Aug 3, 2015

The Jewish Question in the Spiritual World

via Counter-Currents

In Italy, the Jewish question is not very keenly felt, unlike in other countries, in Germany in particular. There, as everyone knows, this question provokes deep tensions today not only on the plane of ideas, but also in society and politics. The most recent legislation, proposed by Göring, which bans not only marriages between Jews and non-Jews but also unmarried mixed couples, and permanently excludes Jews, or those already married to Jews, from all Nazi state organizations, are the ultimate consequence of these tensions.

The origins of the Jewish question are very ancient, varied and at times also enigmatic.

Anti-Semitism is a theme that has accompanied almost all the phases of Western history. Even with regard to Italy, an examination of the Jewish question should not be devoid of interest. The fact that in Italy the special circumstances do not obtain that elsewhere have resulted in the more direct and unreflective forms of anti-Semitism, also lets us consider the issue more calmly and with greater objectivity. Let us state right from the beginning that anti-Semitism today is characterized by the lack of a truly comprehensive view of historical and doctrinal premises, a view that could really justify anti-Semitic social and political practices and form the basis from which they could be deduced. For our part, we hold that a certain kind of anti-Semitism is not unjustified: but the weakness and confusion of most of the arguments put forward by anti-Semites, together with the violent partisanship of the latter, ends up being counter-productive, arousing the suspicion in any impartial spectator that it all is just a matter of biased and arbitrary attitudes dictated not so much by authentic principles, as by contingent practical interests. Thus, in the following notes, we will examine of the real basis that can justify an anti-Semitic attitude.

It is said that while today there is a substantial Jewish peril in the domain of finance and the economy, there is also a substantial Jewish peril in the domain of ethics, and that in the domain of spirituality, religion, and world view, everything Semitic, and above all everything Jewish, has a specific character that is repulsive to other peoples of the white race. We will therefore examine the problem holistically, and in three texts examine the Jewish question in its three aspects, one after the other, the first spiritual or religious, the second ethical and cultural, and finally the socio-economic and political aspect. Our reference points will of course be provided by the German authors most specialized in the matter and most emblematic of the anti-Semitic ”myth”: but we will try to summarize everything in the most impersonal possible way, excluding any element that is not purely doctrinal. Is there, in general, a vision of the world, of life and of the “sacred” that is specifically Semitic?

That is the fundamental issue. The term “Semitic,” as everyone knows, has a broader connotation than the word “Jewish” – and it is precisely in this broader meaning that we use it. The reason for this is that we believe that the Jewish element cannot be clearly separated from the general type of civilization that in ancient times spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean, from Asia Minor to the edges of Arabia: however great the differences may be between individual Semitic peoples. Without a comprehensive examination of the Semitic spirit, several key aspects of the Jewish spirit and its action in more recent times are bound to escape us.

Some authors, who have transcended a purely biological racism and have begun to consider race also with regard to types of civilization — e. g. Günther in his most recent publications and Clauss, have come more or less to this conclusion, speaking, in general, of what they called “the culture of the Levantine soul” (der vorderasiatischen Seele). The peoples with that soul are, more or less, the Semitic peoples.

What basis do we have for considering the spirituality and religious forms of the Semites to be inferior? Here, anti-Semites are far from clear and concordant in their statements. The fact is that in order to be able to say in what respects the Semitic spirit is negative, one would have to start by defining what one views as positive in the domain of spirit. Anti-Semites, however, are a good deal more concerned with polemical attacks than with positive assertions, and the positive term in the name of which they negate and condemn very often remains contradictory and uncertain. Thus, some refer to Catholicism (e.g. Moller van den Bruck), others to Nordic Protestantism (Chamberlain, Wolf) and yet others to a dubious paganism (Rosenberg, Reventlow) or to secular national ideals (Ludendorff).

The weakness of such positions is shown by the fact that all of these reference points consist in historical ideas that, chronologically, are later than the earliest Semitic civilizations, and are partly influenced by elements derived from the latter, instead of leading us back to a spiritual pole that is primordial and in a truly pure state. The opposition between the Semitic spirit and the Aryan spirit is, of course, the basis of any anti-Semitism.

But to provide a more serious basis for anti-Semitism, it is not enough to give the term “Aryan” a vague racist basis or a merely negative and polemical meaning, a meaning that would simply encompass everything that, in general, is not “Jewish,” One must instead be able to define ‘”Aryanness” in positive terms, as a universal idea, one that with regard to the type of divinity worshiped and the forms of worship, with regard to religious feeling and world-view, is opposed to everything that pertains to Semitic civilizations and in particular, to the Jews.

Therefore, we must return, but transcending the purely naturalistic plane, to the ideas of nineteenth century philologists and historians – especially of the school of Max Müller – concerning the fundamental unity of the civilizations, religions, symbols, and myths with Indo-European roots. We must connect these ideas with the theory that Wirth has recently – although often with severe confusions – tried to formulate with respect to a unitary, primordial, pre-Nordic civilization (we would say: Hyperborean) as the original root of the various more recent Indo-European civilizations. Finally, we must not neglect Bachofen’s brilliant intuitions regarding the antagonism between “solar” (Uranian) and “lunar” (or telluric) civilizations, between societies ruled by the virile principle and societies ruled by the female-maternal principle (gynocratic societies).

For obvious reasons, we cannot further elaborate on these matters here, but we have already undertaken a project of this kind in one of our works (Revolt Against the Modern World, Milan, 1935). We will only repeat our conclusions regarding the type of spirituality that we can call “Aryan,” “solar,” or “virile,” and which, by way of contrast, should also make it make it clear what really characterizes the Semitic spirit.

The àrya (a Sanskrit word that means the “noble,” in the sense of a race not only of the blood, but also, and essentially, of the spirit) were characterized by an affirmative attitude in the face of the divine. Their mythological symbols, drawn from the shining sky, expressed a sense of the “bodiless virility of light” and of ”solar glory,” that is, of victorious, spiritual virility: so that those races not only believed in the real existence of a super-humanity, of a race of immortal men and divine heroes, but often attributed to this race a superiority and irresistible power over the supernatural forces themselves. Correspondingly, the ideal that characterized the àrya was more regal than priestly, more the warrior ideal of transfiguring affirmation than the religious ideal of devoted abandonment, more an ideal of ethos than of pathos.

Originally, the kings of the àrya were also their priests, in the sense that the possession of that mystical force that is tied not only the “fortune” of the race, but also to the efficacy of its rites, conceived as operations acting upon real and objective supernatural forces, was preeminently attributed to the kings and to no-one else. On this basis, the idea of regnum had a sacred, and hence, potentially, a universal character. From the enigmatic Indo-Aryan conception of the Cakravarti or “universal sovereign,” via the idea of the Aryan-Iranian universal kingdom of the “faithful” and of the “God of light,” to the “solar” presuppositions of the romana aeternitas imperi, to the medieval Ghibelline idea of the Sacrum Imperium — in Aryan civilizations, or civilizations of the Aryan type, one finds the impulse to form a universal embodiment of the power from above, the power of which the àrya felt they were the pre-eminent bearers.

Secondly, in the same way that instead of the pious servility of prayer, there was ritual — again, conceived as a dry operation that subdued the divine — so also, among the àrya, the highest and most privileged places of immortality were open not to Saints, but to Heroes: the Nordic Walhalla, the Doric-Achaean Isle of the Blessed, the heaven of Indra among Indo-Aryans. The conquest of immortality or knowledge retained virile traits; while Adam, in the Semitic myth, is cursed for having tried to steal from the tree of god, in Aryan myth similar adventures are given a victorious and immortalizing outcome in the figures of heroes, such as Hercules, Jason, Mithras, Siegfried. If, higher still than the “heroic” world, the supreme Aryan ideal is the ”Olympic” realm of immutable, complete essences, detached from the lower world of becoming, in themselves luminous like the sun and sidereal natures — the Semitic gods are essentially gods that change, that are born, that live and suffer; they are the ”year-gods” which, like vegetation, are subject to the law of death and rebirth. The Aryan symbol is solar, in the sense of a purity that is power and a power that is purity, of a radiant nature that — again — is luminous in itself, in opposition to the lunar (feminine) symbol, that of a nature that only gives off light insofar as it reflects and absorbs light emanating from a center outside of it. Finally, with regard to the corresponding ethical principles, characteristically Aryan are the principles of freedom and personality on the one hand, and loyalty and honor the other.

The Aryan enjoys independence and difference, and is repelled by every kind of mixing. But that does not stop him from obeying manfully, from recognizing a leader, taking pride in serving him according to a freely established bond: a disinterested bond between warriors, on that that is irreducible to anything that can be bought and sold or turned to profit. Bhakti — is what the Aryans of India called it; Fides — is what the Romans called it; fides — is what they continued to call it in the Middle Ages; Trust, Treue — were the watchwords of the feudal regime. In Mithraic religious communities the principle of brotherhood was above all the virile community of soldiers engaged in a common undertaking (miles was the name of a degree of Mithraic initiation), and the Aryans of ancient Persia until the time of Alexander were able to consecrate not only their persons and their actions, but also their very thoughts to their leaders, who were conceived as transcendent beings. Among the Aryans in India, the hierarchy of the caste system was founded not on violence, but on spiritual loyalty — dharma and bhaktiThe serious and austere demeanor, devoid of mysticism, suspicious of every abandon of the soul, that characterized the relationship between the Roman civis, the Roman pater and his divinities, has the same traits as the ancient Doric-Achaean ritual and the “regal” and dominating attitude of the Brahmin or the ”solar caste” of the first Vedic period or of the Mazdean Atharvan. Overall, what characterizes the Aryan spirit is a classicism of domination and action, a love of clarity, difference and personality, an “Olympic” ideal of divinity and heroic superhumanity, and an ethos of loyalty and honor.

With that, albeit summarily, the fundamental point of reference is given. What we must bear in mind are the basic features of an ideal antithesis, which will allow us to orient ourselves in everything that historical reality and the overall form of civilizations often manifests itself in a mixed state: because it would be absurd, in times that are not absolutely primordial, to expect to find the Aryan and Semitic elements in their pure state.

What characterizes the spirituality of Semitic civilizations in general? The destruction of the Aryan synthesis of virility and spirituality. Among the Semites we have on one hand, a crudely material and sensualistic, or coarsely and ferociously warlike (Assyria) expression of the virile principle; on the other, a de-virilised spirituality, a “lunar” and predominantly priestly relationship to the divine, the pathos of guilt and atonement, an impure and disordered romanticism, and, beside it, almost as an escape, a naturalistic and mathematically based contemplativism.

Let us examine a few points in more detail. While the Aryans (like the Egyptians, whose earliest civilization must be considered as being of “Western” origin) viewed their king as an “equal among the Gods,” even in the earliest times, the king of the Chaldeans was only considered a proxy of the gods, conceived as entities distinct from him (Maspero). There is a phenomenon even more characteristic of this Semitic deviation from the level of virile spirituality: the annual humiliation of the king of Babylon. The king, dressed as a slave or prisoner, confessed his sins, and only when, having been beaten by a priest who represented the god, tears started to well up in his eyes, was he confirmed in his office and allowed to put on his regalia.

In fact, just as the feeling of “guilt” and “sin” (almost unknown among the Aryans) is innate in Semites and is reflected in a characteristic way in the Old Testament, the pathos of the “confession of sins” and of redemption from them is characteristic of Semitic peoples in general, closely linked to the matriarchal type of civilization (Pettazzoni) and alien to Aryan societies governed by the paternal principle. We are already dealing with the “guilt complex” (in the psychoanalytic sense), which has usurped a “religious” value and distorts the calm purity and “Olympian” superiority of the Aryan aristocratic ideal. Semitico-Syrian and Assyrian civilizations are characterized by the predominance of female deities, of lunar or telluric goddesses of Life, often with the impure traits of prostitutes.

The gods, however, who accompany them as lovers, have none of the supernatural traits of the great Aryan Divinities of light and day. Usually they are subordinate beings with respect to the image of Woman or the Divine Mother. They are either “dying gods” who suffer, perish and rise again, or ferocious deities of war, hypostases of savage muscular strength or phallic virility.

In ancient Chaldea, the priestly sciences, especially astronomy, are precisely the expressions of a lunar-mathematical spirit, an abstract and fundamentally fatalistic contemplativism, divorced from any interest in the heroic and supernatural affirmation of personality. A remnant of this component of the Semitic spirit, secular and intellectualized, is active in Jews of recent times: from Maimonides and Spinoza to modern Jewish mathematicians (e.g., Einstein, or in Italy, Levi-Civita and Enriques), we find a characteristic ”passion” for abstract thought and for natural law expressed in lifeless numbers.

This, in the end, can be considered the best part of the ancient Semitic legacy. Here, of course, in order not to seem one-sided, we would have to undertake considerations of a much broader scope than this space would allow. We will only mention that the negative elements just mentioned can be found not just among the Semites, but also in other great civilizations, civilizations that were originally Indo-European. Except that in the latter, up to a certain period, these elements were secondary and subordinate to a completely different predominant type of spirituality, and almost always the result of decadence and the influence of a substrate of subjugated or infiltrating inferior races.

Between the eighth and sixth century B.C., a kind of crisis or decline occurred almost simultaneously in all of the greatest ancient civilizations, along with an insurrection of those inferior racial elements. One could say that in the East — from China to India and Iran — this crisis was overcome by a series of reactions or adequate reforms (Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster). In the West, the dam appears to have broken and the insurrection seems to have encountered no major obstacle. In Egypt, it took the form of an outbreak of the popular worship of Isis and similar divinities, with its chaotic plebeian mysticism, in opposition to the ancient virile and solar royal cult of the first dynasties. In Greece, it was the decline of Doric-Achaean civilization with its heroic and Olympian ideals, the advent of secular, anti-traditional and naturalistic thinking on the one hand, and Orphic and Orphic-Pythagorean mysticism on the other.

But the center from which the ferment of decay mainly spread seems to have been precisely the group of Semitic-Eastern Mediterranean peoples and, ultimately, the Jewish people. Concerning the civilization of the Jews, to be objective, we should distinguish between two periods, which are definitively differentiated at that historical moment of crisis to which we have referred. If there is an accusation to be made positively towards the Jews, it is that they had no real tradition of their own, and owed to other peoples, Semites or non-Semites, both the positive elements, and the other, negative elements that they were subsequently able to more particularly develop.
Thus, if we consider the oldest Jewish religion, the ancient Philistine cult of Jehova (the Philistines, however, appear to have been a non-Jewish group of conquerors) and the line of priest-kings that Solomon and David belonged to, we not infrequently find forms that possess both purity and greatness. The alleged “formalism” of the rites of that religion most likely had the same anti-sentimental, active, dominating spirit that we have indicated as a feature of primordial Aryan and Roman virile rituals. The idea itself of a “chosen people,” called to rule the world by divine mandate — apart from its naive exaggerations and the dubious right of the Jews to claim such a vocation for their own race — is, as we indicated, an idea that is found in Aryan traditions, especially among the Iranians: just as among Iranians one also finds, although with virile and not passively messianic traits, the figure of the future “universal lord” and King of kings. It was a moment of crisis, connected to the political collapse of the Jewish people, that overturned these elements of positive spirituality, which most probably derive less from the Jewish people itself than from the Amorites, a people some claim had Nordic, and not Semitic, origins.

Prophecy already represents the decay of the ancient Jewish civilization and the way to all subsequent decadence. The type of the “seer” — ròeh — was replaced by the “prophet” — Nabi — a man inspired or possessed by god, a type of man who previously had been viewed almost as sick. The spiritual center shifts to him and his apocalyptic revelations — and away from the high priest or the priest-king who ruled in the name of the “god of Hosts,” Jehova sebaoth. Here the revolt against the ancient sacred ritualism in the name of a formless, romantic and unmastered “inner” spirituality is associated with a growing servility of man with respect to god, with an ever greater pleasure taken in self-humiliation and an increasing impairment of the heroic principle, culminating in the degradation of the figure of the Messiah to that of a “redeemer,” of a predestined “victim,” against the terrorizing backdrop of the apocalypse — and, on another plane, also culminating in that style of deception, servile hypocrisy, and tenacious, devious, disintegrating infiltration, that since then has been characteristic of the Jewish instinct in general.

Rising to power through the earliest, pre-Catholic forms of Christianity, in the Roman Empire, which at the time was already animated by all sorts of spurious Asian-Semitic cults, the Jewish spirit in effect lead a vast insurrection of the East against the West, of the guarà against àrya, of the impure spirituality of the Pelasgian and pre-Hellenic South against the Uranian and Olympian spirituality of conquering, superior races: a clash of forces that repeated one that had already occurred in an earlier period, during the first colonization of the Mediterranean.

Now we have reached a point from which we can discern what, from this point of view, the arguments of anti-Semites boil down to. Let us say right away that there is hardly anyone who has shown themselves capable of viewing the question from this higher perspective. The only exception is, perhaps, Alfred Rosenberg who, however, in his most recent statements, has almost irreparably undermined his position with all sorts of confusions and especially with blatantly Enlightenment and racist-nationalist ideological admixtures. In the religious sphere, it is very naive to think that the aversion to the Jewish religion can be justified with a selection of biblical passages, which supposedly show that the Jewish god is a “false god.” a “humanized,” “fallible,” “capricious,” “cruel,” “unjust,” “dishonest” god, and so on (Fritsch has mainly been the one to specialize in such accusations) and in stigmatizing such and such a dubious example of “Old Testament” morality (Rosenberg even calls the Bible “a collection of tales for horse traders and pimps”). Certainly, in the case of one Jew — Spinoza — we can recognize a prevailing tendency towards physicality and materiality in the Jewish mythological imagination.

However, that aside, if religions were to be judged by such contingent elements, it is questionable whether the mythologies of pure Nordic-Aryan stock would themselves be exempt from the very same accusations. Since the accusers in this case happen to be German, we could examine their own mythology. What should we then make of Odin/Wotan’s dishonesty in his pact with the “giants” who rebuild Asgard — and of the “morality” of king Günther who famously uses Siegfried so as to be able to rape Brünnhilde, for example? One cannot stoop to this low level of polemical tricks. And all the negative aspects of Jewish religiosity that we must recognize on the basis of what has already been stated should not lead us to ignore the fact that the Old Testament does contain elements and symbols of metaphysical, and hence universal value, even if they were borrowed from other sources.

When Günther, Oldenberg, and Clauss say that the Semitic-oriental spirit is characterized by “the oscillation between sensuality and spirituality, the mixing of the sacred and the brothel,” the enjoyment of carnality and at the same time, the enjoyment of the mortification of carnality, the opposition between spirit and body (which is arbitrarily claimed to have been unknown among the Aryans), the pleasure of exercising power over servile communities, its creeping way of insinuating itself into the emotions of others; when Wolf says that all the diseases we now suffer from have their origins in the Semitic East, that from ”the marshy terrain of Eastern ethnic chaos were born imperialism and mammonism, the urbanization of peoples with the consequent destruction of marriage and family life, the rationalization and mechanization of religion, mummified priestly civilization, the absurd ideal of a divine State that would encompass the whole of humanity” — when anti-Semites say these things, we are served up a mixture of truths with some rather strange confusions. In order to see just how confused things sometimes get, we could take as an example the fact that for Wolf, Greeks and Romans supposedly have no other merit than to have developed “a thriving secular national civilization”: that shows how little he takes ancient Aryan spirituality as a reference point.

Wolf ends up putting Protestantism in the place of primordial Aryan spirituality, and as a result everything is inverted: he sees the triumph of the prophecy over ancient Jewish ritual spirituality as a progress rather than a degeneration, precisely because of its analogy with the Lutheran revolt against the ritualism and authority principle of the Catholic church. As for the accusations — typical of almost all anti-Semites and racists — leveled against the ideal of a universal sacred state, which they regard as Jewish and pernicious, it should be noted that although Semitic civilization sometimes espoused that ideal, it is not, however, originally Semitic, for it is found in the ascending cycle of any great traditional civilization; it is in itself so far from being Jewish, that it was the very soul of the Catholic-Germanic Middle Ages and the dreams of Frederick II and Dante.

Strange to say, according to this anti-Semitic ideology, Rome ends up becoming a synonym of Jerusalem. Rome is not viewed so much as Christianity, but instead as Judaism, and at the same time as the legacy of the pagan empire, which, however, in its universalism, was supposedly already Jewish, or nearly so (the expression “Semitic Rome,” referring to imperial Rome, dates back to de Gobineau). What, then, is supposed to be anti-Jewish? For Wolf, evidently following Chamberlain, it is evangelical, i.e., pre-Catholic Christianity, in its individualistic, formlessly fideistic and anti-dogmatic aspect, that goes right back to the impure ferment of Jewish prophecy, i.e., not only to Judaism, but to the decadent phase of Judaism; and then Luther, who in opposition to the “Romanism” of Rome — which he regarded as satanic — essentially brought back the Old Testament, so that there is no more philo-Semitic anti-Semite than he.

It is true that others, e.g. Rosenberg, for precisely this reason, reject Protestantism as well, but only to fall from the frying pan into the fire: they serve up a purely secular anti-Catholicism, a full repudiation of everything in Catholicism that is supernaturalism and ritual; basically, a rationalism — and racists regard rationalism as a Jewish creature!

Miller also denies the justification of considering Protestantism as a type of religion purified from the Semitic element, and if he directs accusations towards the Church of Rome, it is because of Jewish residues that it retains (e.g. the recognition that Israel was the chosen people, chosen for the revelation), and because of the fact that the Church has abandoned its earlier anti-Jewish rigor, and today has gradually moved towards a policy of tolerance towards Jews.

These are themes that are very widespread today in Germany. But equally widespread is the idea that Rome is the heir of a priestly Pharisaism that, like the Jewish one, aspires to world domination by every means. Even in the famous book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to which we will have to return, the ideal of a universal realm ruled by a sacred authority is presented as Jewish.

Here, once again, things are associated and mingled that, on the basis of the principles already indicated, should instead be quite distinct. While the ancient Roman universal imperial idea was unquestionably Asianized, undergoing, as a consequence, a process of decadence, this cannot be considered a valid argument against the idea in itself: nor is it a valid argument that Judaism, to some extent, has appropriated similar ideals. From an “Aryan” point of view, the value of the Catholic Church consists in the fact that it was able to “Romanize” Christianity, reviving hierarchical ideas, traditions, symbols, and institutions that derive from a broader heritage and rectifying the deleterious element constituted by the revolution of early Christianity, which was closely connected with Jewish messianism and anti-virile Syrian mysticism. Of course, those who consider Catholicism more deeply will find many non-Aryan residues. Nevertheless, in recent times, Rome has remained the only relatively positive point of reference for tendencies to universality.

In relation to this, two points are to be fixed. As we shall see more clearly in the following chapters, there is in fact, today, a universal Jewish idea that is fighting against the remnants of the ancient European traditions, but this idea should be called international rather than universal, and represents the materialistic and plutocratic inversion of the ancient sacred idea of a universal regnum. Second, the hidden source of Nordic anti-Semitism betrays itself in its anti-universalist and anti-Roman polemics, through its confusion of universalism as a supranational idea with a universalism that only signifies the “active ferment of cosmopolitanism and of national decomposition” that, according to Mommsen, even in the ancient world was mainly caused by Judaism. In other words, that what anti-Semitism reveals in this respect, is a mere particularism.

Now, there is a very curious contradiction in those who on the one hand accuse the Jews of having a national god just for them, a morality and a feeling of solidarity that only applies to their own race, a principle of non-solidarity with the remainder of the human race, and so on — but then just follow the same Jewish “style” when they attack the other (alleged) aspect of the Semitic peril, which supposedly is universalism. Those who proclaim the well-known formula “gegen Rom und gegen Judentum” almost always do so in the name of the most narrow-minded, particularistic form of nationalism, conditioned by race in the purely naturalistic sense, to the point of manifesting, in their attempt to create an exclusively German national church — deutsche Volkskirche — the same spirit of schism as Gallicanism, Anglicanism, and similar heresies, which reflect, mutatis mutandis, the spirit of exclusiveness and monopoly of the divine for the benefit of a single race, that was characteristic of Israel. Thus, they naturally end up with an explicitly anti-Roman attitude, which, however, is equivalent to anti-Aryanism, mixed-up notions, devoid of strength and clarity, and cut off from freer, broader horizons. And it is noteworthy that in some cases, this anti-Roman attitude is not limited to the Catholic Church, but goes so far as to reject even the greatest Ghibelline emperors of German origin, precisely for their universalism!

These considerations, however, already bring us to another, ethical and political aspect of anti-Semitism, which will be the subject of subsequent writings. Now it is time to conclude this brief examination of the reasons for anti-Semitism on the religious and spiritual plane. Dühring once wrote that “the Jewish question would still exist even if all the Jews abandoned their religion and joined our dominant churches.” We must extend this idea and say that, in this regard, one can even set aside the reference to race in the narrow sense, and talk about Semitism as a universal, as a typical attitude with regard to the spiritual world. This attitude can be defined in the abstract and can be detected even where a civilization lacks a clear and direct ethnic connection with the Semitic races and with the Jews. Everywhere where a heroic, triumphal, virile ascendance to divine dignity is lacking, and the pathos of a servile, de-personalizing, ambiguously mystical and messianic attitude with regard to the spiritual realm — there the primordial force of Semitism, of anti-Aryanism, resurfaces.

Semitic is the feeling of “guilt” and also the themes of ”atonement” and self-humiliation. Semitic is the resentment of the “slaves of god” who cannot tolerate anyone above them and who strive to form an all-powerful collective (Nietzsche) — with all the consequences following from this anti-hierarchical idea, right down to its modern materialization in the form of Marxism and communism. Finally, Semitic is that underground spirit of dark and incessant unrest, of inner contamination and sudden revolt, so that according to the ancients, the Typhoon Set — the mythical serpent who is the enemy of the Egyptian Sun God — is the father of the Jews, and the Gnostics viewed the Jewish god as a “typhonic” creature.

Thus, today, in the spiritual realm, the Semitic ferment of decay can discerned at the heart of the ideologies that culminate in the mysticism of a servile humanity collectivized under the sign of either the “white” or “red” internationals, or in the “romanticism” of the modern soul — the reemergence of the messianic “mood” — in its spiritually destructive, frenetic activity, its formless élan vital, in its neurotic restlessness, traversed by the impurest and most sensualistic forms of the “religion of life” or pseudo-spiritualist escapism.

In order to be rigorously anti-Semitic, we must have no recourse to half-measures, to ideas that are themselves contaminated by the evil we wish to combat. We have to be radical. We must invoke values that could really be called ”Aryan,” that are not based on vague and partial concepts suffused with a kind of biological materialism: values of solar and Olympian spirituality, of a classicism of clarity and mastered strength, of a new love for difference and free personality, and, at the same time, for hierarchy and for the universality that a race capable of rising again manfully from just “living” to a “more than life” could create in opposition to a mutilated world, a world without true principles and without peace.

Thus, we find a real reference-point only in an ideal antithesis, free from ethnic prejudice. Semitism, in this way, ends up becoming synonymous with that “subterranean” element that every great civilization — even the Jewish one, in its most ancient, royal phase — subdued in the act of realizing itself as a cosmos against chaos. Even without discussing the problem of the true unitary and prehistoric origin of the “solar” spirituality that formed and animated the Indo-European civilizations — limiting ourselves only to the West, in what we have already stated about the spirit of the civilization of the eastern Mediterranean, about the crisis undergone by the people of Israel, about the connection between the active forces in this crisis with those that disfigured both Egyptian and Doric civilization, and, finally, Roman civilization — in all this we provided sufficient evidence to justify the possibility of an “anti-Semitism” free from bias and partisanship, as part of the battles that must now be fought in the name of the most luminous traditions of our past and, at the same time, for a better spiritual future.

The Klueless Kucks Klan

via Alternative Right

In recent days the Cuckservative meme seems to have taken off, spreading from the covens and enclaves of the alternative right to the underbelly of the mainstream media. But what exactly is the Cuckservative mentality, and can it be defeated simply by the dissemination of a powerful pun and meme?

To answer these questions it is necessary to look more closely at the workings of the basic Conservative/Cuckservative mentality. There are several important factors to consider. These include:
  • White/Non-White asymmetry
  • The internal and the external nature of the threat to Whites
  • False threat consciousness and the tendency to externalize enemies
  • Christianity as a facilitating mechanism
The first point to make is that America (as well as the Greater West) exhibits a strongly asymmetric character, by which I mean that, even though Whites are courting their own ultimate destruction, they remain in a position of near total dominance.

It is obvious that if Whites attained true consciousness there could be no threat to their existence. This would pertain even if they were reduced to 25% of the population in their own homelands. Inherent White characteristics – such as courage, physical strength, altruism, honesty, IQ, innovation, organizational ability, self-sacrifice, etc. – ensure that Whites are a naturally dominant group, especially in clear-cut conflict situations.

Cuck Central: Jeb Bush.
American Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews – even if they were strongly united – would not last the proverbial five minutes in an open conflict with Whites. Even with negative demographic trends, this will remain the situation for the foreseeable future, and well past the point at which Whites become a minority in their main homelands.

But this being said, Whites are slowly but surely losing their position of dominance, and simple projections point to their ultimate extinction. This combination of existential threat and the feebleness of rival groups creates a paradoxical situation with regard to who our real enemies are.

By their raw, competitive interest Non-Whites are our ultimate enemies, but in their present feebleness they are an ill-match for latent White power. Our only possible enemies at the present and for the foreseeable future are (a) other Whites who follow explicitly anti-White creeds – i.e. Liberals – and (b) other Whites who fail to recognize and assert White interests – i.e. Conservatives. The threat to Whites is essentially an internal one that exists in the vast numbers of Whites who remain committed to artificial systems of belief that deny or obscure their interests and which prevent them from protecting them.

It would seem from this unsatisfactory state of affairs that it would be a comparatively easy process to cure the Cuckservative by pointing out these salient facts. But that is seldom the case. This is because the Cuckservative is emotionally unable to face up to the fact that he is the problem and that his real enemy is himself.

This issue of the internal enemy is the essential difference between Alt-Rightists and Old-Rightists.

The GOP's plan for political dominance.
The Alt-Rightist is someone who has effectively purified himself of "unclean," inner contradictions and false moralities, and who has eliminated the internal enemy. He recognizes and expresses his group interests in a way that is characteristic of healthy groups. This is because he is ahead of the curve and is already mentally living in a pessimistic vision of the future, where Whites are a threatened minority. He knows that he can never truly win over "the Other" so his instincts are to polarize, not to embrace.

The Old-Rightist by contrast is defined by a sense of complacency, unjustified optimism, and the deep inner contradictions that come from having internalized the toxic value system of Liberals or Leftists. This has happened because his instincts are to embrace, not polarize.

This internalization of his opponent's views often stems from his Christian belief system, both because of Christianity's inherent Leftism and because of its spirit of compromise and accommodation. In this spirit the Old-Rightist is lured into accepting abstract Liberal premises of "equality," "social justice," and "openness," in an attempt to meet his opponents half-way and in the forlorn hope that they will reciprocate.

For this reason, his real enemy exists deep within himself – the Cuckservative mentality that turns him into a useful idiot, fueled with a litany of lunacies and working for his own ultimate demise.

Human psychology has an inbuilt tendency – from more competitive times – to externalize the idea of the enemy. This tendency persists, even when external enemies are weak and when the real enemy is the one deep within.

For this reason, the Cuckservative develops a false sense of external enemy, choosing one on whom he can safely and ineffectually "project" his inner sense of threat and ultimate sense of danger. Rather than seeing his own contradictory thought processes and lack of true group identity as the main danger and Non-Whites as the ultimate danger, he instead projects his enmity onto that other group of confused Whites, namely Liberals and Leftists, the same group he tries to mistakenly win over by accepting their principles.

"Leftists," "Liberals," and "Democrats" are accordingly blamed for the failure of all other groups to live up to implicitly White Conservative standards. They are the real racists and the real sexists, holding Blacks down and preventing women from achieving their full potential, etc., etc.

In this way the Conservative develops what can be called a "false threat consciousness" that is analogous to the old Marxist trope of a "false class consciousness." But while the "false consciousness" of Marxism was not false, in that the workers were right to reject the Communist Party, the false threat consciousness of the modern Conservative is completely false. He has externalized what is a essentially an internal threat, and any attempt to make him realize this is inevitably interpreted as "proof" of a further attack from his supposed external enemies. This is how many Conservatives have been responding to the Cuckservative meme.

Rather than seeing it as a friendly tap on the shoulder from those sharing his own fundamental group interests, the Cuckservative prefers to see it as an emanation from the Left or even a psy-ops from the camp of Hillary Clinton, aimed at tarring him as an evil "racist" and "sexist," when "everyone knows that it’s the Democrats who are the real racists and sexists..."

Yes, the unmistakable cry of the clueless cuck rings through the forest once again!

Post-Modern Shylock: Paul Singer and the Universality of 'Anti-Semitism'

via The Occidental Observer

Paul Singer
One of the most fundamental positions for White advocates concerned with Jewish influence must be the conviction that antagonism against Jews lies in Jewish behavior rather than solely the cultural pathology or psychological tendencies of non-Jews. A major testing ground for this position is the necessity for anti-Jewish attitudes to be present among geographically, racially, and culturally diverse peoples, and for the reasons behind this antagonism to be fairly uniform. In Separation and Its Discontents Kevin MacDonald argued that a social identity theory of anti-Semitism is highly compatible with supposing that anti-Semitism will be a very common characteristic of human societies in general. Reasons for this pervasiveness lie in Jewish cultural separatism leading to the perception of the Jewish group as an alien entity; inter-group resource and reproductive competition; and finally, the fact that Jews are, for cultural and genetic reasons, highly adept in resource competition against non-Jews. Additionally, Jews are adept at influencing culture and creating and influencing intellectual and political movements which often run contrary to the interests of the host population. Wherever these behaviors and circumstances are present, they contribute to the arousal of hostility in a host population.

Despite overwhelming evidence in support of our position, the vast majority of Jewish historiography and apologetics continue to argue something quite different. Our opponents have successfully disseminated the view that anti-Semitism is a peculiarly Western phenomenon, rooted more or less in a cocktail of evil Christian theology, the implicit frustrations of capitalist society, the despotic nature of the Western family, and even repressed sexual desires. A key aspect of maintaining this narrative has been to downplay non-Western (mainly Muslim) anti-Semitism, or attempt to give it different features. However, as MacDonald has noted, “the remarkable thing about anti-Semitism is that there is an overwhelming similarity in the complaints made about Jews in different places and over very long periods of historical time.”[1] Of the universal themes noted by MacDonald, the theme of resource competition and economic domination is perhaps foremost.

I was moved to reflect on the universality of this theme recently when surveying media coverage on Korean and Argentinian responses to the activities of Paul Singer and his co-ethnic shareholders at Elliot Associates, an arm of Singer’s Elliot Management hedge fund. The Korean story has its origins in the efforts of Samsung’s holding company, Cheil Industries, to buy SamSung C&T, the engineering and construction arm of the wider Samsung family of businesses. The move can be seen as part of an effort to reinforce control of the conglomerate by the founding Lee family and its heir apparent, Lee Jae-Jong. Trouble emerged when Singer’s company, which  holds a 7.12% stake in SamSung C&T and is itself attempting to expand its influence and control of Far East tech companies, objected to the move. The story is fairly typical of Jewish difficulties in penetrating business cultures in the Far East where impenetrable family monopolies, known in Korea as chaebols, are common. This new story reminded me very strongly of last year’s efforts by Jewish financier Daniel Loeb to obtain a board seat at Sony. Loeb was repeatedly rebuffed by COO Kuzuo Hirai, eventually selling his stake in Sony Corp. in frustration.

The predominantly Jewish-owned and operated Elliot Associates has a wealth of self-interest in preventing the Lee family from consolidating its control over the Samsung conglomerate. As racial outsiders, however, Singer’s firm were forced into several tactical measures in their 52-day attempt to thwart the merger. First came lawsuits.  When those failed, Singer and his associates then postured themselves as defending Korean interests, starting a Korean language website and arguing that their position was really just in aid of helping domestic Korean shareholders. This variation on the familiar theme of Jewish crypsis was quite unsuccessful. The Lee family went on the offensive immediately and, unlike many Westerners, were not shy in drawing attention to the Jewish nature of Singer’s interference and the sordid and intensely parasitic nature of his fund’s other ventures.

‘Because of Elliot Associates, Congo suffered even more hardship.’
“Because of Elliot Associates, Congo suffered even more hardship.”

The Lee offensive started with a series of cartoons posted on the Samsung website. Most singled out the manner in which Elliot Associates has enjoyed its remarkable growth by focussing on the purchase of national debts from struggling countries at a fraction of their worth, before using ruthless legal measures to sue those countries for values far exceeding the original debt. On its most basic level, the practice is really just the same as Jewish involvement in medieval tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the peasantry to obtain “considerable surpluses … if need be, by ruthless methods.”[2] The activities of Elliot Associates are really the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in usury is practiced on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with whole nations. The above cartoon refers to the specific activities of Elliot Associates in Congo where it originally bought $32.6 million in sovereign debt incurred by that country for the knockdown price of under $20 million. In 2002 and 2003, a British court (tactically chosen) forced the Congolese government to settle for an estimated $90 million, which included that all-important interest and fees. Elliot Associates rapidly became known as the quintessential “Vulture Fund.”

As I noted in my previous examination of contemporary Jewish usury, Jews have been at the forefront of innovation in debt for many centuries, and remain its most adroit auteurs. Although obviously rooted in centuries of Jewish financial practice, Singer and his co-ethnics (all four equity partners of Elliot are Jewish and its COO is the charmingly-named Zion Shohet), pioneered the finer points of the Vulture Fund concept. The firm was born in 1977 when Singer pooled $1.3 million from family and friends, but it only really took off in October 1995, when Elliott Associates L.P. purchased $28.7 million of Panamanian sovereign debt for the discounted price of $17.5 million. The banks holding those bonds, a group that included heavy hitters like Citi and Credit Suisse, had given up on repayment from Panama. To cut their losses they sold their holdings to Elliott which, like a medieval tax farmer, went in with a heavy hand. When Panama’s government asked for a restructuring of its foreign debt in 1995, the vast majority of its bondholders agreed — apart from Elliott. In July 1996, Elliott Associates, represented by one of the world’s most high-profile securities law firms, filed a lawsuit against Panama in a New York district court seeking full repayment of the original $28.7 million — plus interest and fees. The case made its way from a district court in Manhattan to the New York State Supreme Court, which sided with Elliott. In the end, Panama’s government had to pay the Jewish group over $57 million, with an additional $14 million going to other creditors. Overnight Singer’s group made $40 million, and the people of Panama found their original sovereign debt had more than doubled.

Foreign Policy described the court’s decision as “a groundbreaking moment in the modern history of finance.” By taking the case to a New York district court, Elliott broke with long-standing international law and custom, according to which sovereign governments are not sued in regular courts meant to deal with questions internal to a nation state. Further, the presiding judge accepted the case — another break with custom. It set the stage for two decades of similar parasitism on struggling countries by Elliot Associates, a practice that has reaped billions for Jewish financiers. Just one year after the Panama decision, Singer spent about $11 million on government-backed Peruvian bank debt in 1996. After taking Peru to court in the U.S., U.K., Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, and Canada, the struggling nation finally agreed in 2000 to pay him $58 million. That meant he got better than a 400 percent return. In 2001 Elliot Associates purchased an Argentinian default for $48 million — the face value of that debt today is $630 million. The fund wants repayment for the full value of the debt to all of Argentina’s creditors, as it did in 1995 with Panama. This amounts to $1.5 billion, which could rise to $3 billion including, again, that all-important interests and fees.

The merciless nature of these Jewish vulture funds has provoked some comment, but the general populations of many countries aren’t familiar with enough of the facts to start joining the dots. Nevertheless, this type of financial parasitism has had a devastating impact on a number of nations. A sovereign’s money is technically owned by its citizens. Making the Panamanian, Argentinian, Congolese, Ecuadorian, Polish or Vietnamese government pay for the full value of the debt, plus interest and fees, even as the major creditors accepted a discounted payment, meant handing citizens’ money to a hedge fund rather than investing in, for example, roads, schools, hospitals, clean water projects or social welfare programs. In the aftermath of Elliot’s judgment against Congo, the Congolese were forced to abandon water purification programs leading to widespread dehydration. It was to this context that the Samsung cartoon referred.

"Elliott Management’s representative method of earning money is to buy the national debt of a struggling country cheaply, then insist on taking control as an investor and start a legal suit."
“Elliott Management’s representative method of earning money is to buy the national debt of a struggling country cheaply, then insist on taking control as an investor and start a legal suit.”

Other cartoons appearing at the same time represented Elliot, literally, as humanoid vultures with captions referring to the well-known history of the fund. In the above cartoon, the vulture offers assistance to a needy and destitute figure, but conceals an axe with which to later bludgeon the unsuspecting pauper.

After the cartoons appeared Singer and other influential Jews, including Abraham Foxman, cried anti-Semitism. This was despite the fact the cartoons contain no reference whatsoever to Judaism — unless of course one defines savage economic predation as a Jewish trait. Samsung denied the cartoons were anti-Semitic and took them off the website, but the uproar over the cartoons only seemed to spur on even more discussion about Jewish influence in South Korea than was previously the case. In a piece published a fortnight ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed “Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless.” Last week the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon, expressed his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, “The scary thing about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies. Their network is tight-knit beyond one’s imagination.” The next day, cable news channel YTN aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, who stated on air that “it is a fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born.” It goes without saying that comments like these are unambiguously similar to complaints about Jewish economic practices in Europe over the course of centuries. The only common denominator between the context of fourteenth-century France and the context of twenty first-century South Korea is, you guessed it, Jewish economic practices.

In the end, the Lee strategy, based on drawing attention to the alien and exploitative nature of Elliot Associates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder vote on the Lee’s planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am, said: “We should score a victory by a big margin in the first battle in order take the upper hand in a looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term gains in the domestic market.” When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving Elliot licking its wounds and complaining about the ‘patriotic marketing’ of those behind the merger.

Jewish difficulties in penetrating close-knit Far Eastern monopolies, many of which are open in their belief that Jews are capable and ruthless opponents in business, thus persist. East Asians are seemingly aware that giving Jewish businessmen an inch will normally lead to non-Jews losing a mile. It is this honest grappling with the facts that kept Daniel Loeb off the board at Sony, and prevented Elliot Associates from making even slight gains at Samsung.

The Far East also appears less prone to Jewish moralizing about the “dangers” of anti-Semitism, and one finds that criticism of Jewish behaviors enjoys a considerably higher level of intellectual and cultural respectability. A good example is when Foumiko Kometani won the 1986 Akutagawa award, Japan’s top literary prize, for her novel Passover. Based on her real-life experiences with her Jewish husband and severely retarded bi-racial son, Kometani’s novel was subjected to excoriating criticism from Jewish critics who denounced her unflattering (but presumably quite accurate) depictions of Jewish figures in the book as “anti-Semitic.” Japanese critics, on the other hand, were notably unaffected by negative Jewish press treatment of the book, and found the treatment of Jewish clannishness and “distasteful” religious practices to be enriching qualities which gave the work a greater sense of authenticity and honesty.

Switching our focus to South America, high-profile figures in Argentina have also been accused of pushing “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” for their responses to Elliot’s parasitism. After Singer’s firm won an extortionate judgment against Argentina at the US Supreme Court last year, Argentina President, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, described Singer on her personal website as the “Vulture Lord.” But Jewish power-brokers were left even more aghast at Kirchner’s open denunciation of a “global modus operandi” that “generates international political operations of any type, shape and color.” They “contribute to financial attacks or simultaneous international media operations, or even worse, covert actions of various ‘services’ designed to destabilize governments.”

What Kirchner was referring to was the underlying issue at the heart of Singer’s particularly venomous pursuit of Argentine debt. You see, Argentina has cultivated relations with Iran for a number of decades now, and rumor has it that Kirchner and her foreign minister conspired with Iran to cover up its involvement in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Two years ago Jewish prosecutor Alberto Nisman lobbied the Delegation of Argentine Israeli Associations (Daia) — which represents the country’s Jews — to mount a legal challenge against a memorandum of understanding between Argentina and Iran. Nisman is reported to have told the Delegation that “if necessary, Paul Singer will help us.” Nisman then turned his attention to pursuing Kirchner for the alleged cover-up over the bombing. Argentina thus came under Jewish financial, political, diplomatic and legal attack. In January this year, however, Nisman was found dead with a single bullet wound to the head just hours before he was due to take his final report to Congress. Israelis and diaspora Jews have been crying foul ever since. In retaliation, Kirchner has pointed out that Singer is indeed one of the major funders of The Israel Project (TIP), the most vocal lobby in Washington against diplomacy with Iran. Kirchner argues that Singer’s effort to financially ravage Argentina is merely an extension of denunciations of Argentine-Iranian relations by AIPAC and Mark Dubowitz’s Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Also, by his own admission, Dubowitz was a personal friend of Nisman. Or in Kirchner’s words, “Everything has to do with everything.”

Of course, openly stating that Jews are powerful and work together for financial and political goals breaks one of the most cherished of contemporary taboos. Despite the astonishing level and deeply entwined nature of Jewish wealth and political power on display, I’m guessing the kosher script would have us all believe that what we are observing is just a bunch of coincidences and that Jews are in fact as poor and powerless as the next guy. “It’s a lie,” said Daia’s vice-president Waldo Wolff. “It’s terrible, it’s incredible.” A spokesman for Elliott Management denied the accusations, saying the suggestion “that Mr Singer had any contact whatsoever with Mr Nisman is categorically false. This is just another desperate attempt by Cristina Kirchner to blame creditors for her administration’s multiplying scandals and failed economic policies.” Of course, with reference to the facts outlined above, both Jewish groups are simply lying. Their lies didn’t assist the investigation of the 1994 bombing, with a new prosecutor dismissing all claims against Kirchner in April. Also, Nisman’s murder remains unsolved.

As Singer continues to tighten the screws on Argentina, the nation and its President continue to provoke accusations of “anti-Semitism.” During a July 2 visit to a Buenos Aries school, Kirchner told students that to better understand Argentina’s economic crisis, they should read Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. On Twitter Kirchner recounted how she had asked students she met which Shakespeare play they were studying. When they told the president they were studying Romeo and Juliet, Kirchner said she responded, “I said, ‘Have you read The Merchant of Venice to understand the vulture funds?’ They all laughed. “No, don’t laugh,” I said, “Usury and the bloodsuckers were immortalized by the best literature for centuries.” The Delegation of Argentine Jewish Associations, quickly issued a statement condemning Kirchner’s comments and accused her of having “anti-Semitic” motivations behind her invocation of the play. Abraham Foxman then waddled onto the stage, urging Kirchner to “stop reinforcing anti-Semitic stereotypes.” “We are deeply concerned that President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is once again promoting anti-Semitic stereotypes,” whined Foxman. “The Merchant of Venice — with its nefarious character Shylock — reinforces stereotypes of Jews and presents them as money-hungry, conniving and cruel, and by suggesting students to study this play, she is sending a message to Argentina’s youth that Jews are somehow connected to the economic woes of her country.”

God forbid Argentine youth should ever come to such a view! How unfair that would be when the firm behind its pauperization is so thoroughly staffed by such Anglo-Saxons as Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel.

A final note about the Vulture Fund Jews. As hinted above in relation to their pro-Israel, anti-Iran activities, they are not just financially predatory. As Kirchner has stated, “Everything is connected to everything.” At TOO we are aware of the fact that strongly identifying as Jewish normally involves a great deal of hostility toward the traditions of the European peoples. This has very often led to attempts by powerful Jewish financiers and intellectuals to open our borders to mass immigration and overturn traditional values. I was recently sent a piece from CNBC which highlighted the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage was welcomed by “a perhaps surprising group: conservative hedge fund managers.”

The news might have surprised CNBC, but won’t surprise TOO readers, or indeed anyone remotely familiar with the nature of the Jewish conflict with the West. There is nothing at all genuinely “conservative” about these people. The hedge fund managers included Dan Loeb, who failed to get the board seat at Sony, Paul Singer, Steve Cohen of Point72 Asset Management and Cliff Asness of AQR Capital Management. All have been vocal in disapproving of President Barack Obama, mainly for his diplomacy with Iran, but all have worked for years in support of gay marriage. “It’s a gratifying day for equality under the law,” Asness said after the Supreme Court ruling. “We’re pleased with the Court’s ruling because we believe in social justice for all Americans and hope this serves as a catalyst for global change,” added Cohen. Singer created American Unity PAC in 2012 to support the cause, and plowed $11 million into making gay marriage a reality. Other donors to American Unity PAC included Loeb, Asness, Seth Klarman of Baupost Group, and David Tepper of Appaloosa Management.  According to CNBC, Loeb, Cohen, Singer and other Jewish debt speculators helped to successfully push the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York in 2011. And backers of non-profit Freedom to Marry included Loeb, Klarman, Singer and Asness. So in case you’re wondering where a lot of that plundered international cash went, I can tell you that it ended up in places like the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and in myriad efforts to deconstruct the traditional fabric of your society (while still being called “conservative” by MSNBC).

“Anti-Semitism” isn’t a peculiarly Western phenomenon. Nor is it a Korean phenomenon, or an Argentine phenomenon. It is a Jewish phenomenon, and it has followed the Jewish people through the centuries and across the oceans. As long as Jews remain unchanged, so too will the response to them remain unchanged. Efforts to ameliorate “anti-Semitism” through vacuous appeals that it has its origins in sexual repression, Christianity, or family structure may succeed in a West which has grown fat, lazy, navel-gazing and maudlin, and is inundated by pro-Jewish propaganda in the media and educational system. But elsewhere on this Earth such Talmudic theorizing doesn’t go far. The inscrutable Asian will smile and nod at the Hebrew mogul, while patiently and knowingly keeping him from taking a seat or position in his financial affairs. Those in the Second or Third World, at the sharp end of Jewish usury, will remain unconvinced by the pious weeping of the perennial “victim” of world oppression who, paradoxically, possesses the whip hand over them. When the flagship of the Argentinian Navy was seized and detained in Ghana back in 2012 on the say-so of Paul Singer, there was no doubting the level of power that had now been attained by Jewish finance.


Western youth today are engaged in squeezing itself into skinny jeans and protesting on behalf of African and Mexican invaders. While this pampered generation sips on artisanal coffee, and parades its empathy with alien criminals and a multitude of “trans” aberrations of nature, it remains ignorantly unaware that a cabal of vultures circles above them, just waiting for a fateful slip of their national economies. The U.S. government, it has been said, has made a point of siding with Argentina in its conflict with Elliot Management — the reason being that there are fears in Washington that it too may one day end up under the vulture’s talons.

The man on the street will deny the existence of such a threat, but we know it to be an empirically observable and documented fact. We can only hope for, and work towards, a time when our people will awaken, and allow us to secure a future for our children before it is too late.


[1] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, (First Paperpack Edition,2004), 38.
[2] S. Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.

Getting Cuckservative Wrong

via Radix

Charles Johnson has described himself as a “radical” and “revolutionary,” who is going to “enthusiastically burn down the entire political establishment for fun.” (Johnson’s Twitter account was suspended (unjustly, in my opinion), but I presume that he has been quoted accurately.) Johnson is the author of the inflammatory screed Why Coolidge Matters: Leadership Lessons from America’s Most Underrated President. How the Establishment survived the publication of that one is anyone’s guess. 

His recent article in Takimag ostensibly promotes the #cuckservative meme . . . which is good . . . but it is mainly devoted to talking about his awesome exploits breaking news stories.

#Cuckservative is, put simply, important: it has gotten under the skin of our enemies and has become a harbinger for something beyond conservatism. Thus, it is important that we get it right—and not allow the meme to be turned into just another synonym for “liberal,” which is basically what Johnson is doing in his article.
According to Johnson,
“Cuckservative” isn’t about race but about how much power you allow the word “racist” to have over you.
Let’s stop the tape there.

Yes, yes, a “racist” is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal . . . but haven’t we moved past that?

I defined the “cucks” this way for the Washington Post:
It is the cuckold who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, loses control of his future. This is an apt psychological portrait of white “conservatives,” whose only identity is comprised of vague, abstract “values,” and who are participating in the displacement of European Americans — their own children.
Jared Taylor recently wrote,
American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.
In other words, the #cuckservative meme doesn’t make any sense without race. It’s all about race. But according to Johnson . . .
It’s about the fake, phony conservatives who enjoy watching the real fighters on the right get sodomized while they gleefully gawk. They crave respectability over power and the limelight over influence. Seldom paid for their performances on Fox News or MSNBC, they repeat conventional wisdom after getting gussied up—but you can’t polish a soul.
In his mind, the problem is those pampered elites at National Review, who don’t support Johnson’s fearlessly inaccurate attacks on liberal journalists.

What we're left with is the familiar mock battle, which we’ve been rehearsing for the past 50 years, between “true conservatives” and “the Eastern establishment.” (In other words, Johnson’s #cuckservative is a meme that Robert Stacy McCain could love.)

Again, what’s powerful about #cuckservative is that it is call for a racially conscious politics—and not the kind of shot-gun spray muckraking that Johnson specializes in. David Frum was right when he observed that there is an emptiness at the heart of this kind of “conservatism,” which was pioneered by the late Andrew Breitbart, Johnson’s model:
[Breitbart] waged a culture war minus the “culture,” as a pure struggle between personalities.
That said, in Johnson’s wrong-headedness, he inadvertently raises an interesting question:
I’ve had more than a few brushes with the cuckservatives of my day, from National Review’s Jonah Goldberg to Commentary’s John Podhoretz.
No doubt, many grinned with glee to see bête noirs like Goldberg and Podhoretz tarred with the cuck slur. But these men are both neocons. And so it’s worth asking—Are neocons cuckservatives?

My answer is no. To the contrary, the neocons excelled at cucking conservatives.

Neoconservatism is a fascinating movement that is worth studying, not only by those interested in Jewish intellectual history but by those who seek to learn from a successful strategy of “entryism.”

The neocon soul, it seems, is torn between three poles: first, Israel and Jewish nationalism; second, global democratic messianism; and finally a kind of American nationalism, which was honed during the Cold War. We can see this in the schizoid mentality of neocons and their conservative allies during the George W. Bush years. They wanted to blow up Muslims in order to protect Israel . . . but then convert their flaming corpses to democracy and the free market . . . and also tell the faggots at the UN to take a hike.

One of my favorite post-9/11 articles from a Gentile zealot of the neocons’ cause was written by Ann Coulter:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
Whatever tension and ambivalence there might be in the neocon mentality, neocons were successful at 1) fighting for the future of their people; 2) manipulating Gentiles into fighting for the future of the neocons’ people—even to the point of fighting wars that were detrimental to the interests of Gentiles. The neocons accomplished the latter by controlling institutions, like the Republican Party and “conservative movement,” and, to a degree not fully appreciated, appealing to messianic and Christian instincts within American Whites.

In this way, cuckservatives are mostly White Gentiles of the Baby Boom generation. They are the former allies/cucks of the neocons. They are the residue of the Bush administration . . . that’s still hanging around.

If we are to move forward, the cucks must go. Thus, they should be attacked. But it is extremely important that we attack them in the right way.

Allowing #cuckservative to be commandeered by conservatives would be a disaster.

Jon Stewart’s Secret Meetings with Obama Demonstrate His Important Role in Promoting the Jewish Agenda


Recent revelations that The Daily Show host Jon Stewart made two secret visits to the Oval Office to meet with President Obama come as no surprise to me. The Daily Show is one of the very few television shows I have watched over the past several years, and although I was willing to consider that I therefore over-estimated its importance, I still considered Jon Stewart extremely influential.
. . . [this] article . . . written by the very Jewish-looking Darren Samuelsohn of Politico, lauds Stewart for what Samuelsohn says were Stewart’s leading role in getting better medical care for 9-11 first responders and military veterans, which if true would be meaningful accomplishments. But I have seen Stewart’s influence elsewhere, and not always working for such benign causes. I see Stewart more than anyone else has the driving force behind the shift in public opinion behind gay marriage. And I don’t think he did this through a reasoned presentation of information and arguments. His show basically engaged in simplistic sloganeering, casting the “debate” as one between open-minded proponents of equal rights versus blind adherents to religious dogma. In this way, he set the sides of the debate and helped stifle any real discussion of the implications of such a fundamental change in the structure of society based in scientific research.

Another massive influence he had was on the mainstreaming of obscenity. Stewart’s show makes extremely liberal use of the bleeper, always carefully placed to keep the first and last letters of the obscene word in tact just in case someone might not be able to judge from the context just what word he was using. He also pushed the envelop on refraining from bleeping. Many of George Carlyn’s seven words you can’t say on TV were in fact often not bleeped, if they were used in a particular context. While Stewart does not deserve all the blame, he was definitely a leader. I recently was horrified to see the same bleeping techniques used in a Hyundai commercial on a prime time baseball broadcast.

Of Stewart’s two visits to the Oval Office, the second one in February 2014 deserves particular note. The article below reports that just hours after the meeting Obama went on national television with stark threats against Russia, and that evening Stewart’s show vilified Vladimir Putin. February 2014, of course, was the month in which Zio Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered the violent overthrow of the elected president of Ukraine and replaced him with a Jewish Prime Minister and President.

While Stewart could be funny and occasionally speak forcefully against Zio outrages like the Iraq War and the Fed bailout of Goldman Sachs, he still must be viewed as an extremely effective champion of the Jewish agenda. He pushed homosexuality, obscenity, pornography, and drug use while he vilified Russia, Iran, and in a more subtle way Israel’s Arab rivals. Even his outrage at the Fed bailout of Goldman Sacks can be seen as helping to keep the public from viewing the tribal nature of the financial meltdown and subsequent bailout.

Stewart will be leaving The Daily Show at the end of next week, but don’t think we have heard the last of him.

Cuckservatives: The New Fad

via EGI Notes

So, mid-summer 2015 is the time of the "cuckservative" fad, the newest "movement" paradigm leaving all and sundry breathless and depleted.  I will say though that I essentially approve of the term.  Ridicule is a powerful weapon, usually ignored by the stuffy Right and instead constantly wielded with efficacy by the Left.  The fact that the System is getting all hysterical about the term cuckservative is evidence that this term is effective and is hitting the mark.
But to avoid being the latest "movement" fad, it needs to have staying power. In the short-term, those who use the term need to ignore System counter-attacks. In the long term - what happens when the novelty of the cuckservative slur wears off, and the Beavis-and-Butthead elements in the "movement" get bored and wander off to play with some shiny new toy?  It is then that more mature elements must keep on hammering away with the cuckservative meme. The goal is to get the term cuckservative to become a permanent part of the American political vocabulary - so that when folks see the likes of a Jeb Bush, their first thought is a disgusted: "he's a cuckservative."  Indeed, in 2016 and beyond, the term needs to be used; one can hope that as Jeb campaigns he is confronted with signs labelling him as a cuckservative, that he hears the joyful heckling that utilizes the cuckservative term with justified fervor.
Further, the meme should go further: anyone who votes for, and/or otherwise supports, a cuckservative is a cuckservative themselves.  That should be the "scarlet letter" of conservative politics. And if the 2016 election boils down to a cuckservative vs. Hillary, the Right must not follow the usual script of "let's rally around the viciously anti-White Republican to beat the viciously anti-White Democrat." No, that must end. For godssakes, we've reached a point at which the socialist Jew liberal Democrat Bernie Sanders is farther to the right on immigration than most of the so-called "conservative Republican" candidates. So, use the term cuckservative throughout the entire campaign, and beyond.

Two more points:

First, this episode shows that the "thin membrane" separating far-Right groupuscules and the System can be breached, with far-Right memes "infecting" public discourse if done correctly. Griffin must be horrified.
Second, when the cuckservatives cry that "the racists" are not like us, they have, in part, a point. The "movement" can be divided between the conservative moderates (which includes peripheral groups like System paleoconservatives, Gamesters, and anti-WN HBDers) and the radicals. The former group - the Buchanan, Taylor, Francis, Auster, Sailer, Derbyshire (*) - do form a continuum with conservatism, but the latter group - including national socialists and other anti-conservative elements - do not. The radicals do need to continuously underscore their complete differentiation from conservatism, whether genuine conservatism or the cuckservative variants.
*Although the HBDers can be viewed as cuckservatives themselves, valuing Jews and Asians over Whites and, in some cases, engaging in miscegenation.

Black Voodoo Kills, White Faith Restores

via Cambria Will Not Yield

“Imray is back,” said Strickland. “The question is, who killed Imray?”Kipling 

With the possible exception of Russia, liberals hold the reins of power in every white nation even though they do not constitute the majority of whites in those nations. The majority of whites are grazers who support the liberals’ rule but do not have quite the same worldview as the liberals. For instance – the liberals hate the white race with all their heart, mind, and soul, while the grazers love the white race as part of the great universal race of mankind. They truly believe there is no such thing as race. The members of the English Defense League and American conservatives are perfect examples of white grazers who facilitate the extermination of whites by their support of liberalism. but who are not officially in favor of it.

The white gazer has had his reality-genes removed from his body. He is so used to the universalist pap slung at him by the churches and the universities that he is incapable of declaring that “the Emperor has no clothes.” The liberals’ empire stays intact, because the white grazer cannot see that the reality of life points us away from the racial universalism of a Coca-Cola commercial and toward the racial provincialism of Nathan Bedford Forrest. The consequence of the grazers’ racial blindness has been the triumph of Babylon in the formerly white nations.

Rudyard Kipling once wrote a short story called “The Recrudescence of Imray.” In that story, a kindly British officer makes the mistake of telling his loyal colored servant that his child is a handsome child. Ten days later, the child dies of a fever.
“Walking among us, his servants, he cast his eyes upon my child, who was four years old. Him he bewitched, and in ten days he died of the fever. My child!”
“What said Imray Sahib?”
“He said he was a handsome child, and patted him on the head; wherefore my child died. Wherefore I killed Imray Sahib in the twilight, when he came back from office and was sleeping. The heaven-born knows all things. I am the servant of the heaven-born.”
Strickland looked at me above the rifle, and said, in the vernacular: “Thou art witness to this saying. He has killed.”
Bahadur Khan stood ashen grey in the light of the one lamp. The need for justification came upon him very swiftly.
“I am trapped,” he said, “but the offence was that man’s. He cast an evil eye upon my child, and I killed and hid him. Only such as are served by devils,” he glared at Tietjens, crouched stolidly before him, “only such could know what I did.”
“It was clever. But thou shouldst have lashed him to the beam with a rope. Now, thou thyself wilt hang by a rope. Orderly!”
You can just dismiss Kipling’s story as a racist fairytale, as the liberals and the grazers do, or you can attempt to deal with the reality of Kipling’s story. And the reality is that the black race will never be able to coexist with the white race, unless they co-exist as completely segregated races with the white race as the dominant race. The reason for the incompatibility of the black and the white is to be found at the mystical core of the different races. Black mysticism is focused on superstition and magic; their deities prefer sacrifice to mercy. The black tribesmen propitiate their gods in order to get something from them, they do not love their gods; it is alien to their nature. And since it is not in their nature to love their gods, it is also not in their nature to love their fellow men. Men, like gods, exist for what they can get from them.

The white man is still regarded by blacks as a magical being, just as Imray was, the only difference between now and then is that white grazers no longer view blacks with the careful eye that Strickland viewed them with. The grazers have all become Imrays; they see blacks as pigmented whites who will respond to kindness just as whites respond to kindness and who will respond to cruelty and brutality just as whites respond to cruelty and brutality. Such a view of blacks, that they are merely black white men, has brought the white race to the verge of extinction. The liberals constantly tell the grazers that the whites have been terribly mean to blacks. The grazers believe the liberals, and they try to be extra kind to the blacks so they will be grateful for the kindness and treat the grazers well. But of course blacks do not understand kindness; they view it as weakness. Nor do they believe that the white man has ever done anything for black people. Blacks believe that whatever evil befalls them, even if there is no evidence of white culpability or white involvement in that evil, is the fault of the white man. Somehow the white man has magically harmed the black even when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest white guilt. Whites are evil sorcerers and conjurors, and blacks should kill evil sorcerers whenever possible. It is possible more than ever now for reasons the black man can’t quite grasp. But he sees the power of the sorcerers lessening, and he kills them with impunity, while the grazers respond with more kindness. After all, no black would kill if all whites were kind. Such is the wisdom of the grazers, which they have been spoon-fed by the liberals.

We must ask why the grazers feel they must listen to the liberals. The obvious reason is that the liberals are in power in church and state, and the grazers respect the powerful. But the liberals could not maintain power without a moral rationale, because the white man, unlike the colored tribesman, must have a moral ethos with his religion.

The liberals’ moral ethos is their racial universalism. They are not racists; therefore, they are morally superior to all Europeans who came before them. And the grazers accept the liberals’ Apologia Pro Liberalism based on that one central point – the liberals are not racist and anyone who opposes them is racist. But by accepting racial universalism as the litmus test of morality, haven’t the grazers turned themselves over to Satan? Why should post-Christian liberals have a right to rule? The recent Planned Parenthood tape in which PP employees were filmed in the midst of bartering the body parts of aborted babies is a perfect example of the absolute, satanic evil of liberalism. I hear pro-choice conservatives saying that now Planned Parenthood has gone too far. Why is now too far? Why is it okay to kill babies, but not okay to sell their body parts? The reason rests with the white man’s past: because the white man was once Christian he must couch his post-Christian evil in moral terms. It is much easier to justify baby killing with liberal platitudes such as ‘pro-choice’ and ‘a woman’s right to choose,’ if the baby killers do not sell the babies’ body parts after they slaughter them. Montezuma ate the hearts of little babies, and the liberals sell their body parts, thus the white techno-barbarian and the colored barbarian are united in their Satanism. And yet the grazer is united to the liberal, because the liberal is not racist. Of course the liberal is not racist; the colored races won’t condemn him for his satanic lust for human flesh and perverted sex because such is the ethos of the colored tribesmen as well.

When the white, pagan nationalists frame the white vs. colored argument in terms of “I’ll respect your culture if you respect mine,” they make a grave error. There has only ever been one culture worthy of respect, and that is the white, Christian culture of old Europe. If a white man truly respects the colored heathens’ cultures and thinks he can grant them equal rights, he has given his own people their death warrants. The barbarians of color do not seek co-existence and mutual understanding, they want to conquer. Nor can the white Christian seek to be part of Liberaldom. The liberals want to destroy everything white and Christian. How can a white man co-exist with such people? And why would he want to co-exist with inhuman ghouls who kill babies and then sell their body parts on the open market? Christians do not kill indiscriminately like that man in South Carolina, but they do kill in defense of the weak and the helpless. Should Planned Parenthood and their abortion doctors, and every colored heathen who spills the blood of white innocents, be allowed to slaughter with impunity? Almighty God, forbid it. And the day may come – we cannot see God’s grace working in human souls – when the liberal, techno-barbarians and the colored barbarians face a foe who fights in the name of the God of mercy against the Babylonian gods of sacrifice.

The church men are fond of telling us that God does not need the Europeans. Well, He doesn’t need them in order to exist, but hasn’t He chosen to reveal Himself through human channels of grace? If we discard the image of Christ that we see in the collective face of the Christian Europeans — and we have discarded that image — then to whom do we turn to see the image of Christ? The church scholars say we should turn to them. The negro worshippers tell us to look to the negro and the other colored tribesmen. But aren’t we reaping the bloody harvest of such anti-Europeanism? The 20th century was the century when the Europeans abandoned God for technology and the negro ‘Noble Savage.’ What a grand century it was. And now, in the 21st century, a century in which Satan has been installed as the Europeans’ supreme ruler, we have seen a new age of light, haven’t we? No eleventh hour political movement will impede the onward march of Satan and his minions, because it is well past the eleventh hour. We have been plunged into the darkness of Babylon, where the ghosts of aborted, dismembered babies and the mutilated white victims of black savagery ask us why we did nothing to defend them. Our “racist” ancestors would have fought for them. The restoration of faith, hope, and charity in European lands starts at the racist core of our European soul. Only a white racist loves his own enough to fight for them. And only a white racist loves the image of God in man, an image he sees in the face of the antique Europeans, enough to make that discarded image of the one true God the cornerstone of a new Europe, built over the ruins of Babylon. To rage against the dying of His light in His people is the European’s defiant answer to the Babylonian rulers of Liberaldom.