Jan 26, 2016

How Many Jew-Wise People Are There in the World?

via Renegade Tribune

I’m sure that’s a question we often ask ourselves. Initially I just thought about how many people in the world who are ‘awake’ to a general conspiracy; but then I thought this starts getting into grey (sic) areas, such as ‘the Globalists’ ‘the elite powers’, etc. Surely anyone with a tad of common sense will know that there are forces at play beyond the government, even if these idiots do actually vote.

But I suppose even the question How many Jew-wise people are there in the world? is still up for interpretation. What exactly does it mean to be Jew-wise? There is jew-wise and jew-wise. Our grandparents may have said “Oh those pesky Jews, up to their monkey business“, or your work mate knowing that the Jews control the money markets and are up no good with their trading methods. But the question really means – who is reasonably awake to the comprehensive shenanigans of Jewish perfidy?

So before we look at any figures; here are some guidelines for people qualifying as being Jew-wise. I have split their levels of knowledge into two groups:

JW person A
  • Generally aware of zionism and a global zionist plot.
  • Aware that israel had some involvement in 9-11.
  • Aware that elite Jews are running the money markets.
  • Aware that there are questions around their holocaust narrative and that it is strange that people are incarcerated in 17 countries just for asking questions about it.
  • Aware that the Palestinians are greatly suffering under the israeli occupation.
  • Are aware that international Jewry have political clout over America and many Western nations.
JW person B
  • They know fully that International Jewry [IJ] carried out 9-11 and London 7/7 bombings, The Madrid train bombing, etc.
  • They are aware IJ were responsible for the black slave trade; as well as poisoning the wells causing the Black Death in Europe.
  • They know without question that ‘the’ holocaust is a big fat kosher lie – it never happened, that 6 million Jews were not gassed. There were no DEATH camps.
  • That IJ are behind all these additional false flags/hoaxes such as: Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, London beheading, Paris shootings, etc.
  • That IJ are behind the pornography trade, alcohol trade, gambling, peadophile rings, GM/junk food, chemtrails, smart meters, sea/river/steam pollution, etc.
  • They have a general understanding of how ‘usury’ works and how IJ monopolises every trade.
  • They have read sufficient amounts of The Babylonian Talmud and realise the implications of this perverted mindset on society.
  • They have read The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion and are aware this most definitely is not a forgery, but an architectural game plan for IJ to dominate the world.
And what irritates the hell out of me, is that there are so many people who are awake at this level who are gardeners, cleaners, school children, single mums, grannies, scaffolders, general office clerks, printers, car mechanics, labourers. Yet all those so-called people working in government ‘intelligence’ with all their data collection and high tech gadgetry, still haven’t worked it out. FUCKING SELLOUT TRAITORS…….argggghhh.

As a wild guess, I would suggest the amount of JW person B types are between 5-10 million. And JW person A types between 50-80 million. ?????

The reason I have come up with these figures is because of the following:
  • I am aware milliions of Muslims across the world know about a zionist plot.
  • A recent survey stated that in France alone 16% of people were aware of a zionist conspiracy. And this is representative of international awareness; and growing rapidly.
  • My day to day conversations with people on the street, picking up that people are aware of Jews being the troublemakers of society. This awareness has increased during my time as an activist. The more people suffer, the more people are independently searching on the internet for answers to why they are suffering and more importantly who is the cause of their suffering.
  • Attending Palestinian demonstrations and watching the numbers increase and observing the honestly of the placards and chanting.
  • The incredible amount of blog/websites exposing Jewish hegemony.
  • The main stream press as our barometer, panic-stricken about the exponential global awakening. There isn’t a day now that they screech about the rise in “anti-Semitism”.
But I really haven’t got a clue. Those figures are a total guess.

Perhaps we should write into these government intelligent agencies and ask them. I’m sure they’re keeping a track on the JW stats.

I have heard rumours that quarter of a billion people are awake to some degree (Illuminati, global agenda level). That is 1 in 28 people if we believe that 7 billion are on the planet (I don’t think there are 7 billion people myself). Quarter of a billion seems a bit much to me. But still, these rumours indicate that we are talking enormous amounts of people waking up.

People talk about a critical mass awakening, I think this is inevitable, but what is this critical mass going to be? What sort of figures? I would suggest it is going to have to be above quarter of a billion person B types before any real shift happens.

I think this will happen sooner than any of us can imagine, due to the exponential growth of awakening. I’m sure there are probably computer programmers or statisticians who would be able to calculate pretty accurately when this will happen. I bet International Jewry know exactly when this date is and have something planned before this mass awakening will materialise. A nice little surprise for us; some special event, such as world war three, or a global virus, or a plague which will destroy all crops. Something which will be so life threatening, that worrying about whether the holocaust happened or not will be the last thing on our minds.

That is why it is essential that we stop these demonically-driven maniacs in their path as soon as we can.

And on that note – the next question should be:

How many of these JW people are doing something about it?

Again these people can be split into two camps:

Person A
  • Reading heaps of books about the conspiracy.
  • Watching endless hours of scary youtube videos.
  • Reading copious amounts of interesting articles.
  • Casually telling their friends about it and the occasional person at work.
  • Meeting up with other JW pals to moan about the Jews.
  • Pop along to their local Pro Palestine demo.
  • Talking about all the things they plan to do.
  • Putting all their energy into the endless symptoms of the agenda and not the root cause.
  • Leaving it all up to their church, mosque and God to sort out. Allahu Akbar and turn the other cheek mindset.
  • Waiting for someone else to save the day for them. Some hero in the Truth movement, or some save-the-day politician (messianic complex).
Person B
  • Actively going out of their way to get the Truth shared.
  • A devotee to the Truth – taking risks, having inconvenience.
  • Using all their life experiences and skill sets towards getting the Truth out there.
  • Actually achieving things, beyond just talk.
  • Realising the Truth discovers you and this is one’s spiritual obligation, that we are in a spiritual war.
Person A – 10-79+ million     Person B – 3000-8000

If these guesses are in anyway accurate – this is a sad reflection on the level of activism, that 1 in 80000 people are willing to get off their arse and actually do something about this tyranny. I hope I’m very wrong on this. Because if these figures are any way accurate, then think of our potential. That if enough of us pulled our fingers out and braved up – our suffering could realistically be over in a matter of weeks! In just six weeks we could begin the process of our global freedom.

It’s not the amount of people waking up that is necessarily important – 
it is the amount of people braving up.

Answers in the comments for estimates please…

Lies, Damned Lies, and Racial Statistics

via Alternative Right

Don't worry, numbers can explain this
Between 2000 and 2014, the White share of the US population declined from 69.1% to 61.9%. In other words, the non-white share rose from 30.9% to 38.1%.

Lets imagine that over this same period, some state or county went from being 98% to 96% white, from 2% to 4% non-white. 98% to 96% is a smaller decrease than 69.1% to 61.9%, but 2% to 4% is a larger increase (percentage wise) than 30.9% to 38.1%. So how does the local newspaper spin it? Do they say that the local non-white percentage increased faster than the national rate, or that the local white percentage declined slower than the national rate? Both narratives are technically true, though obviously misleading.

Some journalists purposefully attempt to mislead others with statistics, some are themselves misled, and sometimes they do both at the same time. Reihan Salam’s recent piece in Slate, I suspect, belongs to this last category. Salam thought he had achieved that to which all hack opinion writers aspire: a counterintuitive piece of click-bait. His angle: the irony of racist opposition to immigration:
"This leads us to the irony of racist opposition to immigration. Qian and Lichter [a pair of demographic researchers] also find that during the 1990s, the rate of intermarriage between both Hispanics and whites and Asians and whites declined quite significantly. Was this a reflection of rising anti-white prejudice among Asians and Hispanics or rising anti-Asian and anti-Hispanic prejudice among whites? According to Qian and Lichter, it was neither—the main driver of this decrease in the intermarriage rate was simply that the Asian and Hispanic populations increased significantly due to immigration. As the size of an ethnic group grows larger, its members have more interactions with co-ethnics. This makes it more likely that they will have a stronger sense of in-group ethnic solidarity and that they will wind up marrying co-ethnics. To put this a bit differently, if it’s slightly easier to connect with someone of your own ethnicity (and I’d say that’s generally true), the increase in potential marriage partners from your own ethnic group will make it far less likely that you’ll look for marriage partners outside of it."
Yes, if you are Asian or Hispanic, I'm sure it's now "easier to connect with someone of your own ethnicity"  but the fact is that it was pretty easy to do that long before the 1990s. What has changed since then is that the Asian and Hispanic groups have each more than doubled their shares of the population. It is a simple numbers game. A hypothetical Hispanic who has no racial marriage preference is now more than twice as likely to marry another Hispanic. This is a gross oversimplification because marriage is a two-way agreement, but you get the point.

Anyway, back to Salam:
"What this also means is that restrictive immigration laws, like those passed in the 1920s, can have the opposite effect—that is, it seems likely that they increase intermarriage levels. {snip}

The fact that large-scale immigration tends to reduce intermarriage isn’t an argument for or against it. What is clear, however, is that those who are in favor of reducing immigration on racist grounds are making a serious logical error. If immigration levels fell, the likely result would be a surge in intermarriage that would undermine white racial purity..."
The author is a gentle conservative (and non-white), who is not a big fan of mass immigration or in maintaining white racial purity. In other words, he does not have a dog in this fight, so perhaps it is unsurprising that he would bungle this argument so badly. I think I speak for most white racists when I say that the racial purity of Asian- and Hispanic-Americans is not high on our list of concerns. The article purports to be examining immigration’s affect on “white racial purity,” so why are we talking about Asian and Hispanic intermarriage rates, and not that of whites?

Remember our hypothetical Hispanic who is now twice as likely to randomly marry another Hispanic? The flip side is that the white share of the population has decreased. So while a hypothetical race-neutral white in 1990 had probably an 85-90% chance of randomly marrying another white, now, his odds are maybe 75-80%.

One of the reasons, if not the main reason, the white intermarriage rate is so much lower than others is the simple fact that there are a lot more whites. The average white lives in a neighborhood that is 75-80% white. The average Asian lives in an area that is only around 20% Asian, while the typical Hispanic lives in a 40-50% Hispanic neighborhood. (This study reports metropolitan segregation. If the average metropolitan white lives in a 75% white neighborhood, the national rate must be somewhat higher because whites are disproportionately rural.) I should add that since the US is about 60% white and only 5% Asian, when a white marries an Asian, it skews the Asian intermarriage rate much more than the white rate. In this sense, whites’ lower intermarriage rate is (partially) a statistical illusion. Whites’ population share on the other hand, is not a statistical illusion, and it does have real-world consequences on the white intermarriage rate. As the white share of the population has declined, the white intermarriage rate has increased.

And again, speaking as someone Salam would consider a racist, interracial marriage per se is not really our concern; we oppose mass immigration because we do not want to live in an interracial country. We want a white country. Grant us that, and we will take our chances with interracial marriage.

Charlotte in Reverse

via Compulsory Diversity News

Young Charlotte Rampling
Actress Charlotte Rampling briefly gained the attention of White Whateverists on Friday when, while discussing the #OscarsSoWhite boycott, she said this: “It is racist to whites,” [...] “One can never really know, but perhaps the black actors did not deserve to make the final list”. What followed was White Whateverists, who had likely never heard of Charlotte Rampling, suddenly declared her to be a hero, part of the supposed Triumph over Political Correctness for which an increasing number of White Whateverists are taking credit. (Though you can't spell Triumph without T-R-U-M-P, now can you?). What should have happened was the restrained silence of Jew-Media-wise people who have seen this farce so many times before, and know that every member of the elite sooner or later disavows White racial awareness.

As with my other recent criticisms of the White Nationalist / Alt-Right Trumpite victory hysteria, I am not going to provide links to this latest embarrassing mass-miscalculation. If you are even casually familiar with the World White Web, you will have seen the articles and comments touting Rampling's oldspeak thoughtcrime. For my part, shortly after face palming my way thru those articles where White Whateverists were unwittingly supporting a reactionary defense of Kikeywood, I set a little reminder to check in on this story next week to read Rampling's grovelling to the MultiKult which I knew would inevitably follow. I didn't have to wait long for Ramplings' reaffirmation of Kult loyalty ...

Though Rampling’s comments seem pretty clear, late last night Rampling (or her publicist) issued a statement saying her they were “misinterpreted.” The statement reads:

“I regret that my comments could have been misinterpreted. 
I simply meant to say that in an ideal world every performance will be given equal opportunities for consideration. Diversity in our industry is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I am highly encouraged by the changes announced today by the academy to diversify its membership.”

And of course, White Whateverists were quick to rectify their mistakes, right? They quickly removed their sexy pictures of 70's Rampling, scrubbed her name and their praise of her from their feeds, comments, and blogs, and then issued denouncements of her as another MultiKult tool (which they would have known she was if they had simply Googled her film history, see above). White Whateverists took this as a learning opportunity, right? They realized Rampling had succeeded in obfuscating the #OscarsSoWhite controversy in order to pin it on the White race, when it is actually all about the Jews who run Hollyweird having decided no darkies need apply for Oscars. Right? They realized that White Whateverists siding with Hollyweird against black actors was beyond stupid, and this was a chance to make this a Jew versus nigger fight. Right? That's what happened, right?

Wrong. In most cases, they are simply waiting for their former positions to be buried farther down their feeds than their current positions. In some cases, they are even doubling down on their mistakes and muddying the waters even more. Again, just take a stroll through the World White Webs, the nonsense is all there, waiting for you.

White racial awareness is common sense. To deny the reality of race requires a tortured, illogical mind-fucking that drives people insane. In the past, there has been a tendency in the Movement to overthink the cure. I have seen that tendency as the brainwashing poison still working itself out of the host. If you need to write philosophical dissertations and political manifestos to get the poison out, go ahead. In the end, the strength of your racial instinct will determine whether or not you are cured. But with this new strain of poison-assimilating White Whateverism that cannot distinguish White from anti-White, where are racially-aware Whites supposed to turn to escape MultiKult toxicity?

Today, the majority of White Nationalism, and the whole of the Alt-Right, has been reduced to an antisocial social media clusterfuck of philosophically confused tweetering, click-baiting double-talk, and after-the-fact rationalizations of failure as being simultaneously a grand strategy and just part of a big hipster joke. White Whateverism today is like some pathetic high school geek who approaches a cheerleader and asks for a date. When she tells him to fuck off, he tells her (and himself) he was just kidding. Then he goes and tells his friends that he is secretly banging her, and they psychologically high-five one another and run off to watch Toonami. What's sad is that this behavior is literally being carried out not by boys, but by White men in their 30's. And even sadder, these losers are more than willing to assimilate such condemnation of their behavior and use it to fuel more memes, more hashtag campaigns, and more delusional rationalizations of their wasted lives. All this with a veneer of White Nationalist / Nazi Mass-Media-inspired kitsch that has mentally infected even those older White Whateverists who have been around long enough to know that internet fads pass, but racial suicide is forever.

If you cannot even tell that a Hollyweird hag who has spent her life serving the Mass Media poisoning of the West is not pro-White, how can we trust you when you say you are pro-White? And I ask the same rhetorical question of all those Trumplings, donning their trucker dunce-caps and prepping for Amerikwa to be great again. If you think Donald Trump is pro-White, how can we trust you when you say you are pro-White?

Avocado Supremacism

via Western Spring

Perhaps we have a lesson to learn from the Hass avocado, Grasshopper; and about the mutant hating bastards who are trying to kill us all off.
In the 1920’s, Rudolph Hass planted some seedling avocado trees that he thought were all of the Lyon variety. One of the trees turned out to be different. It produced smaller, darker, bumpier avocados.

The Hass children ate some of these different avocados and told their father that they preferred the new avocados over the old ones. Rudolph investigated and learned that not only was this the only tree of its type in his orchard but there were no others like it anywhere. Apparently, it was a mutation of some other type of avocado tree — perhaps a Lyon, perhaps not.

Anyway, this sole tree was, as far as anyone knows, the first Hass avocado tree. It was a break with other avocado trees. A new beginning. A veritable Adam and Eve of the avocado world. It was the mother of all Hass avocado trees in the world today. Hass patented the variety in 1935 and worked out a deal with a nearby nursery to grow and sell the trees.

Today, there are approximately 80 million Hass trees around the world. All are descended from this one tree, which is still standing in La Habra, California. The Hass avocado has now become the industry standard. In other words, the genes of this one mutant now dominate the world of avocados.

“You’re an avocado supremacist!” come the cries from the pinhead multiracialists. “Don’t you know that there are three species of avocados and more than 100 varieties (the equivalent of races) of the things?

“We demand that you stop saying that Hass avocados are better. All avocados grow on trees. All avocados are the same under the skin. All avocados are equal. God loves all avocados just the same. We demand avocado diversity and we demand that all varieties of avocado be sold and consumed in equal quantities and that we have affirmative action for those varieties that aren’t accepted because of their skin color.

“It’s not their fault that they are as they are. It’s the environment. If you prefer one avocado over another, then you’re a varietiest. If there wasn’t Hass avocado discrimination then these other avocados would be treated the same.

“It’s time that avocado supremacists stopped their evil ways. We demand integrated avocado orchards to stop the bigotry and hate. There is a marvelous tapestry of avocados. Celebrate avocado diversity. If you aren’t treating all avocados just the same, then you’re a Nazi.

“Also, the word avocado comes from the Nahuatl (Aztec) word “ahuacatl” which translates as testicle, so not only are you an avocado supremacist and separatist, you’re also a sexist.”

Ho hum, yawn. We’ve heard these silly clichés over and over again, haven’t we?

Avocado 1

But, the easily intimidated among us say: “But, but, but, I’m not a varietiest. I love all avocados just the same. Why, I don’t even notice the difference between avocados (This is a big lie, of course. Hass avocados are popular largely because they taste better, don’t have fibers inside as do some varieties, don’t get watery as do some varieties, and have a higher oil content which makes them richer and better for guacamole than other avocados). I don’t even notice that some avocados are green and some are black when they’re ripe. I don’t notice color at all.”

The discerning reader is probably now saying that comparing avocados to people, as I am so obviously doing, is specious. After all, avocados are avocados and people are people. Big difference. Well, yes and no. Nature is all pretty simple. It’s only the explanations that are complex. The same basic principles that exist with avocados, exist with humans. It’s all in the genes.

Do we have a human version of the mother tree of all Hass avocados?

As you might expect, we have more than one. There are forks in the road that constantly appear. Those of us alive today who are white people, had ancestors who kept taking the white forks. Had they not, then we’d not be white. Throughout history we’ve had more than a few parting of the ways with the old varieties as we took one fork and they took another.

Consider, just to get the intellectual juices flowing, the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Might we not speculate that the story, at its core, isn’t really a myth at all and that, as with so many myths, there are elements of truth in the tale?

Could it be that the creation of Adam and Eve was not the creation of all humans, as many Bible classes teach, but was just a new departure for humans? Two Hass avocado trees of the human kind, so to speak.

What if the reality was that Adam and Eve were really the first white people on this brown planet?

What if original sin was miscegenation? What if Christians have been trying for centuries to remove original sin but that they don’t even know that their rituals are meaningless because the only way to remove original sin is to purify the blood?

What if being thrown out of the Garden of Eden really was about Adam and Eve having to live as the older forms of humans because of their miscegenation and that their children and their children’s children have carried this original sin of miscegenation in their genes ever since?

What if the way to rid oneself of this original sin is to “inbreed” for many generations in a sort of distilling process to remove the fruits of the forbidden tree–miscegenation–from the genes? These things are taught in at least one religion I know of. Some may dismiss this as nonsense, but those who do so are showing religious bigotry and a lack of tolerance for the beliefs of others. As a religious teaching, what has just been written above is as valid as any other religious teaching. Ultimately, one either believes, or one does not. That’s what religion is all about.

We also have an inkling of other departures for humans. According to Bryan Sykes who wrote The Seven Daughters of Eve, all Europeans are descended from seven mothers.

The earliest one lived about 45,000 years ago, probably in Greece. There were many other women alive at the time, but this one woman and six others, if Sykes is right, are the mothers of all Europeans and European peoples alive today.

These six were the Hass avocado trees of Europeans, so to speak. They were a new departure. Their genes dominated all others. The others died off. Perhaps these others practiced miscegenation, and died off as their genes were swamped by the genes of others. Whatever happened, they and their genes disappeared. They were dead ends.

So, the Hass avocado was a chance mutation. Adam and Eve may have been chance mutations. The seven daughters of Eve may also have been chance mutations. Nature bubbles up such chance mutations all the time. Most die off, some don’t.

Could it be that humans, in the time we find ourselves in, must now will our own mutations and evolution if we truly hope for a better world with less disease and longer happier lives?

Could it be that nature gets creatures to the point where we are now and then leaves it up to them to struggle to move forward, or, like leaves in a stream, be pulled back down stream?

Human Evolution Cartoon

Human evolution does seem stalled. Maybe this is just a dwell point between moving forward and being pulled back, and maybe we better start paddling with all our might so we can move up stream, or the natural pull of the stream will pull us back down to the dark ocean of ever lower consciousness. If this analogy is a valid one, then all that is needed for us to be pulled back downstream is that we do nothing. Going upstream, on the other hand, requires struggle. Could it be that we have a choice to make?–do nothing or struggle. Some believe this is the case.

It gets more complicated, though, because there are dark, evil forces in the world that don’t want humans to evolve higher. They want humans to become less, not more.

They don’t want different human varieties to separate out and follow their own destinies. They want all humans to mate with all other humans to eliminate all differences.

Most of these evil doers consciously or subconsciously hate white people and wish that white people were all extinct. These people who are sometimes called multiracialists or even multiculturalists (I often prefer “blenders”) want to see whites mate with non-whites so that whites are destroyed. Most of these haters won’t put it in those terms, but look beyond their slick smiles and their false compassionate sounding catch phrases to what will happen if these evil doers prevail over good.

Their ways will result in the complete annihilation of white people. These pinhead multiracialists and multiculturalists simply don’t like white people and they never will like white people. It’s a genetic thing with some of them and its a matter of conditioning with others. Oh, you may find many of these people who seem to like white people, to their faces, but their hatred is often part of their genetic program. Whites are their natural enemies.

Will the haters of whites win, or will whites survive? Future history will tell the tale, but as thinking creatures, it’s up to us to try to see that we do survive. It’s just part of the big struggle that everything in our universe goes through. It’s not even a very big part of the cosmic struggle except to us.

Our “worth” has to be first measured by our own ideas of this worth. If we think that we are a people who should survive, then we’ll struggle to make this happen. If, however, we are neurotic and feel that we should be destroyed, we’ll also work in conscious and unconscious ways to see that happen. Either way, we need to understand that those who don’t like white people will work in their own struggle to destroy us either outright or through bedroom genocide.

Although I’ve characterized this as good against evil, in a larger cosmic sense there is no good or evil in any of this. It is just the workings of nature. The good and evil are relative.

Those who want to destroy us are evil in our eyes. Our wanting to survive is evil in their eyes.

We need to understand the struggle for what it truly is and not be distracted with false ideas of the nature of reality. The reason we have to do this is because our tool of survival in the universe is our ability to think and reason. Nature doesn’t care if we survive or become extinct. It is up to us to decide how to survive and to become more. We might change the old “I think, therefore I am,” to “I think I should survive, therefore I should survive.”

The next time you have some guacamole at a restaurant, you can be almost certain that it’s Hass avocado guacamole. All avocados are not really the same, amigos. Neither are people. Genes matter. Let’s hear it for the mutant avocado and for Rudolph Hass, who kept it separate and didn’t let it blend back in with the other varieties of avocados. Had he not kept the Hass avocado separate, you’d be eating watery, less satisfying guacamole today.
And, if Whites don’t remain separate, there will be no Whites in the future.

A Reminder of a Lost Time

via Counter-Current

The woman in the center of the photograph, which was taken in the 1950s, is Ashraf Pahlavi, an Iranian princess who died recently in Monte Carlo. She was 96.

The attractive women beside her are also members of the Iranian royal family. Empress Soraya is on the left and Princess Shams, Ashraf’s elder sister, is on the right. Soraya would later briefly become a film actress in Europe; Shams was a devout convert to Catholicism.

Princess Ashraf was the twin sister of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who in 1979 was removed from the peacock throne during Iran’s Islamic revolution, which brought the fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini back from his exile in France. Her son was murdered in Paris by Shiite assassins shortly thereafter. In her own exile she defended the old Pahlavi regime in Iran and her controversial role in it: “It’s passed, now, only memories. But there were fifty years of grandeur, of glory.”

Prior to the revolution that dethroned her brother, Ashraf was both a significant political actor in her own country and a minor celebrity in the West. As a young girl she was among the first Iranians publicly to abandon the veil, following the example of her mother, and as an adult she was active in the cause of women’s rights. She played a crucial role in the overthrow in 1953 of Mohammed Mossadeq, Iran’s leftist prime minister. She served in various capacities as an Iranian delegate to the United Nations. In his autobiography Hassan Arfa, an important member of the Iranian military, tells of her various charitable activities and the enthusiastic reception she often received from the public. She even entered western pop art as the subject of a celebrity portrait by Andy Warhol, drawn in the same style as his famous portrait of Elizabeth Taylor.


I found the first photograph on the website of the neoconservative columnist Mark Steyn, who sees the princess as “a reminder of a lost time”:

In the Teheran of the Forties and Fifties, she showed her hair, wore earrings, went bare-armed and flashed discreet cleavage — just like women in France and Germany. There are no women in Iran today who dare to dress as Princess Ashraf did seventy years ago. What makes you think it will go any differently in Cologne or Vienna or Stockholm?

Steyn’s point, of course, is that importing Muslims into western nations means also importing Muslim ideas about proper female dress. Those ideas can have physical consequences, since many Muslim men believe that they are entitled to sexually harass or even rape women who do not share the fashion preferences of medieval Islam. To an angry Muslim, normal female clothing in the West can announce a woman’s moral eligibility for mistreatment. In areas of Europe heavily enriched by Third World immigration some non-Muslim women disguise themselves with hijabs or other Islamic paraphernalia to reduce the likelihood that they will suffer sexual abuse at the violent hands of Europe’s most recent Muslim invaders. Should the invasion continue, it would be reasonable to predict a post-European future where all the women of Cologne and Stockholm dress like the women of Riyadh.

The photograph could also serve as an illustration of another of Steyn’s frequent observations: the surprising resurgence of fundamentalist Islam, which once seemed destined to become a relic of the past. None of the three women could have predicted that veiling would again become compulsory in Iran, or that the body-length chador would survive into the twenty-first century. Both the chador and the hijab had been briefly banned in the 1930s by Ashraf’s father, Reza Shah Pahlavi, who once beat a cleric who complained that his wife had uncovered her face during a pilgrimage. The Pahlavi dynasty believed it had defeated the Shiite clerical class and saw the spread of non-traditional clothing for women as visible evidence of its political victory. The chador and the hijab were officially deprecated as vestiges of the old Iran, which would soon pass away. In their elegant, westernized appearance Princess Ashraf and her royal companions seemed reliable harbingers of their nation’s future.

The dust-jacket blurb for Hassan Arfa’s Under Five Shahs, published in 1964, is a similar reminder of the same lost time:

When General Arfa was born in 1885, his country, Iran, was a medieval state. Today it holds a progressive place in the modern world. The General has been actively concerned with this evolution; and his autobiography, therefore, is unusual and highly pertinent since he gives a picture from the inside of the rapid growth of Iran.

In 1964 General Arfa would have seemed a modern figure to most readers of his book, just as the dust jacket presented him, and the Pahlavi monarchy he supported would have seemed an example of the upward movement of modernization, which in the Middle East is often tantamount to westernization. “The rapid growth of Iran” would have been understood in the 1960s as the departure of Iran from its medieval Shiite past and its embrace instead of western models of economic and social development. Retrograde Iranians would have to be dragged kicking and struggling into modernity, but eventually their future would come and their kicking and struggling would end. Or so most observers then assumed.

In different ways Hassan Arfa’s autobiography and the photograph carried the same meaning: elite Iranian women resembled in their dress stylish western women in Europe and the United States because Iran was a modernizing nation led by a progressive monarch determined, like his father before him, to bring his people into the twentieth century. Clothing was a serious matter, since it conveyed a political lesson about Iran’s future. As Arfa explained, the Pahlavi monarchy believed that “the moral influence of discarding national in favor of European dress” would lead Iranians to “identify themselves with those of other countries and realize that as there was no fundamental difference between them and Europeans and Americans, there was no reason why they could not achieve the same advance in every kind of work as these nations had done.”

From our vantage point in the present the photograph has become not a harbinger of our era’s modern Iran but a prediction of a future that never arrived, though it once seemed inevitable that it would. The wave of the future quickly changed its direction.

Only two decades separate the photograph from Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran. A much different state arose as a result of the popular movement he inspired and the referendum that endorsed his vision of an Islamic republic, with him as its supreme leader. Whether you think the Islamic theocracy that actually did arrive is an improvement over the modernizing Pahlavi Iran that it destroyed will depend on your perspective. Most Iranians likely think it is better, though it seems worse to me. Iran, for example, now leads the world in executions by stoning, a punishment sanctioned by Muslim tradition.


Islamist Iranians believe they can preserve their strict Shiite faith and many of its traditional cultural practices, while also using modern technology and enlarging their modern economy. They want the material prosperity of modern occidentals, and they also want to retain the beliefs of medieval Muslims, which is their prerogative. “Our customs are none of your business,” Khomeini told journalist Oriana Fallaci during her dramatic interview in 1979.

Since Khomeini was perhaps the most important Muslim leader in the twentieth century, his strange religious opinions have become useful weapons for opponents of the massive importation of Muslims into the West, a policy which has made the customs and beliefs of Muslims not their exclusive business but our business as well. If, for example, a Muslim man happens to copulate with a cow, he must, the ayatollah advised, be certain not to consume its milk, since his bestiality will have rendered the milk impure. It is not the sort of practical religious problem that we could imagine the women in the photograph pondering, but the spiritual father of the Iranian future that began in 1979 did discuss it, along with other equally primitive topics. Most of Iran’s observant Muslims still value his advice and revere his life, and it is they who govern Iran’s present.

For the sake of balance I will add, in keeping with the theme of female attire, that one of the pressing social questions in some western nations is whether men who enjoy dressing up as women should be allowed to relieve themselves in women’s restrooms, to prevent them from feeling traumatized by any official denial of their self-ascribed womanhood. It is unlikely that such questions are ever debated among religious Iranians in their Islamic state. They could, if we tried to embarrass them by citing Ayatollah Khomeini’s primitive opinions, point out that many features of the modern West portend for us a steadily degrading future. Although religious Iranians may often be strange and backward, in some respects western decline has made their culture better than ours.

General Arfa tells of happy supporters of the Pahlavi dynasty gathering spring flowers in the woods to present to the beloved sister of their shah. It is an attractive picture, which no doubt was partly true. Yet many other Iranians hated Princess Ashraf. They saw her not as a sign of Iran’s admirable entry into modernity but rather as evidence of westernizing modernity’s incompatibility with traditional Islam. She was a prominent example of what Iranian radicals in the 1970s called “westoxification.” She dressed as a western woman, which for traditional Muslims meant that she dressed as a harlot. She campaigned for causes that are inconsistent with Islam, and one of her sisters was a literal apostate from it. She consumed alcohol, gambled at European casinos, and enjoyed spending her money, some of it acquired through political corruption. The AP obituary reports that her “glamorous life epitomized the excesses of her brother’s rule.” It also epitomized, from the perspective of observant Muslims, the cultural distance of their present from the austere dictates of Islam’s founder. The future they wanted was much different from the future she represented.

Cultural change can occur quickly, as David Duke once reminded us. Although it often seems that the current downward trajectory of the West is irreversible, the downward trajectory of Pahlavi Iran, seen through the eyes of a conservative Shiite in the 1950s, could have seemed irreversible as well. Yet the future in Iran belonged to the anti-western Islamic radicals who hated Princess Ashraf Pahlavi and the modernizing Iran her brother governed. An old photo of three westernized Iranian women now looks oddly un-Iranian because three decades ago most Iranians saw growing westernization not as a promise of a better tomorrow but as a lethal threat to their cultural identity.

History’s direction is never inevitable. If a population hates its imminent future enough, it can prevent that future from occurring.

Jewish “Man” Gives Birth

via The Realist Report

Thanks exclusively to Jewish influence and propaganda, this is how insane our society has become:
When Rafi Daugherty of Denver went to the hospital for the birth of his first child, he posted a sign on the delivery room door.
“I am a single transgender man having my first baby,” it read. “I use he/him/his pronouns and will be called ‘Abba’ (Hebrew for father) by the baby. Papa, Dad, Daddy, Father…are also ok.”
Rafi, 33, wanted hospital staff to be prepared for what they were about to see: a man laboring in bed.
“I didn’t want them to assume that I identified as female because I was having a baby,” he said.
After eight hours of labor, Rafi was holding his 7-pound, 10-ounce daughter: Ettie Rose, named, in the Jewish tradition, for Rafi’s maternal grandmother and great-grandmother.
Since bringing Ettie home from the hospital, Rafi’s days have been filled with frequent feedings — unable to nurse, he gives his daughter donor breast milk — and diaper changes and stroller walks around his Denver neighborhood. […]
transgender rights and inclusion are increasingly a part of public — and Jewish — discourse. That’s due in part to the recent transition of the Olympic gold medalist and reality TV star Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce, and the prominence of transgender characters on hit series such as “Transparent,” where the protagonist is a Jewish transwoman, and “Orange Is the New Black.”
In November, the Union for Reform Judaism issued a resolution affirming its commitment to the full equality of transgender and gender non-conforming people. The flagship Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist seminaries welcome transgender students, and the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College have ordained transgender rabbis.
Rafi, who grew up Orthodox, said he’s been warmly welcomed by Colorado’s progressive Jewish community. One independent minyan organized a postpartum meal train for Rafi, and a large Conservative synagogue hosted Ettie’s simchat bat, a Jewish welcoming ceremony. […]
Rafi became pregnant by artificial insemination. The sperm donor is a friend whom Rafi described as “a tall, dark and handsome gay man, who is half South Asian” and half white.
“He’s expressed gratitude to be part of this journey for us,” Rafi added, “and not have to deal with the diapers and the crying.” […]
Just when you thought society could not get any more debauched and degenerate, we have this story.

It should be noted that the organized Jewish community has and remains at the forefront of the promotion and normalization of transgenderism. The article above, published by The Times of Israel, notes how “Caitlyn Jenner” has been instrumental in promoting this disgusting, unnatural agenda. Unsurprisingly, the entire “Caitlyn Jenner” media spectacle was promoted almost entirely by radical Jewish journalists and, of course, the Jewish mainstream mass media, including ESPN.

The article excerpted above also describes how the Jewish owned and controlled mass media has promoted and normalized transgenderism through television programs such as “Transparent” and “Orange Is the New Black,” programs which are heavily influenced by Jews.

It should be clear to everyone at this point that the Jews and their traitorous enablers have systematically subverted and destroyed traditional American culture, and have transformed it into a debauched, disgusting Marxist paradise.

Transgenderism and other abnormal, degenerate behaviors, including homosexuality, miscegenation, and licentiousness lifestyles (all championed and promoted by the organized Jewish community), are no longer viewed as an unhealthy, unnatural, bizarre rebellion against nature. They are viewed as just another lifestyle choice, as legitimate as any other – perhaps even more so.

This is “progress” in the eye of the Jew and his supporters.

The nation wrecking Jews and their cultural Marxist allies largely running the Western world insist society must accept and glorify confused, deranged transgendered individuals. If we do not accept this bizarre, unnatural phenomenon, we are considered “bigots” and “haters” – “closed-minded,” “backwards,” and “intolerant” – by the mass media and politically correct society.

It’s incredible how far we have fallen as a nation.

A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?,” Part 3

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1
Part 2

A National Socialist poster:
“Bolshevism is Jewry”

Götz Aly’s selective application of his “pathological envy” thesis

While asserting that German hostility toward Jews has its origins in a pathological “envy,” as a fervent leftist Aly would never extend this line of reasoning to account for the hostility of American Blacks or other non-White groups toward Whites. Aly can safely posit that “intellectually inferior” Germans who “lacked confidence in their identity” had an envy-driven hatred for “intellectually superior” and upwardly mobile Jews, yet never assert that intellectually inferior Blacks have an envy-driven hatred for intellectually superior and upwardly mobile Whites. Instead he would doubtless affirm the bogus narrative that Black hostility to Whites is a legitimate response to an insidious White “racism” that has impeded their social and economic advancement. This, of course, is despite that fact that this supposedly ubiquitous and malign force has somehow failed to hinder the social and economic advancement of East Asians in Western societies.

Nor would Aly extrapolate his pathological envy thesis of intergroup hostility to explain the vastly disproportionate Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Revolution and the other oppressive communist regimes of Eastern Europe. This despite that fact that, in response to legal restrictions in Tsarist Russia that limited their economic and educational opportunities, millions of Jews gravitated to Zionism and Communism. That envy and resentment were key factors behind the overwhelming Jewish attraction to radical left was obvious to Norman Cantor who noted:
The Bolshevik Revolution and some of its aftermath represented, from one perspective, Jewish revenge. During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that—as 1930s anti-Semites claimed—Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. In time Jews will learn to take pride in the record of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back.[i]
Indeed a huge weakness of Why the Germans? Why the Jews? is the total neglect of the Jewish-Communist symbiosis and how this contributed (independently of envy at Jewish social advancement) to rising support for the NSDAP and other “anti-Semitic” political parties in Germany. It is common knowledge that when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions erupted all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm. One of Hitler’s most oft-repeated themes in the 1920s was the deadly threat that a “bloody Bolshevization” posed to Germany. In 1928 Hitler wrote:
The goal is the destruction of the inherently anti-Semitic Russia as well as the destruction of the German Reich, whose administration and army still provide resistance to the Jews. A further goal is the overthrow of those dynasties that have not yet been made subordinate to a Jewish-dependent and led democracy.
This goal in the Jewish struggle has at least to some degree been completely achieved. Tsarism and Kaiserism in Germany have been eliminated. With the help of the Bolshevik Revolution, the Russian upper class and also the national intelligentsia were — with inhuman torture and barbarity — murdered and completely eradicated. The victims of this Jewish fight for dominance in Russia totaled twenty-eight to thirty million dead among the Russian people. Fifteen times as many as the Great War cost Germany. After the successful Revolution he [further] tore away all the ties of orderliness, morality, custom, and so on, abolished marriage as a higher institution, and proclaimed in its place universal licentiousness with the goal that through this disorderly bastardy, to breed a generally inferior human mush which itself is incapable of leadership and ultimately will no longer be able to do without the Jews as its only intellectual element.[ii]
Another National Socialist source noted that: “Only those who have experienced that period of Jewish terror and slaughter, the murder of hostages, plundering and acts of arson [in the Munich communist uprisings of 1918–1919], are able to realize why Munich became the birthplace of National Socialism, whence the movement spread to other parts of Germany, and finally put an end to Jewish domination.”

Despite the centrality of the threat of “Jewish-Bolshevism” as part of the National Socialist platform, Aly completely ignores the whole topic because it simply doesn’t fit into his “pathological envy” theory of German “anti-Semitism.” In a work of some 304 pages purporting to analyze the origins Hitler’s popularity, the word “communism” rates a mere three mentions.

No mention of Jewish ethnic networking

In addition to his lack of consideration of how the very real fear of communism contributed to support for the National Socialists, another key weakness of Why the Germans? Why the Jews? is the lack of any discussion of the role of Jewish ethnic networking in the rapid social and economic advancement of Jews at the time. Jewish historian Jerry Muller acknowledged in his book Capitalism and the Jews the importance of Jewish ethnic networking contributing to Jewish upward social mobility, observing that “the obligation to look after fellow Jews was deeply embedded in Jewish law and culture, and it existed not just in theory but in practice.”[iii] A recurrent theme in Germany throughout the nineteenth century was how, if unchecked by the state, Jewish ethnic networking invariably led to their monopolization of entire industries and professions, and how this harmed German interests.

In 1819, for instance, the German writer Hartwig von Hundt-Radowsky noted that the anti-Jewish “Hep Hep” riots that year in southern Germany were precipitated by “the rights granted to Israelites in many states” which led “to the poverty and malnourishment that prevails in many regions since the Jews choke off all the trade and industry of the Christian populace.” He noted that the success that Jews recorded “in all profitable businesses ever since several states, guided by a misunderstood humanism, accorded them the freedom to choose their own trades, which is also a license to plunge Christians into misery.”[iv]

Around the same time the German academic Jakob Friedrich Fries likewise warned of the dangers that Jewish ethnic networking and nepotism presented for the native population, pointing out that “the Christian merchant, who stands alone, has no hope of competing.” Citing the example of Jews in the city of Frankfurt, who had been released from the ghetto in 1796 and had risen rapidly up in society, he warned: “Allow them to continue for a mere forty years or more, and the sons of the best Christian houses will have to hire on as their manservants.”[v]

The economist Friedrich List argued in 1820 that the state had the right and duty to protect the native German majority from Jewish economic domination and exploitation.[vi] Legal restrictions on Jews were lifted in the Grand Duchy of Posen in 1833, a region with a significant Jewish population. Soon thereafter a citizens’ committee on Jewish affairs noted that following the easing of restrictions it had not taken long for Jews “to take over high roads and market squares and dominate commerce and industry.” If they were given full citizenship rights, the committee argued, “almost all the towns and villages in the Grand Duchy would come under the exclusive administration of Jews.”[vii]

In the Kingdom of Saxony the general populace pressured the royal family to maintain anti-Jewish restrictions on certain types of economic activity. Dresden allowed “at most” four Jewish merchants, lest commercial streets “swarm with Jewish salesmen and trade fall into Jewish hands” Local civic leaders warned that any easing of restrictions would result in “Jews inundating the entire country so that soon farmers wouldn’t be able to sell a single calf without Jewish involvement.”[viii]

Kevin MacDonald notes in A People That Shall Dwell Alone that from “the standpoint of the group, it was always more important to maximize the resource flow from the gentile community to the Jewish community, rather than to allow individual Jews to maximize their interests at the expense of the Jewish community.”[ix] He makes the point that the propensity of Jews to engage in “tribal economics” involving high levels of within-group economic cooperation and patronage confers on these groups “an extraordinarily powerful competitive advantage against individual strategies.”[x]  The power of this strategy was evident by 1914 when Jews earned five times the income of the average German.[xi]

In 1924, the German economist Gustav Schmoller argued in favor of only admitting small numbers of Jews to the higher ranks of the military or civil service. Otherwise, he feared, “they would swiftly develop into an intolerant dictator of the state and its administration. … How many cases have proved the truth of the prophecy that once you admit the first Jewish full professor, you’ll have five of them or more in ten years’ time.”[xii] In the same year, a delegate to the Bavarian parliament, Ottmar Rutz, noting this tendency and how it had resulted in the Jewish domination of the faculties of Bavarian universities, pointed out that “every Jewish professor and every Jewish civil servant keeps down a descendant of the German people. This sort of exclusion is what’s really at stake. It’s not a matter of insulting or attacking one or another descendant of the Jewish people. This has nothing to do with all of that, and nor do my petitions. This is solely about productively promoting the descendants of the German people and protecting them from exclusion.”[xiii]

Jewish overrepresentation among the learned professions was then, and is now, of such a magnitude that it cannot be accounted for solely on the basis of higher IQ and cultural differences alone — but was and is massively a product of Jewish nepotism. The role of Jewish ethnic networking in the vast overrepresentation of Jews at elite universities in the United States has been revealed by recent studies which have proved that Jews are represented at the Ivy League far beyond what would be predicted by IQ, whereas Whites of European descent are correspondingly underrepresented. For any given level of high IQ, non-Jews far outnumber Jews in America. For example, there are around 7 times as many non-Jews as Jews with an IQ greater than 130 (an IQ typical of successful professionals), and 4.5 times as many with IQ greater than 145. Obviously, there are not seven times as many non-Jews as Jews among elites in the elite sectors of the U.S. — quite the opposite. Would the situation, given the strength of Jewish ethnocentrism, have been any different in Germany in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?

Virtually no mention of Jewish cultural subversion as a cause of “anti-Semitism”

As well as completely ignoring the crucially important phenomenon of Jewish ethnic networking, Aly fails to acknowledge the link between disproportionate wealth and disproportionate political, legislative, media and cultural influence, and how this influence was wielded by Jewish elites to reengineer German society in their own interests. Ethnic competition doesn’t only exist in the economic realm but in the cultural and political realms. Resentment fuelled by wealth disparities is only a part (albeit a highly significant part) of a multifaceted picture.

Kevin MacDonald has often noted that it wouldn’t matter if Jews were an economic elite if they were not hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West. The unfortunate reality is that they are hostile, and this hostility has existed for millennia. In Separation and Its Discontents he notes that the heightened level of resource competition between Germans and Jews, especially after 1870, “resulted in very large Jewish overrepresentation in all the markers of economic and professional success as well as the production of culture, the latter viewed as a highly deleterious influence.”[xiv] In his German Genius, Peter Watson observes that after 1880, and especially after the Dreyfus trial in France in 1893, “the Jews were increasingly identified as Europe’s leading ‘degenerates.’”[xv]

A National Socialist source from 1938 points out how “the disintegration and decay of German intellectual life under Jewish supremacy was most apparent and assumed their crudest aspects in the sphere of light entertainment art.” When, in the unstable political aftermath of Germany’s defeat in 1918, at a time when all barriers of law and order had broken down, “a veritable storm of Jewish immoral literature, obscene films and plays then broke over Germany.” The Berlin Revue proprietors who “were Jews without a single exception” offered the public “veritable orgies of sexuality and licentiousness. All realities of life were regarded from the one and only aspect of erotic desire and its satisfaction.” Berlin quickly assumed the mantle of “the most immoral town in the world.” The increasing spread of indecency and immorality forced the government in 1926 to “take constitutional steps for the suppression of filthy or otherwise low-grade literature.”

Revue poster from the Weimar Republic
Revue poster from the Weimar Republic

The themes of Jewish moral, cultural and political subversion permeate the speeches and writings of Hitler and other leading National Socialist figuress. In Mein Kampf Hitler argued that the Jewish influence on German cultural life largely consisted in “dragging the people to the level of his own low mentality.” Likewise he recalls how he once asked himself whether “there was any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate?” and later discovered that “On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess, one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.”[xvi]

In a brief departure from his “envy” theory, Aly himself acknowledges the prevalence of the belief that Jews, through the insidious political and cultural influence they exerted, were destroying mainstream German culture, and that this belief, which spread through all social strata “became a mass phenomenon and paved the way for the racial anti-Semitism at the core of the National Socialist worldview.”[xvii] According to this worldview, “At the close of the emancipation era in Germany, the Jews enjoyed a practical monopoly of all the professions exerting intellectual and political influence. This enabled them to stamp their entirely alien features on the whole public life of the country.”

One of the ways that racial and ethnic groups do battle for position is through controlling the thought and ideas that go into the minds of their competitors. That explains the invariable push by Jews to exercise domination and control over the media and entertainment industries. They realize that media influence is an incredibly important aspect of ethnic competition in the modern world: filling the heads of your ethnic competitors with things that are not true or which are inimical to family life or other adaptive behavior among non-Jews but which help your group to thrive. Those non-Jews who are aware of what is going on naturally resent this waging of ethnic warfare through controlling the public flow of information — and the Germans were no exception.

The German media in the years before 1933 was almost entirely in Jewish hands. The largest circulation newspapers, the Berliner Morgenpost, the Vossische Zeitung, and the Berliner Tageblatt, were owned by the Jewish Ullmann and Mosse companies, and were overwhelmingly staffed by Jewish editors and journalists. The Marxist press, most prominently including newspapers like Vorwärts, Rote Fahne, and Freiheit was likewise under Jewish control. The Jewish essayist Moritz Goldstein observed in 1912 that: “Nobody actually questions the powers the Jews exercise in the press. Criticism, in particular, at least as far as the larger towns and their influential newspapers are concerned, seems to be becoming a Jewish monopoly.”

Even Germans opposed to Hitler, like the Hamburg philosopher and women’s rights activist Margarethe Adam, acknowledged the reality of Jewish media control. In a 1929 discussion on the Jewish Question that she conducted with the Jewish historian and sociologist Eva Reichmann-Jungmann, she noted that “The Jew in his very nature is perceived by the Aryan as a different type of human being.” The hostility of many Europeans towards Jews was, she argued, an almost reflexive response to the “teeth gnashing disdain that Jews felt for Christians.” As evidence for her claim, Adam cited the mighty Jewish press, which was “rife with insults and scorn hurled at the great personages of the German past.” She explained that “this press is what causes people to speak repeatedly of ‘Jewish solidarity’ in the worse sense.”[xviii]

Misrepresenting Heinrich von Treitschke

To buttress his “envy” theory of German “anti-Semitism,” Aly cites the 1879 publication of renowned German historian Heinrich von Treitschke’s article “Our Prospects” in the prestigious journal Preussische Jahrbücher. This article was, Aly claims, addressed by the famous historian “to the sons of the rapidly declining artisan and merchant class,” a group that were “fearful for their future.” In his article, Treitschke raised the idea that “in recent times a dangerous spirit of arrogance has been awakened in Jewish circles,” and he demanded that Jews show more “tolerance and humility,” noting that: “The instincts of the masses have recognized in Jews a pressing danger, a deeply troubling source of damage to our new German life.” The most knowledgeable Germans, he proclaimed, were calling out with one voice: “The Jews are our misfortune.”[xix] According to Aly,
Treitschke’s “Our Prospects” polemic characterized Jewish immigrants to Germany from Eastern Europe as “an invasion of young ambitious trouser salesmen” who aimed to see their “children and grandchildren dominate Germany’s financial markets and newspapers.” The nationalist historian pilloried the “scornfulness of the busy hordes of third-rate Semitic talents” and their “obdurate contempt” for Christian Germans, noting how “tightly this swarm kept to itself.” The holder of four professorships in his lifetime, Treitschke worked himself into a veritable frenzy over “the new Jewish nature,” whose tendencies and attributes included “vulgar contempt,” “addition to scorn,” facile cleverness and agility,” “insistent presumption,” and “offensive self-overestimation.” All of these qualities, Treitschke claimed, worked to the detriment of the Christian majority, with its “humble piety” and “old-fashioned, good-humored love of work.” If Jews continued to insist on their separate identity and refused to be integrated into the German (which to Treitschke, meant Protestant) culture of the nation, the historian threatened that “the only answer would be for them to emigrate and found a Jewish state somewhere abroad.”[xx]
Aly takes Treitschke’s article out of its historical and intellectual context, and claims that the hostility toward Jews in Treitschke’s article, which Aly views as completely baseless, was “symptomatic of Germany as a whole,” and was grounded in pathological envy. However, the actual context of Treitschke’s famous article was explicated in Albert Lindemann’s book Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Lindemann, noting how this context is “often neglected or ignored in accounts of the period,” observes that the real catalyst for Treitschke adding his voice to complaints about Jews in Germany was the nature of the work of the leading Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz and its enthusiastic reception among German Jews. Lindemann notes:
Although his History of the Jews is still lauded by twentieth-century Jewish historians as one of the great nineteenth-century histories of the Jews, there is little question that the sense of Jewish superiority expressed in it, especially in the eleventh volume, which had first appeared in 1868, was at times narrow and excessive. Indeed compared with it, Treitschke’s history of the Germans may be described as generous in spirit, especially in its treatment of the relationships of Jews and non-Jews, their relative merits and defects.[xxi]
Lindemann points outs that Graetz harbored a “deep contempt for the ancient Greeks and a special derision for Christians in the Middle Ages.” Presaging Freud and the Frankfurt School, Graetz considered contemporary European civilization to be “morally and physically sick.” Lindemann observes that “Graetz had written much that was stunningly offensive to German sensibilities of the time” and that it was hardly surprising that Treitschke responded with “such fury.” Celebrating deceit and guile as highly effective forms of ethnic warfare, Graetz had written that the Jewish writers Boerne and Heine had “renounced Judaism, but only like combatants who, putting on the uniform of the enemy, can all the more easily strike and annihilate him.” Moreover, in his private correspondence, Graetz “expressed his destructive contempt for German values and Christianity more forthrightly.” In a letter to Moses Hess, written in 1868, for instance, he wrote that “we must above all work to shatter Christianity.”

Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz
Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz
On becoming aware of such views, Treitschke angrily observed that “the man shakes with glee every time he can say something downright nasty against the Germans.”[xxii] It was reading Graetz and noting how his brand of history was so highly esteemed by Jews that prompted Treitschke to echo the reactions of many Germans to having their people, culture and religion derided by members of an alien race living in their midst, noting that:
What deadly hatred of the purist and most powerful exponents of German character, from Luther to Goethe and Fichte! And what hollow, offensive self-glorification! Here it is proved with continuous satirical invective that the nation of Kant was really educated to humanity by Jews only, that the language of Lessing and Goethe became sensitive to beauty, spirit and wit only through [the Jews] Boerne and Heine! … And this stubborn contempt for the German goyim is not at all the attitude of a single fanatic.[xxiii]
Graetz found his counterpart in the Weimar Republic in the figure of the Jewish intellectual and journalist Kurt Tucholsky who, using a variety of pseudonyms, “scoffed at the ideals of the German nation: he flung his biting sarcasm and venomous mockery at every religious and national sentiment.”   By deliberately excluding the historical and intellectual context of Treitschke’s famous article, Aly perpetuates the false narrative that German hostility towards Jews had absolutely nothing whatever to do with Jewish behavior. This deliberate distortion enables Aly to blithely dismiss Treitschke as an “intellectual agitator” and producer of “anti-Jewish polemics.”

The author also gives the German composer Richard Wagner this kind of shabby treatment, dismissing him as “a paradigmatic example of the way that resentment provoked hatred for Jews among German intellectuals and artists.” As I have previously noted, there is a great deal of validity in the opinions Wagner expressed with regard to the Jewish Question. Aly is unwilling, however to subject Wagner’s writing to any detailed and fair-minded analysis, simply arguing that “none of Wagner’s assorted justifications could disguise the personal economic interest that clearly lay behind his animosity.”[xxiv] According to Aly, anti-Jewish statements are never rational, but always the product of a warped mind, while Jewish critiques of Europeans always have a thoroughly rational basis.


Aly concludes his book by claiming that “Today’s generations of Germans owe a lot to their ancestors’ desires to get ahead in the world. Precisely for that reason, there is no way for them to divorce anti-Semitism from their family histories.” Reinforcing the toxic culture of the Holocaust that is today leading Germany to destruction, he argues that today’s Germans have a moral obligation to come to terms with and atone for “the murderous anti-Semitism of their forefathers.”[xxv]

Despite its many shortcomings (in truth because of them) Why the Germans? Why the Jews? has been lauded by establishment critics. Christopher Browning, writing for the New York Review of Books, described Aly’s book as: “A remarkably fresh look at an old problem. …  Aly is one of the most innovative and resourceful scholars working in the field of Holocaust studies. Time and again he has demonstrated an uncanny ability to find hitherto untapped sources, frame insightful questions, and articulate clear if often challenging and controversial arguments.”

The majority of Jewish critics have been similarly admiring. Dagmar Herzog, writing for the New York Times, maintained that “the lavish evidence Aly heaps on — from both self-revealing anti-Semites and acutely prescient Jewish writers — is incredible in its own right and makes for gripping reading.” The Jewish Daily Forward called the book “Consistently absorbing. … A penetrating and provocative study [that] offers shrewd insight into the German mindset over the last two centuries.” Misha Brumlik, writing for the German publication Die Zeit, labelled Aly’s work “Brilliant, passionate, provocative” and according to Michael Blumenthal, once Jimmy Carter’s Treasury secretary and now director of Berlin’s Jewish Museum, claimed that Aly’s “analysis of a profound social malady has made the incomprehensible comprehensible.”[xxvi]

However, for some, Aly’s pathological envy thesis — despite his assiduous efforts to locate the sources of this envy exclusively in the pathologies and malformations of the German mind — is unsatisfactory because it fails to fully capture the truly “evil” nature of the “anti-Semitism” that once pervaded German society. Writing for Commentary magazine the Jewish writer Daniel Johnson dismissed Aly’s underlying message as “a more scholarly version of Hannah Arendt’s ‘banality of evil’ thesis.” According to Johnson, “What made the evil of the Shoah ‘radical’ is that it had no social or economic rationale. Because it had no motive or purpose beyond its own insane internal logic, its cruelty also had no limits, no proportionality, no humanity. It was literally inhuman.” He claims that “envy is too mild a motivation” to account for “truly evil” depths of German Jew-hatred. In his view, “There is something darker, more pathological, more ‘incomprehensible’ going on here.”

While Why the Germans? Why the Jews? flirts with the truth, it is marred by the distortions and omissions I have identified in this review. Competition for access to resources broadly construed to include competition over the construction of culture is undoubtedly a prime cause of intergroup hostility — and it was an important contributing factor in German hostility toward Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To be charitable, making “envy” the sole causal factor for post-Enlightenment German “anti-Semitism,” is overly simplistic. The sources of German hostility to Jews during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were manifold: Jewish economic competition (exacerbated by Jewish ethnic networking and nepotism), disproportionate Jewish involvement in revolutionary political movements, and Jewish moral and cultural subversion and domination. Ethnic competition takes many forms, and the assertion by Jews of their ethnic interests (economically, politically and culturally) inevitably leads to hostility from those whose interests are compromised. The Germans of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were no exception. Given the ubiquity of “anti-Semitism” throughout history, it should be obvious to everyone that Jews themselves are the carriers and transmitters of “anti-Semitism.”

[i] Norman Cantor, The Jewish Experience: An Illustrated History of Jewish Culture & Society (New York; Castle Press, 1996), 364.
[ii] Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (Enigma Books, 2003), 236-37.
[iii] Jerry Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 91.
[iv] Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 34.
[v] Ibid., 55.
[vi] Ibid., 34.
[vii] Ibid., 36.
[viii] Ibid., 38.
[ix] Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy with Diaspora People (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2002), 247.
[x] Ibid., 217.
[xi] Götz Aly, Why the Germans?, 31.
[xii] Götz Aly, Why the Germans?, 132.
[xiii] Ibid., 137-38.
[xiv] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1st Books Library, 2004), 170.
[xv] Watson, The German Genius: Europe’s Third Renaissance, the Second Scientific Revolution and the Twentieth Century (London: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 434.
[xvi] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ( London, Imperial Collegiate Publishing, 2010), 281; 58.
[xvii] Aly, Why the Germans?, 4.
[xviii] Ibid., 161-62.
[xix] Ibid., 74.
[xx] Ibid., 77.
[xxi] Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 139-40.
[xxii] Ibid., 141.
[xxiii] Ibid., 140.
[xxiv] Ibid., 39.
[xxv] Aly, Why the Germans?, 232.
[xxvi] Ibid., Back cover.