’s/Boadicea’s formal enthronement in the pantheon.

      • T
        T says:

        Pierre, no where in the comment of mine do I make reference to Vercingetorix being ‘France’s first hero’. You’re reply to my comment has nothing to do with the substance of my entry. I’m not going to reiterate the point of my entry as it’s quite plainly stated as it is and it would probably bore most here who readily understood it on their first go. If you don’t understand it I can only suggest you try a second, third, or if need be, a fourth reading.

        Attempts to correct another’s spelling are generally seen as petty and made by those of small mind with not much to say.

        Still offended all these months later about my difference of opinion with you re. the US Civil War, eh Pierre?

  7. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Re: footnote (i) – I find it hard to take “unbridled capitalism” seriously. Local, State and Federal intrusion into the private sphere increases inexorably, year after year, decade after decade.

    I assume the author means “crony capitalism”, where government grants privileges to favored interests, splitting profits and power, to the detriment of all others.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, known as corporate groups (as well as syndicates, or guilds) such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of their common interests.[2] It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word corpus (plural corpora) meaning “body”[4] or, in the case of Fascist Italy, on the word corporazione (derived from the aforementioned Latin word, with the meaning of “embodiment”, “association”), the Italian name for what was known in Germanic Europe as a Medieval guild.

      In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a “system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

  8. Cooper
    Cooper says:

    It seems the open expression of outrageous viewpoints ( Babs Spectre)
    also serve the interests of Jews by drawing fire from thier adversaries. JEWS prefer we identify ourselves as the potential leaders of any revolt. Thier “religion’ command them to’ ” kill the best among the gentiles” Just as Stalins men watxhed to see who was brave enough to be the first to stop clapping when he gave a speech, (((they))) are watching us.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      That video has spread far away from leaders- regular folks are sharing it with each other. Millions.

  9. Vehmgericht
    Vehmgericht says:

    An interesting piece: I have not read the book but it seems from the review that some Jewish authors are taking on board not anti-semitism, but what I would call judeoskepticism, i.e. a rational look at the religion, culture and experience of the Jewish ethnos founded upon open enquiry and evidence.

    For example Tikkun is a notion in the Lurianic Kabbalah whereby the klippot, which are the shards of vessels shattered in a cosmogonic catastrophe, may be repaired by prayer and mitzvot. It is not clear that this encompasses political activities by non-initiates.

    As for Divine Election, if some Jews continue to promote this idea, then we might recall the Greeks and Romans who deemed such persons hubristic and impious. And all the more so if they also engaged in nakedly vicious and hypocritical conduct. It is historical fact that resentment so engendered created has much suffering for the Jewish people.

  10. The AntiLoser
    The AntiLoser says:

    Most contemporary Jews are atheists. Like other groups their history matters to them but I wouldn’t expect them to defend ideas and practices of pre-modern times. What they have retained is a bond based on the notion that they are idealists vulnerable to persecution by brutes who outnumber them and need to be kept in line by whatever methods are handy.

  11. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    That’s fascinating. TS Eliot is often quoted as warning how *secular* Jews are a threat, due to their not identifying with European ethnicity and religion.

    However, if religious Jews are actually compelled by their religion to undermine foreign societies, that’s a very different thing.

    What we’re witnessing is essentially the enslavement of mankind. Without nations, faiths, traditions, roots, small communities, etc.: Man is easily manipulated and enslaved by distant elites. Are Jews truly commanded to enslave mankind?

    What’s also fascinating to me is how Israel seems endangered by faux converts. Millions of Africans could conceivably be converted to Judaism, for example. And there is other controversy over just who is truly Jewish, for Israeli citizenship.

    I was also curious in how Marcus Epstein (half Korean, half Jewish) condemned Trump during the primary/general election. Epstein had previously been condemned as essentially racist for his friendship with Pat Buchanan.

    It was otherwise interesting to see how a few Jews did indeed support Trump’s run, most notably Stephen Miller. Of course, most of the Jewish energy was behind Cruz etc. Cruz seems to worship Israel, though he at least claims to be strong on US immigration.

    Another thought: I always thought GK Chesterton’s idea of creating small self-ruling Jewish communities throughout Europe to be an interesting way of giving Jews a homeland and also of clarifying who is English etc. Today of course, Europe is overrun by foreigners, but it was an interesting idea.

    If however Jews are commanded, by religion, to destroy Europe, then Chesterton’s idea is less alluring.

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      The reason the Jews throw tantrums about Trump is because they didn’t make him. Cruz and other candidates are effectively handpicked by powerful elites, and are thus predictable and controllable. But the people chose Trump over all the elite’s choices, and that really made them angry, even if they secretly like his stance on Israel.

    • Johnny Rottenborough
      Johnny Rottenborough says:

      Weaver—If however Jews are commanded, by religion, to destroy Europe

      An Israeli rabbi, quoted in a Ynet article: ‘Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years [we] were in exile there.’

      As Judaism preaches revenge, religious Jews may well believe that the destruction of Europe has their god’s seal of approval. Dr MacDonald commented on the article here.

      • GeorgeKocan
        GeorgeKocan says:

        I saw Benjamin Natenyahu interviewed on Fox last night by Mark Levin. I wonder what they would have said about this.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      Are Jews “really commanded to enslave mankind” and “destroy Europe”? These deceptively simple questions require very complex answers.

      “What is good for [the] Jews” may not be so good for others, but in any event it is, for us “Gentiles”, only self-interested common-sense to study in suffucient detail what their influential thinkers have actually said, among themselves, about their past and their future; though such statements are – characteristically – quite diverse, and have taken on new perspectives since Hitler, the problematic situation of Israel, and the rise of AIPAC, ADL &c in the USA. Compare e.g. Norman Cantor’s “Sacred Chain” (1996) with Max Dimont’s “Jews, God & History” (2007).

      Generalizations are particularly hazardous in the Jewish case, but I would point to two aspects, the “negative” & the “positive”. Diasporic Jews have found life more comfortable in “multicultural” than in “nationalist” societies, because of an historic fear of persecution as a markedly different ethnic minority, and are therefore inclined to work for poly-ethnicity, though in doing so actually aggravate opposition. Despite widespread lack of religious observance and some out-crossing, Jews tend to retain both a sense of superiority and a “light unto the nations” commitment; cf. Melanie Phillips in “Standpoint”, March 2018. Some see this as a mission to spread co-operation and trade through international networks and institutions; hence the capitalism-communism attachment. “We never feel secure unless we are supreme,” said the late Rabbi Hugo Gryn, but this is a paradox in itself, and others resent the process, especially if accompanied with glaring examples of misbehavior by Jews, particularly in unscrupulous money-making.

      “Antisemitic” activities have been counter-productively dogged by violence and “fake news”, while Jewish apologetics have been dogged by disingenuous evasion and intimidation. On this, Albert Lindemann’s “Esau’s Tears” (2010) is worth perusal (despite a few inaccuracies).

      “Know Thy Enemy” is indeed good advice, but it is vital to ensure that the knowledge is comprehensive and reliable, and that any strategy in defense of European civilization, arising from such study, in current circumstances, is as decent as it is effective.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      It is very interesting. That’s partly why I don’t understand “conservative” trust in the government, in things like the police state. That’s not to suggest I’m a libertarian.

      Most every power centre in the US is aligned against whites. Big business and big government vs. transient, [politically and culturally] uneducated white individuals…

      A positive is whites tend to become more ethnocentric after we lose our communities. And that sense of tragedy should in theory make whites more conservative, like Southerners (who lost The War). So, something positive might result from so much loss.

  12. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    In the topic of in-group preferences. In September 19, 2017 I had a car accident. I was thinking about a lawyer. It is hard to actually get a White lawyer, most of them are Jewish. I chose a Black lawyer. All of his staff are Black. This speaks aloud about in-group preferences. As things appear of now, he has shafted me big-time. He says he got some $3,200 for me. I think he got more and stole it. Now will have to fight it with him.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      It’s easy to find white lawyers, respectfully. Or, it’s easy where I live.

      Regarding your comment on Christianity below: Any revolution is risky. What would Christianity even be replaced with?

      Real Christianity can be nationalist. Greeks are Orthodox, which isn’t something I’m entirely familiar with (they’re soft nationalists), but I doubt the outcome would be positive if removing their religion.

      What’s odd about “Christianity” is people seem to do all manner of things in the name of “Christianity”. Comments by Thomas Aquinas suggest to me that nationalism could be very Christian. Also, check out GK Chesterton’s “Patriotic Idea”: It’s an unrealistic pan-nationalist vision. Beautiful ideal.

      Sam Francis had recommended Southern Protestant, South African Protestant, and Anglican traditions as having been tolerant of ethnic whites. Francis was writing for a largely northwest European audience though of course.

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          Islam isn’t racial to my knowledge. ISIS certainly attacks nationality as a false idol, though it could just be a creation by the US etc.

          Many believe real Christianity does tolerate nationalism.

          I don’t personally view the evolution-worship that’s popular here as truly racial. It’s called racial, but that’s more a trick of vocabulary. Christianity at least tolerates nationalism and other traditions.

          • GeorgeKocan
            GeorgeKocan says:

            For many years in the US, Catholics came from Europe and settled in their own neighborhoods with their own neighborhood parishes. In Chicago, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Italians, Irish, Hungarians and so on had their own parishes where the priests and nuns spoke the native language and held services in the native languages. Latin held the Church Universal together along with the traditional art and music. Much of that has disappeared with Vatican II. Now the Universal Church is referred to as “Amchurch” or “the Church of Nice.” Not the same thing.

      • Ger Tzedek
        Ger Tzedek says:

        I already said these same things in the same comment. Although Christianity has been unmitigated disaster for White man, we now must keep it. Revive a corpse to save a soul, one of the rules of war by Sun Tzu.

  13. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    What Christianity has done to us. At least 20 million Greeks were exterminated because they didn’t convert to Christianity. This could greatly account for the genetic degeneration of Greeks, combined with mongrelization. Just this article alone makes me review my view of Christianity again and definitely. No good. Became something good under the White gene pool elaboration. But then again. One of the rules of war of Sun Tzu is “revive a corpse to save a soul”. In layman’s terms, revive Christianity (or Marxism) to save White men, if it serves a purpose, despite the fact that both Christianity and Marxism are practically dead and have harmed us in the past. The revival should be of form rather than of substance.

    http://cyprus-mail.com/2017/09/10/hushed-genocide-byzantiums-massacre-greeks/?utm_source=projectagora&utm_medium=contentdiscovery

  14. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    There are four kinds of goyim in relation to Jewish Power.

    There are the Swallowers who not only suck the Jewish Penis but swallow the cum. Most goyim in high position are Swallowers. John McCain, Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and etc not only sucked but swallowed.

    Then, there are Spitters who suck the Jewish Cock and pretend to swallow but spit it out. They are like Randall McMurphy in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST who takes the pill only to spit it out later. Jews get awful antsy with Spitters who are, however, tolerated as long as they don’t rise up too high in the ranks. Jews are angry with Trump because a Spitter became president. Trump does a lot of sucking of Jewish cock, but he later spits out the cum.

    And then you got the Slappers who slap the Jewish Cock away and refuse to suck it. Jews hate these people like a Pimp hates a whore who won’t do as told and suck. Just like pimps beat up prostitutes to make them suck, swallow, and spread, Jewish Power uses all its muscle to punish those who slap the Jewish dick away and won’t suck. This is why Jewish Power punches hard at Slappers like Paul Nehlen who slaps the Jewish cock away and says, “Ewwww, gross, I ain’t sucking it.”

    And then, there are the Slicers. Slicers feel that it’s not enough to say NO and slap the Jewish cock away. Jews will never stop coming after goyim, just like Harvey Weinstein wouldn’t say NO to women who rebuffed him. They had to watch him, suck him, and fuc* him. He has the power, and this ‘god’[according to Meryl Street] demanded that women around him be suckers and Swallowers.

    And for that reason, Slicers believe that Slappers aren’t enough to deal with the Jewish Cockuestion. Just like Zeus dealt with Cronus by cutting off his balls, the Slicers believe that the Evil Scrotum of Jewish Power must be sliced open. Nehlen isn’t yet a Slicer but he is an adamant Slapper.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3vldDGzcrg

  15. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “Thus, diaspora Jews living in host nations seeking to ‘influence’ their non-Jewish neighbors in a manner which is demonstrably detrimental to their hosts….. It just so happens that these actions are beneficial to Jews, as Rushkoff acknowledges.”

    There is no need to try and work out in what way tactics will help the Jews, as this assumes they will do things that help them, and avoid tactics that are bad for them. There is no need at all to make this assumption. In fact it is quite wrong in my opinion. Groups of animals including humans never do things because they have worked out that it helps them, they do the opposite – they just obey what their animal-behaviour wiring tells them to do, even if it is harmful to themselves, and in the long term natural selection will favour good tactics punish bad tactics.

    But what if natural selection gives a group a certain set of tactics over the millennia, ie a subsection of the wider gene pool becomes dominant, (like having hearts, diamonds, clubs and spades, and trying to get rid of all suits except clubs so in the end your race is club-like with only a few of the other suits) – what if a race is steered towards a certain behaviour pattern that is very successful in, say, warring desert tribes, and then later on the environment changes – can the group quickly change tactics? No they cannot. So if the tribes in the desert ‘hate each other’ and feel extreme hostility to other tribes, then suppose such tribes are transposed to a benign society that wants to hug them and treat them as individuals, will the tribes programmed for hostility abandon their hostility? No they will not, if it is genetic in origin and part of their wiring.

    So they are not seeking to help themselves, they are obeying their wiring that they posses as a race. They do what their wiring tells them to, not what is the best tactics.

    Other examples of this in nature:
    1) What the Swedes are doing – voting for their own destruction. Clearly this proves that thinking about what is best for themselves is NOT taking place in their behaviour.

    2) Pampered cats fighting each other. They are obeying their wiring that was given to them in a different time and place, but now is inappropriate and causes them stress and injury, but the cats cannot stop themselves as they are compelled to obey their wiring – as are the Jews.

    3) Yaks being herded through mountain passes deciding to stampede off the cliff edge. These Yaks have never seen a wolf in their lives, yet are compelled by their inner wiring to panic and stampede. Appropriate in another setting but not when being herded by friendly and protective humans down a steep pass. So they are unable to change tactics and work out what is best for themselves. Like the Jews.

    4) Africans now in S.Africa ousting those who they know provide them with food and electricity. Even the most illiterate and savage of them knows this.

    5) The white wealthy western elite turning on S.Africa and facilitating the downfall of the whites, eg the MSM blocking out and censoring any news of the genocide. This cannot be good for bankers or any rich and powerful people. There is no money at all for any elites in the destruction of S.Africa. So those who think money and power and greed are the motive need to see this situation and realise these things cannot be the motive in S.Africa. No elite is going to get money or power when the place descends into anarchy. Such power as there is will be between the tribes themselves, not in the hands of any bankers or other globalist elites. There is no money to be made from the collapse of S.Africa. There is plenty of money to be made from a successful S.Africa, money for bankers and other elites. But they shun this money. So this proves that hatred is stronger than self-interest.

    6) Divorcing couples using up all the money on lawyers, that they could have shared between them, thus proving that hatred as a motive is more powerful than self-interest.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      pterodactyl,

      A person’s wiring can also be cultural and identity related (a feeling of exclusion). Jews seem to have developed an obsession around the myth that they’ve been wrongfully and unusually oppressed/wronged by Europeans. This has given them unity and motivation.

      I believe there is something to your genetic wiring theory though.

      I fear Europeans, such as the Swedes you mention, are wired to be moral, to mould themselves to society’s will, to sacrifice the individual for a sense of a greater good (the ideal of the hero). And this is being exploited.

      I do not believe this wiring is fully understood. Many claim they understand, but the difficulty in comprehension is partly why traditionalists are wary of “reason” (fear that a misunderstanding will cause one acting on “reason” to create worse problems). But there is something to your genetic wiring theory.

      It’s also easier to destroy something than to preserve. So, one who is adept at destroying Europeans isn’t necessarily successful in building his own future, in the long term.

      An addition to your list:

      Southerners could have developed the South without slaves, could have ensured the South was a future land for progeny. But instead, we embraced slavery, which should have been expected to eventually end.

      Those families that embraced slavery thrived, came to dominate. But in the end, they weren’t acting in the South’s best interests, nor necessarily even their own interests. How could we resist slavery though when those who embraced it grew so rich and came to dominate in society?

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Weaver: “Those families that embraced slavery thrived, came to dominate. But in the end, they weren’t acting in the South’s best interests”

        A Joyce says something along the same lines about elites throughout history looking after their own interests and not necessarily that of their people, which is why they were often attracted to Jewish money and help to keep them in power. But in the past their success and prosperity was ultimately linked to that of their people, as if their country collapsed, so did the source of their wealth, as wealth was dependent on land ownership, unlike today. The difference between the elite then and the elite now is that now the elite CAN transfer their wealth around the globe, and can easily flee themselves when they need to, so they have less vested interest in the survival of their country. They will not lose everything if their country collapses, unlike elitesin the past. Eg the white wealthy elite in S.Africa will not personally have to stay behind or become poor if a civil war starts. They will not be refused entry to the West, unlike the poor whites, to whom our traitor politicians will refuse to give sanctuary, so they can be murdered by black racist tribes, whilst these white anti-white racist politicians who are our leaders can get an inner glow of joy at seeing the downfall of those they hate – the civilised. This might partly explain why the white elite in S.Africa is not using their influence or money to highlight the plight of the white farmers. The white elite seem to be co-operating fully with the black racist tribes.

        On the subject of our wiring controlling us – our conscious side less in charge of our bodies than most believe. Eg men who turn to jelly in danger and then regret it later. For some of these they actually had no choice- their subconscious ordered them to ‘be a coward’ or, to put it another way, their subconscious actually disabled the physical response they would have liked to activate, like switching off a car engine. We also see the opposite of this (opposite of cowardice is courage) when a mother fights of carjackers if her child is in the car – in fact her protection of young instincts are activated and she is in effect controlled and ordered to stay and fight. So she is not actually being brave at all if we define brave as doing something risky when you have an option to opt out – these mothers do not have this option, their subconscious controls them. The same applies to antelopes and lions – the mother antelope will charge the lion, not because she is ‘brave’ but because her animal behaviour side is ordering her to do so.

  16. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism” (1848).

    A Spectre is haunting Europe – the Spectre of Barbara” (2018).

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      SPECTRE (an acronym of Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion), [Bond movies]

      Sounds like Barbara. . .

Comments are closed.