Review: Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem [Part Two of Two]

/80 Comments/in , /by
Friedrich-Nietzsche-und-Richard-Wagner

Nietzsche and Wagner

Go to Part One

Was Nietzsche bold or stupid? As stated above, I don’t think he quite fully grasped the scale of the ethnic conflict subtly playing out in Germany at that time, or the sheer power already enjoyed by Jews. For someone of his (then lowly) position, his 1872 lecture appears to me as a step too soon. Wagner had of course taken even further steps against Jewish influence — but the older man possessed significantly more stature and legitimacy. Nietzsche sent his lecture notes to Wagner on February 4, and the composer replied cautiously. Wagner, who was fully aware of the damage that could be wrought by Jews on lone targets like himself, responded: “I say to you: that’s the way it is. … But I am concerned about you, and wish with my entire heart that you don’t ruin yourself.” Cosima, Wagner’s wife, also wrote to Nietzsche expressing concern. Starting by citing Goethe (‘Everything significant is uncomfortable’), she said that his ‘boldness’ and ‘bluntness’ surprised her. In a later letter she makes her concerns more explicit, stating that she wanted him to take some “maternal” advice so that he should “avoid stirring up a hornet’s nest” :

Do you really understand me? Don’t mention the Jews, and especially not en passant; later, when you want to take up this gruesome fight, in the name of God, but not at the very outset, so that on your path you won’t have all this confusion and upheaval. I hope you don’t misunderstand me: you know that in the depths of my soul I agree with your utterance. But not now and not in this way.

According to Cosima’s diaries, Nietzsche was summoned to a meeting with her and Wagner on February 12 to discuss the lecture. We can only speculate at what precisely was said, but Nietzsche dropped the Jewish reference from the published version of his lecture and nothing similar to it would ever again appear in his speeches or published writings. He would continue to attack the evils of the press, newspapers, financial affairs, the stock exchange, modernity, urban life, and cosmopolitanism — but he would never again mention them in conjunction with Jews or Judaism. Holub argues that the episode taught Nietzsche that he should not mention the Jews by name and certainly not attack them in print. He would thereafter adopt the same ‘cultural code’ that many anti-Jewish intellectuals were forced to utilize as a means of fighting the culture war without being labelled ‘anti-Semitic.’ Read more

Review: Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem [Part One of Two]

/70 Comments/in , /by

 nietzsches-jewish-problem

‘Wagner himself asserts about Nietzsche that a flower could have come from this bulb. Now only the bulb remains, really a loathsome thing.’
Cosima Wagner, 1878.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s puzzling stance on Jews and Judaism has perplexed me for the better part of a decade, so I was intrigued and optimistic about Princeton University Press’s 2015 publication of Robert Holub’s Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism. Broadly speaking, I’m sympathetic to certain elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly its rejection of equality and the concept of the ‘will to power.’ However, I can’t say I ever came close to describing myself as a ‘Nietzschean’ in the same way that the late Jonathan Bowden was fond of doing. One of the reasons for my hesitation in claiming affinity with Nietzsche’s worldview was that I couldn’t escape the impression that its nihilism was often destructive ‘for the sake of it,’ a quality that has endeared it to the Left, past and present. Then there was Nietzsche’s, to my mind unforgivable, habit of lauding the Hebrew over the German. More importantly though, I couldn’t perceive any true coherence or solidity in Nietzsche’s writing beyond his celebrated aphorisms. Taken as a whole, the philosophy of Nietzsche was apt to strike me as too intentionally fluid; too deliberately open to interpretation. Nowhere was this non-committal stance more apparent than in Nietzsche’s sparse, vague, contradictory and often quite opportunistic references to Jews and Judaism.

As one might expect of a philosopher as enigmatic as Nietzsche, his work has been approached awkwardly and suspiciously by scholars and ideologues alike. His attitudes towards Jews, in particular, have been debated, discussed and fought over from the very beginning of his public career. Nowhere, and at no time, was a consensus ever reached. During the Third Reich he was both ‘recruited for the cause’ by some, and rejected outright by others. His foundational place in the National Socialist philosophical canon was thus never assured, primarily because of his nihilism, his hostility towards Nationalism, and his ambivalence regarding Jews. Confusion still reigns. Modern scholarship has been divided between those who condemn Nietzsche outright as a ‘racist’ reactionary and a proto-Fascist, and those who highlight his vocal opposition to political anti-Semitism as thus seek his social exoneration and academic rehabilitation. As noted above, elements of Nietzsche remain strongly attractive to the Left. Therefore, where total exoneration of anti-Semitism has been found difficult, blame for ‘corrupting’ Nietzsche and shaping him as an ‘anti-Semite’ has been attributed variously to his one-time guru, Richard Wagner, or his sister Elisabeth, who married Bernhard Förster, perhaps the leading figure in nineteenth-century political anti-Semitism. The result of these battles has not been a clarification of the historical record, but an ever-thickening web of biased interpretations, white-washing, and pseudo-history. Read more

Using the Moral Capital of the Holocaust to Promote Muslim Migration

/60 Comments/in , /by

It has always been obvious that Donald Trump’s candidacy would result in a barrage of hostile media, and there have already been numerous comparisons of Trump to Hitler. But now, coinciding with Holocaust Remembrance Day, we get Holocaust survivors chiming in. The Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank is a Jewish patriot with access to the elite media, of whom Philip Weiss wrote:

The answer [for why the Israel Lobby is so powerful] is not a conspiracy of donors. Though, yes, donors matter. The answer is the importance of Zionism inside the US establishment. It is the sincere belief among empowered Jews like Dana Milbank, Alan Dershowitz, and Matt Dorf that the establishment of Israel was the redemptive end point of a tragic European Jewish history, and that American Jews are equal partners in the fulfillment of that redemption. This is a sincere, core belief on the part of countless Jewish politicians, journalists, donors and thinktank officials, many of them liberals.

And, from Milbank’s perspective, in order to redeem that tragic Jewish history, it is important to derail Trump’s candidacy by invoking the “moral authority” of holocaust survivors. Milbank:

This year’s Holocaust remembrance comes at a time when Donald Trump, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, retweets to his nearly 6 million followers a message from @WhiteGenocideTM based in “Jewmerica,” and a time when his nearest challenger, Ted Cruz, brandishes the endorsement of a minister who says Hitler was a “hunter” sent after the Jews by God. There has never been a more important time for Americans to heed the moral authority of the Holocaust survivors still among us. …

This refers to this retweet by Trump:

I guess Milbank’s idea is that by retweeting someone, you are also endorsing all of his ideas, and therefore Trump is evil. But let’s face it, it’s a funny tweet, and I rather doubt that Trump vetted @WhiteGenocide. Still, it’s encouraging that Trump did not just chuckle and move on when he saw that Twitter tag.

Read more

Kouchner’s Rage: Portrait of a Warmonger and Immigrationist

/45 Comments/in , /by

 

koushner-kosovo

Kouchner laughs when questioned about reports of organ trafficking under his watch in Kosovo.

Bernard Kouchner is a senior French politician and has for decades been a common face in the media, typically promoting this or that “humanitarian intervention” in some part of the world. He served as France’s foreign minister between 2007 and 2010.

I was tremendously struck by a passage in Paul-Éric Blanrue’s book on Sarkozy and the Jews[1] in which he mentions Kouchner’s hysterical reaction to one of his friends mentioning “the Jewish lobby.” Numerous senior figures, including President François Mitterrand and Prime Minister Raymond Barre, have noted that the lobby is a major player in French political and cultural life.[2] Blanrue’s book more generally uses Sarkozy’s career to explore the secular trend in France of the steady replacement of vestigial Gaullist elites, still vaguely committed to French independence, by neoconservative and globalist elites.

Jacques Séguéla, a wealthy French advertising man, recounts that he was on a cruise with Kouchner and his wife Christine Ockrent (then the head of France’s international state media, including Radio France International and TV station France24):

I incidentally mentioned, I no longer remember in what context, without any racist intent, the expression “Jewish lobby.” What had I said? Bernard jumped up at once and locked himself in his cabin. Christine [Ockrent, wife, DG of France Monde, TV5 Monde, France 24, RFI], went in as a scout, she came back bearing a Kouchnerian diktat: “I will leave this anti-Semitic boat first thing in the morning!” I didn’t sleep the entire night. At the crack of dawn, I broke into apologies without really knowing what had been my sin.[3]

This episode, I believe, will resonate strongly with many people who have had to interact with strongly-identified Jews whenever their perceived core interests are stake. Kouchner displays astounding emotional intensity and a sense that he is entitled to engage in unrestricted emotional blackmail against a friend for the smallest unintentional slight. But what is more terrifying, for a Jew, than the sight of goyim pointing out that Jews have a disproportional influence, or even form a “lobby,” in goyishe lands? Read more

Remembering Greville Janner on Holocaust Memorial Day

/45 Comments/in , /by

The slogan for today’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “Don’t Stand By” — a reference to the widespread Jewish belief that many people in Britain and elsewhere turned a blind eye to Jewish suffering during World War II.

Just in case anyone misses the insinuation, the HMD website spells it out.

The Holocaust and subsequent genocides took place because the local populations allowed insidious persecution to take root. Whilst some actively supported or facilitated state policies of persecution, the vast majority stood by silently — at best, afraid to speak out; at worst, indifferent. Bystanders enabled the Holocaust, Nazi Persecution and subsequent genocides.

This attempt to spread responsibility for the events of 1939–1945 from the perpetrators to Britain and every other White country in Europe has long been an aim of Jewish ethnic activists, and now it seems they have been successful.

A good example is the Holocaust Explained website, intended as an education site for schools and funded by Jewish organisations as well as municipal authorities. It explains that the British have much to be ashamed of in their treatment of Jews before and during the war. So British schoolchildren who up until now have been told their people had a “good war” will now learn another story: Britain is culpable. Read more

National Review’s Failed Conservatism of Values, Ideas, and Principles

/87 Comments/in , /by

The National Review assault on Donald Trump brings up the issue of basing one’s political views on values, ideas, and principles. The problem is simply that these abstractions may or may not reflect fundamental interests, and the Trump candidacy is bringing this to the fore. The NR commentary is essentially a brief for the priority of principles, ideas, and values over interests. NR editor Rich Lowry sums up the theme:

If you truly are conservative, you believe in ideas and in principles, … It’s not just attitudes. It’s not just who you dislike. It’s limited government. It’s the Constitution. It’s liberty. Those are the things that truly make this country special. And they are basically afterthoughts to Donald Trump. He almost never talks about them.

For Lowry, the contrast is between ideas and principles versus not liking someone (?!). Concerns about “limited government” and respect for the Constitution are the main themes running through the comments. Trump just hasn’t been mouthing adherence to either of them, and his critics point to instances, mainly in the past, where he has strayed from these abstractions. (Yes, the Constitution is an abstraction, because as Joe Sobran said (and quoted by Gregory Hood), “the Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” It follows from this, and it is certainly true, that the Constitution does not pose any serious threat to the eclipse of White America.)

In all of this, there is no mention of fundamental interests that might  be compromised by adhering to the principles they espouse. As I noted in a recent article on the response to Trump, “Conservatism Inc. may argue that Trump is not a ‘conservative.’ But the reality is that Trump voters are focusing on his big issues—immigration first and foremost. Unless we win the immigration battle, none of the other battles can possibly be won.” Read more

Reality Shock in the American Classroom: A Guide for the Perplexed

/38 Comments/in , /by

 

WaltersA review of Facing Reality in American Education by Robert J. Walters

There are over 1200 schools of education in the United States awarding upwards of 175,000 Masters Degrees each year. Prospective students are increasingly selected on the basis of demonstrated commitment to egalitarian ideology; in any case, all of them are  intensively marinated in that way of thinking for a couple years or more before being let loose in America’s classrooms. There, of course, they observe White, Jewish and Asian students outperforming Blacks and Mexicans—over, and over, and over again.

Some teachers’ beliefs are unaffected by even a lifetime of observation contradicting what they have been taught; such close-minded ideologues are the successes of our ed school system. But for many of their colleagues, cognitive dissonance is painful, and their inability to “make a difference” in the lives of their young Black and Brown charges can be deeply discouraging.

The education establishment makes sure these well-meaning teachers have nowhere to turn. Some become cynics who go on mouthing the platitudes they have been taught while learning not to care about their students. More than a few drop out of the profession entirely, at a considerable sacrifice of time and money invested. Very few, we can be sure, ever stumble across American Renaissance or any other publication that might allow them to make sense of their experiences. Read more