Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire and Race in the European Project
Hans Kundnani
Hurst Publishers, 2023
Eurowhiteness is one of those books that immediately catches the attention of a “racist”. With a bright orange cover and a title like Eurowhiteness displayed in large block letters, how could it not? Curiosity compelled me to take it down from the bookshop shelf and browse the introductory remarks. After a brief Google search to confirm my suspicions of the mixed-race origins of the author, I was ready to groan and roll my eyes at what I presumed to be a vapid book that deconstructed European identity by arguing that “blackness” or “brownness” somehow has just as much place within Europe as “whiteness.” What emerged from its pages instead was a novel left-wing polemic against the European Union (EU) *because* of its perceived Whiteness.
Author Hans Kundnani was born to an Indian father and a Dutch mother and grew up in the United Kingdom. As with most mixed-race people who struggle to place their identity, he believes this background gives him a unique perspective on European history and identity. His first post-university job was for the Commission for Racial Equality, the enforcement body established by the UK Race Relations Act 1976, and by 2009 he was working for the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank dedicated to Pan-European ideas. As Kundnani describes it, Eurowhiteness is the culmination of his shift in thinking from a pro-European convinced of the moral good of the EU, to a critic who has abandoned the myths that once informed his worldview.[1]
Kundnani does not present a bibliography, but his ideological debt to leading thinkers in critical race and post-colonial theory is apparent. His endnotes draw from well-known figures in this sphere such as Charles W. Mills, Gurminder K. Bhambra, Paul Gilroy, and historical forebears Frantz Fanon and W.E.B Du Bois. The acknowledgements section reveals Kundnani’s “particular debt” to Swedish post-colonial scholar Peo Hansen. Hansens’ book Eurafrica, which explores the African strategic fantasies of early Pan-European thinkers — notably Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi — are what seemingly began Kundnani’s path towards euroscepticism.
Eurowhiteness is well-paced and I can offer no criticism of Kundnani’s cogent writing style. Other reviewers have affixed the word “challenging” to the book, but to those of us not inflicted with colour-blind thinking and who already see the intrinsic link between Western civilisation and the White race, the themes parsed out in Kundnani’s book are hardly cause for discomfort. His claim that the EU has recently taken a “civilisational turn” towards the protection of European identity and that as a result the institution could just as easily be used as a vehicle for racist purposes is also familiar. Way back in 2017 Richard Spencer was pouring cold water on the euphoria over the Brexit vote, arguing that the European Union could instead become a potential racial empire, a counter to NATO and Atlanticism.
The value of this book for readers of The Occidental Observer lies principally in understanding the intellectual journey of the author and discerning the potential for the emergence of a popular left-wing critique of the EU in the Anglosphere and beyond. Kundnani’s transition from EU booster to EU sceptic is instructive, as well as revealing the anti-White perspectives and motivations that can lie behind soft-spoken academics. Despite the myriad of anti-racist measures, tolerance initiatives, and hate speech laws that encompass the modern EU, Kundnani has turned on the European Union because it is just still too White, too Western. After all, the EU’s history is rooted in Europe and much of its historical and present-day motivations are the defence of European people and Western values. That alone is enough to condemn it in Kundnani’s eyes.
Regionalist Racism
Kundnani’s critique of the European Union begins with the dismantling of what he sees is the common misunderstanding of its structural nature. Rather than conceptualising it as an inclusive cosmopolitan project that has renounced nationalism — a position held by both supporters on the left and critics on the right — Kundnani attacks the EU as a project analogous to nationalism. According to Kundnani, it is better understood as a form of “regionalism.” That is, nationalism on a more continental scale, and imbued with all the same chauvinistic impulses, power dynamics and histories of colonial dispossession that nation-states are saddled with.[2] The same impulse towards nation-building is found in the ‘region-building’ of the EU.
Building on this concept of regionalism as nationalism on a larger scale, Kundnani draws upon Jewish academic Hans Kohn’s theory of nationalism. Kohn invented the concept of civic nationalism as distinct from ethnic nationalism ideally suited for facilitating non-White migration. Just as a nation can have strands of civic and ethnic nationalism, so too does the regionalist EU. It possesses both a civic and an ethnic component that waxes and wanes in strength across time; secularism, civil institutions and liberal rights weighed against Christian, illiberal, civilisational and racial ideas. For Kundnani, it is “disturbing” that the EU continues to draw upon such ethnic/cultural elements from Europe’s history.[3]
Chapter 2 briefly traces the history of European identity from its ethnic and cultural origins at the time of the Battle of Tours, where the word was first used by the victorious Franks in order to “other” the external enemy, the Muslims. From the seventeenth century onwards, ideas of Europe began to shift from being strictly synonymous with Christianity. At this point, a rationalist, enlightenment notion of Europe with a civilising mission to the rest of the world emerged, and finally the notion of whiteness or the racial identification of the European peoples as Whites.
Kundnani’s critique of the Enlightenment values that form the basis of the EU follows the now standard deconstruction of its universalism, positing that it is instead of being based in Whiteness and in the particular systems of White supremacy:
… while Enlightenment ideas like the “rights of man” — the antecedent of what we would today call “human rights” — were potentially universal, they emerged from a particular European context, and moreover, were put into practice in a racialized way. … [C]olonialism and slavery were carried out in the name of enlightenment ideas.[4]
The Enlightenment is presented (or problematised, to use the lingo) in the most debased terms possible, as the output of White supremacists. Immanuel Kant, whom Kundnani points out wrote an early appeal for European unity that is now celebrated by the EU, is lambasted for his racial theories. Rousseau is condemned because his writings did not speak directly to the plight of Black slaves in French colonies.
Next, the alleged colonial origins of the EU are fleshed out — the “original sin” of the EU as Kundnani likes to call it. Rather than being anti-colonial, the early movements towards Pan-European unity developed the concept of Eurafrica, which envisioned the African continent as a yet undeveloped source of raw material for a future European power-bloc. Many of the founding states of the EU also held onto their colonial possessions after the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC), the formal precursor to the EU. France and Belgium in particular factored these colonies into their economic considerations for a post-war redevelopment enmeshed into wider Europe. Predatory relations further continued after the formal independence of these colonies, in the form of exploitative labour schemes and guest worker programs.
Kundnani argues that from 1945 onwards, civic regionalism came to dominate as a reaction to the ethnic conflicts of World War II. This was not the clean break from Europe’s past that many claimed it to be, with the older ethnic/cultural regionalist tendencies still pushing through into Pan-European rhetoric. The civilising mission remained, as did the belief in the superiority of European values and the claim of their universality. Even the holocaust is not spared from critique. The EU, Kundnani contends, has used holocaust remembrance as a cover for forgetting colonial injustices, patting themselves on the back for upholding “Never Again” whilst continuing to refuse to engage in decolonisation or recognise Europe’s true original sin. The foundational memory of the holocaust has obscured Europe’s foundational history of colonialism, and thus the EU is a project of political amnesia that has forgotten, or choses to ignore, its origins as a quasi-colonial institution.[5]
The end of the Cold War reignited the civilising mission towards incorporating the EU’s more “backward” eastern Europeans neighbours, those who were European but not quite yet *in* Europe in cultural or political terms. More than halfway through the book, we finally encounter the meaning behind its title, derived from Hungarian sociologist József Böröcz, who proposed a spectrum of Whiteness within Europe. “Eurowhitness” is associated with the centre of Europe in the West and “dirty whiteness”, the less immaculate and somewhat less West European version to the East. Kundnani repurposes the term to refer to the ethnic/cultural version of European regionalist identity. Eurowhiteness, used as a pejorative or a negative by Kundnani, simply means to identify as European in a non-civic (that is, “racist”) way.
With the arrival of the Eurozone crisis in 2010 and the chaos of the refugee influx of 2015, Kundnani argues that the European Union has swung towards a defensive position, focused on countering the external threats to the stability of Europe:
By the beginning of the 2020s, the civic element of European regionalism seemed to have become less influential and the ethnic/cultural element more influential in “pro-European” thinking. In other words, whiteness seemed to be becoming more central to the European project.[6]
Kundnani sees little distinction between pro-European politicians who posit a defence of the “European Way of Life” or who worry about the future of Western civilisation and far right “extremists” who invoke the supposed trope of the great replacement. In the face of these threats to EU stability, those who fear the decline of EU power and sovereignty are the international political equivalents of the those who fear White replacement.[7] After all, both positions are “pro-European.” For Kundnani, the EU’s dramatic response to the war in Ukraine, opening its arms wide for Ukrainian refugees compared to what he sees is the closed-door policy to non-White refugees at its southern borders, is just further proof of the return to Eurowhiteness.
By far the weakest point of the argument is the evidence (or general lack thereof) provided to attribute Eurowhiteness motivations to current EU leaders or bureaucrats. As an outsider, the civic European component still seems predominant and the appeals to European civilisation are mere scraps thrown to a public increasingly disillusioned by the failure of the EU to respond to issues of mass immigration. It feels like a stretch to widely attribute chauvinistic views to the EU leadership, but the impulse to defend Europe as Europe, as some kind of distinct entity of a distinct group of people, does certainly exist enough for the label of Eurowhiteness to stick.
Kundnani believes that a different Europe is needed than the one we currently have.[8] Nearing the conclusion, he briefly hints at the EU itself being a barrier to overcoming Eurowhiteness. He claims that engaging with its colonial past could in fact be a danger to the EU because Eastern European member states with no colonial history or collective guilt over colonialism would resist such initiatives, which could in turn have a disintegrative effect on European identify and the structure of the EU. However, the narrative abruptly ends there and is not further expounded upon, and we are left wondering what his true feelings about the future of the EU are. Kundnani at least admits in the introduction that he is only offering critiques, not solutions — at least not for the EU.
Reconsidering Brexit
The final chapter, Brexit and Imperial Amnesia, changes gears and presents us with a revisionist account of the Brexit Referendum, aimed at the British left still reeling from the 2016 vote. Kundnani challenges the dominant narrative of the Leave vote as a racist vote yearning for a White fortress that shuts the door to migrants. The true nature of the Brexit vote is presented as more complex and less binary, highlighting that one in three members of Britian’s ethnic minority population also voted to leave. Kundnani expands upon the angst of many non-White Britons regarding the EU and their perception that continental Europe is still more racist than the UK. Given the persistence of Eurowhiteness, it remained hard for Britain’s Black and Asian populations to truly feel part of the European project and they have struggled to identify with its history. Kundnani is also captive of these feeling towards the EU, mentioning in the introduction that he could never bring himself to feel “100% European” due to his mixed-race background.[9]
Another area of hostility outlined towards the EU is the discrimination many felt from the changes that entrance into the project brought to immigration. Following the admission of the UK into the EEC, Commonwealth citizens from Britain’s former colonies suddenly found it was harder to enter the UK than continental Europeans. The story is familiar to Australians, who too felt abandoned by the mother country when the border control lines at the airport no longer privileged the peoples of New Brittania.
With the Brexit vote reconceptualised, the Leave decision is transformed into an opportunity, offering the chance for Britain to rebalance its identity. Eurowhiteness and ties to the EU have allowed the UK to escape from its colonial history by focusing on the national identity narratives of Europe and World War II. Through engagement with former colonies, Britain can shift its national story away from Europe. Here, in the final two paragraphs of the book, we finally come to the vehicle of this reimagining of Britain and what perhaps Kundnani sees as the best way to combat Eurowhiteness: immigration policy.
The corrective is a policy which amends the turn away from Commonwealth-based immigration — a form of reparations issued on the path to becoming a less Eurocentric country:
It would be possible to go further in the rebalancing of British immigration policy that has taken place since Brexit — in particular, by making it easier for citizens of Britain’s former colonies to come to the UK. … such a policy — what might be called “post-imperial preference” — could even be thought of as a form of reparations.[10]
Once again, the great replacement trope is an evil conspiracy theory when observed by a critic and an obvious political good when advocated for by a supporter.
Yes. And?
Kundnani’s thesis can be pulled apart on a number of technical levels. The appropriateness of the notion of regionalism as applied to the EU and its analogy to nationalism can be questioned, and in turn there is often a conflation of concepts, with “Europe”, “the European Union” and “EU Member states” used interchangeably as suits his argument. A rather weak critique of neoliberalism also flows underneath the main critique of Eurowhiteness and the linkage between the EU and colonialism feels forced. By the time the EEC came along in the 1950s, European colonialism was in its death throes, far from the height of its power. However, lacking a detailed understanding of the history and functioning of the EU and of the political conceptions of its leadership class, my review of the narrative of Eurowhiteness turns elsewhere.
Much of the book is perplexing if you don’t have a pathological sense of White guilt or an inferiority complex about the success of European civilization. This is without a doubt a book produced from decades spent ensconced in an academic world brimming with anti-White narratives, plundering the rancid depths of post-colonial theory for a vector to attack an institution that even most die-hard progressives support — until they read Kundnani’s book perhaps. The extent of White guilt that a reader must have to agree with his conclusions is altogether frightening when considering that the book has received a generally positive response in the British left-wing press.
To me, the arguments presented in the book elicited a kind of “Yes. And?” reaction, a sense of confusion or bemusement as to why a historical fact or a political reality has been presented as a negative. Kundnani considers it damning evidence of Eurowhiteness that the EU draws upon figures such as Charlemagne and continues to award the Charlemagne Prize in his name. Why is this damning? Because he is European? At its heart, Kundnani’s critique is that the European Union only brings together European nations and peoples, European ideas and values, and strives for European interests and goals. Yes. And? Is this a bad thing? Are Europeans not allowed to do this? The EU was certainly never constituted in any way other than as a continental union, no different than similar unions that now exist in the other regions of the world. The fact that some of the original member states still possessed leftover colonial territories is beside the point.
It is hard to shake the feeling that Kundnani feels there is something inherently dangerous with the European Union setting its geographic limits as Europe and bringing Europeans together. The flat refusal issued to Morocco’s request to join the EEC in 1987 is transformed by Kundnani from an obvious rejection issued to a country trying to simply cash in on proximity to Europe into proof of a malign identity embedded within the EU. Does Kundnani think it was wrong to reject Morrocco’s application? As a country with a long historical link to the African continent, would Spain being rejected from joining the African Union also be couched in such negative framing?
A Union, if you can keep it
Eurowhiteness raises questions regarding the long-term durability of the EU project. If the demographic trends away from a White majority in European nations continue, will we start to see more Euroscepticism from the left, more anti-White reactions against the EU like that which has captivated Kundnani? Whilst it would be comforting to believe that Eurowhiteness is an isolated product of the distinctly British detachment from the EU that has no currency elsewhere, Kundnani draws upon a global range of anti-EU perspectives, both historical and current-day. It’s not hard to see conclusions such as his, presented in an accessible form, from developing in popularity.
Non-whites living in the West have stepped up their rhetoric in recent years, rallying against the presence of White faces and White ideas within their living spaces. Statues have been removed, the Western canon expunged, and names of places and institutions changed for the sake of diversity and anti-racism. Their actions have shown that they believe that all Eurocentric ideas must be challenged, and above all that diverse faces must be predominant in public life. To a degree it is surprising that critiques of the EU along these lines have not emerged before to a significant degree. Perhaps that is simply due to the political left adopting a reflexive pro-EU stance in the face of the right-wing anti-EU stance —a reflexive response that Kundnani is now seeking to correct.
Ultimately, the impulse behind Eurowhiteness is a sense of exclusion by Europe and a feeling of discomfort in Western civilisation, one certainly shared by others of non-European background. Kundnani admits as much himself when he states that: “European identity is externally exclusive — that is, it excludes those who are not European or who cannot think of themselves as being European.[11]” To those of us comfortable with European identity, Charles Martel or Charlemagne are inspirational warriors of our history, men who shaped and fought for the Europe we have and cherish today and without whom we may not even exist.
The Battle of Tours in October 732 — by Charles de Steuben (1788–1856)
All that people like Kundnani seem to see are exclusionary figures who upheld Christendom or who waged wars to defend Europe from dark-skinned Muslims — detestable characters they cannot feel an affinity with and whom they believe only a racist would celebrate. They survey the history of Europe and all the cultural touchpoints behind the EU and find that it just doesn’t represent them. From a racialist perspective, they cannot really be faulted for this. It is a natural impulse to seek out the familiar and to desire to live in an environment that accords with your being and your own racial identity. The problem was always in letting them into the West in the first place.
In all, Kundnani’s polemic against the EU reads as a fear of White unity writ large. Whiteness (or Eurowhiteness) is the threat to overcome. That much is clear when he advocates for non-White immigration as the solution to Britain extracting itself from Eurocentrism and frets about the possibility of the far-right moderating its Euroscepticism and accepting the EU[12].
The center right, it turns out, doesn’t have a problem with the far right. It just has a problem with those who defy E.U. institutions and positions. …
The blurring of boundaries between the center right and the far right is not always as easy to spot as it is in the United States. …
[T]oday’s far right speaks not only on behalf of the nation but also on behalf of Europe. It has a civilizational vision of a white, Christian Europe that is menaced by outsiders, especially Muslims. …
But as the union unites around defending a threatened European civilization and rejecting nonwhite immigration, we need to think again about whether it truly is a force for good.
Any form of White identity, and any association of Whites together as Whites, even if only implicit, must necessarily be a dangerous thing. As Eurowhiteness proves, even Western institutions that we may have once considered safe by virtue of being perceived as progressive are now suspect.
[1] By his own admission this did not however cause him to vote Leave in the Brexit referendum of 2016, presumably because it still felt racist to do so
[2] At this point, Kundnani posits the Marxist theory of nationalism (Hobsbawm, etc.), which claims that national identities only emerged during the Enlightenment era, but it doesn’t impact the argument much.
[3] Kundnani, H 2023, Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire and Race in the European Project, Hurst & Company, London, 42.
[4] Ibid., p.53—55
[5] For all the complaints about European universality or that “Europe is not the world”, Kundnani conveniently fails to mention the empires and colonial histories of the non-European world, which were every bit as exploitative and arguably more barbaric.
[6] Kundnani, Op. Cit., p.126
[7] Ibid., p.146
[8] Ibid., p.3
[9] Ibid., p.1
[10] Ibid., p.178
[11] Ibid., p.20
[12] Kundnani, H 2023, ‘Europe may be headed for something unthinkable’, New York Times, December 13, retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/european-union-far-right.html
The Welshman Aled Jones (born 1970) did something remarkable as a boy. He enchanted and astonished millions with the purity of his voice and depth of his musical talent. After that, he grew up and deservedly became a rich media star. Then he himself met a remarkable boy. Back in the 1980s, Jones had been remarkable in a White way. The boy he met in London in 2023 was remarkable in a non-White way:
A machete-wielding teenager who threatened to cut off singer Aled Jones’s head as he robbed him of his £17,000 Rolex watch has been detained. The Welsh baritone was attacked by the 16-year-old boy on Chiswick High Road, west London, on 7 July [2023].
The teenager pointed a machete in his face and told him to remove the watch, Ealing Magistrates’ Court heard. He was given a 24-month detention and training order after admitting robbery and possession of an offensive weapon. Vijay Khuttan, prosecuting, told the court Mr Jones and his son were out for a walk when they were “spotted” by the youth who had seen the high-value watch on his arm. “He crossed the road and followed them down the high street,” Mr Khuttan continued. “He pulled out a machete and ran towards Jones and his son with the machete brandished.”
The youth told Mr Jones: “Give me your Rolex or I will cut your arm off,” the prosecutor said, adding that the defendant then pointed the machete in the singer’s face. When the teenager noticed Mr Jones was still following him from a distance, he told him to “walk the other way or I will cut your head off”. … The court heard the teenager had previously stolen a gold Rolex watch worth £20,000 from a man in his 70s at Paddington railway station.
Chairman of the bench Rex Da Rocha told the teenager his record was “appalling”, adding: “Pointing that machete at an innocent person is totally unacceptable.” (“Aled Jones: Boy who threatened singer with machete detained,” BBC News, 3rd October 2023)
Mechanical marvel: an 18th-century timepiece by the Yorkshire genius John Harrison (image from Wikipedia)
That vibrant vignette from 21st-century Britain was reported by the BBC, but the BBC didn’t, of course, point out its deep racial significance. However, it wasn’t just a case of a talented White musician being robbed by a predatory non-White psychopath. It was an encounter between White civilization and non-White savagery, between a race capable of ascending the greatest heights and a race capable of plumbing the worst depths. Aled Jones had ascended to the greatest heights of culture in his singing and love of classical music. The watch he was wearing represented the greatest heights of technology and ingenuity. That’s why it was so valuable and prestigious. And that’s why the non-White robber — almost certainly a Black — was ready to plumb the depths of savagery for possession of it.
Malevolents with machetes: the Rolex-rippers who contribute Black savagery to White civilization
What Blacks don’t have the brains to build, they certainly have the savagery to steal. The London Metropolitan Police have recently conducted an undercover operation against the theft of expensive watches by so-called “Rolex-rippers.” They have now issued photos of all the criminals old enough to be publicly identified. It’s a miracle of migration that almost all are Black and that most have obviously Muslim names. On their own, Blacks in Africa never even invented the wheel, let alone any true kind of machinery. The Jewish scientist Jared Diamond (born 1937) attributes this Black failure to purely bio-geographical factors in his Pulitzer-prize-winning best-seller Guns, Germs and Steel (1997). After all, according to leftists like Diamond, race does not exist and Blacks are just as capable of high intellectual achievement as anyone else. Therefore we must explain Africa’s failure by something external to Blacks — their natural environment. It couldn’t possibly be anything to do with Black evolution or genetics.
Black genius stymied by Mother Nature
That’s what Diamond claims. He says he’s interested in revealing the truth and removing unfounded prejudices. I don’t believe him. As I explained in my article “Destroy the Goy: The Metaphysics of Anti-White Hatred,” I think he’s really interested in concealing the truth and denigrating Whites. I think Diamond’s primary motive is goyophobia, or hatred of White Europeans. When he tries to explain why Europe conquered Africa rather vice versa, he obviously derives great satisfaction from the alternate history of militarily superior Africans conquering Europe:
All of Africa’s mammalian domesticates — cattle, sheep, goats, horses, even dogs — entered sub-Saharan Africa from the north, from Eurasia or North Africa. At first that seems astonishing, since we now think of Africa as the continent of big wild animals. In fact, none of those famous big wild mammal species of Africa proved domesticable [this isn’t true]. They were all unqualified by one or another problem such as: unsuitable social organization; intractable behaviour; slow growth-rate, and so on. Just think what the course of world history would have been like if Africa’s rhinos and hippos had lent themselves to domestication! If it had been possible, African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos would have made mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses. But it couldn’t happen. (Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)
You can see the same goyophobia in Guns, Germs and Steel when Diamond presents the alternate history of “bedraggled” Spaniards being “driven into the sea” by Aztec cavalry:
That’s an enormous set of differences between Eurasian and Native American societies — due largely to the Late Pleistocene extinction (extermination?) of most of North and South America’s former big wild mammal species. If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses. Instead of the Aztecs dying of smallpox, the Spaniards might have been wiped out by American germs transmitted by disease-resistant Aztecs. American civilizations resting on animal power might have been sending their own conquistadores to ravage Europe. But those hypothetical outcomes were foreclosed by mammal extinctions thousands of years earlier. (Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies [1997], ch. 18)
Kevin MacDonald has described seeing Diamond in full anti-White flow: “I went to a talk by Diamond at a large packed lecture hall at Cal Tech in the early 2000s. When he gleefully fantasized about Africa conquering Europe, the crowd burst into applause. Being a reasonably respectable academic at the time, it was a good introduction to the anti-White hatred that boils just below the surface of the moralistic rhetoric of anti-racism.” But Diamond’s goyophobia is illogical by his own principles. There is no room for moralism or the unique malevolence of Whites in the “All by Accident” school of history. If all human groups are equal in moral and intellectual potential, then no group can be superior or inferior, more virtuous or less evil. Consequently, human history must be explained by the chance factors of biogeography.
The hidden aims of anti-racism
Indeed, Diamond’s thesis or something like it follows with inexorable logic from the fundamental axiom of anti-racism. If race does not exist and we are all the same under the skin, differences between human groups must arise from external factors beyond human control and not susceptible to moral judgment. If the historical dice had rolled another way, then Blacks would have enslaved Whites and Jews would have committed genocide against Germans. Victims in our time-stream are villains in an alternate time-stream, and villains are victims. Who oppresses whom is entirely a matter of chance and historical contingency. There is no other logical conclusion.
But anti-racists don’t reach that conclusion, because the ideology of anti-racism does not obey logic. Anti-racists follow their fundamental axiom only so far as it suits them. Although they claim that all human groups have equal potential, they blame the failure of non-Whites on Whites without any mention of chance or historical contingency. Rational anti-racism would be a much more sober and much less ambitious ideology than anti-racism as it presently exists. Rational anti-racism would not be strident or self-righteous, and it would not seek to bully, brow-beat or instil guilt in Whites. In short, it wouldn’t deliver what anti-racists really want: power, privilege and revenge.
Roche’s revenge
And self-proclaimed anti-racists take revenge precisely by importing non-Whites into the West. Some of the Black faces and names in the police photos above are obviously Somali or from closely related groups. But why does Britain have so many predatory Somalis living on its soil? Step forward the migration-maven Barbara Roche, the intensely ethnocentric Jewish minister who opened Britain’s borders to the Third World during the New Labour government:
One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. (Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules, The Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)
It’s no coincidence that Jared Diamond and Barbara Roche are both Jewish. Jews like Diamond supply the anti-White propaganda and Jews like Roche supply the anti-White practice. The great White writer Horace (65–8 BC), by contrast, supplied the truth. Two millennia ago he expressed the folly of importing savages into civilization with eight words of crystal-clear Latin: Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt — “They change their skies, not their souls, who rush across the sea.”
A humbly born White genius
Horace’s poetry is still something to marvel at, a miracle of White genius that has proved far more lasting than bronze. Aptly enough, the word “miracle” comes to us from Latin. It was originally miraculum, meaning “thing of wonder, marvel.” That’s why I called those police-photos of Black savages a miracle of migration. They were something to marvel at, a vibrant vision from the capital city of a nation that once imposed civilization on Blacks and would never have dreamed of importing Blacks to impose their savagery on us. Then Jews like Jared Diamond began to pump out anti-White propaganda and Jews like Emmanuel Celler (1888-1981) began to destroy pro-White immigration law. The results are plain to see across the West.
Humbly born Yorkshire genius John Harrison and one of his mechanical marvels (image from Wikipedia)
But there’s another kind of miracle in the story of Aled Jones and the machete-wielding savage who threatened to cut his head off. That savage was after the miraculum mechanicum, the mechanical marvel, that Jones was wearing on his wrist. There are many centuries of White ingenuity and effort behind even the cheapest watch, but how many of the rich White men who wear the most expensive watches stop to think about that? How many of them think about the humbly born Yorkshire genius John Harrison (1693–1776), who contributed more to watchmaking, technology, and navigation than all the Blacks who have ever lived? Alas, too many White men wear expensive watches only as a celebration of themselves and their success. They never stop to think what those watches represent. Or what the robbery of a watch by a Black represents. The marvellous watch represents civilization and the Black robber represents savagery. How many of the White victims of Black Rolex-rippers have recognized that? Very few, I’m afraid. And while rich Whites are happy to spend huge sums aggrandizing themselves with the shiniest products of White civilization, from Rolex watches to sports-cars to private jets, how much are they prepared to spend defending the civilization — and the race — that gave them those things?
Blacks and Muslims not needed
But the non-White savage that Aled Jones encountered in London was a threat to much more than the marvel that Jones carried on his wrist. He was also a threat to the marvels that Jones carried inside his head. Jones has great musical talent and a profound knowledge and appreciation of the glories of the Western classical tradition. He can read music and commune with the genius of White giants like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. And his mother-tongue is Welsh, part of the true and organic diversity of the British Isles that is threatened by the artificial and imposed diversity of Third-World migration. We don’t need any Blacks or Muslims in Britain at all. They are a curse on us, not a blessing as the left so loudly and mendaciously proclaim.
All of that is obvious in the story of the Welsh musician and the non-White savage who threatened to cut his head off with a machete. It was one small encounter between civilization and savagery that symbolized a much bigger migration disaster. But the BBC and rest of the leftist media won’t tell you that. Even as they report clear proof of the evil insanity of Third-World migration, they go on supporting it and blaming all problems on White racism. They’re not sane or rational and they’re certainly not well-intentioned. That’s why we have to fight them, defeat them, and ensure that civilization survives.
It is often said by the [many] haters of the White race that there is no White culture, whether those haters be avowed wokeshevik elites or modern conservative rubes unwittingly attempting to please them. Just as these doofuses aggressively spread the lie that race is just skin deep, they also strive to reduce Whiteness to absurdity, arguing that differences between European populations vary so much that there is no commonality between them. But is this really true? It is not, thankfully. It is but another lie peddled by the predatory Western/Globalist power class, another fiction imbuing and animating Cultural Marxist propaganda, all meant to unpeople our people.
So what are these common traits, this culture common to all European peoples? Let us begin, shall we?
1) It must start in antiquity of course. No analysis of the issue would be complete without reference to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, but especially the Greeks. It is in Greek philosophy and math that Western history truly begins. The Greek canon is unparalleled in its intellectual accomplishments. From drama (Homer, Sophocles) to mathematics (Euclid, Diophantus) to philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), Ancient Greek contributions to the world’s knowledge base are at least as impressive or more so as any other people’s or period’s. Of course anyone can learn or learn to appreciate Ancient Greek genius, but it is really only White people who identify with it, who say, “That is my history. Those are my people.” There is a connectedness there that can not be taught or manufactured. It is a matter of identity and of cultural and genetic continuity. No amount of state or semi-state propaganda will ever make anyone named Mesut Ozil, Mohamed Saleh, or even Giannis Antetokounmpo identify with that history or that tradition. It is ours. It is not the glorious history or tradition of any other people, whether they be Turks, Arabs, or Nigerians. The same is true of various Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers from Descartes and Kant to Locke and Nietzsche, but it is especially true of the Ancient Greeks. There is, without a doubt, a certain continuity of thought in Europe stretching back over 2,000 years.
2) Second on the list is foods. There are certain foods common to all of Europe. These foods vary regionally, but there are foods that are distinctively or at least massively European. Whites dominate the production and sale of these foods. They have more or less always been widespread in Europe and we globalized them. Whites created/invented these foods themselves or borrowed them in early antiquity or prior and turned their production into an art form. They made them theirs, in other words.
The first food type on this list is cured meats: Pastrami, Prosciutto, Speck, Salami, Chorizo, Serrano, Bacon. Indeed, the European tradition of meat prepping and curing may be part of the reason Europeans have such a visceral reaction to the “eat the bugs” propaganda emanating from World Economic Forum types and other predatory capitalists and banksters. We are a meat-eating people. We are the masters of meat and of animal husbandry, and we have been ever since our people wandered off the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.
Second on this list must be dairy generally, but cheese especially. Remember, a love of milk is basically White supremacy, folks. The White love of dairy explains why lactose intolerance reaches its lowest levels in the Whitest of all places (Schleswig-Holstein). Indeed, this may be a major contributor to why Whites tend to grow bigger and stronger than other groups, and not just physically, but mentally. European cheese is unrivaled in its quality and flavor. Nobody makes cheeses like Whites make cheeses: Gouda, Havarti, Emmentaler, Gruyere, Cheddar, American, Stilton, Roquefort, Gorgonzola, Parmesan, Mozzarella, Manchego. Whites are the cheese masters.
There are just some foods Whites love and are masters at crafting. Cheese and cured meats have to be the top two on this list. And while other things could be placed on the list of distinct European culinary specialties (like bread for instance), I think beer belongs in the third spot. Beers are produced in nearly all regions of the world today largely on account of contact with Europeans and the movement of Europeans to new places and continents. East Asia and Latin America are premier examples of this. Nonetheless, no one makes beers like the White man makes beers. No one. Even here in America, Whites love their beer. They drink very crappy beer for the most part, since Americans are not really known for their sophistication in anything, but they love their beer. No matter who is brewing it and no matter where, aspiring brewers are copying the European masters when it comes to brewing beer. Sometimes they may be trying to emulate Guinness or Newcastle, but as a general principle, brewers the world over are trying to recreate something crisp, smooth, and balanced in its overall hoppiness, like the pilsners and helles beers of Central Europe, from southerly and easterly German or former German regions specifically. I have found that as a general rule, the longer a brewery has been in existence, which is to say perfecting its craft, the better the beer. Spaten is my brew of choice (1396), though I can swing a Weihenstephaner (original helles) from time to time. The latter has been brewing its beer for just under 1,000 years. There are some quality kolsches about too, to be fair.
3) There is a certain aesthetic outlook that is more or less unique to White, Western civilization. It is one that emphasizes two things primarily: discipline and fertility. Those are the traits that define classical European art, from the Renaissance and before: beautiful, proportionate men, and beautiful, fertile women (see Rubens or Botticelli). These things are prized in White societies. Indeed, fertility is prized in almost all traditional cultures, whether Christian or pre-Christian. It is only our degenerate modern culture which treats reproduction and motherhood/fatherhood as an onerous burden rather than a wonderful, even liberating gift. Again, this may not be unique to Europa, but it is a central part of our culture. That is why even today body sculpting/building is so popular on the political right and even in the smallest, Whitest towns in the far interior. You will uncover these aesthetic values in most any work of art from the Renaissance period. This aesthetic specifically values our looks and our beauty. You are not going to get Bantus and Indonesians to deeply appreciate values that aren’t theirs or images of beauties that aren’t common to their ethnies. Moreover, wherever you see Whites promoting fatness or fat inclusion or denigrating motherhood and celebrating careerism, you should know you are listening to someone who has been deracinated from their roots, from their culture. The farther we wander from a love of self-control and self-discipline and the veneration of fecundity and fruitfulness, the farther do we stray from the European tradition.
The same goes for classical music. Does it not seem to you that it is only our ear that appreciates it? You will never get large segments of most other populations to identify with or appreciate classical music. That is why classical orchestras are still dominated by White people, a fact which has of late become but another cause for non-White/anti-White griping, consternation, and calls for more equal representation. They don’t like our music and they don’t identify with it. You can’t make aspiring rappers into cellists, no matter how much propaganda you peddle. Classical music is a White thing and it always will be. Anyone can play it to be sure, but not everyone will. Our artistic geniuses are ours. Bruegel and Vermeer are, most of all, appreciated by our eye, as Beethoven and Chopin are, most of all, appreciated by our ear—because they are part and parcel of our White culture, and no one else’s. They speak to our nature and our spirit, no one else’s. Should we even let non-Whites play this music? Should we tolerate this? Is this not cultural appropriation? Western music and Western painting are White culture, full stop.
There is even a uniquely White architectural tradition. It may be diverse and variegated, but there is a continuity there. The fact that the architecture in our nation’s capital (I am talking of course of the Capitol Building and the White House and the other major architectural structures/buildings) draws so heavily on ancient architectural concepts (think of all the Ionic columns in D.C.) proves that there is continuity—ethnic, moral, spiritual, cultural—between Ancient Greece and America. Our people are not all the same, but there is a commonality and continuity there. Well, dipshit, that is White culture. That is it, and it is very real. So, the next time someone asks, “what is White culture?”, or declares that “there is no White culture!”, point them to this article. Because there clearly is a White culture and we are immersed in it, though many White westerners seem disturbingly unaware of that fact.
4) A fourth distinctive trait of White culture is a deep respect for objective truth. What has driven unrivaled White accomplishment and contribution in so many scientific and intellectual fields is an abiding respect for truth, and the noble, relentless pursuit of the universe’s mysteries. Cultural Marxist Western leaders wish to weaken the ties between our minds and reality, because it renders ordinary people easier to tyrannize. When you can’t discern between blatant falsehoods and obvious truths, you can’t effectively resist. Belief is necessary for action, particularly impassioned action. If you will believe boys can be girls, you will believe literally anything at that point. Nothing is worth fighting for, let alone dying for, if nothing matters, if nothing is true. Anyone who would assent to the most obvious of lies is three quarters slave already. He has already lost any sense of self-respect and probity. He will go along with most anything at that point. Of course, our vile overlords still think some things do matter and are true. Racism is the most evil thing that ever happened to the world. This is self-evident of course. White racism that is. We are told this every day, and we must repeat it as a kind of mantra, as an implied oath to the great and glorious Cultural Marxist state. Our overlords are very selective about these things. Morality is relative, but their moral values are objectively and indisputably and absolutely correct, and they enforce them with the vigor of crazed Jihadists. One wonders how we have allowed ourselves to be vassalized by such shallow nitwits.
5) Fifth on the list has to be an enduring respect for freedom of speech and expression. Westerners have understood since the Enlightenment is that there is no genuine science or the possibility of an informed public without free speech, and no real democracy without it either. Tied to an enduring belief in free speech and expression and a willingness to use state violence to protect that right, is a healthy respect for self-actualization and individuation. This respect can of course devolve into a shallow degeneracy, a gaudiness as it were, including excessively revealing clothing and the like. There has always been a balance in Europe between the traditional value of modesty, and respect for and tolerance of individual expression. However, this respect for the right of people to say what they want and wear what they want is distinctively European. It is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment. It extends even to body art and sexuality. Other peoples are by and large far more inclined to crush individual self-expression of all sorts. This is because the natural impulse to use authoritarian tools and tactics to crush individual uniqueness is not as well tempered by the European respect for the individual. In less stable, more dysfunctional, more mistrusting societies, nonconformity is viewed as a threat to tradition, to the government, to the often comfortable social order. It is therefore more feared than honored.
To make matters worse, criminal governments, such as ours, are keen to exploit the divides and anxieties of mistrusting and disordered societies, so as to enlarge themselves and their powers, and secure their positions thereby. Diversity is therefore the gift that keeps on giving for our tyrannical governments and their tyrannical police state apparatuses. Our governments are deliberately sowing low-level chaos amongst the people so as to gain from it. Terror act? The government needs more powers. Organized retail theft? The government needs to put more of its soldiers on the streets. They import our replacements and all the poverty and problems our replacements carry with them, and they use natural or even engineered fears about social instability and crime and the like, as a never-ending excuse to crack down on us, on any White person who dares to complain about being replaced, displaced, and/or dispossessed. There are too many orthodoxies to count now. “Cancel culture” and “hate” laws are but symptoms of these lamentable trends. We are not becoming freer in the West, but in fact we are far less free in recent decades.
6) Also emanating from these speech and expression rights are the defense of oneself, one’s property, and other essential rights. As you see these rights falling by the wayside in Europe and America, these regions are becoming effectively less White and less European. We are losing our culture to more primitive cultures. The American police state’s drive to punish wrongthinkers/racists is overwhelming our longstanding legal tradition of permitting men to defend themselves from wrongdoers and transgressors, among other rights and traditions. Much of the law today is being sullied and subverted by alien peoples and very bad ideas, from critical race theory to disparate impact to no-knock warrants to mass surveillance to the plea bargain system, the grand engine of American tyranny. Equality under the law, consent of the governed, and due process are largely alien concepts to other peoples. Even today, most non-White populations do not uphold these principles to any meaningful degree in their own nations. Even when they are trying to, openly and committedly at that. They know about them, they may even wish to emulate them, but they cannot realize them. White Westerners took them for granted throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries. And that is why we are losing our societies as our values wither away. We didn’t realize how valuable these things were. So we lost them. We did this in two ways primarily. In the first place, we created a massive police/security state that gobbled them all up. We were brainwashed by the government into believing that this was how we uphold these principles. The way you make yourself strong and free is by enlarging the government and enabling it to amass massive armies of government soldiers, which get to walk the streets and harass you about most anything. Pretty transparent trickery of course, but with the aid of the news media, they pulled it off. In fact, a massive police presence does not uphold rights, it obliterates them. The CIA and FBI and law enforcement officers from the national all the way down to the local, couldn’t care less about equality before the law or the consent of the governed. They don’t care about your rights. They care about power and the preservation of power [in their own hands]. They care about keeping their jobs as well, and following commands from above. Your rights are really not high on the list, if they are on the list at all. This is as true in America today as it was in the Soviet Union under the terroristic reign of the secret police.
The other way we did so was by believing obvious race egalitarian lies. Westerners were propagandized into thinking that any people could sustain their ideals. But they can’t. Because we replaced ourselves by subscribing that everyone is an interchangeable economic unit, we are surely losing our culture and even a secure biological existence . We placed the valuing of diversity and the worship of markets over the bedrock principles of our civilization. The spirit and genes of our people are the bedrock of our civilization. As they go, it all goes. And it has. When Whites abandoned their sense of race pride, without knowing it they were basically throwing their civilization in the trash heap of history. No one can sustain Western civilization but us. If we do not retain a dominant position in our societies, we cannot preserve our civilization.
7) A healthy respect for markets, and by extension, property rights, are fundamentally White, western values. But there is a big difference between a healthy respect for a thing and a blind faith in it. It is really only in America where this healthy respect has become very unhealthy. Capital markets are like meat. It is quite healthy to eat meat, red meat even. On the other hand, it is quite unhealthy to eat cheeseburgers every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A diet, like a society, needs more than just free markets. Fundamentalist capitalism is a cancer eating away at everything in the country, from democracy to living wages to the safety net to the border itself. It turns out, you don’t need completely free markets to enjoy the many benefits of markets. A multitude of European nations prove this definitively. But the excesses of markets can be very destructive to society at large. Just look at how 18–30 year-old women are selling their bodies all over the internet today. When only the dollar is sacred, nothing is sacred, everything is for sale. Even democracy itself. And of course there have been European nations that have adopted communist economic systems and the like, at least temporarily, but for the most part these foolish experiments have been all but abandoned. However, every year it seems there is a new crisis that Republicans/Conservatives refuse to even try to address in the name of fiscal austerity and responsibility, and letting markets sort it out. And every year the problems get worse! Of course there is always plenty of money for the weapons manufacturers and the refugees and fancy new FBI/KGB buildings/headquarters, just not for the problems actually afflicting ordinary Americans.
The White race is a race of industry and action. If there are trees about, we may well cut them down and build homes—although we also have pioneered conservation and the national park movement. If there is some resource under the ground, we find a way to get it to the surface and use it. These are good things. But we should not confuse this healthy impulse with the false, largely superstitious belief that markets are always perfectly rational or efficient. They are not. Yes, some people who get very wealthy are very skilled and intelligent. But many are neither skilled nor intelligent. Take the Kardashians for instance. A healthy respect for markets is a good thing, but the free market is not god and should not be treated as a god. We should never let a foolish belief in the wonders of markets get in the way of feeding the poor or making sure people are housed. Most all White populations know and understand this. All should. No majority White state should resemble the Congo, as some American states are starting to do.
8) The religion of Christianity and all of its intellectual offshoots are inseparable from White culture. Almost all Medieval, Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers rooted their thinking in Christian ideas. Even the philosophy of natural law, is grounded in Christian thought. White lands were once more or less coextensive with Christendom itself. Remnants of folk religions—religions arguably healthier, more organic, and more truly native and natural for White peoples than modern Christianity—persist in various forms in White culture, but the effects of Christianity are far larger and far more recent. Christian values and thoughts are the fruit of White culture. They may not end at Whiteness exactly, as Christianity has really devolved into a global, universalizing religion, to the detriment of the race that founded it and developed it. But these values and mores are inseparable from Whiteness. Whiteness can be distanced from Christianity substantially, but it can never be entirely separated from it, just as Whiteness cannot be separated entirely from the Ancient Greek canon. Christianity can be distanced from Whiteness, as it is often is today, in awful and destructive ways, but it cannot be removed from Whiteness entirely. The form Christianity took historically, its ideals, its spirit, this all is inseparable from the genetic and cultural substratum of the European continent and diaspora. Indeed, there is a difficult chicken-and-egg problem here: What role does the unique European genetic constitution have in predisposing Europeans to the cultural values of Christianity in times past and present?
9) No list would be complete without including these: Heroism, self-sacrifice, war, & conquest. Unfortunately, the military technologies our own people created through a combination of genius and will, are now being turned inward on our own populations, and used to subdue and enserf the people themselves. Still, there is no discussion of Whiteness and White history without a discussion of our unrivaled military successes. The White race is the champion of warfare and weaponry. Killing and conquering are certainly part of that systematization. Our people killed and conquered everything and everyone, before giving it all up in the name of “human rights” or “loving diversity” or some such hogwash. I guess when you reach the top there is nowhere to go but down, eh? Still, that curiosity, that life drive, that love of expedition and conquest, has been applied to so many domains, even space. Exploring new domains, no matter how challenging, no matter how far one has to reach, is White culture. Grabbing the lowest hanging banana is the culture of other peoples. The ability and desire to do great and heroic things, which the entire species esteems and benefits from, is inseparable from the White western spirit and from the culture which springs from that spirit.
10) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, “White culture” is anything non-Whites and anti-Whites and Western power structures generally struggle to define precisely, but detest as either “vestiges” of or “pillars” of White supremacy. If Western governments loathe it and are trying to replace or dismantle it, from traditional sex roles to knowledge of firearms, chances are it is some part, lesser or greater, of White culture. Resist it, because they hate you and are trying to destroy you. They can dress their genocidal intentions up in the language of social justice or whatever else, but the truth is they are just trying to eliminate you, your race, and your culture And they are succeeding.
Editor’s note: Almost a year ago I posted a video by American Krogan titled “On Emma Lazarus.” He now has a Substack (please subscribe) under the name Wilhem Ivorsson and he has made the video into a written version, complete with citations. Enjoy.
In reality, the lines are from a sonnet called The New Colossus, written in 1883 by Emma Lazarus, a Jewish writer and social activist. Unbeknownst to most Americans, the poem had no official association with the statue until 1903, when Georgina Schuyler, one of Emma’s friends, led a civic campaign to have the sonnet cast onto a bronze plaque and mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal, 17 years after the statue was first dedicated. The poem was rarely mentioned in the mainstream press until several decades later.
Emma Lazarus
The New Colossus appears to have gained traction once Slovenian author and socialist immigrant Louis Adamic began quoting it in his writings during the late 1930’s to combat the Johnson-Reed act of 1924, which set restrictive immigration quotas in order to maintain America’s ethnic homogeneity. Adamic was an avid Marxist who advocated for ethnic diversity in the US, and coincidentally, his publisher, Maxim Lieber, was named by the Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers as an accomplice in 1949. Lieber fled to Mexico in 1951 and eventually back to Poland. Louis Adamic committed suicide in 1951 under suspicious circumstances.
Over time, the poem’s association with the statue has grown to the point of absurdity. Again, today, questioning, altering or rejecting the poem and its meaning is a kind of political blasphemy. For example, back in 2019, the press berated the Trump Administration for supposedly “rewriting” Emma Lazarus’s words when Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s head of Citizenship and Immigration Services, tried to reorient the poem’s meaning.
CBS wrote: Trump’s top immigration official reworks the words on the Statue of Liberty. PBS wrote: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans. The New York Times wrote: What the Trump Administration Gets Wrong About the Statue of Liberty. Vox wrote: Trump official suggests famous Statue of Liberty sonnet is too nice to immigrants. The Jewish Forward wrote: Ken Cuccinelli Isn’t The First Trump Official To Go After Emma Lazarus.
All these accusations of “rewriting” Emma’s poem were ironic, since essentially it was Emma’s poem that was used to rewrite America’s identity and its stance on immigration. Concerning the period of the Johnson Reed Act of 1924, leading up to the Hart Celler act of 1965, Hugh Davis Graham wrote in his book Collision Course:
Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. [1]
Curiously, in 1883, when a fundraising committee asked Emma Lazarus to donate an original work to an auction intended to help pay for the pedestal’s construction, Emma declined saying that she would not write about a statue. She only changed her mind after Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that it would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor. [2]
As Harrison later recalled, her ploy to win over the young writer involved highlighting the plight of immigrants from a very specific ethnic background:
Think of that Goddess standing on her pedestal down yonder in the bay, and holding her torch out to those Russian refugees of yours you are so fond of visiting at Ward’s Island. [3]
These “Russians” were in fact Emma’s fellow Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia after Czar Alexander II’s assassination in which Jewish radicals had been implicated. In any event, It seems that just as the Anglo-Saxon founders of America had a preference for immigrants of a certain ethnic background, Emma had her own preferences too. She didn’t write poems about Irish or Italian gentiles who were immigrating in large numbers at the time. Nor did she write about emancipated slaves in the South or Chinese railroad workers out west. To the extent that she wrote about any people, it was almost exclusively Jews.
Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi
The greatest tragedy in the history of Lady Liberty is that more people know who Emma Lazarus was than the Frenchman who designed it; Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi. The statue was a gift from France to celebrate the nations’ friendship and alliance. It was modeled after Libertas, a roman goddess who was often associated with freed slaves in antiquity. But the monument really had nothing to do with the emancipation of African slaves in the US, and great care was taken in the design to avoid such associations. [4]
A Roman coin with Libertas. Circa 125 BC.
The meaning behind Lady Liberty is no where near as convoluted as popular media makes it out to be. The Roman goddess, Libertas, has been used in various forms by many European peoples for centuries. There’s a version of her on top of the Capitol building that was put in there in 1863. France used her on their seal for the second French Republic in 1848. There’s also the Dutch Maiden, the United Kingdom’s Britannia, and the Italia Turrita.
In the American setting, the figure of Libertas was used as a symbolic reference to the freedom the British colonists had gained from their English monarch, King George. The date written on the statue’s Tabula Ansata is July 4th, 1776, the date of independence from England. This is also the date mentioned numerously in French fundraising pamphlets which, as far as I am aware, never spoke of emancipated slaves or immigrants.
It is true that Édouard Laboulaye, one of the key impetuses behind the statue, was a passionate abolitionist who advocated on behalf of emancipated slaves, but his motivation for building the monument was to further solidify the historic Franco-American alliance.
In 1875, he launched a subscription campaign for France’s half of the funding saying:
This is about erecting in memory, on the glorious anniversary of the United States, an exceptional monument. In the middle of New York’s harbor, on an islet that belongs to the Union, and opposite Long Island, where the first blood for independence was spilt, here will stand a colossal statue, framed on the horizon by the great American cities of New York, Jersey City and Brooklyn. On the threshold of this vast continent full of a new life, where all the ships of the world arrive, it will emerge from the heart of the waves, it will represent: Liberty enlightening the world. At night, a luminous halo emanating from her forehead, will radiate in the distance on the immense sea. [5]
The idea of Liberty enlightening the world was that others could achieve what America had by following in its example as a republic. Laboulaye and others didn’t see Lady Liberty as a call for endless, unqualified immigration, and it was not a statement that anyone could be American regardless of national origin.
To drive home the absurdity of claims to the contrary, four years prior to the the statue’s dedication, America had passed the Chinese Exclusion act thereby barring an entire racial bloc from immigrating.
Shortly before being assassinated in 1865, Lincoln, the great emancipator, had told General Benjamin Butler:
“I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes…I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country…” [6]
In the 1880s, race riots were common. Most Americans continued to share Lincoln’s sentiments and saw ex-slaves as an unresolved problem with many politicians and private citizens continuing to argue for them to be repatriated to Africa.
The Cleveland Gazette, an African American newspaper wrote the following regarding the Statue of Liberty’s dedication:
“Liberty enlightening the world,” indeed! The expression makes us sick. This government is a howling farce. It can not or rather does not protect its citizens within its own borders. [7]
Such language is often highlighted to assert that America was failing to live up to its supposed ideals, but the reality is that America’s first naturalization act in 1790, in no uncertain terms dictated that citizenship was reserved for “free white person[s]…of good character.” When Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” he was speaking in a political sense to King George, a monarch, and not a literal sense to mankind as a whole.
Other contemporary state documents remove the ambiguity for the modern reader, such as that of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights in 1776:
“…all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights…”
None of the sentiments outlined in any of our founding documents sought to convey that all men, regardless of racial background or national origin, were equal and interchangeable in a literal sense commensurate with modern notions of “diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Thomas Jefferson, despite being a slave owner himself, did support emancipation, but he qualified this in his Notes on the State of Virginia:
“Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” [8]
Of note here is that the definition of “Civil Rights” has changed substantially over time. In 1866 when the first Civil Rights Act was passed, John Wilson, a member of the Radical Republicans, described what the legislation was intended to encompass when he presented it before congress:
It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of “civil rights and immunities.” What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No; for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. [9]
Let’s return to Emma Lazarus’s poem, The New Colossus. It’s quite short so let’s read it:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
In her biography of Emma Lazarus, a fellow Jewess, Esther Schor, considers the meaning that can be gleaned from these lines:
Perhaps, too, these words issue a mild command that a new-world statue must embody a new ideal. But before her vision takes shape, she pauses to smash an idol of the Old World: Helios, the sun god, a figure of imperial conquest, “astride from land to land.” Given that Bartholdi’s statue was intended to ennoble enlightenment, her reference to Helios’s lust for domination is indecorous, to say the least.
In “Progress and Poverty,” she had already impugned the lit lamp of Science for being complicit with exploitation. Now, renaming Liberty Enlightening the World “Mother of Exiles,” she relieves this giant female form of a heavy inheritance of tyranny. At the same time, she places a new burden upon her, asking that she nurture and protect conquest’s victims.
The “imprisoned lightning” of her flame, an emblem of captive, not liberating light, insists that true enlightenment must wait on freedom. Until then, all light glows against a scrim of darkness, the same darkness in which the ignorant slaves of “Progress and Poverty” toiled. [10]
Esther Schor seemingly acknowledges that Emma profaned Bartholdi’s original intent and yet embraces Emma’s view as the more legitimate one anyway. She continues:
Defying the “storied pomp” of antiquity, precedent, and ceremony, the statue speaks not in the new language of reason and light but in the divine language of lovingkindness. To worldly power, she sounds a dire tattoo: “Keep, ancient lands”; “Give me your tired.” To the abject, she offers the silent salute of her lamp. What it illuminates are shapes of human suffering, the “huddled masses,” the wretched refusés on the Old World’s “teeming shore.” Emma Lazarus had finally arrived, from a glimpse of the “undistinguished multitudes” in her elegy to Garfield, at a more radical, embracing vision of American society, and she had been led there by her Jewish commitment to repair a broken world. She knew well that for these homeless throngs, becoming individuals—becoming free Americans—would not be easy. But it was their destiny. In time, the Mother of Exiles assures them, that is what they would grow to become. [11]
Putting aside that the base inspiration of the Statue of Liberty was the Roman goddess Libertas and that Helios wasn’t really associated with conquest, the Colossus of Rhodes, was literally built using the siege equipment left by the Macedonians after their failed attempt to take the city, and, like its modern female counterpart, was a monument to continued independence.
Now, one could make the case that Esther Schor, is anachronistically imbuing Emma with 21st-century interpretations of tikkun olam, but it seems fairly obvious that Emma was driven, at least in part, by a kind of Jewish ethnocentrism, and a resentment of Western society and her place in it as a Jew.
Again, Emma didn’t write about the plight of blacks in the South, nor did she spend her time protesting the Chinese Exclusion act. Before the term Zionism had even been coined, Emma was traveling around Europe advocating for a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Her line “keep ancient lands your storied pomp” in defiance of European antiquity, precedent and ceremony is ironic since a great deal of her other literary works focused on exalting Jewish antiquity, precedent and ceremony. In fact, Emma is considered by many to be the archetypical American Zionist. Oddly enough, Esther Schor admits as much in the preface of her book:
These days, Lazarus’s dictum that “Until we are all free, we are none of us free” is widely taken to be a universalist credo; similar statements are attributed to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, Lazarus addressed this comment expressly to the privileged, emancipated Jews of the West, taking them to task for “not [being] ‘tribal’ enough”—that is, for failing to recognize the persecuted Jews of Russia as their brothers and sisters. [12]
But in the same preface, she asserts that Emma’s behavior was more or less a proto-universalist movement gearing up to include all of humanity.
For Emma Lazarus, being Jewish meant acknowledging one’s bonds to people distant in both place and time. Being a free Jew, in a world where Jews were being persecuted and expelled by the thousands, sometimes even killed and raped, was to incur the obligation to bring freedom to others. It was Lazarus’s genius to understand that the obligations of freedom pertained not only to Jewish Americans, but to all Americans. [13]
Needless to say, I find this highly disingenuous and self-serving. If we look deeper into Emma’s family history, such notions of her being some proto-archetypal form of modern “diversity, equity, and inclusion” becomes somewhat absurd. Her family was among the original twenty-three Portuguese Jews who moved to New York in 1654 when it was still called New Amsterdam and was controlled by the Dutch. [14]
They were fleeing the return of the Inquisition in their settlement of Recife, Brazil. So yes, her family was fleeing persecution, but Recife, Brazil was one of the most important colonies in the New World in terms of establishing the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the infamous Middle Passage.
According to Jewish author Herbert Bloom:
The Christian inhabitants of Brazil were envious because the Jews owned some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco and were among the leading slave-holders and slave traders in the colony. [15]
In reference to slave colonies in Brazil and the West Indies, Jewish historian Marc Lee Raphael wrote that:
Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French, British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. [16]
In 1522, according to Jewish professor, Arnold Wiznitzer, Jews exiled from Portugal established sugar plantations and mills on the island of São Tomé off the West African coast, “employing as many as 3,000 Negro slaves“, thereby allowing the Portuguese to “dominate the world sugar trade.” In reference to the early colonization of Brazil he says that:
It is a historical fact, supported by documentary evidence that a consortium of Jews, headed by Fernnão de Norohna, had obtained in 1502 a three-year lease from the Portuguese Crown for the exploration and settlement of the newly discovered Brazil. The lease, constituting in reality a monopoly, was extended for an additional ten years in 1505. [17]
The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia also states that Jews “monopolized” the sugar industry in the 17th century. [18] In reference to the late 17th century and early 18th century, Seymour Liebman said in his book New World Jewry that:
… The Jews were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise. The Jews were the principal purveyors to the government, although there never were more than two thousand Jews in Curacao. It is conservatively estimated that the Jews owned about two hundred vessels during the first sixty years of their settlement in Curaçao. [19]
Regarding Jewish slave ownership in the United States during the 1800s, many Jewish historians and advocates point out that most Jewish slave owners only possessed a few domestic slaves whom they employed as house servants. This is likely true but doesn’t warrant any special consideration, in my opinion.
As the Economic History Association points out, this was essentially the standard for slavery in America at the time:
Most Southerners owned no slaves and most slaves lived in small groups rather than on large plantations. Less than one-quarter of white Southerners held slaves, with half of these holding fewer than five and fewer than 1 percent owning more than one hundred. In 1860, the average number of slaves residing together was about ten.
Jewish historian Jacob Rader Marcus asserted in his book United States Jewry 1776-1985 that in 1820, 40% of Jewish households owned slaves. [20] The population of Jews at that time was considerably lower than it is today both in number and in proportion, however, by 1860 Jews in America numbered between 150,000 and 200,000, out of a total population of 27,000,000. Or roughly 0.7% of the population. The total amount of slave owners in 1860 was a little less than 400,000, per the 1860 census. If we assume that the percentage of Jewish slave ownership in 1860 was the same as it was in 1820, then Jews would’ve accounted for between 10-15% of total slave owners at the height of American slavery. 0.7% of the population accounting for up to 15% of slave ownership is a remarkable overrepresentation.
I will offer the caveat here, however, that there was an increasing influx of poor Jewish immigrants between 1820 and 1860, so it may be doubtful that all of them were able to afford slaves. But as a colleague of Jacob Rader Marcus once said:
…Jews who were more firmly established in a business or professional career, as well as in their family relation-ships, had every reason to become slave-owners… [21]
In addition to this, I would highlight that in reference to the early period of the 1700s in America, the Jewish encyclopedia also states that:
The Jews of Georgia found the production of indigo, rice, corn, tobacco, and cotton more profitable. In fact, many of the cotton plantations in the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence, slavery found its advocates among them. [22]
To be clear, Jews were not the sole instigators or beneficiaries of the slave trade, but they were undoubtedly overrepresented in all facets of it whether directly in the form of ownership, or participation in ancillary industries. With this in mind, it is exceedingly unlikely that Emma Lazarus’s Brazilian ancestors didn’t own slaves, and while her immediate family in 19th century New York did not directly engage in slavery, her father, Moses Lazarus, was in the sugar refining and distillery industry. The raw sugar used in his factories came from slave plantations in the South owned by his business partner whom Esther Schor briefly comments on in her book:
Moses’s unsavory business partner, Bradish Johnson, a slaveholder from Louisiana, had been cited for the abuse of slaves on his plantation. The owner of a combination dairy/distillery in Manhattan, Johnson was also cited in an 1853 New-York Daily Times exposé for selling tainted milk: apparently, his cows had been lapping up alcoholic swill sluiced from the distillery. With such a disreputable partner, it was no wonder Moses gave out that he had retired from Johnston and Lazarus at the close of the Civil War. [23]
What Esther seemingly tries to brush aside here is that the distillery in question was called The Johnson & Lazarus distillery. Emma’s father was Johnson’s equal in their shared business firm and was every bit as responsible for this scandal as was Johnson. Moreover, Moses Lazarus didn’t just retire from The Johnson & Lazarus firm in 1865; he retired outright. Esther seemingly attempts to portray Moses Lazarus’s retirement as some moral epiphany 12 years after the scandal.
To put the scandal into perspective, during the 1850s between 8,000 to 9,000 children were dying, every year in New York City, due to “impure” or “adulterated milk.” [24] For reference, New York City had a population of about 515,000. So something on the order of 1 to 1.5% of the local population was dying from things like dysentery, cholera infantum, and marasmus.
Swill milk was the milk produced by cows fed a residual byproduct of alcohol production from nearby distilleries. After the extraction of alcohol from the macerated grain, the residual mash still contained nutrients, and it was an economic advantage to keep cows stabled nearby and feed it to them. The milk had a blue tint and was extremely thin, so it was whitened with plaster of Paris, thickened with starch and eggs, and hued with molasses.
Now, to be fair to Bradish Johnson and Moses Lazarus, swill milk was produced and sold all over New York at the time. However, as John Mullaly pointed out in his work The Milk Trade in New York and Vicinity, published in 1853:
The most extensive distillery in the city is that owned by a Mr. Johnson, at the foot of Sixteenth Street, on the North River. It produces more swill than any other in New York, and it is said, even more than any other in the United States. [25]
The truth is that Emma Lazarus’s family profited off human exploitation. It’s what paid for Emma’s fancy tutors, summer homes, and travel to Europe to advocate for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Emma was not an independent woman. She did not disown her family or its businesses. She lived with her family until she died unmarried in 1887 from Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
In fact, had it not been for Emma’s father, she might never have achieved any sort of notoriety. In 1866 Moses Lazarus paid to have Emma’s first works published:
In his accomplished seventeen-year-old daughter, Moses Lazarus had much to crow about, but Emma Lazarus’s debut volume, which he had printed “for private circulation,” took paternal pride to Olympian heights. Poems and Translations, Written Between the Ages of Fourteen and Sixteen ran to more than two hundred pages, comprising nearly thirty “Original Pieces,” two hulking romances each in excess of a thousand lines, and translations of forty-five short lyrics by Heine, Schiller, Dumas, and Hugo. Dedicated, unsurprisingly, “To My Father,” it appeared in November 1866. [26]
It was only after this that she was taken on as a protégé by famous writer, Ralph Waldo Emerson. Interestingly, her relationship with Emmerson appears to have deteriorated over time due to what Esther Schor called “the sense of entitlement her elite, Sephardic parents had instilled in her.” [27]
What motivated Emma in the 1880’s was probably not transcendentalism so much as it was an emerging sense of ethnic solidarity with her Ashkenazic counterparts in Russia. In an 1882 letter to a friend, she wrote:
Indeed, I would love to see you in your own home and visit dear old Concord again… But I may have imperative duties recalling me to New York in connection with work for the Russian Jews… The Jewish Question which I plunged into so wrecklessly and impulsively last Spring has gradually absorbed more and more of my mind and heart—It opens up such enormous vistas in the past and future, and is so palpitatingly alive at the moment…that it has about driven out of my thought all other subjects…. [28]
Author Bette Roth Young explains Emma’s view of Benjamin Disraeli, England’s only Jewish prime minister and founder of the modern conservative party. Using many of Emma’s own words she writes:
Emma continued her adulation telling the reader that no Englishman could ever forget that Disraeli was a Jew; Therefore “he himself would be the first to proclaim it, instead of apologizing for it.” Rather than “knock servilely at the doors of English aristocracy,” he “conquered them with their own weapons, he met arrogance with arrogance, the pride of descent based upon a few centuries of distinction, with the pride of descent supported by hundreds of centuries of intellectual supremacy and even of divine anointment.” [29]
In a New York Times article attributed to Emma Lazarus, after a visit to Ward’s Island, Emma wrote:
Never before were the prayer of gratitude and the impulse of joy more genuine, more appropriate, and more solemn than on this day of March, 1882, when after a new exodus, and a new persecution by the seed of Haman, these stalwart young representatives of the oldest civilization in existence met to sing the songs of Zion in a strange land. [30]
Note that Emma refers to Russian gentiles as the “Seed of Haman,” and by doing so she is imbuing Russians with a deeply rooted, millennia-old animosity that Jews felt toward their biblical enemies. In fact, much of Emma’s work and activism around the 1880’s was squarely centered on arousing sentiments of Jewish Nationalism in the Jewish diaspora. Take for example her poem, The Banner of the Jew. In it, she calls upon the nation of Israel to rise up and refers to the rebellion in 164 BC against the Greeks as a “glorious Maccabean rage.”
The Maccabean revolt lasted from 167 to 160 BC and was fought by Jewish nationalists against the Greeks for their Hellenistic influence on Jewish life in Judea. Hanukkah, the most famous Jewish holiday, is downstream of this revolt.
Chabad.org describes the revolt as follows:
In the second century BCE, the Holy Land was ruled by the Seleucids, who tried to force the people of Israel to accept Greek culture and beliefs instead of mitzvah observance and belief in G‐d. Against all odds, a small band of faithful but poorly armed Jews, led by Judah the Maccabee, defeated one of the mightiest armies on earth, drove the Greeks from the land, reclaimed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and rededicated it to the service of G‐d.
Honestly, Hanukkah sounds like something the authorities today would normally consider “hate speech,” since it celebrates armed violence against culturally enriching immigrants and seeks to drive them out. It’s easy to imagine how various Jewish interest groups and the European Union might react if native European poets started writing today about a “glorious Hyperborean rage.”
The Maccabean revolt also targeted Hellenized Jews who embraced Greek culture over Jewish laws and customs. (Mattathias ben Johanan famously killed a fellow Jew who had followed the order of a Greek official to offer sacrifice to the Greek gods.) That is to say, these Hellenized Jews thought that the incoming immigrant culture had something better to offer future generations. At least, that seems to be how Adam Kotsko views such situations, if we consider his frame describing the concerns white Americans have about endless non-white immigration and our dying culture. (See the screencap below) If Adam were consistent, he might condemn the Maccabean revolt as having “hitched everything on the empty claim to the superiority of [Jews] with no actual content or value.”
With this Jewish revolt against the Greeks in mind, it’s interesting that Emma Lazarus made it a point in The New Colossus to contrast the masculine Greek statue of Rhodes with her proto-feminist interpretation of Libertas. In her mind, Lady Liberty is a welcoming, “mother of exiles,” whereas the Colossus of Rhodes is an imposing male straddling his legs across the bay in a show of dominance.
Perhaps just as the Greeks defiled her peoples’ temple in the Levant, she was now defiling a temple of sorts belonging to the American “Seeds of Haman.” Either way, Emma Lazarus took it upon herself to hijack an otherwise noble gift from one nation to another, and make it about Jewish grievances.
In her weekly column, “An Epistle to the Hebrews” she describes the dilemma facing her Ashkenazic counterparts:
Either these Jews would submit to the inevitable and relinquish that fundamental piety and austerity which even in the degradation of their Russian Ghettos has preserved their moral tone, and given them a certain amount of dignity, or else, true to the traditions of their race, they would bulwark themselves within a citadel of isolation and defiance, and accept martyrdom and death rather than forego that which they consider their divine mission….For the mass of semi-Orientals, Kabalists and Chassidim, who constitute the vast majority of East European Israelites, some more practical measure of reform must be devised than their transportation to a state of society utterly at variance with their time-honored customs and most sacred beliefs. [31]
Naturally Emma’s language poses the question: How does one become assimilated to a state of society utterly at variance with one’s self? But, does Emma really sound like a woman advocating assimilation? What she wrote here is that Jews are a “race,” that is… a biological collective, that needs a nation of its own. But, more curious still, Emma argued another point in her weekly column:
There is not the slightest necessity for an American Jew, the free citizen of a republic, to rest his hopes upon the foundation of any other nationality soever, or to decide whether he individually would or would not be in favor of residing in Palestine. All that would be claimed from him would be a patriotic and unselfish interest in the sufferings of his oppressed brethren of less fortunate countries, sufficient to make him promote by every means in his power the establishment of a secure asylum. [32]
So, in other words, Jews are entitled to a homeland, if they so desire, or they can reside among the gentiles, if they so desire, but, according to Emma, Jews must always put the welfare of their fellow Jews, first and foremost.
Today Chuck Schumer can proudly stand before AIPAC, as a senator of the United States, and proclaim that he is, first and foremost, the guardian of Israel and its people, yet when someone like Jared Taylor proclaims, as little more than a private citizen, that he would like the right to pursue his destiny alongside his ethnic brethren without outside interference, he is immediately branded a hateful “supremacist.”
Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu, said regarding African migrants in 2012 that:
If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state.
In 2018, he said that without a stronger border fence along the Sinai border:
…we would be faced with … severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa…
In her efforts to arouse sentiments of Jewish Nationalism, Emma Lazarus sometimes quoted the Talmud saying: “let the fruit pray for the welfare of the leaf.” [33] In a 2001 article entitled The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography, Steven Steinlight expressed an indirect concern over the welfare of the demographic leaf of white American gentiles:
Is the emerging new multicultural American nation good for the Jews? Will a country in which enormous demographic and cultural change, fueled by unceasing large-scale non-European immigration, remain one in which Jewish life will continue to flourish as nowhere else in the history of the Diaspora? In an America in which people of color form the plurality, as has already happened in California, most with little or no historical experience with or knowledge of Jews, will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection?…
…For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation.
While Jews do not monolithically share Steinlight’s sentiments, they do curiously always seem to see things through a strict cost-benefit analysis of “Yes, but is it good for the Jews?” While they have no trouble recognizing the collective interests of their own people, they refuse to acknowledge that white gentiles have legitimate collective racial, ethnic and cultural interests of our own. In fact, they seem to insist on pathologizing the conveyance of any such sentiments or beliefs on our part.
With this in mind, I assert that Esther Schor closes her book on Emma Lazarus in a most frustrating fashion. She states that:
Emma Lazarus did what America’s makers have always had to do, be they the children of religious refugees, slaves, Native Americans, or immigrants: not surrender themselves to America, but leave their mark on it. In works like the cherished “New Colossus” and the neglected “Little Poems in Prose,” in the great poem of her life, she remade America in the image of a Jewish calling—a mission to repair the world. [34]
If it’s venerable that Emma Lazarus “remade” America in the image of a “Jewish calling,” then why are people upset that white Europeans remade North America into our calling? If we are to celebrate “not surrendering to America, but [leaving] their mark on it”, then why are many Jews so upset with Palestinians who refuse to surrender to Israel?
The Jewish concept of repairing the world also known as tikkun olam is described by some as the “idea that Jews bear responsibility not only for their own moral, spiritual, and material welfare, but also for the welfare of society at large.” But why is this mindset praised whereas “The White Man’s Burden” and “La Mission Civilisatrice” are vilified?
I won’t claim that Judaism doesn’t have a wide array of thought and disagreement on a number of topics including tikkun olam and the Noahide laws, but Maimonides, a renowned Jewish philosopher whose teachings on the Talmud are highly regarded, once said that:
Moses our Teacher was commanded by the Almighty to compel the world to accept the Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Anyone who fails to accept them is executed. Anyone who does accept them upon himself is called a Convert Who May Reside Anywhere. He must accept them in front of three wise and learned Jews. However, anyone who agrees to be circumcised and twelve months have elapsed and he was not as yet circumcised is no different than any other member of the nations of the world.
Let’s return to the topic of the so-called “Russian refugees,” of whom Emma was so found. Why were Russian gentiles persecuting the Jews in the 1880s? As it turns out, a young Russian contemporary of Emma’s wrote an article on this very topic. Zénaïde Alexeïevna Ragozin reveals in her 1881 Century Magazine piece, Russian Jews and Gentiles, that the Russian Jews had been abusing the local gentiles via the Qahal, a semi autonomous system of governance for Jews within non-Jewish societies. Technically, Nicholas I of Russia, had it abolished in the 1840’s, but Jewish apostate, Jacob Brafman, who had converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity insisted that the practice continued in secret. Ragozin quotes him in her article which I will now quote in a slightly altered form for clarity to modern readers.
[He writes that Jews view the] Gentile population of its district as ‘its lake’ to fish in, the Kahal proceeds to sell portions of this strange property to individuals on principles as strange. To one uninitiated in Kahal mysteries, such a sale must be unintelligible. Let us take an instance. The Kahal, in accordance with its own rights, sells to [a Jew] a house, which, according to the state laws of the country, is the inalienable property of [a Gentile], without the latter’s knowledge or consent. Of what use, it will be asked, is such a transaction to the purchaser? The deed of sale delivered to him by the Kahal cannot invest him with the position which every owner assumes toward his property. [The Gentile] will not give up his house on account of its having been sold by the Kahal, and the latter has not the power to make him give it up. What, then, has the [Jewish] purchaser acquired for the money paid by him to the Kahal? Simply this: he has acquired khazaka—i.e., right of ownership over the house of the [Gentile], in force whereof he is given the exclusive right, guaranteed from interference or competition from other Jews, to get possession of the said house, as expressly said in the deed of sale, ‘by any means [whatsoever.]’ Until he has finally succeeded in transferring it to his official possession, he alone is entitled to rent that house from its present owner, to trade in it, to lend money to the owner and other Gentiles who may dwell in it—to make profits out of them in any way his ingenuity may suggest. This is what is meant by khazaka. Sometimes the Kahal sells to a Jew even the person of some particular Gentile, without any immovable property attached. This is how the law defines this extraordinary right, which is called meropiè: ‘If a man [meaning a Jew] holds in his power a Gentile, it is in some places forbidden to other Jews to enter into relations with that person to the prejudice of the first; but in other places it is free to every Jew to have business relations with that person, for it is said that the property of a Gentile is hefker [free to all], and whoever first gets possession of it, to him it shall belong. [35]
Rather than blame so-called “antisemitism” entirely on irrational jealousy, hatred, or religious intolerance on the part of gentiles, it seems much more reasonable to entertain the notion that aggregate, or subsets of, Jewish behaviors have played a significant role in periodic “antisemitic” reactions throughout the ages.
Whatever the case, Emma Lazarus certainly was not the woman modern Jewish advocates and others assert she was. Not only did Emma hijack and taint the meaning of the Statute of Liberty, but her modern proponents often misrepresent and reorient her character for modern political aims.
Emma was a staunch Jewish identitarian whose motives were almost wholly particularistic in nature. She drew on a long, rich historical Jewish tradition and in doing so she often saw her American hosts, Russian gentiles, and the ancient Romans and Greeks as analogues for the “Seed of Haman.” She saw America as a strange land, and she sought to reimagine the world around her into one that was more amenable to her Jewish sensitivities and interests.
[1] -Hugh Davis Graham. Collision Course. Oxford University Press, USA. 2002. (p. 56-57)
[2] -Deborah G. Felder Fifty Jewish Women Who Changed the World. (p. 45)
[3] -Constance Carry Harrison. American Hebrew, 9 December 1887, p. 69.
[4] Khan, Yasmin Sabina. Enlightening the World: The Creation of the Statue of Liberty. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 2010. (p. 105-108)
[5] – Souscription pour l’érection d’un monument commémoratif du centième anniversaire de l’indépendance des États-Unis, Union franco-américaine, signé E. Laboulaye, Paris, 1875.
[6] – Charles H. Wesley, “Lincoln’s Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. IV, No. 1 (January 1919), p. 20.
[7] – The Cleveland Gazette. Cleveland, Ohio. November 27, 1886. p. 2.
[8] – Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia. Query XIV.
[9] – Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1117 (March 1, 1866).
[10] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 188-190).
[11] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 189).
[12] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 2)
[13] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 2)
[14] -Neva Goodwin. Encyclopedia of Women in American History (July 17, 2015). (p. 370) and Phyllis Appel. The Jewish Connection. Graystone Enterprises LLC. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
[15] – Herbert Bloom. The Economic Activities of the Jews in Amsterdam in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (p.133)
[16] – Marc Lee Raphael. Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History pp. 14, 23-25.
[17] – Arnold Wiznitzer. The Jews in the Sugar Industry of Colonial Brazil,” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 18 (July, 1956), pp. 189-90.
[18] – The Jewish Encyclopedia. Volume One. Funk & Wagnalls. 1901-1906. (p 265-266).
[19] – Seymour Liebman, New World Jewry 1493-1825: Requiem for the Forgotten, (p183)
[20] – Jacob Rader Marcus. United States Jewry, 1776-1985: Volume 1 (p. 585). Wayne State University Press. Kindle Edition.
[21] – Bertram Wallace Korn, Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South 1789-1865 (p.16)
[22] – The Jewish Encyclopedia. Volume One. Funk & Wagnalls. 1901-1906. (p 265-266).
[23] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 10-11).
[24] – John Mullaly, 1853, The Milk Trade in New York and Vicinity: Giving an Account of the Sale of Pure and Adulterated Milk. (p 40-41)
[25] – John Mullaly, 1853, The Milk Trade in New York and Vicinity: Giving an Account of the Sale of Pure and Adulterated Milk. (p 40-41)
[26] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 20-21)
[27] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 26)
[28] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 141).
[29] – Bette Roth Young. Emma Lazarus in Her World: Life and Letters (p. 54)
[30] – New York Times, 26 March 1882, p. 12.
[31] – Emma Lazarus, Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Jewish Historical Society of New York, 1987), p. 76-77.
[32] – Emma Lazarus, Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Jewish Historical Society of New York, 1987), p. 41.
[33] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 159)
[34] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 260).
[35] – Zenaide A. Ragozin. The Century Magazine, April 1882, pp. 905-920
War is a great clarifier. First in Ukraine, then in Gaza, war has made it clearer and clearer to more and more Whites that the West is ruled by a hostile elite of Jews and their shabbos goyim. These kings and queens of Clown World are passionately committed to defending the borders of Jew-ruled Ukraine and Israel. And they’re just as passionately committed to erasing the borders of gentile nations like America, Britain, and France.
Fake Americans, real Jews: the vampiric Clown-King Jonathan Greenblatt and the bloodthirsty Clown-Queen Victoria Nuland (image from Wikipedia)
Naturally enough, Clown World has its collaborators, they’re traitors and liars who pretend to side with Whites and the West while secretly working for the Clowns. I think that the worst of these collaborators and traitors is the part-Jewish trickster and fraud Mark Steyn (born 1959). War is a great clarifier, but Steyn is a great obfuscator, someone who has always devoted his high intelligence and literary talent to leading his gentile audience away from the truth. He reminds me of a porcine propagandist in Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945):
The best known among [the swine who ruled the farm] was a small fat pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker, and when he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white. (Animal Farm, chapter 2)
Pied Piper Mark Steyn ponders his next porky
Steyn isn’t small or fat and doesn’t have a shrill voice. But he is a brilliant writer and, like Squealer’s skipping and tail-whisking, he uses humor and mockery to bypass the critical faculty of his audience. For example, he tried to “turn black into white” when he argued in 2021 that Jonathan Greenblatt, the vampiric Jew who heads the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), was a mere “Obama hack” who had allowed gentile leftism to corrupt a formerly honest organization. As I wrote in “Mark Steyn Lies As Naturally As He Breathes,” Steyn couldn’t admit the truth about Greenblatt’s attack on Tucker Carlson for pointing out the obvious truth of the Great Replacement:
Steyn’s priority is to serve Jewish interests, not the truth. He doesn’t want his goyish fans to recognize the truth about Carlson’s dispute with the ADL, because the ADL’s attack on Carlson was a blatant example of anti-White activism by a strongly ethnocentric Jewish organization. Accordingly, Steyn assumed his well-practised role as the Pied Piper of Zionism and begun piping a seductive tune of falsehoods. He wanted to pretend, first, that Jonathan Greenblatt is a typical leftist, rather than a typical ethnocentric Jew; and second, that the ADL is corrupt in typically leftist fashion, rather than typically Zionist fashion. (“Mark Steyn Lies As Naturally As He Breathes,” The Occidental Observer, 29th April 2021)
In his article, Steyn skipped and whisked his tail in service to the swine of Clown World as he made his way to a truly breathtaking porky (“porky pie” is Cockney rhyming-slang for “lie”). He wrote that “I wouldn’t be surprised to see the likes of Greenblatt abandon Zionism as a practical matter in the years ahead.” That was an obvious lie at the time and in 2024 the great clarifier of war has only made it more obvious. Far from abandoning Zionism after his dispute with Tucker Carlson, Greenblatt has become so rabidly Zionist that even some of his own staff at the ADL think he’s going too far:
The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” Greenblatt said in a speech to ADL leaders. He singled out Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as groups that “epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked”.
His remarks didn’t only upset grassroots activists and Jewish groups critical of Israeli policy. It also set off a firestorm within the Jewish advocacy group. … Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role. … And tensions continue to ignite between Greenblatt and ADL staff. At least two employees who spoke to the Guardian have quit in response to its overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began, building on a pattern of departures from the organization. But the ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government. It has welcomed a controversial congressional resolution that defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and it has called on law enforcement to investigate student activist groups for providing “material support” to Hamas, which the US government has designated as a terrorist organization. (“Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics,” The Guardian, 5th January 2024)
That article in the Guardian is dishonest too (and badly written), but it gets one thing absolutely right: that Greenblatt is a rabid Zionist and no longer cares to pretend otherwise. Here’s Steyn’s prediction from 2021 again: “I wouldn’t be surprised to see the likes of Greenblatt abandon Zionism as a practical matter in the years ahead.” When Steyn wrote that, he was being either an utter fool or an unashamed liar. Steyn definitely isn’t a fool, so only one option remains: he’s an unashamed liar.
Steyn in the Jewish World Review
Here’s another of his lies: “Unlike the head of the ADL, I have no special interest in or responsibility for the welfare of the Jewish people.” Steyn is part Jewish and definitely has a special interest in the welfare of Jews. He gives the intensely ethnocentric Jew Laura Rosen Cohen regular space on his website to promote Jewish interests. He has spent his entire career deceiving and deflecting on behalf of the Jewish swine of Clown World. As the honest Jew Larry Auster pointed out in 2005, Steyn was once positively gloating at the prospect of non-White Muslims conquering White Europe:
In a selection of my past blog articles on Mark Steyn that I posted yesterday, I just came upon a statement by Steyn about Europe and Islam that may be the most damning thing — about himself — that he’s ever written. In Steyn’s article, written last February [2005], he doesn’t merely express indifference to the prospect of an Islamized Europe (which he has done many times before), and he doesn’t merely express Schadenfreude at the prospect of an Islamized Europe (which he has also done many times before); no, he speaks of an Islamized Europe as a positively good thing for the United States.
As I discuss, this attitude demonstrates the ultimate destructiveness of the neoconservative’s world view. Believing only in the liberal idea of universal freedom (which they don’t really believe in anyway, since they are now supporting sharia rule in Iraq and Hamas rule in the Palestinian territories), the neoconservatives lack any real civilizational consciousness or allegiance, and so, because the Europeans oppose the universal-freedom ideology, the neocons have abandoned our European homeland to the Muslims, even though the Islamic dominance of Europe would obviously mean the greatest possible setback for us in the war on radical Islam, spelling the ultimate defeat of America and of its freedoms as well. But that’s the way it goes. When you have no loyalty to a concrete society and people, you are also incapable of staying loyal to the ideas that you have abstracted from that society and people. (“Steyn calls for the destruction of Europe,” View from the Right, 29th December 2005)
But isn’t just what Steyn said, it’s where he said it. This is what he wrote and what shocked even his harsh critic Larry Auster:
Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.
Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there’s no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere. (“U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode,” Jewish World Review, 28th February 2005)
Steyn wrote that in the Jewish World Review for a Jewish audience two decades ago. As Larry Auster said, it should have damned Steyn for ever in the eyes of anyone who wants the West to survive and wants the Third-World invaders to be turned back. But it didn’t. In 2024, Steyn is still skipping and whisking his tail and turning “black into white” for his audience of deluded goyim. He’s even offering those goyim a chance to buy a “handsome limited-edition … souvenir … the SteynOnline Liberty Stick.” He goes on: “Every stick is made in the USA and shows both Magna Carta and the US Constitution. They’re exclusively available here — and I sign and number each one.”
Another clown, another lie: Dr Eli David pretends that Western survival depends on sending shekels to Israel
The expurgation of Magna Carta
In 2005, Steyn claimed that “the 21st century is being built elsewhere” than Europe. In 2024, he’s claiming that the 21st century should be built on Magna Carta. You know, Magna Carta, written in Latin, that great European language, centuries before America and Israel even existed. But Steyn is lying when he claims to honor Magna Carta. He’s just skipping and whisking his tail again. Otherwise, he’d sign his “Liberty Sticks” with this highly relevant advice: “Beware the Jews!” As Francis Carr Begbie pointed out at the Occidental Observer in 2013, Magna Carta can be celebrated today only in expurgated form:
If there is one thing our elites enjoy it is giving each other a big pat on the back and the extravagant celebrations planned for the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta will give them lots of opportunities to do just that.
There may still be eighteen months to go before the actual anniversary itself but the commemoration events are well underway to mark the day in 1215 that King John was finally brought to heel by the barons and where limited government and Western constitutional freedom was born.
In Britain the BBC will broadcast TV documentaries, dramas and radio programmes, and the event is to even have its own opera and specially commissioned symphony. The occasion will be marked by commemorative stamps and the Royal Mint will issue a special £2 coin. In America high-powered lawyers and constitutional experts will be chewing over the meaning of it all at banquets, dinners, lectures and exhibitions in Boston, Washington and Philadelphia and 800 U.S. lawyers are expected to make the pilgrimage to Runnymede beside the Thames where the document was sealed.
Across the English-speaking judicial world no single document is probably more venerated than the Great Charter. The Founding Fathers embedded it into the 1791 Bill of Rights in the shape of the Fifth Amendment that says no-one “can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. And today it is regularly cited in newspaper editorials, political debates and Supreme Court judgments.
But amidst all the self-congratulation about habeas corpus, the right to trial by jury and how it’s wisdom shines down the through the ages and still has much to teach us, one awkward question should be asked, however churlish it might seem.
Why have clauses 10 and 11 been airbrushed from history? These were the ones inserted in the original charter to protect widows and underage heirs specifically from Jewish moneylenders by restricting the recovery of debt out of the deceased debtor’s estate.
But they are nowhere to be found in the official Magna Carta Trust website nor the US National Archive website which instead features the text of the later — and much shorter — 1297 version. (“Why the Magna Carta anniversary celebrations will be missing two crucial paragraphs,” The Occidental Observer, 19th May 2013)
If Mark Steyn truly believes that Magna Carta is the foundation-stone of British and American liberty, then he must accept that liberty depends on escaping the greed and lies of Jews. But he doesn’t truly believe it and his Steyn Stick should really be called a Swine Stick. It’s just another lie issued by mendacious Mark as part of his long and faithful service to the Jews of Clown World.
Part 2: The Jewish Question
One of the most important contributions of Dühring’s work to the history of anthropology and culture is the distinction he makes between the Jews and the other Semites so that all the features of the so-called “anti-Semitism” are in fact directed only to the Jews as a specific branch of the Semitic race, “the most vicious minting of the entire Semitic race,” and not to all the members of that race in general.
The Jewish question too is not a religious one but of the inherent and unchangeable character of the Jewish people.[1] Thus, as Dühring puts it,
it lies in the interest of a noble mankind, thus of a true humanity and culture, that this obscurantism of religion which has up to now covered and protected the worst characteristics of the Jews with its darkness be fully removed so that the Jew may be revealed to us in his natural and inalienable constitution.[2]
In general, Dühring believes that all official religions are encrusted with superstition and it would be best to substitute religious dogma with something more genuinely spiritual in social institutions. The point of departure for Dühring’s critique of Jewry is thus an entirely moral one. The chief accusation against the Jews is that they are morally corrupt and therefore thrive most in a society where moral corruption has already set in or has begun to set in.
This is the justification of the appellation of the Jewish race as a parasitical one since it feeds on the moral corruption of the host society, a corruption either created by it or, if already present to some degree, fostered by it. The dangers of moral corruption through the admixture of Jews into European society have increased particularly after the emancipation of Jewry in the sixties and seventies of the nineteenth century. The source of the Jewish corrupt nature is located by Dühring in their basic lack of conscience and cruelty vis-à-vis the other nations. Exploitation of other nations is their major aim and a genuine sense of human rights is utterly lacking in their commercial, essentially usurious, dealings. This lack of a moral sense makes true politics impossible among them and their involvement in all sorts of so-called Socialist movements is only conditioned by their desire to extract advantages for themselves from disturbed social and economic conditions.
The religious constitution of the Jews is evidenced most clearly in their overarching theocratic ideas of society wherein the Jewish people are enslaved to their Lord God but, in turn, must enslave the rest of mankind to please this sole, jealous monarch of the world.[3] Yahweh is indeed nothing but an embodiment of the Jewish self-interest and represents the very opposite of the Indo-European natural pantheon.
Germanic mythology is ruled by concepts of fidelity and nature-based spirituality which have unfortunately been obscured by the overlaying of the original German moral character by Christianity, a religion which is very closely related to the Jewish racial culture in which it arose as a reaction to the evils of the Jewish nature.[4] The Jewish religion has no truly religious character but, instead, a markedly economic-political one. Given their natural proclivity to profit-making, it is not surprising that the Jews have, in their extensive wanderings away from their homeland, curried favor with power-holders in all ages through their financial loans. The Alliance Israelite Universelle based in Paris is in fact a modern confirmation of the operation of the political influence of Jews on an international scope under the cover of an apparently religious organization.
The influence of the Jews on society is more evident in the upper and middle classes than in the lower, since the former are more exposed to the thoroughly Judaized press and literature of modern times.
The Jews themselves lack all creative power in science as well as in art and merely trade in the ideas of others. The Jewish economist, David Ricardo, for example, derived his famous ground-rent theory from the Scot James Anderson, and the Jewish mathematician, Carl Gustav Jacobi, derived his ideas from the Norwegian Niels Abel. Even the sole distinguished philosopher of the Jewish race, Spinoza, has produced a system which is singularly lacking in all ideals above rational calculation. The neglect of compassion in his Ethics as a feeling-based category to be overcome by rational understanding points to the real cult of intellectual power which lies at the base of his system.[5]
The Jewish talent in literature is always of a hybrid sort displaying even amidst occasional attempts at Germanic sublimity an irresistible proclivity to buffoonery, as in the case of Heine, and to polemics, as in the case of Börne. The Jews have also turned Lessing’s sympathetic attitude to the Jews (perhaps, as Dühring maintains, because Lessing was himself originally of Jewish descent) into an exaggerated cult of Lessing as the glory of the German Enlightenment when in fact his works are entirely artificial and lacking in genuine emotional power.
The Jews lack all heroism of character required to produce epic or dramatic literature and can, at best, attain some weak lyricism as revealed in their ancient Psalms. Like Richard Wagner, Dühring also criticizes the unpleasant manner of Jewish chanting in the synagogues and goes even farther than Wagner in his anti-Judaism in maintaining that Wagner himself compromised in the end with the Jews in accepting generous donations from the Jews at Bayreuth and in purporting to save those Jews who supported his “music of the future,” rather like a dispenser of indulgences. The general unsuitability of the Jews for artistic enterprise is, in fact, located by Dühring in their lack of “that free and unselfish activity of the mind which alone advances to uninterested truth and beauty”.
The Judaized press, however, constantly ridicules the German as having the nature a simpleton, of the “deutschen Michael.” The Jews have, through their involvement with the political parties of the present, corrupted the concepts of socialism and social democracy. Their aim in the realm of economics has been always, whether it be through Marx or through Lassalle, to foster economic dissatisfaction through terms such as “class-warfare” in order ultimately to achieve a “merging of all nations into a Jewish kingdom.”
The German state was in fact founded originally on the moral quality of loyalty, which was the basis of the feudal system which developed therefrom in the Middle Ages. Loyalty should thus be the source of future German politics as well. Jewish politics, on the other hand, is based on betrayal—of Europeans as well as, occasionally, of Jews too by other Jews. The intolerant Jewish ethos can operate only in an exploitative manner and under the enforcement of a terrorism learnt from their fear-inspiring Lord God.
True piety is lacking in their politics as much as in their religion. The Jewish infiltration into the legislative activities of the German state after their emancipation has enabled them to herd the German people under the thrall of individualistic “freedom” into the exploitative hands of the Jews. In this they have been abetted by the university professors and intelligentsia, since the latter depend for the most part on the Jewish press for their reputation. The advancement of Jews from an original pariah status to the leading political positions in the European nations is evidenced by the rise of Gambetta in France and of Disraeli in England. Gambetta rose to power on the basis of a French political fiasco for which his own people were responsible.[6] Disraeli’s opportunism is manifest in his use of the stock-exchange business to acquire foreign lands.[7] But the true manipulative schemes of the Jew are revealed by Disraeli himself in his fictional writings such as Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred. The very appointment of a Jew like Disraeli as the head of the English aristocracy is a sad sign of the degeneration of the English in recent times.
The solution of the Jewish problem must be an international one if it is to have any lasting effect. One of the major preparatory steps is the elimination of the false idea of tolerance. Tolerance of baseness is a contradiction of the principle of human tolerance itself: “Humane reciprocity will consist in living in peace insofar as the nobler humanity comes together in the good. For the rest, however, precisely battle and destruction will emerge so much more energetically against the inhuman.” Similarly, the principle of equality cannot mean the consideration of that which is unequal as equal. The economic communes and corporations which Dühring suggests in his Socialitarian system thus must reserve the right to exclude harmful economic elements like the Jews.
The political solution of the Jewish problem lies first in the spiritual emancipation of the people from the Jewish mentality and ethos. But individual natures are too weak to carry out this process of reformation of society by themselves and so must be helped by state legislation and administration. The disenfranchisement of the Jews is a sine qua non of all remedial action with regard to the Jewish problem. Their exclusion, internment, and deportation must be encouraged wherever possible.
However, Dühring is too realistic to think that the creation of an independent Israeli state in Palestine and the deportation of the Jews to it would suffice to solve the Jewish problem. For, the Jewish race is an essentially nomadic one and will soon disperse again throughout the world even if it did manage to concentrate itself in Palestine for a while. The nomadic nature of the Jews itself is explained by Dühring as being due to the basically unpleasant nature of the Jews, so that they are repulsive even to themselves when they are alone with themselves and not in the midst of European society—to whom they are, naturally, far more repugnant.
The specific means to be adopted against the Jews must be undertaken in three fields, the political, the economic, and the social. Political representation and occupation of official positions by Jews is to be curtailed immediately in such a way that no Jew can be elected to Parliament any more than any Jew can exercise a right to vote in European elections.
The excess number of Jewish judges must be reduced through forced retirement; the cost of retirement payments incurred hereby would be much less than the damages that are to be anticipated if the Jews continue to distort legislation and justice in the country over a long period of time. The financial measures to be adopted against the Jews should be directed by the knowledge that all Jewish racial economics is based on avarice and the ambition to dominate others. The powerful Jewish financial houses must be nationalized forthwith and placed under official curatorships and state supervision.
This step must be carried out not only in Germany but in every country where the Jews exert such financial power. If we remember Dühring’s identification of the main means by which most of the Jewish finance was acquired by cheating, then we will understand the indispensability of such steps against it. The social means should at first be focused on the chief Jewish agent of social influence, the press, wherewith the Jews turn public opinion into Jewish opinion. Jews must be removed from all ownership as well as editorial positions of newspapers; though, for the cultivation of a public opinion different from the present predominantly Jewish liberal one, radical political changes are necessary as well.
Education too should be reoriented in a native Germanic way by the exclusion of Jews from school and university instructorships. If the Jews have succeeded so far in their social endeavours, it is precisely because the university professors have, in their weakness and corruption, encouraged the parasitical activity of the Jews.
Other important social means against the Jews consist in the discouragement of intermarriages between Germans and Jews. He rightly points out that the case where a Jewish woman marries a German man is somewhat better than the reverse since the man is the bearer of the inherited spiritual qualities.
Dühring does not yet[8] think that legislation is necessary for this purpose since the natural aversion that Germans, especially German women, have to Jews will act as a deterrent. Also, the reduction of the financial power of the Jews and the increasing economic independence of women will make German women less tempted to marry rich Jews for economic reasons. In general, the danger of such mixtures can be successfully reduced only if there is strict legislation regarding the number of Jewish immigrants permitted into a particular territory.
The state’s role in anti-Jewish measures must be supplemented by agitations on the part of the people. The parties themselves are impotent in their narrow programmes and have too much connection to Jewish agencies to be effective in any way. For example, the measures taken by the German Conservative parties to reduce corruption in society were not specifically limited to the Jews and affected even the better elements engaged in the occupations in question. The Jewish question is first and last a moral question and demands the reestablishment of German loyalty and trust against the frivolity of the Jewish mind and the corruption that creeps under cover of this frivolity.
What is at stake is the very existence, moral and material, of the European peoples, for “if things are not directed, the descendants of traders in old wardrobes, scraps and cattle bones must get to the very bones of the modern peoples after they have pocketed their wealth and lamed their mind through inoculation”. The solution to the Jewish problem must be an international and a continually lasting one, and Dühring maintains that even the most powerful means cannot be shied away from in the effort to free the better peoples and nations from what he calls their “internal Carthage.”
* * *
The social effect of Dühring’s work can be estimated more generally in the anti-Jewish Congresses organized first at Dresden in 1882, and then at Chemnitz in 1883. At the latter, a division occurred on account of the ideological differences between those who favored Dühring’s more uncompromising views and the Christian elements at the meeting. However, a loose confederation of ‘Reformvereine’ sprang up in the 1880s, and by 1890 there were 136 of them. As Peter Pulzer reports,[9] the extreme view, associated with Dühring, predominated in Westphalia, under the leadership of Dr. König.
While the state social legislation of Bismarck served to allay the enthusiasm regarding the Jewish problem somewhat and to disintegrate these anti-Jewish organizations, the movement acquired a new impetus from the leadership of Theodor Fritsch in Leipzig who revitalized it according to the extremist point of view. It was Fritsch’s call for an anti-Jewish organization “above the parties”[10] which created such seminal nationalist societies as the Thule Society and the Germanen Order. It is true that the latter were in fact not so directly influential on the NSDAP itself, which—though created initially by Karl Harrer (along with Anton Drexler) at the suggestion of the Germanen Order that several economic ‘Rings’ of the society should be set up all over the country—ultimately proscribed the Germanen Order for its overly Masonic qualities.[11]
However, Alfred Rosenberg, the National Socialist ideologue wrote a work on the Jewish question very similar to Dühring’s called Die Spur des Juden im Wandel der Zeiten (The Track of the Jew Through the Ages) (1920).[12] In it he discusses first the historical circumstances of the Jews from their diaspora after the destruction of Jerusalem to their various interventions in modern European politics. The second section deals with the Jewish mentality as revealed in its religious documents and cultural and economic works. The work ends with a discussion of the Jewish ambition for economic and political mastery of the world and suggests ways of curbing this tendency forthwith in Germany. The points contained in Rosenberg’s anti-Jewish program are in many ways similar to the points of the Nürnberg Laws of 1935.
Thus, even if it may not have had an immediate political connection with the programs of the National Socialist regime, the extraordinary value of Dühring’s work on the Jews consists in its prophetic accuracy. Dühring’s systematic uncovering of the viciousness of the Jewish character and his suggestions for the removal of this evil bear the closest resemblance to the increasing anti-Semitic mood, ideological as well as popular, and the actual course of anti-Semitic events in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
Starting with the measures to exclude Jews from official positions and the prohibition of intermarriages between Jews and Germans promulgated in the Nürnberg Laws of 1935 and ending with increasing irritation with the very presence of Jews on German soil, the anti-Judaic programmes of the National Socialists were anticipated almost to the last detail by the blind philosopher of Berlin. Between the first appearance of Dühring’s work and the first major political measures taken against the Jews by the National Socialist regime there had elapsed a rather long period of about sixty years; neither Jews nor Jewish sympathisers can blame the Germans for having been too rash in their dealings with a racial group whose social and cultural influence had been philosophically identified as morally criminal. The claims of George Mosse and Donald Niewyk that the brutalization of German politics was spurred by the defeat of 1918[13] is only partially accurate, since the sharp turn of anti-Semitic trends in the Weimar Republic was actually propelled by the blatant arrogation of power by those very Jewish elements whom intellectual anti-Semites from the start had sought to exclude from German society through more rational social discrimination.
The moral corruption associated with Jewish finance and mores showed no signs of improving since the first publication of Dühring’s work but, rather, it achieved a giddy triumph at the end of World War I in the ill-fated Weimar Republic, which was initially established as a Socialist republic by Karl Liebknecht, the Jewish agitator, and conducted in a markedly Jewish social and political climate. It cannot be very surprising to one who is familiar with Dühring’s analysis of the Jewish ethos and its role in modern Germany that the Germans reacted to this ethos with a populist movement such as National Socialism. Those sections of the population which suffered most from the sense of exploitation at the hands of the Jewish economic and social system naturally supported a German nationalist movement which sought in the end to destroy the Jewish evil at its very roots. As Dühring had foretold, “The German, to be sure, moves his limbs mostly only when the usurpation become too malicious; but if he does that once, then he does that which he undertakes, no matter what, also in a fundamental way.”
In retrospect, therefore, we may consider the National Socialist movement as being in no way an aberration but one which was clearly predicted in advance by philosophical understanding. Historical discussions of Hitler’s regime which puzzle over the extreme measures taken by it against the Jews and Jewish Bolshevism and quickly dismiss them as the products of the monstrous psychological complex of one individual are clearly handicapped by their unfamiliarity with the real philosophic impetuses of an ideological political movement such as National Socialism. Peter Pulzer’s suggestion that Hitler was merely relying on the political effectiveness of anti-Semitism,[14] for instance, seems not to understand that anti-Semitism was in its origins, and throughout its career in the early years of the twentieth century, not a mere tool in German politics (except perhaps in the case of Bismarck) but the very aim of it.[15]
The failure of the National Socialist regime was partly due to its rashness both in internal politics and foreign policy. The hasty foreign political moves made by Hitler at a time when neither the German people nor the remainder of the European nations had yet been forged into a political and cultural unity could not but fail. Besides, the powerful influence of the Jewish presence in America and Britain was not reckoned with adequately to forestall the defeat at the hands of the Allies.
The real tragedy of World War II, however, is that the failure of the Nazi movement and the discovery of the National Socialist attempts to eliminate Jewry in Germany have only succeeded in handing over the sympathy of the public to the very elements which formed the pivotal issue of the war. The corruption and degeneration that Dühring and the National Socialists attempted to check have proceeded with redoubled vigor after the war, and the enslavement of the European peoples to the Jewish baseness and vulgarity has become almost complete.[16] Dühring’s prophetic philosophical work on the Jewish character thus clearly retains its cautionary significance.
[1] This is in fact borne out by the evidence of Josephus regarding the circumstances of the expulsion of Abraham and his tribe from Chaldea, for he states that the Chaldeans drove him out because he forsook the lofty, astronomically oriented, natural philosophy of the Chaldeans for a more mundane ethics (Jewish Antiquities, I, 157; cf. Philo the Jew, De mutation nominum, 72–76, and De migratione Abrahami, 184). This first recorded expulsion of the Jewry from a host country is strengthened by the second, dating from Egyptian antiquity, when, according to Dühring himself, the Jews revealed their avaricious worldly nature in their attempt to take as much of the Egyptians’ gold and silver with them as possible when they left Egypt.
[2] All quotations from the Judenfrage are from my translation of the second edition.
[3] Compare Schopenhauer’s contempt for the Jews which was directed by his recognition of their worldly nature and superficial theism, rationalism, and optimism. The references to these characteristics of the Jewish mentality are ubiquitous in his works. For instance, in his ‘Fragments for the History of Philosophy’ (Parerga and Paralipomena, I), he declares: “[the religion of the Jews] is, therefore, the crudest and poorest of all religions and consists merely in an absurd and revolting theism—While all other religions endeavour to explain to the people by symbols and parables the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations”, (cf., Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, Ill, Art.48, IV, Art.59; Parerga, I, ‘On Philosophy at the Universities’; and II, ‘On Religion’).
[4] In Sache, Leben und Feinde, Dühring points out that “The belief which Christ demanded was the belief in his person, the blind subjection to the word of the master and prophet, but not that naturally grown fidelity such as it lies in the nature of the better peoples and characters” (p.288) and both in this work and in the Ersatz as well as in the later editions of the Judenfrage, Dühring maintains that the ascetic ordeal of self-crucifixion exemplified by Christ in his life is valid only for the inferior Jewish flesh, embodying the characteristic Jewish self-interest, and should not apply to the healthy peoples.
[5] In his Kritische Geschichte der Philosophie, Dühring declares: “The concept of so-called virtue coincides with that of power. From the logical affirmation of individual power the symbol of all ethical principles is supposed to be ultimately produced by means of the understanding and higher insight” (3rd. ed., Leipzig, -excha1878, p.306f.).
[6] The 16 May 1877 Crisis that brought down the royalist president Patrice MacMahon.
[7] The acquisition of the Suez Canal for Britain with funds derived from the Rothschilds is a case in point.
[8] That is, at the time of writing the second edition (1881).
[9] Peter Pulzer, The rise of political anti-Semitism, London: Peter Halban, 1988, 99.
[10] Hammer, XI (1912), 153–58, ‘Vom partei-politischen Antisemitismus’.
[11] See Reginald H. Phelps, “’Before Hitler came’: Thule Society and Germanen order’, Journal of Modern History, 35 (1963), 245–61.
[12] See my English edition of this work, The Track of the Jew through the Ages, London: Ostara Publications, 2016.
[13] See George Mosse, “Der erste Weltkrieg und die Brutalisierung der Politik: Betrachtungen über die politische Rechte, den Rassismus, und den deutschen Sonderweg”, in Manfred Funke et al. (ed.), Demokratie und Diktatur: Geist und Gestalt in Deutschland und Europa, Düsseldorf, 1987, pp. 127–139 and Donald Niewyk, “Solving the ‘Jewish problem’: continuity and change in German antisemitism, 1871–1945”, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 35 (1990), p.370.
[14] Peter Pulzer, The rise of political anti-Semitism, London: Peter Halban, 1988, p.202.
[15] Cf., in this context, Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism, London: Pinter Publishers, 1991, where he points out that German Fascism can be explained only in terms of a “palingenetic” effort on the part of the German nation to rid itself of all Jewish forms of social and political life.
[16] See for example Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Press, 1976, Ch.15, p.178f, where he points out that “what is happening today in the United States today is what has been happening throughout much of Western history. The Jews, finding themselves unrestricted and uncurbed in a land rich in resources and labour, are rapidly monopolizing its wealth. It is almost certainly the same historic process that took place in Visigothic, Arabic and Catholic Spain, in medieval England, France and Germany—and most recently in twentieth century Germany. Yet no one cares—or dares—to notice it. Those who are so concerned about labour monopolies or business cartels, about the influence of the Roman Catholic Church or the military-industrial complex, about the WASP domination of the big corporations or the international Communist conspiracy, seem strangely silent and utterly unconcerned about the activities of an ever more powerful, ever more dominant, supranational ethnocentrism with almost unlimited financial resources at its command”. The reason for the relative silence regarding the Jewish power in America is of course, as Robertson himself shows, the domination of the press and the media in America by the Jews. Not only does this domination help to curtail criticism of the political and commercial manipulations of the Jews but it also, more harmfully, forces the Jewish vulgarity in well-nigh irresistible doses onto the gullible masses through the film, television, music, and sports industries financed and administered in large part by the Jews.
