I discussed this video with Frodi Midjord on the Scandza Forum.

Noam Chomsky is, as this documentary notes, “widely regarded as the most influential intellectual of his time.” Given that Chomsky is on the left, it might seem that he has little to offer. But in many respects, his comments here reinforce many of the ideas linked to the populist right, although, as with the influence of the (never mentioned) Israel Lobby, he also has an very large blind spot when it comes to Jewish power. Chomsky, born in 1928, was already a superstar linguistics professor at MIT by the 1960s when he became a fixture among New Left activist intellectuals, joining such figures as Paul Goodman, Herbert Marcuse, and Howard Zinn. The documentary is really a history of America beginning in the 1950s seen through the eyes of a New Left intellectual.

Unlike the continued vilification of the 1950s that streams out of Hollywood, Chomsky labels the decade a relatively egalitarian “golden age,” noting that the relative wealth of the bottom 20% increased about as much as the top 20%, labor unions were strong, working class people could afford a home and a car, and taxes  (including taxes on capital gains and dividends) were relatively high on the wealthy. Nowadays we are told only about Jim Crow practices that still occurred  in the South in the 1950s, but Chomsky notes that Blacks were able to get good jobs working in automobile factories, etc.

All that changed, beginning with what Chomsky calls the “significant democratization” of the 1960s—the Civil Rights movement, feminism, and environmentalism. In my writing, both in The Culture of Critique and Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, I regard the 1960s as a watershed, transformative decade, marking the rise of a new Jewish-dominated left-of-center elite based on power in media and the academic world. Chomsky does not agree, claiming that beginning in the 1970s there was a reaction against the 1960s that culminated in the relative dispossession of the working class. This is true as far as it goes, but it fails to come to note the rise of Jewish power in finance and business also occurred during this period.

In arguing for his position, Chomsky emphasizes that the 1970s marked the beginning of the rise of the financialization of the economy. Whereas in the 1950s manufacturing was 28% of the economy and finance 11%, the balance had reversed by 2010. Chomsky notes that companies like General Electric realized they could make more money with sophisticated financial maneuvering than by manufacturing. Complex financial instruments were invented and financial regulations that had been in place since the 1930s to prevent economic crashes were removed. And it was the beginning of outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries with cheap labor and the consequent decline of labor unions and the economic and political power of the White working class. And when the complex financial instruments blew up (as happened in 2008 with collateralized debt obligations [the result of bundling good and bad (including “liar loans’) loans into one financial product]), the government bailed out “too big to fail” Wall Street but not individual homeowners.

As Chomsky notes, the result of these developments was rising economic inequality—the rise of the super-rich top 0.1 percent to unrivaled political power. Chomsky notes that the super-rich much prefer oligarchy to democracy and indeed the data support him. they are able to control the political process via donations to political candidates and control of media messages. Jews are recognized as the “financial engine of the left,” as Norman Podhoretz phrased it, and contribute around 75% of the funds for Democrats and probably at least 50% for Republicans (Sheldon’ Adelson’s generosity toward Trump. (A prominent example is Sheldon Adelson whose support of Trump [north of $200 million] is predicated on a pro-Israel foreign policy; in general the Republican Jewish Coalition favors a pro-Israel foreign policy and moving the party to the left on social issues like immigration and gender).

Illustrating the importance of media control, Chomsky notes that Obama’s presidential campaign received an award for the most effective public relations media campaign and he decries the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case which framed financial donations to political campaigns by corporations and labor unions as free speech, in effect further opening the gates for the wealthy to control the political system. He then notes this is quite unlike media corporations like CBS which are “supposed to be a public service.”

This of course, is absurd, implying that CBS (and by implication other mainstream media corporations) has no political biases and acts as a public service. CBS is part of ViacomCBS, whose major owners are the Sumner Redstone and his family, who are Jewish and whose values are typical of the liberal-left attitudes of the mainstream Jewish community (here, p. xlvi–lvi).

Chomsky clearly has a distaste for oligarchy but he fails to mention the very large body of writing by Jews opposed to populism—a major theme of The Culture of Critique, especially Chapter 5. As noted there, citing Paul Gottfried (After Liberalism) and Christopher Lasch (The True and Only Heaven):

In the post–World War II era The Authoritarian Personality became an ideological weapon against historical American populist movements, especially McCarthyism (Gottfried 1998; Lasch 1991, 455ff). “[T]he people as a whole had little understanding of liberal democracy and . . . important questions of public policy would be decided by educated elites, not submitted to popular vote” (Lasch 1991, 455).

In his 1963 book The Tolerant Populists,  Walter Nugent, was

explicit in finding that Jewish identification was an important ingredient in the [anti-populist] analysis, attributing the negative view of American populism held by some American Jewish historians (Richard Hofstadter, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Martin Lipset) to the fact that “they were one generation removed from the Eastern European shtetl [small Jewish town], where insurgent gentile peasants meant pogrom.” 

Indeed, another example comes from Chomsky which occurred well before the rise of Jews to cultural dominance. Walter Lippmann, also Jewish, is quoted as writing in 1925 “The public must be put in its place.” Throughout European history down to the Soviet Union and post-World War II communist societies in Eastern Europe, Jews have always made alliances with ruling elites, often alien ruling elites and often in opposition to other sectors of the population.

Chomsky’s blinders on the media and populism are part of a larger pattern. Chomsky sees post-1960s America as a backlash against the 1960s but in fact the post-1960s America described by Chomsky is the result of the same forces that produced the 1960s counter-cultural revolution: the rise of Jewish power discussed in The Culture of Critique. Chomsky fails to mention that Wall Street and corporate America are decidedly on the left when it comes to the social issues that came to prominence in the 1960s: civil rights (now morphed into racial identity politics for all non-Whites), feminism (now morphed into gender identity politics), and the environment (now dominated by “climate change”). Leftist attitudes on these issues pervade elite media, the academic world, and corporate America.

And he fails to mention that Wall Street is well known to be a center of Jewish power. In his 1999 book, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State,  Benjamin Ginsberg claimed that Jews comprised 50% of Wall Street executives. It’s doubtless at least that high now, and that number doesn’t really get at the extent of Jewish control of key Wall Street players like Goldman Sachs.

Kevin Phillips provides some detail on Chomsky’s economic history of America since the 1980s:

My summation is that American financial capitalism, at a pivotal period in the nation’s history, cavalierly ventured a multiple gamble: first, financializing a hitherto more diversified U.S. economy; second, using massive quantities of debt and leverage to do so; third, following up a stock market bubble with an even larger housing and mortgage credit bubble; fourth, roughly quadrupling U.S. credit-market debt between 1987 and 2007, a scale of excess that historically unwinds; and fifth, consummating these events with a mixed fireworks of dishonesty, incompetence and quantitative negligence.

The Occidental Observer has posted 44 articles on the topic of Jews in the Economy/Finance. (This link goes to the most recent of these articles, Edmund Connelly’s “Jews and Vulture Capitalism: A Reprise.” If you scroll to the bottom of the page there are links to the other articles in this topic—an awkward system; will fix.) Connelly has contributed several other articles on these topics, including “The Culture of Deceit” illustrating the legitimacy of financial fraud within the mainstream Jewish community and several articles on how the Jewish role in financial manipulation has been airbrushed by Hollywood. Also included in this collection are are several articles by Andrew Joyce (“Vulture Capitalism Is Jewish Capitalism,” “Paul Singer and the Universality of Anti-Semitism,” and “Jews and Moneylending: A Contemporary Case File), and by me (“Does Jewish Financial Misbehavior Have Anything To Do with Being Jewish?” and “Now Comes the Anger.”

Finally, another enormous blindspot is Chomsky’s never mentioning immigration at all, despite its tranformative effects on America. Chomsky dutifully mentions the role of outsourcing jobs in compromising the interests of the working class but never mentions that immigration is a major part of the reason for wage stagnation since 1970 as well as forcing working-class Whites to move out of formerly White areas in areas like Southern California which have been inundated by immigration. Chomsky champions a class-based politics, but the Democratic Party, formerly the bastion of labor unions, has become the party of diversity, embodying all the themes of the 1960s counter-cultural revolution and ignoring the interests of their White working-class constituents, with the result that the White working class was the largest group supporting Donald Trump with his populist rhetoric during the 2016 election. Because of importing of millions of non-Whites, the class-based politics of the 1950s has been destroyed in favor of a coalition of non-Whites and upper-middle-class White liberals (Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Chapter 8).

Another blind spot is free speech. Free speech was a rallying cry for the Old Left in the 1950s and for the New Left in the 1960s, at a time when the anti-communist movement was able to force professors to sign loyalty oaths. The original 1960s protest movement at the University of California was called the Berkeley Free Speech movement. Even during the 1950s, Jews were deeply involved in creating a culture of the left that was mainly concerned to protect communist professors and other leftist dissidents, such as Hollywood screen writers, targeted by McCarthyism. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism. Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities  Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials. Although quite powerful, the culture of the left was not yet the dominant elite that it has become since the 1960s.

Chomsky thinks that free speech is still championed by the left, but he is sorely mistaken. The rise of the new elite has coincided with the power of organizations that support leftist attitudes on free speech—organizations like the now discredited Southern Poverty Law  Center and the ADL that  specialize in getting people fired for  thought crimes and care nothing  for  free speech. Mainstream conservatives are  prevented from speaking at universities or greeted with riots and protests. There is clearly an  ethnic aspect to this transformation,  with Jewish organizations acting as leading proponents of “hate speech” legislation throughout the West. While there are endless tears (see here and here, pp. 39–40) for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood, don’t  expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts like the ones that have targeted right-wing dissidents, many of whom have been fired from their jobs and ostracized from their families and friends. And don’t expect a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the ADL or the SPLC are condemned for their persecution of race realists and White advocates.

Since Chomsky, the renowned professor of linguistics, is an intelligent person, it’s hard to believe that he is not aware of all this. Of course, self-deception is always a possibility.

Go to Part 1.

Sexual Abstinence as Jewish Ethnic Strategy

Among many other things, Schopenhauer was fascinated by human sexuality, which for him assumed deep metaphysical importance. The human essence, the will-to-live, finds “as its kernel and greatest concentration, the act of generation”—which is to say, sexual reproduction. Here is the beginning of everything, not only of biology but of the whole great charade that is human existence. With a biting sense of humor, he explains it this way:

Seriously speaking, this is due to the fact that sexual desire, especially when, through fixation on a definite woman, it is concentrated to amorous infatuation, is the quintessence of the whole fraud of this noble world; for it promises so unspeakably, infinitely, and excessively much, and then performs so contemptibly little.[1]

Appropriately, then, sexual desire is the prime urging that must be suppressed by any real ascetic. Hence, by rights, we should find this admonition in the New Testament; and in fact, we do. Schopenhauer examines this matter in his exceptionally important Chapter 48 of Volume Two of World as Will and Representation:

The ascetic tendency is certainly unmistakable in genuine and original Christianity… We find, as its principal teaching, the recommendation of genuine and pure celibacy (that first and most important step in the denial of the will-to-live) already expressed in the New Testament.[2]

And he means, not only for single men and women, but for the married as well. Schopenhauer’s astonishing claim, that he proceeds to adduce from primary evidence, is that good Christians should not have sex—ever. He then dedicates the next several pages to building his case for this “perpetual chastity,” which includes these lines from an 1832 book by the Catholic author Friedrich Carove:

By virtue of the Church view…perpetual chastity is called a divine, heavenly, angelic virtue. … [Quoting a Catholic periodical,] “In Catholicism, the observance of a perpetual chastity, for God’s sake, appears in itself as the highest merit of man.” … To both [Paul and the author of Hebrews], virginity was perfection, marriage only a makeshift for the weaker. … The self should turn away and refrain from everything that contributes only to its pleasure. … We agree with Abbe Zaccaria, who asserts that celibacy … is derived above all from the teaching of Christ and of the Apostle Paul.[3]

At this point we want to exclaim: Can this be true? Could original Christianity actually expect its followers to adhere to “perpetual chastity,” even when married? And what would prompt such a call?

Evidence for this claim must ultimately come from our primary source, the New Testament. We further know that the earliest NT writings are the letters of Paul, which predate the four Gospels by two or three decades, at least. Let’s briefly look at the evidence, both that which Schopenhauer offers and that which we may supplement on our own.

Schopenhauer cites two passages from Paul. The first and earliest is 1 Thessalonians (4:3), an oddly cryptic passage. Paul says, “For it is the will of God, for your sanctification, that you abstain from porneias.” I cite here the Greek original—but what is porneias? Among the 70-odd English translations we find a range of terms, such as “immorality” (RSV), “sexual immorality” (NKJV), and “fornication” (KJV), all of which suggest illegitimate sex, perhaps unmarried sex, perhaps adultery. But we also find broader terms, like “all sexual vice” (AMPC), “sexual sins” (ERV), “sexual defilement” (TPT), and even “unchastity” (RSV). Paul goes on to say that “each one of you knows how to take a wife in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like a heathen.” Can he be suggesting that men take wives as “partners in Christ” all while abstaining from the sexual lust of heathens?

The second passage is a lengthy portion from 1 Corinthians 7. Again, it is oddly conflicted. At the start of the chapter, Paul says, bluntly, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (7:1, ESV). But owing to “the temptation to immorality”—presumably meaning sexual intercourse—a man may take a wife. Affirming his own unmarried status, Paul then says “I wish that all were as I myself am. … To the unmarried and the widows, I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do” (7:7-8). “But if they cannot exercise self-control”—that is, if they are weak—“they should marry.” Later in the chapter, Paul returns to the subject: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage” (7:27). Two lines later he warns, “those who marry will have worldly troubles [!], and I would spare you that.” Paul goes on to state that married people are worried about worldly matters and about pleasing each other, which distracts them from their “undivided devotion to the Lord.” A married man may do well, says Paul, “but he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38). These are striking words from our “Apostle.” It seems clear—Paul will accept you if you marry, but he would much prefer that you did not.

There are other Pauline passages that Schopenhauer might have cited. For example, Colossians 3:5: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry” (NIV). Or Galatians 5:16-19: “Do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit… The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery.” Or 1 Corinthians 6:18: “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.” Or Romans 13:14: “Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.” We might also include the pseudepigraphic Ephesians 5:3: “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” This is prudish Puritanism in the extreme. Paul, indeed, seems to strongly prefer that his fellow Christians have no sexual relations at all.

There are other related suggestions in the Gospels. Schopenhauer refers to Matthew 19:10, where the disciples offer to Jesus the idea that “perhaps it is better not to marry.” Jesus gives a typically cryptic reply, suggesting that chastity may be best:

Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

The apparent suggestion here is that we all should ‘be like a eunuch,’ and not have sex. In Luke 20:34 Jesus addresses the future resurrection of married people: “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come, and in the resurrection from the dead, will neither marry nor be given in marriage.” Indeed, the unmarried are “equal to angels and are sons of God.” It’s clear who the preferred people are.

Outside the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, we have 1 John 2:15: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. … For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes, is not of the Father but is of the world.” Or we could cite 1 Peter 2:11: “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul” (NSRV). And in the late-written Revelations, we read that the Lamb of God will return to Earth only with those “who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste” (14:4).

What is one to conclude? It seems that Schopenhauer is right—that perpetual chastity is the prescribed course of action for all good Christians.

But why? Why would Paul, for example, encourage his would-be followers to abstain from sex? Obviously he did not get this suggestion from “Jesus” or from God; it was clearly his own doing. Obviously he did not get it from the Old Testament, with its many calls to “be fruitful and multiply.”[4] The idea itself of a celibate religious group was not unknown to him, as it was characteristic of a number of esoteric cults and secretive groups over the centuries. But Paul wasn’t aiming at some clandestine cult; he wanted a mass movement. He must have known that it was poor organizational strategy to ask people to commit to chastity. Clearly, he had some compelling reason for introducing this component into his new religion.

Schopenhauer had no real knowledge of evolution, having been born a few decades too early, and so it is understandable that he had no idea of group evolutionary strategy. If he had, he might have discerned something in Paul’s motive—an overriding concern for the welfare of his fellow Jews. As an elite Pharisee Jew, Paul (born Saul) clearly resented the incursion of the Roman Empire into Palestine in the decades prior to his birth. He also surely shared the long-standing Jewish antipathy for his neighboring Gentile masses—Arabs, Greeks, and Egyptians.[5] Seeing the futility of violent resistance to Rome, Paul was surely searching for nonviolent, indirect, psychological or moral means of undermining the enemy. Then he hit upon a plan: Why not play up the alleged divinity of a recently-crucified Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, turning him into the savior of all humanity? This way, all of Paul’s exhortations—in his self-assigned role as “Apostle to the Gentiles”—could be turned into an anti-Gentile morality and placed into the mouth of God himself. “It’s not my idea,” implies Paul; “God wants you to be chaste—forever.”

But is “perpetual chastity” anti-Gentile? Yes—if, by proscribing future children, it erodes Gentile families. This, in fact, is the only practical consequence: fewer Gentile children. Seen this way, as a Jewish ethnic evolutionary strategy, Paul found a way to inhibit the growth of the non-Jewish population. If there is any historical basis to the concept of “White genocide,” this is it.

And it wasn’t only Paul. Above I gave two chastity quotations from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Those same two books also contain, unsurprisingly, a number of explicitly anti-family passages. In Matthew 10:21, Jesus says, “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.” At Matthew 19:29, Jesus proclaims, “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much, and will inherit eternal life.” In the Gospel of Luke (12:52) we read, “From now on, there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.” And later (14:26) we find that Jesus says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” What is this but a family-destroying message, an admonition to tear apart familial ties, all while staying chaste, simply for the sake of “Jesus”? The Jewish Gospel writers seem to have clearly endorsed Paul’s anti-Gentile strategy.

In the end, of course, this anti-family stance had to be abandoned, as Schopenhauer makes clear. Beginning with Clement of Alexandria, circa 200 AD—especially in book 3 of his Stromata—Gentile Christian Fathers rejected the anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-child stance of the early Jewish Christians. Clement rails against earlier Church Fathers like Marcion and Tatian, who held to the literal, anti-natalist reading: “they teach that one should not enter into matrimony and beget children, should not bring further unhappy beings into the world, and produce fresh fodder for death.”[6] Writing two centuries later, Augustine too recognized this dilemma in the early Christian Fathers: “They reject marriage and put it on a level with fornication and other vices.” By way of modest defense, and with perhaps a touch of irony, he adds that, with mass abstention, “the kingdom of God would be realized far more quickly, since the end of the world would be hastened.”[7]

Still, it was clear that mass perpetual chastity was not a practical way to build a worldwide religion, and in the end it had to be abandoned or “reinterpreted” by Catholics and Protestants alike. They had to adopt the Jewish optimism, the pánta kalá lían, and surrender the central aspect of Christian asceticism, its perpetual chastity. But in doing so, they drained away the key elements of their own religion. As Schopenhauer says, summing up the situation, “From all this, it seems to me that Catholicism is a disgracefully abused, and Protestantism a degenerate, Christianity.”[8]

On the Jews

Where, then, does all this leave us? For Schopenhauer, Christianity had an original and profound core in its inherently life-denying outlook, something which was consistent with his own philosophical stance. But it got subverted and contaminated with the detestable Jewish optimism, and thus lost to history. For all his skepticism, Schopenhauer seems to believe that an historical (but non-miraculous) Jesus really existed, and that Paul was an honest interpreter of his message. In retrospect, this seems utterly naïve. Far more likely is that Paul and the Jewish Gospel writers were master deceivers—“artful liars,” as Hitler might have put it[9]—who were only interested in Jewish power and Jewish well-being, and who thus instituted an effective Jewish group-strategy to confuse and weaken the Gentile masses. And in the end, and even though some aspects had to be jettisoned, it worked. Rome collapsed and Christianity went global. Given that we have some 2 billion Christians on Earth today, the implications are enormous.

Schopenhauer’s many reflections on religion, and his negative assessment of Judaism in particular, furthermore allowed him the opportunity to offer a number of critical comments on Jews generally. Even in his early writing, in volume one of World as Will and Representation, he offered harsh commentary. In a passage on the development of the arts, he briefly addresses “the history of a small, isolated, capricious, hierarchical (i.e. ruled by false notions), obscure people, like the Jews, despised by the great contemporary nations of the East and of the West.”[10] “It is to be regarded generally as a great misfortune,” he adds, “that the people whose former culture was to serve mainly as the basis of our own were not, say, the Indians or the Greeks, or even the Romans, but just these Jews.”

For the next three decades, he said little about them. But he returned to the topic, in a very pointed manner, in Parerga and Paralipomena. Volume 1 begins with a sketch of the history of idealism and the limitations of that metaphysical view. The classic idealists are closely allied with Judeo-Christian theology, and thus “are all marred by that Jewish theism which is impervious to any investigation, dead to all research, and thus actually appears as a fixed idea.”[11] But the subsequent essay, on the history of philosophy, brings the occasion for an extended digression on the subject:

The real religion of the Jews, as presented and taught in Genesis and all the historical books up to the end of Chronicles, is the crudest of all religions because it is the only one that has absolutely no doctrine of immortality, not even a trace thereof. … The contempt in which the Jews were always held by contemporary peoples may have been due in great measure to the poor character of their religion. … Now this wretched religion of the Jews does not [offer any conception of an afterlife], in fact it does not even attempt it. It is, therefore, the crudest and poorest of all religions and consists merely in an absurd and revolting theism. … While all other religions endeavor to explain to the people by symbols and parables the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent, and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations.[12]

Here we see real insight: Judaism is not a religion at all, but rather a war-manual in the competition with other peoples. It serves to sustain and promote the Jewish race in their material well-being, nothing more.

Volume 2 elaborates on these ideas, especially in the chapter titled “On Religion,” which brings this observation:

Also we should not forget God’s chosen people who, after they had stolen, by Jehovah’s express command, the gold and silver vessels lent to them by their old and trusty friends in Egypt, now made their murderous and predatory attack on the ‘Promised Land,’ with the murderer Moses at their head, in order to tear away from the rightful owners, by the same Jehovah’s express and constantly repeated command, showing no mercy, and ruthlessly murdering and exterminating all the inhabitants, even the women and children.[13]

A footnote to the above passage adds this widely-cited remark:

Tacitus and Justinus have handed down to us the historical basis of the Exodus. … We see from the two Roman authors how much the Jews were at all times and by all nations loathed and despised. This may be partly due to the fact that they were the only people on earth who did not credit man with any existence beyond this life and were, therefore, regarded as beasts. … Scum of humanity—but great master of lies [grosse Meister im Lügen].^[14]

The ultimate tragedy, for Schopenhauer, is that the pathetic Judeo-Christian culture dominated the history of Europe, rather than the nobler Greco-Roman: “The religion of the Greeks and Romans, those world-powers, has perished. The religion of the contemptible little Jewish race [verachteten Judenvölkchens], on the other hand, has been preserved…”[15]

But, as noted, the Hebrew tribe is not simply defined by a religion; “it is an extremely superficial and false view to regard the Jews merely as a religious sect. … On the contrary, ‘Jewish Nation’ is the correct expression.”[16] Like Johann Fichte and Johann Herder, Schopenhauer was also concerned about the political consequences of integrating and granting rights to, this Jewish Nation. The Jews were a “gens extorris” (refugee race), eternally uprooted, always searching for but never finding a homeland:

Till then, it lives parasitically on other nations and their soil; but yet it is inspired with the liveliest patriotism for its own nation. This is seen in the very firm way in which Jews stick together…and no community on earth sticks so firmly together as does this. It follows that it is absurd to want to concede to them a share in the government or administration of any country.[17]

Schopenhauer was more moderate than Fichte; banishment was not necessary. He was willing to grant them limited rights, provided they took no role in government. “Justice demands that they should enjoy with others equal civil rights; but to concede to them a share in the running of the State is absurd. They are and remain a foreign oriental race.”[18] The race could be tolerated, but the corrupt ideology had to go: “We may therefore hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology.”[19]

Finally, Schopenhauer found much use in an intriguing little phrase, foetor Judaicus—the “Jewish stench.” For him, the stench represents not so much a literal smell but rather an intellectual odor of stale Jewish thought, arising primarily from the Old Testament. Oddly enough, he applies it most often in his critique of Jewish approaches to animal rights.^[20] In the Parerga he criticizes Spinoza (and his view of animals) as a man who speaks “just as a Jew knows how to do, so that we others, who are accustomed to purer and worthier doctrines, are here overcome by the foetor Judaicus.”[21] Of the Genesis account that God created animals for man’s use, Schopenhauer exclaims, “Such stories have on me the same effect as do Jew’s pitch and foetor Judaicus!”^[22] Somewhat later he refers to “Europe, the continent that is so permeated with the foetor Judaicus.”[23] And on the same subject: “It is obviously high time that in Europe, Jewish views on nature were brought to an end. … A man must be bereft of all his senses or completely chloroformed by the foetor Judaicus not to see [this].”[24]

Members of the alt-right, no longer “chloroformed by the foetor Judaicus” nor deceived by the “great master of lies,” can see the evident truth in such statements—statements that were years ahead of their time, and written in a period when a great thinker could still speak the truth. Sadly, and thanks to Jewish domination of our society, we can no longer openly say such things without harsh recriminations. True free speech no longer exists. Hence we are locked into a long struggle with the Jewish race, simply to achieve basic freedoms of speech and expression, and to live our lives out from under the dominance of the Jewish hand.

Perhaps this is our lot in life—and indeed, the lot of all people everywhere. This calls to mind a well-known quotation from Schopenhauer, which I cite here in context:

History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want or boredom, but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.[25]

Less known is that the concluding thought appears earlier in the book, in different form, and is attributed to Voltaire. The words are apt:

In this world where “the dice are loaded,” we need a temper of iron, armor against fate, and weapons against mankind. For the whole of life is a struggle, every step contested, and Voltaire rightly says, on ne réussit dans ce monde qu’à la pointe de l’épée, et on meurt les armes à la main (“In this world, we succeed only at the point of the sword, and we die with weapons in hand.”)[26]

In such a world, says Schopenhauer, our motto should be (quoting Virgil): tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito (“Do not give way to evil, but face it more boldly”—Aeneid 6.95). The situation demands courage and resolve; “we should not think of nervousness or hesitation, but only of resistance.” We must harden ourselves, and stiffen our resolve; he cites Horace: Si fractus illabatur orbis, Impavidum ferient ruinae (“Even if the world collapses over a man, the ruins still leave him undismayed”—Odes III, 3.7). The future is there for those who are willing to face the battle head-on: Quocirca vivite fortes, Fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus (“Therefore he lives bravely and presents a bold front to the blows of fate”—Satires II, 2.135). As they say, timeless wisdom is eternally valuable.

But perhaps we leave the last word to Schopenhauer himself. His pessimistic realism held true to the end. In volume two of the Parerga, he sums up all the strivings of our lives:

A happy life is impossible; the best that man can attain is a heroic life, such as is lived by one who struggles against overwhelming odds in some way and in some affair that will benefit the whole of mankind, and who, in the end, triumphs—although he obtains a poor reward, or none at all.[27]

The message is clear: Have low expectations of life; as a rule, things will not go as we wish. Any victories will be rare, hard-fought, fleeting, and unacknowledged. Life is perpetual struggle; therefore, never give up. Above all, strive to be heroic.

Words to ponder, for all those who would fight for justice in this unjust world.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed, 2020). For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com

---

[1] P&P, vol. 2, p. 316.

[2] WWR, vol. 2, p. 616.

[3] WWR, vol. 2, p. 619-620.

[4] Genesis 1:28, 9:1, 9:7, 17:20, 28:3, 35:11; Exodus 1:7; Leviticus 26:9; Jeremiah 23:3.

[5] Jewish misanthropy is notorious and well-documented. It dates back at least to Hecateus of Abdera, circa 300 BC, who observed that “Moses introduced a way of life [for the Jews] which was to a certain extent misanthropic and hostile to foreigners.” Apollonius Molon, circa 75 BC, “reviled the Jews as atheists and misanthropes.” In 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus remarked that “the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition.” The list of such commentaries is extensive; for details, see my work Eternal Strangers (Castle Hill, 2020).

[6] Cited by Schopenhauer in WWR, vol. 2, p. 622 note.

[7] Cited in WWR, vol. 2, p. 618 note.

[8] WWR, vol. 2, p. 626.

[9] In Mein Kampf, vol. 1, section 2.25, he expresses his amazement at the Jews’ “art of lying” (Kunst der Lüge). And later in chapter 10 (section 10.4), he employs the explicit phrase “artful liars” (Lügenkünstler). See my new translation (Clemens & Blair, 2017).

[10] WWR, vol. 1, p. 232.

[11] P&P, vol. 1, p. 15.

[12] P&P, vol. 1, p. 125-126.

[13] P&P, vol. 2, p. 357.

[14] Payne mistranslates this sentence, interpreting the final phrase as “past master at telling lies.”

[15] P&P, vol. 2, p. 393.

[16] P&P, vol. 2, p. 263.

[17] P&P, vol. 2, p. 262.

[18] P&P, vol. 2, p. 264.

[19] P&P, vol. 2, p. 226.

[20] Schopenhauer was a passionate advocate for animal welfare, far ahead of his time on that count. He was the first major philosopher to incorporate them into his ethical schema.

[21] P&P, vol. 1, p. 73.

[22] P&P, vol. 2, p. 370. “Jew’s pitch” is a naturally-occurring bituminous asphalt, found in ancient times around the Dead Sea and other parts of Judea.

[23] P&P, vol. 2, p. 372.

[24] P&P, vol. 2, p. 375.

[25] P&P, vol. 2, p. 292.

[26] P&P, vol. 1, p. 475. Original source for Voltaire is Les pensées et maximes (1821).

[27] P&P, vol. 2, p. 322.

Introduction:

Many of the world’s contemporary ills are a direct result of the philosophies, actions and policies of the mainstream establishment, its elites, and their bizarre ideology-cum-religion of liberalism, more recently dubbed “neoliberalism” in its most extreme incarnation. Figuratively speaking, it’s more than fair to posit that the dangerously interconnected and interdependent neoliberalized world is like a giant network server, ever perilously teetering on the verge of a cataclysmic failure. When writing of the excesses of the liberal system, and most notably the dangerous interconnectivity of the globalized world Guillaume Faye acutely summarizes our current predicament when he writes:

A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are approaching one another and converging like a river’s tributaries with perfect accord (between 2010 and 2020) towards a breaking point and a descent into chaos (Faye 2012, 12)

Continuing Faye then offers a glimmer of hope when he writes:

From this chaos — which will be extremely painful on the global scale — can emerge the new order of the post-catastrophe era and therefore a new civilization born in pain (Faye 2012, 12)

The accelerationists among our ranks will chortle that collapse is a good thing. They believe that civilizational collapse will pave the way for a “new world order,” images of valiant last stands reminiscent of those envisioned by William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries or James Mason’s Siege first and foremost in their minds. While the more grounded elements of our movement—those interested in gradual, and realistic metapolitical, and eventual political change—tend to take another view. Realistically speaking, collapse would be a nightmare, wrought with unimaginable suffering and death. Moreover, presumably many of the victims would be our fellow Whites. Political disintegration is a recurring theme throughout world history, and as the study of history has taught, its seldom a pleasant phenomenon.

Bringing matters to a head, and intensifying the instability of the Western world, is the Chinese coronavirus. In true Huxleyan dystopian fashion, with each passing day the fate of the liberalized world rests atop “a pale tenuous membrane,” veering ever closer towards systemic planetary collapse. I cannot help but liken the current crisis to a near-death experience and like any near-death experience, I am cautiously optimistic that some good may arise from our collective veering so close to the proverbial edge. More precisely, I’m hoping that all the fear, misery and uncertainty engendered by the Wuhan pestilence elicits a bona fide existential crisis in whatever’s left of the dwindling soul of the European variant of homo economicus. Let’s hope that with what is tantamount to a national quarantine here in America and most of Europe, that the racially unenlightened kindred among us begin to contemplate just how we got here. The current litany of crises afflicting the West appeared long before the emergence of the Chinese coronavirus, but the virus has managed to bring many of the systems weaknesses to the world’s attention.

War is peace / freedom is slavery / ignorance is strength

In The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph A. Tainter argues that societies become unsustainable when the their problem-solving structures diminish (Tainter 1988). Liberalism as a way of life, has precipitated a number of calamities, on a global scale, many of which remain unresolved, and in fact, are growing to monstrous proportions, immigration chief among them.

Related to the above, the true severity underpinning the coronavirus crisis is a direct result of the extreme uncertainty as to how or when it will end. This uncertainty in turn endows the virus with a potency much more immediately felt than, say, mass immigration or overpopulation, both of which take years for their effects to be realized by the mainstream. Generally speaking, risk can be quantified, in fact, there’s a whole science of risk quantification present within the field of project management devoted solely to the evaluation of risk. Uncertainty, however, isn’t quantifiable, and by its nature is completely unpredictable, and it is this unpredictability which imbues the Chinese virus with so much psychological stress. From this the question arises, how will European man, and ultimately European civilization react to the uncertainty of the Chinese scourge? Will this crisis be the springboard which propels European man towards real ontological, and by extension, civilizational transformation? Or will the retracting empire of European civilization drift closer to the precipice of total racial annihilation? Only time will tell what the future will bring, but some optimism is warranted.

Regardless of outcome, it’s obvious to even the dimmest among us that tangible civilizational change is necessary, at least if the European race is to persevere beyond the twenty-first century. At present, the Chinese scourge is doing a fantastic job of illuminating the real contagion infecting the atrophied West, that of neoliberalism. From atop their echo chambers, a number of mainstream pundits have parroted the statement that the Chinese virus is a global problem. The Chinese virus is a global issue, but presumably much to their chagrin, it is a problem directly caused by neoliberal ideology, and more specifically by its intrinsic preference for and reliance upon globalism. It is the global reach and totalitarian nature of liberalism that has endowed its ideology with such pernicious virulence. It’s probably more than safe to say that if the West wasn’t enthralled by the deranged ideology that is liberalism, that there would be no coronavirus ravaging our homelands and endangering the lives of our folk.

Liberalism isn’t a precise ideology, unlike nationalism which is based on a simple, and fundamental truth, like the love for one’s nation, or an all-encompassing, consensual worldview, like National Socialism. Neoliberalism, unlike its more tolerant ancestor, is more akin to a Rabelaisian salmagundi of rigidly intolerant dogmas and precepts, which are slowly assuming all the accoutrements of a secularized mystery religion. For all practical purposes, liberalism is a loose-knit, ideology-cum-religion, premised upon an axiomatic dogma dedicated to fulfilling individual human wants and desires. Liberalism seeks to satiate these wants and desires, the so-called “happiness” of those under its sway, via the specious “freedoms” diffused by the market-economy.

Like all things en-vogue in contemporary in the West, there is a degree of utopian millenarianism present within neoliberal thought, which promises salvation from the cruel sufferings of this world via its fetish for free-market economics. Like all successful swindles, the unconscious pull of neoliberal thought comes from its ability to present and manipulate half-truths. The long and varied successes of the European race are derived from both the individualism and the competitive nature of our civilization, and it is this truth which neoliberalism insidiously exploits. To the neoliberal order, competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. However, competition is framed not as the conquest, or attainment of individual glory or achievement, but primarily as an economic process, of buying and selling, and thus of a hypertrophied free-market. Liberalism has apotheosized the free-market system by portraying it as the most effective, the most rational, and the most natural of social institutions, capable of producing the most “happiness,” and by extension arousing the most “freedoms” for the greatest number of people. These statements aren’t meant to say that free-market capitalism isn’t a profoundly powerful economic system, but rather to illustrate the point that as a concept, it is just a system of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and not the totality of a civilization. As Alain de Benoist has correctly pointed out over the years, a society is not a market, and this notion has been twisted by liberalism for decades.

Adding to and intensifying the already perplexing liberal ideological milieu is the establishment’s confusion over the very real differences that exist between a capitalist system and a free-market system. A capitalist system focuses on the creation of wealth and the ownership of capital. In the traditional capitalist system of America, the economy was an industrially oriented economy, as opposed to the so-called “knowledge-economy” of present times in which growth is seen as dependent on the quantity, quality, and accessibility of the information available, rather than the means of production. The industrial orientation of the American economy ensured that economic growth occurred largely in the sectors of farming, mining, construction and manufacturing. Moreover, it was during the industrial period of American economic history, and by extension European economic history, that the middle-class was ascendant, and the private ownership of capital (i.e., small businesses) was disbursed among a much larger percentage of the population.

The liberalization of trade, and the expansion of globalism as an ideology rather than just as a byproduct of technological advancement, acted to deindustrialize large swathes of America, resulting in the mass economic dislocation of workers, specifically within import-competing economic sectors. The decades long process of the deindustrialization of America resulted in an economic restructuring of the economy, which precipitated a shift of the locus of American economic output from the generative (e.g., manufacturing) to the parasitic (e.g., financialization). The resulting postindustrial, “knowledge-based” economies of both contemporary America and the West, are focused on the services, finance, and technology, and as such are parasitic in nature, focusing on the exchange of wealth, rather than its creation. Obviously, creation does occur in the knowledge economy—say, for example, a new technology, but the actual production of the new technology will likely end up going to low-wage countries. This outsourcing of manufacturing has resulted in what one might term the intangibleization of the economies of the West, which has in turn led to stagnant wages for the working class and increasing economic inequality. This ongoing economic process has transformed Western civilization, with the its ancestral European peoples being gradually turned into a postmodern servile class dominated by a globalist elite that recognizes no borders. To wit, the current incarnation of the parasitic, free-market economy is a system most vehemently embraced by a Judaized “Western” elite, who profit off of the labor of others, and who have little in common with the new servile class that they now lord over.

The Eschewal of Inequality and the Perversion of the Natural Order:

Central to the noxious confusion of liberalism is its denunciation of inequality. European civilizational agency—the capacity to act in accordance with one’s own will rather than being a victim of some immutable external force or circumstance—is one of the hallmarks of Western civilization. However, the liberal conceptualization of “agency” ignores the fact that there are differences between individuals in the capacity for agency. These differences reliably produce different economic outcomes, and liberalism, despite decades of trying one panacea after another, has been unable to eradicate these differences at the group level: Blacks, e.g., are still underperforming academically as a group despite decades of interventions aimed at “closing the gap.”

From Jean Bodin to John Stuart Mills to Friedrich Hayek and beyond, classical liberal thought posits that freedom stems from the impartiality of economic markets and its role as the great equalizer, which in turn allows people to reach their maximum potential. In an attempt to reconcile the reality of inequality with their ideology, liberal elites have taken to a program of elevating those individuals, and groups, whole racial groups in fact, whose outcomes don’t coalesce with the egalitarian, and thus utopian aspirations of liberal ideology. In terms of general intelligence (the g factor) for example, numerous studies have shown that Sub-Saharan Blacks on average score a whole standard deviation (or more) below that of Whites. IQ is correlated highly to measures of academic achievement, and better academic achievement, more often than not, results in better life outcomes, in terms of social status. Objectively speaking, the higher an individual’s (or groups) status, the more socially valuable they are. This is an empirical fact, which is rooted primarily in genetics and phenotypic expression, and thus a facet of the inequality of the natural world. Liberalism has elevated hordes of the worthless in a confusing attempt to artificially improve their social status, despite their actual lack of tangible societal value. The relatively new concept of “human rights” is a product of this delusional logic.

To the typical liberal, the Black-White IQ gap is a matter of material inequality, an economic problem, and thus completely unrelated to genes or biology. Charles Murray summed up not only the differences in racial intelligence, but also the futility of the utopian neoliberal project perfectly when he wrote: There is this notion that if traits are genetically determined, that’s bad, and if traits are environmentally determined, that’s good, because we can do something about them if they are environmental. And if there is one lesson that we have learned from the last 70 years of social policy, it is that changing environments in ways that produce measurable results is really, really hard and we actually don’t know how to do it, no matter how much money we spend (Harris 2017). Thus, the neoliberal perspective is immanently flawed as it conceptualizes reality in a way which posits that all negative outcomes are a result of material or economic inequality—which is routinely glossed as the result of White racism—and not an issue of ability or capacity, and by extension a facet of objective reality. Liberalism as the reigning ideology has blurred the lines between the real and unreal, between subjectivism and objectivism. Our current age is characterized by a radical subjectivism, where any notion of absolute, objective truth has been deliberately disregarded and replaced by a facetious tapestry of plural “my truths.”

As the oft-used adage goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. It is the philosophical inadequacy of liberalism that reduces all things to the level of material and underlies the multitudes of fallacies present within the many “truths” which make up its pseudo-ideology. As Martin Heidegger posited throughout the entirety of his works, the factual world is perfectly real; it is the human, and by extension, the hyper-liberal propensity to base reality on “projection” (ideal) rather than on “facticity,” (fact) which corrupts the liberal mind and wreaks havoc upon the world.

It is neoliberalism’s adherence to the alleged agency of man, achieved solely by possessing economic and thus political rights, which limits its ability to successfully cope with actual real-world issues. Bridging the gaps in wealth and achievement and abolishing inequality is always just another trillion dollars away. Or it is just a matter of refining our laws to enforce equal outcomes between groups in areas such as income and academic achievement.

And because purely economic adjustments have proved ineffective, political solutions must be found. Policies like quota systems must be enacted and if they are threatened by public opinion—as they most assuredly are— liberalism necessarily morphs into a totalitarian ideology. Bertrand de Jouvenel described the liberal paradox as the cause of what he called “totalitarian democracy.” In the totalitarian democracies of the West, individual decision making, and the explicit “democratic” political processes, maintain the guise of political representation, while in reality decision making is a process done largely by groups of unelected donors—the oligarchs—and their politician minions who really run the system. This is a system which seeks only to maintain and enrich itself. And because its fundamental ideology conflicts with the realities of human nature, such as race differences in IQ, it must necessarily seek total hegemony because that is the only way it can attempt to exempt itself from the realities of nature. It must crush all dissent. Religion, the nation-state, and the family, are all obstacles to the smooth operating of the economy and are ground to dust beneath the machine of market economy. Race is useful only as a means of subverting the traditional power of White majorities, so that only the traditional White majorities are prohibited to have a racial identity or pursue racial interests.

Freedom as an ideal is so ambiguous in orientation that as an abstract notion it can be manipulated to represent anything. It is the economic determinism intrinsic to liberalism which endows it with the myopia of its reductionist tendencies and which, by extension, degrades all things which are real, true and beautiful. In The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord asserts that just as industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having, post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing (Debord 1995). Postmodern neoliberalism isn’t about reality, it’s about the maintaining of appearances to perpetuate the farce of reality—lies, injustice and ugliness masquerading as truth, justice and beauty.

In the degeneration that is the liberal age, presentism is the rule of the day. The generally low-IQ, high-time preference “men without chests” of the postmodern world sacrifice all future gains, whether they be economic, political, racial or otherwise, in favor of high-risk, and often fleeting, short-term gains. As GOP Senator Ron Johnson recently phrased it, we have to reopen portions of the American economy post-haste because “death is an unavoidable part of life.” This train of thought is exemplary of the philosophical weaknesses of liberalism, particularly as it relates to its overreliance on presentism. The behavior of individuals currently living will generally have long-term consequences that affect the well-being of those who will come to live in the future. In this age of dissolution, many people pay lip service to future generations, but act as if it’s not necessary to treat the interests of future generations as equivalent to those of their own. Again, this lack of future-mindedness, and overall lack of care for others beyond oneself, specifically for one’s racial kin, is baked into the giant shit cake which is the liberal establishment.

Conclusion:

The money-grubbing elites of the West have willfully, and quite deliberately forgotten that the purpose of the economy is to serve a people, and not vice-versa. It is this inversion, Nietzschean in its transvaluation of reality, that has led to the series of crises and conflicts destabilizing the West. However, in America, and throughout Europe, people of European descent are gradually awakening to the hostility of these elites. Each new crisis spurred by neoliberalism both edges our people one step closer to the proverbial edge and potentially one step closer to civilizational transformation. In fact, over the past several weeks many legacy media outlets have been publishing stories about the need to suppress the natural, “nationalistic instinct” which has arisen in response to the China plague. Like the farce of multiculturalism, the pervasiveness and popularity of this “nationalistic instinct” is rendered self-evident by the obvious fact that the talking heads in the media are actively working to suppress it. If the works of George Orwell have taught us anything, the more preposterous an untruth, the more vigorously it must be defended.

In times of turmoil like these, it’s important to remember that the disease of liberalism, and those who perpetuate it, are the true enemy of all European people. If America and the West weren’t dominated by the perversion that is money-power, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the hostile elites hadn’t sold out the American people and gleefully deindustrialized America, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we weren’t dominated by a ruthless and rootless, predominantly Semitic, transnational elite whose only interest is the “almighty dollar,” then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the borders of America were closed and if immigration was biased toward Europeans, as it was before 1965, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we lived in a racially homogenous nation-state, populated by people of European descent, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. In other words, if neoliberalism wasn’t the rule of the day, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. Regardless of what emerges from these times of trouble, let’s hope that the loss of life isn’t great, and that the Wuhan scourge is one more nail in the coffin which is the absurdity of postmodern neoliberalism.

---

Debord, Guy. 1995. The Society of the Spectacle. Cambridge: Zone Books.

Faye, Guillaume. 2012. Convergence of Catastrophes. Budapest: Arktos Media Ltd.

Harris, Sam. 2017. Forbidden Knowledge – A Conversation with Charles Murray. https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/.

Tainter, Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.