Jewish Assimilation?

An issue that comes up when talking about Jewish influence, especially, say, in the early twentieth century, is how to interpret the calls of some Jewish intellectuals for Jews to assimilate. Assimilation can mean many things. We can all agree that Orthodox and Hasidic Jews tucked away in self-created ghettos and eschewing secular education are not assimilated; such groups were more mainstream in the Jewish community in the early twentieth century in America, since the vast majority of Jewish immigrants to the U.S. came from Eastern Europe where they lived quite apart from the surrounding society and often did not speak the language of the country they were living in.

But what about Jews who rejected the ghettos and toned down their religious observance to Reform Judaism or rejected religion altogether? Does speaking English and being a baseball fan mean that one is assimilated to America and its culture? Is Bill Kristol assimilated? What about pro-Israel fanatic and Hollywood mogul Haim Saban (Democrat funder), a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel who once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” The late casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson (Republican donor) who also wanted to nuke Iran? Jonathan Greenblatt?

They would all say that they are assimilated despite their intense support for Israel as a Jewish state—which (obviously) may not have the same interests as the United States, as Mearsheimer and Walt and many others have stressed.

The problem is that Jews who have advocated assimilation rarely spell out what they mean, and therein lies the problem. Are they saying Judaism should disappear into the general European-derived gene pool of the U.S. or perhaps into the  U.S. population as a whole, so that after a few generations, Judaism would be a distant, historically interesting memory of no current political or cultural relevance in the U.S.? Or are they saying that Judaism should continue to exist along with Jewish activist organizations like AIPAC, the ADL, and organizations such as Birthright Israel that advance Jewish interests or identity but while also being immersed those aspects of American culture that don’t conflict with Jewish interests—such as professional sports, appreciating non-Jewish writers (even White male non-Jewish writers), or even listening to country music. If the latter, one can certainly argue that Jewish assimilation is at best partial and at worst a façade masking commitment to Jewish interests that may be incompatible with the interests of the society as a whole and with the interests of other important components of the society. Support for Israel is the most obvious example—such as the current trend toward equating anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine attitudes and boycotts with anti-Semitism.

Or does assimilation mean something in between—say strongly identified secular Jews whose world very consciously revolves around Jewish identity and interests to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. Needless to say, such a person is not assimilated in any meaningful sense.

The problem must be addressed historically. During times of heightened anti-Semitism, such as during the 1920s until after World War II, Jews were well advised to be circumspect about their Jewish identities and Jewish commitments. For example, the Zionist movement began in the late nineteenth century but was a minority viewpoint within the Jewish community until the establishment of Israel because of fears of charges of “dual loyalty”—the idea that Jews would be at least as loyal to Israel as to the United States, and perhaps even more loyal to Israel. Even in the twenty-first century, neoconservative Jews with strong emotional and family connections to Israel are careful to frame their proposals for war in the Middle East as serving U.S. interests.

This is a general point. Jews, as a relatively small minority in the West, must attempt to appeal to non-Jews and avoid framing their theories and policy proposals in terms of their Jewish identity and Jewish interests. Thus one searches in vain for public pronouncements and framing of theories explicitly in terms of advancing Jewish interests. And thus the lucrative and therefore tempting infrastructure that Jews have created in support of their causes, such as the network of neoconservative think tanks, positions at universities, and opportunities in the media that undoubtedly attract many non-Jews. But typically, in the absence of evidence of explicit Jewish activism (e.g., being a member of the ADL or AIPAC, or, as in the case of the Frankfurt School, having your central academic work, The Authoritarian Personality (1950), published by the American Jewish Committee), one must must pore over detailed biographies that include, e.g.,  accounts of private conversations and letters. Freud, for example, left behind a great deal of evidence of his Jewish identity and his sense of Jewish interests. Others did not, so one is forced to piece together an account on relatively scant evidence.

One tactic that may be helpful in this regard is to determine whether the attitudes of a particular person are congruent with mainstream Jewish opinion as explicitly stated by prominent Jewish activist organizations like the American Jewish Committee during the 1920s. While a Jewish intellectual intent on establishing scientific credibility in the wider scientific community may be loath to explicitly state his attitudes and opinions on Jewish issues, Jewish organizations are typically not reticent. For example, during the 1920s’ immigration debates during which the American Jewish Committee (fronted by Louis Marshall) played by far the greatest role in opposing restriction, Franz Boas published his study of the skull shapes of immigrants (later found to be likely fraudulent). From Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique:

Boas was greatly motivated by the immigration issue as it occurred early in the century. Carl Degler (1991, 74) notes that Boas’s professional correspondence “reveals that an important motive behind his famous head-measuring project in 1910 was his strong personal interest in keeping the United States diverse in population.” The study, whose conclusions were placed into the Congressional Record by Representative Emanuel Celler [the Jewish Congressman who was a leader of the anti-restriction forces in the House] during the debate on immigration restriction (Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5915–5916), concluded that the environmental differences consequent to immigration caused differences in head shape. (At the time, head shape as determined by the “cephalic index” was the main measurement used by scientists involved in racial differences research.) Boas argued that his research showed that all foreign groups living in favorable social circumstances had become assimilated to the United States in the sense that their physical measurements converged on the American type. Although he was considerably more circumspect regarding his conclusions in the body of his report (see also Stocking 1968, 178), Boas (1911, 5) stated in his introduction that “all fear of an unfavorable influence of South European immigration upon the body of our people should be dismissed.” As a further indication of Boas’s ideological commitment to the immigration issue, Degler makes the following comment regarding one of Boas’s environmentalist explanations for mental differences between immigrant and native children: “Why Boas chose to advance such an adhoc interpretation is hard to understand until one recognizes his desire to explain in a favorable way the apparent mental backwardness of the immigrant children” (p. 75).

It’s not too much of a stretch to assume that Boas was ethnically motivated along with the mainstream activist Jewish community on this issue. Yet I suspect that if Boas was asked whether his Jewish background influenced his research, he would deny it—something like, “I just think that diversity is intrinsically good. Diversity is our greatest strength!” End of story.

This relates to another fundamental issue: the complexity of Jewish identity in general. The point here is that deception, self-deception and even honest lack of self-awareness (e.g., the example below of a rabbi who “didn’t know how Jewish he was” until he became obsessed about Israel’s Six-Day War) abound among Jews in their relationship to being Jewish and pursuing Jewish interests. The result is that one has to do the best one can while realizing that the historical period makes a difference—Jews are much more apt to expressly identify as Jews and assert their interests as Jews now because there are far fewer downsides to doing so than a century ago. As a result, one can be forgiven for pouncing on relatively small indications of Jewish identity and interests as decisive indicators during some periods more than others. The following is the majority of Chapter 8 of Separation and Its Discontents on Jewish self-deception, without the footnotes. The point is that even Jews who claim not to have a Jewish identity or to work on behalf of Jewish interests may be engaging in deception or self-deception. Both are quite adaptive processes with a likely evolutionary origin.

*   *   *

Jewish self-deception touches on a variety of issues, including personal identity, the causes and extent of anti-Semitism, the characteristics of Jews (e.g., economic success), and the role of Jews in the political and cultural process in traditional and contemporary societies. Perhaps the most important example of self-deceptive Jewish religious ideology, reiterated as a theme of Jewish self-conceptions beginning in the ancient world, is the view that Judaism is an ethically superior, altruistic group and is therefore morally obligated to continue as a cohesive, genetically segregated group purely for the ethical purpose of providing a shining example to the rest of humanity (see Chapter 7).

Because of their critical attitudes toward diaspora Judaism, Zionists have often been quite conscious of the mental fabrications of their coreligionists. Thus the historian Sir Louis Namier (1934, xxxvii–xxxviii) (himself an Anglican convert and Zionist activist [Whitfield 1988]) describes the “better-class” liberal Jew in pre-National Socialist Germany who

was high-minded, broad-minded, open-minded, and without roots, for he lacked the live touch with any living community. . . . His conception of Judaism merely as a religion was curiously superficial and self-contradictory. For that which distinguishes the Jewish religion in its modern form from, say, Christian Unitarianism, is merely the national tradition which most of the adherents of Liberal or Reform Judaism profess to reject. By refraining from complete amalgamation and by maintaining their separate racial and historical identity, of which they deny the existence, they have kept themselves suspended in mid-air—moral Luftmenschen, who provoke criticism among their own people and distrust among the non-Jews. In reality, most of them were perfectly sincere within the limits of their own conscious thinking; they did not avow their insincerity even to themselves.

The German economist Werner Sombart (1913, 264) touched on Jewish self-deception in his work, Jews and Modern Capitalism:

Just as so many Jews do not see themselves—do they not deny their obvious characteristics and assert that there is no difference between them and Englishmen or Germans or Frenchmen? . . . How many Jews still hold that the Jewish Question is only a political one, and are convinced that a liberal régime is all that is required to remove the differences between the Jew and his neighbour. It is nothing short of astounding to read the opinion of so soundly learned a man as the author of one of the newest books on the Jewish Question that the whole of the anti-Semitic movement during the last thirty years was the result of the works of Marr and Dühring. “The thousand victims of the pogroms and the million sturdy workers who emigrated from their homes are but a striking illustration of the power of—Eugen Dühring” (!)

Sombart’s comments touch on the apologetic nature of Jewish historiography which is a central theme of Chapter 7. Much of this work undoubtedly involves self-deception. In a comment that also stresses the complexity of Jewish identity processes, Lindemann (1997, 535; italics in text) writes that “Jews actually do not want to understand their past—or at least those aspects of their past that have to do with the hatred directed at them, since understanding may threaten other elements of their complex and often contradictory identities.”

Zionist historian Gershom Scholem (1979) describes the massive self-deception among the “broad Jewish liberal middle class” (p. 16) living in Germany from 1900 to 1933. Scholem describes the “contrast between the general principles that were consciously upheld in domestic discussions and the mental attitudes that remained subconscious and in many cases were even explicitly disavowed” (p. 17). They accepted the ideology that Judaism was nothing more than a religion despite the fact that most of them had no religious beliefs and many had developed “Jewish feeling which no longer had anything to do with religion” (p. 20). Many accepted the ideology that “the mission of Judaism was its self-sacrifice for the common good of mankind” (p. 26), despite the fact that Jews were vastly overrepresented in all of the markers of economic and cultural success in the society. Jews would lead humanity into a universalistic, ethically superior golden age, while they themselves retained “semi-conscious” feelings of solidarity with international Jewry. Their avowals of anti-Zionism and German patriotism were often “more evident than real” (p. 18)—a comment that brings to mind the much earlier observation of Moses Hess, who wrote in 1840 about the despised assimilated Jew “who denies his nationality while the hand of fate presses heavily on his own people. The beautiful phrases about humanity and enlightenment which he employs as a cloak for his treason  . . . will ultimately not protect him from public opinion” (in Frankel 1981, 12). The self-image of being completely socially assimilated also coexisted with exclusive socialization among other Jews and criticism of upper-class Jews who socialized with gentiles. Self-images of assimilation also coexisted with very negative or ambivalent attitudes toward conversion and intermarriage.

Moreover, the image of being submerged in completely “German” activities coexisted with the reality of engaging in activities that only Jews engaged in, and also in taking great pride in Jewish accomplishments, Jewish suffering, and in a Jewish history that was very different from German history. They took great pride in their invention of monotheism and in the concept that Christianity was the “daughter-religion” of Judaism—an ideology that clearly places Judaism in a superior role vis-à-vis Christianity. Their intellectual idols were people like Moritz Lazarus, Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig—all Jews, many of whom were themselves engaged in intellectual work involving self-deception. (Cohen believed that Jews had to survive as a people in order to promote a unique ethical vision [Rubin 1995a, 53].) Their literary idols were Jews who had achieved popularity among gentiles and thus were a source of group pride.

The reality of anti-Semitism was almost completely blotted out of Jewish consciousness.[1] Very few Jews read anti-Semitic literature, and the general tendency was to suppose that anti-Semitic practices “were unimportant marginal phenomena” (p. 23).[2] Jewish cultural domination was a theme of anti-Semitism, but in 1912 when Zionist author Moritz Goldstein made his famous comment that Jews should contemplate the implications of the fact that the German cultural heritage was now largely in Jewish hands, the reaction was self-deception:

The unexpected frankness with which a Jew who eschewed self-delusion thus broke a taboo which otherwise had only been violated by anti-Semites with malicious tendencies, illuminated with lightning clarity the prevailing socio-political tensions. And perhaps more illuminating was the embittered reaction of most of the Jewish participants . . . who repudiated the thesis as such, declared the ventilation of the question to be improper, and tried with all their might to efface the divisions thus exposed. (Scholem 1979, 30)

Goldstein was a Zionist, and his essay was greeted with hostility by liberal Jewish organizations who assailed the “excessive nationalism” and “racial semitism” of the Zionists (see Field 1981, 248). As Field (1981, 248) points out, another aspect of Jewish self-deception revealed by this incident was that these liberal Jewish critics never confronted the central problem raised by Goldstein when he noted that anti-Semites such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were “the best spirits, clever, truth-loving men who, however, as soon as they speak of Jews, fall into a blind, almost rabid hatred.” The credibility of the anti-Semites, not Moritz Goldstein, was the fundamental problem for German Jews.

Interestingly, Scholem himself would appear to be involved in similar forms of self-deception, and his particular form of it bears on the issue of the apologetic nature of Jewish historiography. Scholem (1976, 87) describes Jews as engaging in a one-sided, unreciprocated love affair with Germany in the post-emancipation era. “The Jews did meet with gratitude [for their contributions to culture] not infrequently, but almost never did they find the love they were seeking.” To Scholem, Jews were seeking love from gentile Germans—a twist on the familiar theme of Jews as an altruistic group. While Scholem is oblivious to conflicts of interest between Jews and Germans in the construction of culture, anti-Semites accused Jews of being hostile toward German culture as the culture of an outgroup and as seeking to dominate that culture in order to bend it to their own interests by, for example, being less enthusiastic about the German interest in developing a cohesive and unified national culture.

However, in the same essay Scholem states that “during the generations preceding the catastrophe [i.e., the Holocaust], the German Jews—whose critical sense was as famous among Germans as it was irritating to them—distinguished themselves by an astounding lack of critical insight into their own situation. An ‘edifying’ and apologetic attitude, a lack of critical candor, taints almost everything they wrote about the position of Jews in the German world of ideas, literature, politics, and economics” (p. 89). Put together, the passages imply that Jews sought the love of the Germans via their contributions to culture despite the fact that a prominent feature of this cultural contribution was to subject German culture to intensive criticism and despite the fact that this critical sense provoked German hostility. At the same time, Jews failed to critically analyze their own role vis-à-vis German culture. It makes no sense to suppose that Jews actually sought the love of the Germans while simultaneously subjecting the loved one to intensive criticism and failing to critically examine why they were doing so. Failure to see the contradiction in his own analysis is self-deception.

Similarly, the historian Donald Niewyk (1980, 196) attributes Jewish status seeking during the Weimar period to a desire to be loved by Germans rather than to the baser human goals hypothesized by an evolutionist: “Few elements of Jewish life were untouched by the painful consciousness of unrequited love. Jewish overachievement in every area of German economic and cultural life arose from a profound wish to win respect and acceptance.” Niewyk agrees with the statement of Franz Oppenheimer, a prominent Zionist, who commented in 1926 that Jewish “overcompensation” “betrayed a powerful longing to counteract antipathy by proving the value of Jewish contributions to Germany.”

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

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

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

Self-deception regarding personal identity continues as an aspect of contemporary civil Judaism, where it functions to reconcile a strong Jewish ethnic identity with membership in the broader social context of contemporary Western individualist societies.

Sometimes, in partibus infidelium, [a consciousness of Jewish ethnicity] is “magically,” uncannily revived: in the very midst of the cool civil nexus that binds the goyim into their solidarity of the surface, in the very heart of the sociable Gesellschaft, across a crowded room, you “know” that “somehow” you share a primordial solidarity of the depths. . . . What is most inward in their Jewish self-definitions is precisely what cannot become outward and legitimately Anglo-American, namely, the particularist inwardness of the ethnic nexus. The Western value system refuses to legitimate publicly this primordial ethnic tie. . . . Hence its stubborn, residual reality is forced “underground,” and, when it travels aboveground, it is forced to assume the fictive identity of a denominational religion (Conservative Judaism serves this function in America). (Cuddihy 1974, 86–87)

It is this perceived need to hide a deeply felt but publicly illegitimate personal ethnic identity that I suppose tends to result in identificatory self-deception among Jews. Woocher (1986, 97; see also Liebman 1973) views contemporary civil Judaism as “a complex ideological mechanism” for dealing with the ambivalence resulting from the attempt to retain group identity and also achieve full social integration. The ideology simply states that there is no conflict in these aspirations, that both are “appropriate and necessary.” However, civil Judaism’s “intense anxiety about the prospects of Jewish survival in America, its struggle against assimilation, is a signal that its denial of ambivalence is not to be taken entirely at face value.” Within the civil religion, if a Jew feels ambivalence, it is a sign that he or she truly understands the meaning of being a Jew in contemporary America. The religion simply asserts as self-evident and beyond debate that “by being a better Jew, you will be a better American; by being a better American, you will be a better Jew” (Woocher 1986, 99)—a twist on Louis D. Brandeis’s (1915) remarkable assertion that “to be good Americans we must be better Jews; to be better Jews we must be Zionists.” Such a perspective is facilitated by the self-aggrandizing and presumably self-deceptive ideology that “America is, after all, created in their image, and in pursuing the civil Jewish version of Jewish destiny they are merely reinforcing the terms of America’s own self-understanding” (Woocher 1986, 102). Indeed, Woocher’s survey results of American Jewish activists in the late 1970s indicated that for most of these individuals the primary identification was as Jews rather than as Americans, but they also endorsed statements indicating they were glad to be American and that by being better Jews they would be better Americans.

The Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell articulates well the intensity with which many secular, highly assimilated Jews are aware of a double identity; that even in 20th-century America there is a Marranoism that Jews in 15th-century Spain would have sympathized with: “I was born in galut [exile] and I accept—now gladly, though once in pain—the double burden and the double pleasure of my self-consciousness, the outward life of an American and the inward secret of the Jew. I walk with this sign as a frontlet between my eyes, and it is as visible to some secret others as their sign is to me.” Bell concludes that “one realizes that one does not stand alone, that the past is still present, and that there are responsibilities of participation even when the community of which one is a part is a community woven by the thinning strands of memory” (Bell 1961, 477, 478).

Identificatory questions were characteristic of the German-Jewish economic elite in the period from 1800 to 1933. They engaged in very intricate intellectual rationalizations centered on their own personal identity and that of their children (see Mosse 1989, 45ff). These rationalizations, some of which were predicated on the idea that Jewish identity presented no problems, suggest a degree of self-deception:

Whilst some “ideological” solutions to [the search for personal identity] had an apparent logic and whilst some forms of practical engagement provided empirical solutions, many of the ‘solutions’ offered . . . were far-fetched and unconvincing. . . . However thoughtful and well-educated, no member of the of the Jewish economic élite, probably, could find a satisfactory theoretical (or “ideological”) solution to the dilemma. . . . Basically, the eternal and inevitable “outsider” could achieve no full identification—almost by definition—with the “solid majority.” (Mosse 1989, 90–92)

Self-deception and identificatory ambivalence among Jewish leftists is a major theme of The Culture of Critique. Consider the following summary of the attitudes of a sample of Jewish-American communists:

Most Jewish Communists wear their Jewishness very casually but experience it deeply. It is not a religious or even an institutional Jewishness for most; nevertheless, it is rooted in a subculture of identity, style, language, and social network. . . . In fact, this second-generation Jewishness was antiethnic and yet the height of ethnicity. The emperor believed that he was clothed in transethnic, American garb, but Gentiles saw the nuances and details of his naked ethnicity. . . .

Evidence of the importance of ethnicity in general and Jewishness in particular permeates the available record. Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted. The alternative was never really considered, particularly among Jewish men. (Lyons 1982, 73–74)

Indeed, Jews may not consciously know how strongly they in fact identify with Judaism. For example, Silberman notes that around the time of the 1967 Arab/Israeli war, many Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that “I had not known how Jewish I was” (in Silberman 1985, 184; emphasis in text). Silberman comments that “This was the response, not of some newcomer to Judaism or casual devotee but of the man whom many, myself included, consider the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of our time.” Many others made the same surprising discovery about themselves: Arthur Hertzberg (1979, 210) wrote that “the immediate reaction of American Jewry to the crisis was far more intense and widespread than anyone could have foreseen. Many Jews would never have believed that grave danger to Israel could dominate their thoughts and emotions to the exclusion of everything else.”

In contemporary America there is a potential for identificatory ambivalence resulting from the very central role which a foreign government, Israel, plays in the civil religion of American Jews. For example, a survey conducted in the late 1970s found that among highly committed Jews, 70 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I feel more emotional when I hear Hatikvah [the Israeli national anthem] than when I hear the Star Spangled Banner,” while less than 33 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “The primary loyalty of American Jews must be to the United States and their fellow Americans.” However, as Woocher (1986, 99) notes, the ideology that there is no ambivalence and no inherent difficulty is a powerful one, since “it has sufficient face validity to make its articulation as a general principle plausible.”

There has also been self-deception (or deception) regarding Jewish economic success. Shapiro (1992, 118) notes that Jews are overrepresented by at least a factor of nine in the highest levels of economic success in American society. He also notes that Jews have taken steps to prevent this vast Jewish overrepresentation from being widely known, because of fears of anti-Semitism. Further, he notes that Jewish historians of Judaism in America have traditionally paid scant attention to the many instances where Jews have accumulated great wealth or have distinguished themselves intellectually, preferring, in the words of Irving Howe, to depict the Jewish immigrant experience as “a readiness to live for ideals beyond the clamor of self, a sense of plebeian fraternity, an ability to forge a community of moral order even while remaining subject to a society of social disorder” (in Shapiro 1992, 118). Similarly, Shapiro notes that in the 1940s the ADL downplayed the vastly disproportionate role of Jews in science, the professions, the arts, government, and the economy, pointing instead to the existence of Jewish laborers. In England during the 1930s Sidney Salomon, a journalist and secretary of the Defence Committee of the Board of Deputies, published a volume The Jews of Britain that deliberately downplayed the role of Jews in finance and commerce and emphasized their accomplishments in medicine and the arts (Alderman 1983, 122).

This type of deception or self-deception is also illustrated by another work by Irving Howe. In his discussion of Jewish influences on American culture, Howe (1978) completely ignores the consistent theme of post-Enlightenment anti-Semitism that Jewish influence on culture serves Jewish interests and conflicts with the interests of many gentiles. Instead, he concentrates on several Jewish influences on American culture perceived as entirely benign, including bringing Old World influences to bear on American culture (e.g., the Modernist movement) and especially a sense of alienation and separation from the wider culture: “To feel at some distance from society; to assume, almost as a birthright, a critical stance toward received dogmas, to recognize oneself as not quite at home in the world” (p. 106). Or as Barry Rubin (1995b, 144) expresses it, “with partial assimilation as normative, to be at home was never to be at home, living a reflexive high-wire act of anxiety and marginalism: rage, anxiety, restlessness, insatiability, as well as alienation, skepticism, intellectual orientation, and moralism infused with passion.”

I agree that this is an insightful interpretation of one form of Jewish cultural influence, and one can easily see in it the traditional separation of Jews from the surrounding society that is so essential to all forms of Judaism. However, it is also easy to see that it is exactly this latter influence that tends to undermine the fabric of gentile social structure and has been a potent source of anti-Semitism since the Enlightenment (see Ch. 2). Howe’s failure even to mention these considerations may be interpreted as another example of self-deception.

Indeed, Robert Alter (1965, 72) notes that the view of many Jewish writers of themselves as outsiders had “dwindled into an affectation or a stance of pious self-delusion.” Their fiction creates a “double sentimental myth: the Jew emerges from this fiction as an imaginary creature embodying both what Americans would like to think about Jews and what American Jewish intellectuals would like to think about themselves.” An example is the “pious self-delusion” (Alter 1969, 39) involved in depicting the Jew as an intensely morally sensitive, Christ-like sufferer who bears the world’s guilt on his shoulders.[3] Cuddihy (1974, 183) terms it “the ‘moralistic style’ of the modern oppositional intelligentsia.” It is the secular equivalent of the “light unto the nations” self-conceptualization that has been at the heart of Jewish identity since the beginning and particularly since the Enlightenment.

Reflecting self-deception and negative perceptions of the outgroup, Jewish intellectuals have held on to the idea of the Jew as outsider and underdog long after Jews had achieved vastly disproportionate success in America (Shapiro 1992, 123). This self-deception of Jews as oppressed can be seen in a recent work by Tikkun editor Michael Lerner (Lerner & West 1995) in which he argues that for Jews in contemporary America “there is a level of spiritual and psychological oppression that is as real and as fundamental as any other form of oppression. . . . It’s the oppression and pain that comes from denying our human capacity” (p. 237). Jews are outsiders in American society because American white society as a whole does not conform to a specifically Jewish ethical ideal despite the fact that Jews are highly overrepresented among all the indices of economic and cultural success in American society, including ownership of large corporations. In Lerner’s perspective, this high-income economic profile of the Jews occurs because Jews are passive victims of the gentile “ruling elite” that uses them as helpless servants to further its own interests just as it did in traditional societies: “Jews have been put into an intermediate position, in between the ruling elite who own the major economic institutions and the American majority, which has little real economic power. Jews become the middlemen—the lawyers, doctors, government bureaucrats, social workers, school teachers, and college professors. They appear to the vast majority of the population as the public face of the ruling elite” (p. 232). From Lerner’s perspective, Jews must not identify as whites and must act to transform American society in the image of this specifically Jewish ethical ideal—an astonishing example of ingroup glorification, coming as it does from a 20th-century intellectual, but one that is entirely congruent with Jewish self-conceptualizations throughout history.

Indeed, in Lerner’s view, an important source of traditional anti-Semitism is that “even before Christianity emerged, Jews were a troublesome people to ruling classes of the ancient world, because they had emerged with a revolutionary message, articulated in the Exodus story: the message that ruling classes were not inevitable, that the world could be fundamentally transformed” (p. 49). “No wonder then that ruling elites have always hated the Jews, worried about their passion for social justice, and done their best to portray them as ‘weird’ and ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘manipulators’ whom everyone else in the world would do best to avoid or distrust. . . . Ruling elites who found this message [of social justice] disturbing did all they could to stir up their own domestic populations against the Jews, to spread vicious stories about us” (pp. 9–10).

This is a remarkably fanciful reading of Jewish history—a reading that is possible only by ignoring the general tendency for Jews to exist only at the sufferance of gentile elites and also the frequent role of Jews as intermediaries between oppressive elites and native populations, as well as the general tendency of gentile elites to protect Jews against repeated outbreaks of anti-Semitism from the lower orders of society.

Recently Philip Weiss (1996) created a considerable stir when he acknowledged the unreality of the Jewish self-conception as an outsider and several other self-delusionary aspects of being Jewish in late 20th-century America. As expected from a social identity perspective, being Jewish is highly salient to him and strains his relationships with gentiles. He pictures his gentile Yale classmates as “blond and slightly dull witted, while the Jewish professor spews out brilliant lines. . . . We held them [gentiles] in a certain contempt. But we were marginalized. We were the outsiders. I’ve carried those lessons around with me all my life as I’ve made my own steady progress in the world. . . . Feelings of marginalization have informed my journalism, my humor, my social navigations” (pp. 25–26). (Even the aggressively ethnocentric Alan Dershowitz is quoted by Weiss as saying, “There is in our tradition, understandably but tragically, an anti-Gentile bias that we must root out.”) Indeed, his relationships with gentiles are strained by his “relentlessly defensive Jewish identification,” another way of saying that he is unable to relate to gentiles without invoking the ingroup/outgroup comparisons so central to the evolutionary version of social identity theory sketched in Chapter 1.

Jews cherish feelings of exclusion not just because there is wisdom in foreboding but because these feelings are useful. They preserve our position as outsiders, a status that has certain moral and practical advantages. As an outsider you have motivation: to get in. And you get to be demanding without any particular sense of reciprocity: the ADL (which is committed to fighting all forms of bigotry) running its Geiger counter over the goyim while failing to gauge Jewish racism. Perhaps most important, these feelings solidify Jewish identity. (p. 30)

Jews have . . . prevaricated about the question of Jewish influence—whether we have it, how we gain it, what it means. . . . When the NRA exercises political power, it’s a hot-button issue. When Jewish money plays a part, discussing it is anti-Semitic. (p. 32)

As indicated in Chapter 2 (p. 55), the fact that Jewish power and influence is off-limits is a component of contemporary writing deemed anti-Semitic by Jewish organizations. During a discussion of the “disproportionate” influence of Jews, Weiss quotes the ADL’s Abraham Foxman as saying “You say ‘disproportionate’ to your numbers’—to me that is dangerous. To me that is sinister. To me that feeds all the undertones. How do you combat an attitude that has been out there for 200 years that says you’re too successful, you’re too smart, you’re too powerful, you’re too influential? How do you deal with people who covet your success? What do you do—do you hide it?” Weiss comments: “But that’s what he does; goes into panic mode when you try to make observations about Jewish achievement” (p. 33). Indeed, when Foxman describes the great interest foreign governments have in asking him to influence the American media and government, he is careful to phrase the description in a manner that is consistent with supposing that these perceptions are entirely illusory. Foxman notes that when a world leader seeks him out it is because

someone sold him the concept that the Jewish community is very strong and powerful. You know it because when you finish the conversation, they want to know what you can do for them in the media, what you can do for them in the Congress and so on. . . . That’s why the prime minister of Albania comes, and the foreign minister of Bulgaria and El Salvador, Nicaragua, you name it. You’ve got to ask yourself, what is this about? The answer is, it’s because they believe a little bit of that. (In Goldberg 1996, 17)

Whether it is deception or self-deception, the implication is that some truths are better left unstated or even unacknowledged, and regarded as pathological expressions of anti-Semitism. As Weiss says, there is moral capital to be gained by adopting an identification as an outsider. I believe that the moral capital obtained by being a psychological outsider has been a critical component of the movements of social criticism discussed in The Culture of Critique. To a very considerable extent Jewish status as outsiders has allowed them to engage in radical criticism of the moral and intellectual foundations of Western society while retaining a perspective of their own ingroup as ethically and morally beyond reproach. But as Weiss points out and as I have tried to document extensively, ethnocentrism and hostility toward outsiders is rife among Jews, and this is exactly what would be predicted from an evolutionary perspective based on social identity theory. Moreover, Judaism, because it is characterized by high intelligence and resource acquisition ability, has produced ethnic warfare virtually wherever Jews have lived. But by retaining the view of themselves as the morally pure outsider arrayed against a pathologically anti-Semitic gentile society, Jews are able to simultaneously pursue their own ethnic interests and conceptualize their opponents as morally depraved (and also, as Weiss notes, as “dim-witted”). Self-deception is very useful in this warfare, because it essentially allows Jewish leaders to deny the reality of Jewish wealth and political and cultural influence.

Similarly, Goldberg (1996, 6) notes that “the average American Jew views his or her community as a scattered congregation of six million-odd individuals of similar origins and diverse beliefs, fortunate children and grandchildren of immigrant tailors and peddlers.” In their own self-image, “Jews are utterly powerless and must live by their wits. Compromise is useless or worse. Politics is made of messianic visions and apocalyptic goals. Some of these visions, like Zionism and socialism, may occasionally become reality” (p. 11).

The reality, as Goldberg extensively documents, is that Jews are widely perceived as very powerful within America by friends and foes alike, as well as by foreign governments interested in influencing the American media and American foreign policy. Far from being a community with widely diverse interests, Jewish political involvement is highly focused, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties (Goldberg 1996, 5). It is noteworthy that Jewish attitudes in these areas are markedly different from other Americans and that since the great increase in Jewish political power in the 1960s all of these areas have shown massive public policy shifts that are congruent with Jewish attitudes.

There is indeed a long history both in the United States and England in which Jewish organizations have denied any concerted Jewish political behavior. For example, the AJCommittee has reacted very negatively to any mention of a “Jewish vote” by politicians or the media, while at the same time often threatening politicians by emphasizing the possible effects of the Jewish vote (e.g., Cohen 1972, 378; Goldstein 1990, 147, 163). Despite the fact that the “Jewish vote” “is not a reactionary stereotype but a fact of American politics” (Petersen 1955, 84), gentiles are encouraged to suppose that Jews have no group interests.

Louis Marshall stated at the time of the AJCommittee’s founding in 1906 that “what I am trying to avoid more than anything else is the creation of a political organization, one which will be looked upon as indicative of a purpose on the part of Jews to recognize that they have interests different from those of other American citizens” (in Goldstein 1990, 55). Goldstein comments that the attempt to aid Jews suffering from discrimination in other countries “would inevitably promote ‘interests different from those of other Americans.’ ” Marshall also stated that “there is no such thing as a Jewish Republican or a Jewish Democrat. . . . Jews have no political interests which are different from those of our fellow citizens” (in Goldstein 1990, 335–336). In fact, the AJCommittee was well aware that its perspective on immigration policy was not shared by the majority of Americans: During the fight over restrictionist legislation at the end of the Taft administration, Herbert Friedenwald, AJCommittee secretary, wrote that it was “very difficult to get any people except the Jews stirred up in this fight” (in Goldstein 1990, 203). Later Marshall himself stated that “We are practically the only ones who are fighting [the literacy test] while a “great proportion” [of the people] is “indifferent to what is done” (in Goldstein 1990, 249). Marshall made a number of other “curious distinctions” (Goldstein 1990, 336) aimed at urging Jews to vote a certain way because their interests were involved, but nevertheless denied that Jews had any group interests at all. “According to the AJC, the Jewish vote did not exist—unless, of course, politicians failed to support the organization” on specific issues (Goldstein 1990, 336). Similarly in the contemporary U. S., the ADL’s Abraham Foxman states regarding the disproportionate number of Jews in Congress, “I say to you that they are Democrats who happen to be Jews, and their Jewishness is something they wear once a week, once a month” (in Weiss 1996, 33).

The following comments about American anti-Semitism toward the end of World War II typify the attempt to erase any notion of group characteristics or group interests among Jews.

[Jews] are Republicans and Democrats, like everybody else. A few of them are Communists—as are a few Irishmen, Italians, and a few everything else. They are divided many ways over their own Zionist question. Through thousands of years, armies of Jews have gone to battle against each other—as loyal citizens of warring nations. Human beings who profess one religion have, indeed, seldom been so divided as the Jews and seldom shared the blood of so many different peoples and nationalities. This is the way it really is. (In Dinnerstein 1995, 148)

Similarly, discussion of Jewish political behavior, especially the idea of a Jewish vote, has been off limits in official Jewish circles in England (Alderman 1983, vii). At times the very same people who make highly salient denials of a Jewish vote do their best to influence Jewish voting behavior regarding issues important for Jews. For example, when alien restriction legislation was pending in 1904 and 1905, the Jewish Chronicle, the principal newspaper for the British Jewish community, strongly opposed immigration restriction in its editorials and provided highly detailed coverage of the parliamentary debates as well as lists of how particular MPs were voting. Moreover, “although the paper delivered its usual eve-of-poll disavowal of a Jewish vote, it was quick to attribute certain Tory losses and Liberal gains to Jewish voters” (Cesarani 1994, 99).

The taboo on discussing Jewish political behavior functions to promote self-deception because it maintains an illusory Jewish self-conception of the extent to which Jews are assimilated within British political culture and the extent to which specifically Jewish interests influence their political behavior. Alderman (1983, viii) notes that “I am well aware that my work in researching and writing this book has not found favour with those who lead and articulate the opinions of Anglo-Jewry. The major conclusion of this research—that far from being totally assimilated within British political culture, Jewish voters in Britain have always been capable of independent political behaviour, sometimes in marked contrast to national or regional trends—is also one which runs counter to the most cherished beliefs of Anglo-Jewish leaders” (pp. viii–ix).

Similarly, in 19th-century England Jews often publicly denied that they had interests different from any other Englishman despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. In 1870 a writer in the Jewish Chronicle emphasized the idea that “Jewish ethics” would prevent any Jewish political parochialism—another example in which the perceived ethical superiority of Judaism facilitates the pursuit of group self-interest in a self-delusionary manner (Alderman 1983, 35). In order to give credence to the idea that Jews had no group interests as Jews, an effort was made to get Jews to support both major political parties. As Alderman shows, however, Jewish support for particular political parties changed as a function of their support for particular Jewish issues, particularly in the area of foreign policy toward Turkey in the late 1870s and, after 1880, when Jewish attitudes toward czarist Russia, immigration, and eventually Zionism differed quite markedly from those of other Englishmen.

The self-deceptiveness of Jewish rhetoric on the “Jewish vote” issue can also be seen in the official policy of the Jewish Chronicle to forbid advertisements from political parties on “what may reasonably be regarded” as community special interests, despite the fact that the paper deals with such issues routinely in its own writing. Alderman (1983, 152) comments that “such reactions . . . ignore historical and political realities, and they fly in the face of human nature. But the fact that they continue to be displayed shows how strong the vision remains, at least in the top echelons of Anglo-Jewry, of a community totally integrated with the existing political structure and politically indistinguishable within it.”

Deception and/or self-deception may also have been involved in the activities of the AJCommittee to combat public perceptions of Jews as radicals. In 1918, the AJCommittee stated that there was no connection at all between Jews and Bolsheviks, despite having been told by a Jewish official of the Kerensky government that in fact Jews were prominently represented among Bolshevik leaders (Cohen 1972, 126). The AJCommittee was also well aware of the fact that Jews had a predominant role in radical political organizations in the United States but continued to deny these links publicly. An official of the executive committee (Cyrus Adler) stated privately that

We have made a noise in the world of recent years . . . far out of proportion to our numbers. We have demonstrated and shouted and paraded and congressed and waved flags to an extent which was bound to focus upon the Jew the attention of the world and having got this attention, we could hardly expect that it would all be favorable. (In Cohen 1972, 132)

Similarly, in England during the 1890s attempts were made by the established Jewish community to misrepresent the prevalence of radical political ideas among the newly arrived Eastern European immigrants (Alderman 1983, 60). A spokesman for the Federation of Minor Synagogues organized to meet this threat commented that “although there might be one or two Socialists, these were quite the exception to the rule.”

In conclusion, from the standpoint of social identity theory, at the heart of these activities is an attempt to influence the social categorization process in a manner favorable to Judaism. This process often functions to provide positive descriptions of Jews and their role vis-à-vis gentiles and their culture. Self-deception is thus also a critical component of the effectiveness of the rationalizations and apologia reviewed in Chapter 7. But beyond that, we have seen that self-deception appears to be critical in maintaining fictions related to Jewish self-conceptualizations as truly assimilated to gentile culture (as in Wilhelmine Germany), or as a marginalized outsider (as in the contemporary United States), or as having no group interests at all.

I have noted several times that the human mind was not designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals. The Jews of the pre-National Socialist period in Germany “preferred ambiguity and obfuscation over clarity and had little use for those who wanted to throw light on the situation” (Scholem 1979, 32). Once again one is impressed by the flexibility and adaptability of the human mind. In Chapter 7 it was noted that Jewish intellectuals were able to mold the ideological basis of Judaism to react to a wide range of unforeseeable contingencies in an adaptive manner and thereby attain the fundamental goal of maintaining the group strategy. Self-delusionary conceptions of the Jewish ingroup are continually adjusted to meet current challenges. While at times self-deception may be maladaptive (as in failing to accurately gauge the causes and consequences of anti-Semitism in particular historical eras), self-deception has been and continues to be a highly adaptive and critical component of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.

57 replies
  1. RockaBoatus
    RockaBoatus says:

    The call by some Jews to their ethnic brethren to “assimilate” quite possibly means something other than what we might think. To secular Jews, it may be a call for religiously devout Jews to shed their devotion to Judaism or it may mean for all Jews to get more involved in the political process and, thereby, create laws or ways of thinking that benefit Jewry and the nation of Israel.

    I suppose most Jews – except for the Hasidic ones – already believe they have “assimilated” in that they vote as well as look and act as any other American. They see themselves as generally part of American society and not necessarily distinct from it.

    However, this type of “assimilation” is no different than that of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and middle eastern immigrants. Like Jews, these groups want the benefits and privileges of being an American (especially financial ones), but this doesn’t mean they specifically identify with White Americans, the founding of our country nor of its history. Their hearts and souls are not with us.

    And how can they be? They were never of us to begin with. They are not who we are.

    Imagine if you renounced your U.S. citizenship and became a citizen of a distant and foreign country where in every way you as a White person differed from the people of your new nation. Your race is different. Your native language is different. Your religion is different. Your previous culture and worldview are miles apart from the new culture and way of thinking. Could you really wholeheartedly “assimilate”? Could you really be one with those of your new country? Would they even see you as one of their own? Of course not. You might be tolerated, but you would never be seen as one of them.

    Also, if Jews have to urge their ethnic brethren to “assimilate,” it’s a sure sign that after all these many years among us they have not really assimilated – at least not in the most important ways.

    Finally, Jews cannot really “assimilate” with Whites in the way some might want because their foundational worldview is hostile to ours. Jews see themselves as distinct, special, and better than European Whites. Even non-religious Jews believe there is something inherently special and worthy about themselves as a people. Jews can never completely divorce themselves from this mindset, and it’s naive to expect them to do so. Their beliefs about themselves are far too entrenched and cemented. As Whites our efforts are best suited in not trying to change them, but in trying to distance ourselves from them so that they always remain outsiders.

    • Jason Stewart
      Jason Stewart says:

      Judaism is the religion of being Jewish. Judaism basically means that the Jewish people are meant to rule over nonJewish people and are bound together as a team by their Jewish God( the Jewish people). It appears that the only way a Jewish person could sin is by going against the interest of the Jewish people. Jewish people that prioritize the Jewish community are by default religious Jews.

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      “This relates to another fundamental issue: the complexity of Jewish identity in general.”

      Frankly, the level of motivation that I feel and the time I would be wiling to waste trying to unwind the ‘complexity of jewish identity’ is precisely zero. All I need to know about jews is that they are the mortal enemy of every White European on this Earth and they are hell bent on destroying the White race, using every conceivable means possible. I see no benefit whatsoever in trying to split hairs and do a deep dissect on the jewish mentality. What is there to figure out about these people besides the fact that they are obsessed with turning Whites into hated and despised minorities inside every historic White nation, which means subjugating Whites to be permanently ruled over by a motley collection of mostly low IQ non-whites (with jews at the top, of course) who are not the less bit bashful about telling Whites how much they hate and despise us and how much they look forward to exterminating us, once we are disarmed and rendered defenseless?

      • Raeto West
        Raeto West says:

        @Luke – You make a clear statement, and it’s obvious that vast numbers of people will make no effort to understand Jews. But you differ from them in appreciating the dangers. For the rest, it’s essential for future survival that their tricks are understood: some key, or method, or set of factors may be found which will unpeel them. It’s tricky: unlike infections or natural disasters or economic blunders, Jews fight back.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “Finally, Jews cannot really “assimilate” with Whites in the way SOME MIGHT WANT because their FOUNDATIONAL WORLDVIEW is hostile to ours. Jews see themselves as distinct, special, and better than European Whites. Even non-religious Jews believe there is something inherently special and worthy about themselves as a people. Jews can never completely divorce themselves from this mindset, and IT’S NAIVE TO EXPECT THEM TO DO SO. Their beliefs about themselves are far too entrenched and cemented. As Whites our efforts are best suited in not trying to change them, but in trying to distance ourselves from them so that they always remain outsiders.”

      This is excellent. I totally agree. Even though there are Jews that I like … like Steven Miller of the Trump administration. But we must be able to stand on our own two feet, and do what someone like Steven Miller does! If we don’t have ‘him’ to fill the slot, we will have to. That’s how it works. We must become more self-reliant, not less.

      • Luke
        Luke says:

        Carolyn and I have had some pretty significant disagreements in the past, but I am glad that we both agree on this subject. This foolish and White race genocidal nonsense, which is being constantly promoted by people like E. Michael Jones, that says if we just try a little bit harder to persuade these troublesome and problematic jews to confess to the error of their ways and morph themselves into ‘Christians’ and cease with their obsession to genocide White Europeans – is a fool’s errand. It will wind up giving the jews their ultimate victory over White Europeans and result in our physical racial extinction from this Earth.

        This battle will have only one winner. Either it will be the jews or it will be Whites. And, a quick glance at the scoreboard circa 2022, is that jews are winning.

      • Luke
        Luke says:

        Carolyn? I tend to take sort of a neutral position on Ann Coulter, but she has been pretty solid on the topic of massive illegal immigration and has make a jackass out of that truly obnoxious white race hating Jorge Ramos weasel – on several televised interviews. So, I think she is probably trustworthy on at least the border invasion issue.

        Anyway, your mention of Stephen Miller triggered a recollection of something I heard Coulter say on a radio interview she was doing for a conservative podcaster. They were discussing Trump’s failure to prioritize the border wall and immigration during his first two years when the GOP had control of both houses of congress and, at least in theory, had the ability and leverage to follow through on his 2016 campaign promises. Coulter said she had anonymous sources inside the White House who told her that every time Trump started to make noises about the border and immigration and declare that he wanted to focus on that issue, Stephen Miller was the guy who would stick his nose into it and come up with some way to stymie most of the initiatives that Trump and the small circle of Trump loyalists were proposing. Coulter’s source in the White House were of the opinion that Miller was undermining Trump on his 2016 immigration promises – because, in their view, they thought Miller had a gigantic ego and didn’t want anyone else to receive credit for border related issues. Miller wanted to hog the issue and be the top dog.

        My view is that I think Stephen Miller was put into his position based on his tribal associations and his mission was to stay close to Trump and to thwart his ability to act on those 2016 promises on immigration, while making sure he was a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson where he could rant and rave and do his fake ‘immigration patriot act’.

        Rule #1 for all White Nationalists is to never trust a jew and to always keep it foremost in our minds that jews are highly skilled liars and deceivers. As Eustace Mullins once said, jews like to always own both sides of the coin – so, no matter if it comes up heads or tails, jews will still win.

        I think Stephen Miller was a jewish Trojan Horse who was embedded within the Trump White House.

    • JM
      JM says:

      It seems that Jews never assimilated enough to be an organic part of a unified America. How could they be, for the reasons you give as well as the fact that, as a group, they regard America, not as a nation to dissolved into, but as a prize to be taken, And they’ve been very good at it. In the process, they’ve changed a lot but have still retained the essence of Jewish identity. How else do they keep up the momentum of their ambitions? Unlike Christians, they co-opt without seeking converts. This is very telling.

      Until the recent Globalist migrations, most immigrant groups sought to assimilate, some more slowly than others. The Globalist immigrants haven’t been brought to America to assimilate, but to displace the (now) majority European population and a considerable infrastructure of incentives has been put in place to assist this cantonization and enhance its weaponization. This is co-option on a grand scale.

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      Even the word “assimilate” is itself a Jewish construction. If you join a new organisation, you don’t ‘assimilate’, you just join. It’s a similar indirect, third-party expression usually found with Jews.

  2. Evangelos Aragiannis
    Evangelos Aragiannis says:

    I have always thought of the film Amadeus (1984) as a prime example of Jewish group projection, confession of deep group desires and eventually wet dream. Written by a homosexual brit jew, produced by Jewish studios and directed by Milos Formann, a jew. Main character, in Sallieri’s role, Muray Abraham, also jewish.
    I think there is a whole lot to unpack by watching this movie.

    • DEWDDS
      DEWDDS says:

      F. Murray Abraham isn’t Jewish. He’s of Syrian and Italian extraction and was raised in the Greek Orthodox tradition, though not observant in later life, if I recall correctly. The 1984 movie ‘Amadeus’ was loosely based on a Pushkin play, ‘Mozart and Salieri’, which advanced the storyline of an intense professional rivalry between those two composers, which drove Salieri to seething envy. The movie wasn’t meant as a biography either. It’s still one of my favorites as films go.

  3. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    Moreover, why should Jews unnecessarily “assimilate into American society” these days, when Americans have long since assimilated into the Jewish society?

    Americans, like all Europeans, are in a pitiful identity crisis, so there is no longer any need for Jews to “imitate” the white race who have long since been written off by the Jews as “total failures”.

    Now that the Jews are no longer only the “unofficial” rulers over the white race, they can also live out their “specific peculiarities” quite unconcernedly and flaunt them before all the world.

    They have long since made no secret of their destructive intentions directed against us.

    For the white man, however, this does not mean a wake-up call, but even the masochistic invitation to lick the boots of their masters even more servilely.

    • Jason Stewart
      Jason Stewart says:

      The Jews still hide behind the curtain. White people, specifically white women, worship black males and assert this every chance they get. White women openly state that black males are the real men and openly lust for them. Young white men do not have anything to look forward to and are humiliated, by white women, for being white men. The Jews are in charge but for vast majority of white people do not know this and see Jews as white people.

      • Nick
        Nick says:

        The myth that White women lust after black men is just that-a myth and nothing else.One look at interacial dating statistics from America and even Europe shows that contrary to jewish propaganda White women race mix the least.
        Jews are so desperate that they are even complicating on changing the algorithm on datings websites so that White people will forcefully match with non-Whites.

        • JM
          JM says:

          “…White women race mix the least.”

          And thank Christ for that. If it weren’t so, we’d be doomed.

          There is an – anonymous – woman who posts on UNZ with a great sense of humor and an even better handle on all the relevant statistics, who shot the claims about European female race mixing right out of the water. It seems to show that street and conversational ‘evidence’ is an inadequate basis for generalization on this matter. It is easy to imagine why, given the climate that has been created without our consent.

        • Raeto West
          Raeto West says:

          @Nick – the myth is reinforced by Jewish-led social worker types, who are paid to be seen in public with invaders, to make it seem normal. And by Jewish property controllers, who inserted unwanted invaders and pay their rents etc at white expense and at increasing public debt to whites. It’s the real-world analogue to the fantasies of Jew-controlled video and advertising.

        • Servenet
          Servenet says:

          Yes, it is very good to contradict this “meme.” It goes without saying that when every organ of the anti-White state engages in every mind-control tactic to continually push miscegenation, then certainly you will get an increase of it. If anything it is remarkable that there isn’t even more, so fanatically do these organs smash one’s face in it.

      • ChilledBee
        ChilledBee says:

        As Nick has so rightly stated – this is an absolute myth. It is still relatively rare to see a White woman with a Black man. Even though most commericials in the US and Europe will feature a White woman with a Black man, the real world proves otherwise. If I was a Black woman I would feel insulted by this as it would seem to me that advertisers are being very blatant about Black men preferring White women.

    • Waldemar's Holy Spirit
      Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

      @Jason & Nick

      Whether the urge of white people (of both sexes) to have sexual relations with non-white persons is only a social “fad” (propagated by Jews) and/or actually some kind of self-harming deviation from the evolution itself would be worth investigating further.

      Of course, we will never know the full truth, since this subject violates the taboo erected by the devastating ideology of “diversity”.

      For myself, the thought of getting “involved” with a non-European woman seems contrary to nature. Perhaps in the meantime a large number of our race members simply lack the access to their natural instincts, which can be interpreted as a sign of degeneration.

  4. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    “It makes no sense to suppose that Jews actually sought the love of the Germans while simultaneously subjecting the loved one to intensive criticism and failing to critically examine why they were doing so. Failure to see the contradiction in his own analysis is self-deception.”

    How true. From this you can see that “love” in the eyes of the Jews obviously means an uncritical acceptance of their destructive machinations. We could just as easily sneak into Japanese society, accuse it of not being “liberal enough,” “chutzpah” our way through decades of disparaging its traditions, and then complain fervently that our love remained unrequited “despite all our efforts”. Message: “It is always the others who are to blame, but never ourselves!

    • Waldemar's Holy Spirit
      Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

      Trying to “change” other people against their will (supposedly for the “better”) is the very opposite of love. “Love” is ultimately acceptance, even more: complete affirmation of the peculiarity of an individual, a people, and so on. Immature love is always abuse, it “desires” as if others had to be at their service and their property.

      The Jews parasitically cannibalize the White Race like an object, like an item on the shelf that is interchangeable. They impertinently impose their delusion of a supposedly “better world” on them, pestering and harassing them non-stop with their insanity of pathological “world improvement”.

      White people who just want to be (and stay!) the way they are feel this abuse, this rejection, this suspicion, this mistrust that demeans and devalues their dignity. These “people” (or what this is supposed to be) really want to screw us over and make complete fools of us! They should finally make a quick getaway and disappear until they’re no longer to be seen!

      Enough already!

  5. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    Ultra-racist and wannabe slave owner “Herr” Jared Taylor has inserted an inconceivably racist image (min. 2:25) into his video without even being aware of its racial content! You can see a bunch of running negroes with a “Müller” advertisement on their chest.

    Just imagine: “Müller” (a typical Nazi name!), as every German knows, is spelled with an M for MILK. Is milk brown as long as it is not cocoa? No, it is snow white like the face of the racist Europeans!

    Company Müller from Bavaria (homeland of da Nazis!) has operated here completely massive racist abuse with these unsuspecting sportsmen, who carried out surreptitious advertisement for its super-Aryan snow(hu)white milk!

  6. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    Btw., do you know what a “zebra bear” is? I have to admit, I didn’t know until now either.

    “Normally, both bear species behave in a very hostile manner, if they meet at all in the Arctic. In addition, polar bears usually mate on the ice and grizzlies on land, so mating between the two species was previously considered unlikely.”

    The question arises why this should be different with humanoids of all things, when Negroes are a species without Neanderthal genes like us and Asians?

    Do you know who this is? Jew Walter Rothschild and his “zebra-drawn carriage”.

    Can this all just be a “coincidence”? If these people did things to animals that were contrary to their nature, how will they deal with us?

  7. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    The Jews play the “all-knowing professor” who
    “analyzes” us lying on his couch (above all, in
    order to elicit from us secrets essential for sur-
    vival and to enrich themselves at us). But one
    day the day will come when we turn the tables,
    then they’ll get to taste OUR “therapy method”!

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      @ Waldemar

      Yeah, I know one of them ‘analysts” and hes not Jewish but a white British guy? Grrrrr! They i guess taught him well? GRRRR?

      On another matter Waldemar a song for you!


      Well, the fountain of eternal youth is real, O so very real and you know i wouldn’t want you too miss out!
      Matthew 12:31-32

      Ah, to know such happiness and success Waldemar? sob?

      • Waldemar's Holy Spirit
        Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:


        I dispute the verisimilitude of your “Bible* quotes” (which I consider to be a machination of the Jewish mind). If they give you comfort and support, and keep you from further sobbing, they are yours.

        I had never claimed that the actor Dennis Bourke was Jewish. But his role as “Dr. Albert von Eisenburg” fully corresponds to the typical New York psychoanalyst, who alone knows all the secrets of his clients.

        (* from this it may be deduced that the epithet “the Holy Ghost of Waldemar” is a satirical spoof)

  8. Jason Stewart
    Jason Stewart says:

    White people are fucked. We have no defense against this. Even the white people that know what’s happening, our leaders, tell us that we have a moral obligation to follow the rules, the rules our Jewish tormentors created for us, and to always be honest, as our enemies murder, lie, cheat and steal to gain power over us. Our second biggest obstacle is white women. They seem all to willing to attack white men, favoring to be the babies mother to black males, perfectly willing live in poverty, disease, and domestic violence while sharing sharing the same black male with other women. That’s something that bothers me more than what any Jew has done. It’s demoralizing and defeating to see so many white women purposely attacking white men. I’ve been paying attention since 2015 and have yet to hear a coherent solution to our problems. I’ve been listening to Dr. Duke and Stormfront religiously since 2015 and the discussion is never about solutions.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      This is the second time you’ve blamed white women for the decline in the influence of the White race. So I must say that, though I am old, I’ve never known a white woman who fits your description, not even close. The Jewish media plays up white blonde/black athlete marriages & relationships, and of course more do occur than in earlier times, but these women/girls are invariably low IQ, social media-following types, but not the majority of white women in North America or Europe. You do our men-women relationships a great disservice by talking this way and emphasizing these cases. In fact, you are just the kind of man the majority of white women don’t want.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Oh, he’s blamed white women much more than twice.
        But let me help you out. Because you are a white woman yourself, any attack on white woman you take as a personal slight on yourself.
        This is because with women, always the emotions over-ride, well, everything really.
        How many time are cucked men, beta-males, leftists, all white, ridiculed on this site, have you ever seen a white man here take offense and run to the rescue of these loser’s & traitor’s reputations?
        You see the difference here?
        I don’t know how old you are, but old enough that you haven’t a clue what white women of our generation and below are like.
        Without white women, we could handle our Jews. Therefore, the problem is the women.
        It’s just hilarious, and if it wasn’t you I’d think it just a troll, that you sign off your comment by personally insulting the lad’s manhood: “In fact, you are just the kind of man the majority of white women don’t want.”

        You’re your own worst enemy.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          “you take as a personal slight on yourself.” I don’t at all. In fact, it’s clearly you that can’t accept what you see as personal criticism.

          “Without white women, we could handle our Jews.” How are white women stopping you from doing that? It’s an excuse you use.

          “you sign off your comment by personally insulting the lad’s manhood.” How do you know he’s a lad? The immaturity? But ‘insulting his manhood’ ??? Hardly. But no woman wants a man who blames all his troubles on “women.” Nothing to do with manhood. And you’re no better than he is. That’s why you’re “running to his rescue.” LOL

    • Nick
      Nick says:

      Our people are surely fucked if all of us adapt your attitude.Every pro-White page I visit is infested with demoralizing agents such as yourself and it makes me wonder,are you lot just low T zoomers or just feds who spread nihilism?

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      “I’ve been listening to Dr. Duke and Stormfront religiously since 2015 and the discussion is never about solutions” – That may be true, but the problem is really not a lack of solutions. There are plenty of workable solutions. The crux of the matter lies in the unwillingness of our people to even see that there’s a problem in the first place.

      While issues connected to race. immigration and the JQ fill our heads, and we think of such things often. Yet this is not so in the case of the average ‘normie’ White man or White woman who has enormous and competing interests presented to them all the time (e.g., entertainment, movies, sports, social media, etc.). None of them get to the heart of what they should really be concerned about. Most, if not all of them, divert us from what is important. They are often vain pursuits of pleasure that only serve to enslave and corrupt us.

      Thus, one could have a plethora of workable and well thought out solutions to our racial concerns, but if the people whom our solutions are designed to help ignore our message, laugh at us, or perceive us as the lowest of human beings for even talking about it (e.g., Nazi, racist, bigoted), little will be accomplished.

      And this is especially so if our people have been conditioned to fear the very message we want to discuss with them. If they think they will lose their jobs, their money, their status, or become socially ostracized if they dare to entertain our message, then how likely will they seriously consider what we have to say?

      The solution at this point is to educate our people. This is a long and difficult process, particularly when one thinks how long our people have been propagandized by Jews and their complicit media. But even educating Whites will not prove as effective as what appears to be on the near horizon – namely, suffering, loss of income, our comforts taken from us, persecution, and governmental tyranny. If you haven’t discovered it yet, the party’s over. The USA is imploding before our eyes.

      When this occurs, we will see a much greater number of our people come to the truths we hold. The Left’s insanity will continue to drive them to our camp, especially if they persist in turning up the heat in their animus against White people.

      But not until this occurs, and then we will see the kind of change we envision.

      • Lord Shang
        Lord Shang says:

        We also need geographic separation and prowhite ingathering, both for purposes of self-defense, and long term secession and new sovereignty (not to mention making life more bearable by living among our own kind).

    • Captainchaos
      Captainchaos says:

      The Jews are bred for parasitism which means they can only act as agents of chaos and decline, not as facilitators of prosperity and stability. In the long run there is no reason to expect that they can competently manage an empire. That being the case Jews are going to lose their empire.

      There are three key events that need to take place in order to ensure an orderly dissolution of the Jew World Order: the far right needs to take political control in France and Germany while a large coalition of Red States in America need to secede. That’s it. Those are the big and indispensable dominos that need to fall. After that it’s largely just mop up duty.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Jews manage the empire they’ve infested into as well as any other other parasite manages the healthy organism they’ve latched onto.
        It’s not about ‘managing’ it, it’s just a slow, blood-sucking death that awaits the thing.
        I agree with succession, France and Germany, though I’ve never seen anything hopeful on the German front. Those guys are one brutalised, defeated race.
        There is nothing going on in Britain to speak of right now, but it is possible The Conservative Party may be near it’s end. It’s been dead for decades, when it finally collapses, it will drag Labour down with it.
        There will be a chance for things to happen then. So don’t rule out the UK.

  9. JBS
    JBS says:

    Here is an alternative hypothesis:

    It is not a matter of self-deception so much as a particularist inborn veiw of ethics that is central to understanding Jewish psychology. Gentiles, especially Europeans, think in terms of double-standards when it comes to ethics and the good; what is morally wrong to Europeans is a disparancy in equivalent treatment and their reasoning reflects this. But if what is instinctively moral is strongly particulist, and one’s reason is based upon this fact, than there is not a contradiction with equating one’s group self-interest with the moral good. The only moral tenson is the degree to which one is invested in one’s self-interest verses the degree one feels compelled to sacrifice one’s own self-interest to one’s tribe.

    A jew will not precive treating their people differently from other peoples as a rational contradiction and therefore not precive it as self-deception. To the Jewish mind, this is not a case of being blind to double-standards because no double-standards exist perceptually. What is good for the Jew is literally precived as what is good for the world—as the pinnacle of morality and of reason.

    Perhaps we underestimate how different the inherent perceptions between Jews and Gentiles are—that the very perception of what is good and reasonable is vastly different? Are we not projecting our moral reasoning when we veiw their actions as a case of self-deception, or rationally and morally incoherent on this basis? Surly, there is a spectrum, but no self-deception need be involved if Jews conceptualize these things fundamentally differently from us.

    It is not repression or self-deception a Jew is expressing when he says he underestimated his ethic feelings; at least, not in terms of his moral perceptions, commitments and feelings in regard to Jews verses Gentiles. Instead, it is to underestimate the extent to which (from the Jew’s inborn perspective) his moral feelings and commitments are, if fact, deeply moral; that is, deeply loyal to his tribe when compared with his own self-interests. His realization is not that this conflicts with some assumed universalism; but, that he’d underestimated the degree to which he valued his tribe in comparison to his own self-interests.

    I think that this hypothesis should be throughly explored. It may be taken as overly cynical, but it is certainly true to a troubling degree, and the question is to what degree. It does seem to make sense of a lot of the historical, social and behavioral data. Moreover, self-interest verse tribal interest is the major moral issue, and is addressed repeatedly, in their own writings; which is to say, Jews are presented as moral to the degree that they place their group interests over their self-interests and the degree to which they separate and fight for their own tribe verses Gentile tribes. Yet “whoring” with the Gentiles is not the same as caring for them, and could simply be a symptom of the moral struggle between caring about one’s self-interest verse caring about one’s tribe—no universalistic moral perceptions are required.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Good observation. For us “good” means what is good for humanity at large (universal morality), but for Jews “good” means what is good for Jews (tribal morality). Thus what to us seems Jewish hypocrisy and double standards is in reality consistent Jewish morality with no contradictions. Thus Jews can be for open borders and miscegenation for their host country in the diaspora, while at the same time against that for Israel without any sense of hypocrisy, because both are perceived as “good for Jews”, the only moral criterion that is valid for them. Jews and Gentiles almost seem to be two different species with opposing evolutionary interests.

  10. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    You can think what you want of Professor MacDonald, but that single disgusting insult that makes up his “Wikipedia” entry goes unpunished at times. There they threw shit at him and put him in the same corner with psychopaths. So dangerous is this man to the elites and their useful idiots that they have to deface him like this!

    Today, the exact opposite of what is “officially” propagated is always true. It is strikingly reminiscent of the time of Soviet communism, when all dissenters who were disliked were given “psychiatric treatment”. They labeled MacDonald with a stigma: “Beware! This man is dishonorable and does not stand up to professional scrutiny!”

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      @ Waldemar and Carolyn Yeager

      Thankfully, Dr. MacDonald didn’t end up in the shoes of Martin Armstrong who has just published a book that should surely gain some much needed exposure on a blog like this. And the more I read and see the more I’ve come to believe NY is the cesspool prophesied about in Rev. 18 the Babylonian Whore!!!! The Great City!!!

      Sometimes in life, we are confronted by professed facts that are really nothing
      more than outright lies intended to hide from society the political desires of those
      seeking power. Yes, like the Weapons of Mass Destruction used to justify a war or
      the Senate investigation into Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to take place to justify
      entering the war, truth can be a rare virtue and often omitted from the history books.
      What we must understand is that no matter what form of government, they always put
      out propaganda to support themselves. Wars are created by leaders and we are
      merely the pawns on their chessboard. The best we can hope for is to return from
      battle unharmed and our family is still there. For you see, always more civilians die in
      wars than soldiers. War is merely a political contest where words no longer matter and
      violence becomes the next step like two drunks arguing in a bar when the words stop
      and fists begin to fly. Politicians are merely drunk on power.
      Perhaps because we lack fangs, venom, or sharp claws, we rely upon our mind to
      climb the ladder in society. Controlling the thoughts of others for personal ambition is
      typically inherent in those who want to rule over others. They look out upon the world
      and do not like the way it functions. They elevate their own importance and set out to
      make it all function the way they think it should. If it requires deceit, cruelty, and
      tyrannical methods that are evil, so be it. We are over populated anyhow in their world
      of thinking. Consequently, the ends will always justify the means.
      I found myself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage or attempt at regime
      change of Russia in modern history. What was being hidden from the world was a plot to seize control of Russia. That was why Yeltsin turned to Putin on August 9 th, 1999 with his parting words:

      “Take care of Russia.”

      In the mean time:

      Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

      12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

      13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Matt. 5:11-13

      SALT? YES MORE SALT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • bellamoon
        bellamoon says:

        Go. To. Church.

        We don’t need to hear this.

        Why do religious types always stick their nose in racialist circles?

        Entire forums were created back in the day specifically for the purpose snaring the racial matters into the religion sphere in order to keep it within a controllable outlet.

        Next thing you know 100s of various ‘based’ influencers flooded the sites. None of this was random.
        All Agents to keep the line contained within that religious sphere. That religious mental plantation.

        If these so called religious people spent nearly the amount of time promoting race in their churches as they do their religion among racists maybe things wouldn’t be nearly as bad as they are. But how long do you think that church would tolerate that racists mouth? Criticism of Jews? Not outside this religious box!
        How long before they’d call 911 or perhaps even the ADL?

        You’re all agents.

  11. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    “I have noted several times that the human mind was not designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals.”

    This sentence really jumped out at me. I missed this or read it too long ago for it to mean to me what it does now. So interesting, because our ‘mind’ is only a tool of the Spiritual Being that we are. Amazing and brilliant though it is, the mind is on a lower level than Being, and functions in conjunction with the ego and physical body. This is my current and best understanding.

    So I can agree that discovering the “truth” is not the job of the human mind and, according to KMac, it’s not even capable of it. That’s enough to spin your mind around, eh? At least it gives plenty of food for thought. (Oh yes, thoughts are products of the mind, so also not “truth.”) Thanks, Professor MacDonald.

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      @ C Yeager – the Darwinian view is that the rain was not ‘designed’ at all. It evolved. And it was limited, or assisted, by facts such as the possession of a tongue, and upright posture, and mobility; without these it’s hard to see how intelligence could have evolved. Dogs, for example, may have good brains for all we know, but can’t talk. Maybe lemurs have good brains, but can’t do much with them.
      Arthur Balfour (or H G Wells? – not sure) wrote ‘the brain of man is as much a product for the hunt for food as the snout of a pig, and may be as good for unearthing fundamental truth.’ So unspin you mind!

  12. Nick
    Nick says:

    Assimilation is a joke,there is no such thing.When jews “assimilate” they do so to bide their time until the time comes for the masks to fall.
    A peoples culture is a projection of their folk spirit/soul to the material world,another people cannot assimilate to such thing.

  13. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    HISTORY has proven without doubt that JEWS are NOT interested in Assimilation. .TRUE assimilation, which other groups had accomplished over several generations in their birth countries like USA. the JEWS had proven that, absolutely since ancient times ancient baylonins, greeks, Roamans despised them.. At what point an Italian/Irish/German-Americans become just Americans.?? for the JEWs there is no such watershed moment. Their intentions regarding their “host” countries are very well spelled out in their Writings…like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion…and many other academic/religious texts past and present (Talmud). I would like to offer some reflections regarding Jewish cultural paradoxes. In general I called them Gentile Guilt vrs Jewish victimhood. When the JEWS came into America in great numbers since the early 20th Century.. they came into a WHITE ruling waspy nation. The jews were a minority and complained about discrimination, ANTISEMITISM became their battle cry. The majority gentile WHITE Christian elites felt ethically, legally compelled to OPEN their national institutions public/private to JEWS within their deep sense of Western democracy and Meritocracy, and perhaps their strong biblical beliefs. So the jews demanded openness, tolerance equality in BUSINESS, academia, sciences, politics. More than a Century later the JEWS became the Majority ruling CABALS in Wallstreet, Hollywood, Universities. While a white gentile Christian will go out of his way to do business with the jews..the JEWS would CLOSE ranks and only do business with other JEWS..hence their extreme tribal DNA will lead from demanding to dominating thsu inverteing the ruling paradigms. So the gentile wasps will be fooled into opening their circles to jews, and hoping reciprocity. .but the JEWS are not interested in equality based on merits..The JEWS want POWER. In New York the jews since 1900s protested against ANTIsemitism in Finance/banking/commerce/Acdemia/Politics etc. NOW jews dominate those areas and they closed them down to gentile Christians. NO gentile Christian can do Real State business in New York, banking etc. I even heard that in New York JEWS control 100% of Parking/Towing companies licenses, Liquor permits, Housing Permits,professional licensing boards. etc. In Hollywood the real power is among jews and their prole.They educate/train/Hire/promote other JEWS…at the expense (discrimination) of better/smarter/brilliant gentiles. IF a Gentile Christian points out that Hollywood/Wallstreet/Media is majority JEWISH they will be accused of ANTISEMITISM…and gentiles (whites) will retreat full of GUILT..SO jews claim Antisemitism when they are in the minority…and claim the same when they are criticized for being in the Obvious Majority…a double edge sword for White Christian Gentiles..The JEWS are outraged when they are NOT consider Americans (Germans/Russians) but they openly pledge total loyalty to Israel/Zionism?? and ACTING to undermine/subvert/destroy their “host” countries..and their CULTURES (wokeness).

  14. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    “In regards to whether our background influences our film making … who knows? We don’t think about it … There’s no doubt that our Jewish heritage affects how we see things.”

    Apparently, the Jews do not even know themselves how “Jewish” they are and what their Jewishness entails at all. But their Jewishness nonetheless appears to them as outrageously important and worth communicating.

  15. Thomas, dr Tom Sunic
    Thomas, dr Tom Sunic says:

    Assimilation and integration are two radically separate concepts – they are not synonyms. Jews in EU and USA are well integrated in their respective societies, but for obvious historical, ethnic and religious i.e. “self-chosenness” reasons they can’t or won’t assimilate. – Unlike most White Gentile Americans of European extraction (Scottish, Irish, Dutch, German, Italian, Croat –you name it.. ) who are fully assimilated in the US, France or Australia, their former European origins having more of a folkloristic veneer, although when the process of state disruption and balkanization starts their former European identity helps as an ersatz identity to fall back on.
    True, self- deception plays an important role in Jewish self-denial and the subsequent rise in antisemitism; yet not better are White Gentiles who double down i.e. “outdo the Jews” with their own mimicked pseudo-Jewishness by referring to the Jewish scriptures, i.e. the Bible and by invoking every Sunday “verus Israel”. Not just raving US Christian Zionists — but a general White Man neurosis..

  16. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    From my own experience, tangling with them when I was a kid, and living amongst them my whole life, assimilation in regards the Jews; it’s never going to happen.

    All of the other races to a large extent, assimilate to white, European culture. They might keep their religious rituals, their ethnic foods, etc., but they assimilate, why? Because white European/American culture is superior to all other cultures. Along with our Constitution etc.

    Other races don’t hate, or seek to destroy us, except the Jews.

    When I voted for Trump in ‘16, and announced on social media that I supported him, my gentile liberal friends on and off social media would say to me, “hey Bobby, I know you a long time, why would you vote for Trump? I told them, that I felt that Trump would be best at creating jobs and strengthening the economy. They all responded with, “okay, that’s cool, No worries. I see where you’re coming from. But the Jews, Jews I had known for years and years since I went to a predominantly Jewish college, all, and I mean all of them, lashed out at me with great vitriol. You would have thought that I was Pol Pot killing people with a pick axe. It was unbelievable. Those cute little Jewish girls from college were not cute, or soft spoken any longer, that’s for sure. Talk about Dracula. Hysterical. Hysterical rage. So many throughout the ages have spoken of the Jews hysteria, Edward Allsworth Ross, Patton, Nietzche, Martin Luther, and you Kevin, I believe in SAID. I believe that it’s from thousands of years of inbreeding. It all ties in with the point made in Chapter 8 about the Arab/Israeli war of 1967.

    If they feel in anyway threatened, they come together and attack in anyway they know how and their method fist and foremost is lies.

  17. Ron Chapman
    Ron Chapman says:

    Arguably the Pharisee leaders of the tribal Judeans and Benjamins in Christ Jesus’ time adhered to, and imposed on the rest of the tribe, the laws and ideology set out in the Talmud. Moreover, as Christ Jesus said of the Pharisees, ‘they say they are Jews but are not’.

    Today the neo-Pharisee leaders of those who call themselves Jews still adhere to the Talmud but virtually all of them are of Khazarian not Indumean origins. The Khazars nurture a deep seated albeit concealed hatred of Christians and especially of Russian Christians because they destroyed their empire and scattered their tribe in the 10th and 11th centuries. Russia’s SMO in Ukraine is finally putting an end to that episode.

    The Khazarian tribal leadership has fostered it’s ethnocentric hatred of all goyim in their followers by isolating them in shtetls and apartheid community situations where they could clandestinely use mind control techniques to foster that hatred of all others from birth to death.

    Arguably Talmudic ideology was and still is designed as a brain washing socio-political control mechanism. Jewish leaders are indoctrinated in Talmudic ethnocentric ideology from cradle to grave and impose it on the rest of the “tribe”. That ethno-centricity and its inherent nepotism has garnered enormous financial, political and social success for those who say they are Jews. While that situation is maintained by the Talmudic Khazarian, i.e. non-Semitic, controllers of global Jewry, the mind controlled general Jewish population will remain in the fold. Why not? After all, the educational, vocational, financial and political rewards of covertly not assimilating appear to be very substantial.

    That exclusivity and ethno-centricity will rapidly dissipate once the Khazarian Mafia’s control of global finance and banking is broken and they can no longer reward, and where necessary, coerce rank and file Jews and others to do their bidding.

  18. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    I think the word “assimilation” was originally applied to White people who move to another White country. Today, it’s used by race replacement activists, with the nonsensical Jewish theory that low IQ people from other continents become just like us when they move to a White country. It’s a magical transmutation. Their former identity disappears into the ether.

    In fact, Irish people who move to England do not become just like the English. In spite of their anglicisation, the genetic differences remain. But those genetic difference are small. It’s a different matter when non-whites come to live among Whites. The Jews are a special case because they have a tradition of lying about their identity and of hostility towards the goyim. In addition, they have hijacked our culture, our institutions, our means of public communication, and used all of that to change the way we behave and think.

    • “Jewish interests that may be incompatible with the interests of the society as a whole”

    This is an understatement. The problem goes beyond differing interests and dual loyalty: they want us dead! It is not even clear that it is in their interest to destroy us, but that’s what they are doing. In any case, the first thing to note is not the conflicting interests, but the distinct identities, and the strong Jewish hostility against us.

    I looked up the difference between the words “deception” and “deceit”. Here is what I found:
    – The magician employed a careful DECEPTION to make the car disappear.
    – The magician employed a careful DECEIT to make the car disappear.
    –> The first sounds like an innocent trick, the second sounds like he stole it.

    So, in the case of the Jews, I would rather use the word “deceit”.

    Behind the Jewish dissembling and their unreadable literature about their place in White society, the unstated main idea is that they have a right to live among us whether we like it or not. We have no right to a separate existence.

    Most of us would rather live among other White people. It makes us happier, healthier, safer, richer. Staying away from Blacks is also the best way to preserve our collective racial existence. The Jews say that that is a criminal ideal, but at least, they understand that we don’t want to disappear through racial mixing with Blacks. On the other hand, they don’t seem to understand that we may not like the flow of Jewish genes into the White race either. The Jews themselves don’t want to disappear through racial mixing with Whites. That is one of the reasons why they want to destroy us. But they don’t care that we don’t want their genes. They just think they have a right to live among us.

    Under the Jewish system, all-White countries are no longer allowed, and all-White communities are also forbidden. No more all-White cities, no more all-White streets, no more all-White apartment blocks… Even all-White picnics will be considered as an aggression against non-whites. In the same way, the Jewish presence must be felt everywhere. No remote corner of White society can be free of it. No independent media can be run by the goyim. The media have become a sea of nonsense. Criticism of Jewish power has been pushed aside.

    The problem of the Jews is more than self-deception. I think they are crazy. They are destroying us in the most visible way, and at the same time, even among themselves, they engage in senseless discussions about their place in White society, and how they are victims of “antisemitism”. There is a huge disconnect between their crazy ramblings and what’s happening in the real world.

    • About Scholem: “Failure to see the contradiction in his own analysis is self-deception.”

    “In my mind, I believed it!”, as one holocaust witness said. The Jews don’t care about truth and logical coherence. In the media, they get away with it by relying on intimidation and censorship. Also, they systematically play on the ambiguity of words.

  19. bellamoon
    bellamoon says:

    Jews assimilated Britain and America who/which then went about assimilating Europe and for this they shall not be forgiven.

Comments are closed.