Review of Alan E. Steinweis. Studying the Jew: Scholarly Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (Harvard University Press, 2006) and Christopher M. Hutton, Race and the Third Reich (Polity, 2005).

A new book, with the provocative title Studying the Jew, describes the approach that analyses of the Jewish question took in Germany under the National Socialist government’s racial studies program. The author Alan E. Steinweis focuses attention on scholarly German journals of the period, dealing with biological, anthropological, ethnological, theological, economic, and criminological studies as related to Rassenkunde (Race Science). Steinweis excludes vulgar, lowbrow anti-Semitic screeds from his study, concentrating instead on the academic literature on the Jewish question written by and for the better-educated segment of German society during the National Socialist period.

For centuries, indeed millennia, animosity toward Jews has periodically erupted into emotionally charged pogroms, expulsions, and persecutions. This animosity had variously been attributed to religious or political differences as well as to perceived unattractive personal characteristics attributed to Jews (e.g., their critical nature, their mocking attitude, business and financial acumen, exclusiveness, aggressiveness).

According to Steinweis, it was Adolf Hitler, who completely revised how anti-Semitism was understood. In the modern world Anglo-American countries especially have tried to ascertain why and how some people come to dis like Jews, assuming that the reason resides in the individual or in his life experiences. Hitler, on the other hand, approached the question assuming that something in the very nature of Jews evoked adverse feelings in many non-Jews. Hitler wanted his researchers to find “an anti-Semitism of reason” based on empirical scientific evidence, not just anti-Semitism as a “simple manifestation of emotion.”

Because German universities for centuries had remained bound to traditional academic pursuits independent of politics, the incoming National Socialist government had to establish separate institutes for racial studies that were deliberately designed to produce negative scholarship on the Jews. The two earliest and most prominent institutes were the Institute for History of the New Ger many under the direction of Walter Frank, and the Institute for Study of the Jewish Question under Alfred Rosenberg. These institutes published most of their studies in their own journals outside the regular academic system. Frank committed suicide in 1945 and the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced Rosenberg to death by hanging a year later.

The political aim of these studies was to make the expulsion of Jews from Germany more acceptable to everyone and to ease the way for a return to neopaganism. To achieve this, even the works of Jewish scholars and Christian theologians were recruited. In the end, Jews in National Socialist Germany were defined as racially alien, morally corrupt, inassimilable, and dangerous.

When the National Socialists came to power in 1933, the number of non-Jewish historians to whom the government could turn for scholarship on the Jewish question was very limited. Indeed, even after the new government came to power, Jewish scholars and publishers continued to produce most of the historical studies of Jews. Made aware of this situation and determined to rectify it, Walter Frank wrote:

Only one side of the Jewish problem has been addressed, the Jewish side; almost all books on the Jewish question have been written by Jews; at German universities, dissertations on the Jewish question have been submitted almost entirely by Jews; the historical journals have selected only Jews as editors for matters Jewish. (p. 94)

To remedy the lack of historical works on the Jews in Europe available in German libraries, the government during the war undertook to confiscate all the major collections of such works held in libraries throughout German-occupied Europe.

With respect to racial studies of the Jews, Steinweis first singles out Hans F. K Günther as the German racial scientist whose early work Racial Characteristics of the Jewish People (1930) represented the kind of research the government wanted. Günther had earlier (1922) published The Racial Characteristics of the German People. Such studies had become quite common in German and European academia since the early 19^th Century. A good number of the researchers and authors of these works were themselves Jews. For a long time and into the National Socialist period German and Jewish researchers even collaborated.

To paraphrase Günther’s findings as presented by Steinweis: Günther believed that in the distant past a dozen Urrassen (prehistoric races) prob ably existed, but like the Ursprachen  (prehistoric languages), they eventually broke down and inter mixed with neighboring races. Therefore neither the Jews nor the Germans could be considered a distinct race. Günther preferred to refer to the Jews as well as the Germans as a Volk or people, each of whose national genetic pool was a mixture of several racial elements. The Ger mans, Günther argued, were primarily a mix of Nordics, Eastern and Western peoples of European origin. In the makeup of the German Volk the Nordic element was considered the most valuable. But unfortunately, according to Günther, the Germans had been increasingly denorticized ever since the 30-Years War in the 17^th Century.

The Jews, on the other hand, were made up of primarily Near Eastern ancestry, but also Oriental, Nordic, and other elements introduced in the Diaspora. Günther maintained that because of their dispersion, modern Jews differ markedly from the original Hebrews. Because of Talmudic prohibitions against exogamy and centuries long inbreeding in Europe’s Ghettos (endogamy), modern Jews are not only quite different from their Biblical ancestors, but actually a distinct people. Günther therefore refers to contemporary Jews as a “race of the second instance.” Günther also held that the conversion of the Khazars and their absorption into the Ashkenazim added a further Near Eastern element in the northern European Jewish communities, but this did not occur among the Sephardic Jews. Thus, a racial divergence developed within European Jewry itself.

While physical differences between the various peoples (skull shape, speech patterns, facial expressions, specific odors, and a hundred other factors) were routinely measured by ethnologists the world over, the Ger mans were increasingly interested in inherited psychological, cultural and behavioral traits. With respect to the Jews, Günther agreed with his Jewish colleague, Samuel Weissenberg, that the salient cultural trait of the Near Eastern peoples (Armenians, Greeks, Jews) was its “commercial spirit,” which in turn was attributed to supple minds and characteristic verbal facility. For Günther, many Europeans had an instinctive, racially based aversion to peoples of Near Eastern racial origin precisely because of their different physi cal and behavioral traits. However, neither Günther nor his colleagues ever refer red to racial inferiority or superiority with regard to Jews or other peoples. No mention was ever made of a “super-race.” Instead, they emphasized the racial “otherness” (Anders artigkeit) of Jews — their racial-psychological estrangement from Europeans.

Somewhat later in the mid-1930s, another German researcher, Walter Dornfeldt, exchanged information and opinions with Franz Boas, an American anthropologist of German Jewish origin on the degree to which environment alters heredity. Generally, American scientists felt that environment played a more important role in racial physiology and psychology than did German investigators. Since at that time Germany was an ethnostate, with 95% of the populace German, while America was a melting pot of various European peoples, it is not surprising that the former should adopt a theory that extols the virtues of a common heritage while the latter should see advantage in diversity. That both environment and heredity are at play in all instances is undisputed. Unfortunately, the exact proportion played by each varies.

During the Third Reich studies of the genetics of racial differences took on increasing importance. The most widely read German genetics text was The Study of Human Heredity by Eugen Fischer, Erwin Baur, and Fritz Lenz. As cited in Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Lenz Lenz (1931, 657) proposed that the “Nordic” peoples evolved in harsh environments that favored small groups and a tendency toward social isolation. On the other hand, Lenz proposed that Jews evolved in larger groups and as a result have highly developed social skills related to social influence, enabling them to anticipate others’ actions and desires. Steinweis emphasizes the point that Lenz was aware of the heterogeneity in the out ward appearance of Jews and therefore suggested that Jews might better be referred to as a psycho logical rather than an anthropological race.

In general, genetics researchers advised against racial mixing, but not specifically with regard to Jews. Otmar von Verschuer eventually became prominent for his research on genetic predispositions to disease. His research proved so important that he was quickly cleared by denazification boards and continued his career at Münster University until his retirement in 1964. Wikipedia notes that ”Verschuer was never tried for war crimes despite many indications that he was not only fully cognisant of [Josef] Mengele’s work at Auschwitz, but even encouraged and collaborated with Mengele in some of his … research.”

Steinweis surveys German studies that implicated Jews in economic crimes and crimes against morality (Sittlichkeitsver brechern). Ironically, as Steinweis notes (p. 138), it was a Jew, the Italian criminologist Caesare Lombroso, who invented the concept of the “born criminal.” J. Keller and Hanns Andersen used Lombroso’s idea in their book The Jew as Criminal, in which Jews were described as “born to crime” and possessing a special pre disposition to and ability for fraud, dirty dealing, dishonest gambling, usury, sexual transgressions of all kinds, pick pocketing, and treason. As Steinweis points out, neither of the authors had academic credentials of any sort, nor were they associated with any university. However, Johann von Leers, a trained jurist holding a professor ship in history at Jena University, did publish a booklet, The Criminality of the Jews, in which he presented statistics showing a disproportionately high Jewish participation in white-collar crime. Jews were 12 times more likely than non-Jews to be involved in usury; 11 times more likely to engage in the theft of intellectual property; 8–9 times as likely to declare fraudulent bankruptcy. Between 1903 and 1936, Leers noted, the frequency of Jewish participation in usury was 29 times that of non-Jews.

Steinweis points out that Leers’ statistics did not include violent crimes of which non-Jews had the higher numbers and Jews the lowest. Moreover, the crime rates obviously reflected the occupations of the perpetrators, Jews being highly represented in white-collar occupations. Replying to this, Leers declared:

The Jew does not become a criminal because he is a merchant, but rather the criminal Jew embraces the mercantile profession because he is predisposed to the crimes that are possible in this realm. (p. 140)

In the matter of crimes against morality, von Leers cited Polish statistics to the effect that Jews had dominated the prostitution trade before the war. The Polish publication estimated that 100,000 Polish Jews made their living through exploi­ting of immorality. Steinweis admits that while Jews were indeed heavily involved in the management of prostitution in Europe, he argues that certain adverse sociological factors prevailing at the time turned many Jews to this trade. Leers countered this argument by stating that both the immoral aspects of prostitution as well as the profits to be derived appealed to the Jewish nature. Adding to the public perception of Jews as criminals, the infamous Zwi Migdal, international crime syndicate specializing in the white slave trade, was controlled and run by Jews.

Steinweis labels Peter-Heinz Seraphim, a political economist, who specialized in assessing Jewish economic power in East Europe, as the most professionally and intellectually accomplished “Jew expert” in Nazi Germany. Although Seraphim considered Jews in general to be economic parasites, his major work,The Jews of Eastern Europe, was deemed indispensable to his contemporaries, without which studies of Jews during the National Socialist era would be unthinkable. Published in 1938, the 732-page tome contained 197 statistical graphs, a bibliography with 563 entries, and over a thousand footnotes. (p. 145) concerning Jewish economic enterprises.

Seraphim objected to the so-called Lublin Plan, which proposed settling most of East European Jews in an area around Lublin. When Governor General Hans Frank, the Nazi governor of Poland, objected to “dumping” Jews in Poland, Seraphim threw his support to the Madagascar Plan, which was later discarded because of the war. Seraphim opposed any and all extreme measures against the Jews, preferring to integrate them in the German wartime industrial complex.

Seraphim’s economic knowledge of East Europe was considered so valuable that he became an adviser to the American Occupation forces and later pursued a successful career in West Germany.

When the Nuremberg Laws, including the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law to Protect German Blood and Honor, were passed in 1935 the professional, usually apolitical studies of the ethnologists were used to lend scientific backing to the legislation. Referring to the Talmudic Laws by which most Jews lived for centuries, apologists for the German Laws claimed that the German Volk simply wanted what the Jews have desired for themselves since the days of the Prophet Ezra, namely, to protect the völkisch integrity of their own people.

Because they shared a common goal, namely, to encourage Jews to leave Ger­many, Günther and many other Party members–with the approval of the Nazi govern ment–welcomed and worked with Zionist representatives. As Günther put it:

The racial-biological future of Jewry could take one of two paths, either that of Zionism of that of decline (Untergang).

Steinweis quotes from a review of one of the few books written about Zionism in Germany that “it is better to talk with national-Jewish Zionism than with the hidden racial interests of assimilation.” Some Germans were dubious that the Jews would be able to establish an inde pen dent homeland. In 1940, for example, German historian, Josef Sommerfeldt, publicly expressed his doubts:

The Jews will be given the opportunity, in a territory designated for them, to demonstrate whether their racial characteristics suffice for the creation from their own energies of a sensible and healthy social and economic order. So far, the Jewish people have not provided this evidence. (p. 111)

When the presence of a disproportionate number of Jews in the USSR Communist Party and in the communist parties of most other European countries could no longer be ignored, a Zionist writer, Abraham Heller, argued that Jews who had repudiated their Judaism should not even be regarded as Jews — an argument made more recently by historian Yuri Slezkine. To which Wilhelm Grau, a Nazi historian, retorted that since Jews are no longer being identified by religion, but by race, Heller’s argument was ridiculous. When Heller pointed out that Jews were also being killed in the Stalinist purges, Grau responded:

A historian who wants to deal with the truth cannot represent Jewish suffering one-sidedly. The Jews were responsible for a much more violent and deeper stream of blood, that of the Russian people. (p. 106)

Studies of the ancient Hebrews and analyses of the Talmud by theologians (e.g., Karl Georg Kuhn and Gerhard Kittel) at Tübingen University were not anti-Semitic. Kittel in fact even wrote kindly of the Talmud, referring to it as:

A giant sack into which was stuffed everything, which Judaism had stored up in terms of memories and traditions, so that its contents are the most colorful and joyful confusion and juxtaposition that one can imagine. (p. 76)

Theologian Kittel saw four possible approaches for dealing with the Jews: elimination, Zionism, assimilation, or a guest status in Germany. For practical reasons he chose guest status. Elimination, as demonstrated by the Inquisition and the Russian pogroms, did not work; assimilation was out of the question because the National  Socialists considered assimilation part of the problem. The Party preferred dissimilation. Kittel and Sommerfeldt believed Zionism was doomed to failure because the Jews would be unable to establish and maintain a self-sufficient state. This left only guest status as the German option. As such, they should be referred to as “Jews living in Germany” (p. 69).

Tübingen University remains to this day a world center for Hebraic, Judaic, and Christian studies. Pope Benedict XVI once taught and studied there. Because some of the theologians whose works were misused by the Party had studied or taught there, the University established the so-called Tübingen Board after the war under the eyes of the Occupation Powers to determine the guilt or innocence of its staff members. Both Kittel and Kuhn were exonerated. With regard to Kuhn, the Board determined that “he had never propagated Nation al Socialist teaching” and that Kuhn’s “purely objective and scientific introduction to the world of Rabbinic Judaism significantly contributed to immunizing this students against rampant anti-Semitic slogans.”

Steinweis explains at length why he disagrees with the Board’s decision exonerating Kittel. However, to this day, both Kittel’s and Kuhn’s pre- and post-war, Old and New Testament Biblical studies remain highly prized in the Christian ministry throughout the world.

The recently published book Race and the Third Reich by the Britisher Christo­pher M. Hutton is an excellent companion to Steinweis’ work. Hutton broadly agrees with Steinweis on the harmful content of Nazi racial studies, but he differs from Steinweis’ in several ways. First, Hutton makes a sharper dichotomy between National Socialist ideology and the scientific, non political, research done in racial studies in German and other European universities of the time. Hutton distinguishes between early ideologically-driven (1930–35) racial tracts when the NSDAP was seeking power and not yet firmly entrenched, and the later (1936-44) racial studies in Germany after the Party had secured its power. Aside from the Germans’ politically mandated application of their theories to the Jews, the techniques used in their racial studies were quite similar to those employed outside Germany.

Hutton notes that official publications on race in the later years of Nazi rule actually emphasized that the term “Aryan” belonged to linguistics and was not a racial category at all. Influenced by Mendelian genetics, German racial anthropologists recognized that there was no necessary link between ideal physical appearance and ideal character. Eventually, Hutton states, when World War II threatened and Germany needed allies, terms such as “Nordi cism,” “Germanism,” and “Aryanism” that suggested exclusivity and elitism were discarded as a political liability. Indeed, near the end of the war many SS units were made up of Slavs, French, Belgians, Scandinavians, and even Arabs.

In the mature period of National Socialism the government terminated all rogue Aryan science and effectively suppressed all occultism, spiritualism, clairvoyance, and other such practices. Ultimately, the government completely separated science from ideology. National Socialism had accepted modernity.

Under National Socialism, the universities enjoyed a considerable amount of autonomy and often published articles at variance with the Party’s preferred line. More over, the Nazi researchers even argued among themselves about the importance of this or that factor in racial anthropology. In fact, Hutton argues, in the course of the Third Reich, racial anthropological studies increasingly gave way to studies in hereditary psychology and the science of human genetics.

Some German racial anthropologists even objected to negative descriptions of Jews. For example, Karl Saller (1902–1969) wrote:

The importance of the Jews for the development of Western culture is a matter of controversy. There is no question but that Jews are essentially different in type from the Western peoples (Völker). To this one should add that the frequent occurrences of hostility nowadays between the Jews and their host peoples must be attributed as much to the similarity in their aptitudes as to difference in type, as this leads to an intensely competitive relationship.  The Jewish spirit (Geist) is, next to the autochthonous culture, the main driving force in Western culture and to this culture Jews have contributed with many brilliant gifts. Anti-semitism is therefore unjustified in so far as it is directed against Jews as a matter of principle. It is only justified when it involves a rejection of far-reaching particularist demands and those activities, which seek to undermine or fragment the State, activities which are associated with substantial parts of the Jewish people. (Hutton, p. 152)

Hutton also cites the case of another prominent racial anthropologist, Ludwig Clauss, who won the support of his SS associates to defend and protect his Jewish research assistant. For this, the State of Israel later honored Clauss.

The Denazification Courts in fact exonerated most of the academic racial anthro­pologists after the war. This reviewer believes that Rassenkunde was and remains a legitimate field of research, but that ideologically driven governments (National Socialist, Communist, Zionist) attempted to hijack the science for their own propagandistic purposes. Despite all that has transpired, research into the physical and psycho logical differences between ethnic groups as well as between the sexes continues through out the world today to the benefit of the medical profession and for the betterment of mankind.

Legitimate, not ideologically hijacked, racial and eugenics studies, conducted before, during, and after the National Socialist period, remain important research tools, not least of all in the development of pharmaceuticals in cases where race-specific and even gender-specific medicines have proven to be effective. Ironically, National Socialism’s racial policies even received high praise from Zionist organizations of the day whose policies happened to coincide with those of the Nazis. Both desired the exodus of Jews from Germany and their transfer to Palestine. Even Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, approved of the racial laws that changed the status of Jews in Germany from “Germans of the Jewish faith” to that of a separate national minority. Herzl confessed that the anti-Semitic reaction of non-Jews in Germany to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes was perfectly understandable in that Germans and Jews represented different nationalities. This mutually agreed-upon understanding was later formalized in the Transfer Agreement (Haavara) under which financial arrangements to aid the Jewish emigrants in their new homeland in Palestine were established and regular passenger liner service was established between Hamburg and Haifa.

Moreover, Zionist leaders in other countries approved of the German racial laws, including the Nuremberg Laws. For example, in June 1938 in a rally in New York Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, declared:

I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew. Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.

Genetic studies of Jews is an active field of research today. (See, e.g., here.) This research indicates a common Middle Eastern ancestry for all Jews, but with some genetic admixture in the Diaspora. Mention must also be made of the work of Professor Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist, who has written extensively on Judaism and explains Jewish behavior as being a group evolutionary strategy developed over the centuries for survival, protection, and advancement. MacDonald received his doctorate under the mentorship of Professor Benson E. Ginsburg, a renowned researcher in behavior genetics.

Obviously, political correctness is a time-dependent variable. Ideally, Rassenkunde, like all other sciences, should always be objective and make no value judgments, especially not with respect to perceived superior or inferior ethnic traits. The true purpose of Rassenkunde is to investigate the physical and psychological characteristics of the many and varied peoples on Earth in order to better understand and hopefully to improve the human condition. The abuses of Rassenkunde or racial studies must certainly be condemned, but the benefits of such research must be preserved.

This Jewish-led media assault deserves more attention as a cause of Whites’ failure to stand up for themselves. An explanation I respect appeared in Race and the American Prospect, edited by the late Sam Francis. Titled “Race and Religion: A Catholic View,” the essay was written by New Yorker Richard Faussette. Though Faussette situates his arguments in the Old Testament, his analysis is a sociological one in the mold of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s theory on group evolutionary strategies.

Faussette’s analysis goes back to biblical times when Jews of that era implemented a system of niche recovery to compensate for their partial displacement by the Assyrians. Faussette sees this system as being anachronistically employed to this day:

Our enemies are not Assyrians. They are the agents of the global economy; ethnic elites (their borders are where their people are) colluding with our own managerial elites. Mesmerized by the prospect of fantastic incomes, they are centralizing the world’s economy and abandoning local loyalties for a “citizenship” of the world. Unable to conquer us militarily, they have succeeded in engaging our armed forces around the world as they repopulate our urban centers and our law enforcement agencies with an alien elite and an alien underclass rigorously conditioned by the media.

Should we surrender to this program, we will suffer what Moses prophesized: “You will become a horror, a byword, an object lesson to all the peoples amongst whom the Lord disperses you.”

Though some see the system of importing foreign populations as a lapse in judgment, Faussette claims that “the system is not broken. It has been re-engineered by private interests and liberal ideologues, lobbying our elected representatives to increase the flow of cheap labor and anything else they can profitably get over the border.”

If this system is not broken, who built it and for what purposes? In essence, the goal is to displace White Americans with non-Whites, and, in particular, to replace White elites with Jews. In this struggle with non-Jewish leaders, Jews have at least two choices: they can either massacre or expel their rivals, as they did in Russia during the Revolution. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn summed up the process during the Bolshevik Revolution, when the

executed army officers were Russians, the noblemen, priests, monks, deputies were  Russians. . . . In 1920s, the pre-revolutionary engineers and scientists were exiled or killed. They were Russians, while their place was taken by Jews. The best Russian Psychiatric institute in Moscow, its Russian members were arrested or exiled, while their place was taken by the Jews. Important Jewish doctors blocked the advancement of Russian medical scientists. The best intellectual and artistic elites of Russian people were killed, while the Jews grew and flourished in these (deadly for Russians) years.

More confirmation can be found in Yuri Slezkine’s exposé, The Jewish Century. Kevin MacDonald later isolated the anti-Christian eliminationist focus of the Bolshevik attack, which can be found in his review of Slezkine called “Stalin’s Willing Executioners?” (See here and here.) Chillingly, Slezkine quotes Leonard Schapiro’s comment that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”

Circumstances in America today are of course different than in Russia then, so a new approach is necessary. Often cloaked as “anti-racism,” this program of dispossession begins with ideological attacks. Given the vast power of modern media, Jews have naturally turned to it as a means of control, and the fracturing of native populations through use of the media is central to this. Faussette makes this point with respect to the indigenous White population’s loss of the media:

If the majority of European American Christians held the most lucrative niches in American society, the media would be unable to depict us as a cruel and “intolerant” majority whose niches rightfully belong to the victims of “White hatred and oppression.” The very fact that the media vilification of the European American Christian majority goes on apace is proof positive that people who identify with us and have a concern for our welfare are no longer in the ascendancy. There may be many more of us, it is true, but we no longer occupy the elite niches in which power is centralized. Even our ability to depict a positive image of ourselves to our own populations and to the peoples of the world has been wrested from us by the hands of powerful and persistent detractors.

Faussette then drives home the point:

It is not enough to say that the broadcast media are powerful. They create a separate and caustic virtual reality, then broadcast that ideologically driven reality into the homes of millions of people and dare to suggest that their horrific depiction of us is an accurate reflection of who we really are, what we really do and what our history has really been. We are so saturated with the propaganda many of us can no longer tell the difference between ideology and reality, nor are we the only ones upon whom this burden of a separate “reality” has been imposed. By the time an alien crosses our porous borders he has been conditioned by the international media to believe that the indigenous “White people” are recent interlopers on their own land; noxious bigots who stole the land from the noble people who were here before them. Millions of people are fed these overt and subliminal messages every day via continuous media broadcasts.

The parallels with the propaganda techniques of the Communist Soviet Union, particularly in the early days, are manifest, as Faussette explains: “Demonizing an indigenous majority population to turn competing minority populations against them is a genocidal tactic with recent historical precedent.” Like the “former classes” slated for elimination in Russia, the American majority is now the targeted class.  

The use of terror was prescribed then and is again being used, though “many of us seem oblivious to what is going on here and now.” The terror comes through the educational and media propagation of the notion that indigenous White Christians are the villain class. Or, if one prefers Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag’s version, “The White race is the cancer of human history.” Operating under the pretext that they are fighting for universal civil rights, Jewish activists in a sense become the current equivalent of the Jews in Russia who were “Stalin’s willing executioners,” though removed by one degree through their use of non-Whites as the trigger men.

An integral part of this terror involves ritual public humiliation, another key aspect of the media’s strategy to demoralize the American majority. First and foremost is the public dissemination of the message that Whites are “powerless to deflect the media barrage of humiliation and vilification of our race, our various ethnicities, our Christian religion and the nation’s history.” Whites must now live quietly with the knowledge that infamies committed against them warrant no notice in the public eye, while any assault by an individual White on a designated minority group will result in ritual condemnation of not only the assailant but the broader majority culture as well.

It was never just “in the air” that the media, schools and legal system would take the turn they did in the 1960s against the American majority.  Rather, it is the result of Jewish movements, as Kevin MacDonald made clear in a column on this site last year:

For nearly 100 years Whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. . . . But that implies that the submerged White identity of the White working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of White America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of Whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of White identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to Whites as a people. In my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements. . . .

Faussette (see also his companion piece here) draws the same dark conclusion:

Consider for a moment the campaign of demonization of the European American Christian majority and its culture that we see in the media, academia and legislated from the bench. What if this campaign mirroring the public vilification employed by ardent and merciless communist regimes is completely successful here in North America, not now perhaps, but in a generation or two, something for our grandchildren to inherit?

Imagine an economic downturn of Blackouts, food shortages and riots in which all law enforcement niches are filled by media-molded unassimilated immigrants and indigenous psychologically prepared minorities; law enforcement personnel conditioned to believe that the people they’re sworn to protect are noxious bigots who deserve the violence they suffer.

Make no mistake, we White Christians in America are being effectively removed from our lands.

The conclusion here is not a rosy one: America today is in a position analogous to the one in early Soviet Russia. Two key similarities are “the rise of the Jews” and the hatred of and hostility directed toward the majority Gentile populations of both states.

Tomislav Sunic has written about this analogy in terms of “Twin Brothers: Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus.” To be sure, “Americanism” has been far more successful in attaining voluntary compliance to the will of the state, infused as it is with a “fun ideology.” Given the choice, humans worldwide would choose the same, though both the Soviet and (postmodern) American version lead to the grave: “Certainly, communism kills the body, in contrast to Americanism which kills the soul, but even the worst type of intellectual ‘soft-killing’ in the postmodern American system seems to be dearer to the masses than physical maltreatment or a violent communist death.”

In point of fact, of course, the (current) American version of soft totalitarianism is not so “fun,” though we are misled because it is a regime “maintained less by brute force than by an unrelenting, enormously sophisticated, and massively effective campaign to constrain political and cultural activity within very narrow boundaries.” A violent communist death is not yet necessary because dissenters “are not yet trundled off to jail or beaten with truncheons, but are quietly ignored and marginalized. Or they are held up to public disgrace, and, wherever possible, removed from their livelihood,” as MacDonald noted in the Foreword to Sunic’s book.

Fair enough; the avoidance of physical terror and the bestowal of the therapeutic state have made rule easier.But in the end this “fun-infested ideology” still leads to “warm death.” In any case, it may soon turn “hot.”

Sunic, for one, sees dark clouds on the horizon for any group in America that might be targeted: “Thus, in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald identifies what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.” They are the European-derived Whites populating vast areas of the American nation, particularly in the so-called “red states.”

Let’s get back to James Edwards’ account of the brutal murders of White students at Kent State. Why have things come to this? Why don’t students, professors, parents and administrators care if they are at immediate risk of DYING? Not just being robbed or roughed up, but being barbarically beaten to death, often for no other reason than fun?

Why don’t far more people see how horribly corrupt and degenerate America is today? As just one example among thousands, consider a recent cover of Vogue magazine featuring NBA star LeBron James with supermodel Gisele Bundchen, photographed by Jewish celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz. The mainstream media worried that it evoked illiberal racial stereotypes — Beauty and the Beast, King Kong and Fay Wray, etc. But it can also be seen as the triumph and legitimization of an unrefined, tattooed Black male seething with raw physical power  who possesses a paragon of White womanhood, the latter quite obviously enjoying the experience.

In other words, an image of Black ascendancy and White emasculation as imagined by a famous Jewish artist (and lover of Susan Sontag, a well-known Jewish intellectual whose anti-White sentiments are legendary; see below).

Edgar J. Steele took it upon himself to catalog examples of anti-White attitudes among mainstream Black and Jewish figures in an insightful essay some years back:

If You See Black… Don’t Go Back!

“Keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”  — Noel Ignatiev, Jewish Harvard professor and editor of Race Traitor magazine (Washington Times, September 4, 2002)

“The White race is the cancer of human history.” — Susan Sontag (much-celebrated Jewish  “intellectual,” whose recent passing was lamented loudly in Jewish circles)

“I don’t care about your idiot children.” — Willie Brown (Mayor of San Francisco, to a white parent complaining that affirmative action would penalize his children), quoted in The Social Contract (Summer 1998, p. 290)

“It’s always illegitimate for White men to organize as White men.”  — William Raspberry (Black columnist), Dubiously Exclusive, (Washington Post, Nov. 24, 1995)

“Q:  What kind of world do you want to leave to your children?

A:  A world in which there aren’t any white people. . . .”  — Leonard Jeffries (chairman of the African-American studies department of the City College of New York), interviewed by T.L. Stanclu and Nisha Mohammed, Rutherford Magazine (May 1995, p. 13)

“You guys have been practicing discrimination for years.  Now it is our turn.”   — Black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (in a conversation with Justice William Douglas about racial preferences, quoted by William O. Douglas, The Court Years, 1939–1975 (New York, Random House, 1980)

Steele nicely pairs Jews and Blacks in their decades-long offensive against Whites. It may have started modestly, but on each and every day, we can find examples in America (and throughout much of the rest of the world) where Whites are being humiliated, abused, raped and murdered. And yet, by and large, we take it lying down.

This is insane. It goes against every natural impulse. It is a sign of more than just a loss of backbone. At worst, it signals the coming end of the White race.

Those of us who write in venues such as this know the score. But we still must do more to impress upon others the clear and present danger we face. I know our society is vastly sick and by extension, so are most people.

But we’ve got to break the spell Whites are under. We’ve got to restore their normal sense of group identification and self preservation. Ben Franklin, after all, got it right when he wrote, “God helps those who help themselves.” Whites of the world, by all means, start helping yourselves!

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Recently two articles in TOO have expressed diametrically opposed views of the proper place of Christianity in the fight to save the West demographically.

Thomas Dalton outlines Friedrich Nietzsche’s critical view of Christianity and its origins. Nietzsche ridiculed the traditional religion of the West as senile and decadent and speculated that Christianity was invented by embittered Jews, especially St. Paul, to turn the lower classes against Rome and thus provide Israel with a degree of freedom from Roman rule.

Michael Colhaze is loyal to Christianity. He attacks Nietzsche’s character and sanity, portraying his writings as fanciful and his superman ideal as monstrous social Darwinism. He praises Christianity for embodying the love and compassion of Christ that empowers believers.

I have agreements and disagreements with both perspectives based on the criterion of what is good for the survival of ethnic groups that adopt Christianity, though my main interest is the corporate survival of Western peoples. I come down roughly in the middle of the two positions, though tilting decidedly towards a Christianity of the traditional variety informed by anthropology and genetics.

Thomas Dalton, in his article “Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity,” demonstrates considerable sympathy for the German philosopher  —  born 1844, died 1900. Dalton reveals aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy that will be attractive to many White advocates, as we shall see.

Nietzsche began his treatment of Christianity with a bold accusation — that it is decadent, weak, and nihilistic. Dalton writes: “It led to a sickly, subservient, herd morality, and suffocated the quest for human excellence. Worst of all, it replaced a life-affirming naturalness with an otherworldly, life-denying negativism. It has become, in fact, ‘the greatest misfortune of mankind so far.’”

Here Nietzsche must be radically wrong. The Church ministered to European peoples during our long resistance to Islamic aggression, our invention of science and industry, and our spectacular global expansion. That includes all three Christian worlds — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. The arrest of Western confidence and expansion and its accelerating contraction have coincided with the liberalization of Christianity or its actual suppression under communist regimes. I shall take up this theme again.

The alleged disaster of Christianity can only be explained, Nietzsche thought, by understanding its Jewish origins. Jesus and the apostles were Jewish, as were Mark, Luke and Paul and the many unknown authors who contributed to the New Testament. This meant that Christianity is stamped with the Jewish character, which Nietzsche refers to as “race.” That character comes through in the slave morality embodied by the religion from the beginning, which Nietzsche interprets to be Paul’s strategy to subvert the masses of the Roman Empire, weaken Rome’s aristocratic grip on its far-flung provinces, and thus give Israel a chance to break free.

It should be emphasized that this is speculation.

For the success of this alleged strategy Nietzsche mainly blames the West. Dalton quotes Nietzsche: “There is no excuse whatever for their failure to dispose of such a sickly and senile product of decadence [as the Christian God].But a curse lies upon them for this failure: they have absorbed sickness, old age, and contradiction into all their instincts — and since then they have not created another god. Almost two thousand years — and not one new god!”

Dalton states that a fitting — a fitness enhancing? — re-conception of religion needs to be “a truly uplifting, life-affirming, and ennobling enterprise — decidedly unlike Judeo-Christianity — and must never be taken as permanent and absolute truth. All superstitious, i.e. anti-natural, religions are out of the question. The human condition, and human ‘salvation’, must be firmly rooted in the present, physical world — the real world.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the need for a religion that engages reality, especially the reality of humans as an evolved species with biological interests of survival and continuity. However I cannot accept such a negative depiction of the traditional religion of the West. At the same time I have difficulties with blanket praise for what it has become, which brings me to the article critical of Nietzsche.

Michael Colhaze, in his article “Nietzsche and No End” turns Nietzsche’s critical blowtorch back on its inventor. Colhaze describes Nietzsche’s superman as “[a] kind of socio-Darwinian zombie whose general credo is the exact reversal of Christian ethics. Goodness is stupidity, compassion the dumbness of slaves, beauty ugliness, love utter contempt, gentleness dirt under his fingernail. In short, a two-hundred-fifty-page glorification of hate without any strings attached.”

I agree that Nietzsche’s superman is not the sort of person to invite for dinner, at least to the family table. And would he be someone who could be relied upon? I also agree with Colhaze that this so-called superman evinces some social-Darwinistic values which should be rejected. But social Darwinism is not the same as modern evolutionary theory and it has never constituted the theory. In fact Darwin himself was interested in untangling the causes of morality and compassion, not abolishing them, even if at the same time he was quietly proud of his English and European identity and pessimistic about the potential of primitive races.

It is one thing to criticize Nietzsche’s excesses, another to rubbish his call for a religion that respects reality. Colhaze does so by mischaracterizing the evolutionary process:

a process similar to tossing an infinite amount of golf balls into the air, each numbered, and each falling accidentally into a hole with the corresponding number.

The only alternative, Colhaze concludes, is an omnipotent God, “one whom I believe to be solely responsible for the world’s creation and its grandiose theatre, though not for the crimes of mankind which cause about ninety nine percent of all its suffering.” Actually the great majority of suffering is caused by competing life strategies, e.g. between predator and prey.

Colhaze believes that Christianity delivers “man’s highest and most sublime aspiration. An aspiration to consummate, on a strictly personal level, Christ’s divine message of Love and Compassion. A message that is, for those who handle it calmly, an inexhaustible font of joy and inner certainty, a way of life that can brace adversities more thoroughly than any other. And a message that might one day, ’one day’ after many a summer, enable mankind to live in the Utopia we sometimes dreamt about when we were young.”

The science of human bonding is converging remarkably on the moral truths of Christianity, especially the traditional Catholic ordering of love and duty. Christianity does distil and train a purity of attachment dependent on abstract intelligence. Since our ancestors converted at the urging and example of pioneer Medieval monks, we have been enjoined to nurture our families and local communities and to stand against the heathen at the city gate.

Conclusion

Nietzsche longed for a religion that embraced nature red in tooth and claw, that did not shy away from reality. There is no doubt that the West needs religious leadership that defends our temporal interests, not only short-term individual ones but corporate survival — cultural and genetic continuity. And it is undeniable that Nietzsche appeals to masculine values of strength and heroism in an age of white domestication. Those familiar with the shortcomings of the modern mainstream churches might find his writings attractive on that score.

In the face of diversity’s many sins, not one major Christian denomination stands with the majority of Westerners in opposing mass Third World immigration. Nor do they defend voluntary reciprocal segregation in multi-ethnic societies or criticize the elites that are forcing diversity on an unwilling but leaderless public. The depredations of diversity — higher divorce rates, alienation, destruction of downtown social life, uncaring societies, the decline of education, rising corruption and crime, loss of general social trust, reduced economic growth, less foreign aid, not to mention civil war and genocide — all have been shown to be exacerbated by diversity (see here and here).

Despite these failings Christianity is not inherently weak or ignoble. For example, post-Vatican II Catholicism does not represent much of the Church’s noble history.

Nietzsche’s criticisms remain valid only if they are taken to apply to the Church’s weakness in defending the ethnic interests of their modern Western congregations. However that interpretation reduces his charge to a criticism of Church policy, not of Christianity root and branch.

Such a reinterpretation is a favour to Nietzsche because his accusation of Christian weakness is absurd when tested historiographically. As Kevin MacDonald has documented during the Middle Ages the Church became an organic part of European society. Not for nothing was the West known as Christendom. The Church acted to save bodies and posterity as well as souls. It blessed new knights in the ceremony of knighthood, sanctified the new code of chivalry that forbade harming civilians and enacted the first codified rules of war. War was justified when it advanced Christendom — an ethnic-friendly legitimization that reduced or at least regulated fighting among Christians and culminated in the Crusaders’ attempt to wrest Near Eastern lands of the Eastern Roman Empire back from the Arabs. The Church defended the ordinary man from a parasitic aristocracy. It helped forge nations with responsible governments. It protected the mass of the people from enemies without and within. The English Church promoted the expulsion of Jews — who had become a predatory financial elite — from the country in 1290 as a pastoral duty, also a trend elsewhere in Western Europe. Throughout Europe the Church was Gentiles’ repository of sophisticated culture, of literacy and record keeping. It was indispensible for governance, advising kings and educating princes. It prevented the Jews from monopolizing the niche of trans-generational literary group strategy. It underwrote the earliest stirrings of modern science. The university, one of the greatest creations of the West, was founded under the Church’s auspices. Professors were priests of learning. Gregor Mendel was an ethnic German monk!

Instead of speculating on the basis of almost non-existent ancient documents concerning St. Paul, Nietzsche should have been looking for the origins of the seamless dovetailing of Christianity and European culture, achieved in a very few centuries. A plausible theory is offered by James C. Russell in his book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity (1994).

Russell shows that the seamlessness resulted from the missionaries’ policy of accommodating the Church to local custom. The result was the reciprocal Germanization of Christianity, though the process is better described as the Europeanization of Christianity because the Celtic peoples of the British Isles and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe also had their folk festivals incorporated into the Church. Irish monks were instrumental in converting the Germans, working from the Lake Constance area northwards from the fifth century, while Greek monks began the conversion of the Russians. The deep imprint of the northern winter and isolated settlements is clearly evident in the Christian calendar.

Nietzsche should have been content that this Europeanization was, as Russell puts it, part of the broader phenomenon of a “world-rejecting” religion such as early Christianity being transformed by its accommodation to “world accepting” Indo-European peoples.

Very few grasp how central the Church was to European society for more than 1500 years because modern education and the mass media — notably the movies — have all but expunged the monk and Sunday services from the record or pathologized them. Ministers and priests are routinely shown as corrupt and generally deplorable.

That was not always so. Even Hollywood finds it difficult to delete Friar Tuck from the story of Robin Hood or his dual identity as priest and warrior. Religious patriots were depicted in the glory days of Hollywood, when its Jewish proprietors were disciplined by powerful Christian elites. Who can forget the striking imagery of Charton Heston as an upper class Jew awestruck by the grace of Christ in Ben Hur (1959) or as a Visigoth nobleman smiting the Muslim occupiers “for God, Alfonso, and Spain” in El Cid (1961). Christian-conservative external control of Hollywood slipped after 1965, and the rising Jewish elite had its coming-out decade, a general uprising against White Christian society and culture. Some modern movies, notably Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, show monks blessing the Scottish army on the battle field. But that is rare. Who wants to be accused of religious bigotry?

Civilized and cultivated by this “senile” religion, the West rose in a little over one millennium from the ashes of the Roman Empire to dominate global trade, to invent modern science and industry, to subdue most of the world and settle three continents. As Churchill would say, some senility!

All this was done without knowledge of genetic interests, that humans are a specially endowed evolved species with the same vital interest in reproduction as all other species (even more vital if those endowments are valued). However the Church always  acknowledged the values attendant on individual reproduction. It blessed sex within marriage because the resulting children and bonds harmonize reproduction and the stability of the child-rearing family. Partly for that reason the Church stands against sex outside of marriage and against homosexuality.

Whatever the deviations of this stance from an evolutionary perspective — for example homosexuals also have ethnic interests — the fact is that the Christian Church has historically stood for the heterosexual family, which makes good evolutionary as well as humanitarian sense.

Modern knowledge of biology supports the Church’s pro- family policy. And extends it. Humans have never existed as isolated individuals or even single families but as parts of genetically related communities. We evolved to have genetic and cultural interests not only in the continuity of our families but of our tribes and nations. Historically the Church recognized this, not perfectly but well enough to establish precedent. The Christian Church was the West’s evolutionary group strategy. We were Christendom, and Christendom defended, elevated and shaped us. Priests were not abstractly removed hermits but organic parts of their communities. As they became more mobile, taking up appointments in the Church’s far-flung domain, so they served the wider European interest.

Now Christianity’s domain is the entire world and priests should be true to the vital interests of all peoples. That is the truth of Christian universalism. But just as the Church protects parental rights and the autonomy and dignity of families, so it should defend national rights. It would be wrong for Chinese bishops to promote mass foreign immigration to China, or for Japanese monks to undermine Japanese homogeneity.

This is doubly true for those who believe that God has been an agent in human genetic and cultural evolution. If He created distinct peoples over countless millennia, Christians should stand against the atheist-humanist drive to confound that creation. If one believes in God’s agency in the real world, Christians who support mass non-European immigration to the West on the basis that the immigrants are Christian are as blind to God’s will as are the immigrants themselves. They are destroying His creation by trying to rebuild the tower of Babel, not in the mythical way of a single language group challenging God’s glory but by forcing — against their will — a diversity of peoples to lose their many cherished identities in a single cosmopolitan mishmash that dissolves communities, flattens ethnic genius and is good for nothing except facilitating globalism.

The West is literally dying for the lack of warrior-scholar priests. White advocates need to win back their churches to become once again defenders of their congregations’ vital interests.

With Nietzsche we declare: “The last sacrament will always be irrelevant to us as a people!” But with Charles Martel, El Cid, Edward I of England, the English lords at Runnymede, Isabella I of Castille, and the Alamo martyrs we welcome the Victory Psalm [reprinted below] with the shout: “For God and the reconquest of the West!”

A cross looms over the army of Charles Martel at it defeats the Muslims at the Battle of Tours

Afterword

The 35^th Psalm is a regular part of Christian services, considered one of the masterworks of prayer that constitute the psalms. It was composed by King David and is part of the Old Testament, and as such Friedrich Nietzsche would undoubtedly approve. He would like the muscular tribalism, the unapologetic ethnocentrism. Yet it is also part of the Christian tradition. And it is a work of beauty.

I read the Psalm recently in the memoir by English super soldier Andy McNab (Seven Troop, 2008, pp. 414–415), recipient of the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Military Medal. It was given to Andy by another soldier who was a devout Christian. McNab saw frequent evidence of Christianity among elite soldiers. The Psalm is what one would expect from a biologically informed religion. Of course a universal religion seeks to defend the temporal interests of all believers, and as these can be opposed it would seek to harmonize those interests. It would seek peace and reciprocity. But it would never pretend that temporal interests do not exist and that people are not justified in defending them.

Psalm 35 (King James Version)

¹Plead my cause, O LORD, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.

²Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help.

³Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.

⁴Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.

⁵Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the LORD chase them.

⁶Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them.

⁷For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.

⁸Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

⁹And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation.

¹⁰All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?

¹¹False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.

¹²They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul.

¹³But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.

¹⁴I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.

¹⁵But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:

¹⁶With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

¹⁷Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.

¹⁸I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.

¹⁹Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.

²⁰For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.

²¹Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.

²²This thou hast seen, O LORD: keep not silence: O Lord, be not far from me.

²³Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.

²⁴Judge me, O LORD my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me.

²⁵Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up.

²⁶Let them be ashamed and brought to confusion together that rejoice at mine hurt: let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify themselves against me.

²⁷Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.

²⁸And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long.

Charles Dodgson (email him) is the pen name of an English social analyst.