Reply to Jordan Peterson on the Jewish Question — From His Heroes Part Four: Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche

Go to Part 1: Solzhenitsyn
Go to Part 2: Dostoevsky
Go to Part 3: Jung

A Reply from Nietzsche.

Like these other figures, whose thought is sanitized and claimed by Peterson, Nietzsche possessed views of Jews quite at odds with Peterson’s own hasty conclusions. Robert Holub’s 2015 Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism (Princeton University Press) convincingly demonstrates that, at best, Nietzsche could be described as ambivalent towards the Jewish Question. Nietzsche was undeniably in tune with Wagner when it came to animosity towards those aspects of modernity most closely linked with the rise of the Jews in Germany: the hegemony of journalists, the press, newspapers, new ‘trends’ in art, and the stock market. He was a critic of both Berthold Auerbach and Felix Mendelssohn, whom he argued produced works typified by foreignness, jargon, mawkishness and internationalism. At Basel, one of Nietzsche’s closest colleagues was the historian Jacob Burckhardt, described in one dedication as “my honored friend.” Burckhardt was unequivocally opposed to Jewish emancipation and believed that everything of worth in European culture was due to its Greek and Roman heritage rather than the Jewish tradition. He would have balked at the idea of Europe as a ‘Judeo-Christian’ cultural entity—a favorite piece of Jordan Peterson’s nomenclature—and he was firmly convinced that Jews were responsible for the worst manifestations of modernity. Early in his career Burckhardt wrote to a friend that the presence of Jews in a theater would be sufficient to entirely destroy his enjoyment of the event.

Like the others reviewed here, Peterson references Friedrich Nietzsche in almost every interview, talk, or text he delivers. In 12 Rules for Life (p.59), Peterson describes Nietzsche as both “great” and “brilliant,” and calls him (p.85) “perhaps the most astute critic ever to confront Christianity.” In much the same way as he cites Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, and Jung as his ideological forerunners, Peterson holds up Nietzsche as a prescient and thoughtful thinker whose work was characterized (p.37) by its “brilliance.”

Between 1868 and 1873 Nietzsche gained a grasp of the fundamentals of the Jewish Question, and during this period he continually articulates a natural and impulsive distaste for aspects of Jewish culture and behavior. His letters to his mother show that he associated Jews with unsavory business practices, tastelessness, and low cultural attributes. Writing to his mother about a tour around Switzerland in 1872, he describes his fellow travelers before commenting “unfortunately there was a Jew among them.” In 1872 these feelings and ideas came closest to intellectual expression. In January and February of that year Nietzsche delivered two lectures, ‘The Greek Music Drama’ and ‘Socrates and Tragedy.’ Despite their fairly innocuous titles, the lectures dealt with key aspects of the Wagnerian cultural program: that modern opera had become greatly distanced from its ancient cultural roots, and that Jews were having a deleterious impact on contemporary art and culture. Nietzsche, taking his cue from Wagner, argued that genuine tragedy was mysterious, instinctive and profound. It was also able to be conceived and appreciated only by Europeans. By contrast, ‘Socratism,’ identified with rationalism and dialectic, eradicates instinct and with it art. ‘Socratism’ had also become a historical force in its own right, in the form of this-worldly Judaism. Nietzsche would conclude his second lecture by stating:

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

Wagner had of course taken even further steps against Jewish influence — but the older man possessed significantly more stature and legitimacy. Nietzsche sent his lecture notes to Wagner on February 4, and the composer replied cautiously. Wagner, who was fully aware of the damage that could be wrought by Jews on lone targets like himself, responded: “I say to you: that’s the way it is. … But I am concerned about you, and wish with my entire heart that you don’t ruin yourself.” The important point here is that the framework for discussion is not about how Jews obtained elite status in society but about what Jews tend to do with their elite status and influence. To the Wagners, as with Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, and Jung, the Jewish Question is primarily about the hostility or culturally antagonistic behavior of a powerful Jewish elite. This contrasts sharply with Jordan Peterson’s statement that Jews are “smart people working hard for our mutual advancement.”

Cosima, Wagner’s wife, wrote to Nietzsche expressing concern. Starting by citing Goethe (“Everything significant is uncomfortable”), she said that his “boldness” and “bluntness” surprised her. In a later letter she makes her concerns more explicit, stating that she wanted him to take some “maternal” advice so that he should “avoid stirring up a hornet’s nest”:

Do you really understand me? Don’t mention the Jews, and especially not en passant; later, when you want to take up this gruesome fight, in the name of God, but not at the very outset, so that on your path you won’t have all this confusion and upheaval. I hope you don’t misunderstand me: you know that in the depths of my soul I agree with your utterance. But not now and not in this way.

According to Cosima’s diaries, Nietzsche was summoned to a meeting with Wagner and her on February 12 to discuss the lecture. We can only speculate at what precisely was said, but Nietzsche dropped the Jewish reference from the published version of his lecture, and nothing similar to it would ever again appear in his speeches or published writings. He would continue to attack the evils of the press, newspapers, financial affairs, the stock exchange, modernity, urban life, and cosmopolitanism but he would never again mention them in conjunction with Jews or Judaism. Holub argues that the episode taught Nietzsche that he should not mention the Jews by name and certainly not attack them in print. He would thereafter adopt the same “cultural code” that many anti-Jewish intellectuals were forced to utilize as a means of fighting the culture war without being labelled “anti-Semitic.”

Ultimately, however, the greatest of Nietzsche’s “replies” to Jordan Peterson may lie in his personal example. Like Jordan Peterson, Nietzsche came to surround himself with Jewish fans, and courted Jews with occasionally exuberant philo-Semitic statements. Nietzsche also possessed an ego and arrogance that led to antagonism towards Wagner, his artistic mentor, rather than appreciation for sage advice. Nietzsche distanced himself from Wagner and from the Jewish Question for the remainder of his life, beginning in the mid-1870s. In early drafts of Untimely Meditations (1876) probably dating to around 1874, Nietzsche searched for criticisms of the composer. Among them was the accusation that Wagner was a tyrant who could not appreciate the validity of anyone but those among his most trusted associates, causing him to be blind to “the validity of Brahms, etc., or the Jews.” He also accused Wagner, ironically in view of the latter’s crucial advice, of a grave political error in attacking the Jews “who now possess the most money and the press in Germany.”

The point here is that one can secretly be aware of Jewish power, and even agree that it is often expressed negatively, but still follow a philo-Semitic path for personal advancement. Nietzsche’s example here is fitting. His dedication to Voltaire of Human, All Too Human (1878–1880) marked the final stage of his break from the Wagnerian cultural mission. The rationalist Frenchman was anathema to the German romantic. The Wagners read the book, only to find it “strangely perverse” and full of “pretentious ordinariness.” The reason behind the change in quality of Nietzsche’s writing was, in their opinion, his growing association with the Jewish philosophy student Paul Rée. The association dated back to 1873, and Rée had accompanied Nietzsche on visits to the Wagners on a couple of occasions during those years. However, in 1876 Cosima’s suspicions were raised by aspects of Rée’s personality. In October 1876 she wrote in her diary: “In the evening we are visited by Dr. Rée, whose cold and precise character does not appeal to us; on closer inspection we come to the conclusion that he must be an Israelite.”

Wagner was extremely insistent that the Jew had ensnared his young former friend. Cosima around this date wrote to her husband that Nietzsche was essentially just a mirror that reflected the ideas or thoughts of whoever surrounded him. Nietzsche’s writings, borrowing heavily from Schopenauer and indeed Wagner himself, were “just reflections of something else, they did not come from within.” Wagner replied magnificently: “And now they are Rée-flections.” Cosima would later write to a friend that Human, All Too Human bore an undeniable Jewish imprint:

The author has undergone a process that I saw coming for a long time, and that I struggled against with my meagre powers. Many things came together to produce that deplorable book! Finally, Israel intervened in the form of a Dr. Rée, very sleek, very cool, at the same time being captivated by Nietzsche and dominated by him, though actually outwitting him: the relationship of Judea to Germania in miniature. … I know that here evil has been victorious. … Wagner himself asserts about Nietzsche that a flower could have come from this bulb. Now only the bulb remains, really a loathsome thing.

Like Nietzsche, Jordan Peterson appears to have heavily associated with Jews for some time, a fact that may have caused Peterson to engage in his own “Rée-flections.” The foreword to 12 Rules for Life was written by a Jewish man named Norman Doidge, who met Peterson at a party organized by Jews Wodek Szemberg and Estera Bekier. As a piece of writing, it is highly patronizing and places Peterson fully within the category of useful goy. He is also presented as a rough-edged, quasi-rural figure in contrast with the ordinarily sophisticated and, one assumes, Jewish urbanites who normally attended such parties. To Doidge, Peterson “had the enthusiasm of a kid,” and “there was something boyish in the cowboy.” Indeed, Doidge uses the phrases “cowboy,” “rural,” “folksy,” and even “cowboy psychologist” more than ten times in five paragraphs (p.9), which is really an extraordinary set of descriptors for someone who, to “goy eyes” doesn’t merit any of these descriptions and doesn’t appear remotely “of the land.” That he evokes such sensations and impressions in Jews, however, is extremely interesting in showing that Jews see Peterson as the quintessential “other”—as a paradigmatic goy.

This is not to say that the foreword is not flattering of Peterson. It is. But the ways in which it is flattering are interesting to say the least. Take, for example, Doidge’s remark that he “had never before met a person, born Christian and of my generation, who was so utterly tormented by what happened in Europe to the Jews, and who had worked so hard to understand how it could have occurred.” How has Peterson “worked so hard to understand how it could have occurred”? Thus far, he appears to have written less than 2,000 words regurgitating Sartre, devoid of footnotes illustrating any serious reading in the subjects of Jewish history or anti-Semitism. “Working hard,” we must assume, is in reference less to gaining an understanding of historical European-Jewish relations than advancing an understanding of Jewish victimhood and blamelessness—an understanding that Jews of course find highly beneficial.

Peterson is a favorite of Quillette, an online magazine founded by Jewish academic Claire Lehmann that postures as advocating for “free thought” and putatively ‘dangerous’ and ‘subversive’ conservative ideas. In reality, Quillette, which has promoted the paper-thin analyses of Kevin MacDonald by Nathan Cofnas (without allowing MacDonald to reply), advances standard neoconservativism and has posted a large number of articles condemning anti-Semitism (see, for example, here, here, and here) and defending Israel (see their archive here). The magazine should best be seen as a stellar example of a growing phenomenon I’ve discussed previously—a slow shift of Jews from the traditional Left (where extensive, unpredictable anti-Israel sentiment is making it a cold house for Jews), to a new milquetoast center that defends and promotes Israel, babbles about free speech, and attracts the unsophisticated with token gestures to the Right (opposition to the more extreme expressions of the LGBT agenda, objections to trans terminology, and baiting the odd Muslim) without ever broaching matters of race or immigration in a meaningful way, and certainly without ever acknowledging the Jewish Question as a reality. Indeed, in a telling turn of events that brings us almost full circle, Quillette posts pieces from the Russian-Jewish writer Cathy Young (born Ekaterina Jung), who has previously written an article attacking “the anti-Semitism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.” Such facts illuminate the sheer oddity of Peterson’s role in these matters—a figure just edgy enough to attract the masses without endangering the status quo; just compliant enough to merit promotion; and just enough of a “folksy cowboy” to entangle himself with a clique that trashes his own heroes because they weren’t quite so compliant.

I’ve written previously that a key weakness of Nietzsche appears to have been his incomplete understanding of the nature of Jewish influence in German culture and society, and his egotistic willingness to accept Jews as friends and associates if he perceived them to be useful in advancing his own personal fame and fortunes. Perhaps, the best assessment of, and reply to, Jordan Peterson thus comes via Nietzsche, from the Wagners:

A flower could have come from this bulb. Now only the bulb remains, really a loathsome thing.


28 replies
  1. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    I believe the figure now is that there’s over 8 billion humans on Earth. If 11 Jews are killed by some whack job in synagogue shooting why am I expected to grieve that and not all the other murders that happened that day? How is it any more incidental to my life than how I’m impacted every day by the black violence all around me that’s destroying my neighborhood, America and my life?

    • Pattern_Blind
      Pattern_Blind says:

      What matters is the Jewish control of the media and how they will shove their pain down the throats of every goy NPC who will regurgitate their message back like retarded parrots. The jewish pain is a weapon and they will cry out as they strike you.

      Remember the same Jewish media machine claimed and played down 4 Negroes kidnapping and berrating a white autistic boy for days on Facebook. No matter what the Nigroes did or said, none of it was a hate crime. In Jewish Clown World only white christians can commit hate crimes.

      For me I always wonder why people think one side is better than the other when dealing with Muslims and Jews. One side calls you Goy’s the other side calls you Infidels and both want you to fight and die against the other.

      Shouldn’t we pit them against each other for profit? Sell both sides weapons and do all we can as good Goy/Infidels to expand their wars against each other? Destabalizing the Middle East is the best course for WW3 and it keeps the entire region unable to mount any great defense of the oil supplies. If world Hedgemony is the American game, we have to let the other sides play out their roles before we turn on them.

      If it became strategically in Americas best interest to betray Israel openly, the Pentagon would in a heart beat. The American people on average are becoming quite aware of the JQ. Even the identity politics left is clumping jews into whites. The minorities see jews as privileged and trying to claim victimhood. Which the modern jew always does.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Bravo Charlie!

      I grew up very poor in a comfortable middle class town in a Blue State, between NYC and Philadelphia, in a female dominated family and had all black classmates. I was abused and became the family scapegoat and told to get help, since, of course, I was the problem. So, I did. And found out about them, not just me .

      I discovered a passion for knowledge that led me outside of the narrow confines of family and town and into a much larger world, to a study of the West from Homer to Joyce and, and from the pre-Socratics to Nietzsche, and I found out about all of them, not just me. I share this because I think it’s relevant to the articles, but especially this one.

      In Human, All Too Human, in the section on Tokens of Higher and Lower Cultures, Nietzsche talks about how the Free Spirit is created, or self-created. Highly recommended. It’s essential reading to gain an understanding of our situation and create a much needed sense of solidarity among us that transcends surface differences and points of view.

      Anyway, as it relates to JBP, in the previous article on Jung Dr. Joyce quotes JBP saying in effect that antisemtism is the product of losers who feel sorry for themselves. So, how would Nietzsche respond?

      With aphorism 277, where he says that “to be moved and to feel self-pity in the face of lower culture is a sign of a higher culture.”

      If one can resist the temptation, the knee-jerk reaction, that anything having anything to do with self-pity is bad, then one can see just how important this quote is. Because ultimately, it’s about learning to value yourself. And no one can live without the sense of value, which is inseparable from the sense of idenity. Our enemies know this, which is why they deny us both. (The Devil is literally the spirit that denies value).

      If you’re a White man who has survived being abandoned by your father, as millions of us have, and rejected by your mother, as millions of us have, and abused by siblings and non-Whites and Jews in one form or another, as millions of us have, you have nothing to apologize for and everything to be proud of.

      If you have overcome all of that abuse, pain and lonely suffering, long enough to learn to know yourself and your culture, and long enough to learn to love yourself and, above all, find someone else to love, than you are a hero of a culture crisis and the kind of power of example that we need.

      As Nietzsche says in so many words in another work, What are our enemies to us? May they live and prosper. After all, we’ve made it this far.

      We do not need their approval. We just need each other.

      • Kommentarname
        Kommentarname says:

        Richard B

        “If you’re a White man who has survived being…rejected by your mother, as millions of us have”

        Millions? Really? Is there any literature (scientific or otherwise) about this widespread phenomenon?

        • Richard B
          Richard B says:

          “Millions? Really? Is there any literature (scientific or otherwise) about this widespread phenomenon?”

          About the impact of families on society in general, and the devastating impact of the collapse of the family on society in particular the answer is, Yes, Family Systems Psychology.*

          Regarding this “widespread phenomenon”, I find your question literally unbelieveable. Do you doubt that the family is in a state of free fall in the West? Do you doubt that family abuse and neglect exists?

          And as far as my use of the word “millions”, that’s easy. There’s an estimated 400 million people living in Western Europe and 500+million in North America, and in both of those geographical areas the family has fallen apart, and abuse and neglect has been a part of that. So, the use of the word “millions” is justified whether or not one can come up with a precise number.
          For some quick empircal evidence just look out of your window or take a walk around Anywhere, USA.

          The collapse of the family is also one of the reason why Whites have become so vulnerable to the JQ (a fact that deserves far more exploration and investigation than it has received by those who obsess over the JQ).

          *John Bradshaw is the most popular representative of Family Systems (coincidentaly, he did his dissertation on Nietzsche) . However, sadly, his work was seriously compromised by the (((Politically Correct publishing and media filter))) it had to pass through. Still, the general explanation is as solid as we have regarding the impact of families on society.

          • Kommentarname
            Kommentarname says:

            I don’t deny the breakdown of families by the millions but you seemed to imply that the resulting single mothers more often than not reject their children and try to break them psychologically. From the anecdotal evidence I got this suggestion is too strong but I know about the limitation of anecdotal evidence. In addition I would be curious for the psychological reason that mothers develop the alleged negativity towards their children if the families break down (more often than not from the initative of the mothers).

  2. Cato the elder
    Cato the elder says:

    Having read the entire series and finding great value in the words of the author, I find the conclusion and comparison of Peterson with Nietzsche faulty and it has a taste of Christian apology that would set Nietzsche in a mode of destroyer of tradition and “true Christian European culture and heritage” for Jewish anti-Christian interests and cultural subversion. Especially when Wagner is lauded as the uncorrupted and pure, who ended in Parsifal.
    It’s a conclusion I would find hard to comprehend, if the author shares the notion that Europe draws its roots from Roman and Greek culture of antiquity, including the Pre-Socratics. But where Jordan Peterson is essentially a postmodern leftists, playing the conservative, classical liberal ™ when he is objectively a gatekeeper, selected, promoted and surrounded by anti-white Jews with the mission to destroy white identity, and only it, while protecting Jewish ethno-centrism, no one, not a single philosopher in human history has done more to free Europeans of the subversive elements of the tribe in values, traditions and believe systems which indeed includes Christianity – yet which so many on the right deny.
    Therefor, if there was an attempt to subvert Nietzsche and in which he is supposed to have given in for selfish reasons, I entirely fail to see evidence of for example Herr Reé outwitting Nietzsche. On the contrary. If there ever was subversion, it has been a miserable and absolute failure. And what Lou von Salomé or Sigmund Freud m a d e out his ideas, after his death, is entirely on them. Not to mention the fact that many, including Marxist Jews or Thomas Mann, saw Nietzsche as the spiritual father of NS and the relationship of Nietzsches sister to a certain Adolf H. is also not a secret. There are massive character flaws to be found in Friedrich Nietzsche, but when it comes to Nietzsches ideas, especially in relation to the JQ, I entirely fail to find any.

    Quite frankly, I firmly believe that Jordan Peterson is an extremely overrated personality and simply a useful idiot. I never found anything stimulating in him. But with the megaphone of mass media, even dwarfs can cast long shadows into the receptive minds of good goyim in the West, especially the individualistic, materialistic and empiricist Anglosphere. Ted Kaczynski’s assessment of the over socialized intellectual fits few people better than J. Peterson. And Kaczynski, whatever one may think of him, was spot on in his analysis of the left to which J. Peterson belongs. And only in a sick, rotten and far left society could a fraudulent imposter and gatekeeper as J. Peterson appear as the savior of Western civilization and tradition as which the mass media of the hostile elite sells him as.

    Frankly, it is an absolutely disastrous and final verdict on the state of culture in Canada, the USA and Britain. There is simply no genuine identity or actual tradition or believable metaphysical system left that could be salvaged or defended. What is left within the hybrid of the Negrish and Abrahamic, is emptiness, merely awaiting the conclusion of time to be physically swept away by mass immigration what had already been eradicated psychologically and spiritually beforehand. And it is the victory of the Atlantic over the Continental.

    “Were we to loose, this world would sink in utter darkness…” Well done!

    • Pattern_Blind
      Pattern_Blind says:

      I agree amazing write up!

      The problem with Christianity for some on the right is that it seems to be a copied religion. Why not be a Sumarian? Or a Jew? If one story is copied in the Bible from another religion than all the stories are suspect.

      On top of that, the highly political religion Christianity (Council of Nicaea) can just pick and choose what goes into the Bible. Doesn’t seem like holy or divinely inspired text if your local Roman Politicians are involved in crafting it.

      Since the time of Christ no other miracles have been produced and all science seems to solidify that reality daily.

      To me it seems suspicious that “God” would ignore humanity during the point when it has grown to it’s greatest size all the while preferring to focus their efforts thousands of years ago only to cast humanity aside after. To see what happens?

      My other favorite conundrum is why does god condem all other humans who never heard of them? You have to be a Christian and indoctrinated into the faith to get to heaven. Yet the majority of the entire human species is not a believer, neither have they even heard of the Christian god, So they all fry in Hell? Or are ignored by their creator.

      For me it bothers me to see people worship a jew when every jew I have ever met hates goyim and treats goyim poorly. There is no way god in my mind had a jew for a son. A jew would tell you he did though. That is the way they are. Along with portraying themselves in the role of Jesus being a good looking gentile with no Jewish features.

      • Charlie
        Charlie says:

        The problem has never been “Christianity”. The problem is organized Christian churches. Little fiefdoms to control and subjugate you. Christ does not live in a building. His teachings live in the word. Christ does not speak through witches carrying out ritualized white magic. He speaks through your soul.

  3. Framp
    Framp says:

    To my best understanding Peterson’s opus provided fodder to lumpeninteligentsia (LI). A typical LI is a college graduate, likes to know about things, but is passive, and waits for another round of feeding. Their only source of knowledge about worldly matters are politically correct productions, including Hollywood (the lattest unconciously).
    Thanks to Peterson’s effort, the LI gets aquainted with the three notable thinkers, and is satisfied. Superficiality is intentional, now the LI can re/tweet, showing to friends that his/her mind is preoccupied with serious matters.
    Case closed? I believe not. First of all the LI is a reader and may discover one day, for example, TOO (if it’s not pushed down the memory hole by Google), or something else worthy of reading. As long as the LI reads (s)he is not altogether lost.

    For a moment I was in trouble about my comment on part 3 of Dr Joyce’s series (the one supporting sol kashberg’s idea that Petersen attracts attention to worthy thinkers, and this in itself is beneficial). I decided to uphold my stance: it is beneficial. Reading Solzhenitsyn’s 2000YT is alone sufficient to wake up from slumber, and one needs to start from something. The path is: Peterson – Solzhenitsyn – 2000YT – other important writings – truth.

  4. TJ
    TJ says:


    Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

    “When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Great Comment TJ!

      You’ve provide a more in-depth, scientifically respectable explanation for something I’ve been saying for ages, ie; We don’t need the masses. We just need a critical mass.

      So, what should the critical mass unite around?
      Personally, I don’t think there’s any question, though, to be brief, I’ll have to present the conclusion and leave the premises for some other time. The critical mass should unite around the two-fold matter of
      Explanation and Observables.

      It’s easy to get lost in the emotion of current events and not see the forest for the trees. But, if we’re able to resist the temptation to get sucked up into the whirlpool of superficiality and impatience that Solzhenitsyn referred to the two psychic diseases of the modern age, if we’re able to pause and reflect, it won’t take long to see that we have one explanation for science, technology, business and economics, and another explanation for human nature, cultural forces, social conflicts and psychological states.

      And that is one explanation too many.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      So then what you’re saying is the 10% is Useful Goyish otherwise known as Shabbos Goy? Believers in Holocaustianity or the belief that you can only be as good as the Jewish Masters say you can be.

  5. Mike L
    Mike L says:

    I hate to be crass as this was a great read from start to finish but, I’m going to be anyway. Has the author ever actually read Nietzsche? Anti-semitism is omnipresent in his work. Some examples are more implicit than others but there are two that come to mind where he explicitly names Jews and their nature in a Jungian manner. Page 6 of Twilight of the Gods and page 192 of Beyond Good and Evil.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Mike L: I agree, it was a great read from start to finish. I thought it was a really good thing to do here too. There’s almost a kind of symetrical contrast between TOO and JBP. He’s got the quantity of viewers, TOO has the quality of writing and readers. So, it made a lot of sense that they did this.

      Regarding your comment about Nietzsche, my understanding of it was that it was not so much that Nietzsche didn’t say anything against Jews, but that he was told to cool it. and by none other than Wagner himself. Something I didn’t know, by the way.

      It does explain why his most strident criticism is leveled at Christianity.* Though, one line from him about how it was rooted in Judaism was enough (though one could alway wish for more). I think was his way of keeping it as reality-oriented as he could manage.

      *This is something Walter Kaufman never tired of reminding his readers in his many and rather annoying chatty comments in each of his translations.

      • Kommentarname
        Kommentarname says:

        Isn’t section 205 from Morgenröte a celebration of the imminent takeover of Europe by the Jews? And didn’t hate Nietzsche personally anti-jewisch men like the husband of his sister. Although there might be a certain ambivalence is think Nietzsche was in his later years more pro-jewish than anti-jewish.

        • Richard B
          Richard B says:

          That’s a good question. The answer I would give is that Nietzsche was the first great multiperspective thinker/writer the West produced (there haven’t been many since, hence the polarization, which has gotten us nowhere and never will get us anywhere). This is why he’s been referred to, with reason, as the father of the modern age. So, it makes sense that he’d look at the JQ from different perspectives.

          Plus, we’d have to consider the censorship that did obtain even back then that even Wagner warned him about.

          Also, in section 205 of Daybreak that you mention he also issues a warning in passing that any Jewish success in the West must not involve “an act of violence” on their part. But they’ve gone and done that with mass immigration and not just mass immigration. It has revealed their cowardly and ignoble side, which he also mentions in that section.

          Finally, there’s us. And in that regard, there’s the following section, 206, which, in my case, changed my life. I think that section can be used as a grenade to toss into the lap of both the White and Jewish ruling classes who turned their backs on the talented poor among Whites. This can be seen even in our movement (if that’s what you want to call it). Why? Because, for all of the talk about Race, people still find it difficult to talk about Class. This is still the case in the West, but especially in the USA. That this has worked against us is pretty obvious, or so one would think.

          • Kommentarname
            Kommentarname says:

            I think Class is not an issue in the anti Jewish groups because it is not wise to divide a heavily outnumbered group which has practically no fighting chance even further. I would agree that there is a certain anti-intellectualism in the groups which do something other than writing comments, But this results from the simple fact that most doers are not intellectuals. Envy might play a role but also the good instinct that the whole intellectual sphere is poisoned by Jewish ideas which most White intellectuals have not “deconstructed” (to use a fashionable term in academia).

            But I admit it is a problem that the cultural achievements of the White race which the groups pretend to save are not really revered in the group. It is simply not possible for example to have a meaninful conversation about different interpretations of Classical Music. This leads to an alienation of the gifted members I guess.

          • Kommentarname
            Kommentarname says:

            But to come back to the subject of Nietzsche: What you seem to celebrate as “multiperspective thinker/writer” is for me a weakness as a philosopher. Nietzsche seems to change his opinion so often and contradicts himself so often that it is hard to say what really is the core of his thinking. He is an entertaining writer for me but not a great philosopher.

        • Richard B
          Richard B says:

          “What you seem to celebrate as “multiperspective thinker/writer” is for me a weakness as a philosopher.”

          He was operating at such a large scale that people are still judging him the way they’ve read him, superficially. He did nothing less than tear language loose from the world. He showed, early in his career, how language operates independently of the world and there is only one thing that connects the two (the essay to read is On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense).

          In other words, he made it unmistakably clear that we live in an intrepreted world. And, since no two people interpret the world exactly the same, that means a multiperspective world.

          The weak are those who can’t face this obvious fact. That he could and was really the first who did it marks him not only as the opposite of weak, strong, but great as well.
          As such, he should be an inspiration to all of us.

          Also, he made it pretty clear he wasn’t interested in being a “philosopher” in any traditional sense. And reducing the work of a towering genius to that of an entertainer is just silly.

  6. Joseph
    Joseph says:

    “Somehow the Jew is of this struggle and yet not in it. Perhaps he is a sort of director, unofficial master of ceremonies. I don’t know.”
    “Nietzsche, My Sister and I” p50

  7. C.T.
    C.T. says:

    The Anti-Christ: A Curse on Christianity (written in 1888)

    § 24

    This is precisely why the Jews are the most disastrous people in world history: they have left such a falsified humanity in their wake that even today Christians can think of themselves as anti-Jewish without understanding that they are the ultimate conclusion of Judaism.

  8. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Dr. Andrew Joyce: Thanks for a great series of articles.

    I think the best model for understanding JBP is Nietzsche’s take on David Strauss. The first paragraph of section 2 in that essay could be abstracted and applied very easily to JBP. In it Nietzsche talks about the defeciency of culture versus the complacency of the culture’s spokemen (which we can substitute for the deficiency of honest talk regard the JQ’s impact on culture and the complacency of people like JBP that no such question exists), saying “all those whose views coincide have covered their eyes and stopped their ears.” Adding that the question of deficiency vs complacency must not be admitted to exist. His answer to the question “What species of man must have come to dominate that such strong and simple feelings can be prohibited and expression of them obstructed?” is The Cultural Philistine.

    That’s what JBP is, and not just JBP.

Comments are closed.