Jewish History, Jewish Religion: A Review
Jewish History, Jewish Religion
Israel Shahak
Pluto Press, 1994
For a thorough airing of Jewish dirty laundry, one cannot do much better than Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (JHJR). First published in 1994, JHJR, represents a humanist critique of classical and modern Judaism which extends to the pervasive anti-gentile attitudes of Jews throughout history. Much of Shahak’s critique leads to his condemnation of Israel’s current treatment of the Palestinians, but he also offers the gentile’s perspective whenever discussing historical conflicts between Jews and gentiles. Most importantly, however, Shahak underscores the blatant hypocrisy, the niggling legalism, and the chauvinistic ethnocentrism behind classical Judaism, as expressed in the Talmud and other post-biblical writings. While he focuses his ire on the fanatical rabbis—mostly in Israel—who still adhere to these antiquated doctrines and exert influence in the Israeli military, modern dissidents can implement Shahak’s historical and Talmudic analysis whenever countering the historical complaints Jews continually levy against gentiles, especially the white ones.
Shahak begins by demonstrating how the Jewish state of Israel exists to serve the interests of Jews first and foremost. Jews are protected and encouraged by the law in ways that non-Jews are not, especially when it comes to residency and commercial discrimination. Shahak recognizes that many of these discriminatory laws go unenforced in Israel, but they remain on the books. And some are enforced, or at least were as of the book’s publication. Shahak offers the example of Jews—but not gentiles—being legally allowed to lease an orchard from a Jew for harvest. He also describes the financial incentives Israel provides for its Jewish citizens to return to Israel after they leave, while not making similar offers to its non-Jewish citizens in similar circumstances. Further, Kibbutzes exclude Arabs and require that all non-Jews convert before joining. Underlying these double standards is what Shahak calls “the ideology of redeemed land.” Israeli land is considered “redeemed” when it belongs or is sold to a Jew. The same land in gentile hands would be considered “unredeemed.” The logical extension of this, as Shahak points out, is the ultimate redemption of all Jewish land. As of the 1990s at least there was debate as to how far outside Israeli’s current borders unredeemed Jewish land actually stretches.
Shahak connects this double standard to the closed society many religiously zealous Jews want Israel to be. Despite having great knowledge of Judaism, Shahak laments this, and wishes Israel be an open society. But achieving this will require some painful decisions on the part of Jewish Israelis. The following passage, I think, sums up his intentions with JHJR:
A Jewish state, whether based on its present Jewish ideology or, if it becomes even more Jewish in character than it is now, on the principles of Jewish Orthodoxy, cannot even contain an open society. There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use is nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent on a honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism exist, and on a honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards non-Jews.
And if there are any positive attitudes towards non-Jews in Judaism, Shahak studiously does not mention them.
One of Shahak’s main contentions regarding classical Judaism is its totalitarian nature. He mentions how eighteenth-century Jews burned books, persecuted dissidents, banned non-Jewish education, and were absorbed in mysticism. Tolerance was not part of the equation, and Shahak quite cheekily points out how at times even unfriendly gentile societies were kinder to the Jews than the Jews were to themselves. He states bluntly that when Jews were liberated or emancipated throughout the nineteenth century, they were in many cases freed from “the tyranny of their own religion” rather than from any gentile oppression. He offers as an example the Metternich regime in Austria in the 1840s, which actually enforced laws protecting Jews from being murdered. Shahak makes a similar point regarding Tsar Nicholas I:
Nicholas I of Russia was a notorious anti-Semite and issued many laws against the Jews of his state. But he also strengthened the forces of ‘law and order’ in Russia—not only the secret police but also the regular police and the gendarmerie—with the consequence that it became difficult to murder Jews on the order of their rabbis, whereas in pre-1795 Poland it had been quite easy.
Shahak characterizes pre-emancipated Jewish societies as “sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance” and describes how in the first Hebrew work on geography (published in 1803), the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America. He even cracks a joke about how these classical Jewish societies prohibited the study of secular material—except while on the privy:
One can imagine that those few Jews of that time who – no doubt tempted by Satan—developed an interest in the history of the French kings were constantly complaining to their neighbours about the constipation they were suffering from.
Shahak stresses how official Jewish histories of this period which ignore or deny any of this “bear the unmistakable marks of their origin: deception, apologetics or hostile polemics, indifference or even active hostility to the pursuit of truth.” As evidence of this duplicity, Shahak describes how before emancipation, rabbis continually subverted Christian censorship whenever Christians became aware of virulently anti-gentile passages in the Talmud and other writings. For example, terms such as “non-Jew” or “gentile” would be replaced with seemingly less offensive terms such as “idolator” or “Samaritan” which then served as euphemisms for the goyim. Shahak calls these efforts “a calculated lie” since once the rabbis felt secure enough in Israel centuries later, the original anti-gentile passages reappeared in modern editions of their holy books.
And as for anti-gentile language, there is a lot of it, and not just in the Talmud. The Hebrew word shaqetz refers both to unclean animals and to gentile children. In a work known as The Book of Knowledge, Jews are instructed to exterminate gentiles with their own hands (a passage wholly expunged from the book’s English translations). In the Hasidic text known as Hatanya, gentiles are considered Satanic creatures. The Halakhah, which outlines the legal system of classical Judaism and springs from the Babylonian Talmud, openly approves of war crimes (i.e., the killing of ostensibly good gentile civilians during war). In Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed, Blacks and some other nomadic races are likened to “mute animals” and “are not on the level of human beings.” (In the 1925 American translation, editors obfuscated this embarrassing detail by replacing the Hebrew word Kushim, meaning Blacks, with the nonsensical “Kushites”). There is a morning prayer in which Jews thank God for not making them gentiles. In another prayer, the worshipper declares, “and may the apostates have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly.” Devout Jews are enjoined to utter a curse whenever passing a gentile cemetery or upon seeing a large gentile population. The fourteenth-century work called The Book of Education reinterprets seemingly universalist verbiage from the Bible into chauvinistic, pro-Jewish exhortations. For example, according to The Book of Knowledge, the verse “Thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself,” really means “Thou shalt love thy fellow Jew as thyself.” Finally, according to the Talmudic Encyclopedia, the intricacy of the law regarding adultery with gentile women reveals that, to devout Jews, all gentile women, even the ones who convert to Judaism, are presumed to be whores.
Keep in mind that while devout Jews were praying for the death of gentiles and while Jewish leaders were fully aware of the hidebound aspects of their own religion, they pressured the Catholic Church during the mid-20th century to remove the line about God forgiving Jews in one its Good Friday prayers; because, of course, to say such a thing would be anti-Semitic.
Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of JHJR is how petty and legalistic Shahak reveals Judaism to be. It seems that Judaism, as interpreted and re-interpreted over the centuries in the Talmud and other texts—down to the most trivial details—has provided the evolutionary bottleneck through which the Jews have become the world’s heavyweight champions of lawyers. In some cases, it’s as if God laid down the law in the Torah, and it’s up to His chosen people to find ingenious loopholes around these very laws—as if the All-Powerful Creator of the Universe were too obtuse to notice.
On the proscription against milking cows on the Sabbath, Shahak writes—hilariously—that according to Zionist rabbis:
the forbidden milking becomes permitted provided the milk is not white but dyed blue. This blue Saturday milk is then used exclusively for making cheese, and the dye is washed off into the whey. Non-Zionist rabbis have devised a much subtler scheme (which I personally witnessed operating in a religious kibbutz in 1952). They discovered an old provision which allows the udders of a cow to be emptied on the Sabbath, purely for relieving the suffering caused to the animal by bloated udders, and on the strict condition that the milk runs to waste on the ground. Now, this is what is actually done: on Saturday morning, a pious kibbutznik goes to the cowshed and places pails under the cows. (There is no ban on such work in the whole of the Talmudic literature.) He then goes to the synagogue to pray. Then comes his colleague, whose ‘honest intention’ is to relieve the animal’s pain and let their milk run to the floor. But if, by chance, a pail happens to be standing there, is he under any obligation to remove it? Of course not. He simply ‘ignores’ the pails, fulfills his mission of mercy and goes to the synagogue. Finally a third pious colleague goes into the cowshed and discovers, to his great surprise, the pails full of milk. So he puts them in cold storage and follows his comrades to the synagogue. Now all is well, and there is no need to waste money on blue dye.
This is funny. But when rules are laid down and then interpreted to not only benefit Jews but also to necessarily harm gentiles, it’s not funny. In Chapter Five, “The Laws Against Non-Jews,” Israel Shahak wrote it all down.
According to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, the Talmudic Encyclopedia, and R. Yo’el Sirkis’ Bayit Hadash, Jew-on-Jew murder is a capital sin, but Jew-on-gentile murder is not, and is therefore not punishable by any Jewish court. R. David Halevi declares in his seventeenth-century text Turey Zahav which comments on the Shulhan ‘Arukh that a Jew must not directly harm a gentile, but he allows for indirect harm of gentiles. Maimonides himself proscribes Jewish doctors treating gentiles. Basically, a gentile life must not be saved. For example, a Jew would not be allowed to shove a gentile down a crevice, but if the gentile is already in the crevice, the Jew is under no obligation to pull him out. Indeed, if there is a ladder which could facilitate the gentile’s rescue, the Jew may also remove the ladder.
Unless, of course, such indirect harm would then bring hostility upon the Jews as a whole. Then, and only then, would a Jew not be permitted to indirectly harm a gentile. This, I call “the hostility exception,” and Shahak brings it up a lot. Jews respect power, and this power more than any universal set of values informs their jurisprudence. When gentiles (or heretic Jews) are weak, they are afforded no mercy in the law. However, when gentiles are strong, then Jews are required to do the very minimum to not increase their hostility. One crass and recurring example of this was how Jewish doctors would be encouraged to treat wealthy gentiles, including kings, nobles, lords, and the like. But poor gentiles, never. Obviously, such self-serving codification defies any absolute sense of Right and Wrong—moral particularlism at its most egregious, and is one of the aspects of classical Judaism that Shahak finds so offensive.
This next one might be the worst of them all. According to the virulently anti-gentilic Maimonides in his “Prohibitions on Sexual Intercourse” (emphasis mine):
If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if she is a minor aged only nine years and one day—because he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got in trouble.
Get that? According to one of greatest Jewish scholars of all time, a Jew has license to murder, rape, and molest children as long as the victim is a gentile. And of course, the sanctity of gentile marriages amounts to nothing.
Here are a few more anti-gentilic laws, all of which adhere to the “hostility exception” described above:
- Gentiles are forbidden to bear testimony in rabbinical courts, since all gentiles are presumed liars.
- Jews must not offer gifts to gentiles.
- Jews must exact interest when lending money to gentiles.
- Jews must never return items lost by a gentile.
- Jews shall not deceive other Jews in business, but may practice “indirect deception” when doing business with a gentile.
- Jews shall not steal without violence from anyone, gentiles included. However, there are certain circumstances under which they may steal with violence from gentiles under their control.
- Jews are forbidden to sell unmovable property (i.e., structure and land) to gentiles in Israel.
Towards the end of JHJR, Shahak bluntly states something that most counter-Semites know as fact:
It must be emphasized that the explanations quoted above do represent correctly the teaching of the Halakhah. The rabbis and, even worse, the apologetic ‘scholars of Judaism’ know this very well and for this reason they do not try to argue against such views inside the Jewish community; and of course they never mention them outside it. Instead, they vilify any Jew who raises these matters within earshot of Gentiles, and they issue deceitful denials in which the art of equivocation reaches its summit.
Shahak states further that Judaism is imbued with both hatred and ignorance of Christianity, and that this is largely independent of any Christian persecution of the Jews. Thus, he often takes the gentile perspective when reviewing Jewish history in JHJR. He makes it clear that even the poorest Jews were better off than serfs. He also points out that Jews, as agents of kings or nobility, often exploited the peasantry, especially in Poland. He doesn’t deny that European peasants triggered anti-Jewish uprisings throughout history, but he also lists historical peasant uprisings that had nothing to do with Jews. Clearly then, what Jews call “anti-Semitism” is not inherent to European peasants. Shahak says the quiet part out loud when concluding that Jewish influence declines when gentile nations assume a more nationalistic (read: ethno-nationalistic) attitude and have a greater political connection between the rulers and the people—what it now termed populism in American political culture. There is a long history going back at least to the 1930s of Jewish anti-populist writing (Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique)—writing that eventually penetrated American academic and media culture with the rise of Jewish power.
Most damningly, Shahak states:
Before the advent of the modern state the position of the Jews was socially most important, and their internal autonomy greatest, under a regime which was completely retarded to the point of utter degeneracy.
In other words, Jews readily made alliances with oppressive, degenerate non-Jewish elites and participated with these elites in exploiting the non-Jewish population.
Certainly, viewing the Jewish Question through the lens Israel Shahak provides us in JHJR makes things much clearer. He provides cogent reasons why gentiles oppressed Jews in the past or evicted them from their nations. Still, we should remember that Shahak was no fellow traveler of the Dissident Right. Like any good liberal humanist, he opposed all race-based policies, laws, and nations. He opposed ethno-nationalism in toto and often chided Jews (for example, Rabbi Schneurssohn of New York city) for having anti-Black attitudes—the same anti-Black attitudes that many race-realist White dissidents have today. White people founding pro-White nations would have been just as odious to him as the Zionists who had founded Israel. Most questionably, Shahak on multiple occasions in JHJR expresses a high regard for the ideas behind the French Revolution without mentioning any of its concurrent chaos and atrocities. This should give a clear indication of where he stands as a pollical thinker.
Most importantly, we should keep in mind that Jewish History, Jewish Religion does not condemn modern Jews for the overt racism of their classical religion (excluding those instances when classical Judaism informs their treatment of the Palestinians). Nor should it—since no people is without historical sin. However, the best take from this important and fascinating book is the underscoring of the present sin being committed by most Jews today; that is, blaming gentiles, especially the white ones, for bad things in their past, while astutely ignoring similar bad things in the Jewish past.
A critical mass of Jews who stop doing this will do much to lift the burden of three thousand years.
Super review. We in the USA now have a largely Jewish controlled government.media and academia.Jewish interests are manipulating our elections.
The under age gentile female feature brings Jeffery Epstein and his Jewess soul mate Maxwell to mind.
The American public needs to be more informed on the Talmud to better understand what is unfolding now,
. . .going through old books. . .FROM HERE TO GREATER HAPPINESS. . .HOW TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOR GOOD!
by Joel Marie Teutsch and Champion K. Teutsch
DEVELOP YOUR HIDDEN POWER TO
Make Decisions
Solve Problems
Reach Goals
Complet what you Start
Live Abundantly
Revised-New-Enlarged Edition of From Here to Happiness
Now discarding much of my library. . .this is the easiest decision. . .
ALL Judaism is so INmoral, INhuman, so perverted..how can God had chosen such EVIL people…unless God Did NOT and the Christian New Covenant makes more rational sense… JEWS are not the chosen people of GOD and their evil deeds prove it.
One of the most interesting parts of the book, for me, was his description of the hidden Jewish religion. He made claims about the way Jews in Israel practice religion that sounded more like an Haitian vodoo cult than what I was told in school about Judaism. Praying to Satan, trying trick angels by praying in a language they don’t understand, carrying talismans, putting spells on people, making potions…
I tried to find books about it, but could hardly find any (most of them seems to be in Hebrew) until I found Christopher Jon Bjerknes “Beware the World to Come” a while ago.
In short, first of all, current Judaism is based on talmudic and kabbalistic interpretations on the Old Testament, which in their turn is heavily influenced by Gnosticism, which is a distorted Jewish interpretation of Greek mysticism, mainly of Plato’s wierdest ideas.
They pick a few stories of the Bible and make extremely dualistic interpretations. The Jews are “The Sons of Light” and gentiles are “The Sons of Darkness”. In their interpretation of the Fall in Eden there are two couples: Adam and Eve plus Samael and Lillith (Satan and his female consort). Samael and Lillith originated the gentiles by secretly impregnating Eve which created the evil Cain/Esau bloodline, and is the guardian angels of the gentiles. (It seems to be a distorted plagiarization of the Osiris myth.) The Jews are the sons of Jehova and Shekinah (his wife).
The story about Cain and Abel serves as the first anti-semitic holy crime against the Jews: Satans son Cain kills Abel, which symbolizes the beginning of the anti-semitic violence. The innocent, good Jew Abel was murdered by the evil gentile Cain.
The story about Esau likewise, symbolizes the inherent anti-semitism in the gentile. Esau was cheated by the clever Jacob and forever bears hatred towards him.
Even the creation story of Genesis, where Jehova creates light in the darkness, is interpreted as the beginning of this historical struggle.
The story of the historical holy war was later expounded on by Isaac Luria and other cabbalists, and rabbis like Vilna of Gaon and Chaim of Volozhin. It seems to have gotten it’s current form in the Pale of Settlement in the 1800s, where – in the wake of the Cossack war and the fall of Poland (and the explulsion from Spain) – the paranoia and hatred against the gentiles reached a climax.
(I don’t have access to the book where I am now, so I can’t make any quotes.)
These people founded the “modern” Yeshiva tradition, and it’s their insanity that is taught today. They’re involved in a 6000 year old holy war against the gentiles, where every generation has two Messiahs’ (Messiah of Joseph and Messiah of David), and where every event in history and in the current era, is interpreted through the eyes of completely psychotic lunatics. The Halakha (the Jewish Law) is mostly about keeping the holy Jews clean among the filthy, evil gentiles (and untold examples of hilarious superstitions).
The Evangelical Christians is a pale derivative of these people, and everything they teach about “The End Times” is a bowdlerized version of the real Jewish vision of “The Kingdom of God”.
Since most Jews aren’t religious today it might seem irrelevant to mention this lunacy, but it still exists as a mindset and as a thought structure within the Jewish culture. And the few Jews who still believe in it and knows about it, is still revered and have enormous financial backing. It’s not a fringe belief, and even though it’s about as connected to reality as a trekkie convention, the “holy war” is still continuing. As the 9-11 attacks and the Iraq/Syrian war proves
…” it still exists as a mindset and as a thought structure within the Jewish culture.”
Superb observation .
I think Mr. Spencer J. Quinn is maybe making a point when saying:
“he is not a fellow traveller of the alt right”
Traveller often meaning gypsy. Used apparently in secret and non secret socalled societies according to sources which I have no clue if correct:
“are you a fellow traveller?”
“traveller of light”
Is the author implicitely saying to part gypsies that the alt-right is made up at large by people with a gypsy heritage.
Or is he a member of secret or non secret societies? Or does he know the basis for such societies is racial mixture often with gypsies, or is he assuming si due to their wording if the wording is such.
Or is it both a reference to gypsy background, societies or organizations and the like and their focus and maybe even base in such background, heritage or racial heritage or the like…
Like a tripple reference in one sentence?
Just speculationg and I have no evidence in these matters, just read some books and articles that may be for all I know, wrong…
“. . the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America.”
I’d reckon a fair few Shermans bitterly regret that this thinking went out of fashion.
This is most jaw-dropping book I’ve ever read. You can read it on the Unz website, I’m sure that’s where I read it.
Sometime in the past year, I read “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” and it was certainly a very revealing (if at times nauseating) book.
While I admire Shahak for having had the courage to reveal what he did about his fellow Jews, he ultimately was incapable of thoroughly honest self-examination: he never saw through the wartime propaganda that shaped his own self-identity as a “Holocaust survivor.”
From his chapter titled “The Weight of History”: “Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by specific social conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in my opinion can only be described as demonic… no political figure or group of any political color in any country had predicted even vaguely the horrors of Nazism.” In a related note, he goes on to say: “A major part of the extermination of Europe’s Jews was carried out in 1942 and early 1943 during the Nazi offensive in Russia, which culminated in their defeat at Stalingrad. During the eight months between June 1942 and February 1943 the Nazis probably used more railway wagons to haul Jews to the gas chambers than to carry much needed supplies to the army. Before being taken to their death, most of these Jews, at least in Poland, had been very effectively employed in production of equipment for the German army.”
You just can’t make this stuff up – oh, but wait, the Jews do! Including Shahak.
In the concluding paragraph to the book, Shahak states, “the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past.” Clearly, he failed his own test.
Thank you, Spencer J. Quinn and TOO for this excellent review.
If memory serves, Shahak mentioned four main editions of the Talmud. Any dispute among its versions or rabbinic interpretations would be resolved by the text of the original Babylonian: an exceedingly sophisticated yet all-inclusive code, sinking to the depraved depths of REGULATING sex between mother and son: except in translated editions.
Excellent review, Spencer J. Quinn. I just bought a used copy of the book to read it myself.
This is such a great piece Spencer. Very much appreciated. Super important information in this piece and it all comes from one of their own.
Many dissident writers have a very heavy writing style, filled with historical facts, that are of course, always necessary, and then drifts to dark twists and turns to find answers and explanations for much of the subject matter because the Jews are slippery devils. You Spencer have a writing style that is clear, crisp, and even upbeat. It’s a style that seems to be saying to the Jews; “you think you’re getting over on us, but oh no, you’re not!”
This one’s a keeper and I look forward to you next one.
80 years ago the jews were our misfortune, now they rule over us.
This book review leaves the impression that the problem is less with Jews than with idiot goyim who allowed themselves to be played.
Jewish ethnocentrism is problematic for being extroverted than introverted. If Jews want a world of their own, fine. The problem is they also want the whole world as their empire, an ambition that can be realized only by Palestinianizing World Goyim. To create the Jewish State, there had to be Nakba against the Palestinians. Tragic, but if Jews had stopped there, no big deal to the rest of the world. But what is now happening in the West is White Nakba, and it’s largely engineered by Jews who’ve gained control of white elites via bribery, brainwashing, and browbeating.
But then, maybe Jews wouldn’t have turned out this way if Europeans had just left them alone. If Rome hadn’t invaded Judea and pushed them into exile, Jews might not have spread all throughout Europe, which might have remained gloriously pagan. Also, the European spirit of discovery and world conquest didn’t originate with Jews who nevertheless were useful as money-lenders and investors in the vast enterprises. So, Jews got a taste of World Power via Europeans.
In the Ancient World, Southern Europeans, esp. the Greeks and Romans, were most aggressive and adventurous. Later, it was the Northern Europeans, without whom Jews wouldn’t have gained World Hegemony. Shahak’s book details how Jews threatened by fellow Jews sometimes sought refuge in the world of kinder white Gentiles governed by more enlightened values and more humane application of the law.
On the other hand, these very goyim also recklessly drove Europe over the edge in World War I. Some will say the Jewish Hand played a role in the Great War, and I’m sure that was true, but whites often had a compunction to slaughter one another over what now seems like trifles. Granted, some historians say this was the reason for European advancement. Unlike most parts of the world that either remained sparsely populated or came under overwhelming imperial power, rough parity ruled among the European kingdoms/states, and this led to many more wars that fostered innovation in warfare and various technologies; it’s like warring Japan was most open to new ideas when each clan sought superior weapons from European traders. But it also means Europeans got into the habit of treating war as some kind of sports. Most of these wars were resolved quickly, but when the warring parties were well-matched, things got awfully bloody like the matches between Ali and Frazier.
Kevin MacDonald argued that Jews gained over Anglos and other Europeans because the latter are more individualistic, but I’m not so sure. While modern concepts of individuality and liberty were advanced in the Anglo world(and Netherlands), those societies weren’t governed or defined by principles of individualism but by class, obedience, respect, and conformism. For all practical purposes, individualism had significance only for certain thinkers, adventurers, innovators, and the like. Most people were concerned with fitting in, being approved, seeking validation. Northern Europeans weren’t as clan-based or kinship-oriented as the Greeks and Southern Italians, but they still thought socially and communally than as individuals. If they served as a crew member on a ship, they did as the captain ordered. They were loyal to the firm they worked for, like Bob Cratchit to Ebenezer Scrooge in A CHRISTMAS CAROL. And they were mindful of the class they belonged to. And they were anxious about their respectability and standing in society. Thus, individualism in the Anglo World was rather constricted. Given liberty and individuality’s tendency toward social chaos, social discipline and fear of disapproval were paradoxically the necessary conditions for the increase in freedom. The anarchic urge within liberty had to be tempered by manners and rules. In other words, individuality and liberty had to be merited by a sign of superiority, intelligence, wit, and/or skills.
Thus, individualism was essentially elitist, and most people, deemed mediocre and uninspired, were expected to just fall in line and conform, do what was necessary to gain approval and avoid opprobrium. The end result was a society where a relative few were deemed superior and worthy of admiration; they deserved more ‘social credit’ in liberty and individuality; the rest should just shut up, fall in line, and obey, which was pretty much the rule in British boarding schools.
Of course, Britain eventually loosened up, especially with the rise of Youth Culture popularized by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the like. Later, there was the explosion of Punk culture that took it to a whole new (lower)level, especially appealing to Brit youths eager to smash the remaining vestiges of class culture. But, old habits refused to die. Anglo-Britain(and Canada and Australia) remained very much places where most people remained deferential to authority as the best and ‘expert’. Of course, authority came to wear the face of ‘liberal democracy’ and even came to be associated with hipness. It presented itself as ‘lightened up’, disdainful of old hierarchies and snobberies. After all, the Establishment embraced the Beatles, the Royal Family opened up to vulgar celebrities, and the ruling class came to indulge in the same popular culture as the hoi polloi. Still, the formula still remained, “the Best know and the Rest follow”.
Now, what would constitute the Best? When UK was ruled by awesome race-ists(as the Best of the nation), most Brits fell in line and supported the racial-national agenda. But, if the Best were altered, the Rest would naturally fall in line PRECISELY BECAUSE most Brits never had real individuality of their own — and even popular culture, which felt so joyous and liberating, fostered collective emotions and ‘thought’, the crowd mentality that could be shepherded by the Power; it was more about mass idolatry of godlike celebrities than autonomy of the individual. Is it then surprising that New Britain was hardly more individualistic than Old Britain and in some ways even less so?
Just look at the rise of ‘woke’ culture and Covid-mania in the UK. A truly individualist society wouldn’t get so crazy. People would ask questions and show some skepticism. But when the Best say so-and-so in the UK, most people just follow along like sheep. They lack the pride and confidence of individuality. What is truly insidious about ‘woke’ ideology or political correctness is it gives the false impression that it’s about the voice of the People and the Powerless. Thus, the brainwashed sheep being led by the nose are fooled into believing they’re struggling against the system. Wow, they knocked down a bloody statue of some past figure who sold slaves! What awesome rebellion against tyranny!
In truth, UK is now ruled by Jews who, via financial and media control, define what is Best. Jews push ‘wokeness’ to weaken white pride, resolve, and autonomy, all the better to make whites serve ANOTHER power. But because ‘woke’ ideology creates the illusion that ‘white supremacy’ still rules or infests the West, the idiot mobs think they’re fighting the Power by vandalizing old statues. It’s like the moronic Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution who were led to see themselves as rebels when, in truth, Mao merely used them as shock troops to get rid of his political rivals. Contra Kevin MacDonald, individualism wasn’t the dominant mindset among Anglos and Northern Europeans. Rather, it was the individuality of the Best that was respected and rewarded while the Rest were pressured to obey and follow along.
In contrast, while it’s true Jews have been profoundly tribal, their power also derived from a strong sense of personal individualism, i.e. self-centered pride of individuality has been more common among Jews than among Anglos. While Anglos were into ‘Yes, sir’ and ‘No, sir’ before their superiors, Jews were more likely to be distrustful of their own kind, evento the point of irreverence. It could be Jews were sometimes overzealous to kill/murder other Jews precisely because too many Jews were overly defiant and strong-minded; it’s like, for all the black bitching about ‘racism’, they are most prone to beat up or kill other Negroes cuz the only thing black egomania fears is an ass-whupping.
It’s also worth noting that Jewish Tribalism wasn’t based on loyalty to a clan leader but to God. Tribalism based on leadership crumbles along with it. It’s about follow-the-leader, so when the leader goes, so does the tribalism. In contrast, tribalism based on the Covenant means everyone within the Tribe is equally blessed by God or some great force; it’s a matter of blood and spirit regardless of who is leader. Anglo tribalism was based on leadership. So, if the leadership lost prestige(with the fall of empire) or cucked to a foreign entity(the Jews or whatever), the whole system came to be fatally compromised. As for Christianity, a universal faith, it wasn’t something the Anglos could claim for themselves. It was only a matter of time before other peoples invoked the Christian God and Jesus to throw back the sermons at the British Imperialists.
Jewish problem is less about double standards than duplicitous standards. Every national entity must have double standards. If Japan is to remain Japan, it must favor Japanese over others. Still, a principled people would not only use double-standards in their favor in their own domain but respect similar practices by other peoples in their own domains. So, if Japanese use double-standards to favor Japanese in Japan while respecting Iran’s use of double-standards to favor Iranians in Iran, there’s no real problem.
But, Jews play a different game. For some reason, not only should Jews use double-standards in favor of Jews in Israel but THE WHOLE WORLD must be made to endorse such behavior, all the while pledging to favor the Other(especially Jews) over their own kind in their own countries. So, while Hungary must praise Israel for being an ethnocentric Jewish State, it mustn’t favor Hungarians in Hungary; Hungarians must abandon any notion of a historical homeland with deep roots and meanings for Hungarians.
Imagine that. Hungarians have no global ambition and merely want to preserve Hungary as their little nation. In contrast, Jews not only have Israel but use neo-imperialism to smash neighboring Arab nations. Jews also control US and EU and use them as goy attack dogs against Russia, China, and Iran. And yet, these Jews are lecturing the Hungarians about decency and morality. It’s like a billionaire gangster lecturing about the evils of greed to a peasant with a plot of land. Jews want all the goy world to be blackrocked. Jewish supremacists are cretins through and through, but no less disgusting are the goy cucks who grovel at their feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPbj9NX0zc
Empires can be liberating on some level. A people may be free of foreign rule but found themselves under crushing autocracy. North Korea is politically independent whereas South Korea is a US satellite, but it’s far more repressive. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, but it was freer there than in Mao’s China, which was liberated from foreign rule but crushed under the Chairman’s fat arse. Western Imperial rule over the Muslim World was much resented but also led to modernization. Hindus no doubt gained a lot under British Imperialism. And American Indians(victims of ‘genocide’) and American blacks(shackled under slavery) gained access to ideas and things they never would have on their own. Black moral rage about slavery, for instance, is an adoption of white values as black African culture never had a moral issue with bondage. Also, Jews will say Palestinians shouldn’t complain so much because, all said and done, Arabs living in Israel are better off materially than most Arabs in Arab-ruled countries. Palestinians get less than Jews but still get more than most Arabs elsewhere.
We can understand why many Jews felt liberated from their own tradition by the Emancipation, but I can also understand why conservative Jewish elements among tried to keep the tradition and community together. After all, no matter how rich and free one becomes, a Jew is no longer Jewish without a powerful sense of blood and culture. Indeed, this is borne out by what’s happened to the white race. Whites got rich and comfy. They came to favor materialism and hedonism as the two pillars of their existence. Result has been utter deracination and decadence. Whites are now so without an identity or loathe the one they have that they pledge fealty to other identities, especially Jewish or Black. Some pretend to be ‘American Indians’. For others, racial self-flagellation is a kind of anti-identity. White ‘conservatives’ prefer to label themselves as Christians, Civil Nationalists, or Libertarians. They are afraid to be True Race-ists, the only way to be free.
“Shahak characterizes pre-emancipated Jewish societies as “sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance” and describes how in the first Hebrew work on geography (published in 1803), the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America.”
Purely from a scientific point of view, this would be true enough. After all, certain Christian folks who still reject evolution and insist the world is 10,000 yrs old come across as ridiculous. But, a culture isn’t only about objective truth but a sense of soul, myth, roots, and cosmology. Culture is essentially irrational and if a people were to totally reject their culture for its irrationality while wholly embracing science/rationalism, they would be lost because humans are more than walking calculators. Worse, even though science is an infinitely superior means for man to reach the moon or cure some disease, it too is the tool of power, evinced by the Covid regimen. Science is a great tool but not The Answer. Also, it doesn’t define a people. It’s agreed that the world is round in Syria, Russia, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Yemen, Iran, and etc. It’s agreed by all peoples that aspirin reduces pain. But what does that have to do with their sense of who they are as a people and culture? The law of gravity or the chemistry of Vitamin C doesn’t make Jews distinct from Turks or Turks distinct from Iranians.
“And as for anti-gentile language, there is a lot of it, and not just in the Talmud.”
This is what kills me. The white/Christian world came up with tons of epithets for Jews and nonwhites but in the vernacular, not in canonical writings. In contrast, the sacred texts of Judaism are filled with slurs as if Don Rickles wrote them. Imagine opening up some Christian text and reading stuff like, “you know them Christ-killing money-changing kikes are up to no good”, “we gotta get the ni**ers to believe in Christ as a means to suppress their jungle jiggity uga-buga nature”, or “we need more missionaries in China to convert the lot of them slanty-eyed yellow bastards”. Christian texts might put down other peoples as ‘heathens’ but on the basis of their ignorance, not on their blood. If white Christians said unkind things about nonwhites, it was outside the context of religion. But it seems Jewish sacred texts were into racial name-calling. The Talmud must be full of stuff like, “Get a load of them dumb Polacks. Let’s go exploit them and screw their shikse bimbo whores.”
“Jew-on-Jew murder is a capital sin, but Jew-on-gentile murder is not, and is therefore not punishable by any Jewish court”
This wasn’t much different from the racial laws in the American South. White killing a white was a big deal and a Black killing a White was a very big deal, but white killing a black, not so much. And in the West, Whites had to kill Indians to make way for civilization. Of course, today things are reversed. Blacks killing whites or non-blacks(excluding Jews) is no big deal, but whites killing a precious black is a big big deal. The only acceptable murder of a black is by another black, apparently because it’s all in the family. Likewise, the reason why Jews reacted so hysterically to the cases of Leo Frank and the Rosenbergs was they simply couldn’t abide by the notion of inferior goyim killing Jews. In the American South, it was a taboo for even a good black to kill a bad black. Blacks simply weren’t allowed to kill whites. Jews feel likewise about goyim. They feel as the massuhs while all goyim are really a bunch of schvartzes of various colors. But just like blacks once internalized their own inferiority and dutifully served at the feet of the white massuh, it appears so many white goyim internalized their inferiority as well vis-a-vis Jews. To most white Americans, it’s perfectly okay for Jewish Power to use the US military to smash the skulls of millions of Arabs/Muslims, but how dare anyone touch a hair on a single Jew!
One thing for sure, most whites/Christians believe Jews/Zionists have every right to slaughter Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, but heaven forbid any Jew get killed by a non-Jew. Zionists killing 100,000s of Arabs is just ‘Israel defending itself’, but if some Muslim kills a Jew in Europe, it is ANTISEMITISM.
In some ways, things have changed a great deal since the time of Woodrow Wilson. But structurally speaking, not much changed. It’s not that the US is less ‘racist’ but that it’s ‘racist’ about other things. Back in Wilson’s day, it was okay to be ‘racist’ against blacks and even let the KKK march in DC. Today, when Robert E. Lee monuments are being removed in Southern States, a KKK march would be unimaginable. BUT, it’s okay to allow BLM thugs burn down entire parts of DC, vandalize, loot, and randomly attack people. Ostensibly, it’s in the name of ‘anti-racism’, but it’s really an expression of black savage-supremacism with the blessing of Jewish Supremacist Elites who use blacks as the bullwhip against whites emotionally and physically. Use black muscle to intimidate whites, use black narrative to guilt-bait whites. But it’s really about Jewish supremacism and black supremacism working hand in glove. So, the current US is really just as ‘racist’ as it was a hundred years ago. The content is different but the structure is the same.
https://mondoweiss.net/2022/01/pompeo-at-zoa-gala-israel-is-not-an-occupier/
And consider US foreign policy. US military is given green light to drop bombs on the Middle East and kill countless ‘sand-ni**ers’ at the behest of Jewish Supremacism, the new ideology of America. While apartheid in South Africa was deemed an absolute evil, Jim Crowitz policies in West Bank must either be supported or ignored. So, the US didn’t go from ‘racism’ and ‘imperialism’ to ‘anti-racism’ and ‘anti-imperialism’ but to ‘neo-racism’ and ‘neo-imperialism’ with new saints and monsters. In 2020, invoking ‘George Floyd’ gave blacks a free pass to rob, loot, burn, and murder. They could act 1000x worse than the KKK ever did, but as Jewish Supremacists rule America and as Jews need blacks to guilt-bait whites, black supremacist savagery is A-Okay.
“For example, a Jew would not be allowed to shove a gentile down a crevice, but if the gentile is already in the crevice, the Jew is under no obligation to pull him out.”
That’s not a bad rule. It’s like the US shouldn’t go around hurting other nations, BUT it is not the role of US to save or bail them out. Let them fix their own problems. The problem is the US goes around the globe claiming to help other peoples while actually causing them great harm, especially in the Middle East and places like Ukraine.