Featured Articles

The Subtleties of Jewish Humor

/31 Comments/in /by

In response to a recent article by Edmund Connelly on Jewish self-mockery, Kevin MacDonald had this to say: “The question is, what about media pieces that have an obvious anti-Jewish sub-text? Jews control the media, right? So why do we find clips like ‘Overcome stress by visualizing a greedy, hook-nosed race of creatures.’”

“The Jewish sub-text,” MacDonald points out, “is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of negative stereotypes of Jews. Connelly doesn’t really know the answer, and I don’t either. That’s why we are asking for suggestions.”

Having spent quite a lot of time pondering Jewish noses and negative stereotypes — I once devoted an entire essay to the subject  —  I hope I may be allowed to suggest an answer to this riddle.

It’s a case of Jewish irony. If you don’t get it, it’s not because you are irony deficient. This is not meant to be a criticism of your sense of humor, still less of your intelligence. No way! It’s just that you have failed to understand that an extremely subtle sense of irony is the hallmark of Jewish humor. It is so nuanced, so rarefied, that you are often not even aware it is irony. Jews get the joke, but the goyim usually don’t. They’re not meant to get it. That’s the whole point.

The apparent self-mockery of the Jew is actually an inverted way of patting himself on the back. Woody Allen and Sarah Silverman specialize in this sort of black humor. Jewish comics make a habit of poking fun at Jews and their supposed faults in order to convince us of the sheer absurdity of anti-Semitism.

Let me give you some examples.

A few years ago, when I was a schoolteacher, I set up a cartoon competition for the students in my class. One of the entries was sent in by a boy called Cohen with a chip on his shoulder 2000 years long. It was a picture depicting a massive billboard on a major motorway. It showed a hideous, bald-headed man who looked like he’d just stepped out of a Der Sturmer cartoon:  a monstrous beak of a nose, a bile green complexion, and a mouth coruscating with gold teeth. The caption read: “WARNING!!! WATCH OUT FOR ALIEN ABDUCTION!!! Green-eyed monsters, Martian ghouls, and men with funny hooked noses could come knocking on your door offering to sell you encyclopaedias!”

You see what I mean? This apparent self-mockery was actually a sneer at the goyim for being so out of touch with reality that they still—even after the Holocaust—didn’t seem to get the message that Jews are just like everyone else: a pretty harmless, well-meaning race that the rest of the world have ganged up against for some inexplicable reason.

Of course, if such a billboard as featured in Master Cohen’s cartoon should ever become an actual  billboard one day, a large number of irony-deficient Jews would scream “Anti-Semitism!” And an equally large chorus of irony-deficient goyim would undoubtedly join the same shrill choir.

But consider this: a large number of Jews who were in on the joke and who were NOT offended by the cartoon would also, at this point, raise tongue-in-cheek cries of “Anti-Semitism!” These are the pranksters. The incorrigible pisstakers. You see, it’s a huge mistake to assume that every Jew who complains of anti-Semitism is one big angry Jew. No, he’s often pretending to be angry. His rage is ersatz. He’s putting on the fury, secretly snickering up his sleeve that you should be so dumb as to take him seriously.

Incidentally, I gave Master Cohen first prize for his cartoon. I had no choice.  If I’d given him second prize, he would have complained of anti-Semitism!

You can’t win.

*          *          *

Now consider this cartoon by the famous British cartoonist Steve Bell depicting Ariel Sharon eating a baby. Ask yourself: would this cartoon have won a major competition in a politically correct country such as Britain if organized Jewry had been up in arms against it? Of course not. No, the Jews let it win for two reasons: (1) It proved that “free speech” was alive and kicking in Britain and that we actually live in an intensely anti-Semitic world in which Jews, ever the victims, are totally helpless to stop people saying bad things about them. (2) The cartoon, on another level, was also saying: How absurd that anyone should regard cuddly old Ariel as a “baby eater” when President George W Bush apparently thought the world of him. I mean, wasn’t this charismatic war hero, so adulated in Israel and Brooklyn, actually a “man of peace”?

It has to be asked: was Ariel Sharon upset or angry at Bell’s cartoon depicting him as a child-eating ghoul?  No, I am reliably informed that he was delighted. He was tickled pink. This reminds me of the story of French poet Charles Baudelaire who, in order to improve his image as a monster of depravity, began to circulate the story that he ate babies for breakfast.

The point about anti-Semitism is this: when people who are neutral to Jews — and that includes most people — are presented with gut-wrenchingly distasteful displays of anti-Semitism, the seed of philosemitism is sown in their hearts. Their first reaction is: How unfair this is to the Jews, how needlessly cruel.

Here lies the supreme paradox: Philosemitism can actually be manufactured through ironical and over-the-top displays of anti-Semitism. It’s all a part of social engineering.

*          *          *

A point worth bearing in mind is this: a Jew is permitted to tell an outrageous anti-Semitic joke that a non-Jew would be crucified for relating. Recently, National Security Adviser General James Jones gave a key note speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and started the ball rolling by telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy merchants. He clearly meant no harm. He probably thought it would be obvious to his audience that he was merely sending up the silly anti-Semitic “canard” that Jews were just a bunch of moneygrubbing Shylocks.

 “I’d like to begin with a story that I think is true,” General Jones begins, somewhat tactlessly.  “A Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water. The Jewish vendor tells him he doesn’t have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban, the jokes goes on, begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea.  Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant. They can sell you water. The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later he’s back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: ‘Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.’”

Frankly, I think that’s funny. And if a Jew starts grinding his teeth with rage at such an innocuous joke, there has to be something seriously wrong with him. But sure enough, the joke was condemned by Jewish groups everywhere. Abe Foxman thought it “inappropriate”, and  the  Jewish Forward thought it “insensitive”. (See also here).

I have an anti-Zionist Jewish friend who told me this hilarious joke, adding a few embroideries of his own. He found it on a Jewish website, filed under “Israeli humor”. (See here). It’s the best example of Jewish self-mockery I’ve come across. I retell the joke in my own words, more or less as my Jewish friend told it to me.

If General Jones had told this joke, he would have been hanged, drawn and quartered.

This Israeli Jew arrives at Ben Gurion airport with two large suitcases. His name is Baruch and he’s been living in the United States. The customs agent opens up the first case and finds it stuffed with dollar bills. “How come you have all this money?” he asks.

Baruch grins and taps his hooked nose.

“Listen, I’ll tell you one way you can make a huge fortune in America. You just go into a public washroom and you see a guy having a pee. All you have to do is grab hold of his penis and say, ‘If you don’t donate ten bucks to Israel — for illegal settlements — I’m gonna cut off your goddamn penis!’ It’s fantastic, the amount of money you can make for Israel!”

“Wow, that’s cool!” says the customs agent. “So what’s in your other case?

Baruch shakes his head sadly.

“You just won’t believe,” he sighs, “the number of people in America who refuse to support Israel.” 

Sex and the Jews: Letter to a Jewish Correspondent

/7 Comments/in /by

“What was forbidden is now permitted.” — Rabbi Samuel Dresner

A few months ago, I received an angry email from a young woman called Victoria. Having ticked me off severely for various things I’d said in an article — and after a further exchange of emotional letters — Victoria, who was half Jewish, told me she would no longer be writing to me. So I wrote her a valedictory note in which I took my leave of her with the friendly words, “Farewell, my dear Jewess!”

Silence ensued for several weeks. And then, to my surprise, I received another confrontational letter from Victoria informing me that she was writing to me again (a) “to correct certain misconceptions you have”, and (b) to tell me that writing to me was “pointless.”

I found this quite amusing. It’s not often I get letters listing all my shortcomings and telling me how pointless it is writing to me. It makes a change. Victoria had taken offense at the term ‘Jewess’.  “Referring to me as a ‘Jewess’ was very offensive and condescending,” she scolded, “because I am only part Jewish.…But I guess in your racist mind,  the fact that I am even part Jewish is enough of a reason for you to deny my humanity completely. Continuing any further correspondence with you is pointless.”

This is the letter I wrote Victoria in response to her final communication. I don’t usually write such long letters to my correspondents, complete with a scholarly apparatus of facts, figures, citations, embedded links and picture illustrations.  On this occasion, I decided to make an exception.

*          *          *

Dear Victoria,

Your condemnation of the word “Jewess” as anti-Semitic would be accepted, I think, as fair comment nowadays. I meant no offense, but in any case please accept my apologies.

You may not be aware of this, Victoria, but it’s a sad fact that because of severe economic hardships endured by Jews in past centuries, many Jewish girls were forced into a life of prostitution. In all the great European cities, a certain type of prostitute was always to be found: exotic and semi-Asiatic in appearance. She was Jewish, and she was very much in demand. The word “Jewess” therefore entered the language as a loose synonym for “Jewish prostitute”.

When Baudelaire writes a poem about a Parisian prostitute with whom he had just spent the night, he refers to her simply as a “Jewess”. That was enough to identify her as a prostitute. “Une nuit que j’étais près d’une affreuse Juive…” (“One night as I lay next to a frightful Jewess…”).

When Keats refers to Jewish prostitutes in an unpublished poetic fragment quoted in a private letter (1819), he doesn’t call them “prostitutes”. He just calls them “Jewesses”. Why? Because so many Jewesses were prostitutes that the two terms had virtually become interchangeable. “Nor in obscurèd purlieus would he seek / For curlèd Jewesses, with ankles neat, / Who, as they walk abroad, make tinkling with their feet.”  (See here.)

Keats is here referring to the typical Jewess with her “curly” ringlets. The tinkling ankle bells he mentions were often worn in past eras by prostitutes to signal their approach. Ever since Ancient India, such bells have been prostitute accessories.

*          *          *

You say you are “half Jewish”, Victoria, and that your family originally came from the Ukraine. Did you know that Odessa, the fourth largest city of Ukraine, was once a magnet for prostitute lovers from all over Europe? The city was famous for its sumptuous brothels, all supervised by Jewish madams who had formerly been prostitutes themselves. As for the girls working in those brothels, they were predominantly Jewish. Valued for their seductive charms, these joygirls were referred to simply as “Jewesses.”

Here is a pertinent  quote:

By the 1860s a French visitor to Odessa wrote that Jews there were responsible for a white slavery market in Russian women to Turkey. This is feasible, especially since we know that Jewish brothel-keepers were already in place at the other end in Constantinople. The 1889 census shows that Jewish women ran 30 of 36 licensed brothels in Kherson province, where Odessa was located. In 1908 the American consul there claimed that the whole business of prostitution is almost exclusively in the hands of Jews. Jewesses were prominent in the practice of prostitution. Thus, of 5127 licensed prostitutes in 1889, 1122 or 22 per cent were Jewish. (See here; Note: 22% is significantly high, given that Jews constituted only 4% of the Ukrainian population..

A Rabbi Rosenak of the German Union of Rabbis writes in 1902 that up to 50% of the prostitutes in his area were Jewish. He deplores the fact and considers it “inconceivable” that so many Jewish women should go astray.

Jewish prostitution flourished throughout the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Jewish procuresses ran the brothels, luring both Christian and Jewish girls into a life of prostitution. One Jewish madam was known as “Lucky Sarah”, so named because she was lucky enough to have founded the lucrative Hungarian export trade in girls. Hungarian girls were considered sexy. They had those dark, long-lashed eyes and exotic high cheek bones that so many men find attractive. In short, the Jewish look one finds enshrined in Hollywood’s first femme fatale, also known as “the Vamp”:

Theda Bara (born  Theodosia Goodman, 1885–1955), Jewish silent screen actress famous for her femme fatale roles. Note the corkscrew curls mentioned earlier by Keats (“curled Jewesses”). The  classic Hollywood femme fatale, Wikipedia tells us, was “often foreign … of an indeterminate Eastern European or Asian ancestry.”

Equally well-known to the Jewish Underworld of the time was Sarah Grossman, another Jewish procuress nicknamed “The Turk” because of the number of girls she had tricked into a life of prostitution in Constantinople. Two major sex emporiums were the industrial towns of Czernowitz and Lemberg. Here countless girls were enticed into a life of sex slavery. In 1892 a famous mass trial of twenty-seven procurers was held in Lemberg.  All the defendants were Jewish. The trial received so much attention, we are told, that it marked “a high water point for the anti-Semites.”

“A major device of the procurers was a Jewish ceremony referred to as the stillah chuppah. This included a religious wedding ceremony which had no civil validity. The soon-to-be abducted female would be misled into believing that she was married with the rights of a wife, only to discover later that her legal rights were nil. Innumerable Jewesses found themselves tossed into brothels by this device.”  (See here).

You see what is happening here, Victoria?  Vast numbers of innocent Jewish girls were tricked into a life of prostitution by their fellow Jews. It was their own race who tricked them and sold them down the river. It reminds me of the Jewish rabbis who tricked Norman Finkelstein’s mother out of her fair share of Holocaust reparations.

[adrotate group=”1″]

These are the facts, Victoria. They are the truth. Resist the truth if you want, but truth will prevail in the end. Rather than dismiss me as an “anti-Semite” for drawing the obvious conclusions from these well-known historical data, you should come to terms with the fact that most ordinary Jews are the dupes and victims of organized Jewry. It’s not these ordinary Jews I criticize or condemn, it’s their rabbinical and ideological controllers: the Puppet Masters, or the “Masters of Discourse,” to use Israel Shamir’s apt phrase.

It’s not the sheep, it’s the Bad Shepherds, who are the problem.

*          *          *

No class of men appears to be quite as sex-obsessed as the Orthodox Jews and the rabbinate. If you compare the religious texts of the various world religions, you will find that all of them — with the single exception of Judaism — maintain a high moral tone throughout. They don’t keep harping on aboutbreasts and penises, prostitutes and semen. Judaism does.

Consider this inflammatory passage from the Hebrew English Bible, enough to bring a blush to any maidenly cheek:

There she lusted after her lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. (Ezekiel 23: 20-21).

The number of Victorian damsels who must have swooned away over that passage is probably beyond computation.

Turn to the Babylonian Talmud and you will find yourself suddenly transported into a hothouse world of indelicate anecdotes dealing specifically with prostitutes and their rabbinical (or yeshiva student) clients. There are so many of these stories in the Talmud that a special name had to be invented for them:aggadah. Though these instructive anecdotes touch on all conceivable topics, usually with a rabbi as the central figure, sex often looms large. It can certainly be argued that Judaism is more obsessed with sex than any other world religion. (Scroll down to “Contents”, here.)

One such story starts like this: “They said of Rabbi Elazar ben Dordia that he did not leave one prostitute in the world that he did not come to. One time he heard that there was a certain prostitute in a town by the sea who took a purse of dinars for her price.  He took a purse of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers to reach her…” (Tractate Avodah Zara 17a). Another story begins: “There was once a man who heard that there was a prostitute in a town by the sea who took four hundred gold coins as her price.  He sent to her four hundred gold coins and set a time to come to her.  When his time came, he went. She said ‘Let him come in’.  When he entered, she sat naked on the top bed…etc. etc. ”  (Tractate Menachot, 44a)

The Talmud is full of such stories about rabbis and their students paying visits to prostitutes. Since the word “pornography” literally means “writing about prostitutes,” the Talmud is perhaps the only religious classic that could be described — in a literal sense — as pornographic.

We read in the Talmud of Rahab the harlot, for example, first mentioned in the book of Joshua. One of the most bewitching  femmes  fatales of antiquity, on a par with Helen of Troy and the fabulous Corinthian courtesan Lais mentioned by Demosthenes, the beautiful Rahab first began to sell her body at the age of ten.”There was no prince or ruler who had not slept with Rahab the prostitute,” the Talmud informs us breathlessly. (Tractate Zavachim  116b).

The rabbis, being the religious rulers of the day, were among the first to enjoy this nubile nymphette’s favors. Pedophilia? Yes, the Talmud is full of it. We are told of this Jewish Lolita: “They [the rabbis] allow her an honored place in Jewish tradition….Her past as a harlot is not held against her, and is almost entirely forgotten once she converts to Judaism.” (See here).

Nothing changes. Plus ça change. Pedophilia is okay, it seems, if you happen to be a Jewish rabbi or Roman Polanski — but not if you’re a Catholic priest.

 Pedophilia is not the only sexual perversion to which the Talmud appears to be tolerant. There is also voyeurism. An interesting anecdote relates how Kahane, a yeshiva student, hides under his rabbi’s bed and eavesdrops on him making love to his wife. He is discovered there and severely reprimanded by his teacher who orders him to leave the room at once. The student refuses. “No, I won’t!” he says. “For this is Torah, and I must learn!”

The rabbi is forced to take this into consideration. Spying on people having sex is arguably okay if your motive for doing so is a passion for the Higher Knowledge. (See  The Passionate Talmud, Introduction, p. 1).

Another section of the Talmud deals with bestiality. Widows are advised not to keep dogs. Why?  “Because”, one is told, “there’s some suspicion about what a woman who’s already tasted the pleasures of the flesh might do with her pet.”

I am not exaggerating when I say that the Talmud’s obsession with sex is unique among world religions. Amazingly, it has to be the only religious text in the world to discuss and compare the penis size of its most venerated sages.  (See  The Passionate Talmud, Introduction, p. 1).

Ex-President George W Bush on his way to Talmud class

*          *          *

Fast forward to the 21st century and we find that the contemporary rabbinate can hardly be cited as models of sexual restraint.

Turn from the Talmud to Ilana Hammerman’s  In Foreign Parts: Trafficking in Women in Israel and you will read harrowing accounts of Israel’s contemporary sex-service industry. Innocent young girls, many of them underage, are kidnapped in Russia and Eastern Europe and forced into a life of prostitution in Tel Aviv. Locked up without food, subject to threats and violence by their Jewish pimps, these wretched girls are sometimes expected to sleep with up to sixty customers a day. Their most assiduous clients, sporting black hats and bushy beards, are “religious” Orthodox Jews taking a sabbatical from their wives.

Here is the kind of eye-popping revelation we come across in Hammerman’s shocking book:

I had a very famous rabbi who would come and order a girl to have sex with him in the doggie position, and would ask her to bark,” a former brothel owner testified at a [Knesset] parliamentary committee. One of the working women, presented as a devout Christian, expresses an aversion to her religious clients: “They had a big black hat and under it [another] little black hat and they were real perverts. (See here).

According to a CNN report in 1998, Israel now has the highest per capita consumption of prostitute services in the world. One million visits are paid to prostitutes each month, making brothel hopping one of the nation’s most popular pastimes. Thousands of women are  abducted annually — mostly from Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia, Uzbekistan and China  —  and sold into sex slavery in Israel. “The situation,” Jewish author David Weinberg wrote in a 1998 article about prostitution in Israel, entitled Not So Holy Land, “is enough to make you cry in despair — or vomit from shame.”

*          *          *

Jews certainly have sex on the brain.

“I’m such a sex machine,” Radio talk show host Howard Stern boasts. “I could take a piece of wood and turn it into something erotic.”

Woody Allen, loyal supporter of pedophile Roman Polanski, was accused by his estranged wife Mia Farrow of sexually abusing their 7-year-old daughter Dylan. Woody is best known today for his brilliant witticism: “Don’t knock masturbation. It’s sex with someone I love.”

Hope Weissman, a Jewish professor at Wesleyan university in Connecticut, was the first to give a course on pornography in which her students were expected to “study” the most obscene pornographic magazines and witness a striptease performance by (Jewish) porn star Annie Sprinkle which may have included her famous routine of letting people peer up her vagina with a flashlight.

In  2001, Jewish professor Peter Singer put in a good word for bestiality at Princeton university, suggesting in an essay called Heavy Petting that one might like to get it on with a dog. Again in 2001, a Jewish community in England made big news when three strippers were invited to perform sexually explicit acts in a synagogue, possibly with the resident rabbi in full attendance.

In 1998, Israeli commentator Jonathan Rosenblum, noting that a CNN documentary had revealed that Israel now had the highest rate of prostitution in the world, had this to say: “Once again anti-Semites portray us as sexual libertines and perverts to undermine our moral authority. Today we cheerfully admit the charges.” (See here).

Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: any society that attracts large numbers of Jews can expect within a few years to enter a spiral of decadence. Moral anarchy sets in. Sexual promiscuity throws open its Pandora’s box of evils. We saw it in Weimar Germany. We see it gathering pace in America today. We see it above all in Israel, a society of fanatical settlers and rabid right-wing rabbis: a country surely doomed to implode from within, sooner or later, under the pressure of its own moral and military excesses.

I cannot help feeling that a great storm is brewing and that only a military coup or revolution can now save America. Save it from what?  From the spiritual cancer that is consuming it from within, and from the foreign wars into which it is being lured — Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon perhaps Iran — on behalf of another nation and its indefatigable agents in America.

Unless a miracle soon occurs and some charismatic leader comes to our rescue, an unimaginably bleak future surely awaits us: a future in which the only consolations left to us will be mindless entertainment, drugs, alcohol, sexual intoxication — and suicide.

Sincere best wishes, Victoria, and good luck to you in the days of terror and tribulation that lie ahead.

Lasha Darkmoon

Armageddon (see here and here)

Dr Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 32, with higher degrees in Classics. She is also a published poet and translator whose verse can be sampled here. “Lasha Darkmoon” is a pen name.

Ludwig Klages on Judaism, Christianity and Paganism (Excerpts and Aphorisms)

/in /by

Translated and edited by Joseph D. Pryce

Ludwig Klages

Ludwig Klages (1872–1956) was a prominent German philosopher associated with the intellectual movement known as ‘vitalism’ (Biozentrismus).  He seems to have been a solitary child, but he developed an intense friendship with a Jewish classmate named Theodor Lessing, who would himself go on to achieve fame as the theorist of “Jewish Self-Hatred,” a concept whose origins Lessing would later trace back to passionate discussions that he had had with Klages during their boyhood rambles on the windswept moors and beaches of their Lower Saxony home.  Shortly after the NSDAP seized power at the beginning of 1933, one of Klages’s disciples established the Arbeitskreises für biozentrisches Forschung (Working Group for Research on Vitalism). From 1938 onwards, when Reichsleiter Dr. Alfred Rosenberg delivered a bitter attack on Klages and his school in his inaugural address to the summer semester at the University of Halle, the official party spokesmen explicitly and repeatedly condemned Klages and his friends as enemies of the National Socialist Weltanschauung. Yet many prominent NS officials and many influential German academics in the Third Reich and after WWII had a very high opinion of Klages’ work.

The following material is derived from two sources:

Hans Eggert Schroder’s book: Ludwig Klages, Die Geschichte Seines Lebens (Ludwig Klages: The Story of His Life) (Bonn: 1966,1992), hereafter GL

Ludwig Klages’ book Rhythmen und Runen (Rhythms and Runes)(1944), hereafter RR.

The quotations from RR ‘disappeared’ after the WWII in subsequent German editions.

*           *           *

Mankind and Race

We must draw a sharp distinction between the man who sees the world as divided between the “human” and the “non-human,” and the man who is most profoundly struck by the obvious racial groupings of mankind (Nietzsche’s “masters”). The bridge that connects us to the Cosmos does not originate in “man,” but in race. (RR, 245)

Sin and the Pagan World

The idea of “sin” was quite alien to the pagan world. The ancient pagans knew the gods’ hatred as well as their revenge, but they never heard of punishment for “sin.” The ancient philosophers did understand something of the “good,” but when they employed this expression, they were certainly not endorsing the concept of the “sinless.” Quite the contrary: they were actually speaking of the pursuit of every type of excellence. (RR, 317)

The True Master of Secret Societies

In the forefront of our secret societies, we have the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the “Odd Fellows,” and B’nai B’rith. The educated classes are provided with such recent varieties as … the Einstein cult and Freudianism. For half-educated fools we have H. P. Blavatsky, Anny Besant, Rudolf Steiner, and Krishnamurti. For the poor in spirit, there’s the Christian Science of Mrs. Eddy, the Oxford Movement, and biblical fundamentalism. All of these groups, along with innumerable lesser organizations, are humanitarianism’s masks. Jewry is the center from which they are ruled. (GL, 1345)

Christianity and Wakefulness

Even in the garden of olives Christ begged his disciples to remain awake by his side. The saints indicate by their sleeplessness that nothing can harm them. Christianity is the war against sleep and dreaming, two states for which a reviving elemental life will always be yearning. Against the activity of astral wakefulness, elemental life places consummation and the pagan feeling for fate. True pagans regard sleeplessness as the most monstrous conceivable evil. In addition, the wakefulness of the Christian manifests a slavish impulse: the lurking wariness and prudence of submissive souls. (RR, 253)

From A Letter Re: “Anti-Semitism”

I’ve never endorsed the claim that the Nazi Bonzes [big-wigs] belonged to a superior race. However, I must also add that I have consistently refused to accept the claim of a certain other race to be the “chosen people.” The arrogance is identical in both cases, but with this significant distinction: after waging war against mankind for more than three thousand years, Jewry has finally achieved total victory over all of the nations of the earth.

Therefore, I will have nothing to do with the contemporary kowtowing on the part of almost the entire civilized world before the haters of all mankind (Tacitus spoke of Christians, but he certainly meant the Jews, as will be obvious to every alert reader of his works). I despise all this kowtowing to the Jews as an utterly mendacious tactical ploy. (GL, 1350)

The Prophecy of a Jewish Friend

I might easily fill ten pages…with anecdotes concerning the life of Richard Perls. He was born a Jew, but he eventually abandoned Judaism, a religion that he had come to hate. One year before his death, which occurred, to the best of my recollection, in 1897, he said to me: “Herr Klages, the ancient world was destroyed by Judaism, just as the modern world is about to be!” When I voiced my skepticism as to the accuracy of his prophecy…he merely responded: “Just wait—you will live to see my prophecy fulfilled!” (GL, 196)

The Great Deceiver

To the Jew, everything human is a sham. One might even say that the Jewish face is nothing but a mask. The Jew is not a liar: he is the lie itself. From this vantage point, we can say that the Jew is not a man. … He lives the pseudo-life of a ghoul whose fortunes are linked to Yahweh-Moloch. He employs deception as the weapon with which he will exterminate mankind. The Jew is the very incarnation of the unearthly power of destruction. (RR, 330)

How Yahweh Expresses Himself

Yahweh’s medium of expression is the gesture. The meaning of all of his gestures, so far as they actually possess any metaphysical significance, can be interpreted as an ever-deeper subjugation of one principle at the hands of an ever-loftier one: consecration, blessing, etc., on the one side, and repentance, contrition, and adoration on the other. Semitic religiosity is restricted to adoring worshipper and the adored deity. When this religiosity attaches itself solely to the personal, the emblem of worship becomes the individual person. Only the Semitic religions bow to the “One God.” In adoration, the believer achieves the non-rational form of ego-consciousness. Pagan rationality glides right past the god to the ego; in the Semitic “service of God,” however, the transcendental “One” brings destruction to the world of “appearances.” Apollo is, so to speak, an ethically developed Dionysus; he works on the soil of blood-thinning. Yahweh is the all-devouring nothingness; he works on the soil of blood-poisoning. (RR, 321)

The Cult of the Christ

It is impossible to conceive of a more fatal blindness than that of the cult instigated by this Jewish sectarian and his apostles and camp followers. Torn from the bonds of nature and the past, man must now direct his gaze at the wasteland known as the “future”; into that desert he stares, paralyzed by dread of the vengeful Jew-God. And before this insane masquerade of the “kingdom come,” the “last judgment,” and “eternal punishment” can be consummated, the true heroes and the real gods must first be made to grovel before the cross! (RR, 285)

Joseph Pryce (email him) is a writer, poet and translator. He is the author of the collection of mystical poems Mansions of Irkalla. Mr. Pryce wasborn in Brooklyn and studied for the Roman Catholic priesthood for three years (Redemptorist Order) and then attended Brooklyn College. He says for himself; “I was a musician for many years and recorded several CDs, but literature has always been my first love (especially poetry). I live with my wife, 30,000 books, and a dog and four cats on Long Island.” His translation of the German philosopher Ludwig Klages’ work will be published shortly.

Goodbye, America! (Part 2)

/4 Comments/in /by

In the near future, America will have a White minority.

We, the nominally Christian masses of European ancestry, will be surrounded by a sea of strange faces. All these polyglot multitudes, who have been teleported into America — and mainly because of Jewish influence against the will of its White majority — are now pitted against us. They are likely to be our new enemies. They have been shoehorned into America for one purpose only: to make life tough for us. They compete with us for vanishing jobs and diminishing resources, and inevitably they will obtain political power that they will use against us.  

The Multicultural Menagerie

One of the many “benefits” of multiculturalism is that loyalty issues come to the fore. Exhibit A for this is the notorious Jonathan Pollard spy case.

Jonathan Pollard, one in a long line of Jewish American spies. (See here). The total number of Jewish spies convicted or expelled from the US exceeds the number of spies from all other ethnic groups. As Jews make up only 2% of the American population and blacks 14%, there ought to be seven times as many black spies. In fact, there are none.

Requests for Pollard’s release from Jewish sources have been endless — Yitzhak Rabin (1995), Benjamin Netanyahu (2002), Ehud Olmert (2008). But Pollard remains safely behind bars, as if to show us that the old dog still wags its tail. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz expresses his anger thus: “As an American and as a Jew, I hereby express my outrage at Jonathan Pollard’s sentence of life imprisonment for the heinous crime he flagrantly committed.”

Sorry, that’s a misquote! It should be:  “…for the crime to which he pleads guilty.” (Pleading guilty to a crime, in Dershowitz’s bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland world, is clearly tantamount to being innocent or at least getting a soft sentence.)

It gives me no pleasure to point out that Israel’s present Prime Minister, the thuggish ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu, resorted to moral blackmail in 1998 at the Wye River Conference in order to secure Pollard’s release. “If we signed an agreement with Arafat, I expected a pardon for Pollard,” he said. Quid pro quo, you see. If you give us Pollard, we’ll give you the promise of peace.

“Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States it can dry up and blow away,” the same Netanyahu reportedly told Pollard, upon exiting Pollard’s prison cell after a friendly social call in 2002. This quote, which is cited all over the Internet, is the sort of thing that, even if inaccurate, reflects the reality that Israel and its Lobby in the US are exploiting American blood and treasure on behalf of Israel.

This is the man who refuses to desist from his ongoing dispossession of Palestine, while at the same time expecting American largesse in exchange for his intransigence — and more American lives, needless to say, lost in foreign wars fought for Israel.

It’s only in America, it seems, that the piper seems unable to call the tune. Another quote:

Netanyahu: “Watch it, boy, don’t dare speak to me like that! WE JEWS CONTROL AMERICA!  Ever heard of the Samson Option?”

Okay, he didn’t say that! But it’s what he could have said in a parallel universe. It’s what he  might well have said in this universe, if he was speaking his real thoughts.

Even American Vice-Presidents, Zionist lackeys though they be, visit Israel only to get spat upon. How do they react to their ritual humiliation at the hands of their Jewish masters?  As the spit lands on their faces, they ask if it’s raining.

“It’s good to be home!” VP Joe Biden gushes, arriving in Israel on an official visit. “The U.S. has no better friend than Israel! Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel!”

Stick a tail on this guy and he’d win first prize in a poodle competition.

As if to emphasize the point of Israeli muscularity, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld invokes the dreaded Samson option.”We possess several hundred atomic warheads,” he reminds us ominously, “and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”

Europe, watch out.

Meanwhile, in America, the Jews have never had it so good. In 2009, 35% of the richest men in America were Jews. This 2% of the population who are the wealthiest group in America and now comprise 25% of Ivy League undergraduates and 40% of Harvard alumni, are indeed voluble in their never-ending complaints about their victimhood. America’s 400 richest men, according to a report in the New York Times (March 23, 2009), own as much as 22% of the nation’s total wealth, and around 140 of these multibillionaires are Jews.

“Ah, how sweet it is to be Jewish at the end of this 20th century,” Alain Finkielkraut wrote in Le Monde in 1998. “We are no longer history’s accused, but its darlings. The spirit of the times loves, honors, and defends us, watches over our interests; it even needs our imprimatur. Journalists draw up ruthless indictments against the Nazis and their modern collaborators. Churches repent. States do penance.”

White America smiling … but not for long

You are this young couple. Here’s what happens to you. This is your fate:

You are kidnapped by four Blacks, three men and a woman, while out on a date. For the next twenty-four hours, you are subjected to systematic torture. Both of you are gang-raped. You, the young woman, are forced to watch your boyfriend being sodomized by three black men, one after the other. What does the black woman do? She stands in the background, watching, a kitchen knife in her hand, waiting to cut off your sweetheart’s penis. This happens. Maybe they all take turns to saw off your darling’s penis. It’s your turn now, White Lady. Let’s see your tits, Bitch! Hey man, pass me that knife! Yes, White Lady, it’s TIME FOR YOUR BREASTS TO BE CUT OFF! They rape you first. They make you drink cleaning fluid. And then they hack off your breasts. Finally, they strangle you to death.

No point going on. Both bodies are found dumped on waste ground later, riddled with bullets.

This happened in January, 2007, near Knoxville, Tennessee, to Christopher Newsom (23) and his girlfriend Channon Christian (21)  This whole grisly affair of Black-on-White violence was carefully covered up by the mainstream media.  Who owns the media? Don’t even ask!

“The details of the crimes were considered so horrific,” we are told, “that the authorities would not release accounts to the news media for fear of putting Blacks in a bad light and upsetting race relations. The facts emerged only when some enterprising reporters checked documents filed in federal court.”

This case is exceptional only for its psychopathic brutality.  Thousands of other cases occur in which Black-on-White rapes without murder feature, as well as countless cases of unprovoked beatings and verbal abuse of Whites.

Sarah Kreager, 26, suffered broken facial bones and other injuries after she was punched, kicked and dragged off a bus one Tuesday afternoon in January, 2009, by nine black students. Her boyfriend was also severely beaten up. There had been no provocation.

Apart from perfunctory local coverage with no mention of race, these crimes, almost without exception, go unreported by the media. (See here).

These are grounds for despair. Our new elites are of course behind this — we all know that now — deliberately fomenting racial hatred, while portraying White Americans as the underlying cause of that hatred.

Here’s an eerie picture of a future dystopia, the unimaginably grim America that awaits us:

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate! — Abandon hope, all ye who enter here! (Dante’s Inferno)

It’s time to discuss despair. Despair in general. Let’s talk about our despair.

Creating  Despair

Who began the Great Despair? Probably Darwin, without meaning to do so. It’s perhaps worth pointing out that the happiest and most optimistic poem ever written was penned a mere eighteen years before the Darwinian bombshell of 1859.  Here it is. Savor it slowly. It was never to be like this again:

The year’s at the spring
And day’s at the morn.
Morning’s at seven,
The hill-side’s dew-pearled,
The lark’s on the wing,
The snail’s on the thorn,
God’s in his Heaven —
All’s right with the world!

— Robert Browning, Pippa Passes, 1841

With the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, the mood was to change abruptly. A black cloud settled over the human psyche. Nietzsche was to cry out in anguish, “GOD IS DEAD!” And then, eight years after Darwin’s deathblow, came these — the noblest and most heartrending lines in the English language:

Ah, love, let us be true

To one another! for the world, which seems

To lie before us like a land of dreams,

So various, so beautiful, so new,

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

Where ignorant armies clash by night.

— Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach, 1867.

“God is dead…”

This is what Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s best friend, had to say after The Origin of Species hit the world like a screaming comet on 24 November 1859:

I know of no study which is so utterly saddening as that of the evolution of humanity. Man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than other brutes, a blind prey to impulses, a victim to endless illusions which make his mental existence a burden and fill his life with barren toil and battle.

In other words: you might as well blow your brains out!

Charles Darwin (1809–1882): “Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. … What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horribly cruel works of nature. … I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars…I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created that a cat should play with mice.”

No God, no morality: anything goes.

Life is no longer worth living in a world without God. Nietzsche knew this. Even as he pronounced God dead, he anguished: “Formula of my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.”

In other words: faith, certitude, meaning, purpose. These were the vital ingredients that were needed to make life endurable and invest it with dignity. Dostoevsky felt the same way. For him, nihilism was the ultimate nightmare. The problem was neatly summarized for him in the famous phrase he put into Ivan Karamazov’s mouth: “If God is dead, everything is permitted.”

Having concluded that God was dead, the philosophers of the Frankfurt School naturally believed that all was henceforth permissible. This followed from the premise that God was dead. It could not be avoided. If all was permissible, then the rape and murder of a little child was permissible. Ivan Karamazov was quick to point this out. Torture was permissible. There was no point obeying the Ten Commandments, let alone international law. Why bother?  “For if there’s no God,” Ivan Karamazov argued, “there’s no such thing as virtue — and no need for it.”

“DO WHAT THOU WILT” becomes the only law.

Today, at this very moment in New York City, a Muslim detainee is being tortured. He is being tortured in violation of international law, the American Constitution, and every ethical principle we hold most dear. This man has no criminal record and has not even been put on trial.

Why be good when evil’s easier? There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

 

“DO WHAT THOU WILT shall be the whole of the law.”  — Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), English Satanist, also known as “the Great Beast”. The Frankfurters would have been tickled pink by his next remark: “I was in the death struggle with self. God and Satan fought for my soul those three long hours. God conquered.  Now I have only one doubt left — which of the twain was God?

Freud and the Frankfurt School intellectuals — by all accounts a Jewish sect — now set out to manipulate this godless world out of bitter spite and despair. Racked with existential angst and hatred against Europeans and their culture, they created a culture of despair.

To destroy Western civilization now became their clearly articulated aim. “Who will save us from Western civilization?” Georg Lukács, one of the founders of the Frankfurt School, asked rhetorically. He began the “rescue operation” himself, convinced that the best way to do this was to create “a culture of pessimism” and “a world abandoned by God.” (Evangelizing despair.)

Georg Lukács (1885–1971): “I want a culture of pessimism…a world abandoned by God”

It was of vital importance to these spiritually deracinated Jews — with a chip on their shoulders two thousand years long — to launch a blitzkrieg of cultural iconoclasm against the Western countries that had harbored them for centuries and done their utmost to assimilate them. They saw Christianity as their main enemy and set out to destroy it: to undermine the family, to turn parent against child, to blur the lines between good and evil, to promote sexual promiscuity and moral relativism — in short, to strip man of his dignity and reduce him to the level of a beast.

A key component of the culture of despair and nihilism  was sex. Western mores on sexuality  — mores that had the effect of building strong families and providing a safe, loving environment for children — became a prime target of these revolutionaries. Solace and salvation henceforth lay in a hedonistic creed of sexuality.

It was Freud who said, “Sexual morality — as society in its extreme form, the American, defines it — is contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.” (See here.) Other Jewish intellectuals — notably Herbert Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich along with a phalanx of supporters in the media and the universities — marched in lockstep behind Papa Sigmund and spread the message to the masses: salvation through sex.

Freud: “Sexual morality … is contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”

This cultural nihilism also spread to politics. Appointing himself mankind’s chief  evangelist for moral anarchy, Frankfurt School luminary Walter Benjamin announced blandly: “To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics.”

This sentence needs deconstruction. I understand it thus. Fussy distinctions between good and evil should be removed from the realm of politics. If you can get away with flouting international law, as Israel does, then by all means do so. If you want to torture people, as the American government obviously does, don’t let moral scruples stand in your way. DO WHAT THOU WILT.

Following policies like this can be extremely effective, if only for this reason: The human psyche cannot bear to exist in a world in which such vile abominations are freely practised. Result?  Existential dissonance. Despair. The culture of pessimism and nihilism.

Walter Benjamin did well to map out a strategy of systematic despair creation. His own ideas got to him, working for him only too well. He committed suicide — hoist by his own petard.

I have said this before. Let me say it again. This is how the song goes:

Let’s create a culture of pessimism!  Let’s make western civilization stink! Let’s create a godless world and drive people to despair! Let’s corrupt society’s values and make life impossible! In short, LET’S CREATE HELL ON EARTH! To undermine. To corrupt. To create discord. To drive crazy. To destroy.

Verbs to remember.

Dostoevsky:  If God is dead, everything is permitted! Homo homini lupus — man is a wolf to man.

The Frankfurt School intellectual, with his philosophy of iconoclastic chaos creation, is Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov in the flesh.

Here he is:

I hasten to give back my entrance ticket to heaven! As I’m an honest man, I give it back right away! It’s not God I don’t accept, Alyosha — only I most respectfully return him the entrance ticket.

Sigmund Freud: “If only Americans knew, we are bringing them the plague!”

We are in the last days of a dying civilization. The writing is on the wall. Unless a miracle now occurs, we are history.

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.

Who benefits from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan?

/in /by

The following article is the slightly edited version of the speech Mr. Sunic gave on August 7, 2010 at the festival-conference of the NPD (National Democratic Party), near the town of Goerlitz, Germany.

Sunic’s live speech in German can be accessed on the VOR radio broadcast. The original text in German (“Wem nutzt der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan?”) will shortly appear in the NPD monthly Deutsche Stimme.

The text that follows was translated into English by the author.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, dear friends. Thank you all for being here. Many thanks for the invitation to our friends, the NPD chief Mr. Udo Voigt and Mr. Gerd Finkenwirth. Also many thanks to a lovely young lady Silvana for her professionalism and her kindness. I’d like to extend also my best greetings from my friends in the USA and from my colleagues from the American Third Party Position, our Chairman, William Johnson, Prof. Kevin MacDonald, the radio host of Political   Cesspool, James Edwards, and many, many other valiant members. Our recently launched party shares many similar ideas and pursues similar goals.

*    *    *

Instead of raising the question “who benefits from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq,” one might just as well ask the question: Who was the instigator of these two wars? The latter question does not sound very specific and provides a treasure trove for various conspiracy theoreticians. Wild speculations about the true motives of these wars are of no interest for us despite the fact that some of these conspiratorial allegations may be true. What we wish to find out is how these two wars were justified from the standpoint of international law and how they were legitimized by public discourse.

By the way, conspiracy theories, often ascribed to proverbial right-wingers, are not only the hallmark of right-wingers. The ruling class in the West does not shunusing different types of conspiratorial vocabulary whose prime purpose is to demonize and criminalize the political foe. In addition, the liberal system resorts frequently to conspiracy theories in order to justify its military interventions. Months before the invasion of Iraq, many American politicians, including the media had in all seriousness ranted about the “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” It soon turned out that the Iraqis had no such weapons, which was later conceded by the very same politicians.

From my own experience I could give you some firsthand illustrations of this conspiratorial vocabulary.  As a young man in communist Yugoslavia, I witnessed daily the endless verbal demonization of fictitious political opponents. The Yugo-communist system used the words “Nazi and fascist threat” in order to legitimize its repression against its critics. Although there were no more fascists in communist Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the Second World War, the system and its scribes had to dig up fictitious Nazi-Croats in order to justify its shortcomings and its terror. Back then we used a joke, which soon became iconic all over ex-communist Europe: “Even when a fly farts the Yugo-communist judiciary will not level criminal charges against the fly, but will instead apprehend the proverbial ‘Nazi-Croats.’” Similar linguistic escapades have now become part and parcel of the official vocabulary of the European Union, whose politicians dish out their propaganda under the elegant cloak of “freedom of speech” and “human rights.”

It is important to analyze how the liberal politicians and their warmongers manipulate public discourse.  On the one hand we are bombarded by a litany of horrific labels, such as “war on terror”, “Islamo-fascism”, and “Al Qaeda terrorists”; on the other, we must daily stay tuned to their sentimental utterings such as the “fight for human rights,” “multicultural tolerance”, or “freedom for Afghan women.” The German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not sound credible at all when she recently rendered homage to fallen German soldiers and the enduring commitment of German troops in Afghanistan, “which serves the interest of our country.” The entire address by Chancellor Merkel was teeming with theatrical verbiage, better known in Germany as “cemented language” (Betonsprache), once commonly used in former communist East Germany.

Regardless of the hyper-moralistic lexicon used by the Western ruling class, empirical evidence regarding the true motives for the US commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan is very sparse if not completely absent.

A Balance Sheet

The war in Afghanistan was launched 3 weeks after the terror attack on September 11, 2001 in New York. Even a halfwit can tell that a long-term military strategy for Afghanistan could not be readied in three weeks. The plan to overthrow the regime in Afghanistan and Iraq had already been waiting in the wings. The first indications of the upcoming war in the Middle East and Central Asia had been put on paper by pro-Zionist academics in America in the early nineties, namely, after the first indecisive Gulf War in 1991. Many American pro-Israeli journalists and many well-known Jewish-American scholars had began drafting a long term plan for the reorganization of the region — “regime change” in the Middle East and Asia. Especially important was the role of the American Enterprise Institute and the launching of “the Project for the New American Century.” Many important names participated in these projects, names that later came to be associated with the code term “neoconservatives.” September 11, came to them as if sent by God.

Any war anywhere in the world must be always preceded by cultural warfare. TheUS neocons understood that very well. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq began first as an academic dispute — largely spearheaded by neocon journals, such asCommentary and The Weekly Standard. Today however, the language of “weapons of mass destruction” has replaced its bellicose denominator with the euphemism of “fighting for democracy.” In retrospect, one must raise the question whether one could also draw parallels between the fraudulent motives for the current war in Iraq and the Allied motives for their WWII commitment in Europeand the subsequent “reeducation” of the German people.

Even after nine years of war in Afghanistan, even after seven years of Iraq, the security climate in the Middle East and Afghanistan, or for that matter in the entire West, has not improved. It has deteriorated. There is far more terrorist threat today than eight or nine years ago. One can argue that the risk of Islamic terrorism in Europe and the USA grows in proportion to the continuation of war inIraq and Afghanistan.

And what happened with European politicians during that time?  In 2001, during the deployment of US troops in Afghanistan, as well as two years later during the invasion of Iraq, the consent of the European allies was difficult to come by. European NATO members, apart from their servile policies toward Washington, knew well that no quick war results were at hand. Official Germany and Francewere skeptical because they have twice as many Muslim immigrants than the entire U.S., and in addition, they have different visions about how to fight terrorism. For Germany, as a valiant US ally and a NATO member, it was not easy to openly defy the Americans. It is not worth talking about this post-World War II German subservience now. In order to grasp German foreign policy somersaults over the last 60 years one must first delve into the Allied laundering of the German character and the process of massive reeducation which is still part of the German media landscape.

Unlike Germany and France, the Bush administration had no problem drumming up support among Eastern Europeans for their foreign expeditions. Here are two reasons:

Only two decades ago all East European countries were allies of the Soviet Union; they became NATO members just a decade ago. The political and cultural mimicry of Americanism — albeit with a broken Slavic accent — in this part of Europe is more widespread than in Germany or in France.

The other reason is that the bulk of politicians and academics from the Baltics to the Balkans, is made up of rebranded  communist apparatchiks and their progeny. In order to cover up their own criminal past, or for that matter their former communist terror policies, they needed to become more Catholic than the Pope, i.e. more Americans than the  Americans themselves.

Hence the reasons Eastern Europeans politicians can now be far better manipulated and are far easier to bribe into political servility than Western European politicians — with the exception of Russia. Once upon the time East European politicians made obligatory pilgrimages to Moscow, Belgrade, orHavana. Today, their mandatory places of pilgrimage are Washington and Tel Aviv.

American Political Theology

The beneficiaries of these two wars were, at least at the beginning of the hostilities, US neoconservatives and the state of Israel. But it is wrong to blame them only. To understand the deep-seated motives of U.S. foreign policy, one has to delve into American political theology — the conviction of many American politicians of their country’s divine chosenness. The architects and beneficiaries of these wars are motivated by secular political consequences, but the root causes of these wars have a theological dimension. These two cannot be separated.  Uri Avnery, an Israeli leftist writer, remarked some time ago that “Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.”

Sure, it goes without saying that an Israeli journalist, but also many left-leaning Jewish American scholars, such as Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein can easily get away with such an anti-Israeli rhetoric. Its is questionable what type of grammar, let alone language structure a non-Jewish intellectual, or some “right-winger” would need to use in order to express the same judgments.

Over one hundred years US politicians and their advisors have tapped into the Old Testament in quest of their notion of the political. Many American politicians have adopted their political conceptualization from the ancient Hebrew thought. One hundred and fifty years ago it was the ante bellum secessionist South which became the symbol of absolute evil; later, at the beginning of the 20th century, the symbol of the absolute evil became the “bad German” and shortly afterwards the proverbial  “Nazi.” During the Cold War it was temporarily the role of Communists in the Soviet Union to play the bad guys. As there are today no more Communists, no more Fascists, no more Southern Segregationists, some substitute had to be urgently looked for. So for many American Bible do-gooders the Ersatz was to be found among the so-called Islamo-fascists, or Islamic terrorists.

Soon this new category of absolute evil expanded to include the Palestinian Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah and  “rogue states”, like Iraq, Syria and Iran. Geopolitically, these states, including Israel, are of no importance to America’s security whatsoever. But America’s metaphysical ties to Israel make many American politicians perceive Israeli’s enemies as their own.
It is wrong, therefore, to solely blame the Israelis and US neoconservatives, or for that matter the Jews for these two wars. They were or may still be the beneficiaries, but much of the popular support for this “make-the-world-safe-for-democracy” political theology comes from the millions of Christian-Zionists.

Their spirit of chosenness has had its offshoot in a secular ideology of human rights, taken now for granted as something humane and indispensable by the entire world. Yet it is in the name of human rights that the worst mass crimes are often committed. It is in the name of “human rights” that many non-conformist intellectuals can be easily shut up. When a self-proclaimed democrat talks about human rights, one should raise a critical question: “What happens then to those who do not fit into the category of humans or democrats?” Logically, they must be tagged as beasts and animals and therefore, cannot be re-educated, but must be physically wiped out or shut down. Let us try to picture what was crossing the mind of young American pilots who flew over Cologne and Hamburg in the summer of 1943. They had no remorse firebombing these cities below. They viewed the creatures down below as the embodiment of the absolute evil, as the most dangerous beasts that needed to be exterminated for good.

Christian-Zionists bear some of the responsibility for these two wars. Their self-serving idea of some special divine election does not lead to better understanding among different nations and different races, but to endless and futile wars.

Dr. Sunic (www.tomsunic.info) is a writer and former U.S. professor in political science. He is on the Board of Directors of the American Third Position. He is the author of several books. His latest book, dealing with the meaning of national identity is in French, La Croatie; un pays par défaut? (Paris: éd Avatar, 2010)

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s “During the Soviet-German War” Chapter 21 of 200 Years Together

/1 Comment/in /by

Solzhenitsyn’s Chapter 21, on the WWII years, is now available. See here, and again notice the link requesting donations.) As elsewhere, it stresses the reality behind Jewish complicity in Bolshevism. For example, he argues that evacuations of Jews during WWII were done without publicity—mainly because of sensitivity about German propaganda emphasizing “Judeo-Bolshevism”: “The Soviet leadership undoubtedly realized that they gave a solid foundation to this propaganda during the 1920s and 1930s.”

During the war, traditional anti-Jewish themes and hostility toward Jews because of their role as an elite during the most horrific periods of Soviet history was combined with a new accusation: That Jews served the Soviet military disproportionately in positions where they were less likely to suffer casualties. Solzhenitsyn’s own personal experience is compelling: “Yes, one could hear this among the soldiers on the front. And right after the war — who has not experienced that? — a painful feeling remained among our Slavs that our Jews could have acted in that war in more self-sacrificing manner, that among the lower ranks on the front the Jews could have been more represented.”

Solzhenitsyn is not saying that Jews did not serve, but that they tended to serve either as senior officers or support personnel, not as ordinary soldiers in the front lines. The result was that Jews suffered lower mortality rates:

What mattered is that not everybody could survive …. Meanwhile an ordinary soldier, glancing back from the frontline, saw all too clearly that even the second and third echelons of the front were also considered participants of the war: all those deep rear headquarters, suppliers, the whole Medical Corps from medical battalion to higher levels, numerous rear technical units and, of course, all kinds of service personnel there, and, in addition, the entire army propaganda machine, including touring ensembles, front performance troops — they all were considered war veterans and, indeed, it was apparent to everyone that the concentration of Jews was much higher there than at the frontline.

Such personnel have a “completely different psychology” because being at the front line is voluntary: “nobody would have forced him ‘to hold the position.’” He also provides examples of a Jew who left the frontline in favor of a newspaper position, and he scoffs at a Jewish musician’s claim to have dug trenches:  “As a war veteran, I say — an absolutely incredible picture.”

Similar attitudes were common in the American military during WWII, as discussed in Dynamics of Prejudice, by Bruno Bettelheim and Morris Janowitz, a volume in the Studies in Prejudice series, published by the American Jewish Committee. This is the same series that included the notorious The Authoritarian Personality (by the Frankfurt School folks), so one should be wary of the numbers. Nevertheless, using a sample of 150 soldiers, they found that a substantial minority of the White soldiers interviewed regarded Jews as tending to have rear echelon jobs (20%) or were poor combat soldiers (17%).

[adrotate group=”1″]

But in the end, Solzhenitsyn acknowledges that the actual data do not allow for any firm conclusions: “Such anecdotal evidence cannot make up a convincing argument for either side and there are no reliable and specific statistics nor are they likely to surface in the future.” Nevertheless, the general picture one gets is that indeed Jews were less likely to put themselves in harm’s way.

Solzhenitsyn expresses amazement at the reaction of one Jew who felt that the war was not really his war:

Of course, Stalin’s regime was not any better than Hitler’s. But for the wartime Jews, these two monsters could not be equal! If that other monster won, what could then have happened to the Soviet Jews? Wasn’t this war the personal Jewish war, wasn’t it their own Patriotic War — to cross arms with the deadliest enemy in all of Jewish history? (Emphasis in text.)

Even though this case is presented as nothing more than an anecdote, Solzhenitsyn ascribes it to a lack of loyalty—an ancient and persistent source of anti-Jewish attitudes. His treatment implies that such attitudes are typical among Jews. Jews have proven they are good fighters by the behavior of the Israeli army. But “their interest in this country is partial. After all, they — even if many of them only unconsciously — saw ahead looming in the future their very own nation of Israel.” 

As usual, Solzhenitsyn does not shy away from criticizing the facile explanations of Jewish historians. Anti-Jewish attitudes increased dramatically as Jewish evacuees from Eastern Europe mixed with non-Jewish natives and with wounded Soviet military personnel in Central Asia. Here traditional themes of anti-Semitism surfaced—Jewish lack of involvement in physical labor, Jewish wealth (many Jewish evacuees were high-level bureaucrats) and the involvement of Jews in sharp economic practices. A Jewish author “explains” this as resulting from “Hitler’s propaganda.” Solzhenitsyn mocks him:

What a dizzying revelation! How could Hitler’s propaganda victoriously reach and permeate all the Central Asia when it was barely noticeable at the front with all those rare and dangerous-to-touch leaflets thrown from airplanes, and when all private radio receiver sets were confiscated throughout the USSR?

Anti-Jewish attitudes were also rife where Jews returned to areas formerly occupied by the Germans. This was particularly the case in Ukraine, and motivated by memories of the role of Jews in the Soviet repressions of the 1930s: “A secret German report from the occupied territories in October 1941 states that the ‘animosity of the Ukrainian population against Jews is enormous… they view the Jews … as informants and agents of the NKVD, which organized the terror against the Ukrainian people.’”

The organization of Ukrainian Nationalists of Bandera-Melnik (OUN) made the following remarkable statement: “The Yids in the Soviet Union are the most loyal supporters of the ruling Bolshevik regime and the vanguard of Moscow imperialism in Ukraine. … The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists considers the Yids as the pillar of the Moscow-Bolshevik regime, while educating the masses that Moscow is the main enemy.” Yaroslav Stetzko (who in July 1941 was named the head of the Ukrainian government): “The Jews help Moscow to keep Ukraine in slavery, and therefore, I support extermination of the Yids and the need to adopt in Ukraine the German methods of extermination of Jewry.”

Solzhenitsyn often juxtaposes Jewish and Russian suffering but emphasizes that Jewish suffering is better known. He describes Babi Yar, the site of mass executions, mostly of Jews, by the Germans and notes that “the executions at Babi Yar have become a symbol in world history.”  But immediately after he writes that

it should be recalled that within a few kilometers from Babi Yar, in the enormous Darnitskiy camp, tens of thousands Soviet prisoners of war, soldiers and officers, died during the same months: yet we do not commemorate it properly, and many are not even aware of it. The same is true about the more than two million Soviet prisoners of war who perished during the first years of the war.

So Russians actually suffered more than Jews, at least in terms of sheer numbers, but the events are simply forgotten.

Similarly, Solzhenitsyn discusses a study claiming that 2,733,000 Jews were lost during the war within the post-war Soviet boundaries from all causes—55% of the Jewish population. Immediately thereafter he points out that “the currently accepted figure for the total losses of the Soviet population during the Great Patriotic War is 27,000,000 and it may be still underestimated.”

And even though the percentage losses of Jews were larger, the long term effects have been more devastating for the Russians:

We must not overlook what that war was for the Russians. The war rescued not only their country, not only Soviet Jewry, but also the entire social system of the Western world from Hitler. This war exacted such sacrifice from the Russian people that its strength and health have never since fully recovered. That war overstrained the Russian people. It was yet another disaster on top of those of the Civil War and de-kulakization — and from which the Russian people have almost run dry.

One can’t help thinking that the Russians would not have had to make such a sacrifice in the absence of the widespread perception throughout conservative circles in Europe that the Soviet Union was dominated by a Jewish elite (see, e.g., Bendersky, Mayer, Nolte). In any case, Jews have recouped their population losses And the Holocaust has become a prime source of identity for Jews and the prime rationalization for Israel. The Russians are simply exhausted.

In the end, Solzhenitsyn believes that there is plenty of blame to go around:

I fully agree with Hannah Arendt that the Jews of our century were equal participants in the historical games of the nations and the monstrous Catastrophe that befell them was the result of not only evil plots of the enemies of mankind, but also of the huge fatal miscalculations on the part of the Jewish people themselves, their leaders and activists.

But the Russians must look into the mirror as well. Russians need to engage in self-criticism

despite the unbearable burden of realization that it was we, Russians, who ruined our history — through our useless rulers but also through our own worthlessness — and despite gnawing anxiety that this may be irreparable — to perceive the Russian experience as possibly a punishment from the Supreme Power. (my emphasis)

One wishes that Solzhenitsyn would have been more specific about what he feels were the “fatal miscalculations” of the Jews that led to the Holocaust. I suspect that the well-founded reality behind “Judeo-Bolshevism” mentioned in this chapter and the aggressively hostile Jewish stance toward the Czar leading up to the Revolution (which, as Chapter 5 shows, was largely unwarranted) –would have been high on his list.

As for the Russians, the central fact is that their “useless leaders” were not Russians during the period when they endured such horrifying losses as a result of the actions of their own government. Their leaders were ethnic outsiders — with Jews the preeminent and most loyal force. Solzhenitsyn  makes this clear in Chapter 18 and it is also asserted in a recent Russian textbook that has drawn the fire of Jewish activists.

The real lesson here is the horrifying fate suffered by ethnic groups that come under the control of a hostile, ethnically alien elite—a lesson that White Americans would do well to heed.

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

Jews Mocking the Tribe?

/in /by

The Jewish love of mockery is famous. Given the chance, they mercilessly mock many things, particularly their enemies, the goyim. Toward that end, they also mock that which is sacred to goyim, such as Christianity and Christian holidays.

For example, one of Freud’s first students, Theodore Reik, found such aggressive themes and hostility toward non-Jews in Jewish humor. Here is an example:

Little Moritz sees an historical film showing the early persecutions of the Christians. During a Roman circus scene in which many Christians are thrown to the lions, Moritz breaks out in sobs and says to his mother: “Look at that poor little lion there, it has not got any Goy to eat!” Under the disguise of duty for the neglected beast is an old hatred and repressed cruelty toward Gentiles. It breaks through here, surprisingly, and reaches the emotional surface.

Brandeis University professor Steven Whitfield shares this relatively innocuous but revealing joke about Gentiles: “Why did God create goys?” “Somebody has to buy retail.”

Whitfield notes that Moritz Saphi “may well have been the first writer to perceive Jewish wit as ‘the defense and weapon of the oppressed,’ a way of getting revenge and a form of stress management.” As an example, he describes a pious Jew on his deathbed who announces that he wants to covert to Christianity. Shocked, his family asks why. “Better one of them should go than one of us.”

Cutting humor about Christianity is at times a staple of Jewish American humor, though Jews have been careful to gauge the reception such humor among Gentiles is likely to receive.  One comic who pushed these limits — further than many Jews of the era would have preferred — was Lenny Bruce. In a “funny variation on Jewish delusions and gentile nightmares,” Bruce joked about Presidential contender Barry Goldwater:

So dig. Goldwater lives in Arizona. He did a switch, man. He says, “Frig it. I’ll keep my name and I’ll change my religion.” That was his bit.

That’s weird, you know? Finally we have a man in — that’s going to be Goldwater’s last step: gets in, gets before the T.V. cameras for the acceptance speech, and he rips off the mask and you see the big nose and the semitic look and the spittle coming out and [Goldwater screaming vindictively] “YAHAHAHAAAAAA!  WE’LL BURN ALL THE CHURCHES!”

Bruce performed one of his most famous routines in a Chicago nightclub:

You and I know what a Jew is — One Who Killed Our Lord. I don’t know if we got much press on that in Illinois — we did this about two thousand years ago. . . . And although there should be a statute of limitations for that crime, it seems that those who neither have the actions nor the gait of Christians, pagans or not will bust us out, unrelenting dues, for another deuce.

Alright, I’ll clear the air once and for all, and confess. Yes, we did it. I did it, my family. I found a note in my basement. It said: “We killed him . . . signed, Morty.” And a lot of people say to me, “Why did you kill Christ?” “I dunno . . . We killed him because he didn’t want to become a doctor, that’s why we killed him.”

Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner share a milder story about Christ, “The Two Thousand Year-Old Man,” which begins:

You’re a little storekeeper in Nazareth, and I would like to know what happened the day when they crucified Christ on the mountain. Did you know Christ?

Yes; thin, thin, nervous — wore sandals. Came in the store, didn’t buy much, mainly water, wanted water — so I gave him water. Look! You have a business. You can’t always make a sale. So when people want water, you give them water. But one thing I have to admit.  He was a bit of a troublemaker. He beat up a couple of rovs on the steps of the shul — and you know you can’t do that! But they didn’t have to nail him up. They could have given him a severe lecture. I didn’t agree with such a severe punishment. Oh, such a terrible day! All that yelling and screaming up on the mountain. I tell you it was very upsetting. In fact, it got so bad, I had to close up the store.

The authors of a book on Jewish humor relate a joke that is a good summation of three Jewish themes relating to Gentiles: love of the shiksa [non-Jewish woman], social acceptance, and Gentile gullibility:

Three Jews who have recently converted to Christianity were having a drink together in a posh WASP country club. They started talking about the reasons for their conversions.

“I converted out of love,” said the first, and noticing the dubious looks on his friends’ faces, he continued: “Not for Christianity, mind you, but for a Christian girl. As you both know, my wife insisted that I convert.”

“And I,” said the second, “I converted in order to rise in the legal system. You probably know that my recent appointment as a federal judge may have had something to do with my new religion.”

The third man spoke up: “I converted because I think that the teachings of Christianity are superior to those of Judaism.”

“Are you kidding?” said the first man, spitting out his drink. “What do you take us for, a couple of goyim?”

This joke, Professor Whitfield writes, “reveals more than a hint of contempt toward a sister monotheism.  It slyly stabs at the mental inferiority ascribed to non-Jews, whose religious creed is too preposterous to be credible.”

This sentiment is in evidence in another Jewish joke he cites:

Three recent converts to Christianity were being tested.

“What is Easter?” the first man was asked.

“Easter is when Jesus was born.”

“Go back and study,” they said to him. “Next!”

“What is Easter?”

“Easter,” said the second man, “was when Jesus split the Red Sea.”

“I’m sorry,” he was told. “You’ll have to do some more studying. Next!”

“What is Easter?” the third man was asked.

“Easter,” he said tentatively, “was when Christ was reborn.”

“Excellent. Please continue.”

“Well,” the man said cautiously, “he was in the grave for three days. . . .”

“Very good; and then?”

“And then he came out, saw his shadow — and went back in!”

Finally, we arrive at what must be the most blatantly hostile and offensive portrayal of Christmas ever found in the mainstream American media. The creators of the animated series South Park concocted a Christmas character to replace Santa. This new character is “Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo,” an animated human feces. Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Jewish boy Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror. (This early version can be viewed here and a long discussion I did of the topic here.)

One hardly knows what to make, then, of recent examples where young Jews really push the envelope on exposing their own power or even crimes, all done with cutting humor.

For instance, the whole question of Jewish power in Hollywood and in TV is a touchy one. In his excellent study The Jews of Prime Time, David Zurawik asks, “What is ‘too Jewish’ yet not Jewish enough?”  Answer: “the strange history of Jewish characters on prime-time network television.” The incongruence to which he refers comes from the fact that nearly all the top TV executives and producers were Jewish, yet they were ambivalent about portraying their own high status or that of Jews in other important areas of American life. To illustrate, he begins with an interview with Jewish comedian Al Franken (now a Senator from Minnesota). Zurawik’s direct access to Franken and TV mogul Brandon Tartikoff provides an inside view of Jewish thinking on the “too Jewish” issue.

Tartikoff was concerned about a sketch on NBC Entertainment’s highly popular Saturday Night Live show, in which actor Tom Hanks plays a fictional emcee of a game show called “Jew/Not-a-Jew.” Alluding to Laverne & Shirley co-star Penny Marshall, Hanks asks, “Okay, panelists, Jew or not a Jew?” Tartikoff allowed that it was funny “but was it anti-Semitic?” After agonizing over it for a week, he gave the skit a green light, whereupon his phone rang off the hook on Sunday morning “with calls from colleagues, many of whom were Jewish.” The most troubling call, said Tartikoff, came from his mother. “I cannot believe it. I’m embarrassed to call you my son. This Jew/Not-a-Jew sketch was the most anti-Semitic thing I’ve ever seen.”

While Tartikoff may have erred in this instance, there were other times he pulled the plug because a sketch or show was “too Jewish.” Why did Tartikoff and other Jewish executives so often react this way? To Franken, it was because “there’s a feeling among some Jews that ‘Hey, let’s not get too out front in our Jewishness, because people might not like it.’ . . . ‘Hey, let’s not . . . draw fire. There’s a lot of us in this business, let’s not call attention to it, you know.’” This may well explain why so many Jewish network executives and TV programmers shaded or avoided any connection between Jewish identity and what characters said or did on so many shows. In fact, Tartikoff in 1991 nearly canceled Seinfeld after just one episode for being — surprise — “too Jewish.”

Why, then, did the heavily Jewish Saturday Night Live crew ever create — let alone run — a skit that makes fun of the prominent role Jews played in the financial meltdown? The skit spoofs Jews such as Herbert and Marion Sandler, Congressman Barney Frank, and even George Soros. Here’s the unadulterated original version.

Who, exactly, are they mocking? True, everyone in the skit is by definition a buffoon, from the character of President Bush to the Yuppie scum so totally self-absorbed in their own lives.

Is the real target, however, the gentile audience which comprises the victim class in all of these Jewish financial crimes? After all, Jews are no doubt highly cognizant of the fact that co-religionists such as Bernie Madoff, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and literally hundreds more Jews have been involved in these financial crimes.

Thus, is the joke here in part due to the assumption that the goyim watching the skit will not really understand who has done what and to whom? Further, isn’t there more than a suggestion that the skit really mocks goyim because even if they have figured out the ethnic identity of the bulk of these scammers, they still won’t or can’t do a damn thing?

Now comes an even more blatant example of this kind of humor. The problem is, I don’t really know who should get the credit. It’s a parody newscast from something called Onion News Network, an offshoot of the original newspaper of that name. At this point, I can’t say to what extent it or this particular skit is Jewish-influenced, so I’ll wait for further comment on that.

Still, the ADL has yet to issue a condemnation of the skit, something one would expect had non-Jews created a blatantly anti-Semitic image. Or maybe Nathan Rabin had a hand in it. He’s the head writer at the A.V. Club, the entertainment-oriented sister publication to The Onion. Again, I’d like to hear more about this from readers.

In any case, the title of the parody in question is “Overcome Stress By Visualizing It As A Greedy, Hook-Nosed Race Of Creatures.” Now to someone of my generation, “hook nosed” is an unambiguously negative reference to Jews. We know this because Jewish groups are constantly telling us NOT to think of Jews in this way. To an older generation, such images are right out of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda magazine:

Have a look now at the image, first a frame from the video, then watch the short video itself.


Overcome Stress By Visualizing It As A Greedy, Hook-Nosed Race Of Creatures

I must say, the set is professional looking and faux-hosts “Jim Haggerty” and “Tracy Gill” are indistinguishable from the real thing.  Under the banner “STRESS RELIEF NOW!” we read about today’s guest: Expert Christine Eckard Shares Stress-Relief Exercises.

On a surface level, the humor succeeds because the hosts and guest are so typical of today’s superficial TV personalities and therapy experts. They’re also very goyish (the name Christine, for example, amplifies this).

As we go deeper, however, it gets more difficult to read. For starters, what they are showing is quite accurate. So how does using the truth perform as part of the humor? I don’t think the skit is making fun of Jews for their appearance or behavior. Rather, I think the writers are making fun, first, of their goy audience. “Look, we’re showing you explicitly what Jews are, yet you’re still too stupid to see it. What can’t we do and not get away with? There is no limit to your goyische kopf stupidity.”

More pointedly, however, I think the Jews behind the skit (again, I have to assume this because I can’t imagine non-Jews ever daring to create images such as these) are getting a thrill out of scaring and offending older Jews. It’s a very adolescent thing — to scandalize your parents. For a young Jew in America today, where physical safety has also been guaranteed and financial or job prospects never a true worry, what can beat the frisson of excitement associated with tweaking the noses of the goyim with some secrets about the tribe and in the process really upsetting mom, dad and uncle Bernie down at the country club in Miami?

For instance, our goyische “expert” tells her audience to

Imagine my money-related stress as the most disgusting terrifying creature I can think of. I’d like to imagine an ugly, greasy little creature with a hooked nose and oily black hair. I call him the Grabbler because he’s a greedy little monster who wants to grabble up all your money. Now think of all the problems. He invented interest rates like the ones on your credit card. He’s taking the jobs because Grabblers only hire their own kind.”

That’s hitting a little too close to home, isn’t it, messieurs Madoff, Blankfein and Soros?

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs

The next part clearly mocks goyim for our penchant of sticking our heads in the sand rather than face up to real problems. Better, it mocks us because rather than face our problems and deal with them, we resort to puerile tactics such as shifting our focus to happy, sappy things. Like, say, rather than dealing with the fact that a gang of Black punks has just knifed your neighbor’s 16-year-old, you light candles, hug each other and visualize a world filled with nothing but love. Goyim can be really, really stupid.

In the case of this video, our expert beseeches us to imagine yourself in a peaceful field full of lilies. Meanwhile, the banner at the bottom of the screen reinforces this: “Picture Yourself In A Quiet Space Free Of Grabblers, Such As A Field Or A Church.”

Get it?  A church is where goyim go.

The expert than asks us to expunge idea that grabblers are scheming or trying to rob you. The power of positive thinking. How utterly stupid. But of course a grabbler by nature schemes and tries to rob people. You’ve just imagined away any defense from these grabblers. I guess that’s funny to some people.

Therapist Christine moves next to “Blabblers,” “people who love to argue and complain in a nasal voices. They’re always lurking like rats.” Here’s the image:

The first thing that came to my mind when hearing the world “blabbler” was an image of Barbra Streisand who is affectionately known as “Babs.”

The mock interview ends with host Haggerty plugging guest Christine Eckard’s latest book. We then get a close-up of the title: The Solution: Kill all the Grabblers.

So our expert with the German-American sounding name, Christine Eckard, has genocide in her eyes, quite appropriate for anyone with German blood. Ha ha ha.

As I’ve said, there is a lot going on in this short video, and I’m far from reaching any conclusions.

A Google search turns up a few hints. A site called Subverted Nation, for one, argues that

to your conscious mind, it all sounds just as silly as it’s presented. The problem is that your subconscious mind only sees things in a literal sense. It does not have the ability to reason, and it is completely unable to use any logic whatsoever. So, when you are told to visualize these problems simply fading away, and replacing the imagery with something soft and sweet, this is exactly what your subconscious mind does.

It’s very subtle, but this kind of neuro-linguistic programming works extremely well, and your enemy is seasoned in this practice in ways many of you are unable to imagine. These are the kinds of techniques taught in the secret mystery schools to all of their kind. This is the stuff you often miss, that is playing a vital role in their battle for your mind, bodies, and souls.

This writer also argues that “90% of the people on planet Earth do not know who this enemy really is, they do not recognize the “grabbler” as the Jew, and they are utterly clueless as to how serious of an issue this really is.” I simply can’t agree with that. I refuse to believe that anything close to such a majority of fellow Americans are clueless about such stereotypes about Jews. Could it be possible?  Again, I’d like to hear from readers.

An acquaintance seemed to think it possible, though. He told me that “Most people watching the ‘Grabbler’ sketch don’t see it with our [Jew-wise] eyes. Indeed, one could come up with a PC, philo-Semitic reading of the spoof: it reveals that all gentiles have anti-Semitic fantasies and thus are in need of sensitivity re-education.” If he’s right about this reading, then we’re in deeper trouble than I had realized.

In closing, let me proffer one last hypothesis for the Jewish medium known as television for offering negative but fairly accurate depictions of Jews: Could these Jews be crying out to get caught? Naaaaawwww.

Bookmark and Share