• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Featured Articles

Roberta Kaplan as a Jewish Type

July 2, 2024/18 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Kevin MacDonald

Jewish lesbian Roberta Kaplan is a prominent leftist attorney involved in lawfare against the Charlottesville demonstrators, against Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carrol case, as well as in victorious efforts on behalf of gay marriage. As I wrote in a  previous article on Roberta Kaplan, she “is a good example of what makes Jewish activism so effective: smart, well-connected, hyper-aggressive, in the context of a court system sympathetic to her causes.” Well, her hyper-aggressiveness and general abrasiveness seems to have caught up with her, along with micromanagement (she seems to be a control freak).

I bring her up because I think she is a Jewish type and a big reason why the Jewish community is so successful. I am certainly not saying that all Jews are like this, but such people are important in whatever occupation they are in.

Jewish aggressiveness has long been noted as a general characteristic of Jews, e.g., here (pp. 26-30), seen also in Kaplan’s “relentless … pursuit of success”:

In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades to Jewish poor attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.” The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. . . . The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”

The other thing that’s obvious here is that Kaplan is depicted as interpersonally abrasive. Clearly, she doesn’t care whether other people like her, especially I suppose if she is in a superior position. For Jews, being disliked by non-Jews goes with the territory. In traditional Jewish ethics, non-Jews have no moral standing and their opinions don’t matter unless they threaten the individual Jew or the Jewish group as a whole.  On the other hand, most White people–and especially White women—care deeply about being liked, resulting I think stems from their evolutionary history.

The New York Times: 

Prominent Lawyer Roberta Kaplan Departs Firm After Clash With Colleagues

The well-connected attorney, who founded a powerhouse firm at the dawn of the #MeToo era, has faced complaints that she mistreated and insulted other lawyers.

… Her departure followed months of internal frustration over Ms. Kaplan’s conduct toward other lawyers, according to people familiar with the matter. Those concerns led her colleagues to remove her from the firm’s management committee and precipitated her departure. …

Ms. Kaplan and her wife are deeply connected to the Democratic Party and she has been a heroic figure to many liberal activists. In addition to litigating the Supreme Court case that laid the groundwork for the national legalization of gay marriage, she became a leader of the #MeToo movement. …

Another Times article, “How a Trump-Beating, #MeToo Legal Legend Lost Her Firm.”:

In the eyes of many of her colleagues, including the firm’s two other named partners, Ms. Kaplan’s poor treatment of other lawyers — ranging from micromanagement to vulgar insults and humiliating personal attacks — was impairing the boutique firm she had built, the people said. For one thing, they said, she was jeopardizing its ability to recruit and retain valuable employees. …

Many former employees said they were proud of the work they had done and admired Ms. Kaplan’s fearless pursuit of big targets. But they also said the workplace environment she had presided over could be unbearable. This went beyond normal gripes about tough bosses. Ms. Kaplan’s behavior was at times such an issue that a top lawyer at another firm who was her co-counsel in a case reprimanded her over her conduct, and a progressive legal coalition nixed her from a list of candidates for federal judgeships because of her reputation for mistreating employees, according to lawyers familiar with both episodes. …

Like many other ambitious young corporate lawyers, Ms. Kaplan was relentless in her pursuit of success — so much so that her future wife, Rachel Lavine, a Democratic operative, once offended her on an early date by comparing her to a Bolshevik willing to spill blood for the sake of victory. …

Ms. Kaplan’s timing was impeccable. She pitched her firm as a progressive bastion that would combine trailblazing public interest practice with civil and criminal litigation. The goal was to win big rewards for worthy causes while also making its lawyers rich. The cherry on top: The firm was run by a legal giant in a field largely bereft of female leaders, much less gay women. Liberal lawyers jostled to join. …

From the start, Ms. Kaplan’s behavior alienated some of her new hires.

“Robbie was a screamer, she yelled a lot, and that was not an experience I had before,” said Christopher Greene, who had joined from the powerhouse law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. “Now it was part of my day to day, and the office wasn’t big.”

Many former employees recalled hearing Ms. Kaplan berating colleagues for their supposed incompetence and lack of intelligence. (Most would speak only on the condition that The Times not identify them, citing fear of professional repercussions.)

In the midst of the #MeToo movement, Ms. Kaplan told colleagues that she was too smart to ever have been sexually assaulted, according to Seguin Strohmeier, another early hire, and two other former associates who also heard the remarks.

Ms. Kaplan’s lawyers said in a letter to The Times that she had never “suggested that anyone can be ‘too smart’ to be sexually assaulted because that is obviously not true.”

Five employees at the firm recalled inappropriate comments Ms. Kaplan made about colleagues’ looks. Once, she told a female associate that the associate was more suited to “back of house” work because of her appearance. Another time, Ms. Kaplan said the same associate was too much of a “dyke” to clerk for the Supreme Court, Ms. Strohmeier recalled. Other times she used gender-specific insults.

Ms. Kaplan’s lawyers denied that she criticized employees’ appearances and said she “is hardly the only experienced trial lawyer prone to salty language at times.”

Many former employees recalled Ms. Kaplan’s publicly berating case managers, who are young, low-ranking employees. Once she verbally attacked a case manager who disobeyed her command not to include meatballs in a pizza order. Ms. Kaplan’s fury was so remarkable that a lawyer took notes, which The Times reviewed. The notes described the meatball incident as one of a few examples in which Ms. Kaplan “publicly derided” the case manager “both to her face and behind her back.”

Mr. Clark and Ms. Tent, the lawyers for Ms. Kaplan, said this was inaccurate. “To the extent Ms. Kaplan gave instruction about what food to order, it was typically to order too much rather than too little food,” they wrote.

To the frustration of some colleagues, Ms. Kaplan at times insisted that she review in advance certain emails that partners planned to send externally. On occasion, she became irate when this edict was violated. …

Near the end of 2021, Ms. Kaplan’s lawsuit against the white supremacists in Charlottesville went to trial. It was a high-stress environment; Ms. Kaplan was targeted with antisemitic threats. She told some attorneys on the multi-firm team that they didn’t deserve their law degrees. She threatened to ruin one’s career.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2024-07-02 13:29:492024-07-02 13:29:49Roberta Kaplan as a Jewish Type

Nations Are Not Notions: Thoughts on the European Football Championship 2024

July 1, 2024/17 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne. That’s one. Beethoven’s Violin Concerto in D major. That’s another. And Bergkamp’s goal for Arsenal away at Newcastle in March 2002. That’s a third. What are they? Supreme examples of sublime art-forms created by the Whites of north-western Europe. Classical art, classical music, and soccer are three White inventions that have delighted and dazzled the world.

Bernini and Bergkamp create beauty (images from Infogalactic and Sky Sports)

I would say that all three are art-forms that seek to stir emotion, elevate the spirit, and create stunning beauty. In fact, I’d relate soccer to a fourth world-conquering White art: ballet. I’ve always seen the appeal of soccer, but I never saw the appeal of ballet until a female friend persuaded me to watch some. And I was impressed. Ballet is not just great art: it had much more in common with soccer than I realized. There’s a parallel grace and athleticism, a parallel striving to challenge the boundaries of gravity and physiology. It’s just that soccer appeals most to heterosexual men, not homosexuals, and that a game of soccer is like two separate ballets being performed at once on the same stage. Each team is trying alternately to design and to disrupt. It wants to design patterns with the ball that create goals for itself and to disrupt the goal-hunting patterns of the other team.

Scale-spanning spectacle

That’s why a good goal is such a special event. The patterns in ballet are beautiful, but they follow a fixed script, are practised and perfected in rehearsal, and aren’t attacked on stage by half the performers. In soccer, there can be no fixed scripts and patterns are constantly under attack, are constantly failing and faltering. When a pattern succeeds and a goal is scored, it’s order being imposed on chaos, light breaking through darkness, a seed sprouting and flowering amid mud and muck. You can say the same of scores in other sports, of course, but what makes soccer special is the clarity with which you can see the patterns failing and succeeding on the stage. The ball is large, round, and highly visible. It rolls and curves and flies, but it doesn’t move with eye-defeating speed or regularly disappear amid a mass of bodies. Soccer is the supreme stadium sport, combining perfectly with White architecture and organization to create a visual and emotional feast for huge crowds around the world.

But at the same time soccer is perfect for kids to play at a moment’s notice on a patch of concrete or waste-ground. It spans scales like no other sport, combines simplicity, cerebrality and spectacle like no other sport, and is easy to understand and play like no other sport. That’s why it’s conquered the world like no other sport. It’s a game with a globe that has gone global. But don’t expect gratitude or praise for the Whites who invented it, perfected it, and popularized it among other races. Many of the non-Whites who insist that “Whites have no culture” will be avid followers of the game, supporters of one or another of the British and European clubs that laid its foundations and powered its rise to global success. Soccer is world-conquering White culture, but in winning the world it somehow lost its Whiteness. The race that gets celebrated in modern soccer is not its necessary creators and continuing sustainers, but its inessential contributors: not Whites but Blacks. Soccer would not exist without Whites and would continue to exist without Blacks.

Facially and phonetically alien

Those stark facts will be never be acknowledged in the mainstream, of course. But here are two more facts: Blacks are very good at soccer and many of soccer’s greatest players have been Black. That’s players, not coaches: Blacks excel athletically in sport, not intellectually. They can play at the highest level, but not organize teams or devise tactics and adapt them as games flow and shift. Take the half-Black, half-Algerian Kylian Mbappé. He’s currently one of the world’s best players, but I’m confident that he won’t go on to be one of the world’s best coaches. Or even one of world’s better coaches. As I write, he’s the star player for France in the European Soccer Championship 2024. After all, he was born in Paris, elder son of two French citizens, so he’s fully French and perfectly entitled to play for the French national side. Right? No, wrong! Mbappé isn’t French and shouldn’t be playing for France.

Olivier Giroud and Kylian Mbappé: spot the true Frenchman

There’s a simple reason for this. Nations are not notions. In other words, nations are not defined by words or concepts. Instead, they’re defined by blood and belonging. Etymology, the history of words, isn’t often a reliable guide to current reality, but you can rely completely on the etymology of “nation.” It comes from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Nations are born, not made. They’re based on bonds of blood, they’re cemented by shared history. But Kylian Mbappé doesn’t share blood or history with the true French. When you set him beside another star of the French team, Olivier Giroud, the contrast is almost ludicrous. Giroud is clear-skinned and well-groomed, has classically refined features, looks both intelligent and athletic, and seems as French as his name. That’s just as it should be, because he is French (with some ancestry from the brother-nation of Italy). Set beside Giroud, Mbappé looks like a troglodyte and doesn’t look French in the slightest. After all, his father is Black and his mother is Algerian. His very name says that he isn’t French: Mbappé is African, not European. It’s phonetically alien, just as Mbappé himself is facially alien. It isn’t just his dark skin and non-White features. He has dead, soul-less eyes. I don’t know how well those eyes reveal his character and psychology, but I do know that Blacks and Algerians in France are hugely over-represented as murderers, rapists, and thieves.

White boys should not idolize Black Bukayo

That’s part of why Blacks and Algerians are noxious for the nation of France, just as Blacks and Pakistanis are noxious for the nation of Britain. But I would prefer to say the “nations of France” and the “nations of Britain.” I don’t think that either France or Britain is a true nation. No, they’re what you might call combi-nations, uniting smaller White nations under a single name. For example (and inter alia), France absorbed a true Celtic nation in Brittany just as Britain absorbed true Celtic nations in Wales, Cornwall, and northern Scotland. Even England within Britain could be divided into smaller and stronger nations. But it’s not wrong that there’s an English national soccer team behind which the Whites of northern and southern England can unite. Like France, England is playing as I write in the European Championships. And like France, England fields Black players who aren’t English and shouldn’t be playing in a competition for European nations. You’ve seen the contrast between Olivier Giroud and Kylian Mbappé in the French team. Now try the contrast between Harry Kane and Bukayo Saka in the English team:

Harry Kane and Bukayo Saka: spot the true Briton

Kane is White and fully British; Saka is Black and not British at all. He plays soccer very well, but doesn’t belong in the English national side. He should be playing for a Black national team, contributing to a supreme sporting spectacle for Black crowds bonded by blood to him and his team-mates. I don’t think Saka should be playing for the English club Arsenal either. Young White fans should not be idolizing Black sportsmen and Black sportsmen are very useful in the leftist project of dilution and destruction. Leftists use Blacks to dilute nationhood as they work towards the golden goal of destroying White nations. Blacks don’t belong in England or France. Or in Spain or Portugal or Germany or Austria, all of whom are still playing in the European championships as I write and all of whom are fielding Black players who are facially and phonetically alien.

The power of alphabets

That’s why I don’t enjoy watching those notionally national teams any more. I can admire the skill and appreciate the goals, but I abominate the noxious notionhood that sets Whites who belong by blood beside Blacks who don’t belong at all. However, although I can’t enjoy watching Spain or Germany any more, I’ve definitely enjoyed watching two other teams. That’s because they embody not noxious notionhood but natural nationhood. One of those teams isn’t White or European and some would say the same of the other. Who am I talking about? Turkey and Georgia, that’s who. Geographically they’re next-door neighbors; culturally and linguistically they’re worlds apart. Turkey is Muslim, Georgia is Christian, for example. But they have something big in common at the European championships. They’re fielding true national teams with not a Black in sight. The two teams met right at the beginning and although I didn’t like the result — 3–1 to Turkey — I did enjoy the Turks’ skilful soccer and savor the way that all her goal-scorers were fully and phonetically Turkish: Müldür, Güler, Aktürkoğlu. That’s four umlauts (and one breve). And those umlauts are more significant than they might appear. The Turkish leader Kemal Atatürk (1881–1938), who was possibly part-Jewish, tried to turn Turkey into a secular European nation and cut her off from the Ottoman period. As part of that, he mandated the Roman alphabet for the Turkish language, which had formerly been written in Arabic script.

Atatürk was abolishing a border, dismantling a linguistic wall. Or rather, he was abolishing one border even as he established another. Use of the Arabic alphabet had aligned Turkey with Arabs and the East; use of the Roman alphabet aligned her with Europeans and the West. Turks no longer needed to struggle with a new alphabet when they learned French or German or English. In more ways than one, Atatürk diluted Turkey’s Islamic identity with the stroke of a pen. Alphabets can be powerful as political tools, not just as linguistic ones. You can also see that in Turkey’s neighbor Georgia, which has maintained its own unique alphabet for its own unique language down many centuries. Language and alphabet have undoubtedly helped tiny Georgia maintain her nationhood even as giants like Turkey and Russia have regularly seized her territory and crushed her independence. The Jewish language Yiddish offers another example of the same thing. Yiddish is more or less a dialect of German and if it were written in the Roman alphabet, it would always have been readily accessible and at least partly comprehensible to gentiles who spoke German.

Bonded vs Blackened

But Yiddish is in fact written in the Hebrew alphabet, so it isn’t accessible or comprehensible to outsiders at all. Jews wanted to maintain their nationhood, so they put up a linguistic barrier. Atatürk wanted to remake Turkish nationhood, so he pulled down a linguistic barrier. But he could never have succeeded in making Turkey European and in a perfect world they wouldn’t be playing in the European Football Championships. But the world isn’t perfect and as it is I think Turkey are doing Europeans a service by playing there. They aren’t just playing attractive soccer: they’re showing Europeans what a true nation looks like.

Georgia are doing the same. They’re ranked 74th in the world but they beat Portugal, who are ranked sixth. Georgia are bonded by blood; Portugal are blighted by Blacks. Georgia also play with far more spirit and unity than England, but I think that’s easy to explain. The Georgian team embodies natural nationhood; the English team embodies noxious notionhood. Kylian Mbappé and Bukayo Saka are undoubtedly very good players, but they’re French and English only on paper. Olivier Giroud and Harry Kane are French and English in the way that truly counts: by blood. Soccer is a game with a globe that has gone global, but it also reveals the limits of globalism. Blacks don’t belong in European teams. Nations are not notions.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Tobias Langdon https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Tobias Langdon2024-07-01 07:00:292024-07-02 02:54:21Nations Are Not Notions: Thoughts on the European Football Championship 2024

Carl Jung and the Jews

June 29, 2024/32 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jewish Aggressiveness, Jewish Writing on Anti-Semitism/by Marshall Yeats

“The Jew truly solicits anti-Semitism with his readiness to scent out anti-Semitism everywhere.”
        Carl Jung, 1934

For a long time I’ve been fascinated by the way in which Jews obsess over deceased, historical figures who made unflattering comments about their race. The more famous and talented, the greater the intensity of the obsession. Such preoccupations have featured previously at The Occidental Observer, for example in the Jewish vendetta against T.S. Eliot, and against his contemporary Ezra Pound. In Anthony Julius’s T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism and Literary Form, for example, Julius writes that Jews reading Eliot’s poetry are both “appalled and impressed.”[1] They are appalled because they perceive an unjustified critique upon their ethnic group, and they perceive this critique more acutely because of their ethnocentrism. They are impressed, on the other hand, because they appreciate, and are threatened by, the talent of their target, often despite themselves. The ‘attraction’ which brings them back repeatedly to their target arises from the desire to deconstruct and demean that talent, and therefore avenge or mitigate the critique.

Jews are also firmly in the grip of a historically rooted fear or paranoia. The past is ever present for Jews, prompting them into risky and extremely aggressive actions against host populations. The perfect expression of this paranoia can be found in a very recent article in The Guardian by Jewish journalist Barney Ronay. Ronay is currently in Germany to cover the European Football championships, but he can’t seem to focus on sport. He informs his readers that he has “loved being in this warm, friendly place for Euro 2024, a homecoming of sorts. But that doesn’t stop it terrifying me.” He continues:

Here, by way of example, is a non-exhaustive list of German things that have felt terrifying to me, begun on my first day at the Euros when a happy German woman was laughing uncontrollably on a train passing through woodland outside Munich and I realised that happy uncontrollable German laughter is terrifying. German trains are terrifying. German railway sidings are terrifying. There are transport vibes here, fleeing energy. A German forest is terrifying, in particular a German forest clearing. An empty German park at dusk is terrifying. Any German village square is terrifying … What else? German dark wood furniture. A row of parked German bicycles (Where are they going? Will I need one?). German staircases, corridors, suitcases. Most German shoes. All discarded German shoes.

Many of these fears have their origins in tales passed down to Jewish children, and reinforced through Jewish cultural and political groups. Fear is a key ingredient in the cement that binds Jewish ethnocentrism, which is why the ADL invests a lot of money in surveys of anti-Semitism intended to terrify and shepherd the ethnic flock into cohesive action. In Ronay’s case, “Family myth dictates one of my distant uncles was pulled off a train and shot. The bullet passed through his neck, he lay down for a bit, got up and rejoined the resistance.” I applaud his use of the word myth here, but there are many hundreds of thousands of Jewish families which cherish such fantastical boogeyman tales as historical fact. And Jewish fear, and Jewish ethnocentrism, needs its boogeymen, be they obvious ones like Hitler, or more persistent cultural figures such as Eliot or Pound—figures who can still be discussed publicly with a level of respect and admiration. Among such figures we find Carl Jung.

Carl Jung and the Culture of Critique

Although, or perhaps because, Jung was once associated with psychoanalysis, a movement so Jewish that it comprises one of the Jewish intellectual movements highlighted in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, the Swiss psychiatrist has increasingly become the focus of condemnation, deconstruction, and criticism in recent years. In the recently-published Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture, Jewish academic Daniel Burston writes that:

In today’s world of psychotherapy, one cannot be a Jungian without having to answer the charge that Jung was both a Nazi and anti-Semitic. … His statements on the over-materialistic values of Jewish psychology, and its corrosive effects on the spiritual nature of the psyche, were made in the 1930s. … Psychoanalysts have used it as a reason not to study Jung; other intellectuals use it as a reason to discredit Jung.[2]

In a paragraph that reads a little like something from a horror novel, Jung’s place as a boogeyman is introduced early, with anti-Semitism explained as a mysterious, ghostly and terrifying phenomenon:

After reading this book, perhaps Jungians will grasp why so many Jews think of anti-Semitism as a shape-shifting but deathless adversary that lives forever in the hidden recesses of Christian and Muslim cultures; one that lies dormant for shorter or longer periods, but always returns to torment us through the ages.

Shape-shifting and deathless. Oh my.

Burston draws a distinction between what he calls “low-brow, high-intensity” anti-Semites, and “high-brow, low-intensity” anti-Semites. He explicitly mentions Kevin MacDonald as an example of the latter, and places Jung in this category also. Burston claims that “anti-Semitic intellectuals” like MacDonald and Jung, while non-violent, “will also offer cover or support for less educated, more overt kind of anti-Semites when circumstances require.” The smear is therefore that men like MacDonald and Jung are essentially thugs in suits.

Burston traces Jung’s thought to the neo-conservative movement dominant during his university years, with Jung painted as having imbibed a semi-barbaric quasi-Germanism. “It rejected naturalism and was drawn to symbolism and irrationalism. In politics it questioned democracy and rejected socialism, preferring a Nietzschean elitism. . . . Jung adopted [Eduard von Hartmann’s] critique of modernity [including his] concern about the ‘Judaization’ of modern society. . . . For Jung, Freud became the representative of such a rationalistic, ‘disenchanted’ view of the world.”[3]

By the 1920s and 1930s, supporters of Freud and of Jung increasingly saw each other as opponents in a battle for civilization as each defined it. Because of his anti-materialism and his criticism of many of Freud’s more perverse theories, Freudians, most of whom were Jewish, regarded Jung as an anti-Semite and latterly as “a herald of fascist and Nazi barbarism.” Burston continues in this vein, arguing for a “significant and disturbing link between the dynamics of antisemitism over the centuries and the psychology and politics of Carl Jung.”

A crucial problem that Jews, past and present, have with Jung is that he dared to turn the analytical gaze back on the Jews themselves. While the entirety of psychoanalysis seemed geared towards what Kevin MacDonald termed “a radical criticism of gentile society,” as well as the development of self-serving theories of anti-Semitism, Jung developed a cutting critique of Jews and of what he called “Jewish anti-Christianism,” with many of his observations arising from direct experience with the Jewish psychoanalytic milieu. In other words, Jung put Jewish quacks “on the couch.” In a letter to an associate dated May 1934, Jung explained:

The Jewish Christ-complex makes for a somewhat hystericized general attitude … which has become especially clear to me in the course of the present anti-Christian attacks upon myself. The mere fact that I speak of a difference between Jewish and Christian psychology suffices to allow anyone to voice the prejudice that I am an anti-Semite. … As you know, Freud previously accused me of anti-Semitism because I could not countenance his soulless materialism. The Jew truly solicits anti-Semitism with his readiness to scent out anti-Semitism everywhere. I cannot see why the Jew, like any so-called Christian, is incapable of assuming that he is being personally criticised when one has an opinion of him. Why must it always be assumed that one wants to condemn the Jewish people?

For this affront, Jung is both dangerous and unforgivable in Jewish eyes. Burston is far from unique in wanting to diminish Jung because of his views on Jews. In the late 1990s a similar effort was made by the British Jewish academic Andrew Samuels, who claimed that “in C.G. Jung, nationalism found its psychologist.” The fearful response of Samuels to Jung was to claim that it was Jung who was gripped by a fear of Jews. Samuels tried to put Jung “on the couch” and to psychologize his attitudes to Jews by explaining them as being rooted in feelings of being threatened:

My perception is that the ideas of nation and of national difference form a fulcrum between the Hitlerian phenomenon and Jung’s analytical psychology. For, as a psychologist of nations, Jung too would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange so-called nation without a land. Jung, too, would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange nation without cultural forms — that is, without national cultural forms — of its own, and hence, in Jung’s words of 1933, requiring a “host nation”. What threatens Jung, in particular, can be illuminated by enquiring closely into what he meant when he writes, as he often does, of “Jewish psychology.”

Even in the early 2000s, there seemed to be a divide between non-Jewish scholars keen to keep Jung in the public eye, and Jewish scholars keen to keep him in the gutter. In a letter to the New York Times in 2004, one “Henry Friedman” took issue with Robert Boynton (NYU) and Deirdre Bair (National Book Award winning biographer) for their apparent agreement that Jung was “neither personally anti-Semitic nor politically astute,” thus absolving Jung of some of the worst accusations levelled against him by Jewish critics keen to associate Jung with the ideas of National Socialism. Friedman called this “a further contribution to a misleading attempt to minimize the importance of Jung’s anti-Semitic racism and his contributions to the Third Reich’s genocidal policies.” Friedman continues:

It is pathetic that Jung should be excused from responsibility for his virulent racism and his importance in the Nazi movement. Most important, it is likely that his ideas about psychoanalysis were instrumental in Hitler and Göring’s desire to cleanse psychoanalysis of Freud’s ideas — especially the notion of the Oedipus complex, which apparently offended Hitler’s sensibilities. To conclude that Martin Heidegger was more of a collaborator than Jung serves to divert attention from the serious nature of Jung’s involvement with the Nazis’ anti-Semitic propaganda. Whether he was a worse offender than Heidegger is hard to assess, but as one who wrote papers on the inferiority of the Jewish race, Jung deserves a special degree of condemnation, not the lame excuse granted him by both Bair and Boynton.

Jung’s Attitudes Towards Jews

Jung’s professional and private writings contain a significant amount of material about Jews, and the content is most often highly critical. It is therefore not surprising that Jews should see Jung as a formidable opponent. Jung made many statements which appear to concur with Kevin MacDonald’s assessment that psychoanalysis under Freud was a Jewish intellectual movement. In 1934 Jung received much criticism for an article he published titled The State of Psychotherapy Today, in which he wrote that psychoanalysis was “a Jewish psychology.” Defending himself against accusations of racism for suggesting that Jews and Europeans have a different psychology, Jung explained:

Psychological differences obtain between all nations and races, and even between the inhabitants of Zurich, Basel, and Bern. (Where else would all the good jokes come from?) There are in fact differences between families and between individuals. That is why I attack every levelling psychology when it raises a claim to universal validity, as for instance the Freudian and the Adlerian. … All branches of mankind unite in one stem—yes, but what is a stem without separate branches? Why this ridiculous touchiness when anybody dares to say anything about the psychological difference between Jews and Christians? Every child knows that differences exist.

Jung believed that Jews, like all peoples, have a characteristic personality, and he stressed the need to take this personality into account. In his own sphere of expertise, Jung warned that “Freud and Adler’s psychologies were specifically Jewish, and therefore not legitimate for Aryans.”[4] For Jung, a formative factor in the Jewish personality was the rootlessness of the Jews and the persistence of the Diaspora. Jung argued that Jews lacked a “chthontic quality,” meaning “the Jew … is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.”[5] Jung penned these words in 1918, but they retain significance even after the founding of the State of Israel, since vastly more Jews live outside Israel than within it. Jews remain a Diaspora people, and many continue to see their Diaspora status as a strength. Because they are scattered and rootless, however, Jung argued that Jews developed methods of getting on in the world that are built on exploiting weakness in others rather than expressing explicit strength. In Jung’s phrasing, “the Jews have this particularity in common with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.”[6]

Jung believed that Jews were incapable of operating effectively without a host society, and that they relied heavily upon grafting themselves into the systems of other peoples in order to succeed. In The State of Psychotherapy Today Jung wrote: “The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own, and as far as we can see, never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” This process of group development often involved ‘aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary,’ along with other flexible strategies.[7]

Jung also believed (in common with a finding in Kevin MacDonald’s work) that there was a certain psychological aggressiveness in Jews, which was partly a result of the internal mechanics of Judaism. In a remarkably prescient set of observations in the 1950s, Jung expressed distaste for the behavior of Jewish women and essentially predicted the rise of feminism as a symptom of the pathological Jewess. Jung believed that Jewish men were “brides of Yahweh,” rendering Jewish women more or less obsolete within Judaism. In reaction, argued Jung, Jewish women in the early twentieth century began aggressively venting their frustrations against the male-centric nature of Judaism (and against the host society as a whole) while still conforming to the characteristic Jewish psychology and its related strategies. Writing to Martha Bernays, Freud’s wife, he once remarked of Jewish women that “so many of them are loud, aren’t they?” and later added he had treated “very many Jewish women — in all these women there is a loss of individuality, either too much or too little. But the compensation is always for the lack. That is to say, not the right attitude.”[8]

Jung, meanwhile, was cautious about accusations of anti-Semitism, and he was “critical of the oversensitivity of Jews to anti-Semitism,” believing “one cannot criticise an individual Jew without it immediately becoming an anti-Semitic attack.”[9] It is certainly difficult to believe that Jung, who basically argued that Jews had a unique psychological profile and had developed a unique method for getting on in the world, would have disagreed with the almost identical foundational premise of MacDonald’s trilogy. In fact, Jung believed that playing the victim and utilizing accusations of anti-Semitism against their critics were simply parts of the Jewish strategy—a useful cover for concerted ethnocentric action in “aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.” For example, after the war, in a 1945 letter to Mary Mellon, he wrote, “It is however difficult to mention the anti-Christianism of the Jews after the horrible things that have happened in Germany. But Jews are not so damned innocent after all—the role played by the intellectual Jews in pre-war Germany would be an interesting object of investigation”[10] Indeed, MacDonald notes:

a prominent feature of anti-Semitism among the Social Conservatives and racial anti-Semites in Germany from 1870 to 1933 was their belief that Jews were instrumental in developing ideas that subverted traditional German attitudes and beliefs. Jews were vastly overrepresented as editors and writers during the 1920s in Germany, and “a more general cause of increased anti-Semitism was the very strong and unfortunate propensity of dissident Jews to attack national institutions and customs in both socialist and non-socialist publications” (Gordon 1984, 51).[i] This “media violence” directed at German culture by Jewish writers such as Kurt Tucholsky—who “wore his subversive heart on his sleeve” (Pulzer 1979, 97)—was publicized widely by the anti-Semitic press (Johnson 1988, 476–477).

Jews were not simply overrepresented among radical journalists, intellectuals, and “producers of culture” in Weimar Germany, they essentially created these movements. “They violently attacked everything about German society. They despised the military, the judiciary, and the middle class in general” (Rothman & Lichter 1982, 85). Massing (1949, 84) notes the perception of the anti-Semite Adolf Stoecker of Jewish “lack of reverence for the Christian-conservative world.” (The Culture of Critique, Ch. 1)

These sentiments echoed comments made in November 1933 to Esther Harding, in which Jung expressed the opinion that Jews had clustered in Weimar Germany because they tend to “fish in troubled waters,” by which he meant that Jews tend to congregate and flourish where social decay is ongoing. He remarked that he had personally observed German Jews drinking champagne in Montreaux (Switzerland) while “Germany was starving,” and that while “very few had been expelled” and “Jewish shops in Berlin went on the same,” if there was a rising hardship among them in Germany it was because “overall the Jews deserved it.”[11] Perhaps most interesting of all in any discussion of Jewish acquisition of influence, it appears that in 1944 Jung oversaw the implementation of quotas on Jewish admission to the Analytical Psychology Club of Zurich. The quotas (a generous 10% of full members and 25% for guest members) were inserted into a secret appendix to the by-laws of the club and remained in place until 1950.[12] One can only assume that, like other quotas introduced around the world at various times, the goal here was to limit, or at least retain some measure of control over, Jewish numerical and directional influence within that body.

Jung was of course operating in a time period in which racial self-awareness was acute on all sides. Kevin MacDonald explains in The Culture of Critique that, within psychoanalysis, there was a clear understanding among Jews that Jung was an Aryan and not quite capable of being in full communion with its Jewish members and leaders. MacDonald writes:

Early in their relationship Freud also had suspicions about Jung, the result of “worries about Jung’s inherited Christian and even anti-Jewish biases, indeed his very ability as a non-Jew to fully understand and accept psychoanalysis itself.” Before their rupture, Freud described Jung as a “strong independent personality, as a Teuton.” After Jung was made head of the International Psychoanalytic Association, a colleague of Freud’s was concerned because “taken as a race,” Jung and his gentile colleagues were “completely different from us Viennese.” (The Culture of Critique, Ch.4)

Conclusion

To the extent that psychoanalysis continues to exist as a movement, or at least as a niche within academia and culture, it’s clear that Jung “the Teuton” continues to haunt Jews with his comments and criticisms, and the split that occurred in the lifetime of Jung and Freud persists in some fashion a century later — a testament to the fact, perhaps, that psychoanalysis was a tool for racial conflict from its inception. Were he alive today, I’m sure Jung would be amused but perhaps not surprised that he continues to feature in the psyche of Jews, as terrifying a boogeyman as uncontrollable German laughter.


[1] A. Julius, T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism and Literary Form (Thames & Hudson, 2003), 40.

[2] D. Burston, Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture (Routledge: New York, 2021).

[3] G. Cocks (2023). [Review of the book Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture, by Daniel Burston]. Antisemitism Studies 7(1), 215-222.

[4] B. Cohen, “Jung’s Answer to Jews,” Jung Journal: Culture and Psyche, 6:1 (56–71), 59.

[5] Ibid, 58.

[6] Ibid.

[7] T. Kirsch, “Jung’s Relationship with Jews and Judaism,” in Analysis and Activism: Social and Political Contributions of Jungian Psychology (London: Routledge, ), 174.

[8] Ibid, 177.

[9] T. Kirsch, “Jung and Judaism,” Jung Journal: Culture and Psyche, 6:1 (6-7), 6.

[10] S. Zemmelman (2017). “Inching towards wholeness: C.G. Jung and his relationship to Judaism.” Journal of Analytical Psychology, 62(2), 247–262.

[11] See W. Schoenl and L. Schoenl, Jung’s Evolving View of Nazi Germany: From the Nazi Takeover to the End of World War II (Asheville: Chiron, 2016).

[12] S. Frosh (2005). “Jung and the Nazis: Some Implications for Psychoanalysis.” Psychoanalysis and History, 7(2), (253–271), 258.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Marshall Yeats https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Marshall Yeats2024-06-29 00:03:272024-06-28 13:46:32Carl Jung and the Jews

Old Tablets and New: Two Decalogues for the White Race

June 28, 2024/14 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

“O my brothers, break, break the old tablets!”
—Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (3.12.10)

According to Jewish mythology, Moses came down from the mountain with two stone tablets in hand. Inscribed on them, by the Jewish god Yahweh, were 10 “commandments” for the Jews to follow in their interactions with other Jews (though not with non-Jews, for whom there were no such laws). This so-called decalogue, or “10-words” (deka-logos), is offered up as a kind of divine law, binding on all religious Jews—and on foolish Christians who inexplicably feel themselves bound by Jewish law.

As the story goes, Moses became upset with his people because they deviated from God’s law, and in anger, he broke the tablets (Ex 32:19). (Later, when the Jews were reformed, God gave Moses a replacement set.) As a set of laws, this original decalogue is wholly unimpressive; it ranges from the obvious and mundane—“don’t lie,” “don’t steal,” “don’t kill,” “honor your parents”—to the absurd: “no other gods,” “no graven image.” Certainly there is nothing of penetrating insight or deep wisdom, such as might be expected from a divinely-dictated legal code. But it is perfectly suited for a small tribe of nomadic and superstitious Jews.

The coming of Christianity muddied the waters. Jesus’ relationship to the 10 Commandments is fraught with difficulty; did he come to “fulfill” and uphold Mosaic law, or did his “new covenant” override it? There is no consensus on this. As a result, it is entirely unclear if Christians are bound by the original decalogue at all, even apart from the fact that the original was intended only for Jews.

Be that as it may, this Mosaic decalogue is almost useless for any modern, contemporary, rational society. The mundane laws are so obvious that they are already granted moral and legal standing in virtually every culture, and the absurd theological laws are meaningless for anyone not captive to a ridiculous Judaic ideology. Worst of all, to grant any standing to “God’s law” is to grant unwarranted credibility to a pathological Judeo-Christian worldview based entirely in mythology and Jewish supremacism. Any reasonable person can agree to not killing, not stealing, etc., and we don’t need God’s or Moses’ sanction to uphold such decrees. What we need, then, are new laws, new tablets—a new decalogue that can guide us through the present stormy waters.

One early skeptic who saw through the charade of Judeo-Christianity was Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche understood that this religious outlook was a complete fraud—in fact, a multi-level fraud. The Mosaic stories, along with the cosmic origin in Genesis, Adam and Eve, the life of Noah, and so on, are portrayed as actual fact when in truth we can see them as, at best, inspiring fables; and at worst, as sheer nonsense. Nietzsche was also appalled that Gentile Europeans could believe that anything in the Old Testament—the Jewish bible—applied to them. He understood that the much-proclaimed “neighbor” of Old Testament morality referred only to the Jewish neighbor: “‘the neighbor’—really the coreligionist, the Jew”.[1] Nietzsche also condemned “the Jewish instinct of ‘the chosen’”; the Jews “claim all the virtues for themselves without further ado, and count the rest of the world their opposites; a profound sign of a vulgar soul.”[2] Indeed, the Jews are

people of the basest origin, partly rabble, outcasts not only from good society, but also from respectable society; grown away from the atmosphere of culture, and undisciplined; ignorant, without even a suspicion of the fact that conscience can also rule in spiritual matters; in a word—Jews. (Will to Power, sec. 199)

No matter what Gentiles and Christians believe, the Old Testament God is a god of the Jews, one who “remained a Jew, he remained a god of nooks, the god of all the dark corners and places, of all the unhealthy quarters the world over!”[3]

But the greatest fraud was Christianity: a Jewish-inspired hoax of the highest order, intended to degrade and destroy Gentile humanity—Rome above all. Paul constructed an elaborate deception based on a Jewish rabbi, turning him into a miraculous son of God who falsely promises eternal rewards to even the most lowly and undeserving. The whole belief-system is so absurd and so opposed to worldly existence that it undermines and ultimately destroys those who follow it:

Christianity needs sickness just as Greek culture needs a superabundance of health—to make sick is the true, secret purpose of the whole system of redemptive procedures constructed by the church. … Christianity also stands opposed to every spirit that has turned out well; it can use only sick reason as Christian reason, it sides with everything idiotic, it utters a curse against the spirit, against the superbia of the healthy spirit… [S]ickness is of the essence of Christianity. (Antichrist, secs. 51-52)

The solution, says Nietzsche, is to destroy the destroyers: to smash the sick Judeo-Christian worldview and the morality based on it. True to form, Nietzsche presents himself not as Moses but as the anti-Moses: we need to “break the tablets” of Judeo-Christian morality, not because people aren’t following them enough but because they are following them too much! This endeavor is described in his brilliant but challenging booklet Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1884), especially in Part Three in the section “On old and new tablets.” This extended section, which surely ranks among the best of Nietzsche’s writings, repeatedly implores us to “break the old tablets,” and to craft something new—a task which his hero, Zarathustra, has only begun (“new tablets half covered with writing”).

Among the new tablets are such sayings as: “Man is something that must be overcome” (sec. 4) and “become hard!” (sec. 29). Present humanity is only an intermediate state of being, “a bridge,” said Nietzsche, and our greatness lies in our transcending and overcoming the present human condition, attaining something like an uebermensch or ‘over-man.’ This exceedingly difficult task demands not Christian or feminine softness but rather something much stronger: a masculine, “Hyperborean” sense of strength and determination: “become hard!” But clearly more is needed.

All this, then, serves as a bit of background for the topic at hand. Not long ago, as I was engaged in some research on National Socialist philosophy, I came across not one but two fascinating “decalogues” developed by German thinkers, aiming at the betterment and flourishing of their fellow Germans. Like the Ten Commandments, these are 10-point plans for the enhancement and even salvation of a given people. The first appeared in peacetime and the second in the face of a bloody global war that was, in large part, instigated by Jews in the Soviet Union, England, and America.[4]

The first of the two decalogues is more personal, written by an unknown author sometime before 1940, and likely in the mid-1930s, well before World War Two. Addressed to the German youth, it enjoins young men and women to tend to their mental and physical health and, for both their own happiness and the sake of the German nation, to take great care when marrying. It declares that large, healthy, prosperous German families are the foundation of future success for the nation, and that the young have a civic duty to produce healthy offspring. In fact, this recalls one of Nietzsche’s “new tablets”: “In your children, you shall make up for being the children of your fathers” (sec. 12). The present generation, Nietzsche says, is a result of accident and capriciousness; future generations will be aimed at the higher and the better. With proper guidance, future generations can lead humanity upward, away from the abyss.

This first decalogue was published in English in 1940, in Lothrop Stoddard’s book Into the Darkness (pp. 197-200). Stoddard calls it Ten Commandments for the Choice of a Mate; I will refer to this as the “Marriage Decalogue.” I cite it below, with two alterations: (1) I have modified Stoddard’s archaic “thee/thou” language into more modern English prose; and (2) I have replaced ‘German’ with ‘White.’ It seems to me that such a set of injunctions could be useful today, not only for Germans but for all White people in all lands. Let us see how it holds up under this new reading:

The Marriage Decalogue

  1. Remember that you are White! All that you are, you owe, not to yourself, but to your people. Whether you like it or not, you belong to them; you have come forth from your race. In all that you do, consider whether it serves to enhance your people.
  2. Maintain your purity of mind and spirit! Cherish and foster your mental and spiritual capacities. Keep far from your mind and soul whatever is instinctively foreign to them, what is contrary to your true self, and what your inner conscience rejects. Seeking after money, worldly goods, and material pleasures may often lead you to forget higher things. Be true to your own self, and above all, be worthy of your future life-mate.
  3. Keep your body clean! Maintain the good health received from your parents, in order to serve your people. Guard against expending your health uselessly and foolishly. A moment’s sensual gratification may permanently damage your health and your heritable wealth that is meant to serve your children and grandchildren. Whatever you would demand of a future life-partner, demand of yourself. Remember that you are destined to be a White parent.
  4. Being of sound stock, do not remain single! All your qualities of body and spirit perish if you die without heirs. They are a heritage, a donation from your ancestors. They exist as a chain, of which you are but a link. Would you break that chain, only under stern necessity? Your life is bound by time; but family and folk endure. Your hereditary estate of body and spirit prospers in your flourishing offspring.
  5. Marry only for love! Money is perishable and ensures no lasting happiness. Where the divine spark of love is absent, no worthy marriage can endure. Wealth of heart and soul is the foundation of a lasting, happy union.
  6. As a White, choose a mate only of your own race! Where like meets like, true unison rules. Where unlike races mix, there is discord. Mixing racial stocks which do not harmonize leads to the degeneracy and downfall of groups and peoples. The more unlike the mixtures, the faster this takes place. Guard yourself from such ruin! True happiness springs only from harmonious blood.
  7. In choosing a mate, consider the ancestry! You wed not only your mate but also your life-partner’s forebears. Worthy descendants are to be expected only where worthy ancestors went before. Gifts of mind and spirit are just as much inherited as the color of hair and eyes. Bad traits are bequeathed precisely like land or goods. Nothing in the whole world is so precious as the seeds of a gifted stock; noxious seeds cannot be transformed into good ones. Thus, do not marry the one worthy member of a bad family.
  8. Health is the prerequisite for outer beauty! Health is the best guarantee for lasting happiness, for it is the basis for both external charm and inward harmony. Demand of your mate medical assurance of fitness for marriage, as you must also do yourself.
  9. In marriage seek, not a plaything but a helpmate! Marriage is not a passing game but a lasting union. The supreme aim of marriage is the raising of healthy offspring. Only by the union of beings who are alike in spirit, body, and blood can this high goal be attained, to the blessing of themselves and their people. Each race has its own ethos; thus, only like souls can endure together.
  10. Strive to have many children! Only by having at least four children can the continuance of your people be assured. Only by having an even larger number can the greatest possible proportion of the traits inherited from your ancestors be handed down with certainty. You will soon pass away; that which you give to your descendants endures. Your people live forever!

Stoddard is duly impressed: “What an amazing mixture of idealisms and [beneficial] propaganda!” We can only imagine the conditions that would allow such an official document to appear in public once again. Imagine if such a thing were the basis for all education; for all youth-based music and entertainment; for all social media; for all youth-oriented films and television. Imagine the changes that would come in just five or ten years of a youth culture centered on these values and ideals.

“Nazi propaganda!” scream the leftists. “Thank God we no longer have such official dictates,” they say. But this would be a grave error. Don’t fool yourself, dear reader, into thinking that today’s Western liberal-democratic social order is “open” and “free,” and therefore lacking in such “propaganda.” Far from it. Every cultural system carries with it a worldview and an ideology. In the West today, our ideology is one of a Judeo-centric leftist liberalism; it promotes wokeism, minority rights, racial mixing, gay rights, gender fluidity, crude materialism, and rampant individualism and narcissism. It is anti-White, anti-child, and anti-family. It promotes self-harm, sickness, and death. It attacks the best among us and praises the worst. One could scarcely devise a more pernicious ideology if one tried. What concerned parent today wouldn’t prefer this “Nazi” Marriage Decalogue to guide our youth, over the utter filth and moral depravity served up with glee by our Jewish cultural overlords?

The second decalogue comes from the hand of Joseph Goebbels. Late in 1941, and just prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the war entered its third year; all was going well for Hitler and Germany, and victory appeared to be at hand. France had capitulated, England was on its last legs, and the Soviets were pushed back nearly to Moscow.

For both Hitler and Goebbels, the cause of the war was clear: malevolent Jewish action in the East, the West, and within Germany itself. Soviet Bolshevism, inspired by Jews like Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin (a quarter-Jew), posed a mortal threat to all of Europe; capitalist Jews in England and France agitated against Hitler from even before his rise to power in 1933; and German Jews left over from the Weimar regime continued to cause trouble domestically. From the German perspective, the primary cause and driving force of the war was global Jewry.

Thus on 16 November 1941, Goebbels published a striking essay entitled “The Jews are guilty!” It is a remarkable piece, especially given that it was crafted by the functional second-in-command of a major Western power. (The full essay is reprinted in my book Goebbels on the Jews [3rd ed., 2024]). Of interest is the closing portion in which Goebbels enumerates ten key points in dealing with the Jews—an “Antisemitic Decalogue,” if you will. Goebbels’ references to “the war” resonate in the present day, where we in the West are involved with two major conflicts (Ukraine and Gaza), both inspired and driven by Jews; the situation then was little different than today. I cite Goebbels’ ten points below in full:

The Antisemitic Decalogue

  1. The Jews are our destruction. They started this war and direct it. They want to destroy the German Reich and our people. This plan must be blocked.
  2. There are no distinctions between Jews. Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people. If he does not make his hostility plain, it is only from cowardice and slyness, not because he loves us.
  3. The Jews are to blame for each German soldier who falls in this war. They have him on their conscience, and must also pay for it.
  4. If someone wears the Jewish star, he is an enemy of the people. Anyone who deals with him is the same as a Jew and must be treated accordingly. He earns the contempt of the entire people, for he is a craven coward who leaves them in the lurch to stand by the enemy.
  5. The Jews enjoy the protection of our enemies. That is all the proof we need to show how harmful they are for our people.
  6. The Jews are the enemy’s agents among us. He who stands by them aids the enemy.
  7. The Jews have no right to claim equality with us. If they wish to speak on the streets, in lines outside shops or in public transportation, they should be ignored, not only because they are simply wrong, but because they are Jews who have no right to a voice in the community.
  8. Don’t let the Jews appeal to your sentimentality. If they try, realize that they are hoping for your forgetfulness, and let them know that you see through them and hold them in contempt.
  9. A decent enemy will deserve our generosity after we have won. The Jew, however, is not a decent enemy, though he tries to seem so.
  10. The Jews are responsible for the war. The treatment they receive from us is hardly unjust. They have deserved it all.

Imagine a society guided by these two decalogues—how different everything would be! Imagine if they were posted in every school, in every university, and in every public institution, and then actively used to guide social policy. What a tremendous impact they could have.

This idea is not so far-fetched. As I write these words, the state of Louisiana has just passed a law mandating the display of the Jewish “10 Commandments” in every public school, “in a large, easily readable font.” Even though the posting of Jewish commandments is idiotic in the extreme, the principle is valid: establish basic rules to guide society, and especially the youth, and promote them widely. Instead of Jewish mythology, why not post these German decalogues that serve the betterment of our youth and address a fundamental threat to social wellbeing?

We ought never forget our hard-won lessons from the past. With a finely-tuned ear, we can hear Nietzsche, Hitler, and Goebbels calling to us from beyond the grave: “Break, my friends, break the old tablets! Free yourselves from Judaic thinking and Judaic values! Recover your self-confidence, your sense of self-worth, and your greatness on the world stage. Identify and drive out the pernicious elements of your society; allow yourselves to breathe freely once again. Break the old tablets, and write new ones—ones that will carry you and your children beyond their present sorry state and into a future worthy of them and their legacy. It is a great and difficult task, but not impossible; we have begun the hard work; you must now carry it forward.”

Thus do they call to us. How shall we respond?

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com


[1] Antichrist, section 33 (1888).

[2] Will to Power, section 197 (1887).

[3] Antichrist, section 17.

[4] For details, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019; Clemens & Blair).

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.2024-06-28 07:43:492024-06-29 08:10:03Old Tablets and New: Two Decalogues for the White Race

How Trump Will Lose the Debate

June 27, 2024/17 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Ann Coulter

How Trump Will Lose the Debate

    Donald Trump’s recent proposal to give a green card to every immigrant who gets a degree from any college reminded me of his performance at the 2020 debates with Joe Biden.

     Here’s the 15-second version:

“You did a crime bill, 1994, where you called them super-predators. African Americans are super-predators and they’ve never forgotten it. They’ve never forgotten it.”

“I’m letting people out of jail now …  you have treated the African American population community, you have treated the black community about as bad as anybody in this country.”

“If you look at the polls, I’m doing better than any Republican has done [with African Americans] in a long time …”

“Nobody has done more for the black community than Donald Trump … Criminal justice reform … prison reform, opportunity zones with Tim Scott …”

“Biggest beneficiary, the black and Hispanic communities and then historically black colleges and universities …”

“If you look at the kind of numbers that we produce for Hispanic, or black, or Asian, it’s nine times greater, the percentage gain than it was under [Obama].”

“We had the best black unemployment numbers in the history of our country, Hispanic, women, Asian …”

And on and on and on.

Trump never mentioned whites, not once, in either debate. Nor the rural, working-class, or left-behind Americans.

That’s not how Trump won in 2016. This is how he won — and also how he lost four years later.

For decades, Democrats, Republicans, Wall Street, universities, the media and corporate America had dumped on rural whites and the working class. Liberal elites had to demonize the people they’d screwed over to justify the untold riches they’d made on NAFTA and global “free trade.” Wall Street stole from the working class, so they had to attack the people they’d stolen from.

That’s why the elites carry on so about “white privilege” and “toxic masculinity,” as if the guy working at Home Depot is an incipient Hitler.

Democrats used to pretend to care about the working class. Then, in the Clinton era, they realized that with all the new immigrants voting for them, they didn’t need the working class anymore and proceeded to come down like a sledgehammer on “flyover people.”

Trying to impress liberals, Republicans were embarrassed about getting votes from white people.

Then Trump came along like the vox clamantis in deserto and spoke directly to ordinary white Americans. Once they got over their amazement, the despised working class would have walked over glass to vote for Trump. Shocking the world, he won the election.

All the stars were aligned. Wall Street had given more than 96% of its money to a losing candidate. Trump won on the slogan “BUILD THE WALL” — defying not only Democrats but also the entire GOP establishment, to the extent you can tell them apart. The more the media slandered Trump, the more his voters loved him.

And then Trump systematically fumbled it all away, hiring his relatives and giving the keys of the kingdom to Goldman Sachs, Silicon Valley and the Chamber of Commerce.

Trump had begun selling out even before the 2016 Republican Convention. He turned everything over to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Jared assured him he didn’t need rural and working-class whites. “Where else are they going to go?” he said.

In 2020, Trump found out. The only demographic he lost in 2020, compared to 2016, was white people, especially white men.

Who could have seen that coming, except anybody without his head up his butt?

Trump had spent his precious four years in office praising illegals (“incredible kids”), threatening to take guns awayfrom people without due process, boasting about his “Platinum Plan” (for black people) and his “American Dream Plan” (for Hispanics — press 2 now to hear the plan in Espanol), releasing criminals from prison (where Kushner’s policy mastery met Kim Kardashian’s grasp of criminal justice on the Venn diagram) and bragging in his first debate with Biden, “I’m letting people out of jail now!”

He also spent 3.5 of his first four years in office not building the wall.

Today, Trump is back at it. Kushner’s invaluable campaign advice still rings loudly in his heart. With help from his clueless donors and even more clueless wingman, Fox News, he’s blowing off his available voters in order to chase the pipe dream of winning the black and Hispanic vote. (Can a major push for story-reading drag queens be far behind?)

The donors are thrilled. Living exclusively in the most white areas of the country, where the closest black person is 50 miles away, donors apparently believe TV commercials reflect the country’s actual demographics. They’re convinced that the key to GOP victory is sucking up to every non-white group.

It will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever work. Immigrants — all immigrants — have always voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Instead of adopting our culture, immigrants mostly bring their failed cultures with them. We’re not even getting “diversity”! What we’re getting is a boatload of Hispanics (44% of immigrants) and Asians (27%).

This year, like every year, black people will vote roughly 90% for the Democrats, while Hispanics and Asians will vote about 60% for the Democrats — give or take 5 percentage points. Under no circumstances, from now until the end of time, will Republicans ever crack 50% of the black or immigrant vote — not even the second- and third-generation immigrant vote.

That’s why the outcome of every single presidential election for at least the last half-century has been determined by slight movements in the white vote. Whites are the only swing voters in the country, something donors couldn’t grasp if you applied white-hot pokers to them.

Below are a few of the poll results you’ll never see on Fox News that illustrate this immutable fact, regarding only two of our unique American freedoms: free speech and the right to bear arms. At the rate we’re hauling in immigrants, don’t expect either to last much longer.

According to a 2020 survey by the Knight Foundation, only about half of white Americans (51%) think “the government should prohibit people from sharing a racist or bigoted idea.” But gigantic majorities of non-whites do: 71% of Asians, 76% of Hispanics and 80% of blacks think racist speech should be prohibited by the government (unless it’s in a speech by Joe Biden).

Judging by what they say, that’s a lot of speech. Non-whites were twice as likely as whites to report feeling “unsafe” because of someone’s speech. Both Hispanic and Asian Americans are more likely than even African Americans to report feeling “unsafe” because of something said about race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation — even if not directed at them. (This may explain why you almost never see Hispanics or Asians in comedy clubs.)

Only 15% of white Americans think the government “should prohibit a person from sharing political views that are offensive to some.” More than twice as many Asians do (35%); more than three times as many Hispanics do (44%); and an outright majority of black people think the government should ban such speech (53%).

Thanks to all the third-worlders pouring in, Second Amendment rights also have a gun to their heads. Pew Research reported in 2021 that huge majorities of Asians (72%), Hispanics (65%) and blacks (75%) favor gun control, compared to only 45% of whites. (The other 25% of blacks were just fatally shot with an illegal gun in front of a 7-Eleven.)

The report noted that “white Americans stand alone on this question” — something you’ll see a lot in these polls. It holds true on such diverse topics as voter ID laws, Obamacare, abortion, big government, vaccine mandates and many other left-right issues.

Remember, Republicans (especially Trump): Democrats are smarter than you are. If it were remotely possible for immigrants ever to vote 60% to 70% for the GOP, instead of 60% to 70% for the Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer would be demanding an Iron Dome on our southern border. If Republicans, rather than Democrats, consistently won nearly 90% of the black vote, he’d be calling for a poll tax to take the literacy test.

Or Trump can take the advice of strategic genius Kushner and blow off his most loyal voters because, after all, “Where else are they going to go?”

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2024-06-27 06:18:342024-06-27 06:18:34How Trump Will Lose the Debate

Cry Me a River: Marion Kaplan’s Between Dignity and Despair

June 25, 2024/14 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Spencer J. Quinn

4775 Words

Introduction

If you’re looking for evidence to support some political, ideological, or religious position while studying history, you will probably find it if you want to badly enough. The clues are all there, and it’s all too tempting to prioritize some clues over others or interpret some clues more broadly than others in order to promote a certain worldview. Whenever I study the Jewish Question, I try to avoid this temptation by setting objective standards ahead of time, and then standing by those standards to see whether the mainstream Jewish narrative or the dissident counter narrative is more truthful. I had such standards in mind when opening Between Dignity and Despair, a study of Jewish life in Nazi Germany written in 1998 by Marion Kaplan and published by Oxford University Press.

At stake here is what’s almost always at stake when mainstream academics write about Nazi Germany. The Nazis must be proven, time and time again, to be irredeemably evil and irrational. This is the most expedient way to ensure that the White inhabitants of Europe be as open as possible to Jewish influence moving forward. Unfortunately for Whites, this also necessitates their behaving in maladaptive and dysgenic ways, because strong, healthy, racially aware Whites will compete with Jews as Jews, knowing full well the positives and negatives that Jews brings to any country they inhabit. Thus, opinions on Nazi Germany—to say the least—are important.

But the question remains, were the Nazis evil and irrational? Kaplan seems to think so, and makes her case with a plethora of memoirs and letters written by Jews who lived in Germany during the Nazi period—which for argument’s sake I will assume are truthful. Still, I found Between Dignity and Despair highly unconvincing.

What are my standards?

  1. That Nazi treatment of German Jews was more or less reasonable given the surrounding historical circumstances;
  2. That Nazi treatment of German Jews during wartime must be measured with a different yardstick than during peacetime;
  3. That German Jews indeed suffered, but their suffering was more or less commensurate with gentile suffering in Germany and the disproportionately Jewish-run Soviet Union.

I began Between Dignity and Despair thinking that if Kaplan can offer enough historical evidence to disprove these standards, then she will vindicate the mainstream narrative of Nazi Germany. The problem I encountered right away, however, is that Kaplan doesn’t even try to do this. She is what the lit critics would call an unreliable narrator, in that she is not in the least bit interested in the German perspective unless that German perspective is philo-Semitic. This causes her to omit enough information not to be completely trusted.

This is not to say her work is without merit. Between Dignity and Despair is a readable and coherent account of day-to-day Jewish life in Nazi Germany—distaff-skewed but interesting in its detail and impressive scope. But as an indictment of the Nazis, it is exceedingly weak.

Kaplan As Unreliable Narrator

Kaplan opens her study by asking the obvious but necessary questions:

What did it feel like to be a Jew in Nazi Germany? What kind of Jewish life was there in Germany after 1933? Why did German Jews not leave sooner? What did non-Jewish Germans do, and what did they know?

In answering these questions, Kaplan presumes the existential innocence of Germany Jewry, as well as the fundamental Jewish right to access gentiles. In other words, Jews have the right to exclude gentiles from their communities, but never the other way around. More to the point of the book, she attempts to argue that the “social death” inflicted upon the Jews in Nazi Germany led inevitably to their physical death and then to the genocide of the Jews of Europe. She also attempts to explain why so many Jews never left Germany during the leadup to war. Kaplan has such contempt for racially aware Germans at that time that she refers to them as “Aryan,” always in scare quotes. This contempt leads her to omit extremely important information which would help explain why Germany became so inhospitable to Jews during the Nazi period.

Kaplan begins with the same blind spot found in Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement, first published in 1983—namely, that the German boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933 and the later economic repression of German Jews was not a justifiable retaliation to the worldwide Jewish boycott of Germany, which was then devastating a German economy already crippled by the Great Depression. Of course it was. At least Black discusses the Jewish anti-German boycott. Kaplan doesn’t even do that, and simply relies upon the ignorance of her readership by assuming that the anti-Jewish boycott, like all anti-Jewish measures from the time, sprang only from the black hearts of gentiles.

Another blind spot is the demonstrable connection between Jews and communism. This had proven catastrophic in Russia in 1917 and continued to be so during the 1930s, as was well-known in Germany at the time. This connection became evident in Hungary a few years later under the repressive rule of Béla Kun, and also nearly engendered a German Soviet republic in 1918 when Kurt Eisner and a clique of Jewish intellectuals attempted a violent revolution in Bavaria. Were the Germans supposed to forget about this? Kaplan seems to think so since, early in her work, she attempts to drum up sympathy for the communist Jews of Germany after the Nazis quite rightfully cracked down on them:

Jews jailed as communists—whether the charge was true or false—had the most to dread. They were accused of “preparing for high treason.” Recha Rothschild, a member of the Communist Party, quickly destroyed her files in February 1933. She fled her apartment, returning to it (at the end of March) after the SA had stormed in, stolen her belongings, and shredded all of her books and papers. She hid but was caught and charged with being a courier for the Communist Party, even though there was no hard evidence against her. The Reich court declared the evidence too flimsy, but the Prussian court, under Nazi control, sentenced Rothschild to two years in prison. There, among political prisoners, criminals, and prostitutes, her health deteriorated dangerously. Spitting up blood, she still refused “to drop dead for the Nazis.”

Not admitting what a lethal threat communism was to European nations at the time, and not putting the above sob story (and others like it) in perspective of the Jewish-run Soviet gulag system should make any discerning reader distrust Marion Kaplan. Her credibility diminishes even further when she proclaims that many of the Jews whom the Nazis oppressed throughout the 1930s were patriotic Germans. She cannot have it both ways. One cannot cry crocodile tears over Jewish communists—anti-patriots in theory and practice—and then expect readers to believe in the true-blue loyalty of German Jews. And that’s too bad, because I’m sure many German Jews were patriots, especially the ones who fought in the First World War. But when culling her sources, Kaplan rarely clarifies when a particular Jew was attacked, arrested, or repressed because he was Jewish or because he was a communist troublemaker or for any other perfectly legitimate reason. It’s as if she has something to hide.

Another egregious omission is Kaplan’s retelling of the German mass deportation of Polish Jews in October 1938. Not only does she describe it as a horror show of privation and terror as evil Nazis swooped down upon helpless Jews in their homes and herded them off to the hinterland, but she neglects to mention the perfectly valid reasons why the Germans were deporting Polish Jews in the first place. According to David Hoggan in The Forced War, Poland was striving to rid itself of its Jews and declared in October 1938 that Polish Jews living in Germany would become stateless unless they returned to Poland to get their passports validated, which the Polish government was preventing them from doing—at bayonet point. This was an egregious attempt to dump unwanted citizens onto a neighboring country, and forced the Germans to respond through deportations—which was their right, given that the Polish Jews were not German citizens. According to Hoggan, the Germans treated these deportees quite well.

The German authorities took great pains to act without guilt or blame. They organized the transport of Polish Jews with great care, and they made certain that the travelers had good facilities, including plenty of space and ample good food. The story told years later by the American journalist. William Shirer, about “Jews deported to Poland in boxcars” under brutal conditions, was clearly fictitious. The first trains passed the border to Polish stations before the Poles were prepared to stop them. After that, the unbelievable happened. Although the last day for issuance of the stamps was not until October 29th, and the new exclusion policy was not scheduled to take effect until October 30th, and Polish border police attempted to prevent the Jews from entering Poland. The Germans had made no preparation for this development, and soon thousands of Polish Jews were pouring into a few small border towns in Upper Silesia and elsewhere.

Kaplan does not tell her readership that the Germans were willing to have the Polish Jews re-enter Germany—but only after getting their passports validated in their recalcitrant home country. She does not reveal that the Poles retaliated by deporting large number of German Poles back into Germany. She also does not admit that many of these Polish Jews did indeed return to Germany and actually preferred it there, even as late as eleven months before the war.

In a moment of sheer dishonesty, Kaplan ascribes “despair” as Herschel Grynszpan’s motive to assassinate German diplomat Ernst vom Rath on November 7, 1938 in Paris. This famously set off the violent Kristallnacht pogrom days later. Upon learning that his parents and sister were being held near the Polish border with other deportees, Grynszpan took vom Rath’s life in an act of revenge. Kaplan makes this seem reasonable, yet fails to mention that Grynszpan was a “syphilitic degenerate,” according to Hoggan, who was wanted by the French police. She also does not mention that the postcard Grynszpan received from his deported family did not include any complaints regarding their treatment by the Germans.

Another sin of omission is Kaplan’s recapitulation of Adolf Hitler’s famous Reichstag speech of January30, 1939, which she claimed “ended with the ominous prophesy that this war would not see the ‘Bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’” What she neglects to mention is that this was not prophesy on the part of Hitler, but a warning for the Allies not to declare war on Germany, which given Poland’s abusiveness towards Germany and its own German minority, they had no moral reason to do.

Contradicting Edwin Black

Worst of all in my opinion is Kaplan’s near complete blackout of the Transfer Agreement, otherwise called the Haavara Transfer, in which Nazi Germany worked with Zionist Jews to pave the way for German-Jewish emigration to Palestine throughout the 1930s. According to Kaplan, the Nazi government urged Jews to emigrate, yet set impediments which made it extremely difficult for them to do so.

The Nazis created another major obstacle by restricting the amount of currency and property Jews could take with them. The plunder of Jewish property was part and parcel of all emigration proceedings. The Nazis “pressured Jews to leave the country, but the privilege of leaving was expensive.” The Reich Flight Tax (Reichsfluchtsteuer), a stringent property tax on émigrés, threatened to impoverish prospective emigrants. First passed by the Brüning government in 1931 to prevent capital flight, the Nazis raised it to punitive heights for emigrating Jews. In all, the German treasury may have collected as much as 900 million marks from the Reich Flight Tax alone. Many people had to sell all their belongings simply to pay this one tax. Gerdy Stoppleman, for example, sent her husband, recently released from Sachsenhausen concentration camp, ahead to England while she stayed behind to pay the tax: “To be able to pay the . . . tax I sold our furniture, valuable paintings and carpets . . . all dirt cheap. Many a home of true Aryans, SA, and SS became exceedingly well furnished.”

In other words, either material possessions and wealth meant more to German Jews than their very lives, or Jewish life in Nazi Germany before the war wasn’t quite as bad Kaplan alleges.

Kaplan’s characterization of the Reich Flight Tax is also exaggerated, given that Black in The Transfer Agreement places it at 25 percent—steep, but not prohibitive. The scheme, which was actually encouraged by the Nazis, involved one placing one’s Reichsmarks in a frozen bank account, where they were known as sperrmarks. From there, Black lays it all out:

In practice, then, if a German citizen decided to emigrate, he would sell off all his assets, realizing, say, RM 100,000, equal to $33,000. That entire RM 100,000 would be deposited into a blocked account, and automatically suffer a 25 percent Flight Tax. Of the RM 75,000 that remained, the emigrant would be allowed to take with him only a few hundred reichsmarks, which would be converted to francs, dollars, or whatever currency was needed to satisfy immigrant entry requirements. The emigrant would then own just under RM 75,000 in a blocked German account he could no longer spend. Before departing Germany, he would go to bank and offer to sell his sperrmarks to the highest bidder. A foreign buyer would be found, offering perhaps RM 60,000 for the 75,000 sperrmarks, paying with the equivalent in foreign currency from a foreign bank account. If agreed, the two would simply swap bank accounts. Thus, the foreign buyer would purchase RM 75,000 marks for the foreign equivalent of RM 60,000. And the emigrant would have successfully transferred his money out of Germany, albeit at a loss of about 20 percent after discounts to the buyer and bank commissions.

Not only this, but Black reports on a shady capitalist schemer named Sam Cohen who, for a time at least, streamlined this transfer agreement to enable Jews to expedite their emigration. And the Nazis were happily complicit given how this plan involved middlemen selling German goods abroad—which helped Germany endure the boycotts against them.

Of course, it was never easy. I’m sure there were quite a few German Jews who wanted to get out and could not for some reason or another—and often because of foreign restrictions, not German ones. Exceptions should be made for the aged who could not manage arduous travel and were not wanted in foreign countries in any case. And granted, it got more difficult to emigrate as war continued to grow on the horizon. According to Kaplan, the foreign exchange rate for émigré Jews described above dropped to 4 percent by 1939, an astonishingly low figure not repeated by Black and not clearly footnoted by Kaplan. But by focusing more on those Jews who could not or would not leave, and not the 60,000 who reestablished themselves in Palestine during the 1930s thanks to the Nazi-Zionist transfer agreement (to say nothing of the 200,000-plus other Jews who escaped elsewhere), Kaplan reveals her anti-German bias. At one point, she incidentally mentions how a German-Jewish woman learned how to be a corsetiere in Palestine when visiting her sister for three months. If Nazi Germany was the terrorist state she repeatedly claims, why did the woman come back?

Perhaps because, as Edwin Black writes, “German Jews simply did not want to leave.”

Assessing the Oppression Before the War

Kaplan’s heartfelt—if brazenly partisan—treatment of Jewish life before the war benefits from a rich selection of source material. She shares the statements, memories, and experiences of German Jews from all walks of life, although she focuses mostly on women and girls. Those interested in Jewish history, especially in this particularly difficult chapter in Jewish life, will benefit greatly from her research and compilation. And Jews did suffer greatly in Germany in the 1930s when compared to the preceding Weimar Republic. I don’t wish to downplay any of that. Yet when Kaplan’s metapolitical goals are not simply to document the dignity and despair of Jews in Nazi Germany but also to prejudiciously denounce Nazis as inherently immoral human beings, I must. There are levels to this. There is suffering, and there is suffering. Do Kaplan’s hapless subjects compare in any way to the millions of Whites who suffered at the same time under the boot of the communists in the largely-Jewish controlled Soviet Union? No, they don’t. They’re not even close.

Thanks to the Nuremberg laws of 1935, the official indignities that peaceful and presumably non-communist Jews had to endure within Nazi Germany included racial segregation, anti-Jewish discrimination, and their near-complete removal from mainstream German life. “Social death,” in other words—the kind of ostracism that Jews today force upon White identitarians everywhere. According to Hitler in his January 1939 Reichstag speech, Jews dominated many leading positions in German life and were harming Germany and making it less German. The Nuremburg laws were an attempt to rectify this. Unofficially, however, this sea change led to a wide array of abuses which were heaped on the unfortunate German Jews. These included: insults, intimidation, beatings, boycotts, property confiscations, denunciations, social isolation, and various kinds of humiliations. With a population of 80 million, of course there were some unstable individuals who committed violence upon innocent Jews or who were unscrupulous enough to take advantage of them. This sort of thing was bound to happen. And with their government officially recognizing Jews as second-class citizens, Jews essentially had no choice but to endure or leave.

Yet, life went on.

Throughout the first half of the book, Kaplan complains about hurt feelings, loneliness, and damaged self-esteem. So much of her appeal is emotional that Between Dignity and Despair reads at times like a soap opera. But as I once brought up in an essay entitled “The Woody Allen Fallacy,” it makes no sense to complain about the low quality of something, and then complain further that you don’t get enough of it. If the Nazis were so evil, why were German Jews so crestfallen when they couldn’t associate with them?

For single people, social life outside of the family network became increasingly difficult from 1933 through 1938 unless they were young enough and interested enough to join a Jewish youth organization. One young woman without family connections sought human contact after a hard day’s work. Lonely, she went to cafés in the evening and sat in a corner, reading. “I would have loved to join in” the dancing, she wrote, but she feared the possible repercussions.

Kaplan goes on for pages like this. She expects us hold a pity party for German Jews who must “pass” for German, or be forced to listen to speeches by Hitler and Goebbels, or deal with children throwing stones, or resign themselves to careers as seamstresses and nannies instead of pediatricians and scientists—meanwhile in the Soviet Union, the Jew Lazar Kaganovich was deporting over a quarter million Cossacks to Sibera, and the Jew Naftaly Frenkel was ensuring the deaths of 200,000 souls during the construction of the Belomar Canal, and the Jew Matvei Berman was overseeing the slave labor of political prisoners in his vast gulag system, and the Jew Genrikh Yagoda as chief of the NKVD was ordering the deaths of millions during the Great Terror, and the Jew Filipp Goloshchyokin was collectivizing Kazakhstan and causing a famine responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

As the kids like to say, cry me a river.

According to Kaplan, the only time the Nazis ever approached this level of injustice during the pre-war years was when, in 1938, the Gestapo imprisoned and deported an unspecified number of “foreign Jews” and then initiated its “June Action” in which 1,500 Jewish men deemed “anti-social” were sent to concentration camps until they could prove that they were ready to emigrate. Then there was Kristallnacht—Kaplan calls it the November Pogrom—which took around 100 Jewish lives and caused several hundred million marks of damage. After this, the Nazis imprisoned some 30,000 Jewish men in concentration camps, again until they could prove their readiness to emigrate.

And that’s about it, folks—bad, sure, but amateur hour compared to Stalin’s Jewish hangmen over in the Soviet Union during the pre-war period.

Despite this happening during the Great Depression, Kaplan makes little effort to compare Jewish suffering to gentile suffering, which we know was tremendous, especially in the early 1930s. She does not deign to bring up the 850,000 Germans—many of whom were children—who died from malnutrition thanks to the Allied blockade during the First World War. She does not mention how Germans had to deal with humiliations of their own thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. She does not mention how this Treaty separated millions of Germans from their homeland and forced them to live as second-class citizens outside of Germany. The worst offender here was Poland, whose discriminatory treatment of its German minority throughout the 1930s rivaled Germany’s treatment of Jews during the same period. She also does not explore how the Nazis had reversed the corruption and degeneracy of the Weimar period, which German Jews were disproportionately responsible for. The Nazis had also engineered Germany’s miraculous recovery from the Depression.

Thus, the Nazis were good for Germans. But does this matter to Kaplan? Not at all. For Kaplan, all that matters is whether something is good for Jews. In fact, she seems to judge Germans solely by their xenophilia. A German is a “good” German only if he resisted the Nazis and was friendly to Jews. If a German made altruistic sacrifices for his German family, friends, or nation, that was of no matter at all.

Assessing the Oppression During the War

For those completely ignorant of the peacetime atrocities committed by the Soviet Union, Kaplan’s wartime chapters are her most convincing. She is an able writer, and so lays out her case in an engaging manner, especially considering that anti-Jewish oppression and abuse in Germany increased greatly after the war commenced. She displays her fetish for feminism a little more in these chapters as well.

According to Kaplan, Jews were prohibited from emigrating by 1941. They had their radios confiscated and were banned from all public welfare by 1939.  Also in 1939, German landlords were given permission to evict Jewish tenants for any reason. Once the war began Jews were placed under curfew, banned from public transportation, suffered the loss of many civil rights, and endured more stringent food rationing than ordinary Germans. Hunger became a real problem for many of them. Jews also became subject to often-violent spot checks by the Gestapo and were crammed into overcrowded Judenhäuser. By 1940, they weren’t allowed to own telephones or to shop for clothing. As a result, many went into hiding.

Even worse was the forced labor in factories, farms, and other places. Kaplan writes how this often consisted of ten-hour days of backbreaking labor under dirty and dismal circumstances. I have no doubt that much if not all of what Kaplan presents on this is true. Since when is forced labor during wartime anything other than horrible? Despite this, however, Jews were still getting paid for their efforts, unlike their Soviet counterparts in the gulags above the Arctic Circle.

While anxiously awaiting her visa to the United States, Elisabeth Freund was forced to work in a laundry on the outskirts of Berlin. She was grateful not to be in a munitions factory, since her children were in England and she did not want to produce the munitions that might harm them, or in a battery factory, which she had heard was dangerous and dirty. For backbreaking work at the laundry, unmarried Jewish women earned about 14 marks, while married women earned 12.50 marks weekly. Married women whose husbands also worked were docked some pay for being “double earners.”

Then there were the deportations to concentration camps such as Theresienstadt. These claimed tens of thousands of German-Jewish lives during the later years of the war, according to Kaplan. She has little to say about what went on in places like that, since presumably most people who were sent there did not survive to write memoirs or letters. She also expends little energy discussing the broader Jewish Holocaust, which, fair play to her, is beyond the scope of her book. She does however cite one source claiming that up to 150,000 deported Jews perished, although it’s hard to be sure when Kaplan simply provides before and after figures and expects her readers to connect the dots:

Even as Soviet troops began to liberate concentration camps in the East, the Germans relentlessly rounded up the remnants of German Jewry, sending them to camps closer by. Of the 164,000 Jews in Germany in October 1941, one estimate has only 14,500 left in July 1944, and deportations continued into the spring of 1945.

How many of these people escaped during the war or went into hiding and thus avoided being tallied? Who knows? Either way, these deportations were undoubtedly cruel and tragic, but Kaplan never explores why the Germans would resort to such drastic measures to begin with. Nor does she ever pose the question of what the Germans were supposed to do with 164,000 ethnic aliens living in their midst—many of whom were disloyal to say the least. The Germans were fighting a multi-front war against three super-powers who outnumbered them in total population count by more than five-to-one. And they were fighting to win. Once hostilities commenced, the Nazis had to have greater control over Jewish emigration. How could they allow a mass, disorderly exodus of Jews which would likely involve a fair number eager to join the Reich’s external enemies? So, again, what were they supposed to do?

Conclusion

I am not insensate to the plight of German Jewry during this time. But what happened to them was the kind of tragic injustice often visited upon innocents during war. The greater injustice, however, was the Allied declaration of war upon Germany in the first place, which indeed made it a world war. Kaplan claims that Germany “unleashed the war” on September 1, 1939. But that’s not true. On this date Germany unleashed a border skirmish against Poland which was menacing the German population of Danzig, terrorizing and oppressing its own German minority, and initiating warlike actions against Germany—such as firing upon German civilian airplanes, collaborating behind the scenes with France and England, and ordering minor incursions into Germany territory. And this says nothing of the 58,000 German-Poles the Poles killed once the war began.

All of this must be weighed into the calculus of ascribing blame after the fact. Of course, the Germans are not without blame—during war, who is? In the Second World War, everybody suffered. But by focusing on the suffering of only one relatively small group—and ignoring its prodigious sins—while denying the very humanity of another group and focusing only on its sins, Marion Kaplan reveals herself to be more of a passive-aggressive polemicist than an honest historian. I wonder if she even knows the difference.

Late in her book, she writes tellingly about the Allied bombing of civilian centers in Germany:

Although Jews suffered and died in the bombings, these attacks threatened Jewish lives in an arbitrary manner; the deportations threatened them in a far more direct and systematic one. Thus, when post-war Germans recalled the Nazi era, they emphasized the horrors of the bombings. Jews, on the other hand, did not stress the bombings either during or after the war. They dreaded the Gestapo far more. Freund remarked: “I’m not afraid of the bombings, even if it isn’t exactly pleasant, and one never knows whether one will survive until the next morning. This is a danger we . . . share with many millions. . . . We are only afraid of the Gestapo.”

Most important for Jews, the bombings held out hope. They were signs of a possible German defeat and the end of the Nazi nightmare.

So Marion Kaplan admits that German Jews were disloyal during a time when Germans were fighting for their very survival. From the perspective of a German who wants to win the war, what do you do with such people? This is a serious question. What do you do with them?

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Spencer J. Quinn https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Spencer J. Quinn2024-06-25 13:15:532024-07-01 15:29:21Cry Me a River: Marion Kaplan’s Between Dignity and Despair

Musings on Trump and Why You Should Still Vote for Him

June 25, 2024/20 Comments/in Donald Trump, Featured Articles/by RockaBoatus

Donald Trump is a strange bird. I can’t think of any other recent political figure who has managed to drive half the country into some kind of derangement syndrome while the other half sees him as the savior of this once great republic. Most Americans either love him or hate him. Few people seem to possess the ability to stay neutral or think in a carefully nuanced way about the man.

When it comes to politics, Trump is a mixed bag. At times, his political beliefs parallel progressive thinking while at other times he seems to be thoroughly conservative or even in our camp. Some see him as reflecting the country’s center-right political views. This could be the case. Yet, I’m more inclined to view it as evidence of his ideological immaturity. Although Trump has good political instincts at times — such as when he thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq was wrong, when he challenged U.S. trade policies with China as something inherently unfair and detrimental to America, or when he asked during an immigration meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers why the U.S. was accepting immigrants from “shithole countries” — he seems to lack a solid framework of carefully weighed political opinions by which he can filter different viewpoints.

This was especially evident during Trump’s first administration in which he appointed a host of neocons to his cabinet (e.g., John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo)—and then there’s the abominable appointment of Christopher Wray as head of the FBI. Although some defended Trump’s appointments because he needed seasoned and experienced persons to head strategic positions within his cabinet, it showed poor judgment on his part. Many of the persons whom Trump appointed didn’t like him and were at ideological odds with him. Unlike the neocons he hired, Trump wanted an end to the costly and unnecessary wars that prior presidential administrations supported.

It also became painfully evident that Trump made a horrible V.P. choice in Mike Pence. Not only was Pence an evangelical who expressed his unwavering support for Israel, he proved to be quite the neocon when he showed his support for Ukraine against Russia. Pence was no different than the many Americans who fell for the provocation-of-Russia scheme perpetrated by the American government since the 1990s.

In a 2023 interview while Pence was on the campaign trail for the presidency, Tucker Carlson questioned him on his concern over the Ukrainians not having enough tanks rather than being concerned about the deeper problems that Americans faced. Tucker described how every major city in the U.S. had become much worse in the past three years under the Biden administration, the rapid decline of our economy, including a sharp increase in the suicide rate and skyrocketing levels of crime. The answer Pence gave revealed just how out of touch he is with the American people: “That’s not my concern.” He doubled down on his answer when he repeated it a second time. Pence apologists have tried to downplay his response, but it was not merely a verbal blunder. It showed how dismissive and unconcerned he really was toward the plight of most Americans. No one in touch with the real-life concerns of the average person would dare talk in this manner.

There was also Trump’s “platinum plan” which he unveiled in 2020 to increase voter turnout among Blacks. Trump spoke of building up “peaceful” urban neighborhoods with the “highest standards” of policing, bringing fairness to the justice system, expanding school choice, increasing Black home ownership, and creating a “national clemency project to right wrongful prosecutions and to pardon individuals who have reformed their lives.”

It was nothing more than lofty but empty promises. Seriously, “peaceful” urban neighborhoods among Blacks? When have Blacks ever accepted the police in their communities regardless of whether they had the “highest standards” of policing or not? And didn’t prior efforts at increasing Black home ownership by the federal government fail dismally? Trump’s “platinum plan” amounted to nothing more than releasing convicted Black felons onto the streets of America. If the man seriously thought a significant number of Blacks were going to vote for him because of such pandering, it served as more proof of just how misguided Trump can be at times, although things seem to be looking up for Trump in that regard if recent polling is correct.

And then there was Trump’s pandering to America’s gay and LGBTQ communities. While speaking to the United Nations in 2019, Trump surprised everyone when he announced his administration’s global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality in more than 70 countries where it remains illegal: “My administration is working with other nations to stop criminalizing of homosexuality and we stand in solidarity with LGBTQ people who live in countries that punish, jail or execute individuals based upon sexual orientation.” With all the domestic problems facing Americans, did we really need a president going about trying to outlaw the prosecution of gays and Transgenders in the Middle East and throughout the world? If anything it showed Washington engaged, once again, in international meddling and seeking to impose its degenerate ‘values’ on foreign nations.

Trump has strongly supported Israel in the past and still does today. In a speech he delivered in Florida in 2019, Trump declared that “the Jewish state has never had a better friend in the White House than your president, Donald J. Trump.” He had already proven it in December of 2016, when he formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and stated that the American embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This only managed to stir up more hatred between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Like several American presidents before him, Trump made sure to visit the Wailing Wall showing his homage and commitment to the Jewish people. Even though most Jews despise Trump, he continues to fawn over them and seek their approval at every step of the way. In fact, presumably because of the elite status of Jews in the U.S., a recent survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee “found 61% of voters would likely choose to vote President Biden into office again over 23% who would pick Trump” (“Most Jewish Americans Support President Biden Over Trump, Study Finds,” Scripps News Staff, 6/10/2024).

Although Trump had not initially said much about the current Israeli-Hamas war, he’s recently been more vocal about it and has revealed his support for Israel. NBC News reported that “Former President Donald Trump declared Tuesday that Israel must “finish the problem” in its war against Hamas, his most definitive position on the conflict since the terror group killed 1,200 Israelis and took more than 200 hostages on Oct. 7. “You’ve got to finish the problem,” Trump said on Fox News on Tuesday when asked about the war. “You had a horrible invasion that took place that would have never happened if I was president.” When asked on the program whether he supported a cease-fire in Gaza, Trump demurred, avoiding an explicit position on Israel’s military effort that has now also left more than 30,000 people dead in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. The likely 2024 Republican nominee has not provided his own position on U.S. or Israel’s strategy throughout the five months of the war” (“Trump Breaks Silence on Israel’s Military Campaign in Gaza: Finish the Problem,” by Vaughn Hillyard and Allan Smith, 3/5/2024).

Seems to me that Trump learned nothing about the Jews and Israel’s warmongering ways during his first administration. This is confirmed by Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s national press secretary, who declared that “When President Trump is back in the Oval Office, Israel will once again be protected, Iran will go back to being broke, terrorists will be hunted down, and the bloodshed will end.” Is this an indication of Trump saying things he never intends to fulfill, or evidence that Trump’s second term will be marked by more U.S. military aggression? The more Trump supports Israel, the greater the chance that he will be manipulated by Benjamin Netanyahu to fight more proxy wars on behalf of Israel.

Another of Trump’s poor decisions was his bombing of a Syrian air base in 2017, prompted in part by the pleas of his daughter Ivanka. According to NBC News,

The president launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian government air base he alleged was involved in a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians last week. Trump’s 33-year-old son, Eric, told The Daily Telegraph on Monday that the strike was influenced in part by Ivanka, who he said was “heartbroken and outraged” by the chemical attack (“Eric Trump Says Syria Strike was Swayed by ‘Heartbroken’ Ivanka,” by Alexander Smith, 4/11/2017).

And in 2020, Trump ordered a precision strike against a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani, killing him at the Baghdad airport. A total of ten persons were killed in the drone attack: “Five Iraqi nationals and four other Iranian nationals were killed alongside Soleimani, including the deputy chairman of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and commander of the Iran-backed Kata’ib Hezbollah militia, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis” (see Wikipedia’s entry of the ‘Assassination of Qasem Soleimani’). The assassination of such a widely loved and respected Iranian figure only served to escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran. It proved to be one more occasion where the U.S. government inflicted death and destruction on a foreign nation which it had no legitimate right to attack. If the U.S. had stayed out of the Middle East and ceased its efforts to impose “democracy” and “Western values” on Islamic nations, most of that region would not have experienced the turmoil that it now does.

Trump failed to build a “big, beautiful wall” as he promised in 2015, and he reiterated this promise several times later during his campaign. And no, Mexico never paid for it as he also promised. While it’s true that portions of the wall were erected, most of it was never completed. Much of the wall-building was simply repairing structures that were in dilapidated condition rather than creating hundreds of miles of a large unassailable border wall that would prevent invaders from entering onto American soil. Scott Nicol, co-chairman of the Sierra Club’s Borderland team, stated that “Trump’s claims that he is ‘almost finished’ [with the Border wall] is ‘absolutely not true, particularly in South Texas,’ where large areas of the border land are privately owned. In South Texas, Nicol said, ‘the need to acquire property on which to build the border wall has stymied construction’ as landowners have tied up the government in the courts” (“Fact Check: Did President Trump Build the ‘Big, Beautiful’ Border Wall as He Promised?” by Lauren Giella, 1/12/2021).

All of this demonstrates, again, that Trump is a mixed bag of both good and bad. At times, he’s very perceptive politically and has a way of making his adversaries look foolish. He often speaks and acts in ways that appeal to the average man and woman. It’s easy to view Trump as ‘one of us’ because of it. On the other hand, as noted, Trump has made a series of poor decisions, particularly during his first term when he chose hard core neocons for his cabinet, including persons who made it known that they did not agree with Trump’s agenda. He has also created government programs that were detrimental to the moral health and safety of Americans (e.g., support of the gay and LGBTQ agenda, interfering in how foreign nations treated gays and transgenders in their own countries, and the ‘platinum plan’ that would encourage the release of large numbers of Black felons into the very communities they victimized).

Whether he will make the same kind of mistakes if given a second term remains to be seen. Trump, it seems to me, has learned from some of his prior political mistakes, but not all of them. He’s still in bed with Israel and this alliance is bound to cause only more grief and misery for him as well as the entire country. If Trump tries to ‘play nice’ with the Democrats, it will only backfire on him. One cannot ‘play nice’ with those who are insane, amoral and determined to destroy you at all costs.

Why, then, should we vote for Trump in 2024?

The first reason is because there’s no other alternative if we intend on preserving our constitutional republic in ways that comport with what our Founders wanted. It has become obvious that if the Biden administration were given four more years, any hope for America for what it once was will likely be forever gone. Whether Joe Biden remains in office or is replaced by another progressive empty suit (many forecasts California Governor, Gavin Newsome, to be the likely choice), the Left’s trajectory to ‘fundamentally transform’ America into the most debased and repugnant entity one could imagine remains steadfast. The Left is unrelenting in its efforts. Whether they gain a second term in the Oval Office by another fraudulent election or by persuading enough low-information Americans to vote for them, they have no intention of just accepting the political process and whatever may be the result of it.

Some have proposed the independent candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as a worthy alternative to either Trump or Biden. Kennedy does indeed have some admirable qualities and he proved how perceptive he could be during the Covid pandemic, especially in exposing what a fraud Anthony Fauci is. Some of his political policies seem fairly reasonable from what I can gather. He is obviously an intelligent man. Unfortunately, Kennedy has been thoroughly duped and manipulated by Jews and the Israeli government. There is little hope that he won’t be conned into funding more American proxy wars on behalf of Israel if elected to the Oval Office.

I view the man as generally, honorable, but weak in this sense. He wants to be ‘nice’ and liked. We don’t currently need ‘nice’ because the American republic is fighting for its very life.

Secondly, Joe Biden’s dementia is so bad that even a growing number of Democrats are calling for his replacement. That the Democrats have kept such a driveling buffoon in the highest office in the land for almost four years shows how little they care for the American people collectively.  Or how little the president matters if he is surrounded by ideologues who are actually making the policies. No sane government does such a thing unless, of course, it’s infested with bad actors bent on personal gain at the expense of the people they claim to serve. And doesn’t that aptly describe our current congress from both parties?

Thirdly, despite his faults, Trump has a way of driving the Left beyond insane. In all my years, I’ve never seen anything like it. Persons who are considered respectable, educated and dignified turn into the most imbecilic people imaginable at the mere mention of Trump’s name. Democrats have become so publicly unhinged over Trump that a sort of mass derangement syndrome has taken root in America that’s virtually impossible to deny. This serves as one more reason to vote for Trump because it reveals the nature of America’s Left — namely, that it’s comprised largely of people who have little self-control and even less basic human decency. The vilest public acts and screeches spewed by Leftists against Trump and his followers show what kind of people we are up against. Whatever the Left may want to transform America into, it will surely reflect at its core these degenerate folks.

Fourthly, Trump is good for the economy, or at least better than any other current candidate. The economy faired significantly better under Trump’s first term than the economy the Biden administration has produced over the past four years. There are good reasons to believe that the overall economy will greatly improve with Trump at the helm in a second term.

Trump, generally, has good business sense, and if he surrounds himself with knowledgeable and wise advisors, the American people stand a better chance of improving their lives. There is no chance of this occurring if Joe Biden is given four more years (or whoever they replace him with).

Fifthly, there can be little doubt that the relentless prosecution of Donald Trump via lawfare for the past several years is nothing more than the Democrats attempting to penalize him for beating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Beginning with claims that he had colluded with the government of Russia prior to the 2016 election in an influence campaign designed to harm Hillary Clinton’s efforts and to undermine the public’s faith in the U.S. democratic election process. Trump was also alleged to have ordered cyber-attacks on both parties, and that his campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents (see the Wikipedia entry).

Although the Mueller Report found no concrete evidence for such assertions, it wasn’t long before a series of criminal cases against Trump began to pile up as one false claim after another was alleged against Trump by prosecutors, especially after he was out of office. Along with fraudulent procedural delays, gag orders, uncorroborated claims based on the flimsiest of evidence, including the wildest speculations among media pundits, the former president found himself spending an inordinate amount of time in the courtroom — all of it according to plan. It was meant to exhaust Trump, demoralize his followers, and to nullify any possibility that he might be elected again.

In the end, Trump was found guilty by a New York jury of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and disguising hush money reimbursement as mere legal expenses. Each count was tied to a different business record that Trump changed to conceal his crimes.

If the convictions were designed to deflate the public’s endorsement of Trump, they surely failed. Not only did donations for Trump’s presidential campaign reach skyrocketing levels overnight, but public endorsement and support for him increased dramatically — even among a growing number of Blacks! Anyone with two brain cells knew that whatever Trump was enduring at the hands of prosecutors was purely political in nature. It was not about the ‘rule of law.’ It was not about holding our elected officials to account the same as any other American. No, it was about trying to ruin a man who dared to challenge, mock and oppose America’s ruling political elite. Many people recognized that whatever Trump did, it was relatively minor and no different than what many other public figures and important people have done – yet were never prosecuted for it!   

Despite Trump’s personal faults, his presidency managed to expose much of the filth and rot of Washington. He got American’s asking the deeper questions about their government. His presidency destroyed the traditional Republican Party and created an entire generation MAGA supporters who discerned the lies of endless wars, unchecked immigration, and decades of wasteful government spending. For this, we must always remain thankful that Donald Trump arrived at a time in our country’s history to help Americans realize just how badly our corrupt government had departed from the vision of our Founders.

Why then should Americans view favorably the Biden administration’s efforts to endlessly prosecute Trump? Isn’t this the same administration and Congress that gave 107 billion of taxpayer dollars to fight an unnecessary and unwinnable war in Ukraine, including an additional 95 billion to Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine at a time when the deficit has skyrocketed to over $33 trillion dollars? Americans suffering from unemployment, rising inflation, poverty, and homelessness have real issues to be concerned over — and Trump isn’t one of them!

Sixthly, a vote for Joe Biden will surely perpetuate the Washington swamp and the loss of our freedoms will be expedited in ways we’ve never seen before. They will make sure of this. If Biden wins a second term, the Democrats will make certain to seal off any possibility of another Trump-like candidate arriving on the political scene to challenge the existing order.

At least with Trump, there’s the possibility and perhaps even the likelihood that the country can be salvaged (however dim it appears now). But it simply will not occur under a Biden presidency or whatever person chosen to replace him.

Lastly, there exists the mindset of many Americans who are deeply frustrated at the declining state of the nation and the widespread corruption of our elected officials. The entire system appears rigged, and they question whether we should even bother to vote. What benefit is there in casting one’s ballot when the process isn’t fully trustworthy and when those overseeing it can be bribed or have an agenda that guarantees the outcome they want? These questions are not easy to answer, and I don’t profess to have definitive solutions to how it can be resolved.

Suffice it to say that if millions of conservative voters refused to vote, it would not negatively affect Democrats in the least. It would, in fact, give them everything they want and more. Democrats would view it as a national ‘mandate’ that proved their ideas to be the right ones. This is precisely how it would be reported in the mainstream news too. It would embolden Democrats in their social and political efforts in ways we haven’t seen before. They would inevitably pass legislation requiring that all ‘dissidents,’ ‘racists,’ ‘anti-Semites,’ and MAGA folks be ushered into government camps. You think the Democrats wouldn’t do it if they knew they would face little political resistance or consequences? Think again.

And how would refusing to vote affect our Second Amendment rights? Democrats would make certain to pass laws that would completely eradicate such foundational rights. It would turn every right-leaning gun owner into an enemy of the state. Gun confiscation, then, would not only be a possibility but an undeniable reality. Our people would fall prey to marauding groups of Black criminals, especially among those who are unable to escape our major cities.

Non-voting amounts to non-resistance in the public sphere, an admission of sorts that the Democrats have better ideas and better solutions to our nation’s problems. Moreover, it’s defeatist in nature, and it will surely give our enemies all that they ever dreamed of having. Those who mock voting as futile with expressions such as “vote harder” rarely if ever provide any practical alternatives. They are largely whiners and complainers offering little more than verbal tantrums. One wonders whose side they are on. Throwing up our hands and giving up is precisely what our enemies would want.

There’s also another important point that should be considered. Although voting has not always delivered all that conservatives have wanted, by the same token neither has it done so for Democrats. On both a federal and local level, conservatives have often been victorious. Leftist heads have more than once exploded and smoked into a collective tizzy because Americans voted contrary to their insane ideas.

As the Biden administration has sought to take away more and more of our rights as Americans, it has provoked a widespread resistance among conservatives. It has caused many more of our people to get involved in the political process and to fight what is obviously government tyranny. This is not the time to give up and hide in some backwoods cabin.

Voting, if anything, allots us time. It provides us time to unite, to organize, and to take important strategic steps to defeat democrats. It also provides a certain amount of gridlock in congress that slows and prevents democrats from passing all that they want.

Voting, then, is merely one tool among many in our arsenal to fight against those who have proven to be ‘enemies within.’ Responsibly exercising our voting rights prevents or at least slows down government tyranny and the Left’s progressive plans for all of us. It provides us with time and, if used wisely and strategically, may afford us opportunities to thwart the efforts of our opponents. History has a way of surprising us, and we ought to be careful not to go full-blown black pilled when there are still avenues available to us in which to resist our possible demise.

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 RockaBoatus https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png RockaBoatus2024-06-25 09:58:372024-06-25 09:58:37Musings on Trump and Why You Should Still Vote for Him
Page 56 of 467«‹5455565758›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • A2Z Publications
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Instauration Online
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • National Justice Party
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Radix Journal
  • RAMZPAUL
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The European Union Times
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • Third Position Directory
  • VDare
  • Washington Summit Publishers
  • William McKinley Institute
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • X
  • Dribbble
Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only