Shortly after Nathan Cofnas published his first article on Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique in 2018,^[1] I spent a few weeks sketching out a quite extensive ‘skeleton’ for a rebuttal I intended to flesh out and publish at The Occidental Observer. The speed and extent of replies from MacDonald,^[2] and, later, Ed Dutton, eventually made me think that my own effort would appear belated and redundant, and so I abandoned the idea even though I felt that some of my own criticisms hadn’t really been touched upon by either MacDonald or Dutton. Afterwards, a number of more minor exchanges and replies took place between these figures, but the repetitive and intransigent nature of Cofnas’s replies, even when faced with clear examples of the weakness of his “default hypothesis,” only increased my apathy and deterred me from getting involved.

It would appear, however, that Cofnas intends to milk as many publications as he can from a single set of poor ideas, as demonstrated by the fact he has now yet again essentially republished his original article, with some very minor tweaks, in Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel. What follows is my perspective on the work of Nathan Cofnas, stripped of the usual academic pleasantries, in the hope that it will offer readers a more clear-sighted insight into the matters under discussion.

Does Kevin MacDonald Omit Contradictory Data and Misrepresent His Sources?

The most obvious methodological problem with the articles produced by Cofnas thus far on the work of Kevin MacDonald is that they are historiographically illiterate. In neither his original 2018 article, nor the 2021 rehash, does Cofnas cite a single volume of serious thematic history on the Jews and their relations with Europeans, or demonstrate in any way that he has consulted one. In none of his essays does he explore in any fashion the second, and most historiographically intensive, of MacDonald’s three volumes, Separation and Its Discontents (SAID) (although he does claim [absurdly] that his critique of The Culture of Critique (CofC) also refutes SAID). Nor does he demonstrate anywhere in his work that he has in fact read it. The expected rejoinder would be that Cofnas is merely a philosopher concerned with biology and ethics, to which one can only respond that while Kevin MacDonald is a professor of evolutionary psychology, he still managed to consult and integrate around two hundred historical monographs when he decided to explore the historical trajectory and behavioral traits of the Jews.

Cofnas, who cites himself and webzines more than monographs, has attempted to escape from having to rely on historiography, much of which is quite frankly damning of everything he’s written, via two primary strategies. The first is that he simply rubbishes MacDonald’s use of historiography, accusing MacDonald of relying on “systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” For such a bold statement, however, Cofnas merely references his own original article as supporting evidence for it, and spends only one paragraph in that original article attempting to prove its veracity, with one of its central pillars being the claim that MacDonald omits evidence that might run counter to his theory of a group evolutionary strategy. In his 2018 article, for example, Cofnas writes of Culture of Critique,

Nowhere in the book does he acknowledge that a great deal of Jewish involvement in politics across time and place has been decidedly opposed to narrow Jewish interests, including Israel. The most influential Jewish radical in history, Karl Marx, held extremely anti-Jewish views.

The implication here, somewhat muddled, is that MacDonald is willing to refer, for example, to Karl Marx as a Jew and a radical socialist, but not as an anti-Semite. It’s an unfortunate example offered by Cofnas, however, because MacDonald does in fact do the latter right at the beginning of his chapter (3) on Jews and the Left. In MacDonald’s own words,

Marx himself, though born of two ethnically Jewish parents, has been viewed by many as an anti-Semite. His critique of Judaism (“On the Jewish Question”) conceptualized Judaism as fundamentally concerned with egoistic money seeking; it has achieved world domination by making both man and nature into saleable objects. Marx viewed Judaism as an abstract principle of human greed that would end in the communist society of the future.

And there is a long footnote to this passage discussing some of the claims made by various scholars regarding Marx’s Jewish identity, the point being that Cofnas’s bald assertion that Marx was an anti-Semite is historically illiterate. So much for “nowhere in the book.” It’s difficult to imagine a clearer and more succinct enunciation and summary of the anti-Jewish aspects of Karl Marx’s thought, which MacDonald then clearly and thoughtfully addresses. Citing Jacob Katz (and as an owner of several volumes by Katz I’ve checked for accuracy), perhaps the foremost mainstream 20th century scholar of Jewish-Christian relations between the medieval and modern periods, MacDonald astutely qualifies his summary of Marx’s anti-Semitism by stressing that “Marx argued against the idea that Jews must give up their Jewishness to be German citizens, and he envisioned that Judaism, freed from the principle of greed, would continue to exist in the transformed society after the revolution.” Cofnas not only doesn’t have a response to this fact, or the source material, his article merely dissembles that it doesn’t exist, or that MacDonald in any case doesn’t make reference to it. Again, this is in the context of Cofnas’s accusation of “misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” Who is really misrepresenting sources in this instance?

The specific accusation that MacDonald had misrepresented and cherry-picked facts had particular resonance for me because the wording was very similar to an old exchange I’d read on H-Net over a decade ago when I first encountered MacDonald’s work. Of the trilogy, I had read Separation and Its Discontents first, and found it nothing less than remarkable. I quickly ordered the other two volumes, and after that began reading ‘around’ the books, as is my inescapable habit with any text, by consulting available scholarly criticism. During this process, I came across the complaints of several Jewish scholars, most prominent among them David I. Lieberman (then, like Cofnas, a doctoral student—in musicology), who would later belatedly admit of MacDonald’s trilogy “I was able to complete a thorough reading and critique of only volume one and some skimming of the other two.” Cofnas, of course, openly admitted in his first essay to not even considering the first two volumes.

Nevertheless, despite evidence of only the most superficial reading, Lieberman and a handful of others made enough accusations (as with Cofnas, these were only rarely or pedantically substantiated) of manipulation of sources in CofC for me to engage in a few days of detective work. I was more or less encamped in my college library at the time and, while I couldn’t consult all of the works listed by MacDonald in SAID and CofC, I was able to find most of the historical works, and ended that few days of research satisfied that MacDonald’s use of the scholarly sources was both accurate and appropriate. I don’t know anything about Cofnas’s methodology in preparing his critique of MacDonald’s work, although it looks like no more than a couple of afternoons spent on the internet, but I can say that what he has written is most certainly not original, at least not to anyone remotely familiar with the extensive (and around 20-year-old) H-Net exchanges. In fact, Cofnas comes across as a very pale and embarrassing echo of Lieberman. Has Cofnas simply “borrowed” Lieberman’s accusations of source misrepresentation and cherry-picking, assuming them to have more substance than they in fact do? This is anyone’s guess, although I’m fairly certain of my own opinion on the matter.

I think it would be beneficial to closely examine at least one of the major original H-Net “manipulation/omission” accusations in order to explore more deeply the way these Jewish students have approached both MacDonald and the source material. In a 2001 post titled “MacDonald’s citations and silences,” Lieberman focuses heavily on MacDonald’s discussion of Jewish support for communism in Poland between 1939 and 1945. In fact, the vast majority of his discussion of putative source manipulation concerns this one narrow area. Lieberman writes,

Kevin MacDonald’s discussion of Jews in Communist Poland [“Jedwabne,” 16 Feb 2001] continues to exhibit the tendencies I explore in my Occasional Paper on his citations to Jaff Schatz: principally, MacDonald bases conclusions on isolated quotations drawn from his sources, ignoring contradictory data that appears in those same sources. MacDonald’s conclusion: “Jews were correctly perceived as more welcoming of the Soviets after the 1939 invasion and as more loyal to the Communist regime after 1945.” I have already noted that MacDonald’s generalizations about Jewish group loyalty to the postwar Communist regime in Poland rest heavily on his omission of large-scale Jewish emigration as a factor in assessing Jewish loyalty. Schatz reports figures that show a decline in the Jewish population of some two-thirds between 1945 and 1949, information MacDonald withholds from his readers. (Schatz, 1991, 203, 207, 208). [emphasis added]

The first problem with this critique should be obvious. Here we have Lieberman accusing MacDonald of lifting quotes out of context, who then, without the slightest hint of irony, proceeds to refer to just a single, context-less sentence from MacDonald. Cofnas performs much the same charade, and it is as tedious as it is pathetic. In CofC, MacDonald in fact spends ten pages discussing Jews and Polish communism, in which there is much nuance and several streams of argument, which Lieberman would have us dismiss because the Jewish student is unhappy with the way in which MacDonald summarizes some of it. If we read Lieberman’s critique more closely, we see that his problem is not with the first half of the sentence, since on that matter Lieberman has nothing to say. And nor should he have something to say, since it is scholarly consensus (not to mention common sense) that Polish Jews in 1939, temporarily or otherwise, found the communists the better option between the more anti-Semitic National Socialists and the equally anti-Jewish Polish Nationalists. The problem then, is with MacDonald’s assertion that Jews remaining in Poland after 1945 were correctly perceived as more loyal to the Communist regime. Here, Lieberman makes the case that this is incorrect because MacDonald hasn’t taken into account Jewish emigrants. Again, to be absolutely clear, Lieberman is unhappy that in a discussion of loyalty to the Communist regime among Jews in Poland, MacDonald is not discussing Jews who emigrated. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees no contradiction in MacDonald’s treatment of the subject here. MacDonald’s argument is primarily that Jews are highly ethnocentric and are flexible strategists in pursuing their interests. The majority of Polish Jews after 1945 saw their group and individual interests better served in emigrating, primarily to Israel. And here we have a repetition of Cofnas’s “nowhere in the book” howler, because contrary to Lieberman’s accusation of omission, MacDonald clearly refers to, and explains, the emigration of “most Polish Jews” to Israel in the course of his discussion of Polish Jews and communism, at the bottom of page 66 (paperback edition).

The accusation of omission, like that of our new Lieberman-lite in relation to Marx, is simply bogus — the result either of blatant lies or of mere “skimming” of the texts these students pretentiously attempt to critique. This just leaves us with the commonsense idea that those Jews who remained and did not emigrate would have likely possessed a particular loyalty to the Communist regime. Lieberman offers no argument to this assertion. And so we see that behind big, bold accusations of source misrepresentation and omission we find nothing but poor reading comprehension and an incomplete study of the texts on the part of the student critics.

This pattern is repeated for all of Lieberman’s accusations, as I discovered more than a decade ago, and which sparked my first correspondence with MacDonald. Where MacDonald is accused of “ignoring contradictory data” we most often find that MacDonald has in fact included the contradictory data and that it has been ignored or missed by critics. In other instances, we find that the ignored “data” is simply the subjective opinion of a historian which MacDonald is by no means obliged to agree with. Lieberman’s charade lasted around two years.  Sleepy Nathan Cofnas, with his single paragraph, seems to be attempting a similar challenge but is noticeably “low energy” when compared to his predecessor. Cofnas’s similarly sleepy attempts to challenge MacDonald on post-World War II Poland were discussed extensively in MacDonald’s first (pp. 28–30) and second reply (pp. 31–32).

The “In Default” Hypothesis

Nathan Cofnas has made much of his ‘default hypothesis,” which leaves so much unsaid that it would be more accurately described as the “in default hypothesis.” Cofnas argues that, predominantly due to a higher than average IQ and a tendency toward urban living, Jews will naturally be over-represented in all intellectual movements and activities that are not overtly anti-Semitic. As such, while Jews may be overrepresented in pro-immigration, pro-pluralism organizations and movements, the default hypothesis insists that they will also be overrepresented in nationalist, anti-immigration or restrictionist movements (that are not anti-Semitic) also. There is an inherent implication that these overrepresentations will be, more or less, to the same degree, since Cofnas refuses to discuss the matter in any serious way that might allow for, or explain, why any potential divergence in over-representation might occur.

I tested this hypothesis almost three years ago in a survey of pro-immigration and anti-immigration bodies titled “Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations.” The senior staff directories of the three most prominent anti-immigration think tanks currently in operation in United States were consulted—are the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). At FAIR, four of 52 senior staff members are Jewish, including President Dan Stein, Media Director Ira Mehlman, and Board members Sarah G. Epstein and Paul Nachman. This is a Jewish representation of approximately 7.7%. Across all three major anti-immigration organizations, Jews occupy 5.13% of senior roles. This is a modest over-representation of Jews relative to their proportion of the population compared to many other areas, but may in fact be a very generous figure to settle on as an approximate broader working figure, because Jews were totally absent from the senior levels of every smaller organization consulted. For example, no Jews were/are listed on staff at similar but smaller groups such as American Immigration Control Foundation, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, ProjectUSA, or American Patrol. There is thus a very real possibility that Jews are not over-represented at all in terms of involvement in anti-immigration politics. As well as quantitative data, qualitative data should also of course be considered, especially where it sheds light on the motivations of Jewish members/leaders and how these match, or diverge from, the motivations and goals of their non-Jewish counterparts. One FAIR insider, for example, has remarked of Dan Stein,

FAIR has been described by former board members as “Dan Stein’s 401(k) plan.” It scarfs up most of the immigration patriot money available, especially from timid Establishment foundations, does essentially nothing and spends a lot of its time undercutting and blocking potential rivals. Stein has been running FAIR since 1988, i.e., has presided over a period of continuous defeats for the immigration patriot movement. Activists seriously debate whether he is a mole.

Working within MacDonald’s theoretical framework, in which concerns about anti-Semitism will be primary among Jews of all political hues, a reasonable prediction would be that Jewish representation in anti-immigration movements would be both exceptional in the larger picture of the immigration debate, and, rather than being concerned about traditional America as a whole, will be focused almost exclusively on the exclusion of those immigrants or refugees perceived to be anti-Semitic, especially Muslims from the Middle East. In other words, such representations will be based on what might be termed renegade, minority, or abnormal perceptions of Jewish interests, rather than shared concerns or earnest sympathies with the greater mass of the native population.

In this regard, Ira Mehlman and Stephen Steinlight are especially interesting figures. In a 2012 interview with Peter Beinart, Mehlman is unambiguous in telling his interviewer: “current mass immigration policies are harming the interests of American Jews. … Mass immigration is introducing large numbers of new people to American society who hold far less favorable opinions of Jews.” Similarly, in 2001 Steinlight penned an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies bluntly titled “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography.” In the course of the essay, Steinlight condemns earlier periods of nativism and restrictionism in the United States, and strongly promotes pluralistic and multicultural ideals. In fact, Steinlight’s only apparent grievance with existing immigration structures is that they have resulted in the fact at some point in the next 20 years Muslims will outnumber Jews, and that Muslims with an “Islamic agenda” are growing active politically through a widespread network of national organizations. This is occurring at a time when the religion of Islam is being supplanted in many of the Islamic immigrant sending countries by the totalitarian ideology of Islamism of which vehement anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism form central tenets.

Such sentiments are essentially neoconservative, itself of course a largely Jewish ideological movement in conflict with native interests, and are entirely predictable within the basic theoretical framework offered by MacDonald, while doing little or nothing to corroborate the default hypothesis offered by Cofnas. Steinlight and Mehlman are primarily concerned by potential increases in anti-Semitism and a decline in Jewish political clout, and not with any broader implications of pluralism, multiculturalism, or White demographic decline which are the primary concerns of the vast majority of White anti-immigration activists. The point here is that MacDonald’s thesis does not require every Jewish academic to cynically use his or her discipline to advance Jewish interests, but that it does advance the idea that Jews will overwhelmingly see support for pluralism and mass immigration as being in their interests. This idea was then tested in relation to Jewish representation in refugee and pro-immigration organizations.

In contrast to a generously assumed overrepresentation of Jews in anti-immigration groups (around 5% at absolute maximum), Jews are nothing short of prolific in influential senior roles in contemporary refugee, asylum, and pro-migration organizations. Significantly, Jews occupy the leadership of all four of the largest and most influential (and nominally secular) organizations active in America today, the International Rescue Committee (President and CEO David Miliband), Refugees International (President Eric P. Schwartz, formerly of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society [HIAS]), International Refugee Assistance Project (Director Becca Heller), and Human Rights Watch (Executive Director Kenneth Roth, and Deputy Directors Iain Levine and Fred Abrahams). The International Rescue Committee works closely with the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Division of Refugee Assistance, which was reported in August 2018 as quietly removing its staff directory page. Consultations with the Internet Wayback Machine revealed the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to be one Carl Rubenstein, an alumnus of Tel Aviv Law School. In 2017, the IRC, in conjunction with Rubenstein’s ORR, resettled more than 51,000 migrants to the United States. Jews are very prominent in the leadership of the IRC. In addition to President and CEO David Miliband, there are at least 30 Jews in senior positions within the organization including

Morton I. Abramowitz (Overseer), Madeleine Albright (Overseer), Laurent Alpert (Board Member), Clifford Asness (Board Member), Betsy Blumenthal (Overseer), Alan Batkin (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), Michael W. Blumenthal (Overseer), Susan Dentzer (Board Member), Evan G. Greenberg (Overseer), Morton I. Hamburg (Overseer), Leila Heckman (Overseer), Karen Hein (Overseer), Marvin Josephson (Overseer),Alton Kastner (Overseer and former Deputy Director), Henry Kissinger (Overseer), David A. Levine (Board Member), Reynold Levy (Overseer), Robert E. Marks (Overseer), Sara Moss (Overseer), Thomas Nides (Board Member), Susan Petricof (Overseer), Gideon Rose (Overseer), Thomas Schick (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), James Strickler (Overseer), Sally Susman (Board Member), Mona Sutphen (Board Member), Merryl Tisch (Board Member), Maureen White (Board Member), Jonathan Wiesner (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), William Winters (Overseer), and James D. Wolfensohn (Overseer).

The Board of the IRC is comprised of 30 individuals, 12 of whom are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at senior board level of 40%. The Board of Overseers consists of 78 individuals, of whom at least 25 are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at this level of just over 32%. Since Jews occupy the position of CEO at the IRC, as well as 40% of the senior board and 32% of the lower board, it would be reasonable to assert that they enjoy a dominant role within the organization. This dwarfs any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups, and creates a significant problem in attempting to apply Cofnas’s default hypothesis.

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) came to national prominence when Director Becca Heller brought a class action suit against Trump’s January 2017 travel ban on individuals from certain Muslim countries. Heller, who has described herself as an “intensely neurotic Jew,” was active from the very earliest airport detentions, and was assisted by former Yale law professor Michael Wishnie, also Jewish and a former member of Jews for Economic and Social Justice. The case was later also supported and taken up by the Immigrant’s Rights division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) at the direction of its two Deputy Directors, Lee Gelernt and Judy Rabinowitz, both of whom are Jewish. At IRAP, there are three Jews on the board of the International Refugee Assistance Project: Jon Finer, David Nierenberg, and Carl Reisner. The board consists of 12 members, giving a Jewish representation of 25%. Aside from the board, other influential positions in the organization are held by Jews, including Deputy Legal Director (Lara Finkbeiner), and legal fellow (Julie Kornfeld). Again, this is significantly greater than any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.

Refugee organizations are also reliant to a great extent on legal assistance provided by “immigrant’s rights” organizations. Here too, Jews appear to be overrepresented by a large margin. For example, Jews comprise just over 14% of overall listed staff at the National Immigrant Justice Center, and dominate the most senior positions. These include Director of Policy (Heidi Altman, former legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition), Associate Director of Legal Services (Ashley Huebner), Director of Litigation (Charles Roth), and Associate Director of Litigation (Keren Zwick). Maria Blumenfeld, a former senior lawyer for NIJC departed the group for another, almost identical organization, named Equal Justice Works, the Director of which is David Stern, also Jewish. Another interesting organization is the  Immigrant Defense Project. Of the 15 listed senior staff, at least four are verifiably Jewish (Development Director Ariadna Rodenstein, Senior Staff Attorney Genia Blaser, Supervising Attorney Marie Mark, and Supervising Attorney Andrew Wachtenheim). This is a Jewish representation at senior level of over 26% — significantly greater than any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.

At the National Immigration Law Center, 18.5% of its staff lawyers are verifiably Jewish, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project is under Jewish Presidency (Ty Frankel) and 26% of its board is Jewish (Frankel, Ira Feldman, David Androff, Nathan Fidel, and Andrew Silverman). The Immigrant Legal Resource Center was founded mostly via the efforts of Jewish lawyer Mark Silverman, described here as “one of the very first movement lawyers helping DREAMers.” Its board is under Jewish chairmanship (Lisa Spiegel), and its Executive Director is Eric Cohen, also Jewish. Another organization providing legal support for the pro-immigration lobby is the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Right’s Under the Law. Of its six most senior staff, three are Jewish (Jon M. Greenbaum, Lisa Bornstein, and Samuel Weiss). At the Asylum Advocacy Project, two of the five members of the advisory board are Jewish (Dani Isaacsohn and the above mentioned Michael Wishnie), and its list of donors appears to be at least 40% Jewish.

The Director of Refugee Council USA is Naomi Steinberg. The Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union is the Jewish feminist Donna Lieberman who includes among her ongoing activities “resisting the Trump regime’s attack on immigrant children and refugees,” while its Legal Director is Arthur Eisenberg. The American Immigration Council is under the Jewish Directorship of Beth Werlin, its Research Director is the Argentinian Jew Guillermo Cantor (see a great example of his propaganda here), and its Policy and Media Director is Royce Bernstein Murray. The area director for Refugee Services of Texas in Austin is the Jewish Erica Schmidt-Portnoy. Meanwhile, another Portnoy, Diane Portnoy, Jewish founder and CEO of The Immigrant Learning Center, has demanded that Massachusetts should welcome more Syrian refugees. A similar organization is the Open Avenues Foundation, which has the stated goal of “helping foreign nationals build their unique path to thrive in the United States.” The founder and executive director of Open Avenues is Danielle Goldman, also Jewish.

None of the above takes into account the equally prolific presence of Jews in what might be termed the “propagandistic” elements of the unfolding era of mass migration (e.g., the media), or areas of activism in which Jews act explicitly as Jews (e.g., HIAS, the ADL). There really is no comparison between Jewish involvement in anti-immigration politics, and Jewish involvement in pro-immigration politics. In fact, the only place on earth where one might find ample evidence of the former is Israel – a fact that damns the Cofnas default hypothesis rather than supporting it.

Go to Part 2.

^[1] Cofnas, N. (2018). Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: A critical analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s theory. Human Nature, 29(2), 134–156.

^[2] MacDonald, K. (2018a). Reply to Nathan Cofnas The Unz Review (March 20, 2018); MacDonald, K. Second Reply to Nathan Cofnas, Revision of April 19, 2018

Leftism is built on lies. I know that. I’ve seen countless examples of it. But even I was surprised by the Guardian’s dishonesty in February 2021. It was reporting on “rising violence against Asian communities in the US” and, of course, it was refusing to admit that Blacks were responsible. Well, I was ready for the usual coy descriptions of how “a man” or “a youth” had committed some act of amoral thuggery. But I wasn’t ready for this:

The Oakland attacks came as many in the Bay Area began changing their social media photos to bring awareness to the seemingly unprovoked killing of an 84-year-old Thai man in San Francisco last month. Video of that attack shows a person running at Vicha Ratanapakdee, a “gentle, nearly blind” grandfather, and shoving him to the ground on his morning walk. Ratanapakdee died of his injuries two days later. (Oakland police make arrest in attack on elderly Asian man as concerns over violence grow, The Guardian, 9th February 2021)

There you have it: according to the Guardian, “a person” was responsible for that brutal crime. The newspaper was averting its eyes from the plain truth revealed in the video: that the “person” in question was a young Black male. Indeed, the word “Black” was not mentioned once in that article, or in two articles reporting how Asian leaders and Democratic politicians have blamed Donald Trump and “systemic racism” for the violence.

Cruel, hate-filled White societies

This is an example of how leftists believe in the “immaculate conception” of Blacks, who therefore exist in perfect sanctity and purity, free from every stain and fault. Any apparent misbehaviour by Blacks is in fact entirely the fault of innately depraved Whites, who have created cruel, hate-filled societies where Blacks and other non-Whites are systematically oppressed, exploited and trodden into the mire. Of course, this leftist fantasy of White oppression and non-White victimhood is contradicted by the way Chinese, Japanese, Indians and many other non-White groups flourish in White societies. But what does reality matter to leftists? They seek power, not truth, and are narcissists, not realists.

Oppressed Black billionaire and millionaire unite against White racism

They also hate White civilization, which will stand as a permanent rebuke to their lies and fantasies unless they manage to destroy it. And all those aspects of leftism were on full display in the interview conducted by the Black billionaire Oprah Winfrey with the Black millionaire Meghan Markle and her stupid White husband Prince Harry. It was utterly predictable that the marriage of Meghan and Harry would cause big problems for the Royal Family. Meghan Markle was a mediocre actress of mediocre intellect with mediocre looks. She snagged a surplus prince and won herself a spectacular wedding, hijacking great White architecture and ritual with Black narcissism, crudity and entitlement. As the London Evening Standard put it: “Black culture was celebrated throughout the ceremony — from spotlighting British cellist prodigy Sheku Kanneh-Mason, Bishop Michael Curry’s sermon and the presence of Black gospel choir The Kingdom Choir.”

Cast-iron proof of racism

But the wedding would have been the high point of Markle’s life if she’d behaved herself from then on. How would she keep winning attention and enjoying drama if she became a loyal member of the Royals and a dutiful granddaughter-in-law to the Queen? She wouldn’t. So she decided to be disloyal and abandon duty instead. And it’s worked very well. She’s back in the headlines around the world playing that most important and attention-grabbing of leftist roles: the Black victim of White racism. And how wonderful it would have been if she could have claimed that British royals or palace officials had donned white hoods and burned a giant cross on her lawn whilst waving nooses and chanting the n-word. Alas, she couldn’t claim that. Even leftist credulity wouldn’t have stretched that far. But the reaction to what she did claim — that an unspecified royal had wondered how dark her unborn child’s skin might be — has been scarcely less hysterical.

Leftists immediately proclaimed that Markle’s vague accusation was cast-iron proof of racism. Royal racism! You could hear the glee in the voices of anti-royal BBC journalists as they covered the story. You could also hear mediocre Black narcissists around the world rushing to their keyboards to type passionate defences of Markle. The competition was fierce, but I think the prize for “Black Narcissist of the Month” has to go to Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (Phd MBA LLM MA LLB IAQ), who managed to get eight instances of the first-person singular into the short opening paragraph of her pro-Markle article in the Guardian:

I stayed up late to watch the Oprah interview. As I watched it, I thought: “Lord, give me strength!” Like me, Meghan is independent, well educated, career-minded. Like me, she is a woman of Black heritage. I felt her pain. It was very difficult to listen to Harry and Meghan’s story and not feel sorry for them, because I believed what they were saying. (Meghan has been mistreated for years — but her interview still shocked me, The Guardian, 8th March 2021)

Proud Black Egomaniac Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu

Mos-Shogbamimu went on to explain that “As a Black woman, I am so used to all the nuances of racism that vary from person to person. There is obvious racism, but there is also a more subtle form of racism, which can best be described as a form of white violence.” When racism becomes “more subtle,” it presumably doesn’t involve physical attacks. So how can “more subtle” racism be “best described” as “white violence”? Very easily, to the mediocre intellect of Mos-Shogbamimu. She isn’t interested in reality and she doesn’t use words to reflect reality, but to convey her hostility to Whites and feed her own narcissism. That’s why she announced that “The royal family as an institution has a legacy that is rooted in slavery, colonialism and racism.”

Services to hysteria and community disintegration

Like Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle, Mos-Shogbamimu is a mediocre Black facing the grandeur and tradition of a great White institution. Naturally enough, she feels an affront to her narcissism and wants to drag that institution down whilst pretending that the exploitation of Blacks was central to its success. To be clear: I don’t want to defend the British monarchy myself. It has completely failed to champion the White British against the hostile elite and non-White immigration. Instead, it celebrates the dispossession of the White British. The deceitful Mark Steyn was wrong in his analysis of “this year’s Commonwealth Day service”:

Somewhere in the course of the weekend, someone told me that the Queen had moved up this year’s Commonwealth Day service as part of her “damage control” operation [against the Markle interview] (along with reports that the Duchess of Sussex was a total bitch to her staff). So I watched the Westminster Abbey service for the first time in, golly, several decades. This year it was Covid-compliant, so no congregation, just exotic musical combos — African drummers and Maori choirs — punctuated by various Royal duchesses in somewhat earnest conversation with Malawian women’s-groups organizers and Indian literacy-program teachers and a fellow from Bangladesh who started an ambulance service in rural areas.

The finale — the Lord’s Prayer recited a line apiece by Commonwealth citizens from Nigeria, Belize, Singapore, etc – was rather moving in its universalist simplicity. Much of the rest had a reassuringly boring niceness: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (that’s “Will ’n’ Kate” to Oprah viewers) seemed genuinely fascinated by the Bangladeshi ambulance service; the Countess of Wessex (that’s …well, she’s never gonna rate Oprah, so who cares?) said “Nice to see you again” to an enthusiastic young lady she’d met on a previous trip to Malawi. If the Royal Family is racist, as the despicable Harry and his malignant narcissist of a missus insist, they’ve got a funny way of showing it. (Things to Obsess About Until They Nuke Us, SteynOnline, 8th March 2021)

Steyn is wrong to say the “Commonwealth Day service” was benign. In fact, the Royal Family was virtue-signalling in typical elite fashion and demonstrating that they have no interest in defending ordinary Whites against dispossession. After all, the rich and privileged royals don’t have to live in close contact with non-Whites day after day, enduring crime, overcrowding and competition for jobs, housing and public space. Muslim rape-gangs won’t be calling at Buckingham Palace to select their victims, low-IQ Blacks won’t be swinging machetes or throwing acid at exclusive private schools like Eton, and Pakistani fraudsters won’t be duping the Queen out of her life-savings if she falls victim to dementia.

Meeting of Mediocrities

But despite its current treachery, the Monarchy remains a potent symbol of White Christian Britain and is still hated by those who want to destroy Britain and its traditions. Those who can’t create often wish to forget their inferiority by destroying what others have created. Anti-White Blacks like Shola Mos-Shogbamimu are a prime example of that psychological truth. But to be fair to Ms Mos-Shogbamimu, she hasn’t attacked the British monarchy after accepting one of the most glittering prizes in its gift. The mediocre Black historian David Olusoga has done exactly that. He was awarded an O.B.E., or Order of the British Empire, in the Queen’s 2019 New Year Honours “for services to history and to community integration.”

Meeting of Mediocrities: Barack Obama and David Olusoga

In fact, Olusoga has always served anti-White hysteria, not impartial history, and has worked for community disintegration, not integration. And so, after Meghan Markle attacked the Royal Family, Olusoga joined the hysteria in (where else?) the Guardian and announced that the interview with Oprah Winfrey “is not just a crisis for the royal family — but for Britain itself.” Yes, that’s how serious it is when a mediocre Black actress claims that an unspecified royal had enquired, in unspecified terms and an unspecified context, about the possible future skin-colour of her semi-Black embryo. Should David Olusoga, who is 51 years old and Professor of Public History at the University of Manchester, have accepted Markle’s claims so credulously? By White standards, no, he shouldn’t. But Olusoga applies anti-White standards and so he once again served hysteria rather than history.

No discussion of innate racial differences

And, by White standards, an acclaimed and award-laden historian should not write like a pseudo-intellectual teenager. But Olusoga isn’t held to White standards, which is why he wrote of “the simmering contempt [for Markle] still being incubated and transmitted by the toxic parts of our tabloid press.” He then went on to express his sorrow that Britain was unprepared for “an honest national conversation about race and racism,” “honest self-reflection,” “hard self-reflection” and “a reckoning with the difficult truths of our imperial history.”

As Steve Sailer has often pointed out, when leftists call for “honest conversation,” they mean: “We speak — you obey.” If Britain truly had “an honest national conversation about race and racism,” it would ask whether there are innate racial differences in cognition, personality and criminality. It would also ask whether non-Whites systematically harm and exploit Whites, rather than vice versa, and whether “anti-racism” is a parasistic ideology that seeks to paralyse the resistance of Whites to their own dispossession and destruction. Obviously, Olusoga doesn’t want any of those questions raised. Nor does he want Blacks such as himself to engage in “honest self-reflection” and to ask whether Black problems might be owed to Black shortcomings rather than “white racism.”

Black barbarism trumps White civilization

No, “self-reflection” is for sin-stained Whites, not for saintly Blacks. David Olusoga is a supposed historian who doesn’t believe in objective enquiry or open debate, but in subjective certainty and proclamation ex cathedra. He’s a narcissist, not a realist. That’s why he and other Black mediocrities side with Black barbarism rather than White civilization. In November 2020, Olusoga and other “Black public figures” signed a joint letter opposing the deportation of fifty Jamaican criminals, including “convicted murderers and rapists.” The criminals wouldn’t be safe in Jamaica, Olusoga and company said. I agree: Black-majority Jamaica has astonishingly high rates of murder, rape and police brutality. And by signing that letter, Olusoga proved that he supports Black barbarism over White civilization. He wants Britain to become more like Jamaica and his hugely corrupt paternal homeland of Nigeria.

Blacks for Barbarism! David Olusoga (top centre) and other “Black public figures” support Jamaican murderers and rapists

But Olusoga persists in believing that he is somehow a brave rebel fighting for truth, justice and high culture against cruel White-hegemonic racism. In 2020, his Black privilege earned him another honour when he was asked to deliver the “keynote MacTaggart lecture at the virtual edition of the Edinburgh television festival.” In the lecture, he proclaimed that:

The year of Black Lives Matter and the murder of George Floyd is not the year to speak half-truths to power. … In the spirit of Black Lives Matters, in the spirit of an age in which millions of people have come to recognise that silence on these issues is a form of complicity, I am going to say what I really think about race, racism and our industry. And I’ll discover if, at the end of it, I still have a career. (David Olusoga: his Edinburgh television festival speech in full, The Guardian, 24th August 2020)

That’s how deluded and narcissistic David Olusoga is: he thought (or pretended to think) that condemning British television for racism and demanding more “diversity” might end his career. He thought (or pretended to think) that he might be punished by powerful Whites for claiming victimhood and for revealing that White racism had left him feeling “sidelined, dismissed and desperately unhappy” — “so isolated and so devalued that I twice slipped into clinical depression.”

Oprah and Obama, united in mediocrity

The opposite happened after his lecture, of course: he was extravagantly praised and his Black mediocrity was even more richly rewarded. For example, his fellow mediocre Black, the Guardian journalist Afua Hirsch, extolled his “candour and courage.” And why not? She too has built a highly successful career on accusing Whites of racism and proclaiming her own victimhood. But while Olusoga is half-White and trained as a historian, Hirsch is part-Jewish and trained as a lawyer. And her ancestry and training bring me to other questions that should be raised in any genuinely “honest conversation about race and racism.” How is it that mediocre Blacks like Markle, Olusoga, Hirsch and Mos-Shogbamimu wield such power and influence in modern Western societies? How did a mediocre Black like Oprah Winfrey become a billionaire and a mediocre Black like Barack Obama become President of the United States?

Mediocre but media-mighty: Half-black, half-Jewish Afua Hirsch

In short, how did members of such an under-achieving race become such over-achievers? Well, as you might expect, it wasn’t by their own efforts. Blacks have, in fact, been foot-soldiers in a war on White civilization directed by a race that isn’t intellectually mediocre or handicapped by impulsivity and disregard for the future. As Kevin MacDonald has documented, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was  run and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In the UK, the anti-racist Runnymede Trust was founded by two Jewish lawyers to attack Whites and promote mass immigration from the Third World. Blacks were foot-soldiers in the war on White civilization; Jews were generals. Blacks and Jews are still playing those roles. You can see Jewish power behind the scenes even in the hysteria about the Markle interview with Oprah Winfrey. The White journalist Piers Morgan bluntly said that “I don’t believe a word [Markle] says” and that he was prepared to lose his job “for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge that she came out with in that interview.”

“Squalid example of blatant antisemitic language”

And he did lose his job as a presenter at the show Good Morning Britain, after severe condemnation by leftists and “41,000 complaints to the [TV] regulator Ofcom.” Unlike David Olusoga, Morgan showed “candour and courage.” But don’t worry that his career is over: he will probably soon be employed by Rupert Murdoch or Murdoch’s former henchman Andrew Neil. You can often survive in the media mainstream if you criticize Blacks. But not if you criticize Jews — or even if you compliment Jews in a way they don’t like, as the philo-Semitic Irish journalist Kevin Myers discovered in 2017. Myers pointed out that the two highest-paid women at the BBC are Jews called Vanessa Feltz and Claudia Winkleman. He then said: “Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price.” Jews immediately objected and Myers lost his successful career, despite his loud protestations of admiration and respect for Jews. Mark Gardner, the “communications director” of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST), gloated that “Myers’s squalid example of blatant antisemitic language was swiftly dealt with.”

The message was simple: “Watch yourselves, goyim!” And I think the goy Piers Morgan is well aware of Jewish power and the often-seen Jewish ability to end careers. Look at the strange non-sequitur he used when, a few weeks before the Markle interview, he was defending himself against a critic of his journalism. The critic, Morgan said, “raged against my ‘idiotic rants’ [and] branded me a ‘parasite’ — the word the Nazis infamously used for Jewish people.” That comment about “the Nazis” was completely irrelevant, except as a virtue-signal from Morgan to powerful Jews. “See how pro-Jewish I am?” Morgan was saying. “The merest mention of the word ‘parasite’ makes me think of the nasty Nazis and their vile slurs against the saintly Jewish community.”

The Jewish role remains plain to see

That’s why Morgan still has a place in the mainstream media. He’s pro-Jewish, even if he’s prepared to criticize a self-proclaimed Black victim like Meghan Markle. But he didn’t discuss Black narcissism, mediocrity and hatred of White civilization, which are still taboo subjects in the mainstream. And Morgan will never discuss the Jewish role in agitating Blacks and employing them as foot-soldiers in their war on White civilization. But the Jewish role remains plain to see. Jews don’t merely fund and staff “anti-racist” organizations like the Runnymede Trust, sponsor illiberal laws against “hate speech,” and proclaim repeatedly that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” They’re also central to the denial of racial reality: Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose have propagandized tirelessly for the irrational and biologically illiterate dogma of “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race!”

That lying leftist dogma has done incalculable harm to the West, justifying not only the massive coercive apparatus of “anti-racism” and egalitarianism, but also the flooding of White nations with non-White migrants from the Third World. The Jewish culture of critique proclaims that if non-Whites like Jamaicans and Somalis fail in the West, it’s because of White racism. But if non-Whites like the Chinese and Indians succeed, it’s despite White racism. Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle may be mediocre in intellect, but they and countless other non-Whites have proved quite capable of learning and applying the central message of the culture of critique: White racism explains all White success and all non-White failure.

Whites have rights

It’s a simple message for simple minds and it will destroy the West unless it is firmly and irreversibly defeated by the truth. Whites are not the world’s greatest villains, but the world’s greatest creators. And they have a right to live in their own nations free of envious and hate-filled Black mediocrities like Meghan Markle and David Olusoga.

Whites also have a right to live free of the hostile Jewish elite that supplies the culture of critique to envious and hate-filled Blacks. After all, Blacks and Jews all have nations of their own. If they’re sincere about how evil and oppressive Whites are, they should be glad to leave us. If they’re not sincere, they’re obviously seeking to harm us and should leave us just the same.

Translated and with an introduction by Lute Currie

A descendant of the eminent Austrian botanist Eduard Ritter von Josch, Wilfried von Josch was born in Austria on May 6, 1914. After graduating the gymnasium, he went on to study philosophy in Berlin, Kiel, Munich, and Vienna. He was a member of the Ludendorff Movement since 1929, was in close personal contact with Mrs. Ludendorff since 1935, and knew General Erich Ludendorff personally. He worked with the two controversialists and was published by their Verlag – Ein seltsamer Staat – bringing him “lasting persecution” by the NSDAP.

The earliest work of Josch appeared in Am heiligen Quell, the bi-monthly journal Ludendorff edited, which had print runs of over 100,000 issues. The journal was initially of a philosophical nature but also involved politics later on, sometimes finding itself at odds with the official policies of the regime. The many followers of Ludendorff’s science-based and right-wing neo-pagan religious views (God-cognition), which strongly roots man in his Völk and state,  continued to enjoy the publication of the journal until it was discontinued in 1939 due to the authorities’ refusal to provide paper for it, thanks to the regime’s mandate to tone down anti-Christian rhetoric and because of wartime rationing, thus infuriating his wife and intellectual collaborator Mathilde Ludendorff (General Ludendorff died in 1937). The Verlag finally resumed later, after some changes, as Hohe Warte in 1949.

Until his death in the early 90s, Josch’s life was largely devoted to Ludendorff’s religion, with many theoretical works published, making him an important part of it philosophically. He also performed at the Konzerthaus in Vienna and gave lectures on God-cognition, until they were shut down by the police. Additionally, he went on to start his own Journal, Das Kulturwort, which found commercial success and featured work from intellectual heavyweights such as Haidvogel and Lorenz Mack. All of this activity certainly left its mark and he is largely remembered as an unsavoury cultural figure in contemporary Austria.

In “Meister Eckhart’s Political Mysticism” (Quell, 1939), Josch examines the “political mysticism” of Eckhart from the God-cognition perspective. He argues that Eckhart’s teachings assist in the subversion of the Völk, the basis of the Germanic state itself. This was considered a critical message at its time of publication in 1939 Germany, with the phenomenon of zealous attempts to convert Germans, who were breaking away from Christianity, to the allegedly “species-appropriate” teachings of Eckhart. — Lute Currie

If we do not consider the theological controversies around the mystic Eckhart at all, but turn to the merely political purpose of mysticism, we realize that similar mystical endeavours in other countries and ethnic groups are not at all “adventitious.” Given the importance of religions as the means of establishing and maintaining the rule of priest-castes, the use of similar mystical teachings becomes apparent to us in comparable historical situations. In times of crisis in the Church, when the faithful push into extra-ecclesiastical paths, the aid of a mysticism that stands in ostensible opposition to Church teachings can reverse the movement of secession through the internalization and ecstatic exaggeration of religious forms of inner experience. Through its wide range of conceivable God-concepts, it offers the greatest possible appeal to the diversity of spiritual currents. Therefore, in the endeavour of all mysticism whose focus is the destruction of the will and the personality, it achieves in those paralysed of will by it an extensive controllability for the occult Yahweh-commands of the priest-castes. Since far-reaching political developments are first prepared religiously, it does not surprise us to find in India, China, Japan, and Persia at almost the same time a mysticism similar in every detail. In India, the ninth-century Master Sankara corresponds to the occidental Meister Eckhart. Extensive similarities to the Zen doctrine widespread in Japan, Taoism in China, and the Persian doctrine of Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī allow conclusions about the political importance of mysticism. Rudolf Otto writes about the relationship of Master Sankara to Eckhart:

Both are equally not accidental phenomena in their time. … With some skill their basic doctrines could be put together and stylized in such a way that the formulas of the one appear only as a translation from Sanskrit into Latin or Middle German, and vice versa. And this is certainly not by chance.

Meister Eckhart’s world of representation is rooted in the occult world-picture of a time and reveals a strong dependence on the views of his two teachers Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great, even if in individual points minor deviations can be noted because of Neoplatonic ideas. If this dependence on Thomas is so strong in his fragmentary Latin writings, that one can almost speak of sameness of thought, then in his German writings, which are intended more for the broad mass of the people, the influence of the Golden Chain (Catena Aurea), a collection of commentaries on the Gospels by Thomas, is unmistakable, and he does not even shy away from copying entire parts. In Eckhart’s predominantly inner-soul view, in contrast to the world of representation of Aquinas which was thought through to the last nuances and formed to the highest clarity of the concept, he remains largely unclear [compared] to Aquinas, [because] the most diverse interpretations of his theology are possible, which even do not exclude the reading in of anti-Christian Germanic ideas. Whilst Thomas on the basis of the Biblical text develops the foundations of “high politics,” Eckhart presents his philosophical thoughts with reference to corresponding Biblical passages. His often very free, indeed seemingly arbitrary interpretation of the Biblical passages allows him to modify what is allegorized by them even when using the usual occult symbolism. Even though Eckhart is aware of the “incarnation of Christ in time” as a historical-political process, the execution of the individual phases of this process does not become for him a recipe for high politics as it is for Thomas, but rather the illustrative background for God’s birth and rebirth that, in his view, takes place in the human soul.

A common thread running through the entire German writings of Meister Eckhart is the purposeful effort to paralyse the will of the individual to the point of total destruction to achieve complete dependence on the priest-castes (Yahweh). This intention, which recurs in various variations in Meister Eckhart’s German writings, is expressed particularly clearly in the following words: “This is what God (priest-caste) is after in all things, that we give up the will.” “Man comes to his own goals only by subordinating his will to the divine, and thus letting God work in him.” Whilst the religious ideas of mysticism are a lure for those who are spiritually struggling, the tendency towards the destruction of the will fulfills the purpose of mysticism for the knowledgeable priest-caste, since it makes those who are religiously gripped controllable for the priestly goals. An obedience of will to Yahweh-command brings those who have been robbed of their will the laudatory appellation “those who are of good will,” whilst the resentment of Yahweh’s consecrated ones is directed against those who have their own will. Eckhart also takes the side of the priest-castes by saying: [those who have their own will] “is not good will. One should search for God’s (Yahweh’s) dearest will.” Since this research would stop as soon as the alleged truth is found, the whole “truth” is never revealed on the part of the priest-caste. In this way the human struggle for truth should be kept in continuous motion, since a certain remnant remains unexplained, which prevents a final judgment and becomes an occasion for further searching. So, we are dealing here with a systematic abuse of the desire for knowledge in the human soul, with the purpose of maintaining the continuous dependence on the priests.

A main trait of mysticism, indeed of every religion in general, is given in the following dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh at Genesis 18:27 in its classical template: “I have taken it upon myself to speak to you, I who am dust and ashes.” In this Judeo-Christian model, we recognize as a prerequisite for the religious relationship to Yahweh the emotion of being submerged and overwhelmed by one’s own nothingness (in Eckhart’s work “losing oneself” and “to become nothing”), which contrasts with the “overwhelming power” of Yahweh. Furthermore, we can see that the momentum of the “energetic” and of “love,” as well as of the “wondering about” and of the “rigid amazement,” the “absolute disconcertment” about the “being completely different” of the Godhead, is especially emphasized. The “attracting, captivating” is, so to speak, increased by the imagelessness of the God-concept. So, we can say that the Abraham experience throws an immensely clarifying light also on mysticism, which we recognize as the highest excess of the beyond-reasonable in religion. Mysticism holds that de-selfing and will-killing is brought about by directing the attention unilaterally to an object (Yahweh), thus triggering, completely unconsciously, a recession and disappearance of self-consciousness. Eckhart describes as an example a scientist who is so engrossed in his science that he can be slain by a man threatening him after ignoring a repeated warning. The seclusion of the soul should be so strong that the whole world sinks around the mystic and only the illusory God-experience is taken seriously. However, this statement is incorrect insofar as the disappearance of self-consciousness does not yet explain the killing of the will, which lies in a completely different area of the soul.

In the occult worldview of priest castes, which was masterfully shaped by Thomas Aquinas and which accurately explains to us the connection the mystic has to the church’s teachings, you differentiate between a spiritually effecting activity and a mere suffering and enduring matter. Thus, symbolized to us is the rule of the Yahweh priest-castes over believers paralysed of will. The interaction of these two worlds results in that history shaped by the priests in an indirect way. Whereas Thomas, as a man of high politics, looks at the questions of world governance from Yahweh’s point of view, Eckhart sees them from the side of the people striving towards Yahweh. As we can already see from Aquinas’ view that “the way of looking at things is not the same in heaven and on earth,” we have before us two different ways of looking at things with different tasks and goals. For the knowledgeable priest Thomas, the exclusively spiritual-political will that directs high politics is naturally of higher value than the mere human endeavour that works for Yahweh, which Eckhart tries to portray as being of higher value. In the Old Testament, in the Jewish persons of Rachel (contemplative life) and Leah (active life), the two modes of contemplation are prefigured, which we then find again in the New Testament as Mary and Martha. Thomas writes: “Therefore Rachel, which means ‘the seen principle,’ represents the contemplative life; but Leah, who was blear-eyed, represents the active life.” This parable makes us understand the relationship of mysticism to the ecclesiastical teaching (scholasticism) of Thomas Aquinas. Mysticism, then, has only the task of leading the will-paralysed people to the priests who knowingly direct politics. The hope that the priest-castes place in occult mysticism is expressed by the theologian Alois Dempf, after advising a precise knowledge of Thomas to understand Meister Eckhart, in the following words:

Thus, it could be that the Thomist movement, which has now begun so energetically among German Catholics, opens for many also the access to Meister Eckhart, indeed, and that his quite peculiar position and mission in intellectual history, his indirect relations to the Reformation and dialectical theology also contribute essentially to the reconciliation of the denominations.

• Quell, Folge 4, 19.5.1939.