The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Brenton Sanderson Archive
Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Jewish engagement with evolutionary theory is an important dimension of modern Jewish history and thought. While Jewish leaders and intellectuals have used the science of evolution to bolster notions of Jewish identity, they have also confronted and (often fiercely resisted) the use of evolutionary theory to conceptualize conflict between Jews and non-Jews. Published in 2006, Geoffrey Cantor’s Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, by Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, explores the ways Jews – singly and communally – have engaged evolutionary thought in a variety of historical contexts, and the role it has played in modern Jewish history. A central focus of the book is exploring how evolutionary ideas have been deployed, by Jews and others, in the domains of race, anti-Semitism, and Zionism, and the recurrent use over the last century and a half of evolutionary ideas to characterize Jews.

ORDER IT NOW

Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) postulated natural selection as the driving force for biological evolution: that individuals in any species show a diversity of inherited characteristics and compete for the scarce resources needed to survive and reproduce. If certain characteristics benefit them in that competition, these are more likely to be passed on to the next generation and, consequently, the species will evolve over time. By the time Darwin’s book was published the transformation of species was a familiar theme, but Darwin was the first to publicly explicate the precise mechanism. While socialists and communists soon deployed Darwinian evolution in their antireligious polemics, it also attracted conservative and nationalistic thinkers. Darwin’s theory could, for example, be seen to justify unfettered capitalism. Indeed, the centrality of competition in the process of natural selection raised a host of moral issues for a Christian West. The advent of Darwinism also spawned a new way of conceptualizing race and racial competition.

Pre-Darwinian Racial Thinking

European racial thinking long predated Darwin’s famous book. The European colonial expansion from the seventeenth century saw naturalists and philosophers engaged with classifying and characterizing the different peoples they encountered. While French intellectual Jean-Jacques Rousseau enthused about the nobility of the savage, the more typical response was to “emphasize the vast differences between primitive peoples and the Enlightened Europeans with their developed intellects, civilized societies, and refined manners.”[1]Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 89. Pre-Darwinian thinking about race in Europe culminated in books like The Races of Man (1850) by Scottish surgeon, anatomist and anthropologist Robert Knox who stated “as simply a fact” that “race in human affairs is everything: literature, science, art, in a word, civilization, depend on it.”[2]Robert Knox, 1850, The Races of Man (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 1850), xi.The most advanced races were, he asserted, the Germans, the Saxons, and the Celts; the least were the dark races of the Earth. He considered Jews, who he designated a separate race, “sterile parasites” with peculiar physical features often including a “large, massive club-shaped, hooked nose, three or four times larger than suits the face.”[3]Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 90.

Title page of The Races of Man (1850) by Robert Knox
Title page of The Races of Man (1850) by Robert Knox

Though Knox’s book is now almost completely forgotten, it was widely admired at the time, by Charles Darwin among others, and exerted significant popular influence. Knox was pessimistic about British imperial ambitions of civilizing the world: the dark races were, he contended, congenitally incapable of being civilized, and a racially mixed population would only lead to the degeneration of the more intelligent racial party to the admixture as a product of miscegenation. While Darwin avoided explicitly addressing human evolution in The Origin of Species, his implicit views were apparent to many readers, and were later made explicit in The Descent of Man (1871). While embracing a monogenist conception of human evolution (that all races could be traced to a common ancestor), Darwin believed that the races were unequal and locked in a struggle for existence.

Darwin deployed traditional hierarchical notions in placing the “savages” closest to the primates and the civilized Europeans at the top. Moreover, he conceived an overall historical progress – mental, moral, and to some extent biological – from the savage to the civilized state. While acknowledging the superiority of the European races, he also on occasions conceived the various races as locked in a struggle with each other.[4]Ibid., 91.
(Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 90.)

Darwinian Theory was particularly embraced by scientists and intellectuals in Germany, where its main popularizer in the 1860s was the philosopher Ernst Haeckel. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the life sciences in Germany (and throughout the West) became firmly established on materialist assumptions, and the evolutionary perspective significantly shaped social and political thought. Prominence was given by social Darwinians and eugenicists to the inborn, hereditary element of Volk and race in contrast to elements that were culturally acquired.

Darwinian biologists in Germany increasingly stressed racial competition as a form of the human struggle for existence. The anthropologist Ludwig Woltmann, for instance, posited race as the driving force behind all historical development, noting “the same process of natural selection in the struggle for existence dominates the origin, evolution, and destruction of the human races.”[5]Richard Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 106. Prominent Jewish sociologist at the University of Graz, Ludwig Gumplowicz, proposed in his 1883 book Der Rassenkampf (Racial Struggle) that history was dominated by the Darwinian struggle for existence between the races. History, he asserted, is “the eternal lust for exploitation and dominance of the stronger and superior. The racial struggle for dominion in all its forms, in the open and violent, as well as latent and peaceful, is the essential driving principle, the moving force of history.”[6]Ibid., 101.
(Richard Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 106.)

Darwinism and the Jewish Question

Michael Ruse notes that “in the years after the Origin, the Jewish Question became something of immediate urgency to the Victorians,” and from the 1860s, German intellectuals in particular applied Darwinian principles to the issue, identifying Jews as a distinct race locked in a struggle for existence with other races.[7]Michael Ruse, Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016) 140. After Napoleon lifted most legal restrictions on Jews in the German territories in 1806, the native population was confronted for the first time with the social and economic effects of unfettered Semitism. Before 1806, Germans and Jews had limited contact in society. This changed throughout the nineteenth century as the urban Jewish population surged: between 1811 and 1875, Berlin’s Jewish population increased by a factor of fourteen. Constant discussion of the Judenfrage was triggered not just by their growing numbers and rapid economic advancement, but the social strife that accompanied the Jewish penetration and eventual domination of mainstream German society . Post-emancipation, “Jews were regarded less as adherents of an alien, barbaric faith and more as members of a secular socioeconomic group that disproportionately profited from modern life.”[8]Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 3. By the late nineteenth century, Jews “controlled virtually all the major banks in Vienna and a considerable portion of local industry” a development which produced in the native population “a sense of danger and of being overwhelmed.” Generalized anxiety condensed into the charge that “nothing was sacred” to the Jews.[9]Quoted in: Stuart K. Hayashi, Hunting Down Social Darwinism (KY: Lexington Books, 2015), 163.

The native population sensed Jews were not just a religious community but an endogamous ethnic group that had adopted a highly successful group survival strategy. Weikart notes that, in the eyes of many Germans, “Jews posed the greatest and most immediate threat in this competition to the death.”[10]Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 94. Wilhelm Marr invoked Social Darwinian principles in his 1879 pamphlet Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum (The Triumph of the Jews over the Germans), conceptualizing the Jewish Question along Darwinian lines as not a religious, but a racial or biological problem. In the past religion had merely served as an excuse, but the real conflict, Marr contended, was the “the fight of peoples (Volker) and their instincts against the actual Judaizing (Verjudung) of society, as a struggle for existence.”[11]Ibid., 102.
(Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 94.)
For Marr, neither Jews nor Germans were morally responsible for the struggle between them, since it was the result of ineluctable biological processes. As such, he advised his fellow Germans not to hate the Jews, just as they do not hate individual enemy soldiers in wars: “The struggle between peoples (Völkerkampf) must be fought without hatred against the individuals, who are compelled to attack, as well as to defend themselves.”[12]Ibid., 103.
(Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 94.)
Marr’s monograph struck a chord with readers, passing through twelve editions in its first year.

Wilhelm Marr
Wilhelm Marr

German philosopher Eugen Dühring observed that the mental and moral traits of the Jews were themselves the fruits of this evolutionary struggle for existence, and that cultural patterns are simply a reflection of biological character. French anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge concurred, describing Jews as an ethnic group “founded upon religion and with a psychic identity forged over centuries of selection. They were everywhere the same: intelligent, ruthless, gifted money-makers, arrogant in success and servile in defeat, and congenitally odious, as evinced by their history of persecution, which antedated the birth of Christ by several centuries.”[13]Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 197. For Dühring, evolution was so gradual no significant change to the Jewish psychological makeup could occur in the foreseeable future – thus the Jewish Question would remain an intractable social problem.

Moses Hess, the Jewish philosopher and pioneering Zionist, also conceived the Jewish Question as a racial problem, rather than one about equal rights for a religious sect. The true historical essence of Jewishness was its biological racial roots. Like Theodor Herzl, Hess concluded that a national homeland in Palestine – rather than assimilation – was the proper resolution of the Jewish Question.[14]Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138. In 1862 he published Rom und Jerusalem: die letze Nationalitätsfrage (1862, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism), in which he claimed that “Jews are primarily a race that, in spite of all the influences of climate, adapted to all situations and maintained its integrity.”

The Jewish race [claimed Hess] is one of the primary races of mankind that has retained its integrity, in spite of the continual change of its climatic environment, and the Jewish type has conserved its purity through the centuries. The Jewish race, which was so pressed and almost destroyed by the many nations of antiquity, would have disappeared long ago in the sea of Indo-Germanic nations, had it not been endowed with the gift of retaining its peculiar type under all circumstances and reproducing it.[15]Ibid.
(Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138.)

Perhaps the best-known instance of a volkisch manifesto in the history of Zionism was Martin Buber’s 1911 essay “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics”: a celebration of blood as the paramount essence of Jewish identity. Buber argued the Western Jew was rootless, that the languages and customs of his European hosts were alien to his essential being – having not stemmed from his “community of blood” (Gemeinschaft seines Blutes). Nevertheless, Jews retained an “autonomous reality” beyond mere geopolitical continuity with the past which “does not leave us at any hour in our life. … [B]lood [is] the deepest, most potent stratum of our being.” When he envisions the line of ancestors that led to him, the Jew, Buber declared, perceives “what confluence of blood has produced him …. He senses in this immortality of the generations a community of blood.”[16]Ibid., 142.
(Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138.)

Martin Buber
Martin Buber

The radical Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880–1940) likewise insisted the source of Jewish national feeling should be sought “in the blood…. The feeling of national identity is ingrained in the man’s ‘blood,’ in the physical-racial type, and in it only.”[17]Ibid., 143.
(Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138.)
In 1931, Jewish anthropologist Arthur Ruppin joined the Zionist movement and lobbied for the “right of the Jews to come to Palestine not on some ‘political’ agreement and concession, but on their historical and racial connection to Palestine.”[18]Ibid., 146.
(Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138.)
This remains an argument used by Zionist activists today: Australian Jewish leader Peter Wertheim, for example, slams as a “disgraceful falsehood” any claim Jews displaced Palestinians from their land on the basis that Jews “are indigenous to the Holy Land.” With such claims in mind, Falk notes that “Zionism and race are as intertwined today as they were a century ago.”[19]Ibid., 162.
(Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138.)

Accepting that Jews were a distinct race and (implicitly) that Judaism was a group evolutionary strategy, Jewish anthropologists, statisticians, and physicians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries conducted research and published papers on race and the Jewish Question to bolster their views on the place of Jews in modern society. Weindling points out how “Jewish race science texts” from this time created “a new, ‘scientific’ paradigm and agenda of Jewish self-definition and self-perception.”[20]Paul Weindling, “The Evolution of Jewish Identity: Ignaz Zollschan between Jewish and Aryan Race Theories, 1910-1945,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 119.By the turn of the century, the idea of finding a common index for the Jewish race “proved attractive not only to anti-Semites but also to promoters of secular Jewish identity.” Jewish scientists and intellectuals “drew from a range of available ideas, such as Darwinian natural selection, the ‘struggle for existence’ among individuals and social groups, Mendelian genetics, and the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.”[21]Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 14. The prominent Zionist author Max Nordau considered Darwinism an integral component of his scientific worldview.

Zionist Eugenics

Notions of race and racial competition pervaded Zionist thinking in the early to mid-twentieth century, a time when “volkisch conceptions were firmly established among Zionist intellectuals.”[B1]Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 143. Raphael Falk notes how “Zionist writers appealed to biological conceptions of race and nation and displayed an awareness of their responsibility not only to serve this biologically circumscribed ethnic group but also to propagate and improve it.”[B2]Ibid., 138-9.
(Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 143.)
Many Zionists viewed evolutionary theory “as a conceptual framework for understanding the detrimental effects of Diaspora life and argued for the positive benefits that would accrue to Jews in Palestine.” Weikart observes that many “Jewish physicians, feminists and sexual reformers embraced eugenics,” and that leading Jewish anthropologists “embraced scientific racism” in the early twentieth century.”[B3]Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 107.

Several leading Jewish physicians and educators became flag bearers of a campaign to promote the eugenic aspects of Zionism. In 1922, the Zionist physician Mordechai Bruchov emphasized that: “In the struggle of nations, in the clandestine ‘cultural’ struggle of one nation with another, the one wins who provides for the improvement of the race, to the benefit of the biological value of the progeny.”[B4]Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 151. Parental guidance articles and books published in Palestine from the 1920s emphasized “the purity of the race and the quality of children required to improve the nation,” which “subsequently shifted to the need to increase the birthrate in order to catch up with the high birthrate of the neighboring nations.”[B5]Ibid., 152.
(Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 151.)
Jewish biologist Fritz S. Bodenheimer (1897–1959), the son of one of Theodor Herzl’s closest allies, likewise stressed “the external threat posed by the faster reproductive rate of the Arab population.”[B6]Ibid., 154.
(Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 151.)
Child care in Israel has long been conceived “as part of a national project” where “every mother who raised her child in Israel, in the past and at present, is conscious that this is not only her personal task, but rather a national task the climax of which – at the age of eighteen – is the recruitment of the Zionist baby to the nation’s army.”[B7]Ibid., 152-53.
(Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 151.)

Jewish Attitudes to Darwinism after the Advent of National Socialism in Germany

The ascent of the National Socialists to power in Germany in 1933 “had a profound impact” on Jewish thought and speech regarding evolution and race. Concluding that hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory was antithetical to their ethnic interests, many diasporic Jews publicly abandoned previously espoused racialist beliefs grounded in evolutionary theory, and worked to discredit that the concept of race among biologists and social scientists. Cantor and Swetlitz note how “social and cultural explanations became prominent in the social sciences, where Jews continued to work in large numbers.”[B8]Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 15. The overthrow of hierarchic Darwinian racial theory was, as Kevin MacDonald explains in Culture of Critique, a campaign by Jewish activists that had nothing to do with real science, with the “shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences” resulting from “an ideological shift rather than the emergence of any new empirical data.”[B9]Kevin MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: 1st Books, 2001), 20. For strongly committed Jews, truth takes a back seat to ethnic interests.

A chapter is devoted to Jewish anthropologist Ignaz Zollschan (1877–1948), who exemplifies this shift. A leading early Jewish advocate for Darwinian race science, he changed his public views “in response the threat posed by Nazi race theory,” and emerged “as a political activist who helped to orchestrate international opposition to Nazi ideology.”[B10]Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 91. Zollschan worried that by embracing racialist beliefs informed by Darwinian evolution, “Zionists were playing into the hands of anti-Semites, who had long demanded special laws for Jews. In effect this was throwing the Jew back into the ghetto.”[B11]Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124. In the 1920 and 1930s:

Zollschan was alert to the dangers of eugenics and increased his opposition to eugenics and to anti-Semitic racism. In 1925 he visited the Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas in New York to collaborate on X-ray investigations into the various races, having supported the use of X-rays to eradicate favus (a chronic skin infection) among East European Jewish children. Boas, who stressed culture over biology, convened a committee at Columbia University that addressed human anatomical and psychological characteristics with the aim of refuting racist prejudice. Zollschan subsequently used a memorandum drawn up by Boas in 1926 as a basis for intensified lobbying of leading intellectuals in Europe to refute anti-Semitic racism.[B12]Ibid., 124-5.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)

Zollschan advocated a twofold Jewish strategy: firstly, to “take a stand against anti-Semitic racial defamation” where he aggressively “refuted many stereotypes of Jews and the accusation that Jews damaged their host countries.”[B13]Ibid., 121.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)
He flatly denied, for instance, any link between Jews and financial corruption. His second goal was to “strengthen Jewish culture in order to ensure that Jewish identity would be sustained.”[B14]Ibid., 119.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)
From the 1920s onwards, he publically “adopted an anti-racialist stance, and played a major role in founding an international network of anthropologists to combat the threat of Nazi racism.”[B15]Ibid., 117.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)
His campaign led him to espouse the view that Jews were a culture rather than a race. He did not, however, renounce his earlier views about the Jewish race; instead updating his views in response to Boas’ radical environmentalist theories.

Franz Boas
Franz Boas

During the 1930s Zollschan attempted to establish an international coalition of scientific experts to refute the scientific basis of Nazi race ideology, and formulated an antiracist manifesto he hoped would be signed by Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Aldous and Julian Huxley, the novelist J.B. Priestly, among others.[B16]Ibid., 128; 129.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)
Huxley suggested including T.S. Eliot — “blithely overlooking Eliot’s expressions of disgust at Jewish peculiarities — for a public discussion on race.”[B17]Ibid., 130.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)
Jewish historian Charles Singer pointed out to Zollschan that “scientific views are not established by international committees,” and cautioned him that efforts to undermine the concept of race in general would undermine Zionism. Singer also warned that nothing could be worse for the prospects of such a “scientific” statement than “for it to appear to have behind it either a foreign or a Jewish motive power.”[B18]Ibid., 130-31.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)

Zollschan heeded Singer’s advice, accepting the need to embed the pursuit of particular Jewish interests in a more universalistic message. Thus, in Racialism against Civilization (1942) he argued that racism was “not a problem that affected just the target group — the Jews — but was the common enemy to all religious, moral, and liberal political values.” Zollschan proposed that the National Socialist drive to force Jews back into the ghetto “did not just represent a threat to the existence of Jews, but who attacked the humanitarian basis of Western civilization.”[B19]Ibid., 133.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)
This represented a complete reversal of his earlier, long-held, belief “that the ghetto sustained Jewish racial identity.”[B20]Ibid., 135.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)

A Top-Down Revolution

Zollschan’s efforts against National Socialist racial beliefs formed the basis for the UNESCO declarations on race and UN Conventions on the elimination of racial discrimination after 1945.[B21]Ibid., 136.
(Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.)
In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convened a panel of “scientists,” chaired by Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg), to “produce a definitive verdict on race.” The panel, which include several Jews, including the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, consisted of “a team of ten scientists all of whom were recruited from the marginal group of anthropologists, sociologists and ethnographers affiliated with the scientifically marginalized groups of cultural anthropologists that were mostly students of Franz Boas at Colombia University in New York, and who perceived the race concept primarily as a social construct.”[B22]Poul Duedahl, “From racial strangers to ethnic minorities, On the socio-political impact of UNESCO, 1945-60.” Paper presented at 7th Annual International Conference on Politics and International Affairs in Athens, Greece, in 2009. The panel’s first met at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, and Montagu claimed “only if our deliberations had taken place at Auschwitz or Dachau could there have been a more fitting environment to impress upon the committee members the immense significance of their work.”[B23]Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and “Race,”1945-1968 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), 38. Montagu had a strong Jewish identity, stating that: “if you are brought up a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic. . . . I think it is a good working hypothesis.”[B24]MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 26. At that time UNESCO House was the former headquarters of the German military during its occupation of France during World War Two. Underpinning the words of the UNESCO declaration “was widespread revulsion at the Jewish Holocaust.”[B25]David Cannadine, The Undivided Past: Humanity Beyond Our Differences (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 212. Leftist academic Anthony Hazard notes that “a clear rejection of anti-Semitism seemed to underline the entire effort.”[B26]Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism, 39.

The UNESCO panel’s statement insisted it would be best “to drop the term ‘race’ altogether,” since “for all practical purposes, ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth.” Montagu and his colleagues ended their “definitive statement on race” with an endorsement of the idea of a common humanity: “Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives towards co-operation. … In this sense, every man is his brother’s keeper.”[B27]Ibid.
(Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism, 39.)
Once again the pursuit of specific Jewish interests was embedded in a pretended universal benevolence. UNESCO’s Montagu-drafted “definitive verdict on race,” was published with a press release with the headline: “No biological justification for race discrimination, say world scientists: Most authoritative statement on the subject.”[B28]Duedahl, “From racial strangers.” The New York Times reported on the statement under a headline proclaiming: “No Scientific Basis for Race Bias Found by World Panel of Experts.”[B29]Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 341.

The UNESCO Statement on Race basically amounted to the imposition of a Jewish ethno-political agenda onto the global polity — with devastating consequences for the interests of Europeans and European-derived peoples. With this new agenda now in place at the highest level, and with the demonization and marginalization of dissenters, it was almost inevitable in the decades following Germany’s defeat that remaining policies constructed on the basis of racialist thought and identity would be progressively dismantled. The 1950 statement on race (which contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, and several UN conventions on eliminating racial discrimination) was described by one sympathetic commentator as “the triumph of Boasian anthropology on a world-historical scale.”[B30]Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 207. British historian David Cannadine notes that, during the decades that followed, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand “abandoned their policies of racial discrimination, ended their restrictions on immigration … and embraced multiculturalism.”

Attitudes to evolutionary concepts in the post-war era were strongly colored by the Jewish backgrounds and commitments of Jewish biologists and anthropologists. Cantor and Swetlitz note, for example, that “some leading critics of the modern synthesis in evolutionary biology and sociobiology, including Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, were Jewish, and it has been claimed their opposition stemmed in part from concern these fields are likely to encourage anti-Semitism because they emphasize genetic determinism and evolutionary progress, which often embed notions of racial hierarchy.”[B31]Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 21. Kevin MacDonald observes that Gould exemplified the “conflation of personal and ethno-political interests in the construction of science.” Gould falsely claimed that hereditarian views on intelligence had been prominently used as justification for restricting Jewish immigration in the 1924 American immigration laws — laws he directly linked with “the Holocaust.” Gould’s career is perhaps the preeminent illustration of “how skill as a propagandist and ethnic activist can be combined with a highly visible and prestigious academic position to have a major influence on public attitudes in an area of research with great implications for public policy.”[B32]MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 33.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin spearheaded opposition to the ideas of E.O. Wilson whose book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis inaugurated the field of sociobiology. Lewontin’s approach has been to selectively reject the findings of the traditional reductionist scientific method, insisting on a “hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology…. By adopting this philosophy of science, Lewontin is able to discredit attempts by scientists to develop theories and generalizations and thus, in the name of scientific rigor, avoid the possibility of any politically unacceptable scientific findings.”[B33]MacDonald 1998/2001, p. 47 While Lewontin portrays his efforts as motivated by a concern for scientific rigor, his tactical nihilism enables him to pursue an ethno-political agenda unencumbered by science.

The Boasian revolution in anthropology, taken up by Gould, Lewontin and numerous other Jewish academics, represents such a dramatic departure from preceding Jewish thinking about race, that an examination of earlier Jewish racial writing forces us “to reorient the way we think about the normative narrative of the Jewish past” according to which historians have “told the story of the relationship between Jews and race largely within the framework of victimhood,” whereby “racial science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was one of the chief weapons used against Jews.”[B34]Mitchell Hart, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 14. The abandonment of Darwinian race theory by Jewish anthropologists from the 1920s and 1930s necessitated obscuring the inherently racial nature of Judaism, in order to forestall charges of hypocrisy. Yet race remains “one of the building blocks of contemporary Jewish identity construction” and that “biological and genetic arguments possess a power for many Jews as they seek to explain to themselves and others just what it is that constitutes Jewishness.”[B35]Ibid., 31-2.
(Mitchell Hart, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 14.)
Even though such thinking may have been submerged or made invisible for many decades, Jews still “think with blood” about Jewish belonging. University of Washington Professor Susan Glenn makes the point that: “Throughout all the de-racializing stages of twentieth century social thought, Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.”[B36]Ibid., 31.
(Mitchell Hart, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 14.)

Notes

[1] Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 89.

[2] Robert Knox, 1850, The Races of Man (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 1850), xi.

[3] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 90.

[4] Ibid., 91.

[5] Richard Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 106.

[6] Ibid., 101.

[7] Michael Ruse, Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016) 140.

[8] Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 3.

[9] Quoted in: Stuart K. Hayashi, Hunting Down Social Darwinism (KY: Lexington Books, 2015), 163.

[10] Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 94.

[11] Ibid., 102.

[12] Ibid., 103.

[13] Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 197.

[14] Raphael Falk, “Zionism, Race, and Eugenics,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 138.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 142.

[17] Ibid., 143.

[18] Ibid., 146.

[19] Ibid., 162.

[20] Paul Weindling, “The Evolution of Jewish Identity: Ignaz Zollschan between Jewish and Aryan Race Theories, 1910-1945,” In: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Eds. Geoffrey Cantor & Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 119.

[21] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 14.

[B1] Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 143.

[B2] Ibid., 138-9.

[B3] Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 107.

[B4] Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 151.

[B5] Ibid., 152.

[B6] Ibid., 154.

[B7] Ibid., 152-53.

[B8] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 15.

[B9] Kevin MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: 1st Books, 2001), 20.

[B10] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 91.

[B11] Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.

[B12] Ibid., 124-5.

[B13] Ibid., 121.

[B14] Ibid., 119.

[B15] Ibid., 117.

[B16] Ibid., 128; 129.

[B17] Ibid., 130.

[B18] Ibid., 130-31.

[B19] Ibid., 133.

[B20] Ibid., 135.

[B21] Ibid., 136.

[B22] Poul Duedahl, “From racial strangers to ethnic minorities, On the socio-political impact of UNESCO, 1945-60.” Paper presented at 7th Annual International Conference on Politics and International Affairs in Athens, Greece, in 2009.

[B23] Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and “Race,”1945-1968 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), 38.

[B24] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 26.

[B25] David Cannadine, The Undivided Past: Humanity Beyond Our Differences (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 212.

[B26] Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism, 39.

[B27] Ibid.

[B28] Duedahl, “From racial strangers.”

[B29] Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 341.

[B30] Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 207.

[B31] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 21.

[B32] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 33.

[B33] MacDonald 1998/2001, p. 47

[B34] Mitchell Hart, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 14.

[B35] Ibid., 31-2.

[B36] Ibid., 31.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Darwinism, Franz Boas, Jews, Racialism 
Hide 139 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    > Zionism and race

    Racism for me, but not for thee. Do as I say, not as I do.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  2. Anonymous[278] • Disclaimer says:

    Darwinian biologists in Germany increasingly stressed racial competition as a form of the human struggle for existence.

    The cleverest race would be one race convincing all others of a never-consistent (but then, neural programming does fairly well without consistency) package saying that: there’s no race; only abominable individuals claim otherwise.

    This bets on the neurally-embedded drive to not see oneself as abominable, and less still want to be seen by others as such. Whenever there’s evidence that counters the interests of the rulers, make an effort to establish a public link between not pretending that evidence isn’t there and being socially abominable — it will act like a miraculous instrument to make 90% of those who see and understand… not see and not understand.

    I am sure that’s what the most clever of races would do, and they being the most clever, it would work on the others. Or would it.
    Especially if the target race stands out for narcissistic traits, it will be liable to virtue-signalling intraracial competition producing spirals of social image contests and absurdity. At which point they’ll be exposed by any abuse by other groups, especially if more clever.

    Deservedly, or undeservedly? That’s the question.

  3. …..Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.

    This may be the case, but it doesn’t mean that it’s true. I don’t think that Jewish identity has a racial aspect. If this were the case, they wouldn’t need so much propaganda. I know of one case when a young Jewish woman told her father that she would marry a non-Jewish man and the father then spanked her quite badly. If the call of race is so strong, he wouldn’t have to spank her in order to “persuade” her not to marry a non-Jewish man. She gave up marrying him. Once I read a text by Bernard Henri-Levy which had the title “Why I’m a Jew” (I think the text was taken from one of his books, and maybe this was not the original title). The text is pathetic, the whole text was a piece of cheap nationalist propaganda which also includes a veiled attack on Christianity. He says in it, for instance, that he’s a Jew because he doesn’t believe in magic (=Christianity). They text seems to be the result of brain washing and at the same time, it functions as a factor of brain washing of Jews. We don’t need race to explain all that.

    The reality is that we may have groups in a society that aren’t racially based. Society is full of sects or religions which are quite closed, fanatic, which dominate their members and segregate them more or less from mainstream society which they in different ways despise. They are very different from each other, they entertain different relations with society. But all of those sects don’t have a racial basis. You only need an ideology, a struture of power and propaganda. They are destructive for the individuals which are a part of them and for society, but if they are successful they reward their members. They will persist so long as they can bring advantages for some individuals and can mantain their structures of power. Some are more successful than others.

    So I believe that you can have a society which is relatively diverse if it can mantain a certain cultural common ground, if it is ready to integrate its members economically, socially and culturally. For instance, Lebanon probably doesn’t have the economic means to integrate successfully the Palestinian refugees who live there. On the South side of the border, they don’t want at all to integrate the Palestinians as member of society. Integration may also not be possible if a group segregates itself and has a hostile attitude towards society.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  4. Lot says:

    Another pro-Nazi article!

    Even as brave human genetic scientists around the world press forward in the face of attempts to censor them by the left, they do the best to ignore idiots like the author and his heroes.

    But the leftists don’t ignore the Dork Rightests, instead they use them as a tool to attack these scientists, doing their best to conflate them.

    • Troll: John Regan
    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Wally
    , @Druid
  5. AaronB says:

    So basically, European whites develop the psychopathic theory of Darwinism.

    Jews, after initially being corrupted by it, eventually fight it and oppose it.

    European whites, in thrall to the psychopathic vision, cannot conceive of this as anything other than a cynical move in the psychopathic game of ruthless competition.

    European civilization self destructs, while Jews – who opposed the psychopathic vision – flourish.

    Whites, utterly baffled that belief in psychopathic vision of life does not lead to flourishing, blame Jews.

    News at 9.

  6. There is no such thing as race, goyim!

    However….Israel is a nation for the jewish race.

    Shalom!

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  7. Well-composed article, providing valuable insight into the historical vacillation of western diaspora Jewry concerning the issue of genetic determinism when confronted with the real world manifestation of its Aryan corollary.

    Darwin was a convenient secular foil for advancing otherwise long-held religious convictions of Jewish supremacy, which would manifest themselves in the guise of zionism. While those convictions never disappeared, the means of advancing them in a manner that precluded others from effectively applying their own variety of racial supremacist ideology required a change of strategy, discarding the accoutrement of Darwin for that of Boas.

    Thank you for writing this.

    • Replies: @Jake
  8. Anon[162] • Disclaimer says:

    In 1925 he visited the Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas in New York to collaborate on X-ray investigations into the various races, having supported the use of X-rays to eradicate favus (a chronic skin infection) among East European Jewish children.

    Never heard of Favus before, Tay-Sachs is the only Jewish disease that springs to mind.
    Question: Is Polio a disease of the Jews?
    It seems to have struck a few of them.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Alden
  9. anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    European civilization self destructs, while Jews – who opposed the psychopathic vision – flourish.

    Define “flourish”:
    1. a bold or extravagant gesture or action, made especially to attract the attention of others.
    Synonyms: brandish, wield, display, exhibit, flaunt, vaunt, parade, show off

    2. an instance of suddenly performing or developing in an impressively successful way.
    “the Bulldogs Zionists produced a late second-half flourish”

    Nothing gold can stay

    Nature’s first green is gold,
    Her hardest hue to hold.
    Her early leaf’s a flower,
    But only so an hour.
    Then leaf subsides to leaf,
    So Eden sank to grief,
    So dawn goes down to day.
    Nothing gold can stay
    :

    “There was once a national consensus in Israeli society: politics was split between left and right, but its people were broadly secular and liberal. Over the past decade, the country has fractured into tribes—disparate groups with little shared understanding of what it means to be a Zionist, let alone an Israeli. A once-unified population fights internecine battles—over religion and state, war and peace, race and identity—contesting the very notion of a ‘Jewish and democratic’ state.

    While this shift has profound implications for Israel’s relationship with the broadly liberal Jewish diaspora, the greatest consequences will be felt at home. Israel’s tribes increasingly lead separate lives; even the army, once a great melting-pot, is now a political and cultural battleground. Tamir Pardo, former head of Mossad, has warned of the risk of civil war.”


    Clearly, European civilization did not/ is not “self-destructing,” Jews did and are destroying it.
    While Jews indeed self-destruct.

    Jews seem capable of “flourishing” only by destroying — first the Other, then ineluctably, themselves.

  10. National Socialism was a sort of kinder, gentler and more scientific Talmud.
    Of course they do not like the competition – just ask the Armenians.

    “Race” is easy to dissect as it denotes anything between a subgenus and a phenotype.
    Jews … are an endogamous blood cult that for all intents and purposes behaves like a species.
    The closest analogue were the Thugs.

    Boasism (and all attendant “ideology of decomposition”) is geared towards putting the goyim at a disadvantage (lagriffedulion will have the pertinent math models of “resolute minority”).

    The victimology serves above all to keep the ingroup in step (endogamy, no snitching),
    apart from the extortion spoils.

    Really, what´s so hard to understand?

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  11. padre says:

    I strongly reject the statement that Jews are a race!

    • Replies: @Alfred
  12. Alfred says:
    @padre

    I strongly reject the statement that Jews are a race!

    Do you prefer them to be called a tribe? Or a very extended family? 🙂

    • Replies: @HallParvey
  13. Truth3 says:

    Stephen Gould was a fraud and a hypocrite…

    or maybe…

    He was a hypocrite and a fraud.

    Well, one or the other.

  14. @UncommonGround

    Every gentile can become a Jew, regardless of his race. Judaism is not racist.

    Social Darwinism is satanic.

  15. @Robert Dolan

    Actually Judaism is the only religious teaching I know of that recognizes races. In fact, most race theories use Jewish model. In the US they call white race “Caucasian” which refers to the Noah’s Arq. Kabbalah speaks of three races.

    It is in the Christian religion, where all races are denied. Yet all the “white nationalists” admire the Christian religion and its “universal message of love” which is so much superior to the xenophobic teachings of the Jews.

    It is in the Christian religion, where people are considered cattle, and their pastors call them a flock. The Jews don’t do that. A rabbi means a teacher. A pastor means a shepherd. You are all wrong.

  16. @nokangaroos

    National Socialism was not like the Talmud.

    You couldn’t become a German if you weren’t born a German, and the Talmud accepts everybody. You can become a Jew.

    • Disagree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Jake
  17. conatus says:

    Disraeli was the Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1868 and 1874-80. He had nothing to do with Ginger Baker(who just died) and had that great drum solo on the Cream album, ‘Disraeli Gears.’

    The Prime Minister, Disraeli was a novelist as well as a politician and apparently also a race theorist. Sidonia was his fictional character and Semitic superhero. Disraeli was a nominal Episcopalian but Jewish by blood. And since he was writing around the time of Social Darwinism it was not outrageous for Disraeli to express the sentiment that,”All is race, there is no other truth.”
    He was just singing the tune of his Zeitgeist that nowadays would get him banished to the provinces.

    from here:
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/04/complicated-jewishness-benjamin-disraeli

    “But it is one of the later novels that provides Cesarani with his major condemnation of Disraeli. Tancred – or, The New Crusade was published in 1847. Its hero believes he can find inspiration in the Holy Land, where his ancestors once crusaded. Before departing, he takes advice from Sidonia, who articulates his belief in Jewish superiority and the centrality of race in human affairs. Tancred and Sidonia share a disdain for modern ideas of equality and democracy. Sidonia regards progress as a sham. Scientific change and social forces do not explain the rise and fall of nations:

    “It is an affair of race . . . And when a superior race, with a superior idea to Work and Order, advances, its state will be progressive, and we shall, perhaps, follow the example of the desolate countries. All is race; there is no other truth.”

  18. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:

    Science-man-bad has the same playbook as orange-man-bad.

  19. gotmituns says:

    I do believe that blood is everything. It took me a long time to come to this idea, but I’m here now and will die believing this. As far as that goes, the jews are no different than any other race/culture/people. The thing that differentiates them for all other peoples is they have no limits to their immoral behavior. That is why they seem to be so successful, but that is also why they have been expelled from so many countries. The Jews also can’t get along with each other. Remember, they were fighting each other within the walls of Jerusalem at the same time the Romans were besieging the city and in the end, they were driven out of the holy land once again. It’ll all repeat itself.

  20. @AaronB

    European civilization self destructs, while Jews – who opposed the psychopathic vision – flourish.

    You are mixed up and have reversed the facts pertaining to what constitutes the “psychopathic vision” and which groups promote it most ardently – for others but not themselves.

    Darwinism has been validated and successfully withstood the religious onslaughts against it.

    Utopian ideology, as concocted by Boaz and others, is the pernicious “psychopathic vision”, which is being systematically forced upon European civilization through perpetual media saturation and institutional policies.

    These unnatural constructs include “one world, one race”, open borders, ethnic multiculturalism, radical feminism, and pathological altruism, which gradually erode a society’s internal cohesion and ultimately destroy the achievements of the modern social welfare state.

  21. > University of Washington Professor Susan Glenn makes the point that: “Throughout all the de-racializing stages of twentieth century social thought, Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.”[B36]

    I am quoting the final sentence. That opinion is either true or false. Or more Platonically, disproved or confirmed.

    Evidence: East Eupopean jews in the reality of 1890 and American jews in the reality of 2019 America.
    The above article is correct in depicting the former. The latter cohort seems phenomenologically less distinctive in the prosopos which may indicate a race blending or folding in of American jews into the white population. For example, Jeffrey what’s his name who deceased recently. Or me.

    The bigot will resist that notion, although it seems to fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution.

  22. Jake says:

    “Post-emancipation, “Jews were regarded less as adherents of an alien, barbaric faith and more as members of a secular socioeconomic group that disproportionately profited from modern life.”

    It’s almost as if the rebellion against Christendom, which created the Modern world, has been designed (by Satan?) to tempt the white Christians to join Satan’s rebellion in order to elevate Jews (whom Jesus said had Satan as their spiritual father) so that they – the race defined by being anti-Christ – would rise to rule the world.

    But if that were so, then the rebellion against Christendom would need to be recognized as long term suicide and undone: it would be required to repent of the Reformation and the destruction of Christendom and then to act, to sacrifice, to rebuild Christendom.

    This is a spiritual war. It cannot be won, and it can and will be lost, with focus on anything but theology and attendant moral philosophy trussed by work to rebuild Christendom.

    Them is yer two choices, white boys wallowing in your sense of Germanic racial superiority: either you work to repair and restore the Christendom that your people destroyed in the names of freedom and choice, or else you watch more and more of the ‘white world’ become serf to the Jew.

    Remember, the first international Jewish language was Yiddish: German. The second international Jewish language is English, also a Germanic language. Jews are fully at home in things Germanic; Jews love things Germanic because they know how easy it is to use things Germanic for Jewish purposes.

    • Replies: @John Regan
    , @Anonymous
    , @Alden
  23. Jake says:
    @The Dark Night

    And the history of Jews proves that they take non-genetically Jewish converts by the millions each decade. Right?

    Jews by and large avoid converting people.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
  24. @AaronB

    On Wikipedia, the easily accessed online encyclopedia, the concept of gaslighting is defined as:

    …a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim’s belief.[1][2]

    It is frequently practised by sociopaths, who are often persuasive liars with low empathy but above-average verbal ability:

    Sociopaths[12] and narcissists[13] frequently use gaslighting tactics to abuse and undermine their victims. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their own perceptions.[12]

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

    Prominent cases in point familiar to our readers would include: the ADL-directed defamation campaign against anthropologist Madison Grant when he opposed Franz Boas’s unscientific twaddle; the UN-sponsored antics of Boasian con artist Montagu-Ehrenberg, as briefly summarized in the present article; and certain of our posters here, who without fail will seize every opportunity to mendaciously portray the most bloodthirsty ideology in human history as peaceful and saintly, and its victims (the European peoples) as monstrous transgressors. As it was said by Moses long ago in the Old Testament:

    Fear not the peoples of the earth; for they shall be our food.

    Book of Numbers, 14:9

  25. Jake says:
    @AnonStarter

    “Darwin was a convenient secular foil for advancing otherwise long-held religious convictions of Jewish supremacy, which would manifest themselves in the guise of zionism.”

    Yes, Darwinism proved more that useful – all but necessary – for the rise of Jews, which was then a very easy thing. Why? Because the sun never set on the British Empire, and WASP culture had been determined, formed fully, finalized, by a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.

    A culture, WASP, that had been molded by a Judaizing heresy ruled the world. Only an absolute simpleton or a knowing servant of Judaizing culture would fail ‘to see’ the end result of that.

    Wait – ‘conservative’ Evangelicals and George Will/Bush family type elite WASPs and the VDARE crowd, as well as the new order Vatican II Catholic Liberals who gush about the glory of Martin Luther and the liberal social progress for women and blacks and gays in the Anglosphere, all fail ‘to see’ that.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  26. @anon

    Chosenism, i.e. Judaism, a.k.a. Zionism is the ultimate example of racism, yet is not only tolerated, it is promoted.

  27. @The Dark Night

    Can every Jew become a Gentile or is that forbidden?

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  28. Pheasant says:
    @The Dark Night

    Why does the Talmud say that gentile sperm leads to barbarous offspring?

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  29. Pheasant says:
    @Lot

    Ah another reasonable centrist playing both sides against one another while claiming to be above it all.

    Save it red sea pedestrian we know all of your tricks

  30. Pheasant says:
    @Anon

    ‘Tay-Sachs is the only Jewish disease that springs to mind.’

    You are kidding right? There are 20 plus of them that are more or less unique to the (mainly Ashkenazi) Jews. Tay-sachs is not exactly a Jewish disease either it is found in French Canadians and Irish.

    My favourite is maple syrup urine disease lol.

  31. The truth about Judaism!

    When Hitler, Goebbels and Rosenberg availed themselves of a
    racial conception they were doing nothing else but using against Jewry the weapons of Jewry. Everything that world-Jewry, under the disguise of the Hag of the Allied Powers condemned, was
    actually of its own make and device. Jewry actually hanged itself at Nuremberg. For the laws relating to and establishing racial segregation were first published in the books of the prophet! Ezra
    and Nehemiah, and not in the Rassenschutz-Gesetz (Race Protection Act) of Nuremberg. The first concentration camps were devised not by Heinrich Himmler but by King Solomon. The
    motto of total “annihilation ” and total “extermination” of the defeated enemy first appeared in -the orders of Moses, the Jewish Fuhrer.

    Hitler only proclaimed that the Germans are a superior race to the Jews. On this point Moses went to far greater extremes in announcing that Jewry is of direct divine origin and the chosen
    people of God and, consequently, sacred. Each and every Jew is personally sacred and he who offends a Jew, offends God Himself!

    This is tacitly held even to-day in the opinion of Jewry. What else is this if not the most exaggerated Chauvinistic form of racial Totalitarianism? It is quite clear that this haughty and
    ancient consciousness of racial excellence and sanctity remain very much alive up to the present day, when we see Jewry protesting against the trial of an indicted Jew before any Gentile court, for
    when they regard and treat an affront against one Jew as an affront against the whole of Jewry. According to the four-thousand-year old standards of Jewish nationalism, any insult against a Jew is a direct insult against God and a crime against the sacred seed of Abraham.

    The World Conquerors(The Real War Criminals) – Louis Marschalko

  32. @The Dark Night

    It is in the Christian religion, where people are considered cattle, and their pastors call them a flock. The Jews don’t do that. A rabbi means a teacher. A pastor means a shepherd. You are all wrong.

    Judaism says it is the Gentiles who are the sheep, and the Jews who will fleece them. You don’t have to go to the Talmud for that (though of course, it elaborates considerably on it). There’s far more than enough to that effect in the Old Testament, which unlike the former can be accessed very easily be Gentiles. Consider, for example:

    The foreigners will be your slaves. They will feed your flocks and plow your fields and tend your vineyards. But you will be called the priests of the LORD; they will speak of you as ministers of our God; you will feed on the wealth of the Gentiles, and you will boast in their riches.

    Prophecy of Isaiah, 61:5-6

    This document is still considered infallible and holy some 2,500 years later. In October 2010, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, confirmed that this teaching is still true for Jews today:

    Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.

    Incidentally, Wikipedia notes that the American Jewish Committee was upset by this faux pas. One surmises they considered it what used to be called a shanda fuer die goyim – in idiomatic English translation, an instance of giving the game away:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav_Ovadia#Non-Jews’_role

    In Nuremberg in 1946, German publicist Julius Streicher was hanged by the “Americans” for correctly quoting the Talmud and Old Testament on what the Jewish religion thinks of the rest of humanity:

    “Thou shalt devour the nations of the earth.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_parasite

  33. @Alfred

    Yes. Much better. Ancestor worship is not confined to the Japanese.

  34. @Jake

    Jews love things Germanic because they know how easy it is to use things Germanic for Jewish purposes.

    The evidence seems rather to suggest that “Jews” (as in the Jewish Establishment, ethnic lobby and sundry agents of destruction) hate and fear all things Germanic, since they are working so assiduously to destroy them. Also by the demonization of all things Germanic in education, academia and the media. Most hated are Germany and Germans, but Anglo-Saxons surely come a close second. Even Russians do not today have as much hatred and contempt poured on them by these agencies as white Americans. And indeed, the main reason for the Establishment’s insane hatred of President Trump is that he symbolically represents white (i.e., Germanic) America and gives the odd occasional sympathetic thought to the huddled remnants of its oppressed and dispossessed masses. So little, we might think, yet enough to drive them all but literally frothing mad.

    Given that the Germanics (and Germans especially) have provided the only serious opposition to the globalist agendas in the last hundred years or so, and indeed managed to deliver some fairly harsh lessons to the villains before they were defeated by the “American” government and its misguided followers, it seems further that this wild hatred and fear of them is at least in part justified.

    As for Christian revival as a solution to our problems, while I am far from wholly unsympathetic to the historical Christian churches, I note that what passes for Christianity today overwhelmingly makes up the very vanguard of immigrationism, anti-racism and false “tolerance” in America and all European countries. In particular, the co-opted Christianity of today is viciously philo-Semitic, to the point that most denominations censors what their own Bible writes about the Jews. One must look long and hard to find a church that has not been bought heart and soul by the so-called Synagogue of Satan.

    Thus, I personally do not think Christian revival will save us. It may be that one will nonetheless come about as a result of the general quickening of society, if there is one. It seems unlikely, however, that one will occasion it.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
    , @Anonymous
  35. @Johnny Walker Read

    Every Jew becomes a gentile, when he stops being a Jew.

  36. At bottom everything rests on race, DNA, biology. An unpleasant idea, perhaps, but nonetheless true.

    “Bad” whites know this. “Good” whites might but would never admit it openly.

  37. @John Regan

    This verse deserves to be quoted in full:

    [MORE]

    The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
    because the Lord has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
    He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
    to proclaim freedom for the captives
    and release from darkness for the prisoners,

    to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
    and the day of vengeance of our God,
    to comfort all who mourn,

    and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
    to bestow on them a crown of beauty
    instead of ashes,
    the oil of joy
    instead of mourning,
    and a garment of praise
    instead of a spirit of despair.
    They will be called oaks of righteousness,
    a planting of the Lord
    for the display of his splendor.

    They will rebuild the ancient ruins
    and restore the places long devastated;
    they will renew the ruined cities
    that have been devastated for generations.

    Strangers will shepherd your flocks;
    foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.

    And you will be called priests of the Lord,
    you will be named ministers of our God.
    You will feed on the wealth of nations,
    and in their riches you will boast.

    This of course refers to the time of the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity. A great example of the beautiful Jewish poetry.

    For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,
    for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet,
    till her vindication shines out like the dawn,
    her salvation like a blazing torch.

    The nations will see your vindication,
    and all kings your glory;
    you will be called by a new name
    that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.

    You will be a crown of splendor in the Lord’s hand,
    a royal diadem in the hand of your God.

    No longer will they call you Deserted,
    or name your land Desolate.

  38. @John Regan

    Conserning rabbi Yosef, you need some time to understand that a rabbi is not a Pope, he can say what he thinks even if other rabbis disagree with him. Some rabbis expressed disagreement with rabbi Yosef.

    You need to specifically ignore this to be able to pretend you don’t know that many rabbis expressed disagreement with rabbi Yosef’s opinions. There are many rabbis in Israel of many kinds and sorts: Hasidic rabbis, Ultra-orthodox rabbis and Zionist rabbis, who may all disagree on many issues in Judaism. Some Jewish sects in Jerusalem come out with black flags on the Independence Day. Some others celebrate in the extreme-right settlements at the same time. You just don’t understand that Jews don’t kill Jews, even if they disagree.

    I also find it amusing that you end your comment with a reference to anti-Jewish propaganda art, knowing that it is based on horse shite, and a fake quotation. “Thou shalt devour the nations of the earth.” Where does it come from?

  39. anonymous[101] • Disclaimer says:

    SO whites are whining about Jews opposing them, and preventing them from beating non whites to the pulp. Imagine the horrible state non white people would be in now without the Jew to police these white thugs and stop them terrorizing defenseless non whites.

  40. @The Dark Night

    judaism is THE most racist religion on this earth, and it promotes hyper-ethnocentric behavior that pits jews against the entire human race.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  41. @John Regan

    “It may be that one will nonetheless come about as a result of the general quickening of society, if there is one. It seems unlikely, however, that one will occasion it.”

    What the hell is this? What does that mean? This is schizophasia.

  42. @AaronB

    Let me help you fix this “Jew’s Tale” you’ve concocted for yourself.

    Darwinism was initially quite congenial to a culture at whose center is the Yaweh-ordained genocide of the Canaanites, a self-serving rationalization of why Israelites (Jews) deserved to have the land instead of those already in possession of it.

    After all, Torah + Darwin = Mein Kampf.

    This is why Jews in Poland got along so well with the Szlachta (Polish aristocracy) who had adopted a Jew-like theory of their putative racial separateness from the peasant majority of Eastern Europe.

    Darwinian theory meshes quite well with the Jew’s self-image and his thinking about the world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that its dissemination and employment by the goyim is “good for the Jew.” Quite the contrary. The rise of cultural Aryanism in the early 20th century and then of National Socialism in Germany led the Jews to do what they always do–discard a public position that is no longer “good for the Jews” and come up with some new intellectual dishonesty. Jews gonna Jew!

    In Israel, where racialism flourishes, all sorts of secular and religiously-based Judeosupremacism are growing like weeds, and anti-immigration policy to maintain the Jewishness of the state is simply taken for granted. The Jew hypocrite wants Judeosupremacism for Israel and “diversity” for the US and the rest of the West.

    So yes, as a parasite who has grown fat even as his host declines, the Jew is indeed flourishing. But what happens as the host sickens further? It makes one envy China!

  43. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    > repent of the Reformation

    Right after you Papists repent of the slaughter of Whites in the Northern Crusades.

    • Replies: @Alden
  44. @The Dark Night

    Actually Judaism is the only religious teaching I know of that recognizes races.

    Judaism is self-serving and self-pitying tribalism. That’s for sure. But its scripture does explicitly identify it as the ultimate enemy race. At least it does us that favor.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  45. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Regan

    > One must look long and hard to find a church that has not been bought heart and soul by the so-called Synagogue of Satan.

    True, Churchgoers have accepted their hundredfold bribe to forsake blood and soil from a popular Rabbi who was praised by everyjew when he taught in their Synagogues.

  46. @The Dark Night

    Judaism is not racist.

    The definition of a Jew is based on blood and (matrilineal) descent. If race were not involved, that would not be the case.

    At the core of Judaism is an imagined promise by a racist God to give a blood-determined tribal grouping the land of others and subject them to genocide. Clearly, the ideology is race-based.

    Jews claim and have claimed in the past how open they are to all. But this is just another Jewish game of three card monte with the goyim, the use of sophistry to obscure the intensively in-group nature of Judaism. Emplacing barriers to entry has always been part of Jewish self-defensive mechanisms–the requirement of circumcision for example. Stringing the goy along–especially by the Orthodox–is common practice. Refusing a request for conversion “three times” and long and tedious processes of conversion are all designed to minimize outsider entry to “the tribe” while allowing modern Jews to prattle on about how welcoming they are.

    The constant emphasis in the modern world on the “peoplehood” of the Jews also creates a national/tribal aura that is a deterrent to those who might, for whatever reason, want to convert.

    In Israel, racialist language is used with abandon by rabbis and senior government officials. Many would be shocked by it, but our Jew-infested media ensures that it is minimally covered here, as is almost anything else that puts Israel or Jews in a bad light. (The abrupt elimination of the Jeffrey Epstein story by our Jew media is one of countless examples.) Here’s one from 2018 of what goes on in Israel (from The Times of Israel):

    The Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel called black people “monkeys” during his weekly sermon on Saturday evening.

    In footage aired by the Ynet news site, Yosef could be seen referring to black people by the word “kushi,” which in modern Hebrew has pejorative connotations, and then going on to term a black person a “monkey.” His office told Ynet that the comparison was a quote from the Talmud.

    Anywhere in the Christian West, a prelate who said that would be forced to resign. But not in the Judenreich!

    Jews have realized that they need to use sophistry to appear to welcome converts, so they play games like you are here. It’s just one more instance of endemic Jewish dishonesty.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan, utu
    • Replies: @Art
    , @The Dark Night
  47. Art says:

    Here is the result of Jewish Tradition for the whole world.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin, Moi, Robjil
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @anon
    , @NoseytheDuke
  48. Nazism was the mirror image of judaism.

    The German people were simply fighting fire with fire, trying to save their nation from a jewish led communist takeover.

    The west is currently facing the very same danger.

  49. This is a fairly disappointing article from the beginning. The author seems not to know what the word “tradition” means when used in a religious context.

    Essentially, tradition is the complex of orthodox beliefs, practices, and dogmatics that define a faith. From the title of this essay, “Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism,” a reader might have expected a critical comparison of Jewish philosophical notions with the assertions implied by Darwinism concerning cosmic and human origins.

    But there was not one word about any of that. Here, Judaism is not presented as a religion but as a simple group designation, and Darwinism is not proposed as a philosophical challenge but as a political tool to be picked up when useful and discarded otherwise.

    I am not concerned to defend either side in this debate. The reality is that Judaism has been a false religion ever since the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and Darwinism is basically absurd and shallow metaphysics. I do, however, yearn for the days when authors understood the sweep of ideas and would write about what they really meant.

  50. Puke. Puke book, puke article. A better title of the books is, what do heretics think of a heresy. First, don’t call them “Jews” they are Talmudists. Second, the Talmud is racist. Third, the countries that supposedly support “multiculturalism” still teach evolution, on which racism is based. Which makes them hypocrites, they can’t claim to be against racism and still teach it. Only creationism stands up against racism. But the Talmudists reject the commandments of God for the commandments of men as Jesus said multiple times 2000 years ago. Eventually, gradually, the lies of Darwin will die off. Thank the internet for making that death come quicker.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  51. Art says:

    Do not get sucked into 4,800 words of inferior pseudo intellectual BS.

    What follows is the real Jewish Tradition. What bastards!

    Israel to build camps as preparation for displacing Arab citizens

    Israel’s District Planning and Building Committee considered a plan on Sunday submitted by the Bedouin Settlement Authority in the Negev which aims to build camps as preparation for the displacement of 36,000 Arab citizens, Arab48.com has reported. The plan targets Palestinian-Arab residents within Israel who live in Bedouin villages “unrecognised” by the Israeli occupation government.

    Such villages have often been in place for hundreds of years before the creation of the Israeli occupation state. Nevertheless, it is insisting on displacing their residents and replacing the villages with housing projects for Jewish Israeli settlers.

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20191008-israel-to-build-camps-as-preparation-for-displacing-arab-citizens/

    Israel is going down!

  52. There is no such thing as race. It is all a social construct because we say so.

    Now, have a big glass of water once you get off the plane in Tel Aviv. You don’t want to do a poor quality DNA sample.

    Is there no end to the lies and deception of the ashkenazis?

    Diversity is great for whites. Not so good for Jews.
    Palestinians aren’t a people but we are (despite the fact that a lot of us look like a RACIAL mix of Russians and Turks).
    Iran must be destroyed because we mistranslated an Iranian leader saying he would wipe us off the map.
    America must be our milk cow because we are the only democracy in the Middle East or something like that……..

    No wonder Israelis has to have a hasbara movement. How else do they keep all the lies coherent?
    Pro-tip: there is no coherence.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  53. @The Dark Night

    Hey Shlomo
    How is the weather in faggy Tel Aviv?

  54. AaronB says:

    So we have some very basic facts here.

    1) Darwinism is an amoral ideology centered on ruthless competition.

    2) It was created entirely by European whites.

    3) European whites believe anyone opposing this cynical and horrific vision of life, must really be motivated by ruthless competition also…

    Can anyone say “projection”?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  55. Art says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    At the core of Judaism is an imagined promise by a racist God to give a blood-determined tribal grouping the land of others and subject them to genocide.

    The Jew insult us with the notion that the God of the universe, has given them a land grant in perpetuity. They insult us further by attacking us as anti-Semites, if we resist that caca.

    The Israeli Jews cannot even run a successful election – what inferior losers.

    The Jewish Tradition of living a phalanx of lies is coming due!

  56. Talha says:
    @Art

    Great video, Art! Wow – that got my heart pumping like the old days at the anti-war rallies. May God bless that young man and his colleagues!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Art
  57. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Is not a conversant serpent in the Judaic creation myth basically absurd and shallow metaphysics? Or does the Judaic Torah (Pentateuch) also get chucked into your “false religion” trashcan?

  58. Alden says:
    @The Dark Night

    Caucasian refers to the Caucasian mountains or Caucasus where some anthropologists theorized the White race originated.

    Nothing to do with Noah’s Ark.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
    , @Robjil
  59. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dennis Gannon

    > Only creationism stands up against racism.

    Science be rayciss! Science-man-bad! You and the globo-homo-progressives are clearly on the same page…

    Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn’t the same as ours. “Racist, vicious….”

    Liberal Creationism
    https://slate.com/technology/2007/11/liberal-creationism.html

  60. Art says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    America must be our milk cow because we are the only democracy in the Middle East or something like that……..

    Too funny – the Israelis cannot hold a successful election – looks like they are going to have to go for a third one.

    What inferior losers.

  61. @Robert Dolan

    No it isn’t and it doesn’t.

    For example Hindus don’t accept people from other countries and you can’t become a priest or a teacher if you weren’t born in their cast. Judaism accepts all people. You can become a rabbi, even if you were born a Hindu. No problem.

    So how can you call it racist, if it accepts people of all races, regardless of their races? The Jews are not a race, and there is no such thing as human race. You need to update your software, it’s very old.

    • Replies: @Art
  62. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Natural selection is not an “amoral” theory. Perhaps you don’t get out to the library often, where you might peruse one of the following examples of texts on natural selection that prove your false assertion to be rather myopic:

    • Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. (1996) Harvard University Press
    • Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. (2006) Princeton University Press
    • Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (2010) Chicago University Press
    • Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. (2012) Basic Books

    And perhaps you’re only psychologically projecting your own inability to climb the first rung on the moral ladder.

    “But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: ‘Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.’ Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.” ~Robert Heinlein

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
    , @AaronB
  63. Art says:
    @Talha

    Talha —- WOW is right! So much truth – so well said – with so much passion.

    It would be good if Mr. Unz could put it in his video archive – because it will not stay on YouTube for long.

    Art

    • Agree: Talha
  64. @Oscar Peterson

    No, wrong.

    The definition of who is a Jew is based on faith. If a Jew, who were born a Jew becomes a Christian, he is no more considered a Jew. Until he changes his mind, at least, in which case he can be forgiven and accepted back, but not always.

    Yes, the rules of acceptance are strict. Yes, to make all those who are not one hundred percent serious change their mind and abandon the idea. You need to understand very well, what you are getting into and what obligations you will have to follow. You must become a real Jew.

    And I have read a lot from the Talmud but I have never seen a comparison of a black man to a monkey. Can you please, point it out in the Talmud and refer me to a page where I can read about this?

  65. @Oscar Peterson

    Well, comrade, what you are doing is the same “self-serving and self-pitying tribalism” but withouth the Scripture. You don’t even have your own sacred books. Just hate without reason, without explanation. You have to lie to explain it.

    • Replies: @renfro
  66. @Alden

    No! Some anthropologists theorize the White race originated in the Caucasus region, because the Bible says so.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Alden
  67. Wally says:
    @Lot

    said:
    “Another pro-Nazi article!”

    Yawn.
    Simply stated, there were the ‘Nazis’ with the impossible ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    Rabid & unhinged Zionist Lot has been demolished here in trying to promote the fake & impossible “holocaust” claims.
    quick examples:
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-israel-manages-its-message/#comment-1917612
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-necessity-of-anti-semitism/#comment-3481115
    much more: American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

  68. Alden says:
    @Anon

    Gaucher and schizophrenia come to mind Also IBS. Jewish drs are always searching for more to establish how special Jews are.

  69. Alden says:
    @Anonymous

    That was German Catholics and Polish Catholics killing each other centuries before the reformation. Just another European war. Unless you think Germans are White and Poles are some blonde blue eyed version of non White.

    • Replies: @utu
  70. @Anonymous

    Very good comment about animals.

    But we people are of the same kind. If we apply these principles of natural selection to each other we will have to renounce our ideas of moral. Our moral requires to help the weak, to support the poor and to protect the sick and to heal them if possible. Which is all counter-productive according to the theories of Social Darwinism.

    Animals have more morals than men, or at least this is true about most animals and most men. And this is why men need a religion and animals don’t.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonyous
  71. AaronB says:
    @Anonymous

    Herbert Spencer developed the notion of survival of the fittest as applied to social matters – Social Darwinism, I believe it was called. He was immensely influential.

    This is the kind of stuff the European mind has been coming up with for the past few hundred years. Utterly amoral dreck.

    Lately, there have been some attempts by Jewish writers and others to soften the hideousness of Darwinism and see if we could find morality in it. None of have been really convincing.

    Until Europeans own the darkness that is in your soul that leads to these kinds of theories, you will be psychologically stuck.

    The Left will respond to the ugliness by self hate and idealizing the other, and the alt right will project it onto Jews.

    But only confronting and accepting it will heal you.

    Accept it – Europeans uglified the world. Darwinism is just one hideous theory among many. Make amends by re-beautifying the world. Come up with beautiful, moral theories. Jews can’t do all the heavy lifting for you.

    • LOL: renfro
  72. @The Dark Night

    Shmuel Rosner, NYT on conversion in Israel:

    “But here’s the problem: Among the Jewish people, there are multiple positions on how to determine a person’s Jewishness. Tradition requires a Jewish mother, but Reform Judaism accepts a Jewish father. The Law of Return accepts even a single Jewish grandfather, while the Israeli rabbinate insists on either a Jewish mother or an Orthodox conversion.”

    All these Jewish authorities reference blood/lineage. The start point is blood. Then, there are nominal allowances for conversion, but no sub-category of Jews wants much in the way of conversion. That would undermine group cohesion and solidarity. It is the tribe that is paramount for Jews across the spectrum, but it’s impolitic to say that, so they use Jew sophistry to present a welcoming image towards theoretical converts while obstructing the process as much as possible and using deceptive rhetoric, as you are doing here, as a smoke screen.

    Der ewige Jude.

    As far as the Talmud goes, take up your question with The Times of Israel or Ynet. Here is the ToI article that contains the reference to a Talmudic basis for Yosef’s remark:
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-americans-to-monkeys/

    Here’s another quote from the article:

    “Non-Jews, [Chief Rabbi] Yosef said, are in Israel only to serve Jews.”

    That’s what I like about Israel. The Jew lets his hair down there and reveals the inner Judeofascist that diaspora Jews manage to camouflage behind faux-universalist blathering.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  73. Robjil says:

    [Repeating the same off-topic comment with slight modification too frequently is bad behavior.]

  74. utu says:
    @Alden

    That was German Catholics and Polish Catholics killing each other centuries before the reformation.

    Not really. There were some wars but not as many as we are made to believe and the participants were not much aware of the ethnic or nationalistic components. The story of the past as a conflict between Slavs and Germans as an ethnic conflict was constructed in 19 century and then it reached apogee after WWI and in Soviet propaganda after WWII. Before then people were much more realistic of why the wars were fought: It was about economic interests connected to dynastic interests. The western Slavic lands (what is Western Poland now) were “conquered” by Germans not by conquest but by intermarriage into Piast dynasty of various princes in Western Poland in combination with settlements and migration from more populous German lands to less densely populated Poland.

  75. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Dark Night

    You’re conflating the scientific theory of natural selection with “Social Darwinism,” which is a Hebrew Creationism fallacy, as noted here:

    Creationist Claim CA002.1: Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.
    Response: This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy — the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But “is” does not imply “ought.” Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.

    Index to Creationist Claims | Claim CA002.1
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html

    And if you think animals don’t protect the sick, you have neither read any of the above texts, nor even seen any of the best of youtube videos, like this one. 75 million others have….

  76. @The Dark Night

    As of course you are aware the monkey number is from Mojses Maimonides (=what passes for a moral philosopher among Jews):
    The schwartza is not a monkey because it has the gift of gab; equally self-evident is it cannot be considered human.

    The treatment of the Falasha in Israel (who by any definition ARE Jews, and after they were heim-ins-Reiched with great fanfare – Operation Joshua) is a giveaway.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @The Dark Night
  77. Art says:
    @The Dark Night

    Judaism accepts all people. You can become a rabbi, even if you were born a Hindu. No problem.

    Hmm — your argument does not hold water – in the scheme of things – it is a lie – how many times a year does that happen – TWO?

    Here is the overwhelming racist opperitive Jewish Tradition.

    How many times a year does racist Israel do apartheid things to the Palestinians?

    See comment 53 – 36,000 Israeli Arabs are being pushed off their land by racist apartheid Israel.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  78. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Conflating the theory of natural selection with Social Darwinism is a Creationism fallacy, indexed as CA002.1, but is related to several Creationist fallacies indexed at TalkOrigins.org shown in the screen-save here:

    Pop over to TalkOrigins.org, especially the Creationist Fallacy index, and avail yourself of the materials.

    And since Israel requires billions of dollars of military assistance, year after year after year, what you are doing is parasitically relying on the White Man’s morality to defend his own progeny. Not that parasites don’t have their own parasitic version morality.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  79. Robjil says:
    @Alden

    The term came about because of the Circassians, one of many groups of people who live in the Caucasus. J. F Blumenbach, a German anthropologist, invented the term Caucasian race because he thought that the Circassians were the ideal human form.

    http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/the-circassian-mystique-and-its-historical-roots

    Admiration for Circassian beauty and bravery in the West was widespread during the Enlightenment. Voltaire took it for granted that Circassians were a comely people, a trait that he linked to their practice of inoculating babies with the smallpox virus. In the nineteenth century, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, the founder of physical anthropology, invented the concept of the “Caucasian race” partly in reference to the Circassians. He reckoned that the peoples of the Caucasus, particularly the Circassians and Georgians, represented something close to the ideal human form, having “degenerated” less than others since the creation. Early anthropologists thus sought to elevate Europeans by linking them to the Circassians in a common racial category.

  80. @Jake

    >Jews by and large avoid converting people.

    Wrong. In the US 30% plus non-religious jews marry gentiles. Many gentile wives convert. The children identify as jews or not according to their fancy, but of course are half jewish genetically.

    I suggested that secular American jews in the millions are in the process of blending their genetic heritage into the white gentile population. As I said above, that process seems very Darwinian and to the advantage of the white race. An alien population as it seemed to the most objective European thinkers gentile and jewish alike in the 19th century (cited at great length in the article above) is in 2019 is not alien or as alien (YMMV).

    The bigots here will resist that notion.

    RFC

    • Disagree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @renfro
  81. renfro says:

    for many Jews as they seek to explain to themselves and others just what it is that constitutes Jewishness

    The Jewish Industry of Jews trying to define what they are is even older than the Jewish Holocaust industry.

    Who, besides Jews, should care? We know what they do….which is all we really need to know.

    Everyone tries to complicate the question of what the Jews are and where they came from. Its not that complicated.

    Before Jews came to be called Jews because of creating Judaism they were pagans and of mixed races just like everyone else in Arabia. …Greeks, Africans, etc. etc..
    Even more so today Jews are more Heinz 57 than any specific race due to dispersing around the world. They keep looking for and claiming ways to elevate themselves into being a people ‘unlike’ all other people, races, someone ‘distinctive’ as opposed to ordinary, etc..

    Hard core ‘Jewishness’ is a Cult …whether religious or secular , and it sprang from teachings in Judaism…all the ideas of specialness, chosen, being victims are found even in the secular Jew . The ‘seeds’ of Zionism were always within Judaism …’which recounts over and over ‘the enemy nations’ of the Jews.

    And for the 100th time there is no unique Jewish DNA…..DNA only shows who you ‘are related to’.
    It may show you are related to someone who practiced Judaism….but practicing a religion is not a genetic inheritance.

  82. Poco says:
    @AaronB

    So basically read more carefully. That is not what the article said. That’s an F.

  83. AaronB says:
    @Anonymous

    Darwinism, since its inception, has always been used to justify amoral conduct.

    Today’s red pill manosphere nonsense is another beautiful legacy of Darwinism.

    Darwinism can be softened to include mild altruistic elements, but it fundamentally promotes amoral conduct, and has always been perceived that way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Art
  84. @Anonymouse

    Nonsense.

    A few secular jews marry out and they are not the crew that is having children
    so it doesn’t matter.

    The orthodox do not marry out and they are the ones having children.

    If a jew marries a gentile they are no longer welcome in the synagogue.

    Organized jewry spends hundreds of millions on educating young jews to date and marry within the jewish race.

    For 2000 years the jews have refused to assimilate, set themselves apart, and they will continue with the same behavior no matter what some IDF bullshitter claims in this comment section.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
  85. renfro says:
    @Anonymouse

    I suggested that secular American jews in the millions are in the process of blending their genetic heritage into the white gentile population. As I said above, that process seems very Darwinian and to the advantage of the white race.

    And what benefits does the white gentile population derive ?

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
  86. @The Dark Night

    Sorry to have to break the news, but no one outside the US uses the Blumenbach nomenclature anymore (not to be mixed up with the “Urheimat” hypothesis for the origin of indogermanic peoples, that has by and large been vindicated).
    Indeed the only one of the original Boas kamarilla still regularly quoted is Margaret Mead – not because anyone agrees with her but because she was a hard worker, astute observer and most of the tribes she did are no longer with us.

  87. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Judaism, since its inception, has always been used to justify amoral conduct.

    Judaism elevates Jacob the Deceiver as their spiritual and moral ancestor, because cheatin’ and lyin’ and stealin’ are an essential part of Judaic faith.

    Judaism can be softened to include mild altruistic elements, but it fundamentally promotes amoral conduct, and has always been perceived that way.

    p.s. Doubling down on your Creationist Fallacy CA002.1 doesn’t make it more true, it just makes you look more desperate.

    p.p.s. The morality of a lazy parasite is recorded in your book of Joshua, “So I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did not build; and you live in them and eat from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant.”

  88. Art says:
    @AaronB

    Darwinism, since its inception, has always been used to justify amoral conduct.

    Zionism, since its inception, has always been used to justify amoral conduct.

    See comment # 53

    Apartheid racist Israeli Jew Zionism is sending 36,000 Arab Israeli citizens to camps and giving their land to Jew squatters.

    Justified amoral conduct!

    p.s. Poor AaronB — he can never win – his tribe is just to amoral.

  89. @Anonymous

    And if you think animals don’t protect the sick, you have neither read any of the above texts, nor even seen any of the best of youtube videos, like this one. 75 million others have….

    What’s amazing is that a bunch of idiots could watch those videos and believe they’re evidence of animals protecting animals, instead of displays of territoriality and other instinctive behaviors.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  90. Anonyous says:
    @The Dark Night

    I forgot to say thank you for the compliment with which you started. I get into a single-minded berserkir mode sometimes, and I apologize for not previously acknowledging your kind words.

    I agree with you that humans are just another species of animals, which also concurs with the author of single charming* book in the Bible, Ecclesiastes. Our fate is the same as the rest of the animals, dust to dust, nobody knows if our alleged “spirit” rises up. I think men do fine with the same Epicurean philosophy expressed in the book—eat, drink, and be merry in your labor—and being with a woman, and don’t be overly righteous. The Jews didn’t like the book much though, and they added Pharisaic water to the preachers wine to make it acceptable for their canon.

    If you’ve ever enjoyed Ecclesiastes, I recommend the version below. Paul Haupt sifted out out the glosses, and leaves the original poem; his translation is the best I’ve ever encountered.

    [MORE]

    The genuine portions of Ecclesiastes are Sadducean and Epicurean ; Stoic doctrines are found almost exclusively in the Pharisaic interpolations.
    […]
    The pessimistic poem may have caused such a sensation that it was impossible to suppress it. The Pharisaic authorities therefore decided to save the attractive book for the Congregation but to pour some water into the author’s strong wine.
    […]
    The genuine portions of Ecclesiastes, which may be arranged in eight sections, comprise 195 pairs of hemistichs with 3 + 3 beats, grouped either in couplets (Sections I, V, VIII) or in triplets (Sections II, III, IV, VI, VII). Pairs of hemistichs with 2 + 2 beats occur only in the interpolations {cf. IV, f, 8, 2 ff. and VI, a. 7. v), and in one illustrative quotation [cf. above, n. 22) VI,…;," we find 3 + 2 beats.

    Paul Haupt (1905) The Book of Ecclesiastes: A New Metrical Translation (with an introduction and explanatory notes). Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. p.6. http://archive.org/stream/bookofecclesiast00balt

    * “Ecclesiastes is the only charming book ever written by a Jew.” -Ernest Renan (1823 – 1892)

    source: James Crenshaw (2013) Qoheleth: The Ironic Wink. University of South Carolina Press

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  91. Druid says:
    @Lot

    Yup, the Hasbara trolls are out again: Dark Knight, Aaron, Lot, etc

  92. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    “Europeans uglified the world. Darwinism is just one hideous theory among many. Make amends by re-beautifying the world. Come up with beautiful, moral theories. Jews can’t do all the heavy lifting for you.”

    You must be smokin’ some pretty strong stuff to seriously believe that which you are saying. Just for starters, Europeans created classical architecture, classical music and painting, the ugliness started when Jews were let out of the ghettos and created abstract art, screeching music, hideous modern architecture and Hollywood.

    Beauty could only be re-created if the Jew lost all his influence in the world tomorrow.

  93. renfro says:
    @The Dark Night

    You don’t even have your own sacred books.

    Anyone who isn’t ‘moral’ was born without a moral conscience. ….neither books nor religion are needed…..you either have it or you don’t.

    You can be ‘schooled’ out of acting morally…..which is what has happened to many Jews.

  94. @AaronB

    The Jews know exactly what they are doing. They really don’t oppose it at all. They know the hordes of immigrants will destroy Western Civilization and Whites and that’s their plan. They are using massive gene introgression in their Rainbow Utopia to defeat whites because they fear them more than the mongrels that will be the offspring.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  95. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Whenever a believer in make-believe encounters scholarly references evidencing that morality evolved naturally, without any divine intervention, it elicits an instinctive behavior called a FAP (Fixed Action Pattern,) in which they try to protect their fantasy world-view from reality. Nobody wants to watch you FAP, dude. Chill.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  96. @AaronB

    Interesting point, and unfairly neglected IMHO.
    Pardon if I have to lean on Jaspers a little …

    – Islam is pre-neolithic in structure but reasonably able to emulate monotheism and universal ethics (that they still use “abd” as their n-word is a minor detail).
    Let´s call it a high religion humoris causa.
    – National Socialist ethics, Scientific Christianity, whatever you may call it, easily gets Zarathustra´s seal of approval (“What is the essence of Mazdanism, o Ahura Mazda?””How to mightily grow corn, o Spithama Zarathustra.” alternatively “Where the woman thrives, where the children thrive, where the cattle thrive.”)
    – Judaism by contrast is not “pre-” but actively ANTI-neolithic. Genesis starts with the Yahu crapping on the hard-working farmer and favoring the vagrant chicken thief, and from there it gets progressively worse. It makes no difference whether the Israelites created the Yahu in their image or the other way round or if they are indeed the Secular Body of Yahu and thereby anointed to lord over us (attempts at “healing” included); the entire Book is the rationalization and ego-defense of someone you do not want as neighbor.

    Spinoza noticed it, and he got roasted (Luther also did but a goy doesn´t count).
    Herzl also noticed it, and when they are not pissing on his grave they hava nagilah on it.
    Canetti was called “self-hating”, etc. etc.

    There can be little doubt it is highly adaptive, but that´s about it.

  97. @niteranger

    Yes, the jews weaponized immigration to destroy Christendom.

    White Christian Americans saved their sorry asses from the evil Nazis,
    and they opened our borders to thank us for saving them.

    Loyalty is NOT a jewish trait.

  98. @Anonymous

    Nobody wants to watch you FAP, dude. Chill.

    Obviously this isn’t true. If you are a fan of those videos as providing evidence of animals living together in their Ark of mutual love, then you do enjoy watching fappers. Enjoy the show.

    You remind me of those dopes in the Bay Area who found a sick baby sea lion, raised her to health and adulthood, and then let her go near the Farallon Islands to rejoin her own kind. As they proudly stood on the boat, watching the sea lion swim away in its first few glorious moments back in nature, a great white shark came up from below and nearly tore it in half. The horrified onlookers screamed in shock as nature took its toll on their “Born Free” moment.

    Like you, they didn’t realize nature has its own morality.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  99. @renfro

    The advantage is to make the white population more intelligent.

    • LOL: renfro
  100. @Robert Dolan

    Dolan writes A few secular jews marry out and they are not the crew that is having children
    so it doesn’t matter.

    False. More than 35% of American secular jews marry gentiles.

    The orthodox do not marry out and they are the ones having children.

    True and false. The orthodox do not marry out and have lots of children. Yet, quite a number of those raised ultra-orthodox opt out and either become secular or moderately religious. Non-orthodox jewish-gentile couples have children but fewer. Orthodox jews comprise only 22% of American jews.

    If a jew marries a gentile they are no longer welcome in the synagogue.

    False for most synagogues, true for orthodox synagogues (only 22% of American jews).

    Organized jewry spends hundreds of millions on educating young jews to date and marry within the jewish race.

    Proving my point. Such a large percentage outmarry that programs have been set up to fight against that tendency. The figures show that the programs have little or no effect.

    For 2000 years the jews have refused to assimilate, set themselves apart, and they will continue with the same behavior no matter what some IDF bullshitter claims in this comment section.

    True in the past, false now in 2019. That was my point in my original comment.

    Insults are not very strong arguments. If Dolan checked out the facts he would discover that American jews are marrying gentiles at a prodigious rate. But that fact would cause great pain to a jew hater.

  101. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I posted several scholarly texts (which you’re studiously ignoring) with a single video. Evidently you can’t count, or don’t know that adding an “s” makes a word plural. But the video was only a fun response to the silly notion that animals don’t ever help out other animals. You remind me of an angry crank who can’t read, and likes to misconstrue what others say, like Adam Schiff. Why are you this way? Is it your pencil neck?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  102. Alden says:
    @The Dark Night

    But the Old Testament was written 250BC in Alexandria Egypt only 2,250 years ago long after the modern races developed. Didn’t know the Old Testament went as far NW as the Caucasus.

    What ever fairy tales and founding myths you choose to believe

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  103. Anon3 says:

    We all have Buddha Nature.
    This is great news, for all of us.
    Jews included…

  104. Alden says:
    @nokangaroos

    Operation Joshua was just another fraud Israelis perpetrated on gullible American Jews to raise money for Israel. Happens about every 20 years, a new group of oppressed at risk of extermination Jews that can only be saved by money given to Israel. I shouldn’t criticize. All the American churches are doing the same, going to the ends of the earth to keep their save the refugees grifter hustler rackets going.

  105. Alden says:
    @Jake

    First international language was Greek after 320 BC then Roman Latin.

  106. @The Dark Night

    “The definition of a Jew is based on faith.”

    Your definition is not exactly accurate. Racial continuity (ancestry) is the true definition of Jewishness. Israel’s Law of Return reflects this value. Religiosity is incidental to Jewishness. Some 40% of Jewish Israelis consider themselves atheists or agnostic.

    Thus atheistic Jews such as Golda Meir, Leon Trotsky, Sigmund Freud, Alan Dershowitz, and Moshe Dayan are all considered as Jewish as any rabbi. And there are millions more just like them.

    Deeply religious, black Jews on the other hand are being driven out of Israel, the Jewish community, and Jewish faith by race-oriented Jews who dominate the Jewish world. You haven’t heard?

    https://forward.com/opinion/408769/black-jews-are-being-chased-out-of-the-jewish-community-by-racism-here-are/

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @The Dark Night
  107. @Jake

    Right. WASP ‘s are Jews 2.0. WASP created the Emperium through WW2 and then just deferred to the Jews who then constructed our post modern world view. I understand that the Rev. Haggee ahs actually admitted Jews to salvation. In 50 years Jesus will be an afterthought in Anglo Protestantism

  108. Talha says:
    @mark green

    This makes sense because the architects of Zionism were atheist/secular ethnic-nationalist Jews.

    I had a recent exchange with a traditional religious Jew who is anti-Zionist and he stated:

    Zionism was created to deliberately replace Judaism with Zionism. They hated judaism. That’s why they made Zionism. So you don’t need Judaism anymore.

    Let’s just say a group of apostate, atheist ex-Muslims got together and started a platform that they were going to restore the dead Caliphate and make its capital Madinah. I’d trust it as far as I could throw them.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  109. @Intelligent Dasein

    Right, the correct title of this article therefore should be: “Modern Jewry and the Challenge of Darwinism”.

    As such, it is a striking example of Jewish “flexible” tribal politics, always considering “what is good for Jews”.

  110. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    “…there is no coherence…”

    But there is cohenrence.

  111. @The Dark Night

    Is there an honest translation into English of what the Talmud says about gentiles? Israel Shahak
    says there isn’t.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  112. @Anonymous

    I posted several scholarly texts (which you’re studiously ignoring) with a single video.

    I saw a couple of Wikipedia articles, which you casually misinterpreted. And your “single video” was a mish-mash of several videos edited together by some teenager with too much time on his hands.

    Go back to watching the fappers fap. It’s a more productive use of your time.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  113. anon[642] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art

    ”… we shut down our businesses, we shut down our jobs, we shut down the streets…”

    Sounds like a way to destroy a Country.
    Is Soros funding this clown?

  114. @Art

    Every person in the military and in law enforcement should be sent that 4 min video to watch.

  115. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Wiki is not kind to Theodor Herzl here:

    There has been some controversy surrounding the impact that this event had on Herzl and his conversion to Zionism. Herzl himself stated that the Dreyfus case turned him into a Zionist and that he was particularly affected by chants of “Death to the Jews!” from the crowds. This had been the widely held belief for some time. However, some modern scholars now believe that due to little mention of the Dreyfus affair in Herzl’s earlier accounts and a seemingly contrary reference he made in them to shouts of “Death to the traitor!” that he may have exaggerated the influence it had on him in order to create further support for his goals.[19][20]

    Jacques Kornberg claims that the Dreyfus influence was a myth that Herzl did not feel necessary to deflate and that he also believed that Dreyfus was guilty.[21]

  116. @Achilles Wannabe

    Yes, there is the Soncino Edition translation. You can find it all on Halakha.com

    This is a translation of the Vilno Edition, which is used in all Yeshivas throughout the world. The Vilno Edition is in Aramaic. I have compared quotations and expressions from the Soncino Edition to the Vilno and always found them true, translated correctly and following the text. I can find any quotation from the Vilno Edition in the Soncino and vice versa.

    Except these two versions, there is also a manuscript online. Hand-written, more antique. In that version all the text is the same except for the terms used to refer to gentiles. If in the Vilno and the Soncino editions there are various terms for various gentiles, such as Samaritan, idol-worshipper et cetera, in the manuscript all gentiles are called plain gentiles.

    I can find any quotation in all three versions of the Talmud.

  117. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    You saw wrong. That’s sad, Mr. Magoo. These aren’t wiki articles:

    • Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. (1996) Harvard University Press
    • Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. (2006) Princeton University Press
    • Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (2010) Chicago University Press
    • Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. (2012) Basic Books

    And how does merely listing titles “misrepresent” anything? Do tell! I’d speculate that you’ve got a burr under your ass because the “Darwinian” information about the scientific theory of Natural Selection within those texts threatens your Creationist world view. Amirite?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  118. @Art

    You still can become a rabbi, son.

    First, convert and become a Jew. This will take a year. Then go to a Yeshiva and study for 7 years. And then you will become a rabbi.

  119. @Oscar Peterson

    In Israel, only the Orthodox Jews have authority in the question of conversion. It is much easier to become a Jew in the US. I gave you directions according to the Orthodox regulation. You convert after studying for about a year. Lots of people in Israel are non-Jews who came with their families and many of them convert. I know this for sure. And many of them don’t convert and live in Israel as gentiles. No one cares about that. All secular Jews are gentiles.

    The blood is only important if it is the mother’s blood, and the implication is that a child always tends to follow his mother and will not betray his mother, so if his mother was a Jewess than the child will most probably be loyal to the Jews. Unlike in the case when he had a Jewish father, who left him. A mother is much less likely to leave a child. These are simple and pragmatic rules, which work. I don’t understand why it makes you so irritated.

    Are you not trying to formulate something similar for your own peoples?

  120. @nokangaroos

    Please, reference a page from some of his, Maimonides, book so I can read it where he said that.

  121. @Anonymous

    Those book titles weren’t in any post I responded to. There were just two Wikipedia links and a dumb (but cute) video.

    Good to see, though, that you’re keeping up on your reading. Shame it doesn’t help you to improve your arguments.

  122. @Anonyous

    Thank you.

    I think the Jews have written more than one charming book. The first four books of Torah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, the Gospels and the Book of Revelation are very charming books. The Talmud is a special book and is in its own way also charming. Then there is Zohar, the Book of Splendour, which inspired many Christian thinkers, such as Jacob Boehme. The Jewish philosopher Salomon Maimon wrote a great autobiography, in which he argues with Kant. And there are prosaic writers, such as B. Singer. I think the Jews have always been good at writing charming books.

    Recommend you to read “Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism.”

  123. @mark green

    The Law of Return is a secular law. The rules of being a Jew are religious rules. There is no correlation between them, because Israel is a secular state. Religious laws do not have power in Israel, unless they are recognized and accepted by the secular courts.

    You can still be a Jew if you are an atheist, but in this case most religious Jews will consider you a gentile. The difference is that if you want to begin a religious Jewish life, you won’t need to undergo a conversion. You will be accepted on the grounds that you were a Jew by birth. You will also be able to marry a Jewish woman in a religious ceremony, if you are a Jew by birth. This is all the difference.

    There are some groups in the world that claim to be Jews, for example Igbo people in Nigeria, and the Black Hebrew sect in the US. These people, as well as the American Reform Jews, will not be accepted because they do not follow the Jewish Law, the Halacha. For them conversion is required to gain recognition. But all of them can do it.

  124. @Anonymous

    Some animals are kind, noble and can sacrifice their lives to protect who they love, to save them, to help them. Some animals are monogamous.

    But like the people, some animals are cruel and mean. Don’t make it look too simple. The world is complicated.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  125. @Alden

    It was written much earlier. At least 500 years prior to that. You are talking about the translation. The Septuagint, a Greek translation was recorded about that time.

  126. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Dark Night

    I wasn’t trying to oversimplify, I was just countering the notion that other animals don’t show the same emotions and moral behavior—particularly “Good Samaritan” behavior—as we self-styled sapient great apes. Other animals even demonstrate sorrow—and cry—as documented in the text When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals.

    “We find animals doing things that we, in our arrogance, used to think was just human.” (2:48)

  127. You rank among the more devious hasbarists I’ve noticed here recently. That’s no easy accomplishment. In typical Jewish fashion, you refuse to directly address my central point about race (ancestry) being central to Judaism–among both secular AND religious Jews. Do you dispute this?

    The Law of Return is a secular law. The rules of being a Jew are religious rules. There is no correlation between them, because Israel is a secular state. Religious laws do not have power in Israel, unless they are recognized and accepted by the secular courts.

    There is “no correlation” between secular and Jewish laws in Israel. Are you serious? “Correlation”? How about ‘compatibility’? Yes, there’s plenty of compatibility.

    I agree that secular laws in Israel can and do trump religious ones when push comes to shove. Sure. But these legal squabbles are at the margins of Israeli society. Most of the time, secular and (Jewish) religious views and laws accommodate one another. It’s the non-Jewish communities in Israel that are relentlessly persecuted and discriminated against. You haven’t heard?

    Israel’s fundamental Law of Return may be ‘secular’ but it is entirely consistent with the values and preferences of religious Judaism. Religious Jews are fully on board with this ‘secular’ law that gives anyone born from a Jewish mother the right to claim Israeli citizenship. Individuals born inside what’s now been declared the ‘Jewish state’ (but not born from a Jewish mother) have no such protections. This speaks volumes.

    Race/ancestry is central and key to the divisions in an around Israel. Ask the Arabs. Ask the Sephardim. Also, take a look again at how religious Jews (who are black) are treated in the wonderful, democratic Jewish state: https://forward.com/opinion/408769/black-jews-are-being-chased-out-of-the-jewish-community-by-racism-here-are/

    Israel a theocratic, race-driven ‘democracy’. What’s worse, it is parasitizing and corrupting much of the Western world. This is a criminal enterprise.

  128. @The Dark Night

    However i do wish you would respond to Shatac’s argument that the Talmud is purposely mistranslated = both by Jews and by semophile gentiles – so as to obscure it’s virulent anti-gentileism. The fact that these texts you offer highly correlate does not necessarily mean that they are honest literal translations of the Talmud.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  129. Robjil says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    We don’t need the Talmud. Actions speak louder. That is only reason people are looking at Talmud or Protocols.

    It is like after nine eleven. What the heck is happening? Everyone was looking at Islam from all different angles.

    Lol, and behold. It wasn’t the Muslims. What the heck is happening? What is it in Jewish texts that make it OK to do things like nine eleven.

    That is why there is an massive interest in the Talmud, Kabbala, theTanakh and other Jewish texts.

    The Why it is OK with our Jewish Rulers, is what we are all searching for at this site.

    Mad Albright gave us all the heads up on the OK theme for doing bad things for the Israel uber alles agenda back in 1996.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
    , @AaronB
  130. @Robjil

    WEll yeah. That is why I would like to look at an honest translation of the Talmud. Know one’s enemy.

  131. AaronB says:
    @Robjil

    But there isn’t really any interest in understanding Judaism.

    The main books of theological instruction given to yeshiva students – I once listed them here. Predictably, no one had ever heard of them.

    Read any one of them end to end, and you will perfectly understand it.

    But you won’t. No one here will.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
    , @Robjil
  132. @AaronB

    I will read in the Talmud if I can find an honest translation of it. Israel Shatock says there isn’t one
    He says translators – Jews or Gentiles – don’t want the goyem to read the real Talmud. Such reading might cause antisemitism What do you say?

    • Replies: @AaronB
  133. Robjil says:
    @AaronB

    Actions is why we are interested. Actions speak louder than words.

    Why this Seven Nations to Destroy mania? By our Zion MSM. Iran is the last one standing of the seven, so it is “bad”. This theme is from the Tanakh/OT Deut. 7:1-2

    Nine Eleven was a Israel First thing. Elul 23 was the date of 9/11 on the Jewish Calendar. That date celebrates – Noah’s dove sent a second time, and returns with an olive leaf in its beak.

    Two planes like “doves” hitting the two towers perhaps.

  134. AaronB says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    There is some truth to that.

    There are sections of the Talmud that are critical of Jesus Christ. In the Middle Ages, this was used as a pretext to ban the Jews from studying the Talmud.

    So these sections were removed or toned down, but were circulated clandestinely as a separate document.

    However, these sections have now been restored, since persecution no longer exists. They are readily available today and you can easily read them if you wish. While these sections are not complimentary to Christians, there is nothing particularly horrific in them, and certainly nothing about hating gentiles or cheating them.

    However, the Talmud is not the central study of religious Jews. It is considered advanced and difficult, and is studied in small chunks.

    The average religious Jew reads primarily texts on ethics and religious instruction. The most popular of these books are readily available in English translation.

    There is a very easy way to make sure you’re getting accurate stuff – simply go to online Jewish bookstores and publishers. These cater entirely to the Jewish community. So you know you’re reading exactly what the Jewish community is reading.

    If you live in a big city, you can probably visit a physical Jewish bookstore.

    If I wanted to know what Muslims were thinking among themselves and teaching their young, I’d go to Muslim publishers and stores that cater to their own community, and buy the most popular books used in schools.

    Now, I am not telling you that gentiles are considered fully equal to Jews in every way. You will find stuff that is not compatible with modern liberal sensitivities. But you will not find anything particularly sinister and nothing hateful.

    And you will have a perfectly clear idea of what Jews think.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  135. @AaronB

    Shatack is not talking about mere offenses to liberal sensitivities but about a straight away treatment of gentiles as marks(not to mention animals) – a double standard morality.

    But thanks. I will look into this

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Brenton Sanderson Comments via RSS