What I Learned About Race as A Cop

From the time I was young, I had wanted to be a police officer. I grew up watching Adam-12, Police Story, Starsky & Hutch, and other exciting television series that centered on the daily lives of cops. They were the good guys. I admired their sense of honor, their camaraderie, and their desire for justice against criminals. Plus, they looked cool doing it.

I recall one incident during the early 70s when my father and I were leaving a barber shop in Hollywood. We saw two White LAPD officers chase down a fleeing Black man and give him the beating of his life. The Black man was attired in a stereotypical “pimp” outfit with all the accompanying garishness and bling. I don’t know why he was running from the cops, but the notion of a Black man fleeing from or resisting officers wasn’t shocking to me. Even at that age I had a notion that Blacks were not particularly friendly with the police. A good many of the Blacks who were bused into my Junior High and High School from South Central Los Angeles, after all, were thugs and troublemakers.

When I later became a cop in the 1980s, my racial awareness increased greatly. I have worked for four separate police departments throughout my career (now retired). I have patrolled Black ghettos, Mexican barrios, and wealthy White communities. I’ve seen it all and learned many life-lessons.

Like any cop who polices minority communities, you start to get a sense of just how different Blacks and Hispanics are from Whites. I’m not suggesting that Whites don’t commit crime nor that White neighborhoods are crime free. But there is a discernable difference between them, and it became increasingly evident to me after years of working in each of these communities.

Blacks vs. Law Enforcement

One of the first things I noticed was the pace of working in a minority community. The calls were always coming in. Many of them were violent crimes-in-progress such as robberies, gang fights, drive-by shootings, and domestic violence. For young cops right out of the academy, it’s a great opportunity to apply one’s skills and sharpen their street smarts. It’s fun as hell too. But it also leads to burnout because the sheer volume of calls causes fatigue to set in. Most cops get jaded quickly when working in minority neighborhoods, and an us-versus-them mentality soon takes root. White officers working in Black communities are not looked upon as a good thing for obvious reasons, and they make it known how much they don’t like you policing them.

You also discover just how dysfunctional Blacks are. Large numbers of the Black men I encountered on patrol, for instance, were unemployed and were seemingly perfectly content to remain so. At almost any time of the day I would witness both younger and older Black males loitering about at liquor stores with no purpose or direction. Even though they were physically capable of working, many of them simply didn’t. Some of them were selling illegal narcotics, no doubt, while others were engaged in various criminal hustles for a few extra bucks. Many Blacks seemed to view it as acceptable and even normal. There was little if any shame among them because generational welfare is not looked upon as a bad thing.

Due to their volatile and emotional natures, domestic violence among Blacks was a frequent occurrence. They play to the drama of it all, and few people know how difficult it is to calm Blacks once they’re agitated. This is especially so when the responding officers are White. They’ll quickly turn the tables and make it not about domestic violence (or whatever reason necessitated a police response), but about how they’re being racially mistreated by White cops. Racial animus against Whites permeates their entire way of thinking. Many Black children grow up seeing this conflict between the police and parents as a regular thing. When I patrolled through a Black housing project, the children wouldn’t even smile or wave at me.

Even the kind of language and expressions an officer employs when dealing with Blacks is vastly different than how that same officer might speak to others. For example, when I would try to get information from a battered Black female victim of domestic violence, it would have been strange indeed to ask where her husband was at or where the father of her children could be found. This is because most of these Black women were unmarried, and the children do not really have a father in the customary sense. I would, instead, have to ask her: “Where’s baby’s daddy?” because that’s all these Black men were doing — namely, producing babies with single mothers. No marriage. No commitment to the mothers — not to their own children.

You almost can’t believe it at times how incredibly dim-witted they are. For Whites such as myself that grew up in a functional home with stable parents, I was sometimes astounded at how unstable and disordered the lives of Blacks were. Chaos ruled the day for most of the ones I encountered.

You also get a good sense of just how impulsive and temperamental Blacks are. They’ll commit the most violent crimes against others and think little of the consequences of their actions. They don’t seem to care even when it’s one of their own. The whole Black solidarity and brotherhood thing, by the way, is just empty talk. It means nothing to Blacks once you get a grasp of how they treat each other. The popular slogan of “Black Lives Matter” matters little to American Blacks if one looks at their skyrocketing murder rates.

The sort of thought process and pre-cautions that might go through the mind of a White person before engaging in a crime, doesn’t even seem to register with many Blacks. In the 1992 movie White Men Can’t Jump, there’s a scene that illustrates perfectly what I’m referring to. When Raymond (a basketball street hustler) sets up a match against Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson, he doesn’t quite have the money he needs for the bet.

So, what does he do? He returns to his car, pulls out a handgun and ski mask from the glove compartment. He then crosses the street and enters a liquor store. Raymond tries to rob the store owner, but the owner recognizes him. The entire robbery failed from the start. For Raymond there was no thought process. No planning. No serious attempt to disguise himself. Our human bio-diversity friends would describe it as evidence of ‘poor future time orientation,’ and indeed it was. All Raymond could think of was raising quick money for his basketball hustle. That’s about all his little brain could handle. When I was cop in Southern California, I saw a thoughtless and impulsive Raymond-type almost daily. Black communities are filled with them.

Interestingly, Black officers would sometimes openly concede how dysfunctional and criminal their own people are. Even they couldn’t deny it. The very racial truths I would get fired for daring to say, Black cops would declare openly at times during our morning briefings. Everyone would laugh because they knew it was true. But good luck to any White officer who might be inclined to say the same things.

In the state I worked in, there were Black, Hispanic, and Asian peace officer associations. They were allowed to freely associate together, raise funds for their group, and even advertise themselves based solely on their racial identity. It was all perfectly acceptable, and Whites were expected to support and celebrate it too. Yet White cops were never allowed to form the same type of associations based on their racial identity and interests. Any attempt on their part of would be instantly condemned and attacked as ‘divisive’ and ‘racist.’

Many years ago, I was called into the captain’s office because I had issued too many traffic tickets to Black and Hispanic motorists in the area. I was warned that it might appear as if I were “racially profiling” them, and that I needed to stop it. I explained to the captain that the community was almost 80% Black and many Hispanics resided in the area too, but it mattered little to him. The mere appearance of racially targeting minorities was enough to stop whatever I was doing. This resulted in making me hypersensitive to the racial makeup of anyone I was stopping. Instead of being concerned about the traffic violation, I was more concerned that I didn’t stop too many minorities on any given day. I would try to find White drivers who committed traffic infractions, which then made me guilty of racially profiling Whites!

Thus, what was intended to prevent me from “racially profiling” minority drivers contributed to it in some way. One’s race now became a factor in whether I was going to pull them over or not, the very thing cops are ordered not to do. That was over twenty years ago, and things have only got crazier since.

I also learned that the media’s portrayal of Blacks as ‘innocent’ and ‘oppressed’ to be so far from the truth that it’s surprising anyone would believe it. This discovery was not theoretical, but practical since I was constantly surrounded by Blacks in my job. Working around Blacks tends to dispel the mythology the media creates about Black oppression and what wonderful contributions they make to society.

Most Whites couldn’t relate to this because they don’t work daily in Black communities. They haven’t had any protracted contact with Blacks. They know nothing about their home lives or what their neighborhoods are like. And the few Blacks they do encounter tend to be the ‘good’ or ‘safe’ Blacks —you know, the educated mulattos who appear less threatening, or the racially-correct television sitcoms they watch where Blacks are portrayed as doctors and scientists.

The notion that White police officers target Blacks because of the color of their skin is also another lie or, at best, a half-truth. Many of these same officers who target Blacks for allegedly “no reason” are Black themselves. If Blacks are targeted, it’s almost always because of outstanding warrants or for crimes they’ve committed. The cops in the area also know who their “frequent flyers” are (local gang members, drug dealers, and thieves), and these are the people they target — but it has nothing to do with their skin pigmentation.

Huge numbers of Blacks are also on parole which includes stipulations that they can be searched by a law enforcement officer at any time. Such searches are a means to keeping parolees in compliance with their parole terms. Many people are not aware of this, and so when they witness officers stopping and frisking Black males on the street, they wrongly assume that they’re being “racially profiled” and “harassed” by the cops.

White cops working in Black communities also discover that the greater number of Blacks will almost always side with their criminal “brothas,” regardless of the crime committed. They have little sense of honor, integrity, nor of justice. Black gangsters in Chicago will murder each other (including many innocent bystanders) in skyrocketing numbers on a weekly basis. And yet when police investigators try to get information on the shooters, it’s like pulling teeth. Blacks refuse to cooperate, and when they do, it’s a rare occasion indeed. They tend to view the entire criminal justice system as the White man’s system that unfairly and disproportionately incarcerates them. When Blacks whine about “injustice,” what they’re really complaining about is having got caught and then given a lengthy sentence for their violent crimes. This is how they think and see the world around them. Our penitentiaries are filled with Black males, but it’s rare to find a Black man who will admit his crimes and agree that he was justly sentenced. This level of honesty and self-awareness is not common among American Blacks.

Chicago, like every other big city in America with a large Black demographic, does not have a gun problem. No, it has a Black problem, but we’re not allowed to say so. As a White cop, you learn to use “code words” when describing criminal Blacks that’s really no different than what the media does when it describes marauding groups of young Black males as “teens.” It’s a “safe” expression, but we all know what it means.

Most cops know that Blacks are the real problem. “Normie” White Americans, would interpret my words as “racist” and fueled by “hatred” for Blacks. Yet cops working cities such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Birmingham know all-too-well that these Black-on-Black shootings are not being carried out by the Amish or Swedish tourists, but by Black males. This is what society cannot admit to itself. To do so would cause devastating cracks throughout today’s racial grievance industry. The question of whether Blacks are even suitable for White societies because of their dysfunctional ways and their proclivities toward violent crime would arise. The entire multicultural edifice could come crumbling if such thoughts were seriously entertained. Thus, the deeper questions of why Blacks are so volatile and dangerous must be avoided at all costs.

Policing the Barrio

Working in a largely Hispanic community opened my eyes to another set of problems. Although I found Mexicans to be more tolerable than Blacks, they have a strong gang culture, their neighborhoods are infested with illegal narcotics, out-of-wedlock births are common, hit-and-run collisions are routine (mostly because they are unlicensed, uninsured, or drunk!), and alcohol abuse is rampant. Most of the illegal aliens from Mexico are “mestizos” (mixed indigenous natives) and, as a result, alcohol is not metabolized well in their systems. It completely devastates their lives and it effects everyone. Many of these same Hispanics find it nearly impossible to associate alcohol with driving as a bad thing because alcohol consumption is so deeply rooted in their culture. Thus, the number of Hispanics who are arrested while driving intoxicated would stagger the minds of most people. But this is because Mexicans are not generally known to be highly intelligent and law-abiding.

Having worked in Mexican barrios in Southern California, I’m not persuaded by those who argue that Hispanics do not commit high rates of crime. Gang shootings, domestic violence, overdoses, and DUI’s were a daily occurrence. Mexican cartels have also made tremendous inroads in states like California, Arizona, and Texas. Their handiwork of decapitated bodies strewn about the desert is well known. Again, the degree and frequency of crime that Hispanics engage in may not be as high as Blacks, but their communities are still not safe places to live in. Though I have met many decent Mexican people, the original vision of our American founders would have never included them as citizens.

Mexicans are applauded for their “family values” by gullible White conservatives. And while their families are generally more intact than Black families, it’s important to understand what some of those “family values” entail. Few people know that incest and child sexual abuse is rampant in Mexican communities. Over the years, I’ve investigated many such cases. I’ve talked to other investigators who were shocked at the number of child sexual abuses among Hispanics. Most of it is not even reported to the police due to fear of being deported. There is also the fear of bringing shame onto one’s family by speaking out.

The Hispanics in America, like Blacks, soon learn how to use racial grievances against the White man to their advantage. They are instructed and soon emboldened by pro-Mexican organizations such as La Raza that want to take back land from the U.S. — land they believe was stolen from them. The White officer will inevitably encounter them, and they can be just as racially radicalized as any Black person they might encounter.

The Democrats, of course, work to weaponize Hispanics against the greater White majority. They see the millions of Hispanics in America as their new voting base, and it’s no wonder they support illegal immigration and want no border controls. Chamber-of-Commerce Republicans, on the other hand, see these same hordes of Hispanics as cheap laborers for their business and corporation base. Thus, both parties support illegal immigration, but for different reasons. Is it any wonder why Congress after all these years has still not resolved the issue of illegal immigration, and even refuses to secure our southern border?

Policing While White

Policing a mostly upper middle-class White community was a major relief in terms of call volume and the seriousness of the crimes that occurred. Violent crimes did happen now and then, but it was generally rare. Drug usage, vandalism, overdoses, tenant arguments, domestic disputes, credit card fraud, and various White-collar crimes seemed to be what I dealt with the most. On many occasions, there were few calls for service during my shift. This would never happen when working in a Black or Hispanic community. I found Whites to be pretty much law-abiding, although that might not be the case in some poor rural towns in the South. But even then, it would never devolve to the same degree as is typical in almost every lower-class Black community.

Working as a White police officer, especially if you work in a big city, you’ll experience some “reverse racism.” It’s not rare to see less qualified Blacks and Hispanic officers getting promoted over White officers due to affirmative action quotas. This is almost guaranteed to be the case if the command staff is comprised of minorities. Officers or deputies working in more rural areas will likely experience less of this discrimination because fewer minorities are present. In fact, I try to urge White officers to consider transferring out of big-city police departments if they can do so. They will find themselves in a less hostile work environment, and much more appreciated too. Rural communities tend to be more supportive of law enforcement in large part because they are White communities.

I no longer recommend a career in law enforcement for Whites, at least in terms of working for big-city police departments. This is because modern policing has largely gone “woke.” The administrators and command staff for many agencies have been deeply influenced by “progressive,” left-leaning social policies.

Officers today are expected to perform their duties as a mix between psychologist and social workers. While this has always been expected to some limited degree among cops, these expectations and many more are incumbent upon today’s new breed of officers. They are expected to resolve or at least attempt to resolve a myriad of social problems they encounter. They must be everything to everyone. Too much, in my opinion, is placed on their shoulders.

Cops must treat everyone with kid gloves, even the criminals. The slightest off-color or politically incorrect remark can ruin an entire career. Officers must often walk on eggshells with almost everyone they meet. People know it too, and they’re quick to file formal complaints if an officer doesn’t quite meet their expectations.

In my career, I’ve had people complain to my supervisor about something I’ve said or done. These were all relatively minor and determined to be unfounded. However, I’ve had five formal complaints filed against me over the years for the most outlandish claims. In each of these, my body camera saved my bacon and proved that the allegations were mere fabrications.

For example, in 2002 I was accused of beating up a 17-year-old male teenager who was walking to the rear of a grocery store on his way home. This was around 3am in the morning, and it at first appeared suspicious. When I contacted the boy, I asked if I could speak to him. I explained my reason for approaching him and my concerns as to him being out so late at night. He told me he was coming home late from a party and was taking a shortcut to his house. Our conversation was brief but cordial. The teenager left and I resumed patrol. Approximately 30 minutes later I was requested to return to the station and meet with my watch commander. I was then informed that the teen alleged I had “roughed him up” behind the grocery store and his parents were going to file a formal complaint against me.

Yet what the teenager and his parents did not know is that I was equipped with a MAV (Mobile Audio Visual) device. Our conversation was audibly recorded, and my dash camera caught the entire incident on video. Everything I was accused of was false, and I had video to prove it.

On another occasion, I and five other officers were accused of being racially unfair and unprofessional to a Black woman who had assaulted another women during a business dispute. None of the officers at the scene, including one who was Black himself, said or did anything even remotely suggestive of race. Our conduct was completely professional and unbiased. The Black woman was angry because I dared to request her driver’s license which made her “feel” like she was being racially targeted. The result? An Internal Affairs investigation was conducted on each of the officers present, including a thorough review of all our body cameras. After we were each found acquitted of any wrongdoing or policy violations, the case was sent to the District Attorney’s office for their review. They too found that none of the officers engaged in any form of racial profiling or bias. But it didn’t end there. The matter was pursued all the way up to a federal court where it was finally “dismissed with prejudice.” The matter took two full years to resolve.

The general trust that was at one time afforded to officers by county district attorneys and judges is now gone. The prevailing attitude seems to be that if it’s not recorded on the officer’s body camera or caught on video surveillance, it didn’t happen. My experience has led me to believe that officers are generally viewed with suspicion by the criminal justice system. They are no longer trusted as they once were. All of this, of course, comports with what America has morphed into — namely, a no-trust society due in large part to multiracialism which breeds division. Granted, some officers over the years have contributed to this absence of trust. Yet the overwhelming number of officers in the U.S. perform their jobs professionally and ethically. They are dismayed as everyone else is when they hear of officers abusing their authority.

There’s also the belief held by many Americans that cops routinely plant drugs and guns on minorities they stop and frisk. They imagine that White cops drive around looking for Blacks they can gun down, and somehow the entire system is guaranteed to protect them!? Such beliefs about what cops do are so off the mark that it becomes laughable, and it’s gotten worse since the death of George Floyd. Many DA’s, in fact, would be thrilled to prosecute an officer for wrongdoing because it would prove how “impartial” and “non-racist” they are.

No one who is informed denies that cops have at times abused their authority, as well as occasions where an unreasonable use of force was employed. This includes deadly force. But these are very rare occasions when compared to the millions of contacts that cops have daily with people nationwide. When one carefully reviews these officer-involved shootings, it will almost always be found that Blacks escalated things by resisting arrest or not complying with lawful orders. And yet the subject can’t be treated fairly because of all the hysterical voices involved.

The racial grievance industry in America has polluted everything, including the criminal justice system which is supposed to maintain its integrity and objectivity in legal matters. Yet one northern California county that I worked in distributed a letter from its district attorney’s office to all local law enforcement agencies informing them that one’s race and economic status would be considered in any criminal sentencing. This meant that if the convicted offender were a minority and poor, he would be given a lighter sentence. They wouldn’t phrase it as crudely as that, of course, but that’s essentially what was meant. Yet we must ask ourselves: Why should any of that play a role in one’s sentencing? Did the person commit the crime or not? Isn’t justice supposed to be blind?

This same liberal county will not prosecute homeless shoplifters. They reason that if homeless persons are stealing food, they must do so because they are hungry and economically disadvantaged. Truth is, the homeless are pretty much stealing alcohol. If they want food, they can easily get a free meal at any nearby homeless shelter. When homeless persons are arrested for shoplifting (usually they’re issued a ticket with a court date and released), the D.A. refuses to prosecute them “in the interest of justice.” What double talk! Justice is denied to the victims “in the interest of justice”?! And those who should be held to account skirt justice altogether. What a great criminal justice system we have.

Many people in the county are indignant when they discover that the homeless aren’t being prosecuted for such thievery. I made sure to remind them when I could that these were the very bleeding-heart politicians they voted into office.

In 2014, Californians voted to pass Proposition 47 termed “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” It reclassified certain theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Possession of and use of methamphetamine, for example, was now deemed a misdemeanor and no longer a felony. A host of other dangerous narcotics were also reclassified as misdemeanors which essentially made using and possessing it no big deal.

Prop 47 also sought to reduce the number of people incarcerated in California’s prisons reclassifying their crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The result? Black and Hispanic crime exploded in the Golden State. County probation departments were now expected to manage and control thousands of hardened felons released from state prisons. Probation officers were burdened with enormous caseloads which has resulted in poor oversight of these same felons. Californians who voted for the Orwellian “Safe Neighborhoods Act” will once again pay for their foolish decisions.

California’s obsession with “racial equity” can also be seen in that it requires all California peace officers to complete a racial questionnaire after every traffic stop or when detaining anyone. This is referred to as “Stop-Data” which consists of about five separate categories of questions related to one’s race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The state wants to know the officer’s perceptions of the person prior to the time they stopped him or her. They want to know what race or ethnicity the person was. Was the person gay, transgender, lesbian, non-binary? The state wants also a brief narrative of why the person was stopped and what actions if any the officer may have taken. Since this is required after every single traffic stop and detainment, how likely is it that cops will continue to be proactive and seek out criminals? Police work is already filled with excessive paperwork, and the new “Stop Data” requirements will only give cops another reason to look the other way.

But it doesn’t stop there. Both the State of California and the federal government have another information gathering system called CIBRS (California Incident-Based Reporting System) and NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System) that officers are mandated to complete prior to the end of their shifts. This requires from the officer the same sort of information that “Stop Data” does, except it’s much more detailed, requiring such data as victim information, known offenders, relationships between victims and offenders, the crime committed or attempted, the race or ethnicity of anyone entered into the system, including their sexual orientation, and the list goes on. Such entries in CIBRS and NIBRS must be completed by an officer in all police reports he submits. This is typical of how state and federal authorities waste the time of officers by mandating they complete over and over the same redundant information.

In the same way that the U.S. military is working to purge personnel that might question or resist their “woke” policies (usually politically conservative White males), so the same seems to be occurring in the law enforcement profession. In California, for example, officers will be recertified every two years under new P.O.S.T (Peace Officer Standards and Training) guidelines. Its purpose is to prevent sketchy officers who have engaged in unprofessional and illegal conduct from continuing their employment as peace officers. Officer-involved shootings, uses of force, policy violations, and internal affairs investigations will all be reviewed to determine if an officer is fit for duty. This is not a bad thing per se, and it may help to weed out those who should not have been hired in the first place.

The problem is that the board conducting the recertifications has some political “activists” who are not police friendly. It’s highly questionable whether they can be neutral and objective in their decisions. While there may be one or two persons on the board who have served as officers, most of them have not. I seriously doubt they understand the nature, various nuances, and dynamics of police work. The greater number of them seem to come from the political left, and I suppose a few of them would gladly support today’s “defund the police” movement. I doubt that politically conservative and patriotic White males who happen to also be cops would be looked upon favorably. This kind of politically motivated P.O.S.T. recertification board could over time purge White males from the profession – especially if every officer’s social media account, including former and current ones, must be disclosed to the board. At this point, anything is possible in California under the state’s current governor who has become drunk with power.

There is also another trend developing in California in which officer-involved shootings and other uses of force that in the past were deemed justifiable and within department policy, are now being reviewed by some district attorneys as potential crimes under color of authority. Such incidents are scrutinized with a “post-Floyd” critical eye that interprets all uses of force prior to the death of George Floyd with the newer policies after his death. This is brazenly unfair to the officer, of course, and yet this appears to be the new direction of California’s legal system.

Taken all together, it really does appear as if California legislatures and various authorities don’t want to quell California’s enormous crime problem. They seemingly want to make it as easy as possible for criminals to flourish, and to not experience any real consequences for their actions. California cops, on the other hand, are overly scrutinized, mistrusted, and burdened with mind-numbing questionnaires and racial “busy work.” This results in widespread demoralization among the officers, and, as noted above, they are discouraged from policing their communities in a proactive way (e.g., checking on suspicious persons, traffic stops, trying to stop crimes before they occur, etc.).

The criminal justice system in America, it must be remembered, is simply an arm of the Globo-Homo system. It’s part-and-parcel to it. It reflects its values and fundamental beliefs. At its core, it is anti-White. The system doesn’t take kindly to conservative Whites, particularly Whites who happen to have a strong racial identity. This needs to be kept in mind by any White person considering a career in law enforcement.

What will those same White officers do when the system demands they break their oath? How will they react when the system mandates they arrest Whites who stand up for their racial and cultural interests? When the system requires them to confiscate the firearms of its citizens in violation of the Second Amendment, will they comply with such orders? The system will demand that White officers do their “duty” (however conceived), but if they refuse, they will no longer be employed as peace officers.

Remember when all the officers were ordered to stand down during the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown riots? The same thing occurred when “Black Lives Matter” rioters smashed up, looted, and caused havoc in city after city throughout the Summer of 2020. Think also of how officers were commanded to do nothing and even take the abuse leveled against them during the George Floyd riots. Remember all those cucks in uniform who took a knee to show their solidarity that Floyd’s death was “tragic” and “racially motivated”? Well, that’s likely going to be expected — even required — of all cops in any future riots fueled by racial animus against Whites.

Is this what Whites want to be part of? Do we really want to cooperate with a system bent on our dispossession?

I think we need to face the reality that the law enforcement system in America — along with the courts and federal government — works against the racial interests of Heritage Americans (Whites). It does not have our best interests at heart, and it hasn’t for many decades. In fact, it despises us and there can be little doubt that it’s working day and night to replace us with millions of Third-World immigrants.

The law enforcement system in America, it seems to me, is best suited for minorities, liberal women, homosexuals, transgenders, and White male cucks who have been so deracinated and racially neutered that they will gladly do anything it tells them. Racially conscious Whites, on the other hand, should see the psychotic system for what it is and have nothing to do with it.

 

“The Jews — The Kings of Our Age,” by Dr. Otto Böckel

“The Jews — The Kings of Our Age”[1]
Dr. Otto Böckel
Translated by Alexander Jacob

Otto Böckel (1859–1923) was a German anti-Semitic politician who was moved by the plight of the German peasants of Hesse to enter politics in 1887 as an independent member of the Reichstag. Like Eugen Dühring — who published a seminal work on the Jewish Question in 1881, Die Judenfrage[2] — Böckel was against all exploitative groups, Jewish or Junker and championed the peasants against their capitalist oppressors. Like Dühring too, Böckel considered the Jews distinct from the Germans in race rather than in religion and maintained that the Jewish Question was an existential question on which hinged the survival of one or the other race.  In the nineties, he formed an anti-Semitic party called Antisemitische Volkspartei, which later merged with Oswald Zimmerman’s Deutsche Reformpartei, in 1893. However, opposition from other anti-Semitic factions, including that of the Lutheran theologian Adolf Stoecker and his Christlich-soziale Partei, led to a weakening of his parliamentary position and he eventually left politics in 1912.

*   *   *

Respected attendees!

In my last talk, which I held on 28 December of last year here in the Bockbrauerei, I explained that the Jewish Question is an existential question for the German nation, that it was about whether the German nation would remain free, prosperous and happy in the future or whether Jewry would, bit by bit, in a slow but certain progression, undermine our national welfare and therewith the foundational pillars of our national existence. The Jewish Question stands above the political parties; it is a national question which affects every German regardless of religion or party affiliation. Whether conservative, liberal, progressive or ultramontane, all are threatened by the Jews. It was a great mistake of the anti-Semitic movement that it allowed itself to be dragged down to the swamp of parties; the decline of the anti-Semitic movement — so often stressed by the Jews — dates from the day that anti-Semitism got roped in by the Conservatives. This mistake we should rectify today, we must preach anti-Semitism free of any party orientation; every German has an interest in the Jewish Question, and only through the cooperation of men of all parties can it be solved in a legitimate manner.

How a solution of the Jewish Question is to be imagined has been the subject of much debate. Of course, such burning questions are not solved in one stroke. But the way to the solution is, nevertheless, quite discoverable. Every solution of the Jewish Question must begin with the fact that it should be recognised legally in the constitution that:

There are in Germany two different nations: Germans and Jews. The former are the masters of the land, the latter are guests, who may indeed possess a right to hospitality but never a right to be masters.

Who then made Germany arable, who cleared the primeval forests, who drove out the bears and wolves? Did our forefathers, the ancient Germans, not do that? If the Jews had had to cut down the primeval forests and shoot the wolves, the primeval forests would still have been standing in Germany and the wolves would have still dwelt in packs in our forests.

What our people developed through the sweat of their brow should also remain their own and no foreign tribe may drive the German from his native soil. Germany for the Germans, that is the slogan of anti-Semitism. We do not want any hatred of Jews but protection of Germans; never should the property of the Germans be expropriated by Jews, never should entire streets, entire cities and villages fall victim to the Jews, as is the case, for example, in Hesse, Alsace, and even here in Berlin. If the land registers — these silent proofs of Jewish power — could speak, they would utter a loud declaration of the Judaization of German land. The exploitation of our rural people has already reached a fabulous height.

Some examples: In the district courts of Gelnhausen and Meerholz, 227 forced auctions of housing properties were pending from 1 January 1880 to the present date. If one adds to this also the public auctions of the district courts of Wächtersbach, Birstein, Bieber and Orb, there must have been, in the Gelnhausen district alone, in this time-period, the really hair-raising number of 450 public auctions. The prosecuting party consisted 99% of Jews, while 1% was made up of public commercial treasuries and German money-lenders. Furthermore, in the Frankenberg district in Hesse, from 1877 to 1882, in 17 communities, 36 auctions have been noted. Of the auctioneers 17 were Jews and only 3 Germans. In addition, it must be observed that, given such a progress of property butchering, in around 15 years in the Frankenberg district there will be only a very small number of peasants left who are not financial slaves of the Jewish butchering of property. So, we have come so far already in the highly civilized nineteenth century that slavery — which has been repealed in Africa and America with streams of blood — can be quite freely introduced again into the middle of the German fatherland by Jews. Is that not a slap in the face of our much-praised civilization? When will the Germans have some of the tolerance that they have had twelve times for the foreign Jews for their own flesh and blood, for the German peasant class ruined by the Jews?

But do not think that it looks pathetic only In Hesse. It looks more or less similar everywhere in Germany. None other than the officious Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung wrote the following in 1880 about the Jews in Posen:

Just as in a factory, the public auction machine works throughout the year allocating the personal possessions of the rural folk to the Jews.

Yes, such an admission on the part of a newspaper that in its time made a stand against the anti-Semites is doubly valuable. In Upper Silesia, the Jews, according to the report of the liberal Kölnische Zeitung of May 1886, rule the entire trade to such an extent that in some places it is very difficult to do any shopping on Saturdays. The Jews have all the liquor bars in their hands there. Under such circumstances one can well understand that hunger typhus and delirium tremens is rampant in Upper Silesia. The Jews are also to blame for the hunger typhus and the misery that are to be found in Spessart, as Father Frank publicly proclaimed in the Bavarian chamber in 1880. How great the debt has grown in the Saar emerges from the well-established fact that a single Jewish firm, the H. Brothers in Saarlouis, as a consequence of the law “On the sale and mortgaging of property within the Rhine law,” in the period from 1 July 1885 to the present date in 1886, earned over 2,000,000 marks purchase price privileges. Consider, gentlemen, that that was done by a single ordinary Jewish firm, and now calculate the debt of our peasant class in relation to thousands of similar Jewish firms!

In the area around Trier, the Jews have already become exuberant to such an extent that they could openly boast that they were killing the Peasants’ Union founded for the protection of the peasants. In West Prussia, the Jews are, as the Secretary General Dr. Demmler testifies, already prevalent, extraordinarily strong, and have become the “fundamental malady of the peasant class.” Faced with such conditions, who does not recall the saying of Prince Bismarck, who in 1847 said in the state parliament during the discussion of the Jewish emancipation:

I know a place where the Jewish population is very numerous in the country, where there are peasants who call nothing on their entire property their own; from their bed to their oven-fork all furniture belongs to the Jew and the peasant pays a daily rent for every single thing. The corn in the field and in the barn belongs to the Jew and the Jew sells bread, seeds, and fodder to the peasant with razor sharpness. Of a similar Christian usury I have never heard, at least in my experience.

Another example, of how it is in southern Germany. In 1835, the Jews in Hohenzollern petitioned for their civil rights. The provincial deputies deliberated on it. In the course of the debate a speaker expressed the following: “The haggling business of the Jews weighs in a corrupting manner on the province. In the village, in the huts of the poor and the simple folk, the work-instrument and cow, the field and the pasture, the pan and the pot, the hood and the jacket, often belong to the Jew and he does not stop making the peasant with his house and field, harrow and plough, wife and child subject to him through interest.” If the Jews are emancipated, said another speaker, “then in a short time the entire princely house of the Hohenzollerns would belong to the Chosen People and the poor goyim be their slaves.” These are sad images of the Judaization of land in Germany.

Where will it end if it continues in this way? From where will the defense troops come to defend the fatherland when our peasant sinks more and more into a day-labourer or emigrates in order to escape from the Jew? The peasantry are the foundational pillar of a healthy state structure; woe to the state that leaves its peasants defenceless to exploitation by the Jews! It is infuriating when one must watch how the Jew, who just 20 years ago peddled goatskins as a poor panhandler, today, as a rich haggler, holds on a Sunday morning a day of hearing for his indebted peasants in order to inform them whether he will just auction them off or whether he will still be merciful. It is infuriating when such scenes occur in the middle of the German fatherland!

Yes, gentlemen, if you would see how the poor victims of the Jew come to the day of hearing of this person, how they bow down their heads, how the Jew shouts at them, how many of them depart therefrom in tears, then your heart will beat in shame and rage at how deep already the German people have sunk into misery. If you wish to study the Jewish Question, you must go to the court house into which the Jew leads his peasants; how often I have seen the poor victims creep to the local court with lowered head next to the grimacing Jew.

Yes, gentlemen, this sight made me an anti-Semite, I then said to myself: ‘How low, how low indeed, our people have fallen! Is there then nobody, nobody who has the courage to intervene on behalf of the poor people who have fallen to the Jew?’ I looked around myself and saw nobody. Some perhaps made fists in their pockets, but the Jews are too powerful, they are feared. Cowardice is a widespread vice.

Then I jumped into the movement, without any consideration of career or future. It was in autumn 1883 when I became acquainted, in a really drastic case, with the misery that the Jews bring upon our people. A formerly well-off peasant was fully impoverished by a Jew; a few days after the auctioning of the peasant’s possessions, the Jew was found murdered. The peasant was brought before the jury in Marburg but acquitted. The proceedings uncovered a frightful image of Jewish usury. I followed the trial with great excitement; on the day on which the verdict was uttered I too was among the expectant crowd. I shall never forget the moment when the acquitted victim of the Jew emerged from the door of the court building. A hundred “Bravos” shook the air, the mass of people were beside themselves with joy. Then, in this thrilling hour, I swore to myself: “This cannot go on further; you must intervene against the activities of the Jews with your whole life. The people are panting for a liberator:” From this moment onwards I have been an anti-Semitic agitator, the image of the poor peasant robbed by the Jew impels me forward; whether the enemy be numerous, whether the dirt and the hatred be so great, I must fight and will fight to the last drop of my blood, to my last breath.

We want to fight, but only on an honest, legal path; we abjure every brutal violence and dissociate ourselves expressly from anyone who undertakes to solve the Jewish Question in an illegal manner. We know only too well that nothing hurts our cause more than illegal riots. That is precisely what the Jews want so that they may obtain a certain semblance of truth for the old meaningless phrase “Jew baiting.” Who knows how many of those abhorrent riots against the possessions of the Jews originated directly or indirectly from paid agents provocateurs of the Jews themselves. We cannot emphasize too often the legality of our agitation.

Equally as often must we emphasize that we seek to solve the Jewish Question totally only as a racial question, never as a religious question. The Jewish Question has nothing to do with the religion of the Jews; what the Jew believes is a matter of indifference; whether he is a Reform Jew, Orthodox or baptised Jew, that is a matter of complete indifference for us anti-Semites. The Jews are a tenacious, ancient race distant from ours that cannot be extirpated from the world either through baptism or miscegenation. Baptism is for the Jew only a passport to enter into the higher classes in order to be able to work so much more energetically for the interests of his race. Through baptism the Jew becomes only more dangerous.

What the Jews themselves think of baptism they express very openly; so, for example, the Jew Singer in Vienna clearly says in his work Should the Jews become Christians?,[3] “The Jew who lets himself be converted is a hypocrite.” More characteristically does the orthodox Israelit appearing in Mainz illustrate the view of the Jews regarding baptism: At the time of the Napoleonic campaign a German Jew came as a soldier to Spain; now, there are in Spain, where the Jewish religion is not tolerated in public, many secret Jews (they are called novos christianos)[4] who say outwardly that they are Christian but secretly celebrate the Jewish rituals, are circumcised, etc. Our Jewish soldier now came accidentally to such a secret Jew in his cantonment. The host was very ill and was dying. They called for a priest. Suddenly, when the priest entered the barrack room with a raised crucifix, the dying man cried out: “Stay away, I am a Jew.” The priest then threw the cross onto the ground and cried out: “I am also a Jew.”  And the Jewish German soldier embraced both his racial comrades and cried out: “I am also a Jew.” And the three Jews (two dishonest and one honest) embraced one another and were glad that they had found one another in such a miraculous way.

That is a little piece that may show us what one may think of the baptism of the Jews. Woe to the people who think that they can get rid of the Jewish Question through baptism; it can then easily happen as in Portugal, where the entire national character has been corrupted and enervated by the creeping Jewry. The Portuguese, once a warlike and seafaring nation, have, in the judgement of competent travellers like Willkomm,[5] etc., become roguish and Jewish, their national character has been corrupted by the admixed Jewry. How far things have gone in Portugal is demonstrated by an anecdote that the elder D’Israeli, [6] the English Jew, narrates in his work Geist des Judenthums (Stuttgart, 1836, 218): The Portuguese nation is seventy five percent made up of Jews. Under the government of Pombal,[7] King Joseph was persuaded to renew that badge of the Jews, the yellow hat, to designate the many novos christianos among his subjects. The edict was prepared; the next morning the minister appeared before His Majesty with three yellow hats, one he offered to the king, the second he gave the Great Inquisitor and the third he intended for his own head. “I follow the orders of His Majesty,” he said, “and give this badge to those whose blood has been stained with Jewish blood.”

That is what happens in countries where one deals with the Jewish Question from a religious standpoint. The Jews are a race, and indeed a very ancient one. On the Egyptian pyramids we find portrayed, among other labourers, also some Jews (the Jews, as is well-known, had to work as laborers in Egypt) and these Jews on the thousand-year old pyramids look exactly like our present-day Jews in Germany. That is perhaps the best proof of the persistence of the Jewish race.

It is a fact recognised by many medical authorities that the bodily structure of the Jews is different from that of the Germans. Dr. G. Schulz, curator of the anatomical museum in St. Petersburg, compiled a report on the measurements of individuals from different nations for the determination of the proportions of the human body. In St. Petersburg, the focal point of the most extensive monarchy on earth, he had excellent opportunity for comparative bodily measurements: he accurately measured Russians, Jews, Circassians,[8] Latvians, negroes and Chuvashians.[9] The result showed, that among these different nations, the Jews represented not just a deviation and distinctiveness in individual proportions, but that they stand at the extreme limit in the chief proportions of height and width, the proportion of the trunk to the limbs, of the head and neck to the rest of the body, and represented an exceptional distinctiveness. Even Professor Virchow,[10] the famous natural scientific researcher, spoke at the grave of Ludwig Löwe of a Jewish race and therewith provided the most valuable endorsement for us anti-Semites.

The key to the Jewish Question lies in the circumstance that the Jews are a foreign race that thinks differently, feels differently, acts differently than us and consequently must quite naturally be placed in another legal category. We cannot confound the concept of race with “humanity”: blood is not water, nations and statesmen who do not deal with the racial conditions rooted in Nature are destroyed by this failure of understanding.

One such failure of understanding was the Jewish emancipation. People thought that they would be able to silently assume that a Jew was, or could become, a German. Statesmanly cleverness and foresight were subordinated to more general observations and created in this way pathetic conditions which a clever politician could have foreseen. Even the very free-thinking tribune Hecker[11] was an opponent of Jewish emancipation and he called it nonsense! Today we have to suffer badly on account of the mistake of the Jewish emancipation. The consequence of that liberal enthusiasm for the Jews plagues the German nation like a rheumatism and it is high time to take care that it does not become a gout. The number of Jews increases in a really abnormal manner. In 1774, in Berlin, there were altogether 3953 Jews, in 1813 there existed there still only 2825, in 1858 there were already 15,491 and in the census of 1 December 1880, 53,949 Jews were counted, that is, 4.81 percent. Today, in 1886, we may suppose around 60,000. The number of Jews has thus increased roughly seventeen times from 1780 to 1880. Consider that, if the present-day Berlin Jewry increases again seventeen times in a century, this would give, in Berlin alone, for 1980, the total sum of 923,132 Jews, thus almost one million Jews in Berlin in 1980. In Köln there were, according to an article of the liberal Kölner Zeitung, in 1833, 60,000 Germans and 356 Jews; fifty years later, in 1882, the civilian population of Köln amounted to 138,614 Germans and Jews; the Christians thus increased in 50 years around twofold, the Jews around fifteen times. We may calculate further on the basis of these figures. If Köln increases further under the same conditions, its population will amount in 50 years to 300,000 Germans and 80,000 Jews and, 50 years after, to 700,000 Germans and 1,200,000 Jews.

Do you perhaps understand now that the Jewish Question is an existential question for us Germans? The Kölner Volkszeitung recently wrote the following: “I am not an anti-Semite and would gladly let every Jew live; but if the influence of the Jews increases in the same way as in the last ninety years, I don’t know what will become of Köln.”

In Hesse there are cities and towns which have 10–20 percent Jews, for example, Niedenstein (Fritzlar district) with 21.71 percent Jews, Felsberg (Melsungen district) with 17.50 percent Jews, Schlüchtern with 13.98 percent Jews, etc. As striking is the multiplicative capacity of the Jews abroad. Thus the Jewish population of Vienna has, in comparison to the Christian, increased similarly strongly, 7 times in eleven years, and in Prague 8 times. In Bucharest, the Romanian population was represented in terms of births up to 20 percent, the Catholic up to 16 percent, and the Jewish 47 percent.

Parallel to the capacity of physical multiplication of the Jews runs the rapid growth of Jewish wealth. So we have, for example, according to the official tax registers in Frankfurt am Rhein, a city in which, among 150,000 inhabitants there are around 16,000 Jews, altogether 53 Jewish millionaires and only 48 German millionaires.

In the hands of the Jewish millionaires there are 235 million marks, whereas the Germans represent only 88 million. Given such figures, perhaps nobody asks any more, “Where has our money gone?” but “Whence do those Jewish millions come if not from the sweat of the German people?” They were not earned by the sweat of the hands, no Jewish millionaire saved his millions as a manual labourer or acquired them as a peasant with a plough; all this infinite wealth was taken from the mouths of the working German people. Everybody knows about the wealth of Rothschild. Rothschild possesses in Bohemia alone seven times as much land as the entire imperial family. All sixty aristocratic families of Bohemia taken together have only four times as much land in Bohemia as Rothschild alone, and all that only since 37 years ago. If one adds to that the possessions of Rothschild in Lower Austria, Moravia, Silesia, Hungary, etc., and, further, those in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, America, etc., then one must ask oneself: “Are the Jew not the kings of our age?”

The Ferrières Castle in France, which belongs to Rothschild, and excels in splendour and opulence all royal castles in the world, is surrounded by a complex of 100,000 joch, all of which belongs to Rothschild. The entire lands belonging to this single castle of Rothschild are twice as much as the entire land possessions of all the religious orders of all of France. But, apart from Rothschild, there are further, in France, a number of Jewish bankers each of whom possesses more than 50,000 joch of land. Similarly, all the significant vineyards of France belong to Rothschild. Alongside Rothschild, Baron Hirsch, especially, shines in Paris as a financial magnate. This financier became a millionaire especially through the lotteries. The high society of Paris frequent this Croesus. When Baron Hirsch once stood at the top of his famous stairway and saw the counts, princes and marquis climbing up, he said to his son: “Look at all these people, in twenty years they will all be our sons-in-law, or our gatekeepers.”

The wealth of the Jews constantly increases. In Hungary, where not a single Jew possessed land before 1862, half of the Nyitra County belongs to the Jew Popper, and the former owners of this land have mostly emigrated. This Popper, who began as a poor Jew, died as the patron of 54 Catholic churches. Recently, a Jew called Deutsch bought near Fünfkirchen an estate of 200,000 joch. The other big Jews, Königswarter, Wodianer, Springer, Tedesko, etc., have in the 27 years in which they have been allowed to acquire landed property, bought up so much land in Hungary that they have a quarter of the electorate in their lands. In Galicia, 80 percent of the entire land, thus 4/5, belongs to the Jews and only a fifth to the local people. In Romania, 2/3 of the land is in debt to the Jews; the Jews there are just waiting for their emancipation to take possession of the entire land in a short time. So far have they already come, the poor “persecuted Jews.” Informed people claim that the wealth of the Rothschild house is 20,000 million [marks]; at 5 percent interest this produces in interest in one year of 1,000,000,000 guilders, in one day more than 2,500,000 guilders. So, if Rothschild wishes to consume just the interests, he has every day 2,500,000 guilders to spend.

A bureaucrat who has a yearly salary of 1000 florins must therefore live and work 2500 years long if he wished to earn as much salary as the Rothschild house has to consume daily just in interest. The wealth of the Rothschilds grows rapidly. Each of the two Frankfurt Rothschilds has a yearly income of around 10 million; of this each spends 11/2 million and sets aside thus 81/2 million again as capital. Where should such a hoarding of Jewish millions lead? Shouldn’t universal impoverishment be the natural consequence?

The financial power of the Rotschilds is assertive. When, recently, bankrupt Egypt took a loan from Rothschild, 6 great powers had to vouch for bankrupt Egypt; among these powers was also Germany! Out of this Egyptian loan the Rothschild house soon, as may be proven, earned within a short time 6,100,000 marks, thus a net gain of at least 3 million marks. The power of this Jewish international house already makes itself felt in world history. The Parisian Rothschilds are, as is well-known, the closest friends of the Orléans; the Baroness Alphonse de Rothschild held as recently as 2 July 1886 a glamorous dinner in honour of the Duke of Chartres. It is an open secret that the Parisian Rothschild protects the Orléans. But the Orléans are, for Germany, war. But there are Rothschilds not only in Paris, they have seats also in London and Vienna. The imperial Austrian state is in debt to the Rothschild house. Now imagine the political constellations in the case of a war between France and Russia on the one side and Germany and Austria on the other. The result is therefore very simple; the Finanz und Handelsblatt, certainly a competent, non-partisan organ, describes the consequences in this way:

Supposing the case that France were to find that the time had come to declare war against Germany, then it lies in the powerful hands of the Rothschilds to drive the Austrian state allied with us immediately into bankruptcy and to destroy it financially if it did not comply with the political dictates of the Rothschilds. Nothing else is required for such a catastrophe than to quickly place on the market the Rothschilds’ possession of Austrian credit stocks, bring them down from 500 to half or less, and add to it a couple of hundred million Austrian and Hungarian annuities. Now imagine the effect of such an operation, which is simple in itself. For, even the unpaid billions in other annuities and other funds, industrial shares, bonds, etc. follow forthwith thereupon, and the howling and the fury of the all-shattering countermine will take care of the rest. This business with these credit shares and their all-powerful influence has already been allowed to go too far. We have already long ago pointed to this quite uniquely forged Rothschild weapon and it is apparent, rather late, to everybody’s eyes upon what a dangerous mine Europe stands and who has the fuse for its ignition in his hands.

Now, who has the fuse in his hands? The Jew Rothschild has in his hands the fuse for the ignition of the mine dug under the ground of Europe by the stock-exchange Jews!

Yes, gentlemen, that is how serious the Jewish Question is. These innocent persecuted Jews vilely hounded by us anti-Semites, they rule world-history, they have the fate of entire nations already in their hands. Is it not touching when these Jews who have entire states in their hands play out the old farce of Tolerance against anti-Semitism? We poor anti-Semites “hound” the Jewish people, to whom it is a matter of indifference to smash entire states through stock-exchange manoeuvres. If it should come to war with France and Russia and Germany is isolated through the Rothschilds’ maneuver and squeezed between two buffers, then we will indeed see if the Berlin stock-exchange Jews will be as patriotic as in 1870 when they received the North German war loan with contemptuous laughter. Then perhaps the damage that the Jewish foundations have effected on our national well-being will make itself felt and only then will the German people notice what a hole the Jewish butchers have made in their defensive power.

In 1862, the French Jew Crémieux[12] — the same man who set a price on the head of the German Kaiser in 1870 and whose death was honoured by the Jews of Berlin in the big synagogue — issued an appeal for the founding of the Alliance Israélite.[13] In this appeal it says:

Our nationality is the religion of our fathers; we recognize no other.
The Jewish doctrine must one day fill the entire world.
The work is great and sacred, success is certain.
Catholicism, our hundred-year old enemy, is defeated, struck on the head.
The net that Israel throws over the earth will extend every day and the sublime prophecies of our holy books will be fulfilled.
The day approaches when Jerusalem will become the house of prayer for our united peoples, where the flag of Jewish monotheism blows on the most distance coasts.
Let us use all opportunities. Our power is great, let us learn to use it. What do we have to fear? The day is not far off when the wealth of the earth will belong exclusively to the Jews.

This Jewish union, which was founded with this appeal, numbers today 30,000 members, it has at its disposal every year over hundred thousand marks. Here in Berlin walk thousands of members of that union that seeks to use every opportunity. Yes, we have thrown out the Jesuits, but the Jewish Jesuits, who are thousand times worse, they grow and prosper among us like sands on the shore. Where should that lead to if a stop is not put to it finally? If I go through the most populated streets of Berlin, for example, Friedrichstraße, Leipzigstraße, etc., where almost 90% of all houses have fallen to the Jews, if I see entire stretches of land and villages in the province in bondage to the Jews, if I glance at our influential press, our literature, under the Jewish influence, if I see our grammar schools overflowing with Jews, if I consider the enormous influence of Jewish money on the stock-exchange, I can say only one thing: Germany is to be saved from the Jews either today or never. Consider, Germans, that you stand in the eleventh hour; confronted with the Jewish Question, all party discord must cease. Men of all parties must coalesce into a large German national party, as we have done in Hesse, especially in order to enter parliament.

In parliament, the Jewish Question must be discussed repeatedly until the German people learn to view the repeal of the Jewish emancipation no longer as “intolerance,” as “persecution delirium,” but as a pressing necessity for our own rescue. We in Hesse will show the way, in the parliamentary elections of autumn 1887 we will place pure and genuine anti-Semites in seven electoral districts. We must, and shall, break through in some districts. Support us in Berlin in this difficult battle for the whole of Germany. When we have won in Hesse, then the liberation of Berlin from the Jewish yoke will follow. In conclusion, let me shout out to you the assurance that we will not falter in Hesse and will hold the flag high. You too must stand united in Berlin, our cause is not yet lost, just be united, united, united!


[1] Talk held at the public meeting of the German Anti-Semitic Union in the Bockbrauerei, Berlin, on 4 October 1886.

[2] See my English edition of this work, Eugen Dühring, The Jewish Question as a racial, moral and cultural question, with a world-historical answer, London: Ostara Publications, 2017.

[3] Isidore Singer, Sollen die Juden Christen werden? (Hansebooks, 2016; orig. pub.: 1884). [All footnotes are by the translator.]

[4] New Christians

[5] Heinz Moritz Willkomm (1821–1895) was a German botanist who wrote a work on his travels in Iberia, Zwei Jahre in Spanien und Portugal, 1847.

[6] Isaac D’Israeli (1766–1848) was a writer and father of Benjamin Disraeli. His book Genius of Judaism was published in 1833.

[7] Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, Marquis of Pombal (1699–1782) was a Portuguese liberal statesman who served as the powerful chief minister of King Joseph I.

[8] People of the region of Circassia, in the North Caucasus.

[9] A Turkic ethnic group of Russia.

[10] Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902) was a celebrated German physician and pathologist.

[11] Friedrich Hecker (1811–1881) was a German lawyer and one of the principal Liberal agitators during the 1848 Revolution.

[12] Adolphe Crémieux (1796–1880) was a French Jewish lawyer and politician who served as Minister of Justice during the Second Republic and the Third Republic. He was a Freemason and fervent defender of the Jews. He served as president of the Alliance Israélite Universelle from 1863 to 1867 and from 1868 to 1880.

[13] The Alliance Israélite Universelle was established in Paris in 1860 as an international organization for the promotion of the rights and welfare of Jews around the world.

Honor Him — In Memory of Chris Roberts  

Shortly after I met him a year ago, Chris Roberts came to my house to help me write a fundraising appeal. He breezed through its 900 words before handing my laptop back. Then he gave a speech revising the entire article from memory.

This spectacle had me laughing up tears. Chris is known for his sense of humor, but my hysterics couldn’t distract him. He fell into a trance like an Olympic athlete in the zone. When we finished, I shouted, “You’re a genius, man!” Looking off into the distance with a playful grin, he slowly exhaled his cigarette smoke in silence.

We have no shortage of brilliant writers. But none surpasses Chris’s talent. At 28, he’d already published over 700 articles. His creative prolificacy was dumbfounding.

Chris wrote many significant articles, and “Grace and Grit in Southern West Virginia” is one of his finest. I treasure it in particular because we were best friends at the time. He traveled through that region as a journalist, listened to those people’s stories, and weaved them into an uplifting nationalist message.

Chris admired the resilience of West Virginians, and those patriotic people enjoyed his company. At long last, here was a reporter without a plan to write them off as “white trash.” Those who remained hopeful through terrible suffering inspired Chris most. It took him a single night to form 9,000 words into one perfect essay. I know because he showed up to my place for coffee in the morning.

I’ll never have a better friend than Chris. I relied heavily on his advice and support over the past year. Even with opportunities to do so, he never let me down. Loyalty like his is rare in this corrupt world. I fear it may be irreplaceable in my world.

We should celebrate Chris for who he was and for who he’d have become. My thoughts and prayers go to Mr. Sam Dickson and everyone at American Renaissance.

Chris Roberts spent his life honoring the forgotten and forsaken people of America. He spent his life honoring our people. It’s time for us to honor him.

Until we meet in Elysium, brother. I believe in you more than ever.

Dr. Ricardo Duchesne’s Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age  

Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age
Ricardo Duchesne
Arktos, 2017, 239 pages    

Since at least the 1960s, American progressive public educators have made revising or eliminating accurate accounts of the scientific and cultural advancements that enabled the West to dominate the planet and replaced them with moral indictments. While some ideas may be subject to careful modification as a result of critical thought, wholesale changes in the interpretations of historical events and the rejection of longstanding scholarly norms of research are simply efforts by progressive educators to promote personal political or cultural biases to fit within a history that simply did not exist.

The Western Civilization course requirements are among several focused disciplines in American universities that ended abruptly in the 1960s. By the time of the campus protests, professors gave up on the importance of courses on Western Civilization because they felt that the courses had been fashioned to support the eras of two world wars—a time when Americans saw themselves as leaders of a great Atlantic civilization, were proud of their relative affluence and the history of Western expansion, and were comfortable with what came to be labeled “white supremacy.” The cultural Marxists also claimed that Western Civilization studies were obsolete because of new commitments to the critical importance of China, Africa, Vietnam, and other parts of the world; in other words they became globalists. Others considered the subject old-fashioned at a time when politicized students called for a liberal arts education without required courses. For professional historians eager to produce “original” ideas in their increasingly fragmented fields, the concept of an all-inclusive course with a common purpose seemed dated.

The question, however, is how did the World History programs of study that superseded the required Western Civilization courses of the 1980s and 1990s ultimately come to be embedded within a multicultural ideology that emphatically weakened the critical role of Western culture itself?

The answer is postmodernism.

In his Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, Ricardo Duchesne convincingly reminds us that postmodern thought has become the dominant philosophy in modern public classrooms. In order to make postmodernism work, historical truths have to either be altered beyond recognition or eliminated. Fact: 79 percent of the world’s most important inventions, including political institutions, modern technological innovations in medicine, agriculture and industrial technologies, and a moral order based on reason, moral universalism, and the rule of law came from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and/or the United States. These facts are irrefutable, and any attempt to reject them as false is an attempt to rewrite what had been the settled historical record. However, most leftist students view these realities as nothing more than White, self-congratulatory back-patting.

Duchesne’s recent book, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, is a continuation of his seminal 2011 book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (reviewed here). In that research and subsequent book Duchesne argued that Western Civilization is responsible for the world’s greatest innovations, technologies, and ideas as a result of not only the West’s ability to create something of intrinsic value from nothing, due, in large part, to the tenets of certain native Western philosophies, but, more importantly, the West’s burn-the-candle-at-both-ends work ethic, never-say-die character, their commitment to rational thinking, their inquisitiveness and willingness to explore. The West’s success is deeply rooted in its history; it was not a result of luck, or fortunate access to colonial resources, as the academic left wants us to believe.

In the break between Uniqueness and Faustian Man, Duchesne, it seems, had moments of additional clarity and insight. In Faustian Man, Duchesne relies on ideas that he has pondered since childhood—ideas that developed over time and that he visited and re-visited as he became acquainted with various intellectual perspectives—important ideas that, once unbound from suppression, influenced his thinking and the subsequent research which obviously influenced his remarkable academic journey.

The rise and fall of superpowers is cyclical; and, as it turns out, race matters. The opening chapter of Faustian Man is replete with the idea that White, Western men made the greatest leaps in human history—the leaps also Duchesne discussed in Uniqueness.  Duchesne looks at Polybius, Vico, and Oswald Spengler, three historians who tracked the decline of the West through their own cycles of change: the ancient’s cycle of birth, growth, zenith and decay; Vico’s cycle of anarchy and savagery, order and civilization, and decay and a new anarchic barbarism; and Spengler’s cycle that relied on geographically based identity and a culture that thrives and dies similar to the life cycle of a human being—childhood, youth, maturation, old age, and death. However, none of these theories concluded that civilizations completely die-out, nor did any of the theorists include race as an important factor in the rise, fall, and renewal of a civilization. In Faustian Man, Duchesne incorporates this cyclical view within his theory of the West as a continually advancing civilization, while arguing that if current immigration replacement trends continue, and the White race is utterly marginalized, Western civilization will die out completely.

Duchesne revealed the pseudo-scholarship that postmodern academics have promoted as their sworn duty to rewrite history according to the idea that the greatness of the West was not possible without the “indispensable” influences of the African slave trade, or the Islamic preservation of classical knowledge, or “geographical good luck.” In other words, they portray the West as a civilization lacking a dynamic of its own, always enmeshed within a global network of nonwestern influences, culture-mixing and lucky acquisition of colonies. For example, ancient Greece, according to the late postmodern political scientist, Martin Bernal, was not founded, developed, and advanced by Aryan settlers; it was developed by Egyptians and other Semitics. Greece, it turned out, was settled and developed by “Afroasiatics.” What none of these historians ponder about is why the West was the site of most achievements if all cultures are interconnected?

In fact, the entire history of European accomplishment from ancient times to the twentieth century, should be suspected, according to the academic left, as inherently “Eurocentric” and “racist.” How could anyone seriously credit, in our increasingly multiracial societies, Europeans living in a comparatively small landmass with thousands of years of achievements at levels higher than the rest of the world combined? “The racist privileging of Europe should not be allowed,” mused John M. Hobson. The “downgrading of Europe (on Mercator-derived maps) should be encouraged among the students,” he wrote. Consequently, not only should the ideas of Western greatness be banished, the landmass should get the same treatment.

A contrast between Faustian Man and Uniqueness is the stronger emphasis Duchesne assigns to race in the identity of the West and in its preservations. Duchesne cites Samuel P. Huntington’s mega-popular, often vilified but sometimes lauded work on Western Civilization, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. “By 2013,” Duchesne writes, “I found myself agreeing with Huntington’s thesis that the very success of modernization in non-Western countries was encouraging indigenization and ethnic confidence, rather than Westernization” (11). However, Duchesne submits that Huntington was too careful—that he skirted a nation’s ethnic backdrop as a key issue in state identity. Huntington rightfully proclaimed that “Western values were particular to the West and alien to other cultures” (12). However, Huntington could not come to terms with the idea that the West, like other civilizations, had an ethnic identity.  In other words, while Huntington argued that Western ideas of liberalism, citizenship, and democratization were universal regardless of the West’s ethnic ties to White Europe, Huntington had no problem identifying other civilizations in terms of their ethnic identities, rather than focusing only, as he did for the West, on their “cultural attributes” (12). While the ideas we associate with liberalism are framed in a universalist language, Duchesne argues that we should not ignore the fact that they developed in a civilization with a particular ethnic identity.

Faustian Man’s promotion of the relationship between White ethnic Europe and Western thought prompted waves of backlash from leftist students, fellow academics, local newspapers, and other media that read Duchesne’s research. The President of the university that employed him received many complaints: One must never question mass immigration in the name of ethnic interests of Europeans was the thrust of their arguments. Still Duchesne persevered in his quest to answer the questions that intrigued him since Uniqueness: where was the historical West, and was it possible to identify it in a definite racial way—a way that seemed to be declining due to mass immigration and demographic colonization?

Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age was previously reviewed by F. Roger Devlin for TOO.

Martin Christopher Rojas, RIP

Martin Christopher Rojas has died unexpectedly at age 29. Jared Taylor has written a beautiful, deeply felt tribute to him. Martin wrote a very interesting account of life in rural West Virginia for TOO under one of his many pseudonyms, Christopher Martin. I met him a couple times. Great guy, and reading Jared’s obituary, one realizes what great talent he had. As Taylor notes:

Rojas never lost sympathy for the working-class people he knew growing up. He took unpaid leave from AmRen to spend a week in one of the poorest towns in West Virginia, where he got to know whites who were barely scraping by. They had been studied so many times, they were suspicious of yet another outsider from whom they expected yet another sneering exposé. He won their confidence and wrote a portrait of the town that is one of his best pieces.

I am very proud to have posted “Grace and Grit in Southern West Virginia.” His conclusion is a good illustration of his sympathy for the working class:, his erudition, and his graceful writing style:

At the end of the week, I drive home and there’s everything to think about alone in my car for hours and hours. It’s as if I can’t even remember what I was expecting to find now that I’ve seen so much. Southern West Virginia is poor, and the stories of its heartbreak could fill the Library of Congress a hundred times over. But I knew all that before I got there— you probably did, too. However, it’s not some kind of “big White ghetto” in the midst of a Hobbesian war of all against all. I’ve really never met kinder people. I’ve also never met a people more determined to withstand it all and persevere. The place enlightened me— but only after it humbled me. All of us really do have a lot to learn from these people. Marcus Aurelius wrote that, “Nothing can happen to any man that nature has not fitted him to endure. Your neighbor’s experiences are no different from your own; yet he, being either less aware of what has happened or more eager to show his mettle, stands steady and undaunted. For shame, that ignorance and vanity should prove stronger than wisdom!” My Christian friends assure me that Christ agrees. I couldn’t tell you if God is real, but after a week in Welch, I do know for certain that God smiles upon southern West Virginia— and on the rest of us as well.

西洋文化をユニークにしたものは何か (“What Makes Western Culture Unique”)

What Makes Western Culture Unique? 翻訳

Kevin MacDonald

西洋文化をユニークにしたものは何か

原文:http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/west-toq.htm

 

一般に、文化のユニークさは自然由来か教育由来かのどちらかである。これは昔から変わらない二項対立である。
しかし我々は現在これらの問題について昔よりもより良く扱える立場にあり、そして自然由来説と教育由来説のどちらも重要であることを説明しようと思う。
西洋文化は、どのような生物学的/進化論的理論でも予測がつかないほどの独特の文化的変貌を経験してきたが、同時にユニークな進化の歴史もあった。
西洋文化は、世界の他の文明や文化を築いた人々とは遺伝的に異なった人々によって構築された。
西洋文化が他の伝統的文明と比較してユニークな文化的プロファイルを持つことを以下で論じる。

1. カトリック教会とキリスト教

2. 一夫一妻制の傾向

3. 核家族が基本のシンプルな家族構造の傾向

4. 結婚が両性の合意に基づいており、相互の愛情を基本にする傾向が強い

5. 拡大血縁(extended kinship relationships)とその互恵関係の重視を避け、エスノセントリズムが比較的弱い

6. 個人主義へ向かう傾向。国家に対する個人の権利、代議制政府、道徳の普遍主義化、自然科学へ向かう傾向

私のバックグラウンドは進化生物学の分野であり、性の進化論を扱った時に最初に感じた疑問の一つは、「なぜ西洋文化は一夫一妻制なのか?」だった。
性の進化論は非常にシンプルである。女性は生殖に多大な投資が必要である。妊娠、授乳、そして育児は大抵膨大な時間を要求する。
その結果、女性の生殖には厳しい制約がある。最高の条件を用意してもらっても、最大でも20人程度の子どもしか育てようがない。
しかし、男性にとっては生殖のコストは低い。結果として、男性は複数の配偶者から恩恵を得ることも可能で、富と力を持つ男性はそれを活用して可能な限り多くの配偶者を確保することも期待できる。
要約すれば、富と力を持つ男性による集中的な一夫多妻制は男性にとって最も適切な戦略であり、個々人の男性の生殖の成功にとって最も適切な振る舞いである。

この理論は十分に支持されている。世界中の伝統的な社会では、富と生殖活動の成功との間に強い関連性がある。裕福で力のある男性は非常の多数の女性をコントロールできる。
中国、インド、イスラム社会、新世界文明、古代エジプト、古代イスラエル等の世界中の全ての伝統的文明のエリート男性は、大抵数百人から数千人にもなる側室を持っていた。
サブサハラ・アフリカでは女性は一般的に男性の扶養なしで子どもを育てることができるので、結果として、男性はできるだけ多くの女性をコントロールするために競争する低レベルの一夫多妻制になった。
これらいずれの社会においても、これらの関係から産まれた子どもは合法的だった。彼らは財産を相続することができ、世間から蔑まれることもなかった。
中国の皇帝には数千人の側室がおり、モロッコのスルタンは888人の子どもを持つことでギネスブックに登録されている。

勿論、一夫一妻制が標準の社会は他にもある。生態学的に課せられた一夫一妻制と社会的に課せられた一夫一妻制とを区別することが一般的である。
一般に、生態学的に課せられた一夫一妻制は、砂漠や寒冷地等の非常に過酷な生態的条件への適応を強いられた社会で見られる。
このような過酷な条件下では、各男性の投資は一人の女性の子供達に向かわざるを得ず、更に多くの女性をコントロールすることは不可能である。
基本的考え方としては、過酷な条件下では女性は一人で子どもを育てることが不可能で、男性からの手助けが必要である。
このような条件が、進化論的に意味を成すほど長期間続いた場合には、人口は一夫一妻制に向かう強い傾向を発達させると予想できる。

実際に、一夫一妻制の傾向が強くなりすぎると、生態学的条件の変化に直面した場合でも一夫一妻制に向かう心理的・文化的傾向へとつながることが予想できる。
私はヨーロッパ人の進化で正にこのことが起きたのだと提案しており、以下で詳述する。

Richard Alexanderは”socially imposed monogamy” (SIM)[社会的に課せられた一夫一妻制]という用語で、過酷な生態的条件なしの一夫一妻制を定義した。
過酷な条件とは男性が直接子供を養育せざるを得ない条件のことを指す。それ以外の状況では、男性は自分にできる限り多数の妻を持つために競争すると予想でき、一般的にもそうなる。

 

西洋のユニークさの最初の例

世界の他の経済的先進地域の文化は、成功した男性による一夫多妻制が特徴であるのに対して、西洋社会には古代ギリシャ・ローマから現代にいたるまで一夫一妻制の強い傾向がある。

古代ローマには、一夫一妻制を志向する様々な政治制度や思想の背景があった。
ローマで社会的に課せられた一夫一妻制の起源は歴史から忘れられているが、一夫一妻制を維持させるための幾つかのメカニズムが存在した。
一夫一妻制の外で生まれた子どもの法的地位を下げる法律、離婚を妨げる習慣、不適合な性的行動に対してネガティブな社会意識、そして一夫一妻制が性的に正統だと定める宗教思想があった。
これらのメカニズムのバリエーションは西洋の歴史を通じて現代まで続いている。

共和制ローマの時代には、コンスルの任期制限、二人のコンスルを同時に存在させるなどで特定の貴族の一族が専制を敷けないようにする仕組みもあった。
下層市民の政治代表権についても、護民官を設置するなど徐々に法整備が進んだ。近親者の結婚を妨げる広範な法律も存在した。
これらの法律が親族集団内での富の集中を防ぎ、特定の貴族の一族の支配を防いだ。

ローマの一夫一妻制は完璧とは程遠かった。
特に帝政期には離婚が増加し、共和制初期の特徴だった一夫一妻制を性的に正統とする思想が衰退したことで、それまでの家族機能が全般的に崩壊した。
それでも法的には、少なくとも理論的には、ローマ文化は最後まで一夫一妻制だった。一夫多妻制は法律で認可されることは無く、一夫一妻制の外で生まれた子どもには相続権は無いままで、母親の社会的・法的地位を受け継ぐことになった。

カトリック教会はエリート男性に一夫一妻制を課そうとしたので、一夫一妻制を巡る争いは中世の重要な特徴となった。
カトリック教会は西洋文化のユニークな一面である。
13世紀に中国に訪れたマルコ・ポーロや1519年にアステカに到着したコルテスは、現地の世襲制貴族・神官・戦士・職人・農民から成る農業社会を観察し、彼ら自身の社会との多数の類似点に気づいた。
社会同士の間には圧倒的な収斂性があった。しかし彼らは、宗教組織が世俗組織より優れていると主張し、世俗エリートの生殖行動の抑制に成功しているような社会は西洋以外に見出せなかった。
また、Louis IX (St. Louis) のような、フランスを統治しながらも一人の妻と一緒に修行僧のような生活をし、聖地解放の十字軍に参加するような王は、西洋以外には見出せなかった。

一夫一妻制が法と慣習として根付いたローマ文明の相続人であったカトリック教会は、中世には勃興してきたヨーロッパ貴族に一夫一妻制を課すようになった。
確かに、中世初期のヨーロッパ貴族の一夫多妻制は、中国やイスラム諸国のハーレムと比べてかなり小規模であったが、それは中世初期のヨーロッパの経済状況が比較的未発達であったことも一因であろう。
なにしろ中国の皇帝は広大で人口の多い莫大な余剰経済生産を持つ国を持っていた。彼らは中世初期ヨーロッパの部族長より遥かに裕福で、その富と力ではるかに多くの女性を手に入れた。

とにかく、一夫多妻制はヨーロッパにも存在しており、中世には教会と貴族の紛争の種となった。
教会は「中世ヨーロッパで最も影響力が強く重要な政府機関」で、世俗的な貴族に対するこの権力の主要な一面が性と生殖の規制だった。
その結果、富裕層にも貧困層にも同じ性的規制が課せられた。
教会の目論見として「信徒の中でも特に最も有力な者に対し、教会の権威に服属して彼らの道徳、特に性道徳を監督させることを要求した。これにより、結婚を通して教会は貴族をコントロールできた。結婚と夫婦間の問題は全て教会に持ち込むことを強いられ、教会のみが解決できるとされていた。」

進化心理学の観点からこの時期の教会の行動を理解する試みは、この論文の範囲外である。
しかし、権力欲は人間の普遍的な欲求であるが、他の全ての人間の欲求と同様、それが必ずしも生殖の成功と関連する必要はないことに注意する必要がある。
同様に、人はセックスの欲求があるが、母なる自然がそのようにデザインしたにもかかわらず、セックスを沢山すれば必ずしも多くの子供を持つことに直結するとは限らない。

教会のユニークな特徴の一つとしては、教会が利他的であるというイメージ(及びその実態)がその人気を支えていた。
中世の教会は、女性をコントロールしたり生殖で高い成功を収めることに教会はあまり関心を持たないと人々に思わせるイメージ戦略に長けていた。
これは常にそうだったわけでは無い。中世の改革以前には、多くの司祭が妻や側室を持っていた。
Saint Bonifaceは742年にフランスの教会について以下のように書き、ローマ教皇に苦言を呈した。「いわゆる司祭補佐は、少年時代から放蕩、姦淫、あらゆる穢れに人生を浪費し、その悪評のままで司祭補佐になり、今やベッドに4、5人の側室を抱えたまま福音書を読む有り様である。」

にもかかわらず、聖職者の改革は本物だった。13世紀のイングランドの高位聖職者で妻や家庭を持った者はいなかったとされる。
この時代のイングランドでは下級聖職者の間でさえ妻帯者は例外的であり、この聖職者のモラルの高さは宗教改革の時代まで保たれた。

教会はこのように貞操と利他主義のイメージを人々に植え付けた。その権力と富は生殖の成功に向けられてはいなかった。
教会の真の生殖利他主義は、極めて禁欲的な修道生活の魅力が非常に広まった要因であったようだ。
この禁欲主義は、中世中期の一般大衆の教会に対する認識において重要な要素であった。
11世紀から12世紀にかけて数千の修道院が建てられた。独身の禁欲的な男性で構成され、主に裕福な層から採用された修道院は、「教会全体の精神性、教育、芸術、そして文化の伝達の雰囲気の担い手だった…」。
修道士の祈りが全てのクリスチャンの助けになるという思想が、修道士の利他主義のイメージを育んだ。

これらの修道会は、非常に人気の大衆イメージを教会にもたらした。
13世紀の間、托鉢修道士達(ドミニコ会、フランシスコ会)は教会に対する教皇の権力を増大させ、聖職者の独身主義の規則を施行し、縁故主義や聖職売買を防止し、世俗権力に対抗する力を教会に与える教会改革に貢献した。それには信徒の性的関係を規制する権力の獲得等が含まれた。
「初期の托鉢僧は、最貧困層の最も搾取される人々に寄り添うように自発的に窮乏し自らに極貧を課していた。それらは世俗の聖職者の出世主義と虚飾、修道院の富と排他性とは全く異なっていた。それらは良心を突き動かし、商業コミュニティの気前の良さを刺激した。」

中世中期に…社会の最も有力で最も富裕、あるいは少なくとも豊かな層の多数のメンバーが、地上の快楽を最大限満喫する最良のチャンスを自ら断念したことは、歴史上最も驚くべき現象の一つである。…
新しい志願者の流れは、禁欲生活(修道生活)の規則が古代の厳格さに戻った地域、それどころか古代以上に厳しくなった地域で特に印象的であった。…
禁欲生活(修道生活)を選ぶ主な動機は、仮に長い人生の中でその原動力の一部を喪失したり、最初から他の動機が混ざっていたとしても、常に禁欲主義の世界終末論的理念があったと考えるべきであろう。

13世紀の間、托鉢修道士は基本的に貴族や地主などの裕福な家族から採用された。彼らの両親は普通の親がそうであるのと同じく孫を待ち望んだため、大抵それに反対した。
「裕福な家族にとって、子どもが修道士になることは悪夢だった」。これらの家族は、子どもが修道生活に勧誘されるのを避けるために子どもを大学に送るのをやめ始めた。

社会の中心にあったのは、人々は利他的であるべきであり、裕福に生まれても禁欲主義に生きるべきだというイデオロギーを持つ機関であった。
これが結婚とセックスに関して教会の権威が認められた理由であるが、そもそも、なぜ裕福な人々が修道院に入って禁欲(独身)を貫くことになるのか不思議である。
好き嫌いは抜きにして、この時期の西ヨーロッパは優生学と無縁であった。

中世の教会は西洋文化のユニークな特徴であったが、この論文のテーマは、批判的な意味で、それが最も非西洋的であったということにある。
なぜなら、中世ヨーロッパはグループアイデンティティとそれへの献身意識が強い集団主義の社会であったからだ。
私は、西洋社会は個人主義への献身においてもユニークであり、実際に個人主義が西洋文明を定義づけると以下で論ずる。

中世後期の西欧社会の集団主義はしっかりしたものだった。
例えば聖地をイスラム教徒の支配から解放しようとする十字軍遠征に伴う多数の巡礼者と宗教的熱狂、イングループ的な熱狂が示すように、社会のあらゆる階層でキリスト教への激しいグループアイデンティティと献身が存在していた。
中世の教会は、ユダヤ人に対するクリスチャングループの経済的利害の鋭い意識を持っていた。大抵の場合でユダヤ人の経済的・政治的影響力を阻止し、クリスチャンとユダヤ人の社会的交流を防ぐべく努力した。

以上のように、特に托鉢修道士、その他多数の宗教者、世俗エリートに至るまで、高レベルの生殖利他主義が存在した。
世俗エリートの生殖利他主義は主に強制の結果であったが、フランスのルイ9世のように自発的な抑制の場合もある。
ルイはクリスチャンの性道徳の模範であっただけではない。
彼はユダヤ人に対するクリスチャングループの経済的利害の鋭い意識も持ち、聖地をクリスチャンの手に取り戻すべく十字軍にも深く関与した。
ヨーロッパ人は、強力かつ脅威であった非クリスチャンのアウトグループ(特にムスリムとユダヤ人)に対し、自分達をクリスチャンのイングループの隊列の一員と見なした。

教会の力に基づく統一されたクリスチャン社会の理想と、エリートの間での性的抑制との間には、確かにギャップがあった。
しかしこれらのギャップに関しては、多くの中世クリスチャン、特に中世社会の主人公である以下の人々の認識を考慮するべきである。
修道院運動、托鉢修道士、改革派教皇、熱狂した十字軍、敬虔な巡礼者、更には多くのエリート貴族でさえ、彼ら自身を高度に統一された超国家的な集団の一員と見なしていた。
この根本的な集団主義志向を理解すれば、心理学の観点から中世の集団への激しい献身と利他主義とが分かる。それは現代の西欧とはあまりにも異質である。

 

西欧の社会的に課せられた一夫一妻制を保つ社会コントロール&イデオロギー

西欧では、教会は貴族の生殖の利益と正反対の教会式結婚モデルを採用した。その結果、12世紀末には家族構成の変化と教会による一夫一妻制の強制が起きた。
一夫一妻制の強制と維持には以下の要因が最も重要であっただろう。

離婚の禁止。
裕福な男性は簡単に再婚できるので、簡単に離婚できる場合の最大の受益者である。
ユーラシアの他の社会では離婚は一般的で、キリスト教以前のヨーロッパ諸部族の間でも合法であった。しかし教会の見解では結婚は一夫一妻制かつ不可逆であった。
クリスチャンローマ皇帝の下で離婚はますます制限され、9世紀から12世紀にかけて教会は貴族の離婚事件を争点にして貴族との紛争に勝利した。
例えば12世紀後半、フランス王フィリップは妻を嫌いでかつ妻が不妊であったにもかかわらず離婚を阻まれた。王はパリの修道院で宗教者グループに対し謝罪させられた。

離婚が許される場合もあったが、それは最初の結婚で男児の跡継ぎを産めなかった場合に限られた。例えば中世フランスのルイ七世とEleanor of Aquitaineの場合が当てはまる。
(しかし教皇は、ヘンリー八世が跡継ぎを産めない妻と離婚することを許可しなかった)
1857年の改革まで、イギリスでは離婚は「一握りの大金持ち以外には不可能だった」。しかしそれ以後でも離婚率は低さを維持し続けた。
「16世紀に離婚を合法化したヨーロッパの地域では、離婚率がグラフの横軸と区別できるようになるまで300年以上かかった」
イギリスでの離婚率は1914年まで0.1/1000以下、1943年まで1/1000以下だった。(Stone 1990)1910年当時、離婚率が0.5/1000を超えるヨーロッパの国は無かった。
私の知る限りでは、離婚を非常に避けるこの傾向は西欧文明特有である。

非嫡出子に対するペナルティ。
進化論の観点から、生殖に関する社会コントロールの最も重要な面は、内縁関係・事実婚のコントロールである。
非嫡出子のコントロールは、内縁関係・事実婚を困難・不可能にし、非嫡出子の財産相続を妨げる等で非嫡出子の将来性を危うくさせることで、裕福な男性の生殖利益を抑制する。

教会は内縁関係、特に正妻を差し置いての内縁関係を熱心に抑え込んだ。
非嫡出子の相続に対する社会コントロールは大抵効果的だったようだ。教会は、合法的結婚が合法の子供を産み、それ以外は法的地位を持たないという姿勢だったが、特定の時代には私生児は他の子供より地位が高かった。(see below)
私生児の相続財産は教会や国が没収したため、私生児に財産を残そうと願っても当局に阻止される可能性があった。
ピューリタン時代のイングランドでは、遺言状に私生児は一切登場しなかった。

教会の直接の影響力以外にも、世俗権力や世論によって、非嫡出子の出生にはその他様々なペナルティが科せられた。
非嫡出子の父親と特に母親には追放や投獄が科せられ、母親はその地域を去ることを含めて妊娠を隠すあらゆる努力をするのが普通だった。
これらの社会コントロールの影響は非嫡出子の死亡率にまで及んだ。近世の英仏では非嫡出子の方が乳児死亡率が高かった。
女性は非嫡出子を大抵捨てた。非嫡出子は大抵死産として報告され、嬰児殺しを暗示しており、女性は時として堕胎によって非嫡出子の出産から逃れようとした。

エリートに対する内縁関係の統制。
中世にはエリート男性に対する内縁関係の統制はますます効果的になった。よって12世紀は極めて重要であろう。
この時代の例には、一夫一妻制を支持する社会・イデオロギー的コントロールをうまく回避したエリート男性たちの話もあり、エリート男性でありながら完全な一夫一妻制を守った話もある。
一般のパターンは、英国王の非嫡出子の数から読み取れる。1066年から1485年までの18人の英国王の内で10人が愛人を持ち、恐らく計41人の非嫡出子を持った。
1100年から1135年のヘンリー一世は、この内20人を持ち、さらに5人の非嫡出子を持つ可能性もある。中世では他に三人以上の非嫡出子を持った王はおらず、八人の王は非嫡出子を持った記録が無い。
ヘンリー一世は領土的野心のために大量の子孫を欲したユニークな王である。それでもヘンリーは非嫡出子を嫡出子より遥かに酷く扱った。嫡出子は甘やかされ、宮廷で手ほどきを受け、大貴族の生活が約束されていた。
一方で私生児は王位継承から除外され、大抵は結婚のチャンスすら無かった。
12世紀に起きた結婚に関する考え方と慣習の大きな変化を反映して、その後数世紀で非嫡出子の数と重要性は低下した。

中世以降の性行動の取り締まり。
中世の教会の主な目標の一つは、一夫一妻制の結婚外での性行為を取り締まることであった。性的違反の取り締まりは中世から少なくとも17世紀末まで教会裁判所の重要な仕事であった。
これらの裁判所は17世紀のイギリスで非常に活発で、淫行・姦通・近親相姦・違法同居などを訴追した。
これらの教会の処罰の有効性は地域と時代により異なるが、「犠牲者は仲間に追い回され、村八分にされて生計を奪われ、追放者として扱われた」という悲惨な結果の例もある。

17世紀の高等宗務官裁判所には、他の司法手続きから免除されそうな富裕層に対し、姦通に対する制裁を含めた制裁を課す権限が認められていた。
「法の下の平等のこのような強制執行により、裁判所は17世紀のイングランドの重要人物たちに嫌われた」。
治安判事などの世俗当局も、それらの犯罪を訴追する用意があった。例えばエリザベス朝の法令に基づき16世紀と17世紀の治安判事たちは、男女の性犯罪者に対し、さらし台に拘束し、腰まで服を脱がせて(女性は「背中が血まみれになるまで」)公開鞭打ち刑に処すと宣告するのが普通だった。

一夫一妻制を促進するイデオロギー。
最終的には社会コントロールに依存していたものの、中世の教会は一夫一妻制と性的抑制を促進するべく巧みなイデオロギーを発展させた。
一般にこれらの著作は、独身主義の道徳的優位性とあらゆる種類の婚外性行為の罪深さを強調した。一夫一妻制の結婚以外での全ての性関係は、近世から現代にいたるまで宗教権威によって例外なく非難された。夫婦のセックスは嘆かわしく罪深いがやむを得ないものとされ、妻に対する過度の情熱は姦淫と見なされた。
18世紀には比較的緩和されたが、19世紀には激しい反快楽主義の宗教的性イデオロギーが台頭した。

結論。
中世以来、社会コントロールとイデオロギーの巧みなシステムが、西欧の広い地域で程度の差はあれ一夫一妻制の完全な押し付けに成功した。
「中世初期の大きな社会成果は、富裕層と貧困層の双方に同じ性行動・家庭行動のルールを課したことにある。王は宮殿にいて、農民は小屋にいたが、例外は無かった。」
とはいえこのシステムは決して完全な平等主義では無かった。工業化以前のヨーロッパでは富と生殖の成功の間の正の相関があった。

西欧では一夫多妻制にペナルティを課して非一夫一妻制を生殖と関わらないものに変えたり、完全に抑圧する等の、驚異的な継続性を持つ様々な慣例があった。
これらの慣例の変化や政治・経済構造の大変化にも関わらず、ローマ文明から始まる西洋の家族制度は明らかに一夫一妻制の社会的押し付けを目指してきた。この努力は大部分成功した。

 

一夫一妻制の効果

一夫一妻制は西洋のユニークさの中心的面であり、複数の重要な効果を持つ。
一夫一妻制はヨーロッパ特有の「低圧」人口動態の必要条件である可能性が高い。この人口動態は、経済的欠乏期に高い割合の女性が晩婚になったり独身になった結果である。
一夫一妻制との関連で言えば、一夫一妻制の結婚では男女ともに貧しい者は結婚すらできない状態になる。しかし一夫多妻制では、貧しい女性が過剰にいても、裕福な男性にとって側室の価格が安くなるだけである。
例えば、17世紀末には40~44歳の未婚率は男女共に約23%であった。しかし経済的チャンスの変化に伴って18世紀初頭にはこの割合が9%まで低下し、それに伴い結婚年齢も下がった。
このパターンは一夫一妻制と同様、ユーラシアの階層社会の中ではユニークであった。

同様に、低圧の人口動態は経済状態にも影響したようだ。
結婚率は、人口増加の主な抑制要因であっただけではない。特にイギリスでは好景気に対応する結婚率の上昇が大きく遅れる傾向があったため、人口増加が食料供給にかける圧力より好景気時の資本蓄積の傾向が強かった。

経済の変動と人口動態の変動の間のローリング調整はこのように緩慢に発生した。実質賃金は緩やかに大きく上昇する傾向にあったので、産業革命以前の全ての国の飛躍を妨げてきた低所得の罠から抜け出すチャンスを得た。
実質賃金の長期的な上昇は需要の構造を変化させ、生活必需品以外の商品の需要を不釣り合いに強く押し上げる傾向がある。産業革命が起きた場合は生活必需品以外の部門の成長こそが特に重要になる。

よって一夫一妻制は、工業化の必要条件である低圧の人口動態をもたらしたと考えることもできる。
全体を見れば、女性の晩婚化・独身化がワンパターンで進んでいるわけでは無い。それより、結婚は経済的制約に左右される。
豊かな時代には男女共に結婚年齢が低下し、子供を残さない女性は減った。その結果、リソースの利用能力に非常に左右される結婚制度になった。
「ヨーロッパの重要かつ飛び抜けた特徴は、システム転換の軸となった、人口を経済に適応させる柔軟な結婚制度であった」
これは、一夫一妻制が西洋近代化に不可欠な基本概念の中心面であった可能性を示唆する。

一夫一妻制と子どもへの投資
一夫多妻では、リソースが生殖に割かれて子供への投資が比較的少なくなる傾向がある。一夫多妻の男性にとっては、追加の妻や側室、投資額が少なく済む彼らの子供に向けて追加投資するのが魅力的である。
一夫多妻社会では、追加の側室に投資すれば報酬が大きい傾向があり、その子供への投資も安く済む。
側室の子供には比較的小さな遺産が与えられ、社会的地位は下がるのが一般的であった。
ハーレム女性の子孫の性比は低く、圧倒的に娘が多い。理論的には、一般的に女性の方が交尾しやすいため、低投資で済む子孫に偏ることを示す。
これら側室の娘は父親に比べて社会的地位は低いものの、交尾はしやすい傾向にある。一方で上流階級の息子は身分の低い一族からの持参金競争の対象となった。
いずれにせよ、父親が側室の子供に時間・労力・金銭を投資する必要は殆ど無い。

しかし一夫一妻では、個々の男性が投資できるのは一人の女性の子供に限られる。
拡大された親族関係が衰退し(see below)、全ての社会階層で一夫一妻が制度化されると、 子どもたちへの支援は独立した核家族次第になった。
後述のように、この「シンプルな」家族こそが西洋近代化の決定的手段であった。

 

拡大血縁(extended kinship relations)の衰退と単純世帯の台頭

一夫一妻制の場合と同じく、拡大血縁の衰退にも教会が関与した。
しかしこの場合の教会の政策は、強力な中央政府の台頭に助けられた。中央政府は拡大された家族関係を抑制し、個人の利害を保証することで拡大家族の役割を継承した。

進化論の観点からは、親族関係の潜在的な重要性を過大評価するのは難しい。
生物学的血縁関係のために親族は共通の利害を持ち、協力や自己犠牲行動への閾値も低いであろう。
ローマ帝国末期に西欧の大部分に定住したゲルマン諸部族は、男性間の生物学的血縁関係に基づく血縁グループとして組織化されていた。彼らは血縁の絆に基づく強いグループ連帯感を持っていた。
「初期のゲルマン人は攻撃や飢饉の脅威に直面しても、官僚的帝国の保護と支援に頼ることができなかったため、共同体の各男女は家族や共同体の連帯の絆が体現するグループ・サバイバルという社会生物学の基本原則に固執する義務があった」。
この部族に基づく血縁集団の世界こそが、王や教会が根絶したいものだった。

拡大血縁に対する反対勢力
大規模かつ強力な血縁グループを根絶することは教会と貴族の双方にとって利益があった。
高度に中央集権化された国家権力は、それ自体で拡大血縁の重要性を下げる傾向があり、その権力が個人の利益を保護する場合には特にそうなる。
進化論の観点から見れば、拡大血縁グループはコストと利益がある。
利点はより広い親族から提供される保護と支援であるが、この利点にはコストも伴う。
1)親族からの互恵的なサービスの要求が高まる
2)親族は、ある個人が親族集団の中で他の人より過度に出世するのを妨害する傾向がある事実
3)平等主義と程遠い親族構造の中で自己を確立する困難さ
結果として、自分の利益が他の制度によって保護されている場合、例えば拡大血縁の利益は無くコストだけがある場合には、個人は拡大血縁グループに絡まるのを避けるであろう。
一般に、中央集権が弱体化すると、個人は拡大血縁グループの保護を求める傾向があり、国家権力が自分達の利益を充分守れる力を持つ場合には、それに伴って拡大血縁グループから逃げ出す。

単純な家族に基づき近親者への義務から解放された貴族が、単純な家族構造の農民を支配し、拡大血縁とは違う隣人や友人から成る社会に組み込まれた。それが、徐々に発展した西洋の図式である。
この社会構造は中世後期の成果である。中世後期には、英仏の農民にとって拡大血縁は重要ではなくなっていた。

教会の政策。
教会の政策の一つとして、教会は近親婚(近い血縁の結婚)に反対し、双方の同意のみに基づく結婚を支持して、西欧での拡大血縁の絆の根絶に貢献した。
近親婚については、教会は拡大し続ける個人の集団の間での結婚を禁じた。六世紀にはまたいとこまで、11世紀までには6th cousins、つまりgreat-great-great-great-great grandfatherが共通になる個人にまで禁止が拡大された。
明らかに、これらの近親婚の禁止の範囲は進化論で予測できる範囲より遥かに広い。
加えて、同様に遠い、婚姻で生じた親族(結婚で親族になった場合)や精神的親族の個人間(代父母としての親族)でも結婚は禁じられており、生物学的血縁は重要とされなかった。
この政策の効果は、拡大血縁のネットワークを弱体化させ、より広い親族グループへの義務から解放された貴族を生み出した。

教会のこれらの禁止命令がどのように正当化されたにせよ、貴族が教会の規則に従った証拠がある。
十世紀から十一世紀のフランス貴族の間で、4th or 5th cousinsより近い親族間の結婚はほとんど起きなかった。
これらの慣習は、近親婚の範囲の拡大が「結婚による血縁の強化」を排除して拡大血縁グループの連帯を妨げたので、拡大血縁グループを弱体化させた。
その結果、生物学的血縁が社会の頂点に集中することなく、貴族全体に分散して広がった。
より広い親族グループだけでなく家族の直系の子孫も恩恵を受けた。「世俗の高い地位の男性は、…自分の直系の子孫のためにできるだけ自分の財産と家族を一元管理しようとし、より広い親族は二の次だった」。

近親婚に対する政策に加えて、結婚における同意という教会の教義が、拡大血縁に対抗する力として働いた。
「家族・部族・氏族は個人に従属していた。もし結婚したいなら、自分で相手を選ぶことができ、教会はその選択を弁護する」。結婚は同意の結果として起こり、性交によって批准された。
結婚の基礎を、家族や世俗支配者の支配から当事者自身に譲渡させることで、教会は伝統的親族・家族の絆に対抗する権威を確立した。
結婚相手の選択の自由は近代を通してイングランドの原則であり、親のコントロールは人口の上位1%でのみ起こった。

 

西洋個人主義の民族的基盤

Magian(東方人)の人間は、上から下に降順で整列しており、「我々」なるものの空っぽな一部分にすぎず、全てのメンバーが代わり映えが無い。
肉体と魂としては彼は自立しているが、異質で高次な別のものも彼の中に宿っている。それは彼の全ての気配と信念とを単なるコンセンサスの一員にする。それは神の放出物として、自我の自己主張の可能性を排除する。
彼にとっての真理は、我々、特にヨーロッパ精神を持つ我々にとっての真理と全く異質である。
個人の判断に基づく我々の認識論的方法は全て、彼にとっては狂気とのぼせ上がりである。その科学的結果は、その真の性質と目的において精神を混乱させ欺く邪悪な所業である。
この洞窟の世界の中にはMagianの究極かつ近寄りがたい秘密がある。自我が考え・信じ・知ることの不可能性こそが、これらの宗教の基礎の前提にある。

ファウストの世界観
「Wolfran von Eschenback、セルバンテス、シェイクスピア、ゲーテにとって、個人の人生の悲劇の線は、内側から外側へ、ダイナミックに、機能的に発展する」。
「…神が見せる、または見せたと言われる仮面の言葉が、殴っても空々しく聞こえるならば、神を疑うことさえする」オズワルド・シュペングラー

これまでのところでは、同意と愛、一夫一妻制、拡大血縁の重要性の低下に基づく個人主義的な核家族の出現は、単に私が述べた社会プロセスの結果に過ぎないと思う人もいるだろう。
しかし実際には、これらの変化が世界の他の地域より遥かに素早くかつ徹底的に発生したのである。
西洋世界は、個人主義の全てのマーカーが基本的な特徴である唯一の文化圏であり続けている。一夫一妻制、夫婦の核家族、国家に対抗する個人の権利としての代議制政府、道徳普遍主義、科学。
更に言えばこの文化は、これら特徴を幾つか備えたローマ文明の強固な基盤の上に築かれた。
よって私は、これらの傾向は西欧文化圏のユニークなものであり、民族的基盤が支えていると提唱する。
西欧人がユニークな生物学的適応を果たしているとまでは思わないが、全人類は適応の特徴の程度にそれぞれ違いがあり、ユニークな文化の進化を可能にするには十分な量の違いがあっただけである。
同様に、全ての人間は象徴表現や言語のような特徴的な精神的能力を備えているが、文化に大きな影響を与えるには十分な量の人種間のIQの違いが存在する。恐らく、少なくとも質的な違いをもたらすには十分な量の違いがある。

私は、最近の進化の過程で、ヨーロッパ人はユダヤ民族やその他の中東の人種集団と比べてグループ間自然選択を受けにくかったと提唱する。
これは元々Fritz Lenzが提唱したもので、氷河期の厳しい環境のために北欧人は少人数グループで進化し、社会的孤立の傾向があるというものだ。
この観点は、北欧人がグループ間競争に必要な集産主義メカニズムを持っていないことを示唆するものでは無い。集産主義メカニズムが比較的巧みではない、そして/またはメカニズム発現に、より激しいグループ間紛争が必要だと示唆している。

この観点は生態学の理論と一致する。生態学的に不利な環境下で、適応は他のグループとの競争よりも不利な物理環境に対処することに向けられる。そのような環境下では、拡大血縁ネットワークや高度集産主義グループに対する選択圧力は弱いであろう。
進化論的なエスノセントリズムの概念化は、イングループ競争でのエスノセントリズムの有用さを強調する。したがってエスノセントリズムは物理環境との格闘では全く重要でない。また、そのような環境は巨大なグループを支えられないであろう。

ヨーロッパ人グループは北ユーラシア・北極周辺の文化圏の一部である。この文化圏は、寒冷で生態学的に不利な気候に適応した狩猟採集民に由来する。
このような気候では男性が家族を養う圧力と一夫一妻制に向かう傾向がある。生態が、進化的に重要になる期間に一夫多妻制と大グループを支えなかったからである。
これらの文化では、男性と女性の両系統が双務的に重要になる親族関係が特徴であり、一夫一妻制の条件下で期待される以上に両親の貢献度が対等になると示唆される。
また、拡大血縁は重視されず、結婚は族外婚、つまり親族グループの外に向かって起こる傾向がある。
これらの特徴は全て、ユーラシア南部の旧世界中央部の文化圏の特徴とは反対である。この文化グループにはユダヤ人やその近縁の近東グループがある。

このシナリオは、北欧人が個人主義に向かいやすいことを示唆する。なぜなら彼らは拡大血縁に基づく巨大な部族グループを支えられない生態的環境に長期間住んでいた。
ミトコンドリアDNAによると、ヨーロッパ人の遺伝子の約80%は三~四万年前に中東からヨーロッパに到着した人々に由来する。
これらの集団は氷河期を生き延びた。四万年間北部の寒い曇りの環境で進化したヨーロッパ人は、金髪と青い目だけでなく環境に適応した気質と生活様式の嗜好を発達させたであろう。

これらの人々は農耕種族ではなく、狩猟採集民であった。経済生産のレベルは比較的低いため、狩猟生活では男性は女性を得やすい。
なぜなら、人間の脳に必要なエネルギー量は質の高い食事でのみ満たされるからである。
人間の脳は体重の2%しかないが、全エネルギーの20%を消費し、胎児期には70%を消費する。
これが、一夫一妻の心理的基盤であるつがいの絆(女性が育成し男性が養育する協力体制)を五十万年前から始めさせた。
狩猟には「相当な経験、質の高い教育、長年の集中的な実践」も必要だった。言い換えればこれは高投資の子育てである。
また人間の狩猟は、走力や体力よりも認知能力に左右されるため、知能も必要である。
狩猟のシナリオは複雑かつ常に変化する。どの動物種、個体も、性別・年齢・気候・地形などの内的条件に応じて固有の行動特性を示す。
これらの傾向は全て、単位面積当たりのエネルギーが少ない北方で強い。

歴史的証拠が示すところでは、ヨーロッパ人、特に北西ヨーロッパ人は、強力な中央政府が台頭して自分達の利害が保護された時、比較的早く拡大血縁ネットワークと集産主義の社会構造を捨てた。
中央の権威が台頭すると、世界の普遍的傾向として拡大血縁のネットワークが衰退する。
しかし北西ヨーロッパの場合では、この傾向は遅くとも中世後期までには早くも台頭し、それ以前に既に西欧特有の「単純世帯」は生まれつつあった。
単純世帯は、一夫一妻とその子供たちが基本である。
この世帯のタイプは、フィンランドを除くスカンジナビア・イギリス諸島・ネーデルラント・ドイツ語圏・北フランスで典型的である。
これはユーラシア他地域で典型的な、兄弟とその妻の二組以上の親族カップルから成る共同世帯構造とは対照的である。
産業革命以前の単純世帯は、結婚年齢は遅く、未婚の若者を使用人として働かせて富裕層の家庭の間をぐるぐる回らせることが特徴であった。
共同世帯は、男女とも結婚年齢は早く、出生率は高く、必要に応じて二つ以上の世帯に分離できることが特徴であった。

この単純世帯システムは、個人主義文化の基礎の特徴である。
個人主義の家族は拡大血縁の義務と制約から解放され、世界の他地域で典型的な息苦しい集産主義の社会構造からも解放され、家族自身の利害を追求できるようになった。
個人の同意と夫婦の愛に基づく結婚が早い時期に、親族関係と懸念事項に基づく結婚に取って代わった。

単純世帯の形成に向かうこの比較的強い傾向は、民族性に基づくであろう。
過酷な気候に適応した人々にとって、単純世帯は生態学的に合理的であるだけではない。以前に指摘したように、この傾向はゲルマン民族の間でより強い。
英仏海峡のサンマロとフランス語圏であるスイスのジュネーブを結ぶ「永遠の線」から北東に住むゲルマン民族の区分に対応して、フランス国内に大きな違いが存在することは興味深い発見である。
この地域は18世紀の農業革命以前から、成長する町や都市を養える大規模農業を発展させていた。
それを支えたのは町の熟練職人たちであり、中規模農家たちが形成する大きな階層であった。
彼らは「馬、銅のボウル、ガラスの杯、大抵は靴も持っていた。彼らの子供達は頬がふっくらしており、肩幅は広く、赤ちゃんまで小さな靴を履いていた。これら子供たちは誰も第三世界のくる病の膨れた腹をしていなかった。」
北東部はフランスの工業化と世界貿易の中心になった。

北東部は識字率でも南西部と差があった。19世紀初頭、フランス全体の識字率は約50%に対し、北東部は100%近く、少なくとも17世紀から差が生じていた。
更に身長でも顕著な差があり、18世紀の新兵のサンプルでは北東部の人々の方が2センチ近くも背が高かった。
Ladurieは以下のように指摘した。軍は南西部の背の低い人々をあまり受け入れないため、人口全体で見ればその差はもっと大きいであろう。
家族史家は以下のように指摘した。経済的に独立した核家族への傾向は北部で顕著であり、南東部に移るにつれて共同世帯への傾向が見られる。

これら調査結果は、民族の違いがヨーロッパでの家族形態の地理的違いに寄与していることを強く示唆する。
ゲルマン民族は進化の過程で資源が乏しい北欧で自然選択されたため、個人主義に向かう生物学的傾向が強く、核家族の社会構造へ向かう傾向も強いことが示唆された。
これらグループは拡大血縁グループにあまり魅了されず、拡大血縁ネットワークの衰退に伴って状況が変化すると、単純世帯の構造が素早く出現した。
この単純世帯の構造が比較的容易に採用されたのは、このグループがすでにそのユニークな進化の歴史によって、単純世帯システムに向かう比較的強い心理的素因を持っていたからである。

ゲルマン民族とヨーロッパ他地域の間のシステムの違いは重要ではあるものの、西欧とユーラシア他地域との間の全般的違いほど大きくはない。
単純世帯に向かう傾向と人口動態の変動は北西ヨーロッパで最初に生じたが、比較的早期に全ての西洋諸国に広がった。

西洋のユニークさのもう一つの要素として、単純世帯を特徴とする北西ヨーロッパの農民家庭では、若者を他の家庭の使用人に送り出す慣習があった。
工業化以前のイギリスでは30~40%の若者は他人の家庭に使用人として出向いており、使用人は20世紀まで最大の職業グループであった。
使用人を雇う慣習は、単に外部の人間を導入して誰かのニーズを満たすだけにとどまらない。
人々は時には自分の子供達を使用人に送り出すと共に、同時に縁のない使用人を受け入れた。
使用人になったのは貧しい土地を持たない人々の子供達だけではない。裕福な大農家でさえ子供たちを使用人としてよそに送り出した。
17、18世紀には、人々は結婚後早い段階で、自分の子供達が仕事を手伝えるようになる前に使用人を受け入れ、子供が十分成長して人手が余ったら子供をよその家庭に使用人として送り出した。

これは、深く根付いた文化的慣習が、結果として親族関係に基づかない高水準の互恵関係に結びついたことを示唆する。
この慣習はまた、非親族を世帯の一員に迎え入れるという、相対的なエスノセントリズムの欠如も物語っている。
これらの工業化以前の社会は、拡大血縁を中心に組織されたものでは無く、産業革命と近代世界にあらかじめ適応していたことが容易に理解できる。
ユーラシア他地域では、世帯は親族だけで構成される傾向が強かった。

興味深いことに、古典的中国のような性競争社会では、女性使用人は家長の側室になりやすく、世帯のリソースを直接生殖に回すことができた。
よって西欧モデルでは、裕福な男性はユーラシアの性競争社会よりもはるかに多くの非親族を養っていた。
過酷な気候で生きる狩猟採集社会が大抵、肉などのリソースの共有を目指す非常に巧みな相互扶助のシステムを持つことは興味深い。
工業化以前の西欧に非常に典型的な、非親族同士の相互扶助のシステムも、過酷な北方の気候で長期間進化してきた遺品の一つではないだろうか。

親族社会のしがらみから解放された単純世帯の確立の後には、西洋近代化の他の全てのマーカーが続いた。
個人が国家に対して権利を有する制限された政府、個人の経済的権利に基づく資本主義経済企業、個人主義的な真理の探究としての科学。
個人主義社会は共和制の政治制度と科学的探究の制度を発達させ、グループは最大限の透過性を持ち、個々のニーズを満たせない場合には離反される可能性が高いであろう。

 

個人主義の結婚。結婚の基礎である同意・愛・伴侶関係。

夫婦の同意に基づく単純世帯の台頭は、家族が拡大血縁のしがらみの中にある状況と比較して、結婚相手の個人的な資質がより重要になったことを意味した。
拡大家族が支配する状況では、結婚は一般的に血族婚になり、家族の戦略に左右される。
単純世帯システムでは、結婚相手の個人的特性がより重視される。知能、性格、心理的相性、社会経済的地位などである。

集産主義社会が結婚の際に家系や遺伝的血縁の程度を重視するのに対して、個人主義社会は個人的魅力、例えば恋愛や共通の利害を重視する傾向がある。
ジョン・マネーは、北欧人のグループが結婚の基礎として恋愛を重視する傾向が比較的強いことを指摘した。
Frank Salterは以下のように提唱した。北欧人グループは性行動に関して多くの個人主義的適応を持つ。それには寝取られを防ぐための社会コントロール機構よりむしろ、恋愛や遺伝特性へのより強い傾向がある。
心理的なレベルでは、個人主義の進化論的基盤には、集産主義文化のように家族の戦略や強制によって課されるのではなく、適応的行動が本質的にやりがいがある、恋愛のようなメカニズムが含まれる。
これは、自由に同意できる多かれ少なかれ平等なパートナー間の個人的な求愛と、女性の見合い結婚が成立するまで男性親族に隔離・管理される近東のpurdahの制度の違いである。

中世からパートナー間の愛情と同意に基づく伴侶結婚に向かう傾向が始まり、最終的には高位の貴族の結婚の決定まで左右するようになった。
「大半の社会とは違い、西洋の工業社会では男性と妻の感情の関係が第一優先される」
実際、これは東洋と西洋の階層社会の間で普遍的に異なる点である。
一夫一妻の結婚の基礎としての恋愛の理想化は、古代末期のストア派や19世紀のロマン主義などの西洋の世俗知的運動をも周期的に特徴づけてきた。
他の社会で配偶者間の愛情が存在しないという訳ではない。西洋社会ではそれがより重要であるというだけだ。

中世以来の西洋の結婚の特徴としての、結婚への個人の同意は、結婚相手の個人的な特徴をより重視する個人を生み出すであろう。
その効果の一つは、結婚相手の年齢の平準化である。結婚年齢が比較的平準であることと晩婚化は、西欧結婚システムの特徴である。
女性の結婚年齢は、西欧ではユーラシアやアフリカの他地域よりも高く、これは共同家族が特徴の西欧農民社会を含めても同じ傾向だった。
実際、1550-1775年のイギリスの大規模なサンプルでは、女性の平均結婚年齢は1675年まで26歳前後で変動していたが、1800年には24歳過ぎにまで低下し始めた。

単純世帯がもたらしたもう一つの結果は、愛情とつがいの絆が結婚の基礎になったことである。
結婚は、親族グループ間や親族グループ内での政治同盟、純粋な経済関係、単なる性的競争の側面としては重要性を失い、愛情を含む対人魅力に基づくようになった。
結婚生活での愛情は、単純世帯の台頭と共に文化的な規範となった。
西洋の求愛現象(ユーラシア・アフリカ文化の中でユニークな)は、将来の結婚相手が個人の相性を評価できる期間を提供した。
マルサスの言葉を借りれば、両性に「同類の気質を見出し、結婚生活が幸福より不幸を多く生むことにならないよう、強く持続的な愛着を形成する」機会を与えた。

 

ヨーロッパ人の個人主義と民族意識の低下

ここまでで私が描いたシナリオの要約は以下である。西ヨーロッパ人が比較的エスノセントリックでないのは、拡大血縁が比較的機能しない悪環境の下で長期間自然選択されてきた結果である。
西欧人は拡大血縁の束縛から解放され、原点回帰し、近代化の原動力となった単純世帯を容易に採用した。伴侶結婚、国家に対抗する個人の権利、代議制政府、道徳普遍主義、科学。
その結果、創造性、征服、富の創造などの、現代まで続く並外れた時代が到来した。
しかし、ユダヤ教に関する私の著作のテーマの一つは以下である。個人主義は、凝集的グループ戦略に対して貧弱で無力な戦略である。

西洋では、近代化に必要な前段階として拡大血縁グループが排除されたが、グループ間競争が全面的に排除されたわけでは無い。
19世紀以降、集産主義者で民族意識が強いユダヤ人たちと、西洋個人主義エリートたちとの間で競争が起きた。

人類学的には、ユダヤ人は旧世界中部の文化圏に由来する。
この文化圏は、西洋社会組織の特徴とは正反対である。Table 1に示すように、ユダヤ教は集産主義であり、エスノセントリズム・xenophobia(外国人憎悪)・moral particularism(道徳非普遍主義)に陥りやすい。

Table 1 省略

ユダヤ教に関する私の著作では、個人主義社会は、歴史的にはユダヤ教が代表する凝集的グループの侵略に対して特に脆弱であるというテーマが随所に登場する。
進化経済学者の最近の研究は、個人主義文化と集産主義文化の違いについて、興味深い洞察を提供する。
この研究の重要な面は、個人主義グループ間の協力の進化をモデル化する点にある。
人々は「ワンショットゲーム」で離反者を利他的に罰する。このゲームでは参加者同士は一度しか交流せず、交流相手の評判はゲームを左右できない。
この状況は、参加者は親戚関係のない他人であるため、個人主義文化をモデル化している。
驚くべき発見として、公共財の寄付を高水準で行った被験者は、寄付しない参加者を、罰するコストをわざわざ費やしてまで罰する傾向があった。
そして、罰せられた人は、以降のラウンドの参加者が前のと違うのを知っていたにもかかわらず、戦略変更してより多くの寄付をするようになった。
研究者たちは以下のことを提唱した。個人主義文化圏の人々は、free ridingに対するネガティヴな感情反応を進化させ、自分がコストを払ってでもフリーライダーを罰するようになった。これは”altruistic punishment”(利他的罰)と呼ばれる。

この研究は本質的に、個人主義の人々の間の協力の進化モデルを提供する。
彼らの結果は個人主義グループに最も当てはまる。なぜなら、そのようなグループは拡大血縁グループに基づいていないため、離反がより起きやすい。
高レベルの利他的罰は一般的に、拡大家族を基盤とする親族ベースの社会より、個人主義の狩猟採集社会で多く見られる。
彼らの結果は、ユダヤ人グループや他の高度集産主義グループのような、伝統社会では拡大血縁・既知の親族関係・メンバー間の繰り返しの相互関係に基づくグループには、ほとんど当てはまらない。
そのような状況では主体者は拡大血縁ネットワークに巻き込まれており、もしくはユダヤ人のように民族グループで固まっているため、協力者を知っており、将来の協力への期待も込みである。

よって、ヨーロッパ人は正にこの研究がモデル化した類のグループである。
彼らは拡大家族のメンバーとよりも見知らぬ人との協調性が高いグループであり、マーケットでの関係や個人主義に傾倒しやすい。

これは以下のような魅力的な可能性を示唆する。ヨーロッパ人同士を互いに離反させようとするグループにとっての鍵は、ヨーロッパ人自身が道徳的非難に値することを彼らに納得させることで、ヨーロッパ人同士の間で利他的罰を引き起こさせる点にある。
ヨーロッパ人は根っからの個人主義者であり、他のヨーロッパ人がフリーライダーであり道徳的非難に値すると見なすと、道徳的怒りでそのヨーロッパ人に対して容易に決起する。これは、狩猟採集民として進化した過去に由来する、利他的罰への強い傾向の発現である。
利他的罰の判断を下すのに、相対的な遺伝距離は無関係である。フリーライダーはマーケットにおいて見知らぬ人であり、つまり彼らは利他的罰を行う側とは家族・部族のつながりは無い。

ピューリタンは、利他的罰を求めるこの傾向の典型例として、非常に興味深く影響力のあるヨーロッパ人グループである。
ピューリタンの決定的特徴は、道徳問題としてユートピアの大義を追求する傾向である。彼らは’よりハイレベルの法’に対するユートピア的訴えや、政府の主要目標は道徳にあるという信念に左右されやすい。
ニューイングランドは「人間の信念を完成させ」、「沢山の’isms(主義)’の生みの親」になるのに最も適した肥沃な土地であった。
政治的代替案を、一方を悪魔の化身として、他方を道徳的に必要不可欠なものとして、極端に物事を対照的に考える傾向があった。
ピューリタンの道徳的熱情は、彼らの「深い個人的な敬虔さ」、つまり聖なる生活だけでなく厳格で勤勉な生活を送りたいという彼らの献身への熱意にも見て取れる。

ピューリタンは道徳的正しさを求めて、自分達の遺伝的いとこに対してさえ聖戦を繰り広げた。
これは、拡大血縁に基づくグループよりも、協力的な狩猟採集グループの間で多く見られる利他的罰の一形態であることが示唆される。
例えば、南北戦争につながった政治・経済の複雑さがどうであれ、ヤンキーの奴隷制に対する道徳的非難がレトリックを左右し、アフリカからの奴隷の代理人として英米人の近親者同士が行った大規模な殺戮はピューリタンの中で正当化された。
軍事的には南部連合との戦争は、アメリカ人の生命と財産にこれまでで最大の犠牲を強いた。
ピューリタンの道徳熱と、悪人への厳罰を正当化する傾向は、以下のコメントにも見て取れる。「ニューヨークのHenry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Churchの会衆派牧師は’ドイツ人を絶滅させ…1000万人のドイツ兵の不妊手術と女性の隔離’を呼び掛けるほどだった」。

これらが現代西洋文明に特徴的な、現在見られるような利他的罰である。
一度ヨーロッパ人が自分達自身の民族が道徳的に破産したと確信したら、あらゆる罰の手段を自分達の民族自身に対して用いるであろう。
他のヨーロッパ人を包括的な民族・部族共同体の一部と見なすよりも、同じヨーロッパ人を道徳的非難に値する存在と見なし、利他的罰の標的と見なした。
西洋人にとっては道徳は個人主義的である。フリーライダーが共同体規範を侵害すると、利他的攻撃で罰せられる。

一方で、ユダヤ教のような集産主義文化に由来するグループ戦略は、親族関係やグループの絆が優先されるため、それら策略に対して免疫がある。
彼らの道徳は非普遍主義である。グループの利害のためならどのようなことも正当化する。
これらグループの進化の歴史は、見知らぬ人とではなく親族同士との協力が中心であったため、利他的罰の伝統を持たない。

よって、ヨーロッパ人を破滅させる最良の戦略は、ヨーロッパ人に自身の道徳的破産を確信させることである。
私の著作「The Culture of Critique(批判の文化): An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements」の主題は、これこそがユダヤ人知的運動がやってきたことだと証明する点にあった。
彼らは、ユダヤ教はヨーロッパ文明よりも道徳的に優れており、ヨーロッパ文明は道徳的に破綻しており、利他的罰の標的に相応しいと訴えてきたのだ。
その結果、ヨーロッパ人は自身の道徳的堕落を一たび確信すれば、利他的罰の発作で自分達自身を破滅させようとする。
道徳的な猛攻が利他的罰の発作を誘発した結果として、西洋の文化が全面的に解体され、最終的に民族の実体のようなものさえ死滅するようなことが起きる。
こうしてユダヤ人知識人たちの間では以下の激しい努力が見られる。ユダヤ教の道徳的優越性と歴史上の不当な被害者の役割のイデオロギーを維持する努力。同時に、西洋の道徳的正当性を猛攻撃する継続的努力。

つまり、個人主義社会は、ユダヤ教のような高度集産主義・グループ最優先の戦略を持つ人々にとって望ましい環境である。
非ヨーロッパ系移民の問題が、米国のみならず西洋世界全体で深刻かつ争点だらけの問題となり、他地域では全くそうなっていないことは重要である。
ヨーロッパ起源の民族だけが、世界の他の民族に門戸を開いて、数百年占有してきた自民族の領土の支配権を失う危険にさらされている。
そして彼らは大部分、移民活動家たちが自身の民族的目標を達成するべく巧みに利用した道徳的反省に、引っ張られ誘導されていた。

西洋社会には個人主義ヒューマニズムの伝統があり、それが移民制限を困難にしている。
例えば19世紀には最高裁は、中国人排斥法を、個人に対してではなくグループに対して立法しているという理由で二度却下している。
移民制限の知的根拠を構築する努力の道には紆余曲折があった。
1920年まで、移民制限論は北西ヨーロッパ人の民族的利害の正当性を根拠としており、人種主義の思想を帯びていた。
これらの発想はいずれも、Israel Zangwill等のユダヤ人移民推進活動家が強調したように、人種・民族グループへの帰属が公的な知的是非を問われない共和制・民主主義社会の政治・道徳・人道イデオロギーとの調和が困難なものであった。
1952年のMcCarran-Walter act immigration actを巡る論争で、これら民族的自己利害の主張が「同化可能性」のイデオロギーに置き換えられたことは、反対派にとっては「racism(人種主義)」の煙幕に過ぎないと受け取られた。
結局この知的伝統は、本書で検討した知的運動の猛攻の結果として倒壊し、ヨーロッパ出身諸民族の民族利害を守る中心の柱も倒壊した。

ユダヤ人知識人の非常に顕著な戦略の一つは、社会の民族基盤が全般的に損なわれるほどの radical individualism(急進的個人主義)とmoral universalism(道徳普遍主義)の促進であった。
言い換えればこれら運動は、西洋社会がすでに個人主義と道徳普遍主義のパラダイムを採用しており、自民族に対する利他的罰を行う傾向が強い点を利用した。
これら運動は、ユダヤ教を強い凝集力のあるグループベースの運動として無傷で残したまま、ヨーロッパ人に残っていたグループ凝集の源泉を弱体化させた。
この戦略の手本はフランクフルト社会研究学派の取り組みである。左翼の政治イデオロギーや精神分析家たちについても同様であろう。
端的に言えば、非ユダヤ人グループ(特にヨーロッパ系)のアイデンティティは精神病の指標とされている。

拡大血縁の衰退と個人主義の台頭にもかかわらず、ヨーロッパ人はより大きな共同体の一員としての意識を完全に放棄してはいなかった。
米国のヨーロッパ人は20世紀に入っても、人種に基づく民族感覚を保ち続けていた。
この民族感覚、人種の一員であるという意識は、ダーウィン主義の学問が支えていた。ダーウィン主義者たちは、人種間の差異を確立された科学的知見と考えただけでなく、白色人種をユニークな才能を持つ人種と考えていた。
しかし、生物学の視点で民族感覚を見出そうとするこの最後の試みは急激に衰退した。The Culture of Critiqueで論じたような知的運動の結果、今日では学界で恐怖の目で見られている。

 

Conclusion

西洋の個人主義社会が、ヨーロッパ起源の人々の正当な利害を守ることができるかどうか、疑わしい。
現在の傾向から言って、個人主義を放棄できないなら、最終的にはヨーロッパ人の遺伝・政治・文化影響力はかなり減少していくと予想できる。
これはパワーの前代未聞の自主放棄である。進化論者は、どこかの段階で人口の大部分がそのような自主放棄に抵抗すると予想する。
抵抗する彼らは恐らく、我々の中のよりエスノセントリックな人々であろう。
皮肉なことにこの抵抗反応は、グループに奉仕する集産主義のイデオロギーと社会組織を採用し、ユダヤ教の一面を模倣するであろう。
ヨーロッパ人の衰退が進むか止まるかに関わらず、グループ進化戦略としてのユダヤ教が西洋社会の針路を左右し続けるであろう。

 

引用・参考文献等は原文を参照

A Fascist Fun-Day: Enrichment for Whites, Ethnocentrism for Jews

“Hideously white.” That was what a righteous White leftist called Greg Dyke called the BBC in 2001. Dyke was actually the Chief Commissar of the BBC at the time. And did he then resign in protest at his own “hideous whiteness”? Or did he vow that, henceforth, he would donate at least half of his huge salary to pro-Black causes and anti-racist charities?

Wiping out Whiteness

No, of course he didn’t do that. Leftists believe in posturing, not in payment. They pose and posture; ordinary Whites then pay the price. And Dyke followed another leftist rule in his attack on his own organization: he didn’t speak the truth. The BBC wasn’t “hideously white,” because Whites weren’t over-represented there. He said, for example, that “the management of the BBC” was “almost entirely white.” In fact, the management of the BBC has been disproportionately Jewish for many decades and Jews do not regard themselves as White. Dyke himself doesn’t appear to be Jewish, but he knows from the inside how successful Jews have been at the BBC: Alan Yentob, Danny Cohen, Jenny Abramsky, Mark Damazer, and more have all held positions of great power and influence.

Genuine British Whites were actually under-represented at the BBC in 2001, particularly in management, and they’ve only become more so since then. The BBC reflects Britain as a whole: hideous whiteness has fallen, ethnic enrichment has soared. Britain’s tiny but very powerful and influential Jewish community has played a central role in wiping out Whiteness. Barbara Roche, the Jewish immigration minister under traitorous Tony Blair, told the Guardian in 2001 that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In 2003, while urging her party “to promote the benefits of legal migration,” she told the Independent that “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics.”

Britain is a Judeocracy, not a democracy

That’s why Roche opened Britain’s borders to the Third World with great enthusiasm but little fanfare. After all, the Labour party didn’t want to alert its traditional supporters in the White working-class. But those supporters noticed what was happening and didn’t like it. They wanted much less migration and much more control of the borders. That’s why they turned away from Labour and gave their votes to the Conservatives. Their switch has had no effect. The Tories entered government loudly promising to control migration and have completely failed to fulfil their promises. This failure has been explained by the part-Jewish George Osborne, former Chancellor in the Conservative government: in 2017 he “revealed that, despite having pledged to reduce immigration in both its 2010 and 2015 general election manifestos, the Tory leadership secretly abandoned this ambition long ago.”

Well, it was “secret” to the ordinary Whites who voted Tory, but not to the Jews who finance the Tory party and are heavily over-represented in its senior ranks. If Jews didn’t want open borders, Britain wouldn’t have them. But Jews do want open borders and that’s why Britain has them. The same applies in the US, where righteous Jews in the Democratic government keep the borders open and crack down on White supremacism. Ethnic enrichment is good for Jews, as Barbara Roche herself pointed out in 2011:

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

Roche felt “comfortable” because, amid that “kaleidoscope of skin colours,” she didn’t stand out as a Jew. But she would have felt exceedingly uncomfortable if she’d been at Aldenham Country Park in Hertfordshire on 12th June this year. There was no “kaleidoscope of color” at the park, just a sea of staleness and paleness. What was happening? Well, a group of white supremacists were celebrating what they dishonestly called a “Family Fun-Day.” In fact, it was a Fascist Fun-Day. Why else were communities of color so conspicuously and horrifically absent from the festivities? Photographs of the Fun-Day reveal that it was “hideously white.”

But that Fascist Fun-Day was even worse than it appeared, because a large group of Jews were there at the same time: the charity Jewish Care had booked Aldenham Country Park for a genuine “Family Fun-Day” on the exact same day. I can only conclude that the Jewish families turned up, saw the hideous whiteness of the fascists at the park, and fled for their lives. Jews “love diversity,” remember. They “just feel comfortable” amid a “kaleidoscope of skin colours.” So while the fascist fun-day was a sea of hideous whiteness, the Family Fun-Day organized by Jewish Care would have been a kaleidoscope of color. It’s no coincidence that a Jew called Enver Solomon heads the Refugee Council, which works night and day to enrich Britain with Blacks, Muslims and other vibrant folk from the Third World.

Enver Solomon, anti-White head of the Refugee Council


When the so-called Conservative government pretended it was going to get “tough” on illegal migrants by sending them to Rwanda (see Andrew Joyce’s “Thoughts on Britain’s Rwanda Plan” at TOO), Solomon wrote a stern article for the Guardian entitled: “UK asylum seekers sent to Rwanda? That takes punishment of fellow humans to a new level.” He’s following that age-old Jewish injunction to “Welcome the Stranger,” as set forth in the Jewish Bible. And so Jewish Care would surely have invited their “natural allies” in the Muslim and Black communities to join the Family Fun-Day at Aldenham Country Park.

A hideously white advert for Jewish Care’s Family Fun-Day 2022

Well, sarcasm over. Jewish Care didn’t invite Muslims and Blacks to join the festivities, of course. The photographs aren’t of a Fascist Fun-Day but of a genuine Jewish Family Fun-Day. That’s why the photos are “hideously white.” Ashkenazi Jews flocked to Hertfordshire to enjoy what they assiduously deny to White British goyim: the exclusive company of their own kind. Jewish Care’s Family Fun-Day wasn’t enriched with Blacks or Muslims, which is why it wasn’t enriched with crime or obnoxious behavior either. While working tirelessly to turn Britain and other Western countries into Third-World swamps, Jews are careful to maintain ethnocentric islands amid the chaos and crime. If those islands are ever threatened with submersion by vibrancy, Jews have a secure place to flee: the ethnocentric enclave of Israel, where that age-old Jewish injunction to “Welcome the Stranger” is completely ignored. Israel doesn’t welcome black and brown strangers: it keeps them out with high-tech fences.

The creation of Fortress Israel — the Hebrew text, running right-left, reads “Likud: Israel-Egypt Fence”


But what’s good for Jews — ethnocentrism and exclusion — isn’t good for goyim. Or rather, it is good for goyim, but that’s precisely why Jews want to deny it to goyim. Jews don’t want what’s best for Whites: they want what’s worst for Whites. That’s why both America and Britain have open borders and endless ethnic enrichment. Jews are in control of politics on both sides of the Atlantic, so governments pursue what’s worst for Whites, not what’s best. But I think Jews should remember a warning from their own Bible: “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.” (Proverbs 26:27)