Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective, Part 1

/49 Comments/in , /by

PART 1

Whether the Jews comprise a religion, a nation, an ethnic group, or a race (or a combination of these) has always been central to the Jewish Question. The recently published Jews & Race — Writings on Identity and Difference 1880–1940 (edited by Mitchell B. Hart) is an anthology of Jewish writing which offers a fascinating insight into Jewish racial thinking during a period when hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory was generally accepted throughout the West. Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, Western anthropologists posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlative set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Given the consistent results from over 90 years of IQ testing of different racial groups (as defined by external traits like skin color) and other race-based life history statistics, we know this methodology, long dismissed by those within the Judeo-Marxist intellectual establishment as “pseudoscience,” to be entirely valid.

The Jewish socialist writer Chaim Zhitlowsky expressed the orthodox view in 1939 when he noted that “it is understood that each Volk is endowed with certain characteristic traits, some bodily, some mental. Such traits are transmitted hereditarily from generation to generation, and determine how in fact a people receive the phenomena of the external world and how it reacts to these phenomena. On such traits depend the particular and specific national customs or manners, insofar as the blessed children of a people, the most gifted by nature, bring forth human cultural treasures.” The study of racial differences was held by Zhitlowsky to be necessary “in order to clarify the fundamental role of biology in human progress. Here the history of culture must be considered with racial descent in thinking about the creator of culture, and it is not a superfluous or meaningless thing to take [the biological] into account.” Read more

Mark Leibler: An exemplar of Jewish hypocrisy and self-deception

/135 Comments/in , /by

Finding examples of Jewish hypocrisy and double standards about ethnic interests is not exactly big news (see Jewish attitudes in Israel versus the Diaspora). The entire Jewish political spectrum in the Diaspora in the West energetically pursues policies intended to displace White people and their culture, while at the same time promoting the interests of Israel as an ethnostate.  There are differences in emphasis of course. The neocons are mainly focused on heavy-handed, overt promotion of Israel and less strident about White displacement. They sometimes  get off message on immigration when there are larger fish to fry. As Peter Brimelow wrote about Bill Kristol, “Kristol will return to immigration enthusiasm once he has helped persuade Bush to attack Iran.” New president. Same message.

On the other hand, the mainstream Jewish community (more than 80% of Jews voted for Obama) is more openly dedicated to White displacement and sometimes engages in a bit of hand-wringing on some of Israel’s more egregious bouts of aggression  and racialism while nevertheless managing not to rock to the boat when it comes to total fealty of the US to the religious and ethnonationalist right that dominates Israeli politics.

Despite their banality, egregious examples of hypocrisy and double standards are nevertheless worth commenting on. And in the case of Mark Leibler,  it shows that these patterns are not confined to the US. (Here’s an article pointing out the same pattern in Australian MP Michael Danby.)  Read more

Romney and Gingrich compete over who is more pro-immigration

/53 Comments/in /by

If there is any doubt about how destructive the Republican Party is toward White America, tonight’s Florida debate should settle the issue.  The two front runners, Gingrich and Romney, had a heated exchange about immigration prompted when Wolf Blitzer, CNN’s resident AIPAC activist, asked Gingrich if Romney was the most anti-immigrant of the remaining candidates.  Gingrich eagerly agreed,  based on his (Gingrich’s) pro-amnesty stance and Romney’s opposition to illegal immigration. In the video below, Romney says that the charge that he is anti-immigrant is “repulsive,” and points out that his father was born in Mexico. He then expresses his support for expanded legal immigration. Romney loves immigrants as long as they’re legal. Must have more, because, after all, diversity is our greatest strength. (Here’s a  VDARE.com article from yesterday on Black attacks on Whites in the Whitopia of Portland, OR; note the response of clueless Whites.) Despite the fact that immigrants of all stripes will vote Democrat and, along with the rest of the non-White coalition, make the Republicans irrelevant in the very near future. Après moi le déluge. Let’s hope it’s an A3P deluge.

So the two Republicans supposedly trying to appeal to the angry White base of the Party by showing how conservative they are (just what are they conserving?) end up competing over who is more pro-immigration—not to mention their equally insane competition on who is more pro-Israel. (Newt is Sheldon Adelson’s boy, but Romney has actually gotten far more money from Jews than Gingrich; both have surrounded themselves with neocon foreign policy hawks eager to attack Iran).

Pathethic.  If nothing else, it shows the attitudes of those who really have the power in America today.

It’s really a competition over who is more sociopathic: The corpulent, corrupt, infinitely sleazy Gingrich, and the smooth, wealthy stuffed shirt darling of the Eastern Republican establishment. The winner to go up against the poster child of diversity and darling of the New York/Hollywood culture machine. American democracy, 2012 version.

 

A New Call of the Wild: The American Third Position Party

/203 Comments/in , /by

Merlin Miller, A3P candidate for President of the United States

The following is an English translation of an article published in the French magazine RIVAROL (published by  Jérôme Bourbon) on the A3P and it’s presidential candidates.

In the hustle and bustle of the various right wing currents inAmericait is fascinating to observe the recent birth of the American Third Position Party (A3P), a new political party dedicated to the preservation of European cultural, racial and ethnic heritage. The A3P has recently launched a political and cultural program that could make lots of waves at the upcoming presidential elections in America. The silent majority of American citizens is fed up; it is tired of the two-party system of East Coast ‘banksters’ and West Coast culture destroyers, both ruining the country with their destructive ideology of multiculturalism and causing dangerous mutual racial mistrust amidst the American body politic. Everybody wants something new.

The A3P offers a patriotic alternative to the two parties which, similar to subprime shams, have also mortgaged the future of America. Over the last forty years, American politics has been shaped by the plutocratic system and by the two identical political machines, under the guise of the Republican Party and the Democrat party respectively. It is always the Same and its Double poorly mimicked — if we were to   borrow some words from the French philosopher of postmodernity, Jean Baudrillard. Both parties seem to be united in the ruthless dogma of the “third excluded”, as well as in the defamation of those who reject the media swamp of “political correctness.” Read more

Counter-Currents Interview

/67 Comments/in , , /by

I did an interview with Counter-Currents’ Greg Johnson and Mike Polignano—more of a discussion really. It touches on some important topics related to psychology, the nature of the West, and what kinds of people we want as White advocates.

The German-Jewish Kulturkampf in the Weimar Republic

/65 Comments/in , , /by

The beginning of the Weimar Republic (1918–1933) in Germany was characterized by a surge of the German Socialist Democratic Party (SPD) and revolutionary activities by the communists. The German emperor had fled the country, the empire was economically in tatters due to the Great War (1914–1918) and the political right was in disarray. It was not until the rise of National Socialism (NS) in the 1930s that the right regained the upper hand in Germany. A good example of this shift from left to right is the city of Breslau (600,000 inhabitants in 1928), where the SPD scored 51.19% of the popular vote in 1919 and the NS party received 51.7% in 1933. The question is how the balance shifted from left to right and how this can be attributed to the result of a struggle between revolutionary Jews and nationalist Germans.

Breslau Gymnasium

In the German educational system the gymnasium was (and still is) the highest level of secondary education and a stepping stone for entrance at a university. The gymnasium was the ‘nursery’ for the German cultural and political elite. Around 1900 it was dominated by the Christian and nationalistic German culture of the day, the total opposite of the cosmopolitan and pacifist ideas which are prevalent nowadays. This did not mean that this culture was unopposed, not least because the gymnasia were not a pure German Christian affair. In both the 1880s and 1900s more than 30% of the pupils in the Breslau gymnasia were Jewish (Till van Rahden, Jews and other Germans, p. 126). A further illustration of Jewish overrepresentation in higher education is the census of 1879 which showed that of every 10,000 Protestant inhabitants of Berlin, 81 had obtained secondary education; the rate among Catholics was 22 and among Jews 350. In Upper-Silesia, the region adjacent to Breslau, the rate was 81 Protestants, 19 Catholics and 423 Jews (A. Prinz, Juden im deutschen Wirtschaftsleben, p. 89). Read more

The Spanish Civil War: A Successful Nationalist Revolution, Part 2

/96 Comments/in , /by

The Civil War began on 18 July 1936. The Moroccan uprising had been betrayed at the last minute. The rebels therefore missed the element of surprise upon which they had been relying. The government-controlled radio reported that the rebellion was confined to Morocco and would soon be crushed. In reality, several important cities — Seville, Córdoba, Cádiz in the south, Valladolid, Zaragoza and the entire Carlist stronghold of Navarre in the north — were soon secured by the rebels. During the first phase of the war, however, most of the country remained under Republican control.

In Madrid and Barcelona, socialist, Communist and anarchist militias led a lawless reign of terror. General Lopez Ochoa, although himself a Republican and Freemason, had quashed the Revolution in Asturias alongside Franco two years earlier. He was decapitated in his hospital bed on 19 August. His severed head was then displayed in the streets of Madrid by a bloodthirsty Red mob in one of many scenes reminiscent of the French Revolution.

Real or imagined political opponents and their families — indeed, anyone perceived as a “class enemy” — were fair game for the Red rabble. Torture, rape and executions, often in front of family members, were not uncommon. As always, the revolutionary hatred was primarily directed against the Church. What took place in Red Spain during the first six months of the Civil War was one of the worst religious persecutions in modern times. Thirteen bishops, and over 7,000 priests, monks and nuns were murdered, in many cases after having been cruelly tortured. Exactly how many Catholic lay men and women were martyred for their faith is difficult to estimate. Read more