Featured Articles

Jordan Peterson Comes Out Against Multiculturalism: “Miracle of Stupidity”

News outlets have recently come out with an interview that Jordan Peterson had with Camilia Tomney in which he described multiculturalism as “so puerile and moralising and unsophisticated that it’s kind of a miracle of stupidity” (Ben Chapman, GB News, 11/5/2023). Jordan further stated that “multiculturalism is unlikely to succeed due to differing characteristics of different cultures.”

“Unlikely to succeed”? Hasn’t it by now become abundantly apparent that multiculturalism has been an abject failure throughout the West? How could this be a revolutionary thought on his part? And he’s just now saying these kinds of things in public? The dissident Right has been warning against multiculturalism for decades. Yet, as usual, mainstream ‘conservatives’ are always late to the game.

In this same interview, Jordan also stated, “If you think you can import multitude of cultures without a unifying rubric and not import the problem of interpersonal and social conflict, you’re either blind or stupid or both. And both is a dreadful combination. So, like what? On what basis does multiculturalism become peace? You wave some magic wand and all of a sudden everybody gives up their cultural differences and can live in harmony.”

Part of the reason that Jordan came out publicly in this way was because of the comments recently delivered by former Prime Minster, John Howard, who likewise told GB News that he has “doubts” about the idea of multiculturalism: “I believe that when you migrate to another country, you should as far reasonably, be expected to absorb the mainstream culture of that country. Sure, you retain your affection for Greece or wherever you’ve come from.” Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, Suella Braverman, thinks multiculturalism has failed as well.

Yet, we must ask ourselves: Why has Jordan Peterson and certain British dignitaries recently changed their tune when it comes to the issues surrounding multiculturalism? Shouldn’t the problems associated with massive Third-World immigration have been pointed out a long time ago by these same people? Why has this been brought to the forefront now? And what sense could it possibly make to bring various racial groups with conflicting values, cultures, customs and religions together into a “melting pot” that’s destined to cause nothing more than strife and conflict?

Truth is, the elected leaders of Britain, America, and many other western nations knew all along about the inherent problems connected to replacement-level Third-World immigration. They were not in the dark about the social and economic problems it would create. How could they not? All they’d have to do is stand on any street corner in London or New York City and look around.

Could any of these regrets about multiculturalism be the result of how Muslims have reacted to the recent events by Israel’s government against the Palestinian people? It’s hard to imagine anything else being the cause of it because these same folks never said a thing as Whites were being racially and culturally displaced in their own lands for the past fifty years. They were, seemingly, oblivious to it all (they really weren’t), but it didn’t matter until it affected Jews living in Britain and America.

Suddenly, there are ‘concerns’ and ‘reservations’ about importing so many Muslims because most of them feel hostile toward the Jewish people. So now it becomes an ‘issue’ whereas before it was just something that Whites needed to ‘suck up and accept.’ Now, seemingly for no apparent reason, ‘questions’ start to arise. Even the old warmonger himself, Henry Kissinger, has publicly expressed his regrets:

Hamas’ attack against Israel being celebrated on the streets of Berlin indicates that Germany has let too many foreigners into the country,” according to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. “It was a grave mistake to let in so many people of totally different culture and religion and concepts, because it creates a pressure group inside each country that does that,” the 100-year-old ex-top American diplomat said in an interview with Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner for Germany’s Welt TV. Axel Springer is POLITICO’s parent company. German-born Kissinger — who fled Nazi Germany with his family in 1938, and went on to become the architect of American foreign policy during the Vietnam War — said that it was “painful,” in response to a question about seeing Arabs in Berlin celebrating last weekend’s assault on Israel (RedState, “Henry Kissinger Admits Unchecked Immigration, Multiculturalism a Mistake” by Ward Clark, 10/13/2023).

The lesson here is that multiculturalism only becomes a problem in the West when it affects Jews. It doesn’t matter when it destroys the societies and countries that indigenous Whites have created for themselves. It only becomes a matter of deep concern when Jews are threatened by the very African and Muslim immigration they have labored to bring throughout Europe and America.

The Great Replacement is, apparently, being turned into the being the Great Regret!

I don’t really think, of course, that any of this will stop the coordinated efforts of Jewish activists to replace Whites. They may cease for a while. They will likely continue to support non-White immigration so long as it’s from Asian and African nations where there are smaller Muslim populations. But as for Jews working to forever replace White people, don’t count on this mission ever ceasing. If they did, they’d also have to stop all the hyperventilating they engage in over “Nazis” and the “Holocaust” — and that’s too lucrative of a cash cow!

The many Jewish activist organizations that beg for money from Whites to help ‘the stranger’ (meaning non-assimilating Muslims) and to ‘save Europe from its xenophobia’ (ala Barbara Lerner Spectre) by promoting more foreign immigration may take a hit, but there’s always some Christian Zionist who will be glad to send them their hard-earned shekels.

Here’s a video about how 1200 rabbis each signed a document pledging support for even more immigration into Europe. The rather foul-looking woman jubilant over it reveals just how acceptable and widespread it is among almost all Jews, secular and religious.

Returning to Jordan Peterson — who has become nothing more than Ben Shapiro’s lap dog — have you noticed how angry and animated he has become over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? For some reason, I never saw him this animated in the past about White racial displacement. He didn’t seem to really care. He was animated and even cried when he talked about his physical ailments, including his spiral downward into drug addiction and suicidal thoughts. But he seemed to have no sense of urgency when it came to the daily beatdowns that Whites receive at the hands of Blacks throughout America and Europe. He cared little, from what I could determine, when major cities throughout the West became dangerous places to visit because of Muslim and African criminals.

Much of Europe and the U.S. over several decades has morphed into a hostile and multicultural nightmare, and Peterson has said little if anything until recently. If he has, he certainly hasn’t made it a major theme of his message to the world. And if he dared to advocate ever so slightly on behalf of Whites, it’s highly unlikely that he would have been offered his plush gig to work alongside Ben Shapiro. After all, Shapiro has publicly stated that he doesn’t care about the “browning of America.” Yet, I suspect he would care if that same “browning” were occurring in his beloved land of Israel.

The apparent reversal of a growing number of elected officials throughout Europe and America may only be a temporary thing. My hope is that it will grow. Either way, it demonstrates that despite the high opinions that Jews have of themselves and their purportedly superior intelligence, their efforts to promote mass immigration into the West have exposed just how addicted they are to utopian schemes that they think will benefit Jews, but then turn out not to. The previous was communism.

Their agenda to erase Whites in their own countries has largely backfired on them. Jews no longer feel safe in the countries they sought to subvert. The migrants who were expected to harm and displace Whites are also harming and, in some instances, murdering Jews on the streets, as well as desecrating their synagogues.

As the Israeli government intensifies its slaughter of the Palestinian people, it will only get worse for the Jews living in much of Europe and America. The ‘racial pets’ that Jews expected to savagely extinguish indigenous Whites are turning  on them. None of this has worked out according to the plan of our contemporary Jewish Bolsheviks. No wonder Henry Kissinger is so dismayed by it all. Believe me, he’s not crying for what’s occurring to White Europeans, but for how it’s playing out against Jews!

How should Whites respond to all of this? I don’t pretend to know all the solutions, but perhaps this might be a time to talk to our friends and loved ones about why multicultural societies don’t work? The danger that Jews currently find themselves in might afford us opportunities to remind even them why encouraging and funding mass non-White immigration into our countries is not a good thing — and why Jewish immigration to the West has also been a disaster. Jews, after all, never really assimilated to Western Christian culture. As a media-academic elite, they were instrumental in changing it to suit themselves, and a big part of that has been to displace European-descended peoples and displace their cultures. Their allegiance to their ethnic homeland remains a powerful current among Jews; hence their efforts to dominate the foreign policy of Western countries

Many Jews, as one might expect, will deny their people played any role in the “browning” of Europe and America. But I suspect a growing number of Jews will concede this disturbing reality. How can they not when for decades Jews have been at forefront of every culture-destroying political and social cause, including that of mass immigration?

The Battle Between the Eternal Roman and the Eternal Jew: Selections from Ernst Niekisch’s Die dritte, imperiale Figur (The Third Imperial Figure) (1935), Part 2 of 2

Go to Part 1.

Chapter 11

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had been the sword of the eternal Roman; it was the position of honour that was given to the Germanic barbarian for entering into Rome’s service. The coronation of Charlemagne in 800 in Rome had made visible the symbolic power; every later coronation confirmed that nothing had changed in the basic relationship between Romans and barbarians. The Empire sought to advance so far in the worldly realm as the una sancta[1] had progressed in the spiritual. Even when the Empire lay far behind the Church it held fast to the ambitious hope of being able one day to gain the advantage once again; in the Empire of Charles V,[2] on which the sun never set, the Empire had once again become almost as far-reaching as the Church once was. The eternal Roman has never exercised such an uncontested rule as in the times of the mediaeval Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

To be sure, the barbarian had his own stubbornness; because he had at his disposal the sharpness of the sword, he occasionally felt tempted to take revenge on his master: the sacco di roma[3] had been a truly barbarian act.

As much as the Christianisation subjected the Germans to Roman influence, at the same time it provided the eternal Jew with access to the Northern marshes and woods. Christ preserves his special Jewish logic in every climate and even as a blond-haired and blue-eyed Saviour he has his Jewish deeper significance along with his Roman mission. The Saviour, as a Jewish-Roman German is a hybrid, like a constitutional prince or a liberal general.

When the Catholic Church in the course of its secularisation had regained such a high degree of Roman purity that primordial Germanic instincts began to mobilise against so much Roman exclusivity, the Jewish-Christian elements sailed into the winds of Germanic anti-Roman attitudes; the eternal Jew allied himself with the eternal barbarian against the eternal Roman. That gave him a big opportunity in the period of prosperity of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation despite leading a disenfranchised life in the ghetto. He obtained an unexpected freedom of action if he favoured mutinies against the Roman order directly or indirectly, secretly or openly; every breakthrough of economic reason into the realm of the theological and legally creative, Reich-forming reason expanded the ground on which he is at home and can operate successfully. Where economic reason advanced it immediately unleashed social contradictions; it was like a cutting knife that socially fragmented the total organism formed according to estates under Roman formal law after it had already disintegrated into religious, political and national components.

“This crucified Christianity,” Nietzsche continues in that aphorism from his Nachlass,[4] “found in Catholicism a form in which the Roman element acquired predominance, and in Protestantism another in which the Jewish element predominates. That is not because the Germans, the bearers of the Protestant mentality, are more related to the Jews but because they stand farther from the Romans than the Catholic population of southern Europe.”

The Swiss Reformation was certainly not a Jewish “show,” but the eternal Jew had a hand in the game. The course of basic events took a turn by which the Jew came off profiting. Luther brought the hatred-filled Paul into the battlefield against the papist Romans; the Old Testament was placed above the tradition with which the spirit of Rome had worked. The German Reformation tied even tighter the Jewish knot that the Renaissance Romans had wanted to unravel. One knows how Max Weber associated the rise and development of capitalism with the Reformation revolt.[5] One encounters here the tracks of the eternal Jew to whose economic reason the path was cleared by the Reformation. The Protestant peoples accordingly became also the real bearers of capitalistic progress. The preference of some Reformation times for Old Testament names, the tendency of Reformation nations for Old Testament metaphors and allusions, for the mood of the Prophets and the Lord of Hosts, make clear the relations that bind the protesting barbarians to the eternal Jew.

The destruction of the unity of the Church was a destructive blow against the imperial position of the authority of the Roman order; as a consequence of the Reformation, the eternal Jew outstripped the eternal Roman in Germany. The eternal Jew reaped what the eternal Roman lost.

Through the inner impact of the Reformation even the Germanically watered modification of the Roman idea of imperium, the “Empire,” had necessarily to be affected. For the same reason that the Reformation was an ecclesiastical mutiny it was also a revolution of the princes against the Kaiser. The weakening of the imperial power — just as the weakening of the Papal power had done — brought an end to the universal authority of Rome. The liberty of the princes, the Protestant conscience and the new monetary mentality were different sides of a single uniform matter; the sovereign territorial lord, his court preacher and his court Jew were the rebellious protagonists who had in Germany gained ground from Rome politically, ecclesiastically and intellectually. The cities fell to the Reformation because they smelled the good economic roast meat that the Jew pushed into the kitchen for them in the background.

What is heresy for the Church is liberty for the Empire: sects splintered the Church just as sovereign states did the Empire. Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism and, in a corresponding distance, Gallicanism, exploded the Roman Church just as the German provincial princes, independent Switzerland, the Netherlands that had seceded, the national states of England and France, had exploded the Empire.

The Protestant provincial churches and the sovereign provinces were, to a certain degree, coagulated intermediate stages of the general process of dissolution with which the sacred and secular form of the inherited Roman idea of imperium was afflicted. They were not autochthonous building stones of a new rising German rule; there was no German principle in them that could have opposed the idea of Roman order with an equal validity. Rebels knew how to secure their share of the booty: that was all. In the confrontation with the imperial figure of the eternal Jew, the rebellious German barbarian was as short-sighted and provincial as he was, in the final analysis, defenceless; in the rebellion against the eternal Roman he did not see how dangerous the company of the eternal Jew was for him. The capitalistic international movement was not a Germanic movement; the eternal Jew had provided the trigger for it. The German barbarian developed his raw force in the impulse received from outside. In the extent and large space which he thereby attained there pulsated the Jewish character, not his own. Since the Reformation, the capitalistic development descended on the German barbarians like a dark destiny that flung him into vast depths and distances and whose secret he never grasped.

The Peasants’ Revolt that the Reformation had engendered was the insurrection of the original German substance in a condition of unbroken naturalness.[6] It merely opposed everything alien and was as distrustful of the eternal Jew as of the eternal Roman. This basic absoluteness turned into a disaster for it; in its radicalness it frightened the Reformation itself not a little. The Reformation’s ambition wished to content itself with making itself independent in the corners of the inherited Christian cultural system; it was in no way tempted by a desire to demolish the Western house and to replace it with a new purely German structure.

The rebelling peasant was the barbarian who rejected the leadership of any foreign imperial figure; that is why the Peasants’ War was one of those rare revolutions that was not to the taste of the eternal Jew. Even Marx’s friend Engels did not reconcile himself to those agitating peasants; he destroyed the legend of peasant heroism by wishing to consider the fighting peasants only as “reactionaries.”

The defeat of the Peasants’ rebellion benefited above all the eternal Jew; the racial raw material which, in its revolutionary independence, could not be incorporated into the Jewish economic worldview now became docile and useful. The frightful bloodletting that the princely tribunal imposed on the peasants and that Luther endorsed broke the savagery of the German spontaneity so permanently that, in Germany, from now on no imperial ambition intervening from abroad met with an invincible resistance. The eternal Jew, who undertook the contest with the eternal Roman on German soil, had henceforth an easy match. The defiant self-confidence of the barbarian that the latter displayed when he had seen the Roman weakened was once again curbed; he was once again made tractable. The first section of that “process of producing workers” that gradually reduced the peasant to a proletarian of the capitalistic society had been successfully accomplished. The entrance of Roman law into Germany facilitated and accelerated this process. Although it seemed to be the disguised return of the eternal Roman and was doubtless that within certain limits, the Roman law however became one of the most consequential instruments of Jewish imperialism. The Roman law removed the peasant from his soil, mobilied him and made him in this way a powerless plaything of the Jewish-economic reason.

Chapter 12

In that the eternal Jew now entered the big game, both the fight of the specific structures and the specific powers, amongst themselves, as well as their revolt against the imperial structures of the Church and the Empire assumed the character of a dispute between two imperial figures, the eternal Roman and the eternal Jew. The imperial point of view is always the higher, more comprehensive, longer lasting. Though it may at first be hardly recognisable, it nevertheless asserts itself unstoppably in the course of time; it necessarily subordinates the narrower, local, provincial points of view under it. Since the German Reformation did not bring forth from itself an imperial principle, it finally became subject to an already existing imperial principle. It began perhaps as a German revolt against the institution-creating and theological reason of Rome but then drove the German people into the arms of economic reason that developed in the gigantic creation of capitalistic society. The success of the eternal Jew was constituted of the fact that economic reason conquered province after province and thereby gradually consumed the compelling force of the theological and legislative-creative- and state-building reason. Theological reason finally remained as an anachronistic curiosity: indeed, in the progress of economic reason, man, his thought, and his worldview became secular. At the same time the ancient Roman legacy of legal creativity and state-building reason was dissolved; it was valid still only conditionally insofar as the economic reason gave some room to it; in this way state and politics are made economic. Just as the Middle Ages are the age of the eternal Roman, with the age of the Reformation begins the age of the eternal Jew; it rose on the shoulders of the rebelling barbarians.

However the sources of power may have been distributed at that time, the battle of the two imperial figures proceeded inexorably and gradually drew all of mankind into it. Nations are like peasants on the chessboard; one withdrawal lasts sometimes a hundred years and if one of the peasants falls out, that signifies the blood, tears, misery and downfall of thousands. From the point of view of the imperial figures, history is a confusion of manifold detours on which it is possible to advance only at a snail’s pace: the imperial figures need time and, even in the case of setbacks, do not ever give up the fight because they have no doubt that they have time.

Chapter 13: Masks

The recent form of the eternal Roman is the Jesuit. The Jesuit does not express all of Rome but he brings the Roman substance into a temporally expedient formula. He is the hero of the Counter-Reformation; he conquered for Rome once again one part of its territory that it had lost to the Reformation. Loyola picked up the gauntlet that Luther had thrown before the feet of the Roman world. The Jesuit proceeds to the crusade against the German barbarians: it is a procedure of war-like adaptation that he disguises himself in one of the barbarian’s clothes: in the dress of a “soldier.” What the legionary who conquered provinces was for ancient Rome the Jesuit became for Christian Rome. The Jesuit wears the clothes of the warrior with the elegance of a worldly man; in this way he betrays the fact that something more than just a soldier hides behind it. He approaches the barbarian in a soldierly manner in order not to let the latter observe that he advances highly un-soldierly intentions.

The Germanic indignation against Rome’s abuses—its ancient clearing of the forests—went deep; the Jesuit had to give the appearance that he took that into account so far as he was able to. Rome had to give a Catholic-Jewish response to the Protestant-Jewish appeal. The Jesuit delivered this response. He became as much Jewish as he took Christianity seriously again. But the tension against the Jewish element remained nevertheless tight enough that he was able further to feel—at the same time—that he was the great adversary of the Jew. He translated the language of the Roman Caesar which, under Pope Leo X, had become familiar in the Vatican once again, into the dialect that the Jewish Messiah had left behind to his earthly representative as a legacy. He bound the mask of the suffering servant to the lordly visage of the ecclesiastical emperor. He sought to outplay the Jew once again; after the Germanic barbarian appealed to the Old Testament and the Prophets, the Jesuit jumped around no less generously with these than the Reformed priest did. Even the German call to Paul did not leave him in any embarrassment. The Jesuit is the Jewish grimace of the Roman in the same sense that the pastor is the Jewish grimace of the barbarian. He aims at outdoing every Reformation Jewish sophistry with a Roman-Jewish one. He stuffs his Roman matter into every Jewish-seeming covering in which it may be sold among the Northern heretics. If the goal did not sanctify the means to him, he would have lost the justification for his life; it is not necessary that he expressly admit this principle: but the principle is the essence of Jesuit life and the Jesuit experiment.

The Protestant rebellion had hurled the right to a free conscience against the ecclesiastical institutions; modern individualism had therewith made a breach into the closed system of the Roman order. This individualism, which was a barbarian unruliness, from under the cover of which the eternal Jew shot his own arrows against Rome both long and effectively, could be dealt with only if one took the opportunity in an “individualistic” manner; the Jesuit became as much an individualist as was necessary to cut the ground from under the feet of individualism. He had to make the hierarchical idea palatable once again to the apostate; to this end he had to get behind the ruse of the subtleties of the “proud Protestant conscience” in order to be able, through the superior and more dexterous “conscientiousness” of casuistry, to appease all opposing considerations of conscience. For that he had to be trained to strike the heretic with his own weapons; he had to know already from the start what precisely ails the heretic in order to have immediately the means to assuage his pain. In virtually every situation the Jesuit had to act in such a way that finally the culture of Rome would always win through him. In this he could be, in some cases, refined, cunning, intriguing, while sin others, relentless, brutal and cruel. He became God’s soldier, who in every case struck with the boldest elasticity in a way that the situation demanded. He had no rigid physiognomy and no ossified regimen; he always adapted his methods to the circumstances.

In this way did the Jesuit conduct himself with regard to individual persons; but the policy that he developed with regard to the heretical nations was also similar. If they did not let themselves be converted, they had to be convinced with fire and sword. The much-quoted words of the Legate Aleander in Worms:12 “If you Germans too will throw off the papist yoke, we however will see to it that you will wear yourself down amongst yourselves and suffocate in your blood”—these words could have been spoken also by a Jesuit general. When Wallenstein13 had wanted to pacify the German people and establish an easy religious balance, the Jesuits threaded in the knavery to which the great German general then fell victim in Eger;[7] the amount of blood that the heretical German people poured out was, not by far, enough for them. The Jesuit father confessor of the Catholic princes became the counterpart of the court Jew of the Protestant sovereigns.

The Jesuit is a phenomenon of the Roman emergency situation; Rome no longer remained strong and self-confident in its own strength; it required special measures. The Jesuit is the eternal Roman in a condition of militant tension.

The Jesuit who goes to battle against the modern age that bore heresy from its womb is itself its child. He stands with the cynical impartiality of a Renaissance man regarding religious conviction but defends it nevertheless with holy zeal. Not the religious content but the Roman-hierarchical ruling order is his real concern. This change of events lies in the fact that the Roman-hierarchical ruling order can only be saved by legitimizing it through the Jewish-Christian Scriptural and Church tradition;14 the Jesuit is its crown jurist who repeatedly justifies it with the help of theology as often as required. For Roman-Machiavellian reasons he is the soldier of the Jew Jesus; the Roman order reaps the fruits of the victories that the Jesuit fights for and wins under the banner of Jesus. Machiavelli did not have a more teachable pupil than the Jesuits are who, like foxes, know how to hide their role in a masterly way through skillful maneuvers. The Monarchomachs endorsed by Mariana and Bellarmin15 is the boldest application that the Jesuits derived from Machiavellianism. Precisely here the Roman garrison betrays most candidly what it is capable of when it has to organize its defenses.[8]

Since the age of the Reformation the Jesuit is the purest and most concentrated form of the imperial will of the eternal Roman. The Jesuit is the eternal Roman who has trained in arms by which his adversary, the eternal Jew, has surprisingly achieved something. Both continue the war for the high prize of world-rule which, since the days of primitive Christianity, rages between Rome and Judah. They stand on heights, operate on levels, deal in timespans that have made them up to now superior to all princes, national states and peoples; when the latter thought they were pushing them off, it was always they who were the ones pushed off by both those imperial figures.

Chapter 14 

Calvinism and especially its child, Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, were still more thoroughly saturated with the spirit of the Old Testament than Lutheranism was. They viewed world events through the eyes of the Patriarchs, the Prophets, and the Maccabees; they felt that they were called by heavenly Providence to seize God’s promise to Israel for themselves. The stormy breath of the English Revolution finally turned out to be the cool, ice-cold breath of economic reason; the latter claimed the field and set England toward the peak of that development through which Europe was turned into a trading office. The general ledger, which showed the profit balance, became the worthy counterpart of the Bible, which bore in itself the certainty of the heavenly reward. To view mankind exclusively as an object of exploitation and source of enrichment for England was to think in the sense of Jewish eschatology. England rose to an empire of economic reason; the eternal Jew received through the British world empire a sword in his hand in a similar sense that the sacrum imperium, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had been a sword of the eternal Roman. At first, the matter of the eternal Roman was assumed by the Spanish world power against the rising British world power; just as it fought in Germany against the Protestants, in Holland against the Calvinists, it got involved in a war with the English heretics. Ireland was the Roman arrow in the English flesh; the English war of annihilation against the Green Isle attacked the enemy that had nested on the threshold of the English dwelling. The decapitation of Mary Stuart had preserved England from being choked by Romanness even from the north. The English legislation against the Catholics made clear with what a deep understanding England had comprehended the world historical significance of its war with Spain. The rule of the trader set limits to the rule of the priests.

In the midst of the whirlpool of the English Revolution and the wars against Spain there was born the figure of the gentleman.[9] He is a hybrid, a bastard: the mentality of the Viking is crossed in him with the mentality of the eternal Jew. The Viking, the barbarian element, flashes therein the lordly feeling, the aristocratic attitude, the individualistic pride, the readiness for knightly fair play, the unbridled lust for conquest, robbery and rough brutality; the eternal Jew brings a consciousness of being on a mission, a passion for monetary acquisition, an economically calculating sense, and commercial ambition. The gentleman does not have the universal validity of the pure imperial figure; he still has too many earthly, barbarian elements, too much “blood and soil” in himself; however, he rises almost to that height. The English nation found in him its special stereotype; at the same time, he was worldly enough to be able at least to appear in all parts of the world “in style.”

Chapter 15

When the Third Estate destroyed the feudal social and political order in France, the “citizen” entered upon the historical stage.[10]

Every revolution unleashes primordial elements; it brings to light racial bedrocks. Just as the English Revolution awakened the Viking, the French Revolution awakened the ancient civis romanus to life from the blood of the French people. But at the same time, it breathed economic reason into the agitated primordial substance; the former was the moving principle of the resurrected Roman citizen. The eternal Jew had slipped into the body of the ancient Roman: that indeed produced the citoyen. Behind the mask of the ancient Roman he broke with the eternal Roman: it was the riskiest adventure that the eternal Jew had ever ventured on.

The phenomenon of the eternal Roman had, in the course of the centuries, bound itself so inseparably with the phenomenon of the Christian Roman that finally the anti-Christian colored the awakening of the mores of Roman antiquity, paradoxically benefiting the eternal Jew. The French Revolution was a Jewish success in the same sense that, several years before, the German Reformation had been. The Enlightenment, from whose soil the ideas of 1789 had sprouted, had fundamentally corroded all institutions, traditions and privileges that stood in the way of the development of economic reason.

In the beginning, English ideas had fertilized the French Revolution; from over the Channel economic reason undermined the ground on which the Rome-bound French monarchy stood. Exemplary stimulating impulses to the Revolution streamed into France at the same time from North America, from the wars of independence of the New World. The French monarchy had supported these wars in order to destroy economically flourishing England; in fact it thereby laid the axe to its own foundation.

The English-American war was a domestic war; just two different development stages of the economic reason opposed each other; for Rome there was little to gain here. The eternal Jew sensed that he would have a freer path in America than in England and he wanted to make untrammeled use of it. In England, traditions and all sorts of uncomfortable rules of the game bound him: there he had to be a gentleman. The gentleman is the eternal Jew who maintains an English image: in America, the eternal Jew spied a possibility of freeing himself from the English image. The Yankee is much more Jewish and much less English than the gentleman is; he is the gentleman who can allow himself to act considerably more in a Jewish manner. The War of Independence gave America the freedom to replace the gentleman with the Yankee.

The victory of America over England strengthened the economic tendencies that were already predominant in England and that now pulled France too into its vortex. Monarchic France had, through Lafayette,[11] supported the game of its enemy without noticing it; it had to eat the soup that it had brewed at that time when Lafayette later became one of the heroes of the Revolution that opened the gates of France to the eternal Jew.

Chapter 16

The social type that gives its image to the age of economic reason is the bourgeois. The bourgeois is a Proteus who changes his temperament, perspective, motivation and physiognomic expression in every clime. Where the bourgeois is rooted originally in a national environment, he is the blended product of the essential racial element of his country with economic reason; he is at the same time always in one aspect the eternal Jew. The bourgeois is a generic concept that includes a series of sub-species in itself: the gentleman, the Yankee, the citoyen, the bourgeois.

Economic reason revolutionizes the world of things; the latter are moved to a completely new point of view and change their significance essentially. For legislative-creative reason things had been reserves of political self-maintenance and development of political power; the individual used them to a certain degree on the basis of an authority that placed the amount of his responsibility for the political power structure in a direct relation to the extent of his personal possessions; he administered it according to the order of the body politic. Theological reason had valued things as material instruments and symbols through which the will of God operates: man received earthly goods as undeserved “gifts” that would lead him to temptation if he forgot the gratitude that was due. In both cases things were brought into an overarching connection; to the propertied man they were merely transferred; he had to account for their good use either to a worldly authority or to metaphysical authority.

Economic reason removes a thing from every type of overarching bond; its economic applicability is impaired to the extent that it is not yet free-floating with no conditions. It becomes a commodity whose only essential quality is its price, its monetary value, and which can be in anybody’s hand and introduced in any exchange operation. The individual who became an instrument to economic reason claimed the unlimited power of disposal over the thing; the latter became a private thing, private property. As an object that was ceded, through legal-political authorization—like a fief in traditional custom, becomes a thing that is ennobled; as a divine gift it is sanctified, but as private property it is the plaything of every mood and whim, every dark instinctual impulse. It is an “unholy lack of respect” for the thing to demean it to being a private matter; this lack of respect for the thing is however abstracted from every criticism precisely because it is interpreted as the modern manifestation of the sacred: private property is sacred. Sacredness is originally a category that bears its rank within itself independently of human-individual convenience; so long as nobody calculated when and how sacred contents, values and goods arose, it was almost objectively clear what is sacred and what is not. From now on, subjective willfulness advances; it determines what is to be considered sacred. Sacredness becomes a sort of evaluation that no longer hides the fact that it favors self-interest; use is made of this evaluation according to convenience and blatant consideration of advantages. Economic reason robs from the realm of theological reason the category of sacredness; from its origin this category is charged with so many secret, moving, intoxicating forces that even in its misuse it still exerts its magical power. Unsanctified private property appears sacred as soon as there are enough private propertied persons who wish to consider it sacred—that is, when economic reason has first sufficiently taken root. Where it has displaced theological reason, economic reason takes over the responsibility for sanctification; it limns with sanctity that which was devalued and desecrated by being privatized.

Legislative-creative, theological and economic reason are embodied, each in its way, in a pictorial symbol and in a characteristic institution. Law, dogma, and money are their given symbols, state, church and private property the institutions belonging to them.

Law and the state order, dogma and the church bind; they agree in drawing limits, offering directions, prescribing paths, setting goals, demanding conduct, maintaining discipline, forcing into form and rank in a hierarchical manner. Money and private property, on the other hand, make everybody independent, force everybody into wild competition one against the other, unchain the chaos of the free play of forces. By squeezing the world into a sandcastle of private goods, they at the same time set all private goods in motion, one against the other.

The beginning of this squeezing process is liberality of thought; the mind is allowed deviations from the traditional paths, and it can doubt that which was above all doubt and question where hitherto every question had to be silenced. Liberality of thought pulls down barriers and looks “beyond the box”; it opens up new horizons. By breaking things down, it expands the room for maneuvering. To be sure, it does not yet raise economic reason onto the saddle, but it already drives theological reason into  a corner; from the sovereignty with which it controls thoughts, it is only a small step to the other sovereignty with which economic reason possesses the goods of this world. Liberality of thought drives out theological reason from its positions of influence; it can then not prevent the economic reason from immediately entering and settling therein. Liberal ideas are the nimble swallows that announce the summer of the bourgeois; they are the early dawn that heralds the historical day of the bourgeois.

At first, economic reason founders on restrictions of manifold sorts, but it has inexhaustible productive cunning to bend these restrictions, move them out of the way. The ideas of humanity, liberty, equality and fraternity were the instruments with which economic reason cleared the path; they were the passage through which the bourgeois at first forced his entry into the world as an equal and then his rule over the latter.

The feudal state had grown up most intimately with the institutions of the Christian Church; it was in all its national forms the instrument of the influence that the eternal Roman had ensured for himself over the Western nations. “Throne and altar” served each other and mutually guaranteed each other’s existence. The privileges of the estates went in more than one respect against economic reason.

The demand for liberty shook the political power of the estates and of the system of order in general of which they were a part. The bourgeois brought down the ruling stratum along with the traditional ruling forms, and forced himself in its place.

The objective and untouchable, “God given,” political order of the Middle Ages was in his way; he undermined it by complaining that it was restrictive and unleashed his “freedom fight” against it. Because it prevented the individual from striding out freely it was not “worthy” of man. The freedom of the bourgeois consists in having to share in political power only with the bourgeoisie.

The major bourgeois idea is of course equality; one who discovers its secret knows what it means for the bourgeois. It places the social content of the estates-based society in question. Men and goods were everywhere controlled, and they could move only with difficulty: landed property hung like millstones around the will to economic expansion so that it could not advance. The social hierarchy was, at the same time, a system that, according to well-nigh insurmountable rules of convention, authorized freedom of economic transactions with discrimination and careful consideration. Soldierly and courtly services of one’s forefathers, ancient rights of usucaption, violent damage to the rights of the common man that had been legitimized over time—on all this was the edifice of social hierarchy based. The key to the distribution of property was, by and large, inalterable; to every estate and every member of an estate his property was roughly attributed; for commercial speculators, inventors of schemes, “economic pioneers” there was generally not much to be obtained. According to theological reason, every man received from God what was assigned to him by custom and tradition; economic reason, which felt the legitimately obtained rights and inherited orders—against which it clashed everywhere—to be restrictive “residues,” did not have any point of entry: indeed it could undertake usury only with a bad conscience. The special rights and privileges of which the estate society was a symbol tied in with economic reason; the “fair play” to which it aspired was that everybody was authorized to everything in the same way. Then there would be shown what one was worth; the free path to talent was produced through a free play of forces. Economic utility, the natural and inborn standard of the economic reason, could become the measure of all things. The physical form in which this measure could be made visible was money; monetary calculation was the mathematics of economic reason. The sole human ranking that one still wanted to subscribe to was derived from the major ordering of financial assets that one possessed; the wealth that one had acquired stood in direct proportion to the degree of one’s economic understanding. Since, in the final analysis, economic understanding decided this ranking, it could indeed even act like a “spiritual ordering.” Every human quality that, unlike economic reason, cannot be realized as a financial value became an unprofitable art—didn’t matter any more.

The course of bourgeois society is characterized by the fact that it devalues all non-economic qualities completely. In this way bourgeois society becomes increasingly as standardized as money is. The bourgeois is worth as much as the financial sum that he has acquired, earned, or speculated; he is only the plenipotentiary of a pile of money. That is the equality of bourgeois society: that every bourgeois person can be translated into the formula of a pile of money. The difference of the figures is here without any significance for the system; the lowest common denominator equality is what makes everybody a standardized mass in which nobody falls out of the framework any more in a challenging or disturbing manner through character or other personal traits. Not everywhere are those who wear uniforms soldiers. The uniformity of the bourgeois society leads to a uniform that makes the bourgeois an easily recognizable, passable, exchangeable and replaceable coin such as the currency coins are with which he fills his pockets. It is painful for the warrior that the uniform can be the final consequence also of the bourgeois idea of equality—that this idea does not stop at similar straw hats, top hats, cutaways, ties and striped trousers. A uniform is in itself neutral; it is not important whether it clothes the thrilling uniformity of the warlike mentality or the downward dragging uniformity of the economic mentality. That too is part of the larger bourgeois process of the devaluation of all non-economic qualities: that finally the bourgeois dishonors even the soldier’s dress of honor by slipping himself finally into it in order to impatiently realize in it the equality of everything that bears a human visage.

The uniform of the soldier is an identifying feature; one sees in one glance on which battlefront he fights. What is common to all is the enemy and the will to destroy him. But the uniformity does not go deeper; the warrior is an unexhausted substance: much more can come out of him. A chaos of multiplicity is in this way powerfully directed to one point by bringing it under one helmet and pressed into the same coat. The external uniform covers here a content that is manifold; it is an aid to warlike goals.

When the bourgeois assumes a uniform, he has reached his final point; if he enters uniformed, one sees that he is thoroughly finished. He no longer has any individuality; his individuality has exhausted itself in counting and calculating in the service of money. He is standardized from inside—which does not prevent him from becoming externally standardized too.

Impulses and needs, emotional excitements and ways of thought, the direction of the will and intellectual viewpoints, are simplified; in the course of equality, the bourgeois becomes a mass phenomenon. By becoming that he transfers himself also into the political constitution of the masses: through the route of democracy, he finally sinks into its most corrupt form: the rule of the proletariat.

Democracy hides a secret: the “will of the people” coincides in the final analysis with the interest of financial power. “Everything depends on money, everything strives for money”: that is the fundamental motivation of the masses; this motivation is extremely strong because it is common to all; it is the real motivating force of democracy The motivation of the great mass of people for money becomes the goal in democracy in that it bestows its agreement, its. applause for shining coins. Vote purchasing is not bribery; it is the real political business into which the masses rush wholeheartedly. Financial sums are converted in democracy into a corresponding amount of political power; money and political power are exchangeable values.  The rush of the masses to obtain money secures the political influence of money over the masses: that is a well-balanced relationship. The voice of the people is compensated by money; it has its price. The mass accepts someone who can execute something whereby it hopes to receive something. One who bets on the masses to reach political power through it must be reconciled to the fact that the masses speculate on him in order to obtain money through him. The man of the masses, who receives no more support from any valid system of order, who cannot stand when he should rely on himself, is on top. He is nothing for himself; he is only so much as he has; it is easy for him to betray himself if he receives money for that. In every such business he is the winner because the sale prices that he obtains always have an inherently higher value than he himself has. Democracy lives on the fact that everybody expects an advantage for himself from it; it is a political order that least stands in the way of the economic reason. Legislative-creative reason created the world empire of the Caesars, the theological the theocratic state with the ‘representative of God’ at the top, the economic the state as imperialistic economic enterprise in which every state citizen has a share in the profits. The politically conditioned leadership is in a democracy only a proxy affair; the financial powers send their young men onto the political stage to take care of the bustle that is part of the trade. In a democracy, financial interests determine the course of things; the speeches of the popular tribunes are the mustard that serves to make financial rule palatable.

The function of the idea of equality is to make for all unpredictable human originality the trial last so relentlessly long until they are ruined. When the basic instincts of all the bourgeois are standardized to such an extent that they come into the picture henceforth only as a desire for money, nothing unpredictable troubles the economic reason anymore. One has therewith reached a reliable point from which a man can in every case be “mobilised.” He is without any qualities and, therefore, also without character, just as money is; one can have him, like money, for just about everything.

The bourgeois is, finally, totally among his peers: “all men become brothers.”[12] The response of the feelings to the fact of equality is the feeling of fraternity. Among brothers one is not so scrupulous; the strictness of traditional forms of rule is out of place here. The idea of fraternity has a tendency toward the dissolution of hard authoritarian forms; it sets the pathos of distance in the wrong with the fine upsurge of gallant feelings. As glorious and incomparable as Beethoven’s Fidelio may be, the chorus of the prisoners damages the standing of feudal state authority.[13] The “authority” of money is an authority of its own sort; it does not have the exclusivity and unapproachability of ruling and theocratic authorities. It is “affable”; it gladly deigns to place itself in a familiar relationship with the masses; but here precisely it makes use of the idea of fraternity for its highest triumphs.

The brotherly man must be “human”; the nucleus of all bourgeois virtues accordingly becomes “humanity.” “Man must be generous, helpful and good.”[14] The idea of humanity is the most seductive means for the softening of traditional forms of authority which, so long as they exist, are felt by economic reason to be uncomfortable chains. The rule of the traditional order lost faith in itself when against its “inhuman” inexorability—the fine tenet to be “generous, helpful and good” was thrust into its heart.

The bourgeois humanity was for over a century in fact only a fictive value; but it was taken at face value. It was to a certain degree the moral credit that the bourgeois assumed in order to be able to maintain his campaign of destruction against all genuine authorities. It was the good social form that the bourgeois maintained in order to gain entry everywhere. The idea of humanity was so much more necessary for the bourgeois conscience when the bourgeois society devalued, in practical terms, man and humanity more than the two had ever been. The bourgeois is humanitarian in the way he is moral: the external polish must hide how bad and rotten the quality of the mass product is that “makes deals” Bourgeois humanitarianism is the sentimental melodrama that would like to melt like wax the iron heart of the form-creating will to politics and rule; once that is seized, the economic-Manchester School anarchy has brought home its first territorial victory.

Humanitarianism has constituted itself as a religion; Freemasonry is its “church.” This church is a world church. It extends beyond all borders, just as the Roman did. By moving “noble humaneness” into the central point of its adoration in a secular way it seeks to compete against and bring down the Christian Church; there is no divine order; there is only the harmony of human bourgeois order that emerges automatically from the free play of forces. That harms the order-creating Roman: he is dislodged wherever Freemasonry—with which one gets along better—has found entrance.

The “noble” humanitarianism is the humanitarianism of the bourgeois; the bourgeois kneels in the “invisible temple” before his own image; he wishes to make it universally mandatory in its venerability. Here is hidden the imperial tendency of economic reason: the logic of this reason wishes to secretly win trust everywhere in the bourgeois disguise. Economic reason however is the reason of the eternal Jew. It is totally right that the Masonic symbols are cast in Jewish religious forms. The Masonic bourgeois is, in fact, an “uncircumcised Jew.” The lodge is the atrium of the Temple; here the proselytes gather together. Just as the Catholic Church became the world organization of the eternal Roman, Freemasonry became the world organization of the eternal Jew. The Freemason is a strategic selection of the eternal Jew for battle in emergency conditions in the same sense that the Jesuit is for the strategic selection of the eternal Roman. What the Roman Caesar is for the Jesuit that David is for the Masonic bourgeois. Freemasonry wishes to liquidate the two great principles of formation of the eternal Roman—the state-created legal structure and the church-created dogma and replace them with the Jewish principle of formation, the anarchy-creating rule of money.

[1] ‘The one holy’, a reference to the Church in the Nicene Creed.

[2] Charles V (1500-1558) was the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1556.

[3] ‘The sack of Rome’ was undertaken by the Visigoth leader Alaric in 410.

[4] literary remains

[5] This was the thesis of Max Weber’s 1905 work, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus.

[6] The Peasants’ Revolt or Peasants’ War was a revolt of peasants in German lands that took place in 1524 and 1525. It was suppressed by the aristocracy and condemned by Luther though Reformers like Thomas Müntzer and Huldrych Zwingli supported it.

[7] Albrecht von Wallenstein (1583-1634) was a German military commander in the army of the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II during the Thirty Years” War. He was assassinated on Ferdinand’s orders in Eger (now the Czech town of Cheb).

[8] The Monarchomachs were anti-monarchist French Huguenot jurists at the end of the sixteenth century who justified tyrannicide and advocated popular sovereignty. Juan de Mariana (1536–1624) was a Spanish Jesuit and historian and a member of the Monarchomachs.  Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was an Italian Jesuit cardinal who was one of the judges who condemned Giordano Bruno, the Italian cosmologist, to death for heresy, though he was more lenient in the case of Galileo Galilei.

[9] For a fuller study of the bourgeois types noted in this work by Niekisch, see Maurice Muret, Grandeur des élites, 1939 (English edition, The Greatness of Elites, tr. Alexander Jacob, Arktos, 2022.)

[10] citoyen

[11] Gilbert, Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834) was a French aristocrat and Freemason who served in George Washington’s Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. On his return to France, he participated in both the French Revolution of 1789 and the July Revolution of 1830.

[12]Alle Menschen werden Brüder’ – a line from Schiller’s ode, An die Freude.

[13] The Prisoners’ Chorus, ‘O welche Lust’, is sung by a group of political prisoners in Beethoven’s opera, Fidelio.

[14]Edel sei der Mensch/Hilfreich und gut’ – a line from Goethe’s hymn, Das Göttliche.

The Battle Between the Eternal Roman and the Eternal Jew: Selections from Ernst Niekisch’s Die dritte imperiale Figur (The Third Imperial Figure) (1935), Part 1 of 2 )

Translated by Alexander Jacob

Ernst Niekisch (1889–1967) was a German writer who first belonged to the Social Democratic Party of Germany and was vigorously opposed to the Western powers represented by the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Treaties. In his belief that the strongest opposition to the decadent West would be an alliance of the Prussian Germans and the Russians he formed his own political circle called “National Bolshevism.” His National Bolshevist ideology was expressed in various articles that he published in his own journal Widerstand and in the books he wrote between 1925 and 1931. In 1932, he published a study of Hitler’s movement called Hitler: ein deutsches Verhängnis (Hitler: A German Calamity) and in 1935 the present work, Die dritte imperiale Figur. In light of his opposition to Hitler as a bourgeois demagogue, his journal Widerstand was banned in December 1934 and he himself was arrested in 1937. He was convicted of literary high treason in 1939 and sentenced to life imprisonment. After his liberation by the Red Army in April 1945, he turned to Marxism and lectured at the Humboldt University in East Berlin. He soon became disillusioned with the oppressive policies of the East German government and moved to West Berlin in 1953.

In his book on imperial historical figures Niekisch focuses on what he describes as:

political figures whose playing field reaches far beyond the borders of spatially and temporally bound states; they are the real supra-national figures. Their ordering vision encompasses the world; their ordering will deals with all of humanity. (ch.1)

Niekisch identifies the two major ancient imperial figures as the Roman and the Jewish. Ancient Rome had risen to be a world power because of its excellent state-building and legal creative capacity. The second power that emerged in the Mediterranean, the Jewish, was essentially an economic phenomenon. Following the philo-Jewish and anti-Christian thinker Friedrich Nietzsche,[1] Niekisch falsely identifies the introduction of Christianity as a Jewish ruse to undermine the Roman Empire. However, we know that the Jewish attempt to attack Rome was consolidated not in Rome but in Jerusalem itself, during the First Jewish-Roman War, when the Romans finally destroyed the Temple in A.D. 70. And Niekisch himself identifies the eternal Jew with the “economic ratio (reason)” rather than with a religious one.

Once introduced into the Roman world, the new Christian religion was absorbed by Rome so that the eternal Roman continued to prevail in a form that added theological speculation — as dogma — to the ancient Roman political prowess. The Jewish economic ambition, on the other hand, is seen to be essentially opposed to the Roman imperial forms, pagan as well as Christian, and can succeed only by destroying the Roman social bonds. This dissolution was achieved in the English Revolution, the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which seriously impaired the traditional aristocratic holders of the Roman imperial power in the West and ushered in the rule of the favoured Jewish social type, the bourgeois.

The agencies through which the eternal Jew henceforth operated were Democracy, Humanitarianism, and Freemasonry, which serve as the political, social and religious institutions of the bourgeoisie. However, even though the economic reason embodied by the eternal Jew has its own institutional framework, it is essentially an immoral one, unlike the legal reason and the theological reason of the eternal Roman. As Niekisch points out:

Even the mechanism of financial economics is an intellectual system such as the legal proposition and dogma are. Only, it invokes another human elementary realm. The legal proposition relates to the sense of order, the dogma to the need for belief, but financial calculation to human self-interest. The Jew speculates on the “lowest” instincts in order to arrive at the imperium that is promised to him at the End of Days and that would essentially be the Jewish monopoly rule over the world market. (ch.8)

The bourgeois types that evolved from the intrusion of the Jewish economic reason into European society are represented in England by the “gentleman” and in France by the “citoyen.” The former is a mixture of the Viking “barbarian” with the eternal Jew and the latter a mixture of the eternal Roman with the eternal Jew.

Germany, however, did not succeed in developing its own classic type of bourgeois. Both the Germans and the Russians are considered by Niekisch as mainly “barbarians” whom Rome once fought against and later civilized. The German barbarian, according to Niekisch, is constituted of peasants and warriors. Already during the Roman Empire, the Germanic warriors only entered history as mercenaries for Rome. The German Holy Roman Emperor too “never disguises his “barbarian’ origins”. And in modern times the Junkers have gradually lost their military excellence and fallen victim to the rising bourgeoisie.[2]

The Prussian and, especially, Russian peasants are the elements that Niekisch pins his hopes on to develop into a “third imperial figure.” However, Niekisch’s reliance on the worker and the peasant, in Prussia and Russia, is rather groundless since he himself acknowledges that the peasantry — as well as the barbarian warriors — have always been absorbed by one or the other of the two imperial figures:

But the peasant, who does not enter the contest at all, has always been absorbed by the imperial figures: to the Roman he gave his tenth and to the Jew his usurious interest. (ch.9)

Besides, the Peasants’ War of the sixteenth century had given the eternal Jew an opportunity both to curb the German warrior spirit in the fight against Rome and to initiate the process of transformation of peasants into “workers”:

When the Catholic Church, in the course of its secularization, had regained such a high degree of Roman purity that primordial Germanic instincts began to mobilise against so much Roman exclusivity, the Jewish-Christian elements sailed in the winds of Germanic anti-Roman affects; the eternal Jew allied himself with the eternal barbarian against the eternal Roman (ch.11)

At the end of the Peasants’ War:

The defiant self-confidence of the barbarian that the latter displayed when he had seen the Roman weakened was once again curbed; he was once again made tractable. The first section of that “process of producing workers” that gradually reduced the peasant to a proletarian of the capitalistic society had been successfully accomplished. (ch.11)

The industrial worker is thus essentially an extension of the barbarian peasant. Niekisch hopes that, in the modern world, the industrial workers will ally themselves with the unspoiled Slavic and Tartar peoples and constitute a third imperial figure, the technological “worker.” Niekisch’s “third imperial figure” is inspired by Bolshevist notions as well as by Ernst Jünger’s modernist and futurist conception of the technological worker in his 1932 work Der Arbeiter. Niekisch’s ideal of a “third imperial figure” fortified by modern technological skills who will be able to supersede the eternal Jew and the eternal Roman is, on the whole, rather a vain fancy considering that modern technology, like the earlier mechanical industry, is only a handmaiden of the bourgeois commercial interests. As Niekisch himself notes, industrial and technological advances are never indeed the main aim of the Western civilization that has come under the spell of the economic reason:

The technological apparatus is, as elaborately as it may have been constructed, only a Western by-product; it was never directly aimed at; it was a means of the economic goal. For the European-bourgeois man the mechanism of the free-market economy was the natural element of his self-development. (ch.45)

If Niekisch’s choice of the technological worker as the third imperial figure is basically flawed, his belief in the international socialist claims of Communist Russia is also based on a Romantic, Dostoevskyan, view of the Russian peasants as being especially suitable for the spread of international welfare:

The Slavic elemental drive to the whole world and all of mankind would be the impetus that lends political penetrating power to the new imperial figure (ch.46)

And again,

The eastern peoples, the Slavs and Tartars, are for the imperialist tendencies that the European worker embodies in a pure but only in a wishful-powerless manner the raw material that endows the latter with dynamic invincibility. (ch.45)

Niekisch, clearly wrongly, believes that the “anti-bourgeois and eastern peoples” can subdue the economic reason through the technological reason:

For the European-bourgeois man the mechanism of the free-market economy was the natural element of his self-development; for the anti-bourgeois worker and the eastern peoples, on the other hand, as a result of the accord of their characteristic orientation with the apparatus, the technological structure will be that element. The economic realm will be transformed by subjecting it to the dictatorship of the technological realm. (ch.45)

In general, Niekisch’s choice of the industrial and peasant “barbarians” as his new human type is a rather fanciful one since this social stratum, whether German or Slavic, cannot quite compete with the much more developed middle-class stratum in which the eternal Jew operates. In this context, I may also add that what Niekisch decries in his 1932 book Hitler: ein deutsches Verhängnis, namely, Hitler’s bourgeois and southern German, Catholic style that easily accommodated itself to Italian Fascism, is indeed one of the virtues of the National Socialist movement. For, what Niekisch fails to understand is that the bourgeois himself is not evil but only insofar as he allies himself with the revolutionary Jewish element that seeks to destroy the imperial Roman element, pagan or Christian. In fact, since Niekisch discounts a truly imperialistic impulse in the German barbarians, whether as warriors or peasants, and his hopes of a new imperialism are based on Pan-Slavist fantasies, there remain only the eternal Roman and the eternal Jew as the two longest lasting “imperial” figures. As he himself rightly points out:

One can understand the European political, national, cultural and economic history since the rise of Christianity from the viewpoint that it is the battle between the “eternal Roman” and the “eternal Jew” for the “eternal barbarian.” That is a battle that extends over centuries: one nation after the other becomes embroiled in it and becomes the object of attack of both the imperial figures. (ch. 9)

One may even extend a critique of Niekisch’s ideology a step further by questioning whether the negative, destructive and revolutionary character of the eternal Jew makes him a truly imperial figure at all and if there is not, consequently, in the history of Europe, really only one eternal imperial figure — the Roman.

The Eternal Roman and the Eternal Jew

Chapter 1

There is a historical human type of universal scope; they are political figures whose playing field reaches far beyond the borders of spatially and temporally bound states; they are the real supra-national figures. Their ordering vision encompasses the world; their ordering will deals with all of humanity. They feel bound to a mission that commands them: “Go throughout the world.” They do not wish to form one nation but all nations; they are in a comprehensive sense “international.” Their glance extends to the most distant horizons. Nations and states are merely “provincial” within their range of vision. By establishing an empire for all nations, they establish “peace on earth.” Their empire is an international empire; their rule is world rule. They are, in the highest sense, “imperial.” They are “mythical” figures insofar as their current human embodiment seems always to be only an imperfect aspect in which they project into the earthly reality from an eternal realm. They never identify themselves with the tangible human existence into which they enter; they are more than the latter; they point to the backgrounds, reserves, and dimensions for which the greatest man is still much too small and limited. In the imperial figure is comprehended in a pure way the will to world ordering and world rule which in its fleshly-human incarnation is represented in a broken, extremely distorted, obscured and submerged way. Just as its space is the entire earth, its time extends over centuries; there lies a shimmer of infinity as well as of eternity over it. The “eternal Roman” and the “eternal Jew” are two imperial figures that stride our historical space with a very slow breath and immeasurably long strides.

Chapter 2

The birth of the “eternal Roman” occurred in the light of history. Rome arose in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, of the world that the “civilised” white man knew and surveyed at that time. Its position lent Rome the prospect of becoming a leading and real centre. The position itself lent to the city, to a certain degree, the mission to become, from a local and provincial structure, an international one. One can observe step by step how this transformation, this rise, occurred. Scipio Africanus[3] was the man who, in opposition to Cato[4] and the landed aristocracy thinking within the bounds of their estates, effected the imperial change and breakthrough. Carthage was the only comparable rival of Rome; the decision hung on the razor’s edge when Hannibal stood at the gates.[5] No other Roman understood so deeply as Scipio Africanus what was at stake between Rome and Carthage. Whereas Rome was hurt by the fear of the Punic invasion into Italy, Scipio conceived the plan of establishing Roman rule over the western Mediterranean basin. With incomparable boldness he strove ten years later for the subjugation of the eastern Mediterranean region. The aristocratic senate had never desired an international rule over Europe, Asia and Africa. Scipio forced it to leave the perimeter of self-sufficiency and to enter on the road of great history. The senate followed him only with reluctance and resistance; Cato defended the traditional self-restriction of the good old times against the dangerous seducer to an imperial adventure. Scipio Africanus learnt that no political leader can be popular who delivers his nation to the unrest, uncertainty and the adventures of a great historical existence. His end, like Bismarck’s end, was plunged into an atmosphere of gloomy, sad bitterness.

One who wishes to rule the world cannot rest in a binding to a land. The emperor must stand above all things that he commands, also stand above the field that bears fruit; he cannot stick to one place just because he is rooted in it; he must be mobile in order to be able, according to practical necessity, to step in and seize everywhere. A nation that wishes to rise to those heights in which an empire matures must brush away the heavy soil that reaches to the depths. In the countryside, one lives only under politics; but an empire is the most perfect creation of a politically passionate will. A nation must overcome the peasant in itself before it can become the ruler of the world. The centre of the international sphere can only be places in the countryside that are freed from agriculture and the peasantry in which all strands run in the same direction and from which all energy currents radiate. Imperium dissipates national culture; it mixes everything together, from the east and the west, from the north and the south. Every ancient people that enters the force-field of imperium is consumed, melted down, burnt to ashes. The end-result is an undifferentiated, levelled mass. Nations disappear where empires arise. The Roman world empire swallowed several nations; it sustained and renewed itself through the sacrifice of its own values that every nation had to bring that was subject to Rome, whether through violence or voluntarily. Finally, the actual city of Rome lost to a certain degree the reality of wood and stone with its jumble of streets and bundles of men, the soil under its feet; its political influence no longer depended on its being physically present anywhere but on its having become an idea. The will to rule and order that arose in this city, which extended from it outwards, powerful in its form, over land and sea asserted itself as a spiritual reality, made itself independent of space and time as a pure principle and raised the claim of being the real Rome, in comparison with which the city of Rome became unimportant and inessential. The idea of Rome became the shining symbol of international political greatness; the city of Rome, in comparison to it, remained as an earthly relic, as — perhaps — as desiccated dross.

When Caesar had conducted the Roman rule to its peak, the idea of Rome rose radiantly above the political-geographical reality of Rome and developed its special existence. Now there matured the incomparable legacy of Rome which the Roman imperium bequeathed for some centuries: the Roman model that it had proven in a perfect way, the experience of its lasting and self-preserving world rule, the memory of its noble moments, deeds and performances, the example of its ordering law, the pax romana of the Imperial age, the work of its civilisation, the experience of the unity and equality of the human race. A human type was stamped that was no longer lost to the memory of mankind; even today hearts beat everywhere that are receptive to the resonance of the Roman profession: civis romanus sum. It is the human type that is able to possess power and to exercise power, who is born for power and who merits rulership because he is able to use it with mastery. The historical proofs of his deeds continue to have an effect and keep his memory perpetually alive and present. This human type has ennobled the place where he arose for all times; Rome itself, the city of Rome, seems, ever since, as a “chosen” city to which it is easily granted that it is the seat and residence of the “highest authority.” Eternal Rome is the undying obligation to which the eternal Roman is bound: a mission of world rule has been placed on him and it is his duty to fulfil this contract in the forms that are suited and adapted to changing times and circumstances.

Chapter 3

The Jew too grew into his international form from a narrow province. It was a dangerous territory in which he had settled after his exodus from Egypt; he lived on the bridge between Asia and Africa that connected the Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian world empires with Egypt. Palestine was, for the great powers of antiquity, a politically important region; it was not a matter of indifference to what zone of political influence it belonged. The Jews were more victims than beneficiaries of their territory that was politically so important. The gift of this special and excellent situation of their area of settlement was, unlike what it was for the Romans, not a brilliant but a disastrous history. The Jews did not succeed in any powerful political creation; when the ambition for such a thing awakened among the Judges and Kings there was announced at the same time, through the mouths of the prophets, the mistrust of any independent path. The age of the Judges and Kings remained an unsuccessful episode; in the extreme affliction, in the Babylonian imprisonment, the Jewish people relinquished political accomplishments but armed themselves to assume on another level the battle for an international position.

The priest, who had already stood in opposition to the Judges and Kings, assumed exclusive leadership; he developed an unusual system of priestly politics. The people had been pushed to the edge of the precipice; the priest offered assurances that even in the future the people would be able to withstand the most extreme oppression. He filled them with the feeling that they were the people chosen by God. God’s interest in mankind was directed solely to the Jews. The remaining part of humanity was condemned in the eyes of God; its destiny was to be delivered one day into the hands of the Jews. Judah was chosen as the navel of world history; now one could understand the latter only if one knew that it revolved around the Jews.

The blows of fate that Judah suffered, his political misfortunes, the misery of his subjugation to foreign power-holders suddenly acquired a rampant, inciting significance: God chastised his people because it had erred from its divine destiny. It could obtain a change for the better by atoning — by remembering its chosenness again. The idea of divine chosenness became biologically ingrained; it was the divine will that the Jewish people should maintain themselves in their special racial nature; a “legal fence” was erected that separated Israel from the other peoples; in the Jew was kindled a fanaticism to reject “everything that leads to a mixture with the surrounding peoples or to assimilation.” If the Jew upheld the consciousness of his divine chosenness and remained true to the divine commandment of racial purity, then he would sit in a vehicle in which he could survive all historical storms and which preserved him from the dangers of downfall and disappearance. There was no disaster before which he needed to despair. He was being preserved for a glorious future; he had a divine promise to himself. It was the promise of world rule. “Take care not to form an alliance with the inhabitants of the country into which you enter” (Exodus 34). “And I will make you a great nation and I will bless you and make your name great” (Genesis 12). “And kings shall be your caretakers and queens your nurses. They will fall on their faces to the ground before you and lick the dust off your feet” (Isaiah 49).

But the priestly hero, who will bring about the establishment of world rule, is the Messiah. The Messiah is a figure of longing; the misery and humiliation of the present are easier to bear so long as the belief is not damaged that he, the Messiah, will come at the end of time, and raise the demeaned over all the nations of the earth. The Jewish Messiah is an ideal figure of religiously coloured hope; he is the image of a leader that the millennarian religious hope creates for itself.  It is the counter-image of the Roman Caesar, who is a phenomenon of the highest historical reality and the richest and most effective fulfilment. The Messiah is as “otherworldly” as the Caesar is “thisworldly.” The Caesar lives in the memory, the Messiah in dreams. The Caesar is a legacy, the Messiah a promise. The Caesar is a monument of possession of power that has been enjoyed, the Messiah a vision of feverishly excited desire for power. The Caesar left behind immortal notions of power; the Messiah promises enjoyment, happiness, prosperity, and pleasure in Paradise. The Caesar “civilises” the nations, the Messiah leaves them to his chosen people as their servants, slaves and creatures to be exploited.

The yoke of Roman rule was Judah’s harshest test; the belief in the Messiah heated itself to a white glow. The destruction of the Temple was meant to rob the Jews of their support and position, the diaspora uprooted them and made the sources of their life-force dry up. But precisely the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora moulded the Jew in that existential form in which he became capable of the exercise of functions that penetrate the world. Before the destruction of the Temple, he had stored up, within a narrow space, enormous tensions; they could not be translated into historical influence from Palestine. Through the diaspora the Jew was scattered as an energetic element throughout the world; here he could henceforth develop unforeseen and incalculable effects. The uniformity of his biological basic substance, the solidarity in the exultation of his chosenness and in the fervour of his hope for a Messiah brought forth a uniformity of character orientation and a commonalty of values, both of which never released even the most isolated Jew from their spell and gave his dealings a steady guideline and a reliable rule. Even when he was left exclusively to himself and moved out of himself all alone, he nevertheless served the common Jewish interests; his own movements coincided always with the total movement of Jewry. Where a Jew entered there was expressed at the same time naturally also the special standpoint of Jewry.

In this way the Jew had become an imperial figure, the “eternal Jew.”

Chapter 5

Judah overcame Rome, but Rome was nevertheless not dead. The Roman spirit, the Roman attitude, the Roman political sense and Roman will to order, were not eradicated; when they felt that they were beleaguered and undermined, they joined forces with the Jewish-Christian revolt, brought their tradition into the Jewish-Christian inundation and arrived, through manifold detours, at respectability once again in the counter-world. “Christianity,” Nietzsche remarks in his unedited writings, “arose from Jewry and nothing else; but it grew in the Roman world and sprouted fruits that are both Jewish and Roman.” The Christianisation of Rome was a victorious Jewish battle campaign but not, for a long time yet, a victorious Jewish war. The eternal Roman had been weakened, bent down, but he was still able to resist and self-willed enough not to let the eternal Jew enjoy his Christian revenge stratagem in peace for a couple of centuries.

Original Christianity was Jewish; the Christian Church Romanised itself from century to century. To the degree to which that occurred, it itself became a state; it replaced its sacramental law with the Roman corporate law and transformed itself from an institution of Evangelical grace into a legal institution. The state-building power of Rome controlled the anarchistic state-destroying spirit of Jewish origin. It was a political Roman instinct that made the Pope, during transfer of the centre of gravity of the Empire to Byzantium, remain in Rome and preserve for the Church the wealth that lay under the powerful authority of the Roman name. In the time of the Renaissance, the legacy of ancient Rome rose to the top within the Church itself; it had, by letting its Jewish component wither, become well-nigh “heathen.” The secularisation of the Catholic Church was in reality the breakthrough of ancient Rome in it; this breakthrough occurred at the cost of the Jewish-Christian elements.

The Christian Roman no longer coincided with the ancient Roman, but he remained nevertheless still a type of the ancient Roman. As much as the eternal Jew haunted him, so little was he ready to capitulate fully to him; indeed as the Renaissance had shown, it secretly even cherished the hope of becoming free of the Jew one day.

Chapter 8

World-rule demands that all opposing forces be incorporated, through superior intelligence, with penetrating expertise, into the total structure; as strong as the will that stamps the surrounding form is, so wise must the reason be that is able to absorb the elements in such a way that they all together feel that they are in the “right place” in the finished work. Every imperial figure works, according to its biological preconditions, historical traditions, political possibilities and temporal associations, with different means, interprets its task from a special angle. It makes use especially of those means that are essentially suited, to a special degree, to the imperial principle that is its own; in the use even of these means it gradually develops the highest mastery. Its reason operates especially in the special domain from which it derives its means of rulership; the imperial figure embodies to a certain degree the most experienced expertise of its predetermined specialised field. The imperial figure, its imperial principle, its practical means of rule, and its reason attuned to it, go together.

The greatness of the ancient Roman was his state-building genius; his productivity proved itself in the solution of tasks of political ordering and legislation that are illumined with the glow of immortality. Since then, nowhere has the legal creative reason reached such a peak again. The extremely sophisticated legal creative reason perfected the imperial influence and the imperial success of the ancient Roman; the latter is, as an imperial figure, the most perfect instrument that legal creative reason has up to now attained.

In the Roman Christian, legal creative reason underwent a characteristic alliance with theological speculation; the gates of the kingdom of heaven were thrown open, but the image that was offered to the pious eyes was a metaphysical state. In Augustine’s City of God,[6] Caesar has as much a share as the Messiah. The Roman theology is one half worldly political, the other priestly-theological legal science. As a theologian, one referred as much to Roman law as to the Holy Scriptures. One was a mixture of Roman lawyer and Jewish priest. In this way, one ruled the souls; and in this way, one incorporated the worldly states into the total order of the ecclesiastical imperium. The fruit of the theological-legal coupling was dogma; it is a law as compulsory as a divine mystery. Scholasticism developed dogmatic-theological reason to its final possibilities. Rome had become the centre of dogmatic-theological reason.

The eternal Roman, in his ancient as well as in his Christianised form, is a positive imperial figure insofar as, at every moment, he works directly at his imperium. In contrast to him, the eternal Jew is a conspirator whose universal nihilistic radicalism is still unbroken. He is at a stage at which he would like to bring things into his power not in order to order them but to disintegrate them into their atoms. He hides only in the preparatory work for his imperium; he cannot yet think of his imperium itself. His imperium will begin when nothing else, apart from himself, stands on its own feet, when there are no more intrinsic values, when it is he who sets his “value” on every living thing. The dictatorship that he imagines is a “dictatorship of prices” within a world in which everything is worth only so much as he “offers” for it. His world order is a universal commodity market which he mobilises with great profit. The world as an uncreative, Jewish-monopolised source of profit: that is his promised empire that the Lord Sabaoth holds in readiness for him. One who knows how to read the Prophets has no doubt that they hope from their God to obtain authority for the exploitation of everything that is not Jewish.

The instrument of the Jewish will to power is money; so long as there are still things — values and men that are not unconditionally saleable — the Jewish power still has restrictions. The Jew prepares his imperium by pulling down these restrictions. He wishes to “economise” the world in order to receive it in this way entirely into his hands. It is an inscrutably profound Jewish saying that “Economics is destiny.” Where economics is destiny, the Jew is on top; for his strength is economic reason. He brings all processes and relations, circumstances, and developments into the formula of financial calculation, of trade and haggling. The economic view of history is the worldview that one must have if one views the world from a Jewish standpoint. If the content of life is nothing but economics, then it will not be long before a Jew becomes the ruler of life. The will to imperial power chooses machinery that is at a particular time best suited to it; what the legal proposition was to the ancient Roman, what dogma was to the Roman Christian is, for the Jew, the machinery of monetary economics. Legal propositions, dogmas and money are the established major means of imperial rule; they are like nets in which entire nations are caught and in which then their identity is stifled and their natural growth withers.

The Jew likes to veil his existential connection to economic reason; he would like to attribute the good relationship he has to the latter to coincidence. He [claims he] has come so far in financial matters because he is imprisoned in the ghetto, because all other professions were closed to him. That is a cheap interpretation; nowhere else, in all of historical experience, has the fate of isolation and rejection made itself pay off in such a splendid way. It is detrimental to the Jewish future if one discovers that one paves the way to Jewish rule where one surrenders oneself to the leadership of economic expertise; that is why the Jew vehemently denies that for economic reasons one must tolerate him as inescapably as one must, within the framework of dogmatic-theological reason, the Roman.

One can hardly neglect the Jewish self-analysis that was left behind by Karl Marx, who was nourished on the deepest and most secret strata of the Jewish substance. “What is the worldly basis of Judaism?,” he asks. “Practical necessity, self-interest.”

“What is the worldly religion of the Jews: haggling. What is his worldly God? Money?.” “Money,” he continues “is the jealous God of Israel before whom no other god may exist. Money debases all other gods of man — and transforms them into a commodity.”

To be sure, as informative as the Jewish self-analysis of Karl Marx is, it still does not penetrate into the deepest and most decisive secret. The Jew is an imperial figure because he is moved by a powerful feeling for the world, because he is filled with a powerful fervour for world domination and world exploitation; he lives in the immediate certainty that the world is the inheritance that one day must fall into his lap. His unshakeable belief in the promise that was made to him is the reflection of the belief that, at the bases of Jewish existence, there is an impulse at work aimed at brining the world into his power that strides into the infinite and is sure of itself. Haggling and monetary calculation are the forms in which this feeling for the world and this worldly impulse are realised; they are the battering rams and explosives with whose help the system of order of the Roman will to world-rule should be smashed and moved out of the way.

Even the mechanism of financial economics is an intellectual system such as the legal proposition and dogma are. Only, it invokes another human elementary realm. The legal proposition relates to the sense of order, the dogma to the need for belief, but financial calculation relates to human self-interest. The Jew speculates on the “lowest” instincts in order to arrive at the imperium that is promised to him at the End of Days and that would essentially be the Jewish monopoly rule over the world market.

Chapter 9: The Eternal Barbarian

The eternal barbarian appears, largely, in two forms: as a peasant and as a warrior. They go back to two original forms: to the settled peasant cultivating animals and plants and to the boldly striding, booty-seeking original hunter.

The peasant remains in the country; he does not venture beyond his boundary; he does not have the ambition for great rule. It is enough for him to be “king in his court.” He is bound by traditional habits and customs; his practical understanding is preserved and restricted to the matters of his daily farming activities. He is not an “intellectual.” His “mind” does not inquire about and ramble in the limitless and infinite; he is silent in respectful self-restraint before that which is present and has a long past. The peasant distrusts the “mind”; he senses danger behind it. He tends to be afraid of the mind as of the serpent that wishes to seduce him into eating from the tree of forbidden knowledge because it envies him the bliss of Paradise. He listens to the voice of his blood; it, rather than the whispering of the mind, gives the orientation to the course of his life.

In this way the peasant character lacks the impulse to the universal and the centralised, which is always only a gift of the mind; it sticks to the specific identity of the “ancestors” and does not wish to be disturbed in the respectable customs of the homeland, of the narrow, trusted circle. It defends itself against the universal rule, the uniform style, both of which are at war with the diversity of natural things.

The state is a standardising form; it is in some sense always a violation of existing Nature and the tradition-bound blood by the mind and the law derived from it. Basically, the state goes against the instinct of the peasant; it is a puzzling burden to which the peasant of course submits but against which he constantly protests. For that reason, the peasant is not a political man; politics, which is acting under the point of view of political reason, moves on a level that is alien to him and is too distant. He has only a passive relationship to the state; the state subjects him to its laws, raises taxes and duties from him, rallies him to the flag; the peasant submits because he does not know how he might rise against the state and its power. Politics takes the peasant into its consideration; but he himself has little say in the assessment of the value that one wishes to apportion to him. He is the bearer of national culture; however, it depends on constantly changing practical political considerations whether national culture stands high or low in value.

The warrior has a more unrestricted ambition; it is not sufficient for him, as for the peasant, to maintain his identity and to hand down his inheritance intact and in good condition. He knows the intoxication of victory, the custom of commands, and the exhilaration of being a lord and to stand above people who are subjected to him. He learns that the force of the sword is capable of keeping men in discipline and order; he raises it to the principle of his political foundations. He creates violent empires, military states; he breaks the resistance of the subjects through the terror that he spreads; he forces people to tremble before the sharpness of his sword.

Military states have on occasion already reached extraordinary ranges: they seem to develop into world empires; but then they suddenly collapse. A lost battle would be impulse enough to bring them to a collapse. They never last longer than their principle, the force of the sword, sustains the reputation of invincibility. It is repeatedly confirmed that they are built on sand. Perhaps the warrior succeeds in scaling the imperial heights when the fortunes of war are propitious to him; but there every time he soon runs out of air; his breath is not imperial. He does not captivate men inwardly; he does not call on them to fulfil a mission: so they do not stand behind him through their own motivation and freewill. He does not bring them together in a common faith and does not organise them according to a great idea; he does not have any higher goals. He does not administer any spiritual values and has no spiritual mission; hence there adheres to his rule a character of external oppression, crudeness and brutality. The force of the naked sword operates clumsily compared to the legal creative wisdom, the dogmatic-theological reason, the agile economic understanding; it can bang on the table but it does not convince. Its barbarism is indeed based on the fact that it is intellectually backward. The warrior is the form of the “eternal barbarian” in which the latter would like to enter into a contest with the imperial figures. In this, to be sure, he has up to now come off badly every time; he was recently abused by the dogmatic-theological reason and then corrupted by the economic. But the peasant, who does not enter the contest at all, has always been absorbed by the imperial figures: to the Roman he gave his tenth and to the Jew his usurious interest. Faced with the imperial figures the “eternal barbarian” is helpless; if they are interested in him at all, he is always finally the stupid devil. From the standpoint of the imperial figure every nation that is still rooted in the land and autochthonous in general falls under the category of the “eternal barbarian”; it is precisely “barbarian” to the degree that it still contains in itself something natural that does not wish to be brought under a universal imperial rule. As the imperial figure strives to separate the peasant from the land and the warrior from the fatherland, it cuts off the umbilical cord that ties the peoples to “blood and soil.” The community based on blood is replaced by a civilisational, religious or intellectual community and attachment to the land by a commitment to cultural values, a creed or an intellectual attitude. The peasant should believe and pay interest, the warrior fight and bleed, nations should bring their supplies of substance and energy into the ’empire’ so that the latter may have nourishment.

One can understand the European political, national, cultural and economic history since the rise of Christianity from the viewpoint that it is the battle between the “eternal Roman” and the “eternal Jew” for the “eternal barbarian.” That is a battle that extends over centuries: one nation after the other becomes embroiled in it and becomes the object of attack of both the imperial figures. So long as the roots of a people are still unshaken the imperial figures share in the work of cutting them off; when that is done, then begins the tough and merciless contest in which will be determined which of the two imperial figures the nation in question should fall victim to.

Every nation has its own movement and its characteristic intrinsic tension against other nations each of which, in turn, is involved in its own way in the power struggle between the eternal Roman and the eternal Jew. Manifold are the forms in which the course of events may run here.

Slowly the autonomy of the special structure of the nations and states is forced from its original orientation in such a way that it increasingly coincides with the law of one imperial figure; it is carefully but deliberately incorporated from its particular course into the imperial course. In the meanwhile, the imperial figure disappears behind the specific life of the nations with which they entered into a community; this occurs however only in order to secretly and imperceptibly be able to penetrate to the very core of this specific life and from there then to set the nations into motion as the machinery of the imperial figure. The imperial figure is not wary of either time or devious routes; it has great patience which waits until that matures which was planned much in advance and designed with a long vision. It captures men inwardly; it sinks into these the seeds of viewpoints, attitudes, and values that, taken together, as soon as they have become full-fledged, the nations direct, to a certain degree voluntarily, into the paths that end in the empire of the imperial figure.

In all international wars the imperial figures are the laughing third; they stand so high above the national objects of contention that they take none of them seriously and do not get stuck in any of them. Since nothing is sacred to them that is sacred to the barbarians, they always stand above the situation and can cook their imperial soup in the fire of national conflicts. They never succeed in subduing and crippling the eternal barbarian through their own force; they encourage him to bleed himself until, worn out and exhausted, he sinks into their arms; they are masters of the principle: divide et impera. They encourage divisions until the moment that the strength of every element is depleted; then they hope to be able to cross the threshold of their empire that encompasses the entire emaciated, de-naturalised mankind.

From the standpoint of the contest between the eternal Roman and the eternal Jew, European history is condensed to a few lines extending through centuries. These seem to be the essential and decisive. The colourful and confusing details become blurred; they emerge only as strange squiggles of those long and continuous lines. They carry weight only as local events that receive their real significance only within the scope of a whole picture that extends temporally over two centuries and spatially encompasses now, beyond Europe, the entire globe.

Chapter 10

In the decades of the declining Roman Empire the German is the barbarian. His wild force is consolidated on the borders of the Roman Empire; he wishes to conquer, plunder and be the master. He does not come with a mission, he does not appeal to any intellectual principle, he moves deep below the peaks to which legal, creative, theological, and economic reason rise. He is driven by a surging surplus of blind vital energy; he storms forward on the basis of nothing else but the fact that he feels physically strong. He wishes to loot the works and products of Rome; they enchant him and increase his greed; he does not have his own idea of order. He comes as a robber not as a builder. He is, in achievement and intellectual scope, incomparably inferior to his victim. He is an elemental force that does not shape but conjures up catastrophes.

Rome is inwardly decayed; the form of the old imperium no longer guarantees any defence any more to the ancient Roman. The eternal Roman has, of course, made provisions: the Catholic Church is the structure that secures the ruling legacy of Rome which breaks the barbarians, through which the Germanic barbarian is once again subjected to the Roman discipline and order. The barbarian can be only a mercenary, he cannot be master of the world.

The Christianisation of the Germanic barbarians forces him into the service of Rome. It is a sacrilege; the German lets his most sacred thing be taken away; therewith his centre of gravity is transferred to an alien power; it is no longer based in himself. By kneeling before the most sacred thing of the Roman he leads a dependent life; the decisive focus of his orientation is of a Roman character, no longer Germanic. Christianity establishes a religious community that the Germanic barbarian discovers fully formed and into which he enters. He does not have any part in its origins; it is for him an alien spiritual landscape. By making himself at home in it he relinquishes his own specific spiritual homeland. Faced with the rule of the religious community the habits and customs of the tribe lose their rights. The tribe is the vessel of the heathen traditions; it must decompose as the German becomes more Christian. The Christian religious community gains ground at the cost of the heathen community based on blood. The German is removed from the blood-related basis from which he up to now derived his unrestrained natural barbarian strength. With Christianisation, the German is subjected to Roman control and tamed according to Roman customs.

Christianity also breaks into the realm of the Germanic social order as nihilism, just as it had previously broken into the political order of ancient Rome. The crime of the felled Thor Oak Tree stands, as a “Bolshevist” act, fully comparable to the destruction of the Roman Caesar statues. Of course, Christianity soon entered into a social community with the elements of Germanic society destroyed by it in order to bring forth a world of new forms — just as ancient Rome had previously mixed with Judah. The Reich was formed through the combination of Christian and Germanic barbarian elements in the region north of the Alps. The family was the locus of the dissolution process with which the blood-based community of the Germanic tribe was stricken; it is, socially, a balancing of Roman influence and the independence of the Germanic substance, just as the Empire also is politically.

The Empire is a Germanic modification of the Roman imperium. The tension between the Pope and the Kaiser is the basis of the fact that the Kaiser can never be so Roman as the Pope naturally is. The Pope is a perfect Roman; next to him the Kaiser never disguises his “barbarian” origins. The Germanic component that the Empire contains, insofar as it is never abandoned, is always an element of the protest against Roman alienation. The Kaiser, who fights against the Pope, betrays the fact that the German does not yet wish to become Roman, that it is already hard for him to be as Roman as he is. In all its greatness the position of the Kaiser as well as the nature of the Empire cannot hide German inferiority; just as the Kaiser gets his crown in Rome, the Empire obtains its most profound justification not from a Germanic idea but from a Roman. In the Reich the German lives under the eyes and under the spell of the eternal Roman. The greatest popes are the most markedly Roman; they leave no doubt of the fact that the German has only so much political credit as Rome grants to him. The German of the Empire is a creation of Rome to such an extent that Rome can humiliate him immediately in the most ignominious manner when he is overcome by a desire for independence. The forces of world events proceed in such a way that the end will be a walk to Canossa[7] or indeed to the scaffold in an Italian marketplace. Within the Empire the German is inextricably tied to Roman strings; he plays therein a role that has been intended for him by the eternal Roman. He is imperial not through his own but through a borrowed power; he is the instrument of an idea of rule that the eternal Roman has given him. He does not realise any German will to order: by ruling he serves Rome.

[1] Niekisch quotes extensively, in the fourth chapter not translated here, from Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil.

[2] Niekisch’s indifference to the characteristic strength of Prussian statecraft is a contrast to the admiration of it expressed by Oswald Spengler in his 1919 essay, ‘Preußentum und Sozialismus’ and by Christoph Steding in his 1938 work Das Reich und die Krankheit der europäischen Kultur (see my English edition, The Reich and the Disease of European Culture, Uthwita Press, 2023).

[3] Scipio Africanus (ca.236-183 B.C.) was the Roman general who defeated the Carthaginian general Hannibal at the Battle of Zama (in present-day Tunisia) in 202 B.C.

[4] Cato the Elder (234-149 B.C.) was a Roman senator who took part in the Punic Wars against Hannibal. He served as quaestor to Scipio when the latter was proconsul. However, Cato was critical of Scipio’s extravagances and lack of discipline. It was Cato who ended some of his speeches with the sentence, Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam (I further think that Carthage must be destroyed).

[5] Hannibal (247-ca.182 B.C.) was a Carthaginian general who invaded Italy in 218 B.C. and defeated the Romans in several battles there. In 203 B.C. he returned to Carthage, where he was defeated by Scipio the following year.

[6] De civitate dei contra paganos (The City of God, against the Pagans) was a work of Christian philosophy written by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430).

[7] Canossa is a town in northern Italy where the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV did penance in 1077 by standing bare-headed in the snow for three days to reverse his excommunication by Pope Gregory VII.

Parting Ways: Jewish Father and his Antifa Brainchild

The hero Cadmus and his wife the goddess Harmonia turned into a snake. Illustration for Ovid’s Metamorphoses 1619.

The Israeli invasion of Gaza is yet another proof that history knows no end and that the line between friend and foe always needs to be redrawn anew. Following the Israeli incursion in Gaza, not only the founding year of the state of Israel needs to be reexamined but the whole post-World War II antifascist narrative is in need of historical reassessment. The wise proverb “beware of what you wish for” now befits countless Jewish opinion makers and their Gentile left-leaning fellow travelers forced into an embarrassing process of disavowing their Antifa-BLM-multikulti-SJW brainchildren. The war in Gaza has finally announced the predictable albeit long-awaited demise of the Left with the Jews becoming time and again the first victims of their own ideological concoction. All over Europe and America, let alone in the Muslim world, there is a growing, often irrational hatred of Israel and, by proxy, hatred of all Jews. In his archetypical Jewish angst-inspired piece, Alan Dershowitz summarizes that “[n]o self-respecting Jew should give a penny to any organization that has turned against Israel and supported Hamas.” While slamming antifa and leftist pro-Palestinian activists staging anti-Israel demonstrations in the US and EU, Dershowitz forgets to add that in the past his criticism of the Left never featured on his list of judicial ire. And with reason. Over the last century the Left and its multicolored antifa activists have served as a battering ram for the Jews; now, the Left is becoming their mortal enemy.

Panic mode is also setting in across the chancelleries in the EU. This is particularly true for the German post-World War II guilt-ridden penitence-prone governments ceaselessly reiterating, year after year, decade after decade, 24/7 that “Israel’s security is Germany’s raison d’état” (Israels Sicherheit ist deutsche Staatsräson). How can, therefore, the German ruling class endear itself to millions of non-European, mostly Muslim newcomers and at the same time punish them for shouting anti-Jewish or anti-Israel slogans against the foremost military power in the Middle East? Millions of second-generation Muslim migrants, along with domestic leftist militants, after having been pampered for decades by the US/EU System, are now openly taunting the System and its super-ego: the State of Israel. What comes to mind is the allegory of the broom in the poem The Sorcerer’s Apprentice by Wolfgang J. Goethe. The magic broom was originally designed by the Master Blaster to keep away all the evils of the world. Alas, the broom, if overindulged, sparks hubris or chutzpah in its user, putting his own life in grave danger.

Can I never, Broom, appease you? / I will seize you / Hold and whack you/
And your ancient wood / I’ll sever / With a whetted axe I’ll crack you.

When staging protests against Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, leftist sorcerers’ apprentices abide unknowingly by the canons of their early Jewish antifascist sponsors. They like to regurgitate words “racists,” “Nazis,” “fascists” against Israel and Jewish organizations throughout the world, forgetting that those words were first launched by the Frankfurt School, and relaundered after World War II by the ADL, SPLC, the French CRIF and the German AAS into demonizing labels designed for individuals critical of the Jewish role in the US and Europe.

There are thousands of books and titles that examine in detail Jewish socio-political behavior, focusing on proverbial Jewish hubris and how it affects Jewish politicians and academics in their overreach, causing time and again unnecessary disaster for their own physical survival. TOO has extensively covered this never-ending topic, even by retrieving and translating sources that were banned or removed from university libraries following World War II.

The Ancients viewed hubris as an affront to the gods, with the worst crime committed by the hero when he transgresses the natural order. Western literature is replete with figures of gods, mortals and demi-gods whose disobedience of the natural order resulted in their eternal punishment, or their transformation into non-human species, such as plants or wild beasts, as was well described by the Latin poet Ovid in his long poem The Metamorphoses. The chained Prometheus is first on the list of shame after having derided Zeus’ commandments, although there are thousands more real and surreal mythical figures such as Tantalus or Sisyphus who tried to upstage Zeus by literally biting off more than they could chew. Accordingly, they had to pay a very heavy price for their arrogance. One must also add Apollo, the prime European god of physical beauty and cultured manliness, whose uncontrolled sexual appetite for the fleeing nymph Daphne resulted in his becoming a laurel tree.

Verus Israel vs. viral Gentiles

On a secular and political level each politician, either consciously or more often subconsciously, strives to become the master of the universe, especially if Fortuna, the goddess of sheer luck, favors his ambitions for an extended stretch of time. But the goddess Fortuna can backfire and morph into the goddess Nemesis. There is a vast literature on how Jews, with their history of self-appointed choseness, have unavoidably created enemies in practically every corner of the world. Their drive to overreach themselves in their effort to change the world has always yielded opposite and ugly results.

But why blame the Jews for their chutzpah if millions of Christians worldwide strive to “outjew” the Jews by claiming to be the only verus [true] Israel ? A case in point are American Christian Zionists, who claim to be the only true successors to Jews, although Christians in Europe are not lagging much behind with their pro-Jewish adulation. In a more contemporary military context, why criticize the Israeli Defense Force for bombing Gaza while leaving out their Gentile Double in the US who fully endorses and weaponizes Israeli ambitions in the region? One could draw a parallel with the World War II Western Allied firebombing of Germany, an analogy that may come in handy for many conservative crypto-antisemites as well as a multitude of antifa virtue signalers feigning sympathy for the Palestinians. In hindsight, the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza seems to be minor childplay when compared to the inferno German civilians went through during Roosevelt’s and Churchill’s “moral bombing” campaigns from 1940–45. The current Israeli government is merely following the Allied World War II script.

It remains a mystery that so many gentiles have always been fervent supporters of Jewish dialectics, from Moses to Marx. More shocking is the fact that many high-IQ White intellectuals, professors and academics were enamored for a good part of the twentieth century with a Jewish-inspired Freudo-Marxian mystique — only to ditch it relatively recently as a redundant and silly doctrine, replacing it with the equally destructive political theology of liberalism. It is equally incomprehensible that out of hundreds of different cults and sects in first-century pagan Rome, Gentiles accepted the teachings of a small and obscure desert people. Worse still has been the self-destructive nature of Jewish world-improving egalitarian proto-communist doctrines — not just for non-Jews but also for the Jews themselves. The Jews gave birth to Christians, — the “Bolshevism of Antiquity” — only to experience persecutions soon thereafter by the very same Christians. One of the first measures of the first Christian Roman emperor Constantine was to declare Jews a dangerous sect, “secta nefaria,” with imperial and papal successors subsequently enacting a variety of anti-Jewish laws. Two millennia later, Jews played a disproportionate role in the Bolshevik movement — only to become its first victims. Practically all high-level communist officials were of Jewish origin, especially among the upper ranks of the early Soviet terror machine. Dora Kaplan, Grigory Zinoviev, Genrikh Yagoda, Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev and thousands other Bolsheviks of Jewish extraction, were executed by their own comrades.

That good can metastasize into evil —but also the other way around — is further shown by the examples of Jews who turned from being ardent Marxists and communist sympathizers into the best theoreticians of anticommunism. Some of the finest books critical of communist totalitarianism and the warped mindset of the “Soviet man” (Homo sovieticus) were written by former Jewish communists or Jewish academics, as well as hidden sympathizers of the Bolshevik revolution (Jacob Talmon, Boris Souvarine, Arthur Koestler, Mikhail Heller, Aleksandr Nekrich, Alain Besançon). It suffices to say that during the last years of the Cold War, the prominent US neoconservative magazine Commentary, run by the American Jew Norman Podhoretz, carried very good pieces on the communist pathology.

Along the primordial lines of Ovidian opportunistic metamorphoses, it is to be expected that in the months to come, many Jewish opinion makers in the US and EU will turn into ardent critics of their leftist-antifa brainchildren. Criticism of non-European, mostly Muslim mass migrations to Europe, along with open public disapproval of the leftist woke palaver on “diversity,” “inclusion,” equity, and multiculturalism will soon become a welcomed item in public discourse, no longer subjected to punitive legal harassment. The aftermath of the Israeli military engagement in Gaza will likely provoke uncontrolled rage among 50 million EU and Balkan Muslims, thus providing a solid pool for a multitude of Islamic terrorist attacks all over European capitals. The end result will come as a golden gift for the Israelis and many EU-based Jews, helping them smooth over and neuter a bad press that Israel and Jews have been getting lately. The anti-Muslim drive will be gladly swallowed by many White nationalists, who will finally be able to openly vent their antiimmigration sentiments by cloaking them under their ersatz pro-Israeli identity. Self-declared conservative politicians  adulated by rightwing and nationalist figures in the US and EU, such as Donald Trump, his Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orban, along with their big-time fans and sidekicks in France, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour, are already taking the pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim lead.

“Cursed Be He”: Divine Wrath and the Lying Jewish Ideologies of Transgenderism and Trans-Westernism

Why do they all look like that?” asks Mark Steyn’s resident Jewish mother, the highly ethnocentric Laura Rosen Cohen. She’s talking about a translunatic pediatrician in California who “proposes renaming …  clitorises as ‘dicklets’” and who claims that puberty-blockers are “fully reversible.” Sure enough, the pediatrician in question looks both demented and depraved in typical transgender fashion.

The kiddy-doc fiddler Dr Ilana Sherer (image from Jewish News of Northern California)

But he also looks Jewish. That’s because he is Jewish. Very Jewish. Dr Ilana Sherer, who looks male and seems to be a transwoman, plays klezmer violin and proudly acknowledges that “there are a lot of Jews” in the field of translunacy. As he says in an interview with The Jewish News of Northern California, when he decided “to specialize in gender-variant children,” he was directed to “Stephen Rosenthal, who was creating the [Child and Adolescent Gender Center at UCSF Medical Center].” Dr Sherer goes on:

Once, at the center, we were trying to schedule our next meeting and realized that everyone in the room but one person was Jewish. I see it as part of the social justice terrain and my personal responsibility as a queer person and a Jew. These are the kids who need us to support and advocate for them in the way the generation before advocated for me. (“Q&A: A pediatrician who helps trans kids and moonlights playing klezmer,” The Jewish News of Northern California, 23rd March 2020)

Laura Rosen Cohen has put Dr Sherer in the section of “Laura’s Links” called “Left Wing Kooks, Their Priorities and the Results of Their Policies.” But she should have put him in a new section called “My Idiot People.” That’s the phrase Cohen uses when she’s being honest about the central Jewish role in left-wing kookery. Translunacy is a prime example. As I pointed out in “Rhymes Against Humanity,” the Jewish charlatans Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler are the two most important figures in the academic “theorizing” and promotion of translunacy. Rubin has also published a “defense of pedophilia and child pornography.” When the apparently gentile American writer Robert Stacy McCain condemned Rubin and Butler for their demented and depraved labors, he made no mention of their Jewishness. But this section of his essay reads like classic anti-Semitism:

It is fair to say that Professor Rubin and Professor Butler advocate what Matt Barber has called “Sexual Anarchy,” a world in which there are no rules, no laws, no morality governing sexual behavior. What such a lawless and amoral culture would mean for women (and for children) is not a topic these two professors seem to have given much thought; neither of them have children, and why should they care what becomes of our daughters and granddaughters in this no-rules future? (The Butler Did It: ‘Gender Trouble’ and the Academic Roots of the #Transcult, Robert Stacy McCain, 17th July 2018)

McCain is effectively complaining about Jewish subversion of gentile morality and gentile society. Rubin and Butler are trying to erase the sexual borders between men and women, and between children and adults. That erasure of borders is implicit in the term “transgenderism” — trans is a Latin preposition meaning “across, over, beyond.” Transwomen are men who want to cross the border between men and women, invading and occupying female territory to satisfy their sexual perversions and feed their narcissism.

Pedo-porn positive Professor Gayle Rubin

By promoting this erasure of borders between the sexes, Jews like Rubin and Butler have invited the wrath of heaven. And they can’t say they haven’t been warned: the Jewish prophet Moses said this in The Book of Deuteronomy: “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor’s landmark.” Landmarks establish borders and show where one group’s territory ends and another group’s territory begins. It is a wicked thing to remove a landmark and erase a border, but that is precisely what Jews have been doing for many years. Their wickedness is not confined to erasing sexual borders. As I’ve pointed out before, there’s a strong parallel between transgenderism, the false claim that men can become women, and what I call trans-Westernism, the false claim that non-Whites and non-Christians can become Westerners. And yet the wickedness and falsehood of those two trans-ideologies goes even deeper. Leftism preaches equality and practises hierarchy, so it’s doubly dishonest in its lies that men can become the same as women and non-Whites can become the same as Whites. In fact, transwomen are higher than ordinary women in the leftist hierarchy of virtue and victimhood, just as trans-Western non-Whites are higher than Whites.

“Ropes of sand, chariots of soup”

The double dishonesty of the two trans-ideologies is literally embodied in Richard Levine, the repulsive Assistant Health Secretary in the Democratic government supposedly headed by Joe Biden. Actually, Levine is triple trouble, because he’s both a transwoman and a trans-American,  and on the basis of his background as a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry, he was deemed eminently qualified to be commissioned as a four-star admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. In truth, he can’t be a woman because he’s a man and it’s at least questionable that he is an American or that he has any loyalty to American interests given his role in subverting traditional American culture.

Triple trouble: the fake woman, fake admiral, and fake American Richard Levine, Assistant Health Secretary

There are many other trans-American Jews in the Democratic government, of course. All of them are dedicated to erasing America’s borders and allowing “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” to pour into America. Those phrases come from a famous poem by the Jewish writer Emma Lazarus (1849-87), who joined the Jewish writer Israel Zangwill (1864-1926) in a highly mendacious and highly successful campaign to portray America as a “nation of immigrants.” That ubiquitous term has all the coherence and honesty of “rope of sand” or “chariot of soup.”

“Borders are bad for you, goyim!” The ethnocentric Jews Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill begin the lies

“Borders are bad for you, goyim!” The ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche continues the lies

Nations are built on bonds of blood and shared history, as the very etymology of the word nation reveals: it comes from Latin nasci, meaning “to be born.” A “nation of immigrants” is a complete contradiction in terms. But after Jews saw the success of their lying propaganda in America, they began using it in Britain. The Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche claimed in 2000 that “Britain has always been a nation of migrants.” It’s no coincidence that Roche attended the same school in London as Israel Zangwill had decades before. It’s called the Jewish Free School or JFS, because ethnocentric Jews like Roche and Zangwill do not smoke their own supply of lies about migration.

Jews as helpless and hapless nebbishes

That’s why there is one country where Jews have been very careful not to remove landmarks and erase borders. It’s called Israel, of course. Jewish trans-Westerners in America, Britain, France and all other Western nations have worked hard to erase borders and allow barbarians to flood in. Now they’re working even harder to strengthen Israel’s borders against the barbarians of Hamas. Jews have had two diametrically opposed policies on migration governed by a single principle: what’s best for Jews? At least Jews thought they were doing what’s best for themselves when they opened the borders of Western nations to non-Whites and non-Christians.

The trouble with trans-Westernism: Jews bewail the effects of their own policies (images from Joseph of @israel_advocacy)

Trans-Western Hamas-fans pour across Westminster Bridge in London, 2023 (image from Sky News)

Now that they’ve seen Hamas-fans flood onto the streets of cities across the West, some of them are starting to re-consider. And some are even starting to admit the Jewish role in their own misfortune. As I pointed out in “A Masterclass on Mendacity,” the neo-conservative writer Mark Steyn has habitually portrayed Jews as helpless and hapless nebbishes wringing their hands on the margins as they’ve watched foolish gentiles import millions of anti-Semitic Muslims into the West. Now Steyn is edging towards the truth:

To be fair, the Official Jews deserve some of the blame for disastrous western immigration policies: I think of the ADL’s blustering bully Abe Foxman, either a know-nothing or a liar, confidently blaming the mysterious resurgence of Continental Jew-hate on “nationalists, anti-government people, neo-fascists, neo-Nazis”. If American Jews had any self-respect, they’d have hounded Foxman out of public life just for that. But even John Podhoretz, a far saner fellow on most subjects, turns into an Ellis Island sentimentalist sob-sister when it comes to immigration … and now seems surprised he’s being advised to stay in the attic. Sir Simon Schama, who was full-blown open-borders and drooling about his splendid Muslim newsagent when he was debating me on stage in Toronto, is now stunned to discover his country is full of people who want him dead. (“The Great Transitioning,” SteynOnline, 3rd November 2023)

That’s from an article by Steyn called “The Great Transitioning.” There’s that Latin preposition again: trans. Steyn is referring to the impending transition from a White-majority Christian West to a Black-and-Brown-majority Muslim West. And he’s admitting that Jews “deserve some of the blame for disastrous western immigration policies.” In fact, they deserve the central blame for those policies, which have sought to erase borders and pretend that Western territory belongs to all the world. So let’s recall those divinely mandated words from Deuteronomy: “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor’s landmark.” Was the Hamas attack on Israel a sign that the curse has now begun to fall on Jews for their transgressions against truth?

I don’t know. But I do know that Jews are the worst possible group to allow power and influence in a civilized society. As it is, they currently hold central power and influence in the West, which is why the West is riddled with demented depravity and heading straight for demographic disaster. I think Whites will easily survive what lies ahead. But when I survey the many Jews in high places, I don’t think they will remain at those heights for very much longer. Here’s another warning from the Jewish Bible: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

Will the Gaza War Threaten Jewish Power in the U.S. and Their Status as Occupying the Moral High Ground?

Jewish Power in the U.S. Is on Full Display

The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture. It’s a display that could effectively wake Americans up to how deeply entrenched Jews are in the American power structure. Even the mainstream media is featuring images of Gazan suffering, bloodied children, and the over 10000 Gazan deaths, mostly women and children. Even clueless White liberals must be starting to wake up about Israel, but of course they will turn a blind eye to the Jewish power in America as enabling all of this, such as that they’re basically funding the Democratic party and its woke agenda; the party that preaches a utopian vision of ethnic harmony as a moral imperative supporting yet another round of the decades-long destruction and ethnic violence against the Palestinians.

The Biden administration seems to be realizing that their blind support for Israeli violence can’t be sold to their voters and are pleading with the Israelis for humanitarian pauses. To no avail. As always, “America’s greatest ally” thumbs its nose at America when it wishes. And why not? Just one example: America has been vainly pleading with Israel to stop the West Bank settlements for over 50 years. To no effect. And right now the settlers are violently attacking the West Bank Palestinians. The money and diplomatic support just keep coming. Today’s New York Times:

There is a long history of U.S. presidents realizing they don’t have as much leverage over Israel as they thought,” said Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and former Marine who served four tours in Iraq. And he said the same applies to Ukraine, “where this is first and foremost their fight, even if we have huge stakes in the outcome.

The atmosphere in Jewish circles right now can best be described as “Blood lust.  Kill all the Palestinians, or at least the Gazans. There is no context in the messages emanating from the high ground of American culture—little or no mention of the decades-long occupation, the ethnic cleansing and apartheid, or the open-air prison status of Gaza and the 17-year blockade. And it’s obvious that Jewish media influence is critical for this.

However, as always, the ultimate cause of Jewish power is simply money — most obviously funding a powerful infrastructure of influence, organizations like the ADL. AIPAC, JINSA, left-leaning and war-mongering lobbying groups like WINEP — the sorts of organizations that ambitious (and sociopathic) politicians necessarily pay attention to. Jewish financial clout is thus on full display, e.g., punishing the universities and pro-Hamas protesters for allowing anti-Israel speech (= anti-Semitism if you haven’t noticed). Pro-Hamas students and protesters at Ivy League universities have been doxxed and blacklisted from jobs they had been offered at prestigious law firms.

Billionaire Bill Ackman demanded a blacklist of students who’d been protesting Israel, so he and others would not inadvertently hire them in the future. A mobile placard went around Harvard Square with the names of students who’d backed the Palestinians even as Hamas’ atrocities were unfolding. “We need to make sure these students pay a price and that their neighbors, friends, and employers know that they harbor these beliefs,” explained one CEO. He repeated his accusations in an November 4 tweet directed at Harvard’s affirmative action president Claudine Gay:

“Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely-disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted. Student Slack message boards are replete with antisemitic statements, memes, and images,” Ackman wrote.

Ackman, 57, also noted that students on campus have been calling for “violent insurrection” and “use eliminationist language seeking the destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Assuming this is true, Jews are definitely on the defensive in universities. But the message is clear. Ambitious students would be well advised to forget their principles and go with the Jewish perspective on the war. And of course, it’s not just Ackman: Alan Dershowitz, Leslie Wexner, Marc Rowan, Richard Wolf, David Magerman, Steven Solomon, Clifford Asness, Leon Cooperman, Steve Eisman — wealthy and powerful people all. Rowan’s activism threatens to blow a billion-dollar hole in the budget of the University of Pennsylvania and the jobs of the university president and head of the Board of Trustees are on the line.

As always, Jews, as an elite, aim their activism at influencing the most powerful, prestigious institutions in society. Jewish influence is always top-down—control the high points of the media, academic, and political pyramid of power, and the rest will conform or at least be manageable. And to further emphasize the point, Ackman’s activism was followed up by 27 prestigious law firms sending letters to the law schools of prestigious universities.

Over the last several weeks, we have been alarmed at reports of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and assaults on college campuses, including rallies calling for the death of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel. Such anti-Semitic activities would not be tolerated at any of our firms. We also would not tolerate outside groups engaging in acts of harassment and threats of violence, as has also been occurring on many of your campuses.

A Reuters article noted:

A Sullivan & Cromwell spokesperson said on Thursday that senior chair Joseph Shenker spearheaded the letter to the law schools known in the legal industry as the “T-14,” as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Other signatories include some on the nation’s biggest and most profitable law firms, including Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Latham & Watkins; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

The Jewish editor of eLife, an online journal for the life sciences was fired for retweeting an Onion article that called out indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians” with the title “‘The Onion’ Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble For That.” Great title and obviously true. The article talks about the likely costs of any criticism of Israel, including being blacklisted from their jobs. The article way too close to home for the powers that be.

We think of the left as the main perpetrators of cancel culture but the mainstream right, which is all in for Israel, has the same tendencies despite having less power. But here’s  Republican Senator Tom Cotton, in a letter to the evil DHS secretary Majorkas, this week:

I write to urge you to immediately deport any foreign national — including and especially any alien on a student visa — that has expressed support for Hamas and its murderous attacks on Israel. These fifth-columnists have no place in the United States. Swiftly removing and permanently barring from future reentry any foreign student who signed onto or shared approvingly the anti-Semitic letter from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee on October 7 would be a good place to start.

But Glenn Beck takes first prize as the most subservient, clueless conservative:

Beck, a devout Christian, said on his show that he wants to do more than simply offer words of support for the country.

He is asking for citizenship, he said, so that he might offer “deeds” for the Jewish people, rather than simple words.

“I don’t know why I was born, but there is something about the state of Israel that connects deeply to me,” Beck told his listeners.

He added, “To have the privilege to stand with the Jew is a tremendous honor, spiritually. So, I want to read a letter that I wrote that I am sending to the state of Israel.”

Beck then recited the letter, which said: “To Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the honorable officials at the state of Israel. In this moment, I have chosen to ask you for citizenship in the state of Israel.

Republicans are reliably worse on Israel than the Democrats who likely have a more difficult time reconciling Israel’s behavior with their virtue-signaling about ethnic hatred. Like at the recent Republican Jewish Coalition convention in Las Vegas. Nikki Haley was the star, and has the support of the neocons who deserted Trump in 2016 but managed to dominate foreign policy in the Biden administration. Ramaswamy was the villain, and with the Never-Trumpers in the driver’s seat:

Trump is too much of an isolationist for these people, and he criticized Netanyahu and called Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, “very smart.” …

“I will not criticize Israel’s prime minister in the middle of a tragedy and war,” Haley added as Israel expanded its ground offensive in Gaza, with Netanyahu warning of a long and difficult war after Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7.

Ramaswamy expressed support for Israel’s right to dismiss the “myth” of a two-state solution—at least he acknowledges it’s a myth, but it wasn’t enough. After all, he had the temerity to say in an interview with Tucker Carlson that U.S. interests must come first, even with Israel. Ramaswamy argued the U.S. needs to remember the mistakes of the recent past, like getting into trillions of dollars of debt for two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—wars that were not well-planned and had no clear objective. Unacceptable! War is good!

DeSantis, who held his first cabinet meeting as governor in Florida in Jerusalem, referred to the West Bank as “the most ancient Jewish land going back to biblical times—apparently giving a green light for ethnic cleansing. Sen. Tim Scott of Florida reiterated his calls to deport foreign students participating in “antisemitic” protests on college campuses. Basically, the Republicans are hopeless as they are about pretty much everything.

Incidentally, Nikki Haley is bought and paid for:

When Haley last served in office as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, her family’s finances were a mess. Her parents owed over $1 million and were in danger of losing their Lexington, South Carolina home. A devoted daughter, Haley had loaned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past with her husband. But she could not solve all of her parents’ problems, with less than $100,000 sitting in her bank accounts and $185,000 coming in each year in salary.

Since then, Haley’s net worth has ballooned from less than $1 million to an estimated $8 million. How did she make so much money in so little time? By following a tried-and-true playbook for politicians looking to cash in on their fame. Speeches to companies like Barclays and organizations such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs provided more money in a day than Haley had previously earned in a year. It’s not clear how many talks she gave from 2019 to 2021, but Haley hauled in $2.3 million from just 11 events in 2022.

Jewish Revenge

In a speech to IDF soldiers, Netanyahu framed the invasion in biblical terms, declaring that “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible”

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”  (1 Samuel 15:3)

And that is exactly what they are doing. The repeated bombing of a refugee camp in Gaza with many casualties, not to mention hospitals, seems to have had an impact on even the US media. In the case of the refugee camp, hundreds of civilians have died for supposedly killing two top Hamas leaders. No one seriously believes that Israel is trying to spare civilians.

Jews have a long memory and a powerful sense of vengeance against those they see as their enemies. The problem is that ultimately Jews see us as deadly enemies. For serious Jews, their history in the West is little more than a long series of disasters—the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, medieval expulsions and pogroms, nineteenth-century pogroms in Russia, the 1924 U.S. immigration law and quotas at Ivy League universities, and ultimately the holocaust. The transformation of the U.S. into a multiethnic, multicultural cauldron and an impending White minority should make White Americans realize that ultimately Jews will turn on them when they have enough power, as they achieved in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Jews and the Moral High Ground

Perhaps the greatest strength that Jews have is that since World War II they have occupied the moral high ground. The Western media has been deluged with messages of Jews as victims of irrational anti-Semitism. This message has been blasted by the mainstream media for decades and it is an integral aspect of academic culture where Jewish power and influence greatly expanded, especially during the 1960s. Of course, we as White Americans have very good reasons to oppose Jewish influence, particularly their influence in promoting the transformational changes resulting from massive non-White immigration which has already weakened the power of White Americans. It’s no accident that the present Secretary of Homeland Security is a Jew who has imported around 4–8 million illegal aliens who will eventually vote, along with their children.

But non-White immigration is presented as a moral imperative in the media and you’re an evil Nazi if you oppose it. The fact is that Jewish efforts to alter the ethnic balance of the U.S. reflect Jewish hatred for the traditional West because of anti-Jewish movements in the past reaching back to the Roman Empire, and in particular many Jewish activists explicitly seek to prevent the sort of mass movement that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. There are many such statements by Jewish activists, some quoted in the chapter on immigration in The Culture of Critique, but the most recent one I have found is from Boston Globe writer S. I. Rosenbaum writing in a very mainstream outlet, The Boston Globe, who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of the Holocaust is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” So you can see this hatred against the West on full display. The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-White groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

It’s the same in the U.K.: Tobias Langdon quotes Barbara Roche, immigration minister in the disastrous Tony Blair government:

“Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Roche wasn’t acting on her own when she became immigration minister and opened Britain’s borders to Somalis and other low-IQ, high-criminality Third-Worlders. She was collaborating with other Jews to make Britain a more “comfortable” place for Jews. And since she left office, she has continued to campaign for open borders and for more anti-White bureaucracy:

Tony Blair should promote the benefits of legal immigration to Britain, and “not back off” from plans to create a super equalities commission, Barbara Roche, the former equalities minister, has urged. … The child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother, Ms Roche has reason for her feelings on immigration. “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I’m Jewish but I’m also a Londoner; I’m English but also British.” (Roche urges Labour to promote the benefits of legal migrationThe Independent, 24th June 2003)

In fact, Barbara Roche is neither English nor British. How could she be, when “being Jewish informs [her] totally”? For her and for other powerful Jews in the West, a term like “British” or “French” or “American” is merely geographic. That’s why she was so eager to flood Britain with low-IQ Third-Worlders, re-shaping its demographics in a way that, while inflicting huge harm and expense on native British Whites, allowed her to “feel comfortable” while sipping “her cup of Americano coffee” at Euston station

In their 2023 book Anglophobia Harry Richardson and Frank Salter note that Jewish organizations have taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration in Australia, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.

But this mass migration into Western societies presents some problems for Jews, particularly immigration from Muslim countries. Since the Gaza invasion there have been huge protests in Western countries against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, with a highly visible representation of Muslims. I have always thought that Jewish activists, like Steven Steinlight, have known that such immigration would have some downsides for Jews, but that the Jewish establishment feel it is manageable, and so far, they certainly have been correct. In general Muslims throughout the West have voted for the left along with the Jews. However, because of Biden’s support for pretty much anything Israel does, such as making the outrageous claim that “We’re certain Israel is doing its best to avoid civilian casualties” and opposing a ceasefire, this may change. And Jews may want to rethink their support for Muslim immigration if things continue in this direction.

But at present Jews retain their victim status in the media. Holding the moral high ground is especially important in Western individualist societies. Unlike the rest of the world where kinship relations and extended family are paramount, the social glue of Western societies is reputation in a moral community, a major theme of my 2019 book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. We want to be seen as morally upright, good people and we evaluate people based on their competence and personality traits, not kinship connections. This concern with a good image is especially characteristic of far too many White women for whom status in the mainstream political culture is a sure way to avoid the many dangers of getting outside this moral framework—social ostracism, loss of job, and even physical attacks from antifa, etc. It’s no surprise that White women are far more likely to vote for the left’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion agenda, buy into CRT and White guilt messages, to welcome refugees from failed states like Haiti, adopt non-White children and all the rest.

In traditional Western culture, the moral framework was provided by Christian religious authorities who were often, even typically, not friendly to Jews. Anti-Semitism was very common in the US in the 1920s and 1930s (e.g., Henry Ford, who financed the Dearborn Independent which stressed the Jewish role in murderous Bolshevism and their efforts to eradicate Christianity from the public square, and the Catholic priest Father Charles Coughlin who had a very popular nationally syndicated radio show tuned in by 30 million listeners at a time when the U.S. population was 130 million — a Super Bowl-level audience — and very explicitly attacked Jewish bankers). But both Ford and Coughlin were silenced by Jewish activism, and anti-Jewish attitudes declined rapidly after World War II in concert with the rise of Jews to the commanding heights of American society, including particularly their deep influence in academia and in the media (a very conscious effort of an offshoot of the Frankfurt School intellectuals) at a time when the media and academic culture establish the boundaries of Western moral communities.

I want to underline this: the traditional religious and patriotic themes of the American moral community were replaced by media-generated themes that have been produced by Jewish elites in the media and academic world and that reflect the attitudes of the wider Jewish community. These themes are now all in on the DEI agenda, CRT, and LGBTQ+. Psychological research shows that media messages are able to inhibit ethnocentrism among Whites, and there’s no doubt that the evils of White ethnocentrism are front and center in the media. Add to that the general tendency to want to conform to the wider culture in order to get ahead (all the rewards are on the side of conforming to the media narratives) and to avoid the ostracism, job losses and other problems that happen to people who dissent from these narratives.

But the horror of Israeli behavior in this war combined with the incessant clamoring by Jews that opposition to or even criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism is bound to produce cognitive dissonance among many American liberals (and perhaps even some conservatives) as they become aware of the decades-long brutality of the Israelis toward the Palestinians. The increasingly hopeless moral position of Israel at a time when the West is deluged with messages about the evils of ethnic hatred is a huge problem. Apart from Christian conservatives who think that the Second Coming depends on Israel winning, it’s likely to be a major problem for American Jews.

This is being played out on my faculty email lists as the ethnic studies professors and other liberals are calling attention to Israeli behavior while the Jewish activists are forced to leave the story at the level of the October 7 attack on Israelis and completely remove the context—the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians, especially in Gaza as an open-air prison along with its blockade of everything except the bare necessities of life, is completely avoided.

They no longer have the moral high ground, and frankly that gives me considerable pleasure. Back a few years ago when I was saying a lot of the same things about Israel, I got no support at all for similar statements about Israel (as well as calling attention to Jewish attitudes toward immigration into Israel versus Jewish attitudes on immigration to Western countries). Even now there is a movement to relocate Gazans out of Gaza into other countries (an Israeli think tank suggested moving them to Egypt or to Western countries) and there can be little doubt that that will include Western countries, although Jews may think twice about allowing in millions of Palestinians who have good reason to hate Jews. The NYTimes:

Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative [always effective with Western governments—the moral high ground, etc.] that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.

The suggestion was dismissed by most of Israel’s interlocutors — who include the United States and Britain — because of the risk that such a mass displacement could become permanent [which is obviously the intention]. These countries fear that such a development might destabilize Egypt and lock significant numbers of Palestinians out of their homeland, according to the diplomats, who spoke anonymously in order to discuss a sensitive matter more freely.

The idea has also been firmly rejected by Palestinians, who fear that Israel is using the war — which began on Oct. 7 after terrorists from Gaza raided Israel and killed roughly 1,400 people — to permanently displace the more than two million people living in Gaza. [Who would possibly think that?]

Many writers have argued that Israel must have known about the Hamas attack given their sophisticated intelligence capabilities, informants, drones, etc. If so, we must assume that Israel had an end game in allowing it to happen, despite the deaths to Israelis. What they are now asking for is complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that they started in 1948. They may get it, as Western countries eventually cave in to their demands.

But the Jews won’t give up their morally pure victim status easily. They still basically run our media, and most academic Jews are still shilling for Israel. Ambitious politicians still cling to the pro-Israel narrative for dear life, no matter what the level of hypocrisy, and the media continues to promote the holocaust victimology narrative that justifies any behavior by Israel. One of our biggest problems is that Western politicians are basically sociopaths interested only in power, money, and having a great career. Context-free discussions of the war still dominate the mainstream media.

The world is changing in the direction of a decline of American power and the rise of the BRICS nations economically and militarily. The moral pariah status of Israel in these countries is a huge problem for American foreign policy. Israel has never been a good ally, but this war is going to be an albatross around the neck of the West because of its indefensible history of support for Israel.

But it’s easy to see that many Americans, especially liberals, many non-White ethnics, and young people in general are bailing on this narrative. People on our side don’t have the belief that Jews are paragons of virtue and never harm others. We remember the role of Jews in the Soviet mass murders and their traditional ethics in which non-Jews have no moral value and in which exploiting non-Jews is just fine as long as it doesn’t hurt Jewish interests in general. We worry about a future dominated by non-Whites in which vengeful Jews retain or expand their power. It’s about time this becomes the mainstream view.

Jews Declare War on America

We face an unprecedented and revolutionary situation.  The Jews have declared war on America.

This is a disaster for America, and may also be a disaster for the Jews.

A little background.

At a moment when Israel is fighting for its very life (if one is to credit the analysis of Scott Ritter (Scott Ritter, “Why I no longer stand with Israel”) and retired U.S. Army Col. Douglas MacGregor (“Israel has LOST no matter what they do! WW3 is HERE!” at 9:18), not to mention Israeli IDF retired Major General Itshak Brik (Israel could cease to exist before 80th anniversary, says ex-premier Barak), and Israel is absolutely dependent on American support (Macgregor: “Israel played right into their hands.. They have LOST BIG TIME!” at minute 9), the Jews have decided to open a second front!  And maybe a far more dangerous one.  A front against America.

For the Jews, this is very foolish.  Even in the worst case (for the Jews), if Israel is annihilated or its population expelled, the Jews still have the United States as a refuge — a refuge which they have spent 100 years spitting on and one which they disdain, but a refuge nonetheless.  Moreover, it is exactly this refuge that could — if anything can — ensure that the first object of their affections — Israel — continues to exist.

One would think that this would be the time U.S.-based Jews would “cool it” on the “anti-Semitism” war they have been waging on any and all deviating from the “Jewish” line for the past century — even if just for a time, to avoid alienating the great power that is the only thing standing between Israel and its potential destruction.

But no.  The Jews since the October 7 Hamas attack have essentially declared war not on Hamas — the IDF is haltingly attempting to do that — but on Americans!  And not just on any Americans, but on the most precious commodity that non-Jewish Americans — whether Christian, Muslim Americans possess.  Their children.

Beyond this, the Jews have declared war not on “any old” Christian/Muslim/Shinto/Buddhist/Hindu children, but on the very best and brightest of all of them — the ones at Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, MIT, and, by implication, the ones at all the other top Universities in the United States.

A timeline is in order:

October 10.  Jewish billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman calls for the “unmasking” of all students at Harvard who signed an October 8 pro-Palestinian petition.  As discussed in an earlier article this petition was relatively benign, saying nothing that had not been  said 70 years before by Israeli heroes General Moshe Dayan (Moshe Dayan’s Eulogy for Roi Rutenberg — April 19, 1956) and Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion (Ben-Gurion’s Notorious Quotes: Their Polemical Uses & Abuses — Partners For Progressive Israel )— not to mention Israeli founding father Ze’ev Jabotinsky in his writings starting in the 1920’s. “The Iron Wall” (jewishvirtuallibrary.org) .

October 11.  Famed Jewish Harvard constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz (retired but still overly active) calls for the same thing, saying he will “unmask” every student involved in any statement blaming Israel for the violence in the Middle East.

October 11.  Professor Dershowitz “unmasks” a Black lesbian law student who had issued a manifesto similar to that issued at Harvard.  As if on cue, a “Big law” law firm Winston & Strawn then withdraws its offer of summer employment to this unfortunate black lesbian law student, stating as its reason her statements on  “Holy” Israel.

October 12.  Jewish Mega-billionaire Leslie Wexner (who does not know, never knew, Jeffrey Epstein) follows suit with Bill Ackman, threatening to use his influence to destroy the reputations of any student taking a non-Israeli line.  Wexner, the creator of the “Limited” brand and Victoria Secret is a man to be reckoned with.  Although he has never been convicted of a crime, his tax lawyer, Arthur Shapiro was found in front of a condominium door, dead, having been shot several times with a pistol — Les Wexner’s tax attorney Arthur Shapiro was murdered in 1985 in what looked like a Mafia “hit.” The crime was never solved. This Columbus Ohio police report discusses Wexner’s ties to organized crime. : r/Epstein (reddit.com); Who Murdered Arthur Shapiro, the Lawyer of Victoria’s Secret Billionaire Les Wexner? (thedailybeast.com)  See also   A Kingpin, the Mob, and a Murder: The Deeper Mystery behind the Arthur Shapiro Homicide (unlimitedhangout.com)  Rumors of connections to persons associated with organized crime have dogged the poor Mr. Wexner over the years. A Kingpin, the Mafia and a Murder: The Deepest Mystery Behind Arthur Shapiro’s Assassination (reseauinternational.net).  How unjust!   As one of Shakespeare’s solid citizens might say:  “Who steals my purse steals trash…but he that filches from me my good name makes me poor indeed.”  Iago, Othello, Act III.

In October, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan urged alumni to “close their checkbooks” until Penn attacks “anti-semitism.” (He is Jewish despite his WASPY sounding name — remember Rowan and Martin’s “Laugh In”?) and subservient to mega-billionaire Jewish founder Leon Black, as well as Chairman of the New York United Jewish Appeal.

In October, TV producer, Jewish Richard Wolf, announces he will follow suit with Rowan.

In October.  John Huntsman, not Jewish but from time to time interested in politics at the national level requiring Jewish money, followed suit with Rowan, saying that the Huntsman Foundation would “close its checkbook”.

October 17.  Ronald Lauder threatens to pull all funding from the University of Pennsylvania.  Billionaire Ronald Lauder threatens to pull funding if UPenn doesn’t do more to fight antisemitism | CNN Business .  Like Clifford Asness (below) he whined about the highly dangerous — help, help! — Palestinian writer’s conference.

October.  David Magerman (Jewish) of mega math hedge fund Rennaisance Technologies, founded by Jewish James “Jim” Simons, said he was closing his checkbook as well, for the same reasons.

October 18.  Jewish billionaire hedge fund manager Clifford Asness decides to “withdraw funding” due, in part, to a Palestinian writer’s conference at which a number of individuals presumably said “not nice” things about “all perfect” Israel.

October 18.  Jewish law professor at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, one of the nation’s leading law schools, Steven Solomon in a public letter urged that employers NOT hire his own students — that is, those that do not buy the “I love Israel” narrative.  By the way, has he called on Cravath Swine & Moore not to hire Jewish students who were calling for the support of Israel?  Of course not, because they, lucky for them, chose the “right” side.  Solomon should be fired immediately.  If Jewish law professors behave in this fashion, this will be a very good reason for Berkeley — a public school, bound explicitly by the first amendment as a government actor — may quietly decide to “dial down” on the number of Jewish professors given tenure from here on out.  How can you run a law school which advertises that its own professors will destroy your chances for a legal career if you have the wrong opinion on a shit-hole country in the Middle East?

October 18.  As if on cue, big law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell revoked offers to Harvard and Columbia students that had signed anti-Israel statements.  Ironically, it appears these students are in an exclusive “club” at Davis Polk.  It appears that Frank Lyon Polk himself, the co-founder of Davis Polk and the “Polk” in the name of that firm, would have his job offer revoked as well.  He was Undersecretary of State to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, under whom the State Department was firmly anti-Zionist and opposed to any U.S. approval of the Balfour Declaration.   On top of everything else, the complete ignorance of current Davis Polk partners of their antecedents is additional evidence of the complete rot at the heart of the governing class of the United States.

October 26.  Leon Cooperman, former Goldman Sachs investment strategist, now running his own billion-dollar hedge fund, Omega Partners, announced suspension of any funding of his alma mater Columbia University (Cooperman graduated from Columbia Business School in 1967).  Cooperman said, memorably:

“These kids at the colleges have shit for brains,” Cooperman told “The Claman Countdown” host Liz Claman on Wednesday (Emphasis added). (Sorry Lord Leon — actually they are probably a lot smarter than you are, since, in 1965 Columbia was almost open admissions compared to the admissions competitiveness today).  “We have one reliable ally in the Middle East. That’s Israel. We only have one democracy in the Middle East. That’s Israel. And we have one economy tolerant of different people, gays, lesbians, etc. That’s Israel. So they have no idea what these young kids are doing.”

“Now, the real shame is, I’ve given to Columbia probably about $50 million over many years,” he continued. “And I’m going to suspend my giving. I’ll give my giving to other organizations.”Billionaire Leon Cooperman pulling Columbia funding amid student protests: These kids have ‘s— for brains’ | Fox Business

So based on this amateurish diplomatic analysis, which would be contradicted firmly by at least one former Secretary of State (George Marshall) and Secretary of Defense (James Forrestal), he wants to shut down any speech critical of Israel?  Perhaps the one with “shit for brains” is not some 150 IQ Columbia student, but a past-his-sell-by-date Leon Cooperman.

November 2.  Steve Eisman, a senior portfolio manager at Neuberger Berman, of “Big Short” fame (see The Big Short by Michael Lewis), any student who “holds up a sign that says ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea should be expelled’” from the university !!! (Emphasis added.) (Steve Eisman tells UPenn to strip his name off scholarship amid Israel-Hamas war) So in a country whose most prominent statesmen, George Kennan, George Marshall, and Loy Henderson, each strongly urged that Israel not even be created, and which we now know was created due not only to death threats, but primarily to a bribe of $2 million (in 1948 money — maybe $30 million today) in cash delivered by Jewish supremacist Abe Feinberg to a deeply corrupt President Harry Truman (who we now know was busy stealing from his $200,000 (1948 dollars) expense fund) (see The Truman Show) we are now at a point where no person urging that that arguably mistaken formation be reversed— presumably including Kennan, Marshall, and Henderson were they still of college age — can be allowed to attend college?  Fuck you, Eisman.  And the horse you rode in on.

On October 31,  Bill Ackman — apparently after having received some “push back ”, perhaps by Larry Summers, the Jewish former President of Harvard, says he is “re-thinking” his position, and perhaps it would be better not to publicly “unmask” anti-Israel students.  Oddly enough, the new student rant he was discussing involved much worse (at least this author would think) than the original pro-Palestinian statement.  It involved an anonymous Harvard student that called, literally, for the death of all Jews “like Hitler.”  Apparently, Ackman was not sufficiently bothered by this to call for his unmasking (!!!!).  So maybe this guy will at some point be the pediatrician to Bill’s grandchildren, out of Harvard Medical School.  So as to Ackman’s thought (if you can call them that) processes, I just have to say, as Jose Luis Borges might have said: “yo no comprendo”.—Just a little later, Ackman said the pro-Palestinian students, rather than being doxed, should be forced into re-education programs that apparently — or so Ackman thinks — will convince them to reverse all their firmly held positions and volunteer in the IDF.  Good luck, bro.

Then Bill Ackman went full authoritarian, now saying that, rather than unmask students, Harvard et al. should simply be told that no investment bank, hedge fund, or public company will hire any Harvard graduates unless Harvard converts itself into a police state, harassing and chasing down — and presumably expelling — all students not taking the prescribed line on Israel.

Then — I guess the bedsore that is Bill Ackman will be a never-ending story. Ackman comes up with a new angle, this time regarding a large group of Harvard Palestinian supporters confronting a Jewish activist attempting to photograph and “dox” them.  Apparently in the group confronting the “doxer” was the fuzzy picture of a White student whom Ackman somehow has identified as a member of the editorial staff of the Harvard Law Review, possibly the most intellectually elite legal journal in the United States.  Ackman demands that the Law Review editor — who, like his other editors, are the most sought-after law students in the United States by Judges, law firms, and other potential employers — be “unmasked” and denied employment of any kind after graduation.

November 1.  Twenty-seven of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the United States issue letters to all the top law schools in the United States to the effect that, if each of them does not take unspecified “steps” to eliminate “anti-semitism,” none of these  law firms will hire any graduates of those Law Schools.  These include such formerly WASP bastions as Cravath Swaine & Moore, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk & Wardwell (see above), and Debevoise & Plimpton, as well as traditionally Catholic / WASP firms such as Wilkie Farr & Gallegher.  Presumably these firms either have been taken over completely by Jewish senior partners or have so many Jewish clients that they felt compelled to issue this mind-boggling statement. These law firms and banks are — apart from the hi-tech employers on the West Coast — the principal bastion of high paying jobs and influential careers in the United States.  If all but sycophants of the Jews are cut off from these firms, the result will be a collapsing disaster for the freedom and economic prospects of the rest of America.

If these threats are carried out, this is nothing short of a disaster for non-Jewish Americans.  This is, in a word, a direct frontal assault on every non-Jewish American.

If the best and brightest of non-Jews — whether they be White Christians, Blacks, middle eastern Muslims, Latin-American immigrant Catholics (note that except for diminutive Paraguay every country in the Western Hemisphere apart from the U.S. is calling for a cease-fire in Gaza), Chinese, Japanese, Indians, or Pakistani Muslims — cannot find future employment except at the sufferance of Jews, we will be entering a revolutionary stage where non-Jews have only the option of violent revolution to displace an increasingly oppressive Jewish tyranny.  Effectively, it is a non-violent version of Lenin’s recommendation.  He said that if you jailed, killed, or otherwise neutralized the top 10,000 of the bourgeoisie, you controlled the nation, because the remaining bourgeoisie would have no leadership.  If the Jews deprive non-Jewish Americans of their 10,000 per year leadership class (approximately the population of the Ivies), they cut off non-Jewish opposition at the head.

So this is an existential battle.

Well, what about Congress, you say?  It is “elected” and thus cannot be run by a mere 5 million Jews?  Wrong, or at least so it appears.

A deeply conservative new Speaker of the House has just stage managed a large aid package for our “dear friend, Israel,” with only two Republican dissenters. (Democrats opposed it because it was to be paid for by cutting funds for the IRS.)

Part of the problem was described by Trotsky in his book The Russian Revolution.  He pointed out that, in tranquil times, elected representatives tended to represent well the views of the people who elected them; if views of the electorate shifted, the shift would be gradual; this shift would then generally be reflected in the next election, resulting in a legislature back in tune with its electorate.  However, Trotsky pointed out, in revolutionary times, this is not the case.  The views of the people shift so dramatically and so quickly that, shortly after election, legislators are already out of tune with their electorate and remain so for an unendurably long time — until the next election, often years off.

When one also factors in the ossifying and overwhelming effect of Jewish-money and Jewish-controlled media in political campaigns, we have a legislature that responds only to its donors and to media pressure, not to its electorate.  In such cases, both parties put up candidates taking the “pro-Jewish” view, so who cares who wins?

We are in revolutionary times with an ossified Congress, bound in by Jewish money and Jewish media, unable to take actions necessary to protect 350 million Americans from a predatory Jewish financial elite that now appears to be determined to crush out the last glimmering dissent to total Jewish supremacy.

It is astounding that 350 million non-Jewish Americans are dominated by 5 million Jews in a supposedly “democratic” republic.  See Why Are Jews So Influential?   But that’s where we are.

In an actual democratic republic, our legislators would quickly enact legislation under the commerce clause prohibiting any company engaged in interstate commerce (a very broad designation) from conditioning or denying employment based on the political views of the applicants, enforced by heavy criminal penalties, including significant jail time.  This should of course be coupled with similar restrictions on “denial of service’ by banks, financial institutions, and internet accounts such as Youtube, X, and Facebook.  We could call these a “Freedom to Work Act” and a “Freedom to Think Act”.  But fat chance either of these would ever get through our Jewish-dominated legislature.

We quoted Lenin before.  So let’s quote him again.  Lenin famously asked, “what is to be done?”  Well, what is to be done?  That is the signal issue of our times.

Here are some suggestions.  Not a lot, but more than nothing:

(1) Activism directed not against Israel, but against American Jews, specifically those like Dershowitz and Ackman who seek to deprive non-Jewish Americans of their free speech.  Instead of a million-man march on Park Avenue or in London, have a million-man march around their homes, perhaps on a “flash mob” basis.

(2) Activism at their places of business.  Have a million-man swarm around 125 Broad Street (Sullivan & Cromwell) and 450 Lexington Avenue (Davis Polk).  And the offices of all the other Firms.

(3) Activism at the homes and vacation homes of the controlling partners of these firms.  Have million man “flash mobs” outside the homes of H. Rodgin Cohen and Joseph Shenker, the two most powerful partners at Sullivan & Cromwell these days, both Jews, and undoubtedly part of the S&C group behind S&C’s signing of the group “fuck you” letter to American law schools.

(4) Similar activism at the homes of the members of the executive or management committees at each of the other firms on the list as well (don’t want to be discriminatory here), whether such members are Jews or just pathetic Shabbos goyim.

(5) Similar activism — flash marches — at the elite private schools attended by any children or grandchildren of these “big shot” lawyers.  Since what is good for the goose is good for the gander, make sure the signs at these demonstrations — like the ones at Harvard — contain the photographs and names of each of those children, perhaps coupled with “Shame!” or “grandson of bloody murderers” or some such.

(6) Petitions to state pension funds to demand they cease yielding over billions of investment capital to any hedge fund manager involved in these anti-free speech campaigns.  None of the “hedgies” would have more than the net worth of a New Jersey dentist if not for the “carry” on massive amount of state pension fund money.

(7) Ditto (6) for all college endowments and private pension plans.

(8) Until when and if “Freedom to Work” and “Freedom to Live” acts are passed into law by Congress, similar demonstrations at the offices and homes of the members of the labor committees and communications committees of the U.S. Senate and House.

In a word, since we cannot appear to control these thugs through proper legislation by the Congress, make the lives of the thugs carrying out this campaign a living hell unitl something — anything — breaks.

1/  In many of those law firms, Jewish partners displaced the old WASP partners in the late 1970’s to 80’s, a development that seemed anodyne at the time but with ominous consequences that are now becoming fully visible.  Moreover, the important clients of these firms became more Jewish.  As late as 1985, half of all M&A transactions were processed through traditionalist WASP Morgan Stanley & Co, Incorporated, the most elite investment bank in the U.S. with very few Jewish partners.  Morgan Stanley and its sister commercial bank, J.P. Morgan, were the two principal clients of Davis Polk in those years.  In addition, there were a number of other WASP investment banks — though with some Jewish partners — with very high prestige:  First Boston, Kidder Peabody, Paine Webber, etc.  Those non-Jewish investment banks — together with the Jewish Goldman Sachs — plus firmly “all American” firms like Exxon, were the principal clients of Sullivan Cromwell.  Cravath, generally more on the issuer side than the investment banking side, had principal clients such as non-Jewish IBM, General Electric, and such like.   No more.  Morgan is still a big player but for many years was overshadowed by the much more famous Goldman Sachs, and the other WASP firms have all vanished in bankruptcies or sell-outs.  So not only are the most powerful partners of these law firms principally Jewish, their clients are too.  For instance, one of the signatories, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett arguably has become slightly less Jewish-dominated than it was in the mid 1980’s, being headed by non-Jewish Richard Beattie and a number of non-Jewish administrative partners.  However, Beattie’s principal clients are Jewish-owned KKR and Blackstone.  In addition, many of the most prominent clients today are small, but incredibly lucrative hedge funds, probably more than half of which are run by their original founding entrepreneurial Jews, such as Apollo (Leon Black of Drexel fame), KKR (mentioned above), Blackstone (Steve Schwarzman), and a host of others, last but not least including Pershing Capital, owned and run by infamous Bill Ackman.