Featured Articles

Media Watch Elie Mystal’s Lament: Politically Incorrect Comments on Above the Law

The legal gossip blog Above the Law is a juicy read for bored big-firm associates wanting to know who’s hiring, who’s firing, and whose bitter goodbye e-mail is now circulating the Internet. It’s also got enough interesting stuff for everyone else, like interviews with Sandra Day O’Connor or the “Lawyer of the Day” feature, for attorneys who’ve made complete fools of themselves.

Founder David Lat is a bright Asian from tony New Jersey suburbs who’s worked for Jewish power firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and as a federal prosecutor. He went to Yale Law School and flirted with the Federalist Society, the legal group deemed “conservative” by the MSM but that in reality functions mostly as a vehicle for Jewish interests like support for Israel. He’s now established himself as a legal pundit of sorts.

The word at Above the Law is “snark.” If the firm isn’t Cravath and the school isn’t Yale, it’s what they call a “TTT”, or “third-tier toilet.” Some of the site’s devotees take crass and cynical to whole new levels.

In August of 2008, Lat turned over the editor reigns of Above the Law to a Black Harvard Law grad named Elie Mystal, which as near as I can tell is not a pseudonym. It’s pronounced “Eh-lee Mis-tahl”, and despite the feminine sound, “Elie” is a male. (His father has the same name, and in a funny sidenote, got in trouble with the Southern Poverty Law Center for anti-immigrant comments made in his capacity as a Long Island politician.)

I don’t have much to say about Mystal’s skills as a writer or blogger, though he’s frequently hit for a lack thereof by Above the Law commenters. It’s a safe bet that affirmative action has played a role in his life. And I do note that in his position of power, he likes to take Black (or other minority) advocacy positions.

For a good recent example, see here. .

And here’s where I’d normally reveal the complaint for the nonsense it is. But if you scroll down through the comments, you’ll notice that the commenters have already taken care of that.

Here’s one:

When Jews discovered that their full potential wasn’t recognized and used, they formed their own law firms and completely outclassed their WASP competitors. If the black lawyers really are equally competent and really are discriminated against, why is there not a single black law firm in the V100?

(Though I wouldn’t say Jewish firms “outclassed” gentile ones — outmuscled is more like it. The Jewish takeover of American law is a great topic for another day.)

And another:

Sorry, we have a black president now. The hand-out generation needs to find a new excuse for failing to perform. Think Barack Obama sat around feeling sorry for himself that white men had been voted into office 43 out of 43 times before him?


Why would I want to build a “professional relationship” with someone who comes from a culture that is increasingly obsessed with branding me a racist by any means necessary? It’s not worth the risk, e.g., that making a positive comment about the watermelon served as part of a lunch meeting won’t get me written up. Race relations have turned into such a PC minefield that I’d rather just stay out of it altogether.

Others simply say that Blacks don’t work as hard.

Now, any number of the 283 posts to this topic are made in jest, and a few support Mystal’s complaint. But most do not. They generally support the position that Blacks at big firms got there through affirmative action, with all the expected results.

In other words, Mystal’s complaint doesn’t go unanswered. And though most Above the Law readers and commenters would eschew or mock White advocacy as “racism”, I sense real dissent bubbling up through the ranks.

Mystal, naturally, dismisses the “racists” as a cranky minority given to blog vandalism.

But the pro-White comments on Above the Law are part of a larger trend. I’ve simply seen too much of a variety and placement of pro-White comments to dismiss the entire phenomenon as a lone Stormfronter with too much time on his hands. Pro-White comments, from subtle to over-the-top, appear everywhere on the Internet these days. Previously, I’ve noted that the New York Times was so alarmed by this that it announced it would be censoring such comments.

The problem with censorship is that commenters are immediately stunned into a recognition that their reasoned dissent is actually deemed “illegal” by the powers that be. That in turn sets off a chain reaction of anger and inquiry: the position is burnished, and now the censorship target is motivated to find out who wants him censored, and why. It also has the effect of simply turning away readers.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Alternatively, the comments go up — and White advocacy is strengthened.

All of which adds up to a big problem for opponents of Whites.

The death of the MSM and rise of the Internet is, on balance, good for Whites. The tightly-controlled (traditionally, by Jews) MSM organs are dying, and even arguably anti-White blogs like Above the Law can’t lock out all pro-White comments.

And if young White lawyers start heading in a pro-White direction, by the way, this could mean big problems for the system. By positioning, they are expected to be on the enemy side: They’ve been trained in law “schul,” as a friend likes to say, and see their elders hold up “civil rights” and Atticus Finch (while they, meanwhile, grew up with O.J.). Today, they’re being laid off by the hundreds and see affirmative action ridiculousness up close, so they wouldn’t seem to have as much to lose.

Say what you will about lawyers, but they are articulate, and they are good at making trouble. Now that the system needing dismantling is essentially anti-White, this could come in handy.

Christopher Donovan (email him) is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Why I Write

I have been reading, with great interest, the articles recently popping up on TOQonline that answer the question, “Why We Write?”  I tend to concur with the assessment that the “most interesting thing about the writers of TOQ isn’t why we write, but why we came to write from the perspective that we have.”

Here I offer my own perspective on why I write (or, rather, why I have been prompted to write and why I wish to continue doing so).  It is my hope that you, the reader, will find my perspective not only interesting, but perhaps of some value also.

The first reason that I write is for the well-being of my children, and, by extension, for the future well-being of their children.  This “well-being,” or “flourishing,” can only occur within a culture created to nourish, support, and protect Whites.

The culture that we presently have is not a good environment for the cultivating of children of European descent.  Indeed, it is poisonous to them.  Our present “culture of critique” has done much to wither the roots of White families.  Not only can they not thrive in its soil, they cannot even grow in it.

Several years ago there was an arresting and informative article entitled, “Invasive Plant Secretes Acid To Kill Nearby Plants And Spread.”

The invasive strain of Phragmites australis, or common reed, believed to have originated in Eurasia, exudes from its roots an acid so toxic that the substance literally disintegrates the structural protein in the roots of neighboring plants, thus toppling the competition.

Phragmites is taking over the marsh world,” said UP plant biologist Harsh Bais. “It’s a horticultural disaster.”

Bais is an expert on allelopathy, in which one plant produces a chemical to inhibit the growth of another plant. He refers to these plants with the capability to wage chemical warfare as “natural killers.”

Walnut trees, pine trees, ferns and sunflowers are among the plants that release harmful chemicals to prevent other plants from growing too close to them.

However, Phragmites uses this strategy not so much to keep other plants away, but to aggressively conquer them and invade new territory.

The toxin works, Bais said, by targeting tubulin, the structural protein that helps plant roots to maintain their cellular integrity and grow straight in the soil. Within 10 minutes of exposure to the toxin in the lab, the tubulin of a marsh plant under siege starts to disintegrate. Within 20 minutes, the structural material is completely gone.

“When the roots collapse from the acid, the plant loses its integrity and dies,” Bais noted. “It’s like having a building with no foundation‑‑it’s on its way to self‑destruction.”

Indeed, “it’s like having a building with no foundation.”  The foundation to our building, or, if you will, the roots that support the flourishing of White families have been intentionally dissolved; they have been poisoned by the noxious ideas endlessly streaming forth from the mouths and pens of those who have created the culture of critique, with the inevitable result that the plant above can no longer be supported by the roots below.  Thus, our plant withers and dies, and its place and resources are taken over by the invasive species that killed it.

It goes without saying, of course, that the acid that Phragmites exudes does not destroy its own roots. That the culture of critique has destroyed White roots, however, is indisputable.

One root of that culture is Christianity.  For all the real and perceived faults of this religion, one thing that can be said about its moral teachings is that they will strengthen any group that will adhere to them.

Why?  Because races are based on families, and the more children that a family has, and the stronger and healthier those families are, the stronger and healthier the race will be.  I believe that Christianity fulfills these functions admirably.

Religious Christians are the only Whites who are reproducing at above-replacement levels. As Philip Longman notes, “In the United States … fully 47% of people who attend church weekly say that the ideal family size is three or more children, as opposed to only 27% of those who seldom attend church.” Indeed, in general, Muslims, Christians, and Jews who are more religiously fundamentalist have more children: Faith equals fertility.

As always, the future belongs to the fertile.  The problem for Whites is that formerly White societies have been invaded by other races and ethnic groups. White fertility then becomes a critical issue — far more important than if Western societies had remained overwhelmingly White. Quite simply, we are being displaced, and low fertility is a major part of the problem.

The Duggar Family of Tontitown, Arkansas. They are conservative Baptists. From their website: ” Lo children are a heritage of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is his reward.” (Psalm 127)

Christianity encourages familial responsibility:But if someone does not provide for his own, especially his own family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Tim. 5:8).  Powerful words, these.

It encourages respect for the husband, and love for the wife (Eph. 5:22-28). Children are to be obedient to their parents (Eph. 6:1) and parents are forbidden to provoke their children to anger (Eph. 6:2).  Sexual promiscuity and perversion are condemned.  Divorce, except for very specific reasons, is condemned.  So is addiction (how many White families, even intelligent ones, have been ruined by divorce, or drug addiction?  The entire “Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll” culture is antithetical to Christianity, and, by the way, to strong White families as well). Work is praised (“If you do not work, you do not eat,”), 2Th. 3:10.

Is there anything in the above that a White person, keen on the survival of his own race, would find objectionable?  Racial strength begins at the family level.  This is, in my opinion, the ground of battle.  If you lose here, you lose at the racial level.  All the books, articles, and pamphlets that you write will be useless.  In order for our race to survive, and flourish, White families need to survive, and flourish.  In Christianity, you have a ready built engine to power the race forward, but this engine has been sabotaged by those who invented the acidic culture that we now have, that is, the “culture of critique.”

This is why many Jews, who ought to praise Christians for their shared morality, instead ruthlessly attack them for it (e.g., feminism; porn; Psychoanalysis; art; music; education; media; anti-authoritarianism; economics; destruction of moral norms; post-modernism; diversity; tolerance; etc.).  Jews rightly perceive this morality to be a threat to their dominance. (They likewise are threatened by Christianity’s theology, but more on that in a different article.)

I also write because I think that my particular White culture (Protestant, Scots-Irish/English) is worthy to be protected.

I have an old picture (circa 1920’s) of my grandpa, who was a Texan, standing on a dusty, Texas road.  He is wearing leather chaps, a cowboy hat, cowboy boots, etc.  He is standing ram-rod straight and sitting on his left shoulder is a pretty woman, smiling.  In his mouth is a pipe, which he is smoking.  He is a handsome man, and there is an admirable air of manliness and confidence emanating from him.

His grandpa had fought for Texas during the Civil War, and had been wounded twice, once with a gunshot and the other with the slash of a sword.

In the 1930’s my grandpa came out to California with his family.  During the depression he boxed to make money, winning every fight that he entered (22), including his last fight in which he broke his hand.

When I was growing up my father had the Declaration of Independence prominently displayed on an antique desk located in our dining room.  Upon this desk was also situated a balance, which signified Fairness and Justice, two things that are wholly ignored nowadays when talking about the interests of Whites.

[adrotate group=”1″]

I grew up thriving on the stories of the frontiersmen; mountain-men; cowboys; the heroes of the War of Independence; Andrew Jackson; and the heroes of the Confederacy.  I always knew that these folks were, if only distantly, my kin.

No one ever talked about hating the North, but I always knew who I was, and where I came from, and that we were, quintessentially (at least from our point of view), American.

I write to preserve pride in the White race and to be honest about our achievements, which are many.  I write to preserve my history, and the history of all those admirable men who fought and died for freedom, whether by the pen, or by the sword.

I write because I am a man.  I am not a slave.  I am not going to bow, God willingly, and lie and say that the naked emperor’s clothes are beautiful.

I write because I believe in Truth (yes, “Truth” with a capital “T”).  Races exist. Diversity does not work.  Some races are more intelligent than others.  Some races are more organized than others.  Some races are more violent than others.  Some races are more creative than others.  Jews have been the necessary but not the sufficient cause of our demise.  The sooner that we recognize these truths, the sooner things will get better for Whites.

I do believe in the Gospel, but the Gospel is not going to increase your IQ a standard deviation.  “The poor you will always have with you.”  IQs have consequences!

I write because I want to maintain the way of life that Christian Europeans created in America.  I grew up in a small, overwhelmingly White town in the West. Everybody had a basic understanding of the rules.  There was a great deal of trust within our society.  Most people were not pathological, or violent.  Most Whites wanted to own a home, settle down, and have a family.

Additionally, we did not have to continually bend over backwards to prove that we were not racists, and then bend over forwards to be screwed by the Minorities’ double-standards.

There was not the constant friction of an aggrieved group trying to get something from us by playing off our guilt.  The atmosphere was not permeated with the bitter acrimony that professional grievance massagers, like the Jews, generate wherever they go.

Some of my fondest memories come from Christmas, and from Christmas music.  I remember going caroling on cold, wintery nights with my Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal friends.  Truly, everyone was of good cheer. No one turned us from their doors.  No neighborhood was “off-limits.”  No Jew gave us a nasty look and then showed us her Holocaust tattoo, reminding us that “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” led to the deaths of six million Jews.  Frankly, is there anything as heart-warming as “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen,” or as moving as “Silent Night” (especially the German version)?

I write because I love Western Civilization.  I love my kind.  I love what Whites have created.  I love their literature–everything from Homer to Sir Walter Scott.  I love their art; their music; their architecture; their engineering prowess; their genetically driven sense of awe, wonder, and curiosity.  I love their science; their energy; their yearning for political freedom; their dependence on logic; their warrior spirit; their sense of honor; their sense of beauty; their sense of justice.

Does anyone honestly believe that these virtues will continue in the forms that Whites have created/molded them when Whites are out of the picture?

Does anyone seriously doubt that Whites (especially White Christians) will not be severely persecuted when they become a minority?  Is it not highly likely that this persecution will be directed by those self-righteous haters, the Jews?  Have not Jews already demonstrated what they are capable of once they have gained power over a hated Christian majority (e.g., Russia, the Ukraine)?

In summary, I write in the hope that in some small way I can provide a defense against the toxins that are killing our roots.  I write for the love of family.  I write for the love of God.  I write for the love of my culture.  I write for the love of my way of life.  I write in the aspiration that some day there can be White towns again filled with White people who trust each other, who work for the common good, who practice their religion freely, and who create societies where the cultivation of their children is of the utmost importance.  In other words, I write for us.

Jack Spence (email him) is a family man, Westerner (with Southern sympathies!), and Protestant.

The Roman Polanski Case: Once Again, It’s Hollywood vs. America

Over 30 years ago, director Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. The details aren’t pretty. According to the girl’s Grand Jury Testimony, Polanski plied her with enough alcohol and Quaaludes to make her dizzy and disoriented. He then had oral copulation with her, followed by sexual intercourse, and ending with sodomy because he did not want to get her pregnant. In her testimony, the girl made it clear that she went along with Polanski’s advances because of fear.

The girl declined to testify at trial, so Polanski was able to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor even though the Grand Jury charged him with rape of a minor, sodomy, rape by use of a drug, and other crimes. He served 42 days in a psychiatric observation facility before fleeing to France. Since 1997, the victim has urged that the charges be dropped, butapparently did so only after receiving a substantial financial settlement.

Polanski’s life as a fugitive has not exactly been a vale of tears. He has directed a number of movies, some with major Hollywood stars. His 2002 Holocaust movie, The Pianist, was widely acclaimed, winning an Oscar for Best Director, among other awards.

New York Daily News caption: “Film director Roman Polanski has lived a comfortable life while on the lam, including a swanky home in France with his wife, actress Emmanuelle Seigner.”

Of course, we shouldn’t make too much of the fact that The Pianist received quite a few awards, since making movies about the Holocaust is well-known as the key to Oscar success. On the other hand, making movies like the Passion of Christ brings nothing but opprobrium and charges of anti-Semitism. Why this should be so is one of the great mysteries of life.

Be that as it may, Hollywood is not like the rest of us, and the fault lines are apparent in reaction to Polanski’s recent jailing in Switzerland while awaiting extradition proceedings. An L. A. Times article discusses the gap between the attitudes toward Polanski among Hollywood’s elite and the rest of the country:

From Michael Moore’s politics to on-screen sex and violence, the movie business is constantly being assailed for not sharing the country’s values. Rarely has the morality argument been as rancorous as with the Roman Polanski case.

Hollywood is rallying behind the fugitive filmmaker. Top filmmakers are signing a pro-Polanski petition, Whoopi Goldberg says the director didn’t really commit rape, and Debra Winger complains “the whole art world suffers” in such arrests.

The rest of the nation seems to hold a dramatically different perspective on Polanski’s weekend capture. Even if decades have passed since he fled Los Angeles before his 1978 sentencing, Polanski must be extradited and serve his time, the thinking goes. There’s no excuse for forcing sex on a 13-year-old girl. People who defend him have no principles.

In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski — and the industry’s support of the 76-year-old “Pianist” Oscar winner.

The article goes on to suggest that Hollywood’s refusal to condemn Polanski is simply a matter of protecting their own. As evidence, the article notes that even when Mel Gibson  spewed his anti-Jewish rant after being arrested for speeding and drunk driving by a Jewish police officer, no one in Hollywood seemed to care.

Actually, there was quite a bit of negative reaction to Gibson’s comments by the powerful in the movie industry, most notably from Rahm Emmanual’s brother Ari.  While over 100 of the most prominent Hollywood celebrities have signed a letter supporting Polanski, I am not aware of even one Hollywood celebrity who went to bat for Gibson over his anti-Jewish comments.

Moreover, the people who matter in Hollywood (not to mention the ADL and a whole slew of Jewish op-ed writers) were up in arms about Gibson’s Passion. Michael Medved has documented Hollywood’s very negative attitudes toward Christianity (and the traditional family, traditional sexual mores, and patriotism [apart from Israeli patriotism; see below]).

There certainly are norms that  limit what Hollywood celebrities can and can’t do to remain within the good graces of the community. Endorsing  California’s  2008 ballot Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage was definitely a bad career move in Hollywood. Opposing same-sex marriage is a career-ender in Hollywood, while supporting a child rapist is a great way to get ahead.

In fact, it is glaringly obvious that Hollywood’s attitudes reflect its Jewish sensibilities. A recent example is the reaction to attempts to boycott an Israeli film at the Toronto International Film Festival. The protestors described Israel as an “apartheid regime” and dismissed the work of the filmmakers as “Israeli propaganda.” A long list of the Hollywood best and brightest signed a petition in opposition to the protest — “a who’s who of Hollywood’s elite with a cast that runs from the executive suites to the sound stages and cuts across generations.” Evena Jewish writer in the L.A. Times couldn’t help but notice the ethnic angle in this rally-around-Israel response:

In today’s Hollywood, signs of Jewish ethnic pride are everywhere. Judd Apatow’s recent “Funny People” was populated with a host of openly Jewish comic characters, as is the new Coen brothers film, “A Serious Man,” a drama … that is, in part, about a troubled Jewish man who looks to his rabbi for guidance. And, of course, one of the biggest hit films of the summer was Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” which features as its heroes a scrum of tough-talking, baseball-bat wielding, Nazi-scalp-taking World War II-era Jewish soldiers.

So when trying to come up with a theory for why Hollywood would stand alone in supporting Polanski, a good bet is to suggest that Hollywood’s stance reflects its Jewish identity.

A clue to understanding Hollywood’s views on Polanski comes from a well-known sociological study comparing the attitudes of the Hollywood elite to the attitudes held by the general public and  by traditional (non-Jewish) elites of pre-1960s White America (i.e., leaders in politics, business, and the military, as well as Protestant and Catholic religious figures). The largest difference between Hollywood and the other groups was on “expressive individualism.” Expressive individualism taps ideas of sexual liberation (including approval of homosexuality and same-sex marriage), moral relativism, and a disdain for (Christian) religious institutions. The movie elite is also more tolerant of unusual or deviant lifestyles and of minority religions and ethnic groups.

In short, the attitudes of Hollywood reflect the left/liberal cultural attitudes of the wider Jewish community — attitudes that are hostile to the traditional people and culture of America and the West. Whatever else one might say about him, Polanski is Exhibit A for the category of unusual or deviant lifestyle. Polanski’s behavior is exactly the sort of thing that Hollywood would see not as moral turpitude, but as reflecting a cutting-edge, unconventional lifestyle choice of a creative, talented person.

As I elaborated elsewhere, the Jewish intellectual movements that came to dominance in the US after WWII abandoned their Marxist roots in favor of promoting radical individualism among non-Jews. They did this not because of their allegiance to the ideals of the Enlightenment, but as a useful tool for ending anti-Semitism and preventing mass movements of the right.

[adrotate group=”1″]

One aspect of radical individualism was lack of racial identity for Whites. For the Frankfurt School, the ideal non-Jew was someone who was completely detached from all ingroups, including his race, his Christian religious affiliation, and even his family.

Indeed, a White person with a sense of ethnic pride was analyzed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder — a diagnosis that was not applied to any other race or ethnic group. Polanski can thus exemplify expressive individualism while at the same time demonstrating his Jewish identity by making a Holocaust movie.  For non-Jews, expressive individualism means not identifying with your race or ethnic group.

Another aspect of radical individualism is disinhibited sexuality. Psychoanalysis was especially important as an intellectual tool to undermine the traditional American sexual mores deeply embedded in the Christian religious tradition of American culture.

The deviant, perverted sexuality of Polanski fits well with expressive individualism, although it is doubtless a rather extreme version. On the other hand, the responsibilities of monogamous marriage, family, and parenting do not fit this cultural profile. Nevertheless, expressive individualism is a cultural pattern that has influenced a sizeable portion of the White population. It may not have been disastrous if America had remained 90% White. But with mass immigration of millions of non-Whites, many with high fertility, it is certainly speeding up the decline of White America. The centrality and legitimacy of expressive individualism in the contemporary culture of the West are an important components of the culture of Western suicide.

Expressive individualists basically want to express themselves with their own carefully cultivated, unique personal qualities. They advocate minimal controls on individual behavior, especially on sexuality. Expressive individualists prize creativity and the unconventional — a central aspect of the 1960s counterculture. At a relatively tame level, they want consumer goods that reflect their taste and individuality: They express their personality with their choices in cars, clothes, and music — Stuff White People Like, such as Vespa motorcycles, non-White cultural icons, and expensive camping equipment. (My take.)

A tendency toward expressive individualism is part of the individualist strain in traditional American culture. But it was a marginal phenomenon — confined to areas like Greenwich Village and the art world.  When I was growing up, expressive individualism was certainly not part of the culture of the schools and churches in small-town Anglo-German Midwestern America.

Expressive individualism became an integral part of the counterculture of the 1960s — especially the hippie component of the 1960s counterculture. At that point, as Eric P. Kaufmann points out, it became ingrained in American mass culture, spreading from the intellectuals to the better-educated people in the mass media, the universities and the government. My view is that this movement of expressive individualism to the center of American culture was brought about by the Jewish intellectual movements that I describe in Culture of Critique—particularly psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School (and their allies among the New York Intellectuals and their propagandists in the organized Jewish community and the media). At their core, these movements are hostile to the traditional Christian culture of America, its sexual mores, its ethnic pride, and even the idea that White people have a right or a legitimate interest in maintaining its status as a political majority. These movements rationalized and promoted this strand of individualist American culture at the highest level of intellectual discourse.

And because Hollywood fundamentally reflects Jewish attitudes on culture, it is not at all surprising that it would defend someone like Polanski whose behavior can only be described as reflecting the exact opposite of the traditional culture of America.

Another telling example that reflects the Jewish promotion of expressive individualism among non-Jews can be seen in Dr. Lasha Darkmoon’s recent TOO articles on Jewish influence in the art world. She notes the predominance of wealthy Jews among art collectors, critics, and gallery owners. While retaining their own ethnic identity, they promote exactly the type of non-Jew prized by the Frankfurt School authors of The Authoritarian Personality: An expressive individualist with no allegiance to his race, his family, the Christian religion, or the traditional culture of the West.

The result is that an extreme expressive individualist, such as British artist Damien Hirst, can earn hundreds of millions of dollars by constructing works of art such as a glass case with maggots and flies feeding on a rotting cow’s head. Or a shark suspended in formaldehyde. A recent show by Hirst sold for almost $200 million.

Hirst is entirely the creation of wealthy Jewish art collector Charles Saatchi who was deeply impressed by Hirst’s maggot-infested cow’s head and lavishly promoted him for the next ten years. Hirst has behaved as the prototypical expressive individualist, including drug and alcohol abuse, and violent and outrageous personal behavior:

Hirst has admitted serious drug and alcohol problems during a ten year period from the early 1990s [at a time when he was being promoted by Saatchi]: “I started taking cocaine and drink … I turned into a babbling fucking wreck.” During this time he was renowned for his wild behavior, and extrovert acts [we psychologists call it disinhibited psychopathy], including, for example, putting a cigarette in the end of his penis in front of journalists. He was an habitué of the high profile Groucho Club in Soho, London, and was banned on occasion for his behavior.

Charles Saatchi’s Creation, Damien Hirst: Promote the Worst Gentiles

An artist wrote the following email to Dr. Darkmoon:

It was with great interest that I read your insightful and well-researched article regarding the art world. I have long been aware of the Jewish role that brought us to this lamentable state. I am a painter and photographer working in a neo-classical style and couldn’t even get arrested at a gallery in the major art markets. I take encouragement however from the fact that there are other wonderful painters carrying on the great tradition and when the dust of postmodernism settles they will be properly recognized.

Such recognition will only come with a complete change at the highest levels of culture production. It is encouraging that the great majority of Americans  find Polanski’s behavior repulsive and believe that he should suffer a legal penalty. Similar attitudes are held by an overwhelming majority in France where we see the same gap between the cultural elite and the the rest of the people.

Nevertheless, despite the healthy instincts of most White people, it is quite clear that the heights of culture production in Europe and America are controlled by people who absolutely reject anything resembling the traditional culture of the West. And that is a disaster for our people.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Book Review: Might Is Right or the Survival of the Fittest, by Ragnar Redbeard

Originally published in 1886; 2005 edition edited by Darrell W. Conder; available from Occidental Press.

Reviewed by Anthony Hilton

September 29, 2009

Note: In biology, “adaptive” means (very precisely) promoting the survival and reproduction of an organism’s genes. “Natural selection” is the logical and empirical process whereby forces of nature affect the survival and reproduction of some genes over others. The terms, “natural selection” and “selection pressures” (particular causes of selection) help one think clearly.

Many of us remember getting the message about Social Darwinism during the Franz Boas-dominated second half of the 20th Century. According to Boasians, the behavior of humans is remarkably exempt from biological forces and is instead governed mainly by social constructs. Thus humans can achieve utopian peacefulness and universal altruism by developing the appropriate cultural mores. In contrast, Social Darwinism was the idea that nature was “red in tooth and claw,” so that we might as well go along with it, along with all the other animals, and be as ruthless as we like: kill, kill, kill!! Ruthlessness would be a natural, thoroughly acceptable lifestyle since it is part of what we inherit rather than learn, and it would be unnatural to keep trying to override such built-in tendencies. If we inherited them, they must be adaptive and therefore good.

But the social learning advocates explained to us that just because, say, a tornado, was natural didn’t mean we had to like it. That would be the flawed logic of confounding the empirical with the moral — confusing “what is” with “what should be.” It was also pointed out that much of Darwinian evolution occurs not through bloody battles but via such non-violent processes as mutations for, say, better digestion of milk in adulthood and better immune systems. No “red in tooth and claw” there. “Survival of the fittest” was declared a tautology, meaning only that those organisms that ended up having the most surviving and reproducing offspring were, in modern biology’s jargon, the “fittest” — but only because “fittest” no longer meant that the “fittest” somehow deserved to survive, or might be expected to survive, but only that they in fact did survive.

The book under review, Might Is Right…, (MIR), would certainly be considered by many to be the reductio ad absurdum of 19th-century Social Darwinism. “Ragnar Redbeard” (RR) was evidently greatly enamored of Darwin’s theory of natural selection including sexual selection (in which choice of mate by both males and females influences which genes are propagated) despite the fact that he, like Darwin, could not have known about  genes or modern molecular biology. Nevertheless he manifested an intuitive understanding of one important modern term, “inclusive fitness”: “A man’s family is … part of himself. Therefore his natural business is to defend it, as he would his own life” (p. 49).

“Ragnar Redbeard” was a pen name, but whoever he was, he was an extremely well-informed, erudite person, albeit with a rather florid literary style which might be off-putting for some readers. I came to find both style and content quite amusing. In fact, it occurred to me more than once that I was reading a satire, one suitably embellished by esoteric Biblical references and Victorian phraseology: a worthy companion to Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken.

On the other hand, suppose MIR was not a satire. Then why would anyone in the 21st century look twice at such a book? One reason would be the emergence today of a rethinking of conventional wisdoms: in economics (OK, communism is out, but aren’t there big problems with unregulated market economies, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and fractional reserve banking?), in politics (what happened to the Republican Party and “true conservatives”?), human nature (we don’t all have the same IQ?), or race relations (diversity is not a utopia?). Much of this rethinking is taking place on the internet, of course.

Some have even concluded late in their lives that they’ve been the butt of a big ideological con game.  They eventually realize that humans, either individually or in groups, cannot possibly be at all “equal” except in the restricted sense of each person theoretically having one vote (“one idiot, one vote”). And is “democracy” really all that sacred? Instead of living under a dictatorship of one man, we have a dictatorship of a majority manipulated by Hollywood, the mainstream media, and obscure elites. But many of us have given up on utopias and now simply want to obtain or defend a half-decent way of life which we are awake enough now to see is severely threatened if not already lost — given the ubiquity of muggings, rapes, and car-jackings in US cities, the Wall Street shakedowns, the dumbing down of schools. So, having had so many of our assumptions about what is “right” or “good” turned up-side-down, maybe we should re-examine “Social Darwinism” too.

So consider several issues raised in MIR.

Much of MIR focuses, albeit a bit repetitively, on what RR perceives as an unending history of horrible treatment meted out by humans on their enemies and the logical and empirical imperative of relying on “might” in the normal course of human affairs. He probably commits one empirical excess in an especially misanthropic diatribe in Chapter IV: While stating that the story of Jews stealing and murdering Christian infants in order to use their blood for Passover rituals is a myth, he accepts as fact an exceedingly high estimate of the frequency of human cannibalism — perhaps understandably given the dearth of reliable anthropological evidence 100 years ago.

Now, the anti-Social Darwinists complain that evolution and natural selection are not always so horribly bloody. Quite right. However, that does not mean that violence is never adaptive. Consider Genghis Khan whose Y chromosome has been found by geneticists to be so widespread across Asia due to the fact that the leaders of the Mongol armies controlled the women in the areas they conquered.  

Actually, RR may be advocating “power” more than bloody battles, thus helpfully broadening the concept of might. No one has to tell us that power is extremely important to human lives, but again, we should pay attention. This issue is at the heart of a recent debate between Eric P. Kaufman and Kevin MacDonald concerning the precipitous decline of the West and of WAS(P) and Northern European dominance of the United States.

RR is quite successful in demonstrating the ubiquity of power relations, and then is surprisingly convincing in his argument that striving for power is not only an essential and inevitable feature of life but is highly desirable as a course of action for any man wanting to make a success of his life (RR seems to be addressing primarily males.)

About equality: one of RR’s main messages is that there is no such thing, in any practical sense, and never will be; the idea of “equal rights” is nonsensical. Instead, people vary in their abilities and other characteristics all over the lot. People have always been and always will be in a state of competition; so that the only thing to do, really, is to strive to compete as well as one can and forget about ever being treated equally. The only way to be treated as one would like is to have the power to enforce such treatment.

An obvious implication for Whites in the West is that anyone happily waiting for other races and ethnies to treat us “equally” or even well, once they take over (very soon) as majorities in the US and Europe, is an illusion. With the votes they will simply run our countries as they see fit and to hell with us.

STOP!! Devout Christians will find the next paragraphs offensive! Read at your own risk!

RR provides an extraordinarily articulate, and to me hilarious, critique of Jesus Christ and Christianity.  Might-makes-right being his number one rule, he has nothing but contempt for Christ’s Sermon on the Mount and celebration of the weak, the poor, the miserable. RR values the courageous, the powerful, the ruthless. Why in the world would any sane person value, desire, or want to emulate what Christ recommended?

[adrotate group=”1″]

[W]e must either abandon our reason or abandon Christ…All that is enervating and destructive of manhood, he glorifies — all that is self-reliant and heroic, he denounces.… He  praises “the humble” and he curses the proud. He blesses the failures and damns the successful. All that is noble he perverts — all that is atrocious he upholds. He inverts all the natural instincts of mankind and urges us to live artificial lives… he advises his admirers to submit in quietness to every insult, contumely [outrage], indignity; to be slaves, de-facto. … this preacher of all eunuch-virtues — of self-abasement, of passive suffering. (p. 7)

[adrotate group=”1″]

Anyone who wonders if Christianity is fundamentally a malevolent Jewish stratagem for emasculating goyim will find this treatise exhilarating. Everything within the Christian church seems designed simply to fleece the flock:

The bliss of a sheep! How superlatively delightful? How divinely glorious? And a Jew as the Good Shepard, who leadeth his lambs ‘to green pastures, and quiet resting places, the pleasant waters by.’ … For two thousand years or so, his fleecy flocks have been fattening themselves up with commendable diligence — for the shearing-shed and the butchers-block.” (p. 14)

With RR, not even the “golden rule” goes unscathed — on the grounds that it makes no sense to follow it given that no one else does. Shades of the alternative “Golden Rule”: “He who has the gold, makes the rules.”

The theme extends to practical politics where “deceitful Ideals are cunningly woven by dexterous political spiders, to capture and exploit swarms of human flies” (p. 18). He follows with a searing analysis of America’s “Declaration of Independence” which he says begins with “an unctuous falsehood, a black, degrading, self-evident lie — a lie which no one could possibly believe but a born fool. With insolent effrontery it brazenly proclaims as ‘a self-evident truth’ that ‘all men are created equal’ and that they are ‘endowed by their Creator’ with certain inalienable rights’” (p. 19).  The subsequent… “democracy” as practiced by Americans is viewed as an elaborate con game, a view that should strike a chord after the recent bank bailouts and the Iraq war.

We must then ask ourselves: Is the extreme altruism advocated by Christianity at all responsible for the West “giving away the farm”? Think about Teddy Kennedy and his Jewish associates who opened up America to immigration from the whole world.

RR’s attack on Christianity and “equality” of course begs the question of alternatives. As a friend recently remarked,

While many people (in our movement and without) sneer at what they see as an emotional crutch for weaklings, the fact remains that the birthrate is closely correlated with a hopeful, optimistic view of life. No society has ever been able to function without a religion. And it is most unlikely that anyone will be able to create a religionless society in the future.

If that is true, and this writer agrees, a major contribution to the survival of our people, the indigenous people of the British Isles and Europe including those who migrated to the Western Hemisphere, would be to develop a religious alternative to Christianity. Such a religion would regard the survival of our people as its primary sacred goal and hopefully would be more consistent with scientific knowledge. It would establish communities of the like-minded of common ethny (as Jews have done). It would develop either new rituals or utilize those imagined as originating in pagan or Druidic times. Perhaps, as a friend suggests, some existing Christian communities, especially those whose main goal is “community,” could be gradually “retro-fitted” along these lines. Keep the harmless features of  Christianity, especially the European cultural details, but throw out or simply ignore everything that RR is making fun of.

What then do we now make of the main issue raised by MIR, the relationship between “what is and what ought”? RR seems to be saying that “what is” (e.g., human ruthlessness) determines directly “what ought.”

First, we should note that evolutionary biologists/psychologists have in recent years argued strongly that our values and morals do originate in aspects of human nature (what is) that evolved biologically. Actually, David Hume pretty much figured this out back in the 18th century. This would be the first “link” — between brain mechanisms (emotions, motives) that are adaptive and what a person feels is the right thing to do even if the feeling of right is logically distinguishable from what “really” is right.

That distinction is the basis for the “naturalistic fallacy” critique of Social Darwinism. Oliver Curry has well reviewed why this fallacy is, itself, a fallacy: The logical distinction between “is” and “ought” does not detract from the empirical relationship between what is adaptive and what a person normally values.

We must ask, then, if there is anything more important to us than our own survival and that of our close relatives. If there isn’t, then how could we do anything more ethical or morally correct than doing whatever is adaptive for us and ours? For us, whatever is adaptive should be morally correct, no?

But wait! Morally correct for whom? Isn’t there a flaw here in the anti-Social Darwinists’ reasoning? They have in mind a morality that not only applies to everyone on the planet but a morality of which the consequences are beneficial to all of humanity, not just ourselves and relatively close kin. Sounds like a corollary of Christianity! (Unless Jesus intended that his principles apply only to relations among fellow Jews.)

Such a moral principle necessarily stands outside of human evolution in the sense that, according to all the widely accepted theory in evolutionary biology, such a moral principle could not have evolved as an adaptive trait of individuals. A moral principle is certainly not a measurable physical force like gravity, permeating everything. It exists only within a person’s brain.

This does not mean that people could not act according to such principles. But it would mean that doing so would not automatically “feel good” in the same way that helping oneself or helping one’s family feels good. With enough propaganda, of course, nearly anything is possible. But that’s what it is: Propaganda.

This is probably what’s behind the controversy over government-run health care in the US: For most Whites, it doesn’t feel good to support a program where they would pay disproportionately for medical care for the hordes of non-Whites who now populate the country — even if they could be convinced it was good for the country as a whole.

A universal principle of doing what’s best for humanity also runs into problems because of individual differences:

1)    Sociopaths/psychopaths apparently lack normal moral feelings/values. They feel no guilt, so nothing like a universal moral imperative  to help humanity there.

2)    The fact that, say, the desire for revenge is found throughout the world as a human universal, would be consistent with it being adaptive. But individuals will still vary in the strength of that desire which is subject to the natural selection common to all biological variables.

Finally, a universal principle of doing what’s best for humanity fails to deal adequately with conflicts of interest. Individuals are often in competition because of different interests: Hunters feel morally justified in shooting a deer to eat. The deer, were he capable of such thought, would feel differently about being shot. No common morality there. Same logic within our species. What seems morally justified to the Hatfields will not be to the McCoys.

So there would not seem to be a universal moral code by which everyone would agree on the same ethical course of action in a particular circumstance. Bye, bye Christianity.

So RR may have been onto something in taking his strongly Social Darwinist position. His book’s heuristic value lies in the hard-nosed, un-blinking acknowledgement that life is tough; one had better get used to it, get prepared for it early in life, appreciate the warriors among us and never go “soft” (except, as RR says, around close family members and close friends!) If you cease being prepared, you’ll get run over by those who are tougher and more ruthless.

MIR is not advocating indiscriminate homicide, since the real focus of the game, evident by the end of the book, is simply “power”, which can be obtained in myriad ways. A further caution would be that what has been adaptive in the past may not be so in the future since relevant selection pressures may change. What is adaptive in one situation may not be so in another.

Long term, the unanticipated consequences may be the most important. Biologically, it might seem adaptive to simply slaughter your enemy. But as Daly and Wilson once suggested, whether one adheres to a policy of “an eye for an eye” or a “massacre” should depend on whether an attempted massacre of one’s enemy seems likely to be total. If they don’t all get killed, the survivors may have a long memory and your own survival and reproduction may suffer.

Here one might reflect on the Nazis’ “final solution” that ended well before completion: The surviving Jews have displayed great energy in obtaining reparations and hunting down escaped Nazis.  The “Empire Strikes Back” is the situation facing the British, as descendents of once conquered peoples have non-violently emigrated to the U.K.  Similarly, Mexicans are subjecting the American Southwest to a “reconquista” by presenting themselves as a useful labor force and congenial nannies.

There is a lesson in MIR, then, for anyone attempting to protect his family or his nation or a collection of allied nations, depending on which level one’s adversary is targeting.  For example, Whites in America and Europe today are generally under threat. The lesson would be to gain power, economic as well as territorial, establish enclaves wherever convenient but eventually, as the late Sam Francis declared, re-conquer the whole of one’s country. A few Christians may balk at this, but encourage them to be hypocrites.

A slogan recently seen on a T-shirt, “Fighting Solves Everything”, may be an oversimplification. But the attitude is a good one. Inculcate it in your children.

MIR is available for only $10.00 from the Occidental Press. Get it for your friends and relatives.

Anthony Hilton (email him) is Assoc. Prof. (retired) in the Psychology Department, Concordia University, Montreal.

Nietzsche on the Jews

Philosophers, as a rule, are a rather low-key bunch.  They generally discuss mundane, technical, or utterly abstract topics that cause little concern among society at large.  Of course there were exceptions, primarily during the Renaissance when the early humanists incurred the wrath of the Church (think of Bruno or Spinoza); this required some to publish their works either pseudonymously or posthumously.  And Marx and Engels have certainly garnered their fair share of enmity.  But by and large philosophers throughout the ages have raised few serious hackles.

A major exception is the case of Friedrich Nietzsche, certainly one of the most controversial philosophers in history.  The epitome of non-political-correctness, Nietzsche clearly did not give a damn about whom he might offend.  He was on a mission to uncover the fundamental flaws in Western society, to expose hypocrisy and moral corruption, and to undermine every aspect of degenerate modern society.  Only by getting to the root of the problem, he thought, could we find our way forward—a path to the greatness that is human destiny.

Friedrich Nietzsche, by Edvard Munch

The sad state of modern life, he said, is a consequence of the overturning of classical values that occurred in the early post-Christian world.  These classic values—originating in ancient Greece and embraced by the Romans—emphasized strength, robustness, nobility, self-determination, and personal excellence.  These life-affirming values, the ‘master’ or ‘aristocratic’ values, were the foundation upon which the great civilizations of Athens and Rome were built.

One consequence of this development was the powerful and expansive Roman Empire.  It reached Palestine by the year 60 b.c., and held that territory for over five hundred years, until the fall of the Western Empire in 476 (though the Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire continued on much longer).  During this time, Nietzsche claimed, the oppression felt by the Jews and early Christians grew to the point at which a new value system—the Judeo-Christian value system—came into being, as a kind of religious and ethical response to Roman domination.  Though a single unified system, it carried different emphases for the two groups.  For Jews the focus was on self-pity, ethnic cohesion, a thirst for revenge, an obsession with freedom, a hatred of the strong and powerful, and a desire to recover lost wealth.  The Christians—through the figure of Jesus—preferred to emphasize the value of the down-trodden (“blessed are the meek”), faith in God to bring justice (“the meek shall inherit the earth”), salvation in the afterlife, and a fixation on love as a means for ameliorating suffering.  Arising as it did out of the quasi-slavery imposed by the Romans, Nietzsche deemed this collective Judeo-Christian response a ‘slave’ or ‘priestly’ morality.

When the Western Empire, based in Rome, collapsed in the 5th century a.d., the master morality collapsed with it.  As the only real competitor, slave morality rose to take its place as the dominant ethical system of the West.  And there it has remained for nearly two thousand years.  In this sense, Nietzsche says, the slave has defeated the master, and become the new master.

But the actual outcome has been far from positive.  Quite the contrary: it has been an absolute disaster for humanity.  When combined with booming populations and advancing technology, there now exists a distinctly modern form of the priestly mindset, one based on subservience, conformity, equality, pity, guilt, suffering, revenge, and self-hatred:  the herd morality.  One could scarcely devise a lower conception of man.

Which brings us to the question of the Jews.  Nietzsche’s position on the Jews is complex and decidedly mixed.  On the one hand, they are the embodiment and product of the despised slave morality.  Jews owe their very success to the promotion and exploitation of this way of thinking.  On the other hand, they did succeed:  they ‘defeated’ (or rather, outlived) Rome, and thus were able to successfully pull off that inversion of values in which the slave eclipsed the master.  Partly for this very reason they have been able to sustain themselves as a distinct ethnicity through the millennia.  They are hardened survivors; they are (relatively) pure; they know how to succeed.

We see this ambivalent attitude in an early work, Human, All Too Human (1878).  In a brief discussion of “the problem of the Jews,” Nietzsche shows evident sympathy with their suffering:  “I would like to know how much one must excuse in the overall accounting of a people which, not without guilt on all our parts, has had the most sorrowful history of all peoples” (sec. 475).  In a brief moment of praise—and in noted contrast to later writings—he hails the contributions of the Jews; they are the ones “to whom we owe the noblest human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world.”  This would be virtually his last unconditional praise for Jesus and the Bible.

The same passage, however, includes this observation:  “Every nation, every man has disagreeable, even dangerous characteristics; it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an exception.”  And there is no doubt that he is disagreeable:  “the youthful Jew of the stock exchange is the most repugnant invention of the whole human race.”  (Given our recent financial meltdown, bank bailouts, and the Madoff scandal, I think many would concur today.)

Nietzsche’s next book, Daybreak (1881), offers conditional praise for the Jews based on their long history of exclusion, isolation, and persecution.  “As a consequence of this [history], the psychological and spiritual resources of the Jews today are extraordinary” (sec. 205).  They are capable of the “coldest self-possession, … the subtlest outwitting and exploitation of chance and misfortune.”  Thus, mental acuity is of prime importance:  “They are so sure in their intellectual suppleness and shrewdness that they never, even in the worst straits, need to earn their bread by physical labor.”  Still, “their souls have never known chivalrous noble sentiments.” 

But they do have a plan for Europe:

[S]ince they are unavoidably going to ally themselves with the best aristocracy of Europe more and more with every year that passes, they will soon have created for themselves a goodly inheritance of spiritual and bodily demeanor: so that a century hence they will appear sufficiently noble not to make those they dominate ashamed to have them as masters. And that is what matters! … Europe may fall into their hands like a ripe fruit, if they would only just extend them.

In fact, as we know, it turned out to be America that fell into their hands, “like a ripe fruit.”

The one other relevant passage in Daybreak, from section 377, introduces the important concept of Jewish hatred:  “It is where our deficiencies lie that we indulge in our enthusiasms.  The command ‘love your enemies!’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters there have ever been…”  The (Judeo-) Christian commandment of love, Nietzsche thought, grew directly from the hatred of the enslaved Jews, as a kind of mask or cover.  Perhaps even more than this—as a kind of deliberate deception.  A ‘bad hater’ wears his anger on his sleeve, for all to see.  A ‘good hater’ hides it inside.  But the ‘best’ plots revenge using the very opposite—an image of divine love—as cover.  “Even if you think of us as enemies,” the Jews might say, “love us anyway.  This is God’s command.”  This whole idea, only hinted at here, would lie dormant for some six years; it reemerges strongly in his 1887 masterpiece On the Genealogy of Morals.

After Daybreak there was a long five year stretch in which Nietzsche did not address the Jewish problem in any substantial way.  The Gay Science (parts 1–4) focused instead on the nature of science, on power, and on the ‘death of God.’  His other book of this period, the famous piece Thus Spoke Zarathustra, contained no reference to it.

But by 1886, with the release of Beyond Good and Evil, he had returned to the topic.  Again his language is mixed.  He praises the Old Testament:  “In the Jewish ‘Old Testament,’ the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it” (sec. 52).  (In fact it was precisely this style that he duplicated so effectively in his Zarathustra.)  Europeans are furthermore indebted to the Jews for their high conception of ethics:  “What Europe owes to the Jews?  Many things, good and bad, and above all one thing that is of the best and of the worst:  the grand style in morality, the terribleness and majesty of infinite demands, infinite meanings” (sec. 250).

In part from this debt, and in part from their example as a tough, coherent, enduring race, the Jews should be allowed a role in Europe, Nietzsche thought.  In section 251 he decries the “anti-Jewish [stupidity]” of the times.  “I have not met a German yet who was well disposed toward the Jews.”  The common feeling — “that Germany has amply enough Jews” — was clearly holding sway.  But the Jews need to be given due consideration, for their influence is not insignificant:

A thinker who has the development of Europe on his conscience will…take into account the Jews as well as the Russians as the provisionally surest and most probable factors in the great play and fight of forces. … That the Jews, if they wanted it…could even now have preponderance, indeed quite literally mastery over Europe, that is certain; that they are not working and planning for that is equally certain.

I would remind the reader at this point of the considerable influence that Jews in fact had in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Their population hovered around one percent of the total during this time, but they were significantly overrepresented in a number of important fields.  Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans, and the Jewish Question; 1984) provides some relevant statistics.

They were overrepresented in business, commerce, and public and private service… These characteristics were already evident in the Middle Ages and appeared in the census data as early as 1843. … Jews were also influential in joint-stock corporations, the stock market, the insurance industry, and legal and economic consulting firms. Before the First World War, for example, Jews occupied 13 percent of the directorships of joint-stock corporations and 24 percent of the supervisory positions within these corporations. … [D]uring 1904 they comprised 27 percent of all lawyers, 10 percent of all apprenticed lawyers, 5 percent of court clerks, 4 percent of magistrates, and up to 30 percent of all higher ranks of the judiciary. … Jews were [also] overrepresented among university professors and students between 1870 and 1933. For example, in 1909-1910…almost 12 percent of instructors at German universities were Jewish… [I]n 1905-1906 Jewish students comprised 25 percent of the law and medical students… The percentage of Jewish doctors was also quite high, especially in large cities, where they sometimes were a majority. … [I]n Berlin around 1890, 25 percent of all children attending grammar school were Jewish… (pp. 1014)

Jewish influence was thus no idle matter.

“Meanwhile,” Nietzsche continues, “they want and wish rather…to be absorbed and assimilated by Europe…; and this bent and impulse…should be noted well and accommodated: to that end it might be useful and fair to expel the anti-Semitic screamers from the country.”  Again, he sees the Jews as useful examples of racial toughness and coherence.  And more importantly, they hold an important lesson in the creation of new value systems as a means of overcoming adversity, and exerting power.  The typical German anti-Semite does not understand this; he just hates all Jews and wants to get rid of them.  For Nietzsche, they are detestable but also useful and instructive.  A truly strong German nation could easily accommodate a percent or two of Jews.

Nietzsche is emphatic that the value of the Jews and Jewish morality is purely educational; it is not to be emulated.  He elaborates in section 195:

The Jews have brought off that miraculous feat of an inversion of values, thanks to which life on earth has acquired a novel and dangerous attraction for a couple of millennia. … Their prophets…were the first to use the word ‘world’ as a term of contempt. This inversion of values…constitutes the significance of the Jewish people: they mark the beginning of the slave rebellion in morals.

The ‘inversion’—the defeat of the classic Greek/Roman values—was a remarkable accomplishment, and if we are now to move beyond the priestly Jewish slave values, we will need to perform yet another such act.  Only by thoroughly understanding the previous inversion can we hope to accomplish the next.

The year after Beyond Good and Evil was an exceptionally busy and productive one.  In addition to keeping continuous notebook entries — many of which would later become part of The Will to Power — Nietzsche wrote an important fifth chapter for his earlier book The Gay Science, and published one of his greatest works, On the Genealogy of Morals.

Part 5 of Gay Science includes two relevant entries.  First is a laudatory passage on the Jewish love of logic and analysis.  “All of [the Jewish scholars] have a high regard for logic, that is, for compelling agreement by force of reasons…  For nothing is more democratic than logic; it is no respecter of persons and makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses” (sec. 348).  This has been a real benefit to all:  “Europe owes the Jews no small thanks for making people think more logically and for establishing cleaner intellectual habits…”

As to their cultural influence, their presence in stage, theater, and press, Nietzsche offers the following thoughts:

As for the Jews, the people who possess the art of adaptability par excellence, [my line of argument] suggests immediately that one might see them virtually as a world-historical arrangement for the production of actors, a veritable breeding ground for actors. And it really is time to ask: What good actor today is not — a Jew? The Jew as a born Litterat [‘man of letters’], as the true master of the European press, also exercises his power by virtue of his theatrical gifts; for the man of letters is essentially an actor: he plays the ‘expert,’ the ‘specialist.’ (sec. 361)

In Genealogy, Nietzsche begins to write in more overtly racial tones, speaking of the “blond Aryan” as the “master race,” or the “conqueror race.”  On one occasion he again dismisses those who do not see instructive value in the Jews:  “I also do not like these latest speculators in idealism, the anti-Semites, who today roll their eyes in a Christian-Aryan-bourgeois manner and exhaust one’s patience by trying to rouse up all the horned-beast elements in people…” (III, sec. 26).  But on the other hand, the Jews and their morality come in for severe criticism—not because of their ability to succeed, but because of what they inherently are:

You will have already guessed how easily the priestly [i.e. Jewish] way of evaluating can split from the knightly-aristocratic, and then continue to develop into its opposite. … The knightly-aristocratic judgments of value have as their basic assumption a powerful physicality, a blooming, rich, even overflowing health, together with those things required to maintain these qualities—war, adventure, hunting, dancing, war games, and, in general, everything which involves strong, free, happy action. The priestly method of evaluating has, as we saw, other preconditions… As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. The truly great haters in world history have always been priests…

Let us briefly consider the greatest example. Everything on earth which has been done against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the rulers” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge. In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless), that is, to “only those who suffer are good; the poor, the powerless, the low are the only good people; the suffering, those in need, the sick, the ugly are also the only pious people; only they are blessed by God; for them alone there is salvation.—By contrast, you privileged and powerful people, you are for all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lecherous, the insatiable, the godless; you will also be the unblessed, the cursed, and the damned for all eternity!”

In connection with that huge and immeasurably disastrous initiative which the Jews launched with this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the sentence I wrote at another time—namely, that with the Jews the slave revolt in morality begins… (I, sec. 7)

The means by which this revolt was carried out was—Christianity.  Christian ‘love,’ according to Nietzsche, is little more than the “triumphant crown” of the Jewish tree of hatred.  This love acted “in pursuit of the goals of that hatred —   victory, spoil, and seduction — by the same impulse that drove the roots of that hatred deeper and deeper…into all that was profound and evil” (sec. 7).  “What is certain,” he adds, is that under the sign of Christianity, “Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.”

After some two thousand years, this process continues, slowly but surely:

The ‘redemption’ of the human race [from the classical master values] is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized, Christianized, mob-ized (what do the words matter!). The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious—there is plenty of time. (sec. 9)

Until we grasp this poisoning of modern man, we have no hope of liberating ourselves and attaining our higher destiny.

The many notebook entries that make up The Will to Power are difficult to interpret, both because the writings are a scattershot of ideas and observations, and also because these were never intended by Nietzsche to be published.  They appeared in book form only after his death, at the behest of his sister.  Still, we find a number of passages that are consistent with his published views, particularly on the subject at hand.

As usual, he writes in both laudatory and critical language.  In section 175 we read:

The reality upon which Christianity could be raised was the little Jewish family of the Diaspora, with its warmth and affection, with its readiness to help and sustain one another… To have recognized in this a form of power, to have recognized that this blissful condition was communicable, seductive, infectious to pagans also—that was [St.] Paul’s genius.

Nietzsche is sympathetic with the few remaining ‘noble-valued’ Germans, and understands their “present instinctive aversion to Jews: it is the hatred of the free and self-respecting orders for those who are pushing, and who combine timid and awkward gestures with an absurd opinion of their [own] worth” (sec. 186).  Later he elaborates on this “Jewish instinct of the ‘chosen’,” in which the Jews “claim all the virtues for themselves without further ado, and count the rest of the world their opposites; a profound sign of a vulgar soul” (sec. 197).  And if one thing is certain, it is that the Jews are, in some sense, deeply untrustworthy:

People of the basest origin, in part rabble, outcasts not only from good but also from respectable society, raised away from even the smell of culture, without discipline, without knowledge, without the remotest suspicion that there is such a thing as conscience in spiritual matters; simply—Jews: with an instinctive ability to create an advantage, a means of seduction out of every superstitious supposition… When Jews step forward as innocence itself, then the danger is great. (sec. 199)

Nietzsche’s overall view on Judaism and its Christian offshoot is nicely summarized in this passage from Genealogy:

Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values “good and bad,” “good and evil” have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. … The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called “Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome.” To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.” And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.

By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of St. John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience…

The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality…

Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is that people bow down to today in Rome itself, as the personification of all the highest values—and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame—in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. (I, 16)

I close with a final passage from one of Nietzsche’s last works, The Anti-Christ (1888).  As expected, religious themes dominate this book, and of particular interest are his comments on the origin of Christianity from its Jewish foundation.  One can do little better than let Nietzsche speak for himself:

The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they preferred … being at any price: the price they had to pay was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer. … Considered psychologically, the Jewish nation is a nation of the toughest vital energy which … took the side of all décadence instincts—not as being dominated by them but because it divined in them a power by means of which one can prevail against ‘the world.’ The Jews are the counterparts of décadents: they have been compelled to act as décadents to the point of illusion…. [T]his kind of man has a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense. (sec. 24)

I trust it is clear that Nietzsche’s complex analysis of Judaism allows for multiple (mis)interpretations.  Selective use of individual sentences or fragments can paint him either as a philo- or anti-Semite, and both have been done.  But by examining his writings in detail we gain a reasonably coherent understanding of his position — of a strong dislike for Jews and for the morality that Judaism (and Christianity) have brought, but also an admiration for Jewish resiliency and ‘success’.  The bottom line, however, is clear:  Judaism is something that must be overcome.

It is interesting to speculate on what he would have thought of events of the 20th century.  Had he not contracted syphilis and died in 1900, he might well have lived to witness the early rise of Hitler and Nazism.  (He would have been 89 in 1933, when Hitler took power.)  Likely his support would have been conditional at best.  Had he lived to see the emergence of the Holocaust industry, AIPAC, and  Jewish influence on American media and government, he might well have felt vindicated.

Nietzsche’s analysis of the Jewish problem is powerful, insightful, and utterly unique.  It is of the sort that could never be conducted today by any ‘mainstream’ philosopher.  Let us be thankful that he lived and wrote in a time when such truly free thought was still possible.

Dr. Thomas Dalton (email him) is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2009).

The Beauty and the Beast: Race and Racism in Europe, Part V

In late June 1944, the Anglo-American troops were well entrenched in Normandy after successfully cutting off German supply lines from the north-eastern part of France. On their way to the borders of the Reich, the Americans GIs would occasionally capture small military units wearing German uniforms that they first took for Japanese soldiers. It turned out that these were Turkmen and Azeri soldiers fighting on the Western front under German patronage.

Bizarre interracial encounters not only occurred in the Pacific between the Japanese and Americans, but also in north-western Italy, in the province of Friuli, where it was common in April 1945 to spot retreating pockets of Asian civilians and slanted-eyed soldiers in German uniforms fleeing the incoming Soviet advance along with their German allies (Christopher Dolbeau, Face au Bolchevisme1917–1989, 2002, pp. 302–303; see also, Patrik von zur Mühlen, Zwischen Hakenkreuz  und Sowjetstern, 1971).

In the last year of the war, National Socialist Germany, which over the last 60 years has been maligned for its real and surreal racist prejudices and practices, had hundreds of thousands of non-European volunteers fighting the global war against communism and colonialism. Many of those non-European troops had firmly believed that that NS Germany would provide them with independence from the rule of colonial France and England. The German Wehrmacht had thousands of Arab fighters, Indian fighters and even two black fighters from Guadeloupe fighting alongside with the Germans, such as the famous Louis Joachim-Eugène and Norbert Désirée!

Space does not allow recounting each individual event that took place after the end of hostilities. But although meagre, the literature on non-European fighters in the German Wehrmacht sheds a different light on the already highly complex picture of German racial policies in the Third Reich.  However, what is clear today is that 70 years after the war, neither the winning side nor to the losing side benefited from the conflict. In fact as a prominent German historian Ernest Nolte writes (Der europäische Burgerkrieg 1917–1945 : Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus, 1987), this was the largest European civil war in history, substantially draining the White gene pool.

All subsequent events in the world up to the present, be they on the theoretical or institutional level, be they in the field of social sciences or world politics, are directly linked to this largest intra-White bloodshedding  in history.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Race or Religion?

In the late 1940’s hundreds of prominent National Socialist dignitaries managed to escape to Egypt, Turkey and Syria. Most converted to Islam, married there and adopted Muslim names.  A substantial number of them played a crucial role in early Egyptian politics under president Gamal Abdel Nasser, providing valuable intelligence to Egyptians and Syrians on the newly born state of Israel. Numerous ex-SS intelligence officers, academics and physicians, such as  Hans Appler — alias Sakah Chaffar, Joachim Daemling — alias Ibrahim Mustafa, Ludwig Heiden — alias El Hadj, Aribert Heim — alias Tarek Hussein Farid, and many, many others are still warmly remembered in the Syrian and Egyptian intelligence community.

It is quite common among White nationalists in Europe and America to single out Muslim immigrants as the major threat to White Euro-American societies because their demographic growth is likely to turn Europe into an Islamic state. The United Kingdom, France, or for that matter the European Union as a whole, have a large number of South Asian and Arab Muslims. One study found that there were at least 15 million Muslims in the EU, and possibly as many as 23 million.  This number does not include over 10 million White autochthonous European Muslims, particularly in the Balkans.

Yet a sharp difference must be made between race and religion. For example, only one third of Catholics in the world today are White, with two thirds being of mixed race living mostly in a Latin America and the Philippines. One need only take a walk in St. Peter’s Square in Rome to spot swarms of non-European Catholic seminarians. Unlike Judaism, which is a highly ethnocentric monotheistic religion, the other two monotheistic religions, also born in the Middle East — Islam and Christianity — ignore, at least in theory, the distinction between race and religion.

There are also double standards in depicting the deluge of Muslim non-European outgroups into Europe and America. These groups are unquestionably changing the racial profile of their White host countries. But while it is relatively safe to criticize the alleged violent nature of Islam in academic circles, one rarely hears that the violence against non-Jews in the Old Testament shows that Judaism is inherently violent.

And in the contemporary world, why criticize the violent nature of Islam while avoiding criticism of the violent nature of Zionism?

Many White nationalists are justly concerned about the inflow of non-European races. But many of these non-Europeans, such as Hindus residing in the UK, are extremely resentful of Islam. Ethnic and religious conflict in the future may well be a complex affair, as it already is in the United States, where Latinos have ethnically cleansed Blacks from some areas of Southern California (see here,here, and here).

The whole liberal hypocrisy on race was well described by Alain Brossat, who notes that in France making fun of Arabs or describing them as terrorists, obscurantists, or enemies of democracy and republicanism is considered protected free speech. On the other hand, making fun of rabbis or vehemently criticizing the politics of the state of Israel will result in draconian penalties.

To make the subject of race even more complicated, during different historical eras the Catholic Church endorsed highly promiscuous miscegenation policies, particularly in Latin America during Spanish rule. From the 16th to 19th centuries, a few Spanish White settlers and hordes of ordinary criminals from all parts of Europe found a safe haven in fertile Paraguay, only to be forced by the powerful Jesuit clergy to marry Guarani  Indian women — simply because there were no White women around.

The Christian Gospel of “love thy neighbour” certainly played an additional role in the process of miscegenation all over Latin America. There has been a gradual depletion of the White gene pool caused by racial mongrelisation. This has often resulted in frequent coup d’états and poor economic growth, despite the fact that Latin America is rich in natural resources.

Moreover, the interplay of race and religion is further complicated by the fact that there are well over 10 million indigenous Muslims in Europe, mostly Bosnians and Albanians whose gene pool is relatively well preserved and who are often more European than White European Christians. Bosnian Muslims present a very peculiar case, being all of European stock with a high number of strikingly blond people. In the Middle Ages their ancestors were renowned as heretics known as “Bogumils,” with strong ties to French Cathars and Albingensians.

In the late 15th century with the onslaught of Turks against Europe,  Bosnian Bogumils converted in droves to Islam — partly because of their hostility to the Vatican, and partly because their White race propelled them quickly into lucrative positions in the Ottoman hierarchy. The Ottomans offered them prestigious titles — “beys,” “pashas,” or “grand viziers.” Valued and praised because of their physical stature and race, Slavic Muslims, including the Albanians, who are of old Indo-European Illyrian stock, played for centuries an important role as elite soldiers known as janissaries who were posted as provincial rulers throughout the Ottoman empire, which in some periods stretched from today’s Algeria in the West to Yemen in the East, and all the way to Hungary in central Europe.

During WWII, many Bosnian and Albanian Muslims were highly regarded by NS Germany. The Catholic pro-fascist Croat leader, Ante Pavelic built a large mosque in the heart of the Croatian baroque city of Zagreb, while frequently referring to Bosnian Muslims as the “purest Croats.”  In 1943, under the supervision of Heinrich Himmler, a Bosnian Waffen SS Handschar was established under German command.

The story of race and racism in the Third Reich is complex and endless in its scope. It still needs to be objectively written. Surprisingly perhaps, some “half-Jews” or “quarter-Jews” played a significant political and military role in NS Germany; many took part in the anti-communist campaign in the East. Among the famous  “Mischlings,” or crossbreeds,  was the  famous German admiral Bernhard Rogge,  Field Marshal  Erhard Milch, Field Marshal Von Manstein (born Lewinski), the panzer general Fritz Bayerlein, etc. In his book, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, the Jewish American historian Bryan Mark Rigg estimates that between 120,000 to 160,000 Germans of Jewish extraction served in the Wehrmacht.

Heredity and race are crucial elements in someone’s political and social behavior. But a person possessing the highest qualities of his race — but without a culture that preserves and enhances his race — turns into a biological unit with a meaningless life. Culture must always come as the final veneer on a person’s racial make-up. Even among Third Reich scholars the most frequent word was not Rasse (race), but rather the word Ausbildung, which denotes character building (often wrongly translated into English as ‘education’). High IQ and other positive racial characteristics can in no way substitute for strong will and moral integrity. These traits are influenced genetically and they differ between the races. But there are strong cultural influences on these traits as well. The phenomenon whereby so many Whites have accepted the death of their culture and the surrender of lands they have held for centuries is the product of a pathological culture, not pathological genes.

It still remains a great mystery why the great White race, once capable of great deeds and daring adventure from Cape Verde to Patagonia and from the Arctic Circle to New Zealand, is now more and more inclined to a domesticated life with no risks, always ready to meekly accept its own cultural and political eclipse as a moral imperative. Must it wait for the real interracial warfare in order to retrieve its ingroup identity?

Tom Sunic (www.tomsunic.infohttp://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is an author, former political science professor in the USA, translator and former Croat diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age ( 2007). Email him.

The Plot Against Art, Part 2

I hate to tell you this, but if you like modern art there has to be something radically wrong with you. To feel hostile towards it is as natural as being repelled by incest.

Modern art is out to corrupt you.

If it doesn’t do this, it will have failed to achieve the primary purpose of its elitist promoters. It will have failed to undermine traditional values. It will have failed to produce a “culture of pessimism.” It will have failed to destroy the sacral core of life. It will have failed to poison your mind and give you the sickness unto death.  It will have failed to make you what Big Brother finally managed to make Winston Smith in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:  a mindless zombie.

The Wheelers and Dealers

That the Jews dominate the art world, as they dominate the mass media and every other area of influence, is the best-kept secret of the twenty-first century. One is not supposed to mention this. It is anti-Semitic to do so.

In 1989, an erudite academic volume appeared called Sociology of the Arts. In it the authors discuss who is who in the art world. “Blacks, Orientals, and persons of Spanish origin constitute about 7 per cent of the art audience,” the book informs us helpfully. So what about the other 93 per cent?

What ethnic group owns most of the art galleries? Who are the museum curators? Who are the art historians? Who are the art critics? Who publish the magazines in which art is reviewed? Who determine what is good art and what is rubbish? Who are the dealers and big collectors? Who run the auction houses? Who set up the art competitions and raise the prize money? Who appoint the judges? Who are the judges?

Not a word. Total silence. Scary, isn’t it?

As far back as 1930, it was noted by French author Pierre Assouline: “According to dealer Pierre Loeb, four art dealers out of five are Jewish, as are four out of five art collectors. Wilhelm Unde added art critics to this list.” In 1973, it was estimated that 80 per cent of the 2500 core “art market personnel” — dealers, curators, gallery owners, collectors, critics, consultants and patrons of the arts — were Jewish.  In 1982, Gerald Krefetz (Jewish) let the cat out of the bag even further.  “Today, Jews enjoy every phase of the art world,” he admitted. “In some circles, the wheelers and dealers are referred to as the Jewish mafia.”

Writing of his experiences in New York City, Jewish author Howard Jacobson revealed that art critic Peter Schjedhal had told him, “Just about every gallery we go into is run by a Jew. Even the women gallery owners whose wine we absorb are Jewish.”

Riki R. Nelson, Girl in a Box, Girl in Cherry Silk, from the Saatchi Gallery, London

In 2001, ARTnews listed the world’s Top Ten Art Collectors. Eight of them were Jews. Ponder these staggering statistics: A people who constitute 0.2% of the world’s population make up 80% of the world’s richest art collectors. Out of every thousand people in the world, roughly two are Jews. To be precise, one in every 457 people are Jews. Yet go to a conference at which 1000 of the world’s wealthiest art collectors have gathered and you will find, to your amazement, that 800 of them are Jewish! Phenomenal, isn’t it?

Nigerian-born Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary, from the collection of Charles Saatchi, an influential Jewish art collector. The painting is described as “a carefully rendered black Madonna decorated with a resin-covered lump of elephant dung. The figure is also surrounded by small collaged images of female genitalia from pornographic magazines.” The painting caused a public uproar and media frenzy when exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum of Art as part of the Sensation exhibition of Saatchi’s collection in 1999.

If you require confirmation for these citations, see here. This huge cache of outré information has been particularly useful to me in researching the Jewish influence on modern art.

The art world is so densely populated with Jews that one way to get away from the goyim, if you are Jewish, is to take up art. That way, with any luck, you won’t bump into a non-Jew for days! In 1996, Jewish art historian Eunice Lipton confided somewhat tactlessly that the only reason she became an art historian was that she wanted to hang out exclusively with Jews. “I wanted to be where Jews were — that is, I wanted a profession that would allow me to acknowledge my Jewishness through the company I kept.”

On the face of it, she noted, art history would seem to be a gentile profession, if only because the study of Christian art was its hub and center. And yet, she says, “the field was filled with Jews. One might even say it was shaped by them.”

She was doubtless thinking of the great historian of Renaissance art, Bernard Berenson, whose influence has been seminal.  Berenson once described himself as “a typical Talmud Jew” who longed to drop “the mask of the goyim” — hardly, one is tempted to think, a fit interpreter of Christian art to the hated gentiles! Though he had converted to Christianity in 1885, here we see him, almost sixty years later in 1944,  writing an “Open Letter to the Jews” in which he warns them about “envious Christians” who would persecute them “even if you were innocent as the angels.” To my mind, this sounds more Talmudic than Christian.

With the rise of German fascism, Jewish art historians began to flee Nazi Germany, along with those Marxist revolutionaries known as the Frankfurt School. Most of these Jews ended up in America. At New York University alone, the following Jewish art historians were to take up residence: Richard Ettinghaven, Walter Friedlander, Karl Lehman, Alfred Salmony, Guido Schoenberger, Martin Weinberger.

Art historian Lipton probably also has in mind — when she says she wanted to live in a predominantly Jewish atmosphere — the two most illustrious art critics of the twentieth century, Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg. Like Berenson, Greenberg appears to have had a distinctly Talmudic cast of mind. Convinced of Jewish superiority, he once remarked, “The European Jew represents a higher type of human being than any other yet achieved.”

Both these influential critics, Rosenberg and Greenberg, were members of the Frankfurt School and helped to reshape the aesthetic perceptions of the gentile masses.

Bending Art to Jewish Abilities

All art henceforth was to be “Jewish”. It would break free from its Christian roots. Whatever Jewish artists were good at, that would be the art of the future. If Jews were no good at drawing, good drawing would no longer be necessary. Representational art was out, abstract and conceptual art was in. Actual unmade beds, not pictures of them, now became works of art. Marcel Duchamp’s famous urinals — bought in a store and transported to an art gallery where they were magically transformed into works of art. Cans stuffed with the artist’s own excrement. Photos of crucifixes stuck in glasses of the artist’s own urine.

Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, photographed in 1917 by Alfred Steiglitz, an early 20th-century Jewish photographer and promoter of modern art. “It does not take much stretching of the imagination,” gushes Calvin Tomkins, art critic of the New Yorker, “to see in the urinal’s gently flowing curves the veiled head of a classic Renaissance Madonna or a seated Buddha.” In 2004, this inspired pissoire was voted Most Influential Work of the 20th century by 500 “art experts” — sorry, “piss-artists.”

“Preparation of these items places no demand on artistic abilities. They can be done by anybody,” Israel Shamir points out, adding somewhat cuttingly, “Such art is perfectly within Jewish capabilities.”

In order to succeed in this difficult profession, the visually challenged Jews had to “bend art to fit their abilities.” It is as if, unable to excel at athletic prowess, the Jews had somehow managed to gain control over the Olympic Games and decreed that, from now on, sprinting and marathon running were no longer important. What really mattered was winning the sack race or the Spitting Competition — accomplishments, possibly, which Jews were particularly good at!

“The Jews were extremely ill equipped for their conquest of Olympus,” Shamir instructs us. “For many generations, Jews never entered churches and hardly ever saw paintings. They were conditioned to reject image as part of their rejection of idols.” In short, the Jews were visually handicapped. Trained in Talmudic dialectics, they were marvelous with words. They had a verbal IQ of 130. Their IQ for patterns and pictures, however, was dismally low: only 75.

The Jews of course don’t wish to acknowledge this. To suggest that they tend to make lousy artists is anti-Semitic. If Jews didn’t make more of a splash as artists in past ages, it is argued, it was because they were “held back” by their Christian oppressors. Unfortunately for the Jews, the great Berenson will have none of this argument.  “The Jews have displayed little talent for the visual,” he states tersely, “and almost none for the figure arts.”

How, then, you might wish to know, are there so many Jewish artists around nowadays? To what can we attribute this fantastic efflorescence of sudden Jewish pictorial genius? The answer, we are told, lies in Jewish networking and hustling: Jewish predominance in the mass media, Jewish economic dominance of the art world, Jewish power, Jewish money.”

How Anyone Can Be Famous

Andy Warhol once said that everyone in the future will be “world-famous for fifteen minutes.” What he failed to point out was that almost anyone, including the village idiot, can be made into a celebrity with the help of public relations. All it takes is constant attention in the mass media.  Charles Saatchi, advertising mogul and art collector extraordinaire, spells it out: “An unknown artist’s big glass vitrine holding a rotten cow’s head covered by maggots and swarms of buzzing flies may be pretty unsalable. Until the artist becomes a star. Then he can sell anything he touches” (my emphasis).

Interior of Everyone I have ever Slept With, 1963–1995, an iconic work by Tracey Emin, owned by Charles Saatchi until being destroyed in a fire.

Damien Hirst, A Thousand Years (1990). Richard Lacayo of Time Magazine: A Thousand Years is a large glass box in which real maggots hatch into flies that appear to feed on blood from a severed cow’s head.” Charles Saatchi and Hirst had a “symbiotic relationship” as collector and artist from about 1992–2003.

How does one become a star? Who gives the Emperor his new clothes and helps to suggest he is remarkably well dressed?

An unmade bed is transformed into a consummate work of art once it is bought by Charles Saatchi and placed in a prestigious art gallery. The artist acquires a mystique created out of the power of suggestion. You must be a genius if everyone is raving about you and your unmade bed. Mass hypnosis does the trick. Advertising and persistent persuasion work wonders. See here and here and here.

Let me ask you a question. If someone tried to sell you his excrement for $10, would you buy it? Probably not. Well, consider this: on May 23, 2007, a can labeled Artist’s Shit, purportedly containing the excrement of artist Piero Manzoni, was sold at Sotheby’s for €124,000 (US$ 180,000).

How is it done? Is a can of shit worth its weight in gold? It obviously is — if people are fighting to buy it.

A larger question: If you can con people into buying shit, can you also con them into evil wars in the Middle East and mass cultural suicide in their own homelands? Nothing easier. It’s being done right now.

Talent helps, but is it essential?

You will be surprised to learn that some Jewish artists, despite Berenson’s sweeping dismissal of their visual abilities, are actually quite good at painting. For example, Modigliani and Chagall. Shamir attributes some of their excellence, however, to the influence of Christianity. These two Jewish artists became Christians. This helped, Shamir thinks, to make them good painters. At least they had something to say now. Life had taken on a new meaning. They weren’t just scratching their existential sores and whining “God is dead!”

On the other hand, there were other artists who remained firmly within the Jewish camp and managed to distinguish themselves: notably, Pissarro (impressionist), Soutine (expressionist), Max Ernst (surrealist), and Tamara de Lempicka (art deco). To succeed as an artist in the new milieu, it helped if you were Jewish. Thus both Frida Kahlo and Gustav Klimt arguably owed their initial success to the fact that everyone thought they were Jewish. They were not, but somehow managed to give that impression.

The important thing to remember in all this is that artistic talent had become, strictly speaking, non-essential. It helped, but promotion by a good publicist helped more. The artist had to be a showman rather than a skilled craftsman. Neither Tracey Emin (patchwork quilt) nor Damien Hirst (shark preserved in formaldehyde) found it necessary to create their own works of art. Cheap manual assistants were often hired to do this for them. The vital thing in their art was the original concept. The end product was of secondary importance.

Tell Me Something Beautiful  is a patchwork quilt stitched up entirely by eight-year-olds from Ecclesbourne primary school, London, with Emin in the classroom offering advice. When the school wanted to sell the quilt for £35.000 ($60,000) to an art dealer, Emin threw a fit and threatened legal action, demanding the quilt be “returned” to her at once.

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living by Damien Hirst (1991). Saatchi sold this work to collector Steven Cohen for $12 million, who in in turn donated it to the Museum of Modern Art.

The successful contemporary artist needs to be a person devoid of moral scruples. Confidence trickster, hustler, prostitute, pimp, he needs to mix with the right crowd and know whom to cultivate. “The artist who would be known,” wrote the great folklorist Joseph Campbell, “has to go to cocktail parties to win commissions, and those who win them are not in their studios but at parties, meeting the right people and appearing in the right places.” Campbell was later accused of anti-Semitism, but Jewish artist Julian Schnabel backs up Campbell’s claim. “Much time is spent nurturing liaisons with creatures of the art world,” he notes gloomily. “There is no time for friendship. Later, there is no capacity for it.”

How does a really talented artist succeed in such a rat race?

Painter Helen Frankenthaler had to sleep with art critic Clement Greenberg, but it was worth it: Greenberg gave her good reviews. Willem de Kooning let his wife Elaine bed down with art critic Harold Rosenberg, but it was worth it: Rosenberg gave de Kooning good reviews. Jackson Pollock had to pleasure nymphomaniac Peggy Guggenheim, but it was worth it: her patronage helped to get Pollock good reviews. After all, her daddy owned the Guggenheim Museum.

None of these artists slept around for love. They did it for money. Jackson Pollock famously said of Peggy Guggenheim, his plutocratic patroness: “To fuck her, you’d have to put a towel over her head. And she did want fucking.”

“Incestuous collusion, mutual back-scratching, under the table wheeling and dealing, nepotism and clique allegiance are intrinsic principles of the modern art world,” art expert Sophy Burnham concludes ruefully.

That’s how it is. C’est la vie! It’s so heartbreaking you have to laugh.

If you wish to succeed as a modern artist, be prepared to lie and cheat, to be a confidence trickster and sexual exhibitionist, to flatter your Jewish patrons and churn out Holocaust paintings to please them, to sing the praises of Israel and vilify the Palestinians, to knock Islam and the Qur’an and show contempt for Christianity. Unless you are Jewish, you must lose all allegiance to your people, your religion, or your traditional culture.

Be prepared to prostitute yourself if you’re a woman or pimp your wife if you’re a man. Be prepared to do a Piss Christ like Andres Serrano or a pornographic Holy Virgin Mary like Chris Ofili. Be prepared, like Grayson Perry, to dress up as a woman and produce sexually perverted pots. Be prepared to pull a paper scroll out of your vagina like Carolee Schneemann. Be prepared, like Vito Acconci, to titillate a jaded public by masturbating for them in a prestigious art gallery — and calling it ‘art’.

Leonardo must be turning in his grave.

Let art critic Clement Greenberg have the last word: “I’ve decided the kind of people attracted to art are often psychopaths. You can quote me on that.”

He should know.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/2009/09/the-plot-against-art-part-2/

Click  to go to Part 1.