“[Jews] infiltrate the Negro neighborhood with stores, and they exploit the Negro more than any other White group — housing, food, clothing — controlling the three basic things Negroes need. They claim to be friendly with Negroes but, when pushed to the wall, they are more injurious, more ruthless, than other Whites.”
Jeremiah X, 1965.^[1]

Speaking to the Black historian Horace Mann Bond in 1965, Jeremiah X, then leader of the Atlanta Mosque of the Nation of Islam, argued that “the Jews are the Negro’s worst enemy among whites.” The reason Jews were particularly dangerous, explained Jeremiah, was the fact they “make it a practice to study Negroes; thus they are able to get next to him better than the other whites. He uses the knowledge thus obtained to get close to the Negro, thereby being in a position to stab him with a knife.” This metaphorical knife was both economic and socio-cultural. As well as acting as slumlord, pawnbroker, and merchant, the Jew of the Black world was also a manipulative political actor: “Through their control of the press and of other mass media they are able to make the public feel sorry for Jews. It is so bad today that anybody who speaks out against Jews is immediately clobbered as ‘anti-Semitic.’ They have made the Negroes to believe their sufferings have been greater than those of the Negro in America.”

This is an interesting perspective, to say the least, and for as long as I’ve been interested in anti-Semitism, I’ve been intrigued by the expression of hostility towards Jews among non-Whites. My reasons should be obvious. As I’ve written previously, concerning anti-Semitism in South Korea,

One of the most fundamental positions for White advocates concerned with Jewish influence must be the conviction that antagonism against Jews lies in Jewish behavior rather than solely the cultural pathology or psychological tendencies of non-Jews. A major testing ground for this position is the necessity for anti-Jewish attitudes to be present among geographically, racially, and culturally diverse peoples, and for the reasons behind this antagonism to be fairly uniform.

Black anti-Semitism in the United States is especially interesting in its own right for historical and contemporary cultural, economic, social, and political reasons. From at least the time of the Civil War, Jews, Blacks, and Whites have existed in a fateful racial triad, and Black anti-Semitism has much to tell us about all three groups, the relations between them, and the very nature of anti-Semitism itself. Black anti-Semitism has also maintained a constant, though often low-key, quality, with sporadic violent outbreaks since at least the first decade of the twentieth century, the most recent being the spate of assaults in December 2019. Of equal importance to the reasons behind this hostility is the Jewish response, and how that response molds Jewish understandings of anti-Semitism and determines the character of Jewish apologetics for their own antagonistic behaviors. The Jewish response to Black anti-Semitism will be the subject of a follow-up article, but this essay is primarily intended to provide an overview of some of the main aspects of Black anti-Semitism and its meaning and value to White advocacy. As such, it should be seen as complimenting and extending Kevin MacDonald’s essay “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” included in the 2007 volume Cultural Insurrections.

NBC News caption: Members of a Jewish Orthodox emergency response team work alongside police at the scene of a shooting at a kosher supermarket in Jersey City, N.J., on Dec. 11, 2019.

Features of Black anti-Semitism

In Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald identifies the key themes of anti-Semitism as including an understanding that, speaking in general terms, Jews

• represent a separate and clannish foreign group with their own set of interests;
• are highly adept at resource competition and have a tendency towards economic domination;
• tend to engage as cultural actors in order to shape non-Jewish culture to suit Jewish interests;
• form a cohesive political entity that seeks politically dominant roles in non-Jewish societies;
• possess negative personality traits, including the pursuance of a system of dual ethics in which non-Jews can be treated badly and exploited;
• are disloyal to the host nation in all fundamental and meaningful ways

Among the factors mitigating anti-Semitism, one of the most crucial contemporary elements has been the Jewish promotion of multi-ethnic, pluralist societies. As MacDonald explains, “A multicultural society in which Jew are simply one of many tolerated groups is likely to meet Jewish interests, because there is a diffusion of power among a variety of groups and it becomes impossible to develop homogeneous gentile in-groups arrayed against Jews as a highly conspicuous group.”^[2] Of particular interest, then, is the extent to which the key themes of anti-Semitism manifest among Blacks, how they manifest, and how the Black position of being a celebrated component feature of pluralism (rather than, as in the case of Whites, being the majority  population subjected to pluralism) impacts the mitigation of anti-Semitism.

Common sense would suggest that each ethnic group will inflect the themes of anti-Semitism according the context and precise nature of their own interaction with Jews. In South Korea, organised anti-Jewish hostility was built around the understanding that Jewish financiers, mainly American, with a history of highly exploitative behaviors, were attempting to gain strongholds in South Korean companies like Samsung. As such, the primary theme of anti-Semitism in South Korea has been the understanding that Jews are dangerously adept at resource competition, are financially ruthless and exploitative, are highly ethnocentric, and are powerful in the media and in politics at the highest levels. During the early stages of an attempted expansion of influence by the almost entirely Jewish vulture fund “Elliot Associates,” Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed “Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless.” This was soon followed by the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon, expressing his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, “The scary thing about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies. Their network is tight-knit beyond one’s imagination.” A day later, cable news channel YTN aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, airing the opinion that “it is a fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born.”

Among Blacks, the same themes have been inflected in less elevated terms, arising first from more modest economic conflicts and, as such, having something more in common with the complaints of the early modern European peasantries. Horace Mann Bond, in his own 1965 reflections on “Negro Attitudes Toward Jews,” comments on the fact Jews historically appeared in the African-American environment overwhelmingly as pawnbrokers, as monopolists of the liquor trade (“The Jews have a stranglehold on the liquor stores in this town”), as the primary sellers on credit of clothing and other essential items, and, perhaps most crucial of all, as the slumlord and property dealer (“Some Jews have bought up that urban re-development land and are putting up shoddy apartments they call “Nigger housing” on it”).^[3] In 2016, local news website Patch published a list of the 100 worst slumlords in Harlem, with the top ten including seven Jews (Mark Silber, Adam Stryker, Joel Goldstein, Marc Chemtob, Moshe Deutsch, Solomon Gottlieb, and Jason Green), a representation that has remained roughly constant every year, with Jews persistently claiming top ranking for building violations, rodent infestations, lack of maintenance, exploitative rent, mold, and other forms of building decay injurious to health. Indeed, this situation has at times resulted in considerable embarrassment to Jews.

Indeed, it is the sheer dominance and proximity of the Jews as primary exploiters of Blacks that has often caused a quite radical break in the Black imagination between perceiving wholesale “White oppression,” and the more nuanced understanding that Jews are a distinctive class unto themselves. Moreover, the reality of day-to-day interethnic exploitation leaves little room for abstract apologetic theories of anti-Semitism, since the problem is never that Jews arouse hostility merely on account of their religion or identity, but rather that Jews arouse hostility because of their behavior within certain ecological contexts. As Bond explains,

It is my considered view that Negro attitudes and actions towards Jews that are frequently interpreted as “antisemitic” actually lack the sinister thought-content they are sometimes advertised as holding. The occasional riots against small businessmen and landlords in Harlem — persons who may happen to be Jews — do not, in my opinion, actually possess the “classic” emotional load of aggression against a Jewish “race” or “religion,” that has been considered the essence of antisemitism.^[4]

I think Bond, in this instance, waters down the specificity of anti-Jewish hostility that eventually develops, because it’s more or less inevitable in the context of social identity theory that if someone is negatively confronted on enough occasions with “persons who may happen to be Jews” then they will eventually be forced to make an evaluation of Jews as a group. Bond, however, is of course accurate in pointing out that it’s perfectly possible for anti-Jewish actions to occur without the “sinister thought-content” often theorized and expounded upon in Jewish apologetics. Reading between the lines, Bond clearly interprets small-scale violence against these particular Jews as ad hoc reactions to local financial exploitation, an interpretive framework that by contrast has only been employed at the smallest of levels, and with the most minimum impact, when discussing anti-Jewish riots in the European past. Of further value is Bond’s doubting of the putative essence of anti-Semitism, “the classic emotional load of aggression” on the basis of race or religion, which again has only served to distance understandings of anti-Semitism from the realities of antagonistic Jewish group behaviors.

A lot of what has been discussed above is clearly resource-oriented, and economic competition between Blacks and Jews, devastatingly one-sided to be sure, goes right back to the arrival of the African in the Americas. Writing in a 1977 edition of Negro History Bulletin, Oscar R. Williams comments,

The presence of the southern Jews complemented the system of slavery; their mercantilist interest made slavery a more effective labor system. While most Jews were not to be found on plantations, their activities made the plantation a self-sufficient unit. What was not produced on the plantation was delivered by Jewish merchants. The southern Jew has as much, if not more, to gain from the system of maintaining slavery as any other white segment within the South. During the Civil War Jews defended the system which insured them acceptance and success in the South. Neither the Civil War nor Reconstruction changed the southern Jews’ perception of Blacks as an animal to be used and exploited.^[5]

While some initial divergence of opinion on race could be found between northern and southern Jews, the advent of the New South, and then the mass migration of Jews to the United States from Eastern Europe in 1880s, provoked a coalescence of Jewish behaviors in relation to Blacks. Williams continues,

Often in the New South, success of Jewish merchants depended on winning Black trade. Jewish merchants appeared more courteous and obviously spent more time with Black customers than fellow white merchants. Blacks were often victims of sales pressure when Jews refused to accept no-sale for an answer. No became the signal for the ritual to begin. Merchants would insist that the potential buyer try-on the item. After this came what Blacks call “Jewing Down,” in which naive Blacks were led to believe that Jewish merchant had allowed himself to be beaten on the price.

The post-Civil War movement of Blacks to the northern cities coincided with the mass migration of East European Jews into the same urban centers. Boasting centuries of experience in the economic exploitation of the lowest classes, Jews quickly set about the establishment of pawn shops, credit sales, and other methods of lending small-to-medium amounts of cash at interest.

Such was the scale of Jewish exploitation of urban Blacks in some areas that W.E.B. Du Bois was moved in 1903 to declare “The Jew is heir to the slavebaron.”^[6] And yet, growing alongside this exploitation was something hinted at by Williams. The Jews did in fact appear more courteous than whites, even if their behavior didn’t quite match the outward courtesy. And Jews did obviously spend more time with Black customers than with white merchants. The Black could be “Jewed Down” into believing he’d won himself a bargain, and he could also be “Jewed Down” into the belief that he had a friend and a helper in the form of the Jew, even if this illusion could last only for a short period, and all while the interest clock kept on ticking. Writing in Commentary in 1945, Kenneth B. Clark recounted how Blacks in Baltimore were pointing out that,

Jewish merchants own and control the major downtown department stores. … Some Negro domestics assert that Jewish housewives who employ them are unreasonable and brazenly exploitative. A Negro actor states in bitter terms that he is being flagrantly underpaid by a Jewish producer. A Negro entertainer is antagonistic to his Jewish agent who he is convinced is exploiting him. … Antagonism toward the “Jewish landlord” is so common as to have become almost an integral aspect of the folk culture of the northern urban Negro.^[7]

It is indeed a curious feature of American history that the growth of the Black-Jewish civil rights alliance should have coincided with the intensification of Jewish exploitation of Blacks. During the 1920s, the same decade that the mostly Jewish-run NAACP began a serious escalation in agitation for “civil rights,” Jews were invading Black areas in northern cities, using their growing political influence to engage in the exploitation of Blacks and the suppression of their local businesses. In Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition (2012), Marni Davis comments on the Harlem newspaper The Age which complained throughout the early 1920s about Jews who

had bought the police, fouled Harlem with their liquor, and were now poisoning the locals (sometimes literally) and siphoning away the neighbourhood’s hard-earned capital. … The Age noted that many of the stores in question had the name “Hyman” attached to them. They all turned out to be owned by Hyman Kassel [other liquor traders in Harlem included Izzy Einstein, Connie Immerman, and Dutch Schultz], a well-known bootlegger and numbers runner. … “Hebrew Operators Control Lenox Avenue Places,” blared one headline. … The accusations levelled by the Age resembled nativist claims that Jews were economic parasites and moral defilers.^[8]

Davis comments that Jews “regarded the anti-alcohol movement as politically wrong-headed — even repulsive — and certainly as inimical to the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution,” but such explanations for Jewish opposition to the temperance movement (conservative, Christian, family-oriented) are glaring in their avoidance of the fact Jews possessed centuries of experience in exploiting the sale of liquor to the lowest classes in Eastern Europe in order to obtain and maintain political, social, and economic advancement and control (see Glenn Dynner’s 2014 Princeton-published Yankel’s Tavern: Jews, Liquor, and Life in the Kingdom of Poland). In other words, the argument that Jews pursued the often harmful sale of liquor purely out of abstract concern for “rights” and freedoms is a rather convenient way of side-stepping obvious, and often criminal, self-interest.

During the 1930s and 1940s, Jewish dominance of the trade in furniture, household items, and other essentials in the Black sections of northern cities led to the development of the idea among Blacks in several cities that Jews “only posed as friends.” These decades witnessed “rent strikes, business boycotts, and other forms of economic pressure,” as well as riots that were “tinged with anti-Semitic feeling,” all of which very closely resembled actions in Eastern Europe around 50 years earlier that had been characterized in contemporary propaganda as irrational and barbaric pogroms.^[9] In fact, the causes of both sets of actions are almost entirely identical, with Steven Gold remarking in his fascinating 2010 The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict that between the 1930s and 1960s Jews “owned many of the largest businesses in ghettos, including department stores, hardware stores, and furniture stores.”^[10] Even as Jews moved into the suburbs, unlike other ethnic groups they retained as much economic influence in Black areas as possible, resulting in their becoming “out-group entrepreneurs and absentee landlords.”^[11] John Bracey comments,

No other group paid [the Black] the slightest attention: not the Germans, nor the Irish, nor the Poles, nor the Italians, not the Hungarians, nor the Slovaks; only the Jew established a line of communication, albeit a line of communication in trade and credit merchandising. True, the Jew had an advantage. To him the American Negro was no different from the Gentile peasants among whom he lived and with whom he dealt in the towns and villages of Russia, Galicia, Hungary, and Poland.^[12]

Everywhere in these areas, remarks Gold, Jews and Blacks existed within a framework of “power and control,” and “The context within which African American women were hired and then supervised in Jewish homes was especially humiliating. At least in New York, this practice came to be known as the “Bronx Slave Market.” After public complaints, the La Guardia administration (1934-1945) created employment offices to provide black domestic workers with an additional measure of security and dignity.”^[13]

The period 1945–1960s is often presented in mainstream historiography and social science as involving a Black-Jewish alliance in the pursuit of civil rights for African-Americans. Kevin MacDonald’s theory that this alliance was essentially an almost-entirely Jewish-operated venture in pursuit of Jewish goals and interests (the breaking up, via legislation and cultural change, of notions of America as a White country) has been maligned as itself anti-Semitic, despite the fact such interpretations are present even among Jewish scholars in the academic mainstream. Seymour Weisman, for example, writing in a 1980 edition of the Routledge journal Patterns of Prejudice, comments that “there was an obvious Jewish self-interest to promote legislation and initiate judicial actions” that would broaden the ethnic nature of the United States.^[14]

The issue of Jewish self-interest is important because of the obvious implication of rhetorical insincerity. Much like apologetic narratives arguing that Jews traded in liquor, often via monopoly, because they believed in individual rights and freedoms, there are certainly grounds for doubting Jewish claims that they engage in “social justice” work out of sincere belief in the equality of Man. A particularly interesting case in this regard is related by Jeffrey Gurock in his The Jews of Harlem: The Rise, Decline, and Revival of a Jewish Community, where he recounts the great disillusionment of Blacks in the Bronx in the late 1950s on discovering that despite copious public Jewish rhetoric on racial equality, when a predominantly Jewish school in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood (and with a Jewish principal) “accepted five classes of Negroes” from a nearby school, they “isolated them on a separate floor.”^[15]

Seymour Weisman claimed in 1981 that it was something of a great mystery that “the breakdown of Black-Jewish relations” should have occurred “at that precise moment in history when the civil rights legislative battle had been won.”^[16] In truth, the breakdown only takes on a mysterious aspect if one firstly believes the Black-Jewish alliance to have been sincere in the first place, and, secondly, that if one believes that Jews were sincere in the putative concern for the welfare and well-being of Blacks as a matter of “social justice.” Historical data would instead suggest that Jews were prominent exploiters of Blacks who rather expertly and skillfully created an image of themselves as friends and allies of Blacks. It goes without saying that once Jewish goals in pursuing such a masquerade had been accomplished, the Jewish effort in sustaining the positive but illusory aspects of such a relationship would dramatically decline. In the absence of rhetorical smoke and mirrors, all that remained was the constant of mundane economic, social, and political exploitation in the Black heartlands. This is what has simmered since the 1960s, and this is what bubbled to the surface once again in November 2019.

A fascinating feature of coverage of the Winter 2019/2020 attacks on Jews by Blacks in New York has been the total absence of media enquiry into why the assaults took place. Like so much historiography on European anti-Semitism, there is simply no room for the question Why? As in Kiev, or Odessa, or the Rhine Valley, or Lincoln, or Aragon, or Galicia, the assaults on Jews in Brooklyn apparently emerged from the ether, motivated by some miasmic combination of insanity and demonic aggression. NBC New York reported bluntly on a “spree of hate,” but had nothing in the way of analysis of context other than a condemnation of “possible hate-based attacks” — one of the most remarkably opaque pieces of analytical nomenclature I’ve ever come across. Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind has said “The attacks against Jews are out of control, and we must have a concrete strategy to address the rise of these attacks,” but how he can develop a strategy to address something that apparently does not yet have an explanation is another question left unanswered.

What is clear is that Black anti-Semitism presents Jews with an objective problem in terms of their (publicly-expressed) self-concept as a people and the received wisdom regarding the nature of anti-Semitism (now given quasi-legal standing in many countries via the IHRA definition). The multiple ways in which Jews have sought to deal with this challenge will be addressed in a forthcoming follow-up essay, but it should suffice here to close with the remarks of Steven Gold on the Jewish response to growing Black anti-Semitism in 1940s Harlem:

Being well organized, Jewish communal associations took note when Jewish merchants were accused of inappropriate behavior. When African-American journalists or activists complained about the exploitative behavior of ghetto merchants, Jewish spokesmen often resisted accepting responsibility and instead labeled accusers as anti-Semites for referring to the merchants’ religion. Contending that Jewish merchants treated Blacks no worse than other Whites did, they objected to being singled out.^[17]

An age-old pattern had thus been employed with a 20th century twist. Denials of responsibility and accusations of blind and unfair bigotry had been honed to perfection for centuries in Europe, but now came the masterful flourish of the pluralist culture — to dissolve into “Whiteness” at will and direct Black anger at that mask instead. After all, isn’t the Jew the best friend a Black could ask for?

^[1] H.M. Bond “Negro Attitudes Towards Jews,” Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, Papers and Proceedings of a Conference on Negro-Jewish Relations in the United States (Jan., 1965), 3-9.

^[2] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of anti-Semitism (1st Books, 2004), 87.

^[3] Bond “Negro Attitudes Towards Jews,” 5.

^[4] Ibid,. 7.

^[5] O. Williams (1977). “Historical Impressions of Black-Jewish Relations Prior to World War II”. Negro History Bulletin, 40(4), 728-731.

^[6] M. Adams (ed) Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 18.

^[7] K. B. Clark, “Candor about Jewish-Negro Relations,” Commentary, Vol. 1, Dec. 1 1945, 8.

^[8] M. Davis, Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition (New York: NYU Press, 2012), 163.

^[9] C. Rottenberg, Black Harlem and the Jewish Lower East Side: Narratives Out of Time (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 128.

^[10] S. Gold, The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 73.

^[11] Ibid., 74.

^[12] J. Bracey (ed), Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 571.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] S. S. Weisman (1980) “Black‐Jewish relations in the USA—I: One year after the Andrew young affair,” Patterns of Prejudice, 14:4, 18-28.

^[15] J. Gurock, The Jews of Harlem: The Rise, Decline, and Revival of a Jewish Community (New York: NYU Press, 2016), 213.

^[16] S. S. Weisman (1981) “Black‐Jewish relations in the USA—II,” Patterns of Prejudice, 15:1, 45-52.

^[17] Gold, 75.

What is a Dark Age?

In historiography, the term “Dark Age” may describe intervening centuries for which we have little or no documentary evidence. Accordingly, the time period between the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization to the birth of the polis is known as the Greek Dark Ages by historians, simply because there are no contemporary written sources. In this essay, the term Dark Age will be used to designate a period of civilizational decline, with particular reference to Western Europe’s Dark Ages (c. 500—1000 AD). This was quite possibly the worst period of civilizational decline in Western history, but is important because it shows us that civilization is separated from the worst bestial depravity by a thin line. What George Santayana wrote is instructive: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Although this adage has become a cliché, it bears repeating since it’s well-supported by past experience. If we must focus on the Old Dark Ages, it is because we risk forgetting how fragile civilization really is. If this is the case, we are in danger of rushing heedlessly into a New Dark Age—if we have not already entered one—since we have failed to internalize the lessons of the past.

The causes of the Dark Ages in Western Europe are considered complex and multifaceted by modern historians. The barbarian successor states that replaced the Imperium Romanorum lacked the ability and competence of the Imperial government. The result was inevitable. Under barbarian rule, there were “very substantial simplifications in post-Roman material culture in the fifth to seventh centuries.”[1] Among these “simplifications” were the collapse of the empire’s infrastructure, the decline in the production of manufactured goods and use of coinage, widespread depopulation and de-urbanization and, most devastating of all, the loss of much of the ancient world’s cultural and intellectual patrimony. Although some contemporary historians stress continuity between Rome and the barbarian kingdoms, this is contradicted by the extensive archaeological record. From 500—700 AD, there was a massive decline in European living standards since Roman times, when the Dark Ages had reached their lowest point.

As terrible as these Dark Ages were, it is not the only dark period in Western history, nor will it be the last. A New Dark Age has returned, more terrible than the first. We are its passive witnesses, confident that nothing can be done to stop it. The West is crumbling because the White race has collectively decided—at the instigation of a hostile Jewish-dominated globalist elite—that White racial suicide is a moral imperative. The visible signs of this deterioration are so obvious they can no longer be ignored, at least by those who can see beyond the smoldering ruins of this decaying civilization.

A New Dark Age?

The signs of an emerging New Dark Age are fourfold, affecting the biological, intellectual, demographic and economic spheres of Western man’s existence. This decline is apparently unstoppable; as time goes by, the darkness over Europe will only become darker. In the biological and intellectual sphere, we have seen IQs steadily decline since mid-19th century. This has no doubt been masked to a considerable extent by improvements in nutrition and healthcare, resulting in longer lifespans. On the other hand, feminism and women’s sexual liberation have aggravated the decline: Low-IQ women breed prolifically, while high-IQ women influenced by feminism delay marriage for the sake of careers and education. It does not take a fertile imagination to realize the kind of dysgenic effect this has on society. In the largest North American and Western European urban centers, we see the crumbling infrastructure and growing social decay that comes with overcrowding and mass Third World immigration. More non-Whites shoveled into Western cities by globalist elites, many with anti-White ethnic agendas, means lower average population IQ, followed by a corresponding decline in quality of life as low-IQ people become an ever-increasing burden on society in terms of homelessness, drug addiction, lack of education, lack of work ethic, etc. In the absence of a technologically sophisticated elite able churn out inexpensive consumer goods, this would result in increasing “simplification” of post-Western material culture, analogous to the kind of “simplifications” archaeologists say occurred during the Old Dark Ages. Given declining IQs and racial hygienic standards, life will inevitably become a much simpler, but more brutal Darwinian struggle for survival, just as it was over a thousand years ago.

The West’s declining IQs have led to declining educational standards. The universities are no longer bastions of intellectual inquiry, like they were during their heyday, i.e., La Belle Époque, but liberal indoctrination centers with little intellectual content. In this respect, they are similar to the late medieval universities that once policed orthodoxy and discouraged freedom of thought (i.e. the Catholic Aristotelians of the medieval arts and theology faculties who opposed the new astronomy of Galileo). The people who run them, far from being interested in knowledge for its own sake, are there to reap the rewards of an easy, well-paying job where they are able to spew leftist propaganda—at the expense of their students, who still believe—albeit naively—that degrees are needed for good jobs. Mass education, far from being a benefit to anyone except the system’s architects, has lowered curricular quality and increased prevalence of grade inflation across the board.

On a side note, Western philosophy—the most important intellectual endeavor beside theoretical physics—has been particularly hard hit by PoMo relativism. From the empyrean heights of Plato and Aristotle, it has descended to the low level of a feces-encrusted cesspit. The writings of Martin Heidegger—liberal academia’s biggest superstar—are considered holy writ by his legions of adoring fans, even though they are pretentious, rambling, jargon-laced diatribes only famous because they can be interpreted to mean anything to anyone. Far from being a means of defining terms and refining methods to achieve greater clarity and understanding—the way Socrates intended—modern (especially continental) philosophy seeks to feign profundity through an unnecessarily turgid and obscure prose. Meanwhile, impenetrable jargon has become the trademark of the rest of the humanities, personified by academic superstars like Judith Butler.

White populations worldwide are hurtling toward demographic free fall. The declining birth rates in virtually all White Western Hemispheric nations are symptomatic of the collapse of the monogamous family, the result of decades of indoctrination in feminist ideology and women’s sexual liberation. Since women are no longer expected to settle down and marry, the worst aspects of female nature are now on full display. Student debt incurred by buying largely worthless (for many) college degrees is affecting the decision to marry.  If there are no traditional values—and Western society has done its best to jettison these in the name of fatuous “human rights”— society will not adequately replenish itself, eventually withering away and dying.

Finally, Western economies are being undermined from within by their own elites. Outsourcing by multinationals has decimated manufacturing sectors in all White Western countries, worsening the lives and prospects of the White middle- and working-class majority populations. Chinese goods have been allowed to flood Western markets, often with the collusion of domestic manufacturers who are able to outsource their labor costs. Real wages have stagnated and affordable housing has become increasingly scarce, as excess Third World immigrant demand places home ownership beyond reach of the ordinary citizen, particularly in the large urban centers.

Moreover, the importation of this cheap, non-White labor has a contraceptive effect, putting downward pressure on real wages which, in turn, put downward pressure on White fertility rates; working-class wages have stagnated since the 1970s.  In the West, the growing reserve army of labor disincentivizes industry from rationalizing production and channeling surplus profits into research and development. Far from getting better, the economy worsens as wealth accrues to the top 1 percent of the population; meanwhile, the middle class shrinks and poverty becomes more widespread.

Because of all of these factors, life in most of the White Western countries has progressively worsened, only made tolerable—but just barely—by the superabundance of inexpensive Chinese-made goods. That the majority of Whites and their globalist elites interpret these signs of deterioration as “progress” and “improvement” is just more evidence we really are in a Dark Age. 

Old and New Dark Ages Compared

The similarities and differences between New and Old Dark Ages may be grouped under the following headings: (a) the reasons for demographic decline; (b) Western man’s conscious decision to abandon his own civilization vs. Roman decline due to internal civilizational weaknesses, and; (c) the role of Christian ideology in the decline of Rome and Jewish ideology in modern Western culture.

First, we begin with Rome’s decline, which had a demographic dimension. After Hadrian had abandoned the territories conquered by Trajan—for administrative and fiscal reasons, the quest for new land and new bodies to rule over ground to a halt. This precipitated a crisis. The number of bodies left to till the fields and man the auxiliary forces along the frontiers declined as the vices of civilization took root. Because of the dearth of bodies and taxable wealth, the empire lacked the capacity to control its vast territories. To remedy this, the Romans recruited barbarians from burgeoning migrant populations along the frontiers or from the armies of the defeated. The historian Cassius Dio says Marcus Aurelius, after defeating the barbarians in the Marcomannic Wars, would either send them on military campaigns or settle them on land in Dacia, Pannonia and elsewhere.[2]

By the fourth century, barbarian recruitment into the armies had increased; by the mid-5th century, the ranks of the army were largely occupied by Germanic and Hunnish mercenaries, at which point even the military chain of command was thoroughly barbarized. The magister militum, the most important position in the empire after the emperor himself, was occupied by Romanized Germans for most of the fifth century. These men were more powerful than the succession of weak emperors they could make or break with a single utterance. According to the “barbarization thesis”: “Rome was fatally weakened when, in the fourth and fifth centuries, her army largely made up of foreigners no longer represented the people.”[3]

The Imperial administration’s need for barbarians was in some ways similar to Western elite demand for non-White immigrants. Like immigrants, the barbarians were cheap and expendable. Non-Whites are imported by globalists to do the work “White men don’t want to do.” Similarly, the barbarians were recruited into the armies and allowed to settle Imperial lands because fourth- and fifth-century Romans had become the “soyboys” of antiquity—soft, effeminate, milquetoast, peace-loving and totally lacking in all of the warrior virtues. Finally, like Western elites, the Imperial administration was a tax-hungry beast; but Roman justification for taxation was pragmatic, not ideological. This difference is best illustrated by the Western neoliberal economic model; predicated on perpetual growth, it serves as pretext for the White majority’s suicidally impulsive need for never-ending supplies of non-White “fresh meat.” In the Roman case, a constant stream of bodies was needed to maintain an empire overextended beyond its logistical and financial capacities. By late antiquity, this state of affairs had become militarily and financially unsustainable. The barbarian invaders were simply kicking in the doors of an old house that was rotten to the foundation.

The inevitable result of Imperial greed for taxes and manpower was ethnic demographic replacement of the Roman population across wide swathes of Imperial land. This wasn’t a conscious decision on the part of the Roman aristocracy. Given the empire’s multi-ethnic character, the Imperial administration could not refuse entrance to barbarian migrants on ethnic grounds. The problems that afflicted the Imperium during late antiquity were the outcome of earlier expansionist policies that overextended the boundaries of empire, making it difficult to maintain and control without a constant supply of warm bodies and a steady flow of taxes. Population replacement by large numbers of foreigners, the end result of failed Imperial expansionist policies and Volkerwanderung, led to the alienation of the citizenry from the institutions from their own government. The more Germanized the empire became, the less people identified with it. In time, too much Germanization meant very little patriotism; no loyalty to Rome meant no desire to prevent the barbarian invasions from overrunning much of the Imperial territories. When Africa was lost to the Vandals, there was hardly any will to recapture the territory, despite its status as breadbasket of the empire. It even meant Roman contempt—and sometimes outright ethno-racial hatred—for the Germanic and Hunnish invaders. The second time Rome was sacked in a millennium—by Alaric’s Goths in 410 AD—the underlying reason was contemptuous treatment of her barbarian auxiliaries and their sacrifices by the Romans, the outcome of reliance on cheap and expendable foreign labor.

The Volkerwanderung is not the cause of the empire’s collapse, as its internal weaknesses date from the civil wars, natural disasters and barbarian invasions of the third century; however, Germanization, combined with lack of identification with Romanitas, played a role in hastening its decline. The barbarian successor states that replaced the Imperial administration lacked the know-how to run a civilization as sophisticated and as advanced as Rome, resulting in barbarism replacing civilization in most of Western Europe.

Even though the causes of the Dark Ages in Rome and the modern West are different, it is instructive to note the final outcome in both cases was ethnic replacement by hostile foreigners, none of whom possessed the ability to maintain the civilizations they acquired either through force or by invitation. Among the main differences, the barbarians who terrorized Rome were mostly White, whereas the ones being imported by Whites into their own Western countries are overwhelmingly non-White. Unlike Rome, which at least valued Romanitas to the bitter end, the contemporary “West” aggressively pursues its own racial demise at the hands of its non-White colonizers. While Rome’s decline was the outcome of events rotting the Imperium from within, the collapse of modern Western societies and their descent into the New Dark Ages is entirely the fault of Whites being dominated by a hostile ruling elite.

Many Whites, under the influence of an alien Jewish-dominated media elite, encourage their own women to prostitute themselves to non-White foreigners, while making it harder for men of their own race to reproduce by implementing aggressively feminist, women’s liberationist and multicultural policies. This is a reason why fertility has declined to below replacement levels since the beginning of the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. Homosexuality, transgenderism and miscegenation have become the new Western values of the emerging post-Western cultures of Western Europe and North America, thanks to elite manipulation of White racial consciousness. As a result, the traditional values embodied by the institutions of monogamous marriage and the nuclear family unit are no longer influential. The image of the White woman in the minds of the non-White males encouraged by globalists to invade White-majority countries, is of a promiscuous and nymphomaniacal slut who will bed any man who desires her. This image has been exported abroad by Hollywood, but it is far from the truth, since women everywhere are biologically hypergamous. But there is no doubt this is a powerful draw for the Third World’s oversupply of single males, who cannot afford wives for themselves in their own native countries. These policies are prudishly justified as much needed “civil rights legislation” and “multiculturalism,” but more appropriate labels would be pathological ethnomasochism and delusional racial self-hatred.

Lastly, the state religion of Rome had become Christianity in the fourth century. This deprived the Imperium of her ablest and most talented men. This late classical “brain drain” further hastened a process begun during the crisis of the third century, when the Roman empire was divided between warring factions.

Italian historian Arnaldo Momigliano writes:

“The Church attracted the most creative minds—St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, Hilarius of Poitiers, St. Augustine in the West; Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea in the East: almost all born rulers, rulers of a type which, with exception of the scholarly emperor Julian, it was hard to find on the imperial throne. …

Gibbon was simplifying a very complicated issue when he insinuated that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the empire, but he perceived that the church attracted many men who in the past would have become excellent generals, governors of provinces, advisers to the emperors. …

People escaped from the state into the Church and weakened that state by giving their best to the Church. This is a situation which in its turn requires analysis and explanation. But its primary importance cannot be overlooked. The best men were working for the Church, not for the state.”[4]

The rise of Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages—an event without any single underlying cause—but it did not help matters either. As the Christian church increased in wealth and power, more people took an active interest in pursuing clerical careers. Under the pagan emperors, familiarity with the classics was mandatory for those who wanted to work for the state, but it wasn’t necessary for those who worked for the church. There was a “reduction in the number of administrative posts in the Roman empire’s Western successor kingdoms because taxation was simplified and some administrative levels … disappeared entirely. This rendered classical culture less attractive, because the effort and investment necessary to master it became less socially profitable.”[5] As a result, the classical curriculum declined in importance, becoming no longer necessary for secular advancement. In the early medieval period, the “clericalization of the culture became the sociological norm after 550.”[6] In the late sixth to seventh centuries, the classical education system was either replaced by monastic training or the study of patristics. This development negatively affected the survival of the ancient world’s secular knowledge. Dirk Rohmann writes:

Many early Christian clerics and ecclesiastical authors felt that the pagan texts of the past were completely unnecessary to lead a Christian life-style. … As classical education came to be less and less important for worldly career paths, and clerical career paths became more and more attractive, the preservation of the works of old was endangered.”[7]

Somehow these writings had become so “endangered” that almost none of them survived the sixth and seventh centuries, when Western man had sunk to the lowest depths. How could such an enormous loss occur in so brief a period of time (relatively speaking)? In the standard work on classical and medieval textual transmission, scholars Reynolds and Wilson write:

There can be little doubt that one of the major reasons for the loss of classical texts is that most Christians were not interested in reading them, and hence not enough new copies of the texts were made to ensure their survival in an age of war and destruction.[8]     

The growth of the Christian church meant loss of interest in the ancient world’s greatest achievements. Works of secular poetry, philosophy, science, and mathematics were left to rot on Western Europe’s bookshelves. Reynolds and Marshall write: “The copying of classical texts tapered off to such an extent during the Dark Ages that the continuity of pagan culture came close to being severed.”[9] The monks who dominated the medieval apparatus of textual transmission made sure to preserve thousands of copies of Greek and Vulgate New Testaments, but rarely copied the classics. According to Rudolf Blum:

Of the Greek literature created before 250 B.C. we have only a small, even though very valuable, part. We do not even have the complete works of those authors who were included in the lists of classics compiled by the Alexandrian philologists. Of all the works of pagan Greek literature perhaps only one percent has come down to us.[10]

Rohmann wrotes: “It is estimated that for Latin literature less than one per cent of titles survive in total.”[11] Because of its indifference to the achievements of the past, the Christian church had inadvertently prolonged the Dark Ages for centuries. It wasn’t until the rediscovery of classical literature—Aristotle, Plato, Euclid and so on—beginning in the twelfth century, that Western man was able to free himself from the brutal indifference and crass superstitions of the Christian church.

Like Christianity, cultural Marxism has played a similar role in the New Dark Ages, but with an important difference. Christianity did not cause the empire’s disintegration, but only hastened its decline, whereas cultural Marxism is a central causal factor in Western decline. Under Cultural Marxist influence, globalist elites have aggressively promoted feminism, multiculturalism and mass immigration. Homosexuality, transgenderism and miscegenation have become enshrined as the new values of a decaying post-modern civilization. The church did not need to suppress classical culture to ensure Christian hegemony in Western Europe; there were a few skirmishes here and there, but indifference was more than enough. Cultural Marxists, unlike Christians, actively suppress knowledge of racial and sexual differences using social pressures, i.e., ostracism and shaming language (“You racist! You sexist!”); economic pressures, i.e., depriving right-wing dissidents of their livelihoods, and; legal pressures, i.e., hate speech and anti-Holocaust denial legislation. On top of this, the globalist elites even have the power to shape the consciousness of the masses. By altering human perception of objective reality through control of mass media, such as newspapers, television, radio and billboards, they seek to neutralize the opposition, while proclaiming their new religion of liberal egalitarianism.

Like Christianity, cultural Marxism has its own belief system. “There is no such thing as race or sex,” proclaims the new religion, “all cultures are the same.” These beliefs are impervious to reason, just like the beliefs of the devout Christian. Like Christian religious epistemology, cultural Marxist epistemology is faith-based. This does not bode well for the survival of our current, albeit degenerate post-Western civilization. As Edmund Burke pithily observed: “A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation.”

Christian indifference prolonged the Dark Ages and the suffering of the people of Europe, until what remained of ancient secular knowledge was recovered between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, giving Europeans a solid foundation upon which to build. Without the rediscovery of the writings of Aristotle and others, the modern world would have taken much longer to emerge, assuming it would have emerged at all. The cultural Marxists, far from being indifferent to the Western intellectual tradition, draw much of their inspiration from the liberal Enlightenment, especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and various Marxist heterodoxies, like the Frankfurt School. Unlike the church, which has never actively suppressed any branch of human knowledge, cultural Marxist fanatics go out of their way to suppress the West’s accumulated knowledge of race and sex differences, including the role of evolutionary biology in their origin and development. Although cultural Marxism is not an attack on all Western knowledge, its attempt to eliminate knowledge of racial and sexual differences will have the same effect as centuries of Christian indifference to the intellectual achievements of antiquity.

Because of the diligent efforts of cultural Marxists, few Westerners are aware of the size and extent of racial and sexual differences between populations, or even that such differences exist. This is not unlike the Christian theologians of the Old Dark Ages who hoarded what little remained of ancient philosophy, science and mathematics among themselves, while the populace remained totally ignorant of the intellectual achievements of classical antiquity. Cultural Marxism, unlike the Christian church, has not yet resulted in the loss of almost all branches of human knowledge, but its willful suppression of knowledge of race and sex differences is just as devastating, if not more so. At least there were still men of ability after the long, dark night of Christian indifference, able to rebuild on the wisdom of the past after the recovery of Aristotle in the twelfth century. With the abandonment of all knowledge of race and sex differences, the West’s vast storehouse of knowledge will be lost because of the biological degeneration and extinction of the original populations of Western Europe and North America. Whites will always be able to abandon crass superstitions—even if it takes centuries—but a gene pool, once contaminated by an inferior population’s low-quality genes, may never recover.

Will Western Man Survive The New Dark Ages?

The Romans of late antiquity were oblivious to the fact their now moribund Western empire was slipping into the Dark Ages, although a few were prescient enough to notice the extent of the rot before it was too late. One such prescient Roman was the fourth-century pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote:

At the time when Rome first began to rise into a position of world-wide splendour, in order that she might grow to a towering stature, Virtue and Fortune, ordinarily at variance, formed a pact of eternal peace; for if either one of them had failed her, Rome had not come to complete supremacy. Her people, from the very cradle to the end of their childhood, a period of about three hundred years, carried on wars about her walls. Then, entering adult life, after many toilsome wars, they crossed the Alps and the sea. Grown to youth and manhood, from every region which the vast globe includes, they brought back laurels and triumphs. And now, declining into old age, and often owing victory to its name alone, it has come to a quieter period of life.[12]

Only Ammianus’s belief in an eternal Rome prevented him from swallowing the ultimate blackpill and taking his observations to their logical conclusion: Rome’s days as a civilization were numbered. The Christians and the Germanic barbarians would be more interested in wielding their swords and chanting Christian hymns than rescuing the decaying Imperium Romanorum from oblivion.

Even a few late-ancient Christians were not oblivious to the impending collapse of Rome. In a letter of 396, St. Jerome wrote:

My heart sickens when I go over the catastrophes that have happened in our time. For more than twenty years, not a day has gone past between Constantinople and the Julian Alps without the shedding of Roman blood. How many matrons, how many virgins dedicated to God, how many free-born women of noble blood, have fallen into the hands of those wild beasts, … bishops imprisoned, priests slaughtered, churches defiled, horses tethered to altars. … The world of Rome is falling to pieces.”[13]  

The pattern is the same with the New Dark Ages that have blanketed all of Western Europe and North America. Few notice what has happened before voices of protest are silenced indefinitely. As always, the masses carry on as if nothing has changed. No one ever knows they have really gone through a Dark Age until it has been pointed out to them centuries after the fact. It was over 300 years after the “official” end of the Old Dark Ages when the fourteenth-century humanist Petrarch first noticed the lights had entirely gone out in Western Europe for over a thousand years, beginning with the crisis of the third century and continuing until his own day. He had a special term for these intervening centuries: aetas tenebrae or “age of darkness.”[14]

Ages of darkness, like the one first recognized and described by Petrarch, are necessarily characterized by regnant ideologies that reflect the general ignorance and stupidity of the masses. Medieval man fervently believed in this child-like superstition despite the pointless suffering it caused all around him. Our own day is no different; in our New Dark Age, race and sex are believed to be illusions invented by racists and sexists to oppress and marginalize what cultural Marxists believe are “disadvantaged minorities.” These beliefs are just as silly, but potentially more destructive than simple Christian beliefs. As religious or quasi-religious beliefs, they are impervious to reason because they are derived from faith-based epistemologies, which do not allow for the revision of the belief-system itself in light of new evidence.

There are no real solutions to the problems that confront what’s left of Western societies. Only seismic shocks like what led to the Renaissance and Reformation were able to awaken medieval man from his “dogmatic slumbers,” to use Kant’s phrase. With the end of ecclesiastical authority in Europe, medieval man was able to wean himself from his crass superstitions and singlehandedly create the modern world. On the other hand, it seems unlikely a new Renaissance will be enough to jolt Western man—if indeed we can even call him that—from his own “dogmatic slumbers,” given his newfound faith entails mental and biological degeneration of his own subspecies.

Our only hope lies, not with any White awakening—a totally unrealistic fantasy at this point—but with natural selection. If even a few Whites can resist the poison of cultural Marxism, by breeding selectively among themselves and preserving their own bloodlines from non-White intermixture, they may be able to give future Whites the opportunity to rebuild a society of their very own upon the ashes of post-Western degeneracy.

[1] Wickham, Chris. The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000. London ; Penguin, Allen Lane, 2010, p. 7. ‌

[2] “Cassius Dio’s Roman History.” LacusCurtius, Uchicago.Edu, 2019, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html. Accessed 2 June 2019, LXXII.11. ‌

[3] Speidel, Michael P. Riding For Caesar: The Roman Emperor’s Horseguard. Routledge, 2011, p. 65. ‌

[4]Momigliano, Arnaldo, ed. “Judeo-Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire.” The Conflict Between Paganism and Judeo-Christianity in the Fourth Century, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99.

[5]Inglebert, Hervé. “Introduction: Late Antique Conceptions of Late Antiquity” in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, Oxford University Press, 11 Oct. 2012, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336931.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195336931. Accessed 2 Nov. 2019, p. 11 (PDF version). ‌

[6]Ibid., p. 12.

[7]Rohmann, Dirk. Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity: Studies in Text Transmission. Waco, Baylor University Press, 2017, p. 198. ‌

[8]Reynolds, L. D., and N. G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, p. 34. ‌

[9]Reynolds, L. D., et al. Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983, p. xvii. ‌

[10]Blum, Rudolf. Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography. Madison, Wis., The University Of Wisconsin Press, 2011, p. 8. ‌

[11]Rohman, Christianity, p.8.

[12]“The Roman Antiquities of Ammianus Marcellinus.” LacusCurtius, Uchicago.edu, 2011, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/14. Accessed 18 Jan. 2020, Book XIV.6.3-4. ‌

[13]Letters, 60, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 22, p. 600. Quoted by Lidia Storoni Mazzolani, The Idea of the City in Roman Thought, trans. S. O’Donnell (London:1970), p. 235.

[14]Lynch, Jack, and John T. Lynch. The Age of Elizabeth in the Age of Johnson. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010, p. 21. ‌