The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
Israel as One Man: A Theory of Jewish Power
🔊 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

“One outstanding characteristic of the Jewish race is its persistence. What it cannot attain this generation, it will attain next. Defeat it today, it does not remain defeated; its conquerors die, but Jewry goes on, never forgetting, never deviating from its ancient aim of world control in one form or another.”[1]Henry Ford, The International Jew (on archive.org), vol. 2, chap. 23, November 13, 1920, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilizations, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, The Occidental Press, 2007, p. 240.

So wrote Henry Ford in The International Jew. Indeed, no other people has been capable of such perseverance toward an unwavering goal, pursued step by step over many generations—a hundred generations if we trace the Zionist project back to the period of the Babylonian Exile. Jews often find themselves divided on crucial issues and involved in radically opposed movements; yet in the end, even their antagonisms seem to synergically advance their common higher purpose. Many illustrations can be found of the extraordinary capacity of the Jewish elites to separate like a school of fish and then reunite.

Is the Hebrew Bible materialistic?

The American rabbi Harry Waton had a theory to explain the organic unity, persistence and progress of the Jews. He wrote in his Program for the Jews, published in 1939: “Hebrew religion, in fact, was intensely materialistic and it is precisely this that gave it persistent and effective reality.”

“Jehovah differs from all other gods. All other gods dwell in heaven. For this reason, all other religions are concerned about heaven, and they promise all reward in heaven after death. For this reason, all other religions negate the earth and the material world and are indifferent to the well-being and progress of mankind on this earth. But Jehovah comes down from heaven to dwell on this earth and to embody himself in mankind. For this reason, Judaism concerns itself only about this earth and promises all reward right here on this earth.”

“The Jews that have a deeper understanding of Judaism know that the only immortality there is for the Jew is the immortality in the Jewish people. Each Jew continues to live in the Jewish people, and he will continue to live so long as the Jewish people will live.”

This, Waton explains, it grounded in the Hebrew Tanakh:

“The Bible speaks of an immortality right here on earth. In what consists this immortality? It consists in this: the soul continues to live and function through the children and grandchildren and the people descending from them. Hence, when a man dies, his soul is gathered to his people. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the rest continue to live in the Jewish people, and in due time they will live in the whole human race. This was the immortality of the Jewish people, and it was known to the Jews all the time.”[2]Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and Humanity. An Answer to All Anti-Semites, 1939 (archive.org), pp. 52, 125, 132.

This is close to saying that Jews have only one collective immortal soul. Significantly, Israel is the only nation who bears the name of one person (Jacob is given the name Israel in Genesis 32:29).

Is Waton’s understanding of biblical anthropology correct? And how far does it go toward explaining Jewish power? The answer to the first question is yes. Waton’s viewpoint was informed by the best scholarship of his days, which has not been contradicted since. It was and still is widely shared among educated Jews. In his last book, Moses and Monotheism, also published in 1939, Sigmund Freud correctly stressed that, on the question of individual immortality, the Egyptians and the Israelites were on the opposite end of the spectrum:

“No other people of antiquity [than the Egyptians] has done so much to deny death, has made such careful provision for an after-life […]. The early Jewish religion, on the other hand, had entirely relinquished immortality; the possibility of an existence after death was never mentioned in any place.”[3]Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, Hogarth Press, 1939 (archive.org), pp. 33-34.

There is no expectation of an afterlife in the Torah. Instead, there is an implicit denial of it: “By the sweat of your face will you earn your food, until you return to the ground, as you were taken from it. For dust you are and to dust you shall return,” says Yahweh to Adam (Genesis 3:19).[4]As usual, I quote the Bible from the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible edition , which has not altered the divine name YHWH into “the Lord,” as other English translations do for unscholarly reasons. That is a logical consequence of the way “Yahweh God shaped man [adam] from the soil of the ground [adamah] and blew the breath of life [ruah] into his nostrils, and man became a living being [nephesh]” (2:7). The proximity between adam, “man”, and adamah, “earth” or “ground”, reinforces the idea. It has been said, by Cabbalists in particular, that nephesh and ruah are two terms to designate an immortal spirit. That is a misunderstanding originating from the Greek Septuagint translation: the Hebrew word nephesh is translated as psyche. But in reality it designates a “living being,” animal or human; it sometimes means simply “life” and is associated to blood in the ritual prescriptions of Leviticus 17. The Hebrew word ruah, translated as pneuma, means “breath,” and also designates life. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures do these terms imply any form of individual afterlife.

This biblical anti-spiritualism is not to be explained as a “primitive” trait proving the Hebrew Bible’s great antiquity, as if the belief in an Otherworld of the dead was a late development in the history of religious ideas. On the contrary, the Hebrew denial of the afterlife was linked to the rejection of foreign cults, which universally included a concern for the afterlife. The Book of Genesis, whose anthropological materialism is the most explicit, betrays Mesopotamian and Persian influences that cannot be anterior to the Babylonian Exile. Significantly, it uses the Persian word Pardes to designate the “Garden” (of Eden), but turns its meaning upside down: whereas in Indo-European myths, Paradise is the happy world where the righteous dead become immortal by eating from the tree of life, in Genesis, it is a past lost forever for all mankind, and the stage of the drama that brought into the world the double scourge of death and labor; for death bears no promise, and work no spiritual reward.

Here is one illustration among others that I mention in my book From Yahweh to Zion: when, in Isaiah 38, the good King Hezekiah “fell ill and was at the point of death,” he expresses no hope of meeting his Creator or starting a new life in some Otherworld. Rather, he despairs at the prospect of not seeing Yahweh anymore. For, he tells him, “Sheol cannot praise you, nor Death celebrate you; those who go down to the pit can hope no longer in your constancy” (Isaiah 38:11-19). Sheol is simply “the pit”, and it is another common misunderstanding, stemming for its translation as Hades in the Septuagint, to think of it as a world where the dead live. There is no life in Sheol, it is a purely negative concept of death, as close as possible to the non-concept of nothingness. The term appears only five times anyway in the Pentateuch: four times in Genesis as a conventional name for death,[5]Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29; 44:31. and once in Numbers 16, in a story about rebellious Jews who, by divine punishment, are suddenly swallowed alive by the earth with all their belongings.

In response to his prayer, Hezekiah only receives an extra fifteen years of earthly life. For Yahweh holds no other reward for the faithful than a long, fertile and wealthy life on earth. Like Hezekiah, Job expects no afterlife consolation for his enduring faith, but instead gets a 140-year extension on earth, numerous offspring, as well as “fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand she-donkeys” (Job 42:12). In any other culture, his exemplary loyalty to his god would be rewarded by a happy afterlife. But Yahweh does not care about the dead, whom he “remembers no more” (Psalms 88:6).

ORDER IT NOW

In fact, Yahweh can hardly be regarded as “a god” if we define a god as residing in some world beyond this one. Yahweh claims to rule over this world alone, because he is, literally, a king (melech, a title applied to him more than fifty times in the Hebrew Bible). Yahweh is a very special king indeed: invisible, omniscient and eternal—very practical for the hereditary clans of priests and prophets who speak in his name.

Jewishness as collective soul

A “materialistic religion” may sound like a contradiction in terms. Indeed, it is questionable if the concept of “religion”, as most people understand it today, applies to biblical Judaism. The evolution of Judaism for the last two thousand years is another story. In the Hellenistic period, Greco-Egyptian dualism infiltrated Jewish thought. The Wisdom of Solomon, written in Greek in Alexandria in the first century BCE, asserts that, “God created human beings to be immortal,” and criticizes those who “do not believe in a reward for blameless souls” (2:22-23). But such books never made it into the Jewish canon, as rabbinical Judaism vigorously rejected anything Greek. Moreover, even within Hellenistic Judaism, the materialist viewpoint prevailed. According to Ecclesiastes,

“the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same: as the one dies, so the other dies; […] everything comes from the dust, everything returns to the dust” (3:19–20).

“The living are at least aware that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing whatever. […] There is neither achievement, nor planning, nor science, nor wisdom in Sheol where you are going” (9:5-10).

Significantly, the most enduring legacy of Hellenistic Judaism is the idea of physical “resurrection,” a grossly materialistic adaptation of the Greek metaphor of life after death as anastasis (“rising up”). No immortal soul is needed in this Jewish apocalyptic fantasy. So even the biblical notion of resurrection demonstrates that materialism is part of the essence of Judaism.

More recently, under circumstances comparable to the Hellenistic context, Reformed Judaism has reinjected the immortal soul into Judaic anthropology. But it is significant that, when Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), the father of the eighteenth-century Haskalah, decided to convince his fellow Jews to accept the creed of the immortality of the individual soul—a necessary condition for the elevation of humanity according to him—he did not rely on the Jewish tradition, but instead produced a Platonic dialogue titled Phaedo or the Immortality of the Soul.

Many Jewish intellectuals protested against the introduction of that foreign body into Jewish thought, and their reaction would become a central tenet of Zionism. According to Moses Hess (Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question, 1862), “Nothing is more foreign to the spirit of Judaism than the idea of the salvation of the individual which, according to the modern conception, is the cornerstone of religion.” For Hess, the essence of Judaism is “the vivid belief in the continuity of the spirit in human history,” because “the Jews are something more than mere ‘followers of a religion,’ namely, they are a race brotherhood, a nation.”[6]Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (archive.org), pp. 48, 64-65, 71, 98.

Likewise, according to Zionist historian Benzion Netanyahu, former secretary of Zeev Jabotinsky and father of the current Israeli Prime Minister, defining Jewishness as religion rather than nationality “was the fruit of self-deception.” He defends a racial conception that amounts to considering that Jews are only immortal as a nation:

“Only by intermarriage can a person uproot himself from a nation, and then only in so far as his descendants are concerned. His individuality, which is an extract and an example of the qualities of his nation, may then be lost in future generations, dominated by qualities of other nations. Quitting a nation is, therefore, even from a biological point of view, an act of suicide.”[7]Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism (1938), Balfour Books, 2012 , kindle ed., 157-66 and 2203–7.

Netanyahu is right: his concept of Jewishness is the only one consistent with the Bible. Jewish influential journalist Lucien Wolf tried to have it both ways by claiming that, “in Judaism the religion and the race are almost interchangeable terms,” which of course makes no sense within the commonly accepted notion of religion.[8]Lucien Wolf, “What Is Judaism? A Question of Today,” The Fortnightly Review XXXVI, (1884), pp. 237-256, on http://www.manchesterjewishstudies.org/wolf/ A religion welcomes converts, but not the “religion” of Israel. There are exceptions: mass forced conversions, on the one hand, and individual sons-in-law who bring added value to the gene pool or the financial pool, on the other, but no case is recorded in the Bible.

What about circumcision, you may ask. Is it not a rite of admission into the Jewish community? Not in the Bible. As the “sign of the covenant” imposed by Yahweh on Abraham, for “you and your descendants after you, generation after generation” (Genesis 17:9), circumcision actually reinforces the strictly genetic, even genital, nature of Jewishness. As a “mark in the flesh” passed on from father to son, it perfectly symbolizes the unspiritual nature of Yahwism.

There is in the Bible a strict equality between monotheism and racial purity: Yahweh forbids Jews to marry their children to non-Jews because “your son would be seduced from following me into serving other gods” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). When some Israelites take wives among the Moabites (an Abrahamic people), what bothers Yahweh is that these women “invited them to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down before their gods” (Numbers 25:1-2). From the point of view of an evolutionary psychologist like Kevin MacDonald, the exclusive cult of the jealous god is just a religious pretext for a eugenic project based on strict endogamy, and Judaism is fundamentally a “group evolutionary strategy among peoples.”[9]Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Praeger, 1994.

By depriving the Jews of any individual soul, and deifying instead their racial identity, the Torah programs Israel as the most holistic nation. The immortality that is denied the individual is reinvested entirely on the people as a whole (“I instituted an eternal people” Isaiah 44:7), as if the Jews were united by a single, national, genetic soul, personified by Yahweh. In an “Essay on the Jewish Soul” (1929), Isaac Kadmi-Cohen actually describes Judaism as “the spiritualization that deifies the race,” so that “divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”[10]Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, Felix Alcan, 1929 (archive.org), pp. 98, 143. Israel is possessed by a unique destiny, and each Jew contributes to that destiny. Jewish apologist Maurice Samuel writes in You Gentiles (1924): “The feeling in the Jew, even in the free-thinking Jew like myself, is that to be one with his people is to be thereby admitted to the power of enjoying the infinite.”[11]Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, New York, 1924 (archive.org), pp. 74–75. And German Zionist Alfred Nossig wrote in 1922: “The Jewish community is more than a people in the modern political sense of the word. […] It forms an unconscious nucleus of our being, the common substance of our soul.”[12]Alfred Nossig, Integrales Judentum, 1922, pp. 1-5 (on www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/DXCTNNZZ3INPTI2S3MYPGLQOFR3XSW22)

From a religious point of view, individual immortality appears to be missing in biblical anthropology. But the notion of collective immortality that replaces it is the source of the greatest strength of the Jewish people. An individual has only a few decades to accomplish his destiny, while a nation has centuries, even millennia. Jeremiah can reassure the exiles of Babylon that in seven generations they will return to Jerusalem (“Letter of Jeremiah,” in Baruch 6:2). Seven generations in the history of a people is not unlike seven years in the life of a man. While the Goy awaits for his time on the scale of a century, the chosen people see much further. The national orientation of the Jewish soul injects into any collective project a spiritual force and endurance with which no other national community can compete.

ORDER IT NOW

Israel operates with a totally different time scale than other nations. It defines itself by a parnoramic vision that scans millennia into the past and into the future. It keeps a vivid memory of its beginnings 3000 years ago, and it looks with anticipation to the fulfillment of its destiny at the end of times. It makes no difference if its memory is not accurate history. As Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi points out in Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory, “Only in Israel and nowhere else is the injunction to remember felt as a religious imperative to an entire people.”[13]Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (1982), University of Washington Press, 2011. This characteristic is certainly inherited from its nomadic past, for nomadic peoples are more intensely committed to collective memory and genealogy than sedentary people, who are also rooted in the land (the land keeps their memory). Memory is individuality, and Israel’s extraordinary memory makes it an individuality of extraordinary character.

The “national soul” paradigm, rooted in the biblical denial of individual immortality, combines with the “chosen people” paradigm, another fundamental aspect of the biblical matrix. For if the Jewish soul is somehow identifiable to Yahweh, and if Yahweh is God, it follows that the Jewish soul is God. This combination of biblical materialism and biblical ethnocentrism (or pseudo-universalism) is the simple equation, the E=mC2 that explains the “Jewish mind” (better, at least, than Raphael Patai’s book of the same title)[14]Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press , 1977 (on books.google.fr)..

The parasitic nation

The holistic principle rooted in biblical materialism is not a sufficient explanation for the Jews’ persistent effort toward world domination. To some degree, every nation was, until recently, organic. The word “nation” comes from the Latin for “birth” or “race”: a nation exists when people living in the same “Fatherland” (la Patrie, in French) feel “familiar”, recognize each other as brothers, sharing common ancestors. To understand how special is the Jewish nation, we need to define more precisely its organic character. Henry Ford has a suggestion:

“The Jewish problem in the United States is essentially a city problem. It is characteristic of the Jew to gather in numbers, not where land is open nor where raw materials are found, but where the greatest number of people abide. This is a noteworthy fact when considered alongside the Jews’ claim that the Gentiles have ostracized them; the Jews congregate in their greatest numbers in those places and among those people where they complain they are least wanted. The explanation most frequently given is this; the genius of the Jew is to live off people; not off land, nor off the production of commodities from raw material, but off people. Let other people till the soil; the Jew, if he can, will live off the tiller. Let other people toil at trades and manufacture; the Jew will exploit the fruits of their work. That is his peculiar genius. If this genius be described as parasitic, the term would seem to be justified by a certain fitness.”[15]Henry Ford, The International Jew, vol. 2, chap. 23, op. cit.

This national genius is rooted in the Bible. Yahweh has destined Israel to be, not just an organism like other nations, but a parasitic one. From the time of Moses, Yahweh has sworn to give his people a country “with great and prosperous cities you have not built, with houses full of good things you have not provided, with wells you have not dug, with vineyards and olive trees you have not planted” (Deuteronomy 6:10-11). The prophets encourage the parasitic destiny of Israel: “You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (Isaiah 60:16); “Strangers will come forward to feed your flocks, foreigners will be your ploughmen and vinedressers; but you will be called ‘priests of Yahweh’ and be addressed as ‘ministers of our God’. You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (Isaiah 61:5-6); “the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be heaped together: gold, silver, clothing, in vast quantity” (Zechariah 14:14). “I shall shake all the nations, and the treasures of all the nations will flow in, and I shall fill this Temple with glory, says Yahweh Sabaoth. Mine is the silver, mine the gold! Yahweh Sabaoth declares.” (Haggai 2:7-8).

Usury is the quintessential parasitizing, and as far as I know, the Yahwist priests were the first to conceive of enslaving entire nations through debt: “If Yahweh your God blesses you as he has promised, you will be creditors to many nations but debtors to none; you will rule over many nations, and be ruled by none” (Deuteronomy 15:6).

The archetypal parasitic hero is Joseph, son of Jacob. Having risen from the status of a slave to that of chancellor of Pharaoh, he favors his kinsmen and obtains for them “land holdings in Egypt, in the best part of the country.” Responsible for managing the national grain reserves, he stores large amounts during the years of plenty; and then, when famine strikes, he negotiates a high price for the monopolized grain and thus “accumulated all the money to be found in Egypt and Canaan.” The following year, having created a monetary shortage, he forces the peasants to relinquish their herds in exchange for grain: “Hand over your livestock and I shall issue you food in exchange for your livestock, if your money has come to an end.” One year later, the peasants have nothing left “except our bodies and our land,” and so are reduced to begging, then have to sell themselves in order to survive: “Take us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will become Pharaoh’s serfs; only give us seed, so that we can survive and not die and the land not revert to desert!” And so the Hebrews, after settling in Egypt, “acquired property there; they were fruitful and grew very numerous” (Genesis 47:11-27), a sure sign of God’s blessing. Lawrence Wills, who has compiled several Jewish legends of the Joseph type, writes: “As difficult as it may be for the modern reader to accept, we actually have before us hero legends concerning tax farmers, as if we were reading the Robin Hood legend told from the Sheriff of Nottingham’s perspective.”[16]Lawrence Wills, Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends, Cornell University Press, 1995, p. 189. A people armed with such a holy book has a huge advantage in the competition for the control of wealth.

Since the early 19th century Napoleonic wars, Israel’s parasitism has been demonstrated in war profiteering on a grand political scale, each European mass slaughter serving as a stepping stone for the Zionist World Order. This tradition has recently culminated with the complete control of America’s imperial policy, as Greg Felton, among others, have documented in The Host and the Parasite.[17]Greg Felton, The Host and the Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, Bad Bear Press, 2012.

Parasitizing the empire is another lesson drawn from the Bible, particularly from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. At that time, the imperial power was Persia. After the Persians had conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, with the help of the Judean exiles, the latter gained positions of influence in the new imperial administration, and used them to establish their theocratic tyranny over Palestine. Some 42,360 people with their 7,337 servants and 200 male and female singers (according to Ezra 2:64-67) returned to Jerusalem, after

“Yahweh roused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia to issue a proclamation and to have it publicly displayed throughout his kingdom: ‘Cyrus king of Persia says this, Yahweh, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me to build him a temple in Jerusalem, in Judah.’” (Ezra 1:1-2).

No detail is given on the kind of pressure needed to “rouse the spirit of Cyrus,” whom, adds Isaiah, Yahweh “have grasped by his right hand,” and informed:

“It is for the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, that I have called you by your name, have given you a title though you do not know me. […] Though you do not know me, I have armed you.” (Isaiah 45:1-5)

Conspiratorial networking

Let us not be carried away by our organic metaphors. The success of the Jewish elites in advancing their national goals is not to be explained merely by some spontaneous national instinct or group soul that unconsciously binds them deeply together despite their superficial divisions. It is true that the strength of modern Zionism rests on an organic rather than hierarchical link between Jews, as Gilad Atzmon stresses: “While the organism functions as a whole, the particular organ fulfills an elementary function without being aware of its specific role within the entire system.”[18]Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, Zero Books, 2011, p. 21. Nevertheless, as Atzmon also stresses, this organic unity is created, cultivated and used by cognitive elites who are very much aware of the power they can draw from it.

In other words, Israel is not just about blood, it is also about covenant. Religious Jews believe Jewishness goes back to a Mosaic covenant between God and the only people He really cares about. But most of the Jewish intellectual, cultural, financial, political or criminal elite—members of the B’nai B’rith (“Sons of the Covenant”) or the Alliance Israélite Universelle, for example—assume it is a covenant of Jews between themselves.

In practice, the mysterious capacity of Jewish movements to drive history is based on a practice of networking perfected through 2500 years. Ethnic networking means that, unbeknownst to the Gentile public, Jewish elites coordinate their effort on a particular issue so as to apply an irresistible pressure until a desired effect is obtained. It is performed in every field and for a great variety of purposes, including in the academic sphere, to create artificial consensus. Brenton Sanderson and Andrew Joyce,[19]Andrew Joyce, “Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza,” parts 1 to 3, The Occidental Observer, May 5, 2019. both writing on Kevin MacDonald’s Occidental Observer, have brilliantly demonstrated how concerted efforts from the part of Jewish scholars over a few decades can transform any minor figure, such as Gustav Mahler or Baruch Spinoza, into personifications of the “Jewish genius”:

“Firstly, inflate the significance of a Jewish figure’s intellectual or artistic achievement to the point where it is held to be of ‘world changing’ magnitude. Secondly, accentuate the Jewish origins and affiliations of the figure so that his ‘world-changing’ achievement is held to be the natural expression of his Jewish origins and identity.”[20]Brendon Sanderson, “Why Mahler? Norman Lebrecht and the Construction of Jewish Genius,” The Occidental Oberver, April 13, 2011.

The process illustrates perfectly the connection between the “national soul” aspect of Jewishness and its practical application in networking: for committed Jews, every Jew’s achievement is a Jewish achievement, and a particular manifestation of the Jewish soul.

In the dark spheres of deep political power, elite Jews unite in conspiratorial circles to steer history in their desired direction. One of them was the Order of the Parushim, described by Sarah Schmidt, professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, as “a secret underground guerilla force determined to influence the course of events in a quiet, anonymous way.” At the initiation ceremony, each new member received for instructions:

“Until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life—dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion.”

The initiate responded by vowing:

“Before this council, in the name of all that I hold dear and holy, I hereby vow myself, my life, my fortune, and my honor to the restoration of the Jewish nation. […] I pledge myself utterly to guard and to obey and to keep secret the laws and the labor of the fellowship, its existence and its aims. Amen.”[21]Sarah Schmidt, “The ‘Parushim’: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly 65, no. 2, December 1975, pp. 121–139, on ifamericansknew.org/history/parushim.html.

Louis Brandeis (1856–1941), named at the Supreme Court by Woodrow Wilson, and his protégé and successor Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965), were members of this secret circle. “Working together over a period of 25 years, they placed a network of disciples in positions of influence, and labored diligently for the enactment of their desired programs,” writes Bruce Allen Murphy in The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection.[22]Bruce Allen Murphy, The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices, Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 10. Brandeis’ mentor Samuel Untermeyer (1858-1940) who, as rumor has it, blackmailed Wilson into naming Brandeis, and who exercised an unparalleled influence on the White House until his death, was most probably a founding member of the Parushim.

ORDER IT NOW

The group of Leo Strauss’s intimate disciples, recipients of the master’s “esoteric” teaching, form another of those conspiratorial circles. Nothing is more revealing of their philosophy than Strauss’ understanding of Machiavelli. In his Thoughts on Machiavelli. Strauss defines Machiavelli as the patriot of the highest degree because he understood that only nations can be immortal, and that the best leaders are those who have no fear of damning their individual soul, since they have none. The true patriot sets no moral limit to what he can do for his country.[23]Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, University of Chicago Press, 1978, p. 42. In an article in the Jewish World Review of June 7, 1999, Strauss’ disciple Michael Ledeen, founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), assumes that Machiavelli must have been a “secret Jew,” since “if you listen to his political philosophy you will hear Jewish music.”[24]Michael Ledeen, “What Machiavelli (A Secret Jew?) Learned from Moses,” Jewish World Review, June 7, 1999, on www.jewishworldreview.com/0699/machiavelli1.asp.

The Straussians formed the original core of the Neoconservatives. In two generations, this network of less than a hundred people have penetrated the nerve centers of the American state with the aim of seizing the levers of its foreign and military policies. The Neoconservatives’ transgenerational sustainability illustrates the organic background of Jewish networking: Irving Kristol was succeeded by his son William, Donald Kagan by his son Robert, Richard Pipes by his son Daniel, and Norman Podhoretz by his son John and his son-in-law Elliott Abrams.

Such networks of smart, tribal, Machiavellian, conspiratorial Jews are the key to the extraordinary unity of worldwide Jewry. We can compare the structure of the Jewish community to concentric orbital spheres in a gravitational field, with Yahweh’s ideology and prophecies at the core: in the inner spheres is the elite minority for whom Jewishness and Israel are permanent concerns; in the outer spheres are the “soft” Jews, who are only maintained in orbit by low gravity, and likely to break away. As fully assimilated Jews, they play an important role in public relations, and most of them can still be rallied when needed under the banner of the fight against anti-Semitism.[25]Daniel Elazar, Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry, 1976, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, k. 6668–91.

So Jewishness is also a system of mind control of the Jewish masses by the Jewish elites. Whereas in European societies, the extremes tend to be marginalized, Kevin MacDonald points out that in the Jewish community, the opposite is true:

“At all the turning points, it is the more ethnocentric elements—one might term them the radicals—who have determined the direction of the Jewish community and eventually won the day. […] The radical movement begins among the more committed segments of the Jewish community, then spreads and eventually becomes mainstream within the Jewish community. […] Jews who fail to go along with what is now a mainstream position are pushed out of the community, labeled “self-hating Jews” or worse, and relegated to impotence.”[26]Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections, op. cit., pp. 90-91.

This has been going on since the Babylonian exile, when Ezekiel’s obsession with purity of blood and of cult prevailed over Jeremiah’s tentative reform from sacerdotalism toward a more internal, moral and universal religion. As biblical scholar Karl Budde wrote: “the tendency toward the complete isolation of Israel from the heathen and the avoidance of every pollution, passed over from Ezekiel’s visions into the practical law-books,” making Ezekiel the true “father of Judaism.”[27]Karl Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, Putnam’s Sons, 1899 (archive.org), pp. 206-207. The same obsession is the central theme of the Book of Ezra. On learning that the Judeo-Babylonians already returned to Palestine had resorted to mixed marriages, and that “the holy race has been contaminated by the people of the country,” Ezra made them swear to “send away all the foreign wives and their children” (Ezra 9:2; 10:3). Three centuries later, in the same spirit, the Maccabees led a bloody civil war against the assimilationist Jews to establish their Hasmonean dynasty. The Book of Jubilees, from this period, proclaims:

“And if there is any man who wishes in Israel to give his daughter or his sister to any man who is of the seed of the Gentiles he shall surely die, and they shall stone him with stones; for he has wrought shame in Israel; and they shall burn the woman with fire, because she has dishonored the name of the house of her father, and she shall be rooted out of Israel” (30:7).

Thus the cohesion of the Jewish community is always maintained by the most committed Jews among the elites, through a paranoid terror of extermination combined with a complex of superiority. They may not all agree on “what is good for the Jews” at any particular time, but they are all absolutely committed to Israel’s grandiose destiny. And at critical times in history, they are capable of forcing world Jewry to act “as one man” (Judges 20:1). A good example is the campaign launched against Germany in March 1933, after Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich, by a frontpage article in the British Daily Express entitled “Judea Declares War on Germany. Jews of All the World Unite,” and proclaiming: “The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews dispersed throughout the world have banded together as one man to declare war on the German persecutors of their co-religionists.” Samuel Untermeyer, who led the attack, called “traitors to their race” all Jews who refused to join in the German boycott.[28]Detail in my book, From Yahweh to Zion, 2018, pp. 260-261.

These eternal Levites who control the rest of the Jews are the most biblically-minded: like David Ben-Gurion in 1936, they say, “The Bible is our mandate.” They are also the most endogamous. Still today, within the Jewish community, endogamy is all the more intense as one moves up the social hierarchy. Of the 58 marriages contracted by the descendants of Mayer Rothschild, half were between cousins. In the space of a little more than a hundred years, they married 16 times between first cousins, while also admitting a few handpicked goyish aristocrats to the lineage.[29]Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, op. cit., k. 5044–53. Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013 , k. 3975–4004. The pattern, again, is biblical: endogamy is so highly valued in the Bible that it trumps the prohibition of incest as understood by most cultures. Abraham marries his half-sister Sarah. His son Isaac marries Rebecca, the daughter of his cousin Bethuel (whose mother, Milcah, had married his uncle Nahor). And Isaac’s son Jacob marries the two daughters of his maternal uncle Laban. Not to mention Judah, founder of the Judahites (later Jews), who conceives with his daughter-in-law Tamar.

The problem of Christian individualism

The message of the Gospel is the antithesis of Jewish materialism. Jesus’ teaching to “store up treasures for yourselves in heaven” (Matthew 6:20–21) contrasts with Yahweh’s greed for “the treasures of all the nations” (Haggai 2:7–8). Jesus’s emphasis on personal salvation also comes with a strong hostility to blood ties,[30]Matthew 19:10-12, Matthew 19:29, Matthew 22:30, Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 14:26, Luke 21:23, Luke 23:29, 1Corinthians 7:1-8. and Paul teaches that being reborn through Christ cancels ethnic solidarities, social hierarchies, and even gender identities:

“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female—for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29).

Israel’s religion is indistinguishable from a strong sense of racial unity. By contrast, Christianity is unfriendly, to say the least, to the concept of race. Catholic doctrine in particular has developed an atomistic, non-genetic and egalitarian conception of the human soul that cannot account for the multi-layered complexity of the human psyche, or the “invisible loyalties” that bind each one to his ancestors, to use a term from Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy.[31]Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 56. Augustine, the major reference of medieval Catholicism, built a wall between the living and the dead, denouncing any give-and-take between the two worlds as the work of the devil. And so by eroding the ties of solidarity between the dead and the living, which are a major part of private and public cults in traditional societies, Catholicism has gradually transformed “solidary death” into “solitary death”, in the words of Philippe Ariès.[32]Philippe Ariès, L’Homme devant la mort, tome 1: Le Temps des gisants, Seuil, 1977.

For these reasons, it has been contended that Christianity laid the foundation for modern Western individualism—a collective frame of mind, ironically. Anthropologist Louis Dumont explains in his Essays on Individualism that traditional societies are holistic and hierarchical: they subordinate the individual to the community and assign to the individual a value that depends on his/her social role. Such societies admit that some individuals forsake their social existence to seek individual enlightenment, as long as these individuals do not challenge the social order and its holistic dynamic, remaining the exceptions that confirm the rule. Christianity, according to Dumont, has upset that civilisational balance by emphacizing that salvation from this world is everybody’s business. Every Christian is defined as a “self-in-relationship-to-God”, even if he doesn’t renounce the world as an ermite or a monk, and so he becomes an “individual-in-the-world.” By stages, “holism will have vanished from ideology,” and “the outworldly individual will have become the modern, inworldly individual.”[33]Louis Dumont, “The Christian Beginnings: From the Outworldly Individual to the Individual-in-the-world,” in Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective, University of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 23-59.

The Church did provide a new holistic framework to replace old ones, by emphasizing that the community of Christians forms the “body of Christ.” But when this organic body started to disintegrate, all that was left was individualism and egalitarianism. That is when strange political theories arose, holding that man is not a social animal by nature but a selfish individual who engages in social contracts only by self-interest.[34]T. D. Weldon has usefully conceptualized the opposition between “organic” and “mechanical” political theories, in States and Morals: A Study in Political Conflicts, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947 (on archive.org). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the first “social contract” theorist, taught that, in the state of nature, “man is a wolf for man” and only agrees to give up part of his individual freedom for fear of violent death. After Hobbes came Adam Smith (1723-1790), who likewise postulated that each human being is motivated exclusively by his own profit, yet wagered that in a society of free competition, the sum of individual selfishnesses will create a just society. We know the result: the rule of money has thoroughly desocialized Western man, with the smallest organic unit, the nuclear family, barely surviving.

There is certainly some truth the cause-effect relationship between Christianity and modern individualism. But the evidence has to be carefully weighed. We must take into account the fact that Western medieval society, though Christian, was strongly organic and holistic. Individualism is a modern phenomenon. The question can be put this way: was European civilization holistic thanks to Christianity, or despite Christianity? The second seems the case: feudalism, with its complex social fabric, was based on an ancient Indo-European ethos that was strongly disapproved by the Church. It emphasized ethnic solidarity, acknowledged that spirit is not independent from blood, and held vengeance of kinsmen as a sacred duty. Its core values were heroic, representing a delicate balance of holism and individualism. From ancient times, a hero is an exceptional individual who, having embodied the highest ideal of his community and/or sacrificed his life for it, continues to empower his community after death.[35]Lewis Richard Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (1921) Adamant Media Co., 2005. Although Christianity has partly incorporated heroic cults with the saints and their relics, it has considerably narrowed the concept: martyrdom is the only heroic path within Christianity.

Still, it may be an exaggeration to blame Western individualism entirely on Christianity, as does Dumont. It is even doubtful if “social contract” theories are of Christian inspiration. They emerged in the deeply Judaized England of Oliver Cromwell, and can be seen as Jewish attacks on the organic substance of Christian nations. Hobbes was a Puritan, but his religious ideas are so typically Jewish (“the Kingdom of God was first instituted by the ministry of Moses over the Jews,” he claims) that some have speculated about his possible Marrano origin.[36]Robert Kraynak, “The Idea of the Messiah in the Theology of Thomas Hobbes,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Fall 1992, on jcpa.org.

ORDER IT NOW

It is impossible, I think, to come to any simple conclusion about the merits and failures of Christianity, because we cannot objectively distinguish what belongs to Christianity and what doesn’t in any of Christendom’s achievements. No civilization can prosper without a public religion. Whether another religion could have done better for Christendom than Christianity is a futile question. What part Christianity played in the decline and fall of Christendom is equally meaningless. Yet the challenges faced by our civilization today require serious anthropological inquiries into Christianity’s legacy and deficiencies, and a quest for remedies.

German holistic reaction

We should at least learn from recent history. A case in point is the way German culture has tried to resist the dissolving power of English mercantilism and the French Enlightenment. The German reaction is attached to the name of Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803), a disciple of Kant and a mentor to Hegel, Nietzsche, Goethe, and many others. In his essay, Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind (1784-91), Herder criticizes contractualist political theories, and replaces the individualistic anthropology of the Enlightenment, which postulates an invariable human nature, by a typology of nations. Nations are seen as collective beings having each a particular “genius” forged by race, geography and history. Against the French school, which held that a person’s nationality is accidental, Herder insisted that the essential qualities of an individual are determined by his nationality. He is the initiator of what is called the ethnic theory of nationalities. His notion of Volk is at the origin of a major current of Romanticism, and also influenced Shelling’s Idealism. Herder also influenced profoundly Hegel (1770-1831), whose philosophy of history represents the culmination of German nationalism, with his concept of the State as “the march of God on earth”, and his concept of the “world-historical man” unfolding history.

German nationalism bloomed without needing to reject Christianity. Perhaps that is because German Lutheranism had a strong national flavor, like Russian Orthodox Christianity today, but unlike French Catholicism, which has always required loyalty to a foreign, transnational power headquartered in Vatican. On the other hand, it would be hard to claim that Christianity played any significant role in 18th century Germanism.

Hitler was a product of this movement. “Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer” is an expression of a thoroughgoing organic doctrine, and so is the Nazi catchword Volksgemeinschaft (“community of the people”). In Mein Kampf, Hitler praises the Aryan’s willingness to “put all his abilities at the service of the community.”[38]Hitler, Mein Kampf, Complete and Unabridged, Raynal & Hitchcock, 1941 (archive.org), pp. 408-409. Interestingly, in 1939, Rabbi Harry Waton wrote the following about Hitler and Nazism:

“Nazism is an imitation of Judaism; Nazism adopted the principles and ideas of Judaism with which to destroy Judaism and the Jews.”

“The Nazi philosophy starts out with the postulate: The blood of a race determines the nature, course of evolution and the destiny of that race. […] whether consciously or not, the Nazis took this theory from the Bible itself.”

Waton further adds:

“Hitler’s declaration that the Jewish consciousness is poison to the Aryan races is the deepest insight that the Western world has yet achieved in its own nature; and his capacity to realize this is the proof of his genius as well as the secret of his power and of the curious fascination which his personality exerts. […] it is not the practical power or wealth of the Jews that he fears, but the character of the Jewish mind. […] It is the hidden penetration of the Jewish spirit into the Gentile mind that is the danger; and it is a danger because the ‘Aryan’ mind cannot resist it, but must succumb.”[39]Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites, 1939 (archive.org), pp. 54, 64–67, 200.

Waton was wrong about the source of Hitler’s views: they didn’t originate from the Hebrew Bible. Neither did they owe anything to the Gospel. They drew from the same cultural current as Herder, which had its main source in a pre-Christian heroic mentality. Beyond that, Hitler’s anthropological notions were based on universal principles that most Jewish intellectuals of the same period knew very well but preferred Gentiles not to know.

Interestingly, two of the most important founders of modern sociology and anthropology—the scientific study of societies as holistic systems that determine the behaviors and thought patterns of individuals—happen to be German Jews (though neither of them expressed sympathies for the Jews): Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) and Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909). Here is a representative quote by Gumplowicz:

“The great error of individualistic psychology is the supposition that man thinks. […]. for it is not man himself who thinks but his social community. The source of his thoughts is in the social medium in which he lives, the social atmosphere which he breathes, and he cannot think anything else other than what the influences of his social environment concentrating upon his brain necessitate. […]. The individual simply plays the part of the prism which receives the rays, dissolves them according to fixed laws, and lets them pass out again in a predetermined direction and with a predetermined color.”[41]Ludwig Gumplowicz, Outlines of Sociology (1899), Transaction Books, 1980 (on books.google.com), pp. 240, 760.

Gumplowicz, professor of political science in Graz, has now fallen in disrepute because his theories show too much proximity with Hitler’s. In his major book, The Struggle of Races (1883), Gumplowicz formulates the natural law of “syngenism” (from the Greek syngenea, meaning kinship). Syngenism refers to a set of factors uniting members of the same race (“race” having then a rather lose meaning, not much different from “people” or “nation”). At the origin of the formation of the syngenic feeling, there is above all consanguinity, but also education, language, religion, custom, law, and way of life (down to cooking habits). In other words, syngenic feelings are based on both physical resemblance and intellectual resemblance.

Western nations are currently suffering from a pathological weakening of syngenic cohesion, resulting mainly—but not exclusively—from mass immigration. Kevin MacDonald refers to several independent studies showing that racial heterogeneity weakens the social fabric and reinforces individualism. Sociologist Robert Putnam, for example, shows that:

“immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”[42]Robert D. Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐first Century,” June 15, 2007, on https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.14...0176.x

The Europeans’ willingness to welcome Third World migrants by the millions, in the name of universalistic moral principles inherited from Christianity, together with the criminalization of any expression of white pride, is therefore a form of “pathological altruism”.[43]The standard work on pathological altruism is: Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan and David Sloan Wilson (Eds.), Pathological Altruism, Oxford University Press, 2012.

Christianity is not solely responsible for this state of affair. It did erode traditional ethnic syngenism, and in the long run, it has weakened our collective immune system by its cocktail of individualism and universalism. But the pathological agent itself is not endogenous to Christianity: as MacDonald has also documented,[44]Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, chapter 7, “Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy.” Jewish elites have been the foremost promoters of mass immigration, and the manufacturers of public consent to these policies (watch “The Tactics of Immigration”). By doing so, they have debilitated the national organisms they seek to vampirize, while reinforcing the syngenic vitality of their own national parasitic organism.

Laurent Guyénot, Ph.D., is the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014.

Notes

[1] Henry Ford, The International Jew (on archive.org), vol. 2, chap. 23, November 13, 1920, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilizations, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, The Occidental Press, 2007, p. 240.

[2] Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and Humanity. An Answer to All Anti-Semites, 1939 (archive.org), pp. 52, 125, 132.

[3] Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, Hogarth Press, 1939 (archive.org), pp. 33-34.

[4] As usual, I quote the Bible from the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible edition , which has not altered the divine name YHWH into “the Lord,” as other English translations do for unscholarly reasons.

[5] Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29; 44:31.

[6] Moses Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, 1918 (archive.org), pp. 48, 64-65, 71, 98.

[7] Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism (1938), Balfour Books, 2012 , kindle ed., 157-66 and 2203–7.

[8] Lucien Wolf, “What Is Judaism? A Question of Today,” The Fortnightly Review XXXVI, (1884), pp. 237-256, on http://www.manchesterjewishstudies.org/wolf/

[9] Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Praeger, 1994.

[10] Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, Felix Alcan, 1929 (archive.org), pp. 98, 143.

[11] Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, New York, 1924 (archive.org), pp. 74–75.

[12] Alfred Nossig, Integrales Judentum, 1922, pp. 1-5 (on www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/DXCTNNZZ3INPTI2S3MYPGLQOFR3XSW22)

[13] Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (1982), University of Washington Press, 2011.

[14] Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press , 1977 (on books.google.fr).

[15] Henry Ford, The International Jew, vol. 2, chap. 23, op. cit.

[16] Lawrence Wills, Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends, Cornell University Press, 1995, p. 189.

[17] Greg Felton, The Host and the Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, Bad Bear Press, 2012.

[18] Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, Zero Books, 2011, p. 21.

[19] Andrew Joyce, “Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza,” parts 1 to 3, The Occidental Observer, May 5, 2019.

[20] Brendon Sanderson, “Why Mahler? Norman Lebrecht and the Construction of Jewish Genius,” The Occidental Oberver, April 13, 2011.

[21] Sarah Schmidt, “The ‘Parushim’: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly 65, no. 2, December 1975, pp. 121–139, on ifamericansknew.org/history/parushim.html.

[22] Bruce Allen Murphy, The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices, Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 10.

[23] Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, University of Chicago Press, 1978, p. 42.

[24] Michael Ledeen, “What Machiavelli (A Secret Jew?) Learned from Moses,” Jewish World Review, June 7, 1999, on www.jewishworldreview.com/0699/machiavelli1.asp.

[25] Daniel Elazar, Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry, 1976, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, k. 6668–91.

[26] Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections, op. cit., pp. 90-91.

[27] Karl Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, Putnam’s Sons, 1899 (archive.org), pp. 206-207.

[28] Detail in my book, From Yahweh to Zion, 2018, pp. 260-261.

[29] Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, op. cit., k. 5044–53. Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013 , k. 3975–4004.

[30] Matthew 19:10-12, Matthew 19:29, Matthew 22:30, Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 14:26, Luke 21:23, Luke 23:29, 1Corinthians 7:1-8.

[31] Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 56.

[32] Philippe Ariès, L’Homme devant la mort, tome 1: Le Temps des gisants, Seuil, 1977.

[33] Louis Dumont, “The Christian Beginnings: From the Outworldly Individual to the Individual-in-the-world,” in Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective, University of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 23-59.

[34] T. D. Weldon has usefully conceptualized the opposition between “organic” and “mechanical” political theories, in States and Morals: A Study in Political Conflicts, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947 (on archive.org).

[35] Lewis Richard Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (1921) Adamant Media Co., 2005.

[36] Robert Kraynak, “The Idea of the Messiah in the Theology of Thomas Hobbes,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Fall 1992, on jcpa.org.

[37] Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question, 1843, on www.marxists.org/archive.

[38] Hitler, Mein Kampf, Complete and Unabridged, Raynal & Hitchcock, 1941 (archive.org), pp. 408-409.

[39] Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites, 1939 (archive.org), pp. 54, 64–67, 200.

[40] Letter to Martin Bormann dated February 3, 1945, quoted in Gunnar Heinsohn, “What makes the Holocaust a uniquely unique genocide?,” Journal of Genocide Research, November 2000, pp. 411–413, on migs.concordia.ca.

[41] Ludwig Gumplowicz, Outlines of Sociology (1899), Transaction Books, 1980 (on books.google.com), pp. 240, 760.

[42] Robert D. Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐first Century,” June 15, 2007, on https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

[43] The standard work on pathological altruism is: Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan and David Sloan Wilson (Eds.), Pathological Altruism, Oxford University Press, 2012.

[44] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, chapter 7, “Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy.”

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Christianity, Jews, Judaism, The Bible, Zionism 
Hide 226 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I am struck by the idea that judaism is pure materialism and rejects the idea of an afterlife.

    So….if there is no reward in heaven for good behavior, and no punishment in hell for bad behavior…..well, you see where this is going.

    This supports the particularist philosophy that jews do “what is good for the jews” and to hell with the rest of humanity.

    With no thought of an afterlife, you can screw everybody else over and not have to pay for it.

    Opening the borders of host nations to replace the original European inhabitants is a socially engineered genocide; deliberate, cold, vicious, diabolical, and totally aligned with a group that does not believe in a final judgement or any sort of retributive justice.

    I happen to think they are in for a very nasty surprise.

  2. Makes sense – ‘an eye for an eye’ has always been a monetary compensation system. I call the religion a fascistic capitalism, what with the exceptionalism. But how to reform it? Or is it really a case of seeing a cult for what it is, and de-Judifying the victims?

  3. Baxter says:
    @Robert Dolan

    “With no thought of an afterlife you can screw everybody else over and never have to pay for it.”

    Well said. Things are going to get very interesting in the next decade. International Judaism is becoming obnoxiously overt in its demands for submission on the part of non Jews.

    It’s become apparent to me Judaism is just as perverse, if not more so, than other religions. What is the ultimate ‘sin’ a Jew can commit? Embrace Christ.

    • Replies: @joeshittheragman
    , @anon
    , @Art
  4. GUYÉNOT: “There is no expectation of an afterlife in the Torah.”

    Blind: Wrong!

    Psalms 23: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for … Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever

    Ecclesiastes 12: And the dust returns to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave it.. for all is vanity. … – (Read on Sukkot)

    • Replies: @Moi
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  5. Jewish power comes down to this. They’re not a religion or a nationality. They’re a corporation/cabal that periodically shelters behind the concepts of religion or nationality, whatever suits their interest at the moment.

    • Replies: @Justsaying
  6. While the afterlife is rarely explicitly mentioned in the OT, it is alluded to (e.g. in Psalm 73). In the NT, some Jewish rabbis, particularly the Pharisees, clearly do believe in the resurrection and afterlife (e.g. Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8; etc).

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    , @Vojkan
  7. Vojkan says:

    If we apply the “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck” principle to Yahweh then Yahweh is most likely Lucifer and the Jewish religion / philosophy is actually luciferism.

    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  8. The important thing to ask is… how can one call this generational approach wrong? It is successful for a multitude of reasons. War is bad, and parasitism is bad, but these resultant successes are stretched back millenia. After decades of casual study, I must acknowledge that they are doing something right.

    • Replies: @Tsigantes
  9. A2n2o2n says:

    I happen to think you are right.

    Historically, as a tribe, in spite of their accomplishments the Jews appear to be exceptionally prone to self-sabotage. Their Achilles heel is a Himalayan-sized hubris.

  10. hope to meet you next saturday in Grenoble (France), for a discussion with Israel Shamir! Inch Allah you both shall open the way for some kind of miracle. Your essay is very french, as cutting edge as our “Widow”, as we call Mrs Guillotine: whenever she comes near to a possible lover, she becomes his widow. Please stop cutting necks, and restaure breathing. That is what we need now, and clever Jews as Eric Zemmour are already breaking down your geometrical Chirico’s style nightmare building.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    , @Vojkan
  11. Moi says:
    @Robert Dolan

    If Judaism a religion of materialism, little wonder America loves Jews and Israel without reservation. And if Christianity laid the foundation of individualism, as the writer avers, then we are screwed because individualism leads to greed.

    PS: Did not Kant say something like ethics is the normative science of human beings living in SOCIETY…

  12. Jake says:

    “Jews often find themselves divided on crucial issues and involved in radically opposed movements; yet in the end, even their antagonisms seem to synergically advance their common higher purpose. Many illustrations can be found of the extraordinary capacity of the Jewish elites to separate like a school of fish and then reunite.”

    Such as, Jews who use Mohammedans and Mohammedanism as the main weapon with which to batter Christ and Church, while other Jews hate the very thought of Ishmael so much that they act always to urinate on Mohammedans. But those opposite Jews always come together, like insects drawn back to the hive.

    Jewish socialists/communitarians and Jewish libertarians always swirl widely and end up back on the same page, which first and foremost is about being anti-Christ and anti-Christendom and therefore necessarily anti-peoples of historic Christendom.

    ‘The Issue’ is not about the Old Testament being materialistic; ‘the issue’ is that the Talmud is materialistic.

  13. Moi says:
    @Professional Stranger

    “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest SOB in the valley.” LOL!!!

  14. @Baxter

    obnoxiously overt
    —————————-
    Actually, that’s the Jews Achilles Tendon. They just can’t stand being low key. They are driven to rub their “success” in everybody else’s face. That’s when they finally go too far and are driven out as what has happened to them in the last 3-4 thousand years repeatedly. But – alas, they never do learn.

    • Agree: hamtok
  15. @JewishQuestion

    As I wrote, the Pharisees’ resurrection is a grossly materialisitc interpretation of the Greek anasatasis, derived from Maccabean literature: corpses revived in the coming Last days. The Sadducees were faithful to the Torah by rejecting any notion of immortality. Jesus rejected both views. A quote from my book:

    Jesus himself clearly expressed his conception of anastasis when he was questioned by Sadducees hoping to confront him with contradictions in the doctrine. They presented him with the theoretical case of seven brothers successively married to the same woman (Mark 12:18–27). The Sadducees, faithful to the Torah, did not believe in any form of life after death, and opposed the Pharisaic conception of resurrection, born of Maccabean literature. But Jesus refuted both Pharisees and Sadducees by asserting a spiritualist conception of anastasis: “For when they rise from the dead, […] they are like the angels in heaven.”

  16. @maria poumier

    Your essay is very french

    I take it as a compliment.
    But Chirico was Italian, and I will continue cutting the necks of the many-headed monster.
    Eric Zemmour, you mean the national-Zionist who is invited on every national TV to tell the French to be nationalist islamophobs and take example on Israel (and might be our next president)? Sorry, I’d love to meet you and hear Shamir (as I love to read him), but I’ll be away next saturday. Kinds regards.

  17. @Professional Stranger

    First, neither Psalms nor Ecclesiastes are part of the Torah (=Pentateuch).
    Second, Ecclesiastes is not even part of the Tanakh (=Hebrew Bible): as I wrote (but you obviously didn’t read), it belongs to Hellenistic literature rejected even by rabbinical Judaism.
    Third, in your Psalms quote, “forever” (whatever the Hebrew word) is obviously synonym with “all the days of my life”. In any case, Psalms is poetry, not doctrine.
    You could have found much better quotes, for there are many exceptions to the rule, but the rule remains: no individual immortality in the Torah. Take off your Christian glasses and you will see it.

  18. Vojkan says:
    @JewishQuestion

    Resurrection on Judgment Day. Until then the dead are on a waiting list. Only the just among Jews get resurrected then. And it is not afterlife, it is back to life. The rest stay dead. Whetever the Jewish definition of ‘just’.

    • Replies: @anon
  19. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    There is no afterlife. Ethics work better when they are based in physical reality, not make-believe.

    We know this from 150 years of neurology where you damage areas of the brain, and faculties are lost…You can cease to recognize faces, you can cease to know the names of animals but you still know the names of tools…

    What we’re being asked to consider is that you damage one part of the brain, and something about the mind and subjectivity is lost, you damage another and yet more is lost, but you damage the whole thing at death, we can rise off the brain with all our faculties intact, recognizing grandma and speaking English!

    Sam Harris
    Neuroscience vs. Afterlife

    • Agree: RVBlake, advancedatheist
    • Replies: @Anon
  20. Vojkan says:
    @maria poumier

    Zemmour is as zionist as most of his kin. His discourse has utilitarian motives, not ethical ones.

  21. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    Jewish socialists/communitarians…like these Jewish communists? “Not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them…and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

    “….primitive Christianity is Bolshevism.”

    Ludwig von Mises
    Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
    Chapter 29: Christianity and Socialism, p. 413
    https://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msS.html?chapter_num=35#book-reader

  22. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vojkan

    The resurrected golem narrative is the Jewish version of the afterlife; however, it conflicts with the Platonic immortal soul narrative. Both narratives are included in Christianity, with the typical Christian believing simultaneously that “I’m going to heaven soon, and I won’t need this stupid body there, thank goodness” and that their magically eternal soul is going to be reunited with their stupid body anyway.

    Confront someone with the fact that they are going to die and they will believe just about any story that tells them it isn’t true and they can, instead, live forever, even if it means taking the existential elevator. Now we can see this as the biggest bias of all. It has been demonstrated in over 400 empirical studies.

    Stephen Cave: The 4 stories we tell ourselves about death | TED Talk
    https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_cave_the_4_stories_we_tell_ourselves_about_death

  23. Read the Protocols of Zion, it is all right there in the open, the zionist plan for a zionist NWO that will make Orwells 1984 look like a paradise!

    • Replies: @anon
    , @awry
  24. Moi says:
    @Jake

    “Such as, Jews who use Mohammedans and Mohammedanism as the main weapon with which to batter Christ and Church, while other Jews hate the very thought of Ishmael so much that they act always to urinate on Mohammedans.”

    Jake, there is no such religion as Mohammedanism. Muslims don’t worship Muhammad or any human. Also, good Christians Americans are so nutty and ignorant that they diss Islam, the only religion, other than Christianity, that honors Christ. In fact, Muslims arguably are even more respectful of Christ than most Christians.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @sheliak
  25. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Baxter

    > International Judaism

    Rabbi Jewsus was the original Jewish Globalist.

    Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.
    Luke 24:47 Proclaimed in his name to all nations.

    > demands for submission on the part of non Jews

    Just like this, right?

    Isaiah 45:23 To me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
    Romans 14:11 To me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

    That’s the Holy Hook‘s Jew Testament for ya! No different than the OT or Talmud.

  26. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @DESERT FOX

    The Zionist Jew World Order is outlined in the Jew Testament too. “Then he destroyed seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to Israel as an inheritance.” (Acts 13:19)

    • Agree: DESERT FOX, Tsigantes
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  27. awry says:
    @DESERT FOX

    Read the Protocols of Zion, it is all right there in the open

    Yeah like the tunnels under the cities filled with explosives to hold the goyim hostage by the Jews?
    Some things in it seem to come true, but that is just confirmation bias. Also the techniques discussed by the purpored “Elders” of course exist and are employed by the Jews/Zionists (like creating controlled opposition to control all sides etc.)

  28. AaronB says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Jews have always maintained that the Tanach cannot be understood without the oral tradition, and I know of no sacred tradition where the main texts are understandable without the – generally extensive – commentary.

    Even Buddhism, which I studied extensively, is liable to be misunderstood as it is actually practiced by people who consider themselves Buddhists, if you merely focus on parts of the main texts – and it is a fact that the version of Buddhism the West knows has very little relation to real Buddhism.

    This kind of hyper-literalist reading of religious texts seems to be a major defect in the modern Western mentality – the modern West struggles to understand societies who do not express themselves in the simple, straightforward manner of science.

    People who are interested in HBD are especially prone to interpret everything in a crude, literalist, simplistic way – they generally represent the scientific approach at its crudest and most unsophisticated, where it starts shading into parody.

    In any event, whatever the Torah says, Jews themselves have always defined their religion as being intensely concerned with the afterlife. The Talmud and Mishna are literally saturated with this concern, and Jewish education points to it at every step.

    I went to an orthodox Jewish school before I became an atheist, and I can tell you that the afterlife was mentioned every single day. It was a major focus of our education.

    I think the most intelligent thing to do is see how Jews actually practice their religion, rather than what your interpretations are. The language of the Torah is only as significant as the interpretations Jews give it, not how you would interpret it.

    There are many fine books all over the web – where Jews write for other Jews, not gentiles, and where one can get an extremely clear idea of what the Jewish religion is about. There is no need for the dark guesses on unz.

    I am actually now reading a book on on Nachman of Breslov, a Jewish saint buried in Ukraine, where thousands of Jews make an annual pilgrimage. The man was a saint, and any Christian, Buddhist, or Sufi saint would recognize a true brother in him- and his writings are enormously influential in Israel and among modern Jews. THAT’S actual Judaism, that’s what modern Jews are ACTUALLY inspired by.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  29. j2 says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “no individual immortality in the Torah. ”

    Sadducee view, not Pharisee. For sure it is also Zionist view, but not Kabbalistic.

    In Torah, in Genesis, there is Enoch who did not die but was taken up to God. In the same way in Zohar sages raise up to Heaven (in Idra Rabba) but they also come down from Heaven (in Idra Zuta), and then they all drink blood.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  30. As a Zen adept (practitioner) for 50+ years, I continue to be amazed by those who believe Zen to be “materialistic” because it is atheistic. Nothing could be further from the truth ; Zen is a purely transcendental “philosophy”, if you will. Judaism, per this piece, while “theistic”, may be far more materialistic than I ever believed. A very though-provoking piece! It called to mind an Argentine novel by the late Hugo Wast (https://infogalactic.com/info/Hugo_Wast): El Kahal, never translated into English to my knowledge; the above link may offer clues as to why not.

    The realization brought about by Zen practice and insight combined with Buddhist ethics is very different from the beliefs of theists and materialistic atheists alike. It creates a psychological state of humble self-assurance that every individual is more than an animated flesh lump that simply perishes entirely, or, conversely, is an immortal individuated being whose state-of-being in “eternity” is determined by a “judgement” made by a Superior Being with discernment and will. The result is a way of life that is largely inner-directed and almost always remarkably serene. One wonders if the same could be said of the “Abrahamic” religions that seem so overburdened with rules and dogma.

    A score-keeping life with the hope of an afterlife (individual immortality) as reward or the worship of one’s own collective identity disguised as a “Supreme Being”, neither seems particularly rational in the eyes of some observers.

  31. Rodop says:

    For the time I remember there have been endless writings about the Jews putting them usually in the undesirable categories.
    Whatever the case, having in mind their small number, there is no other group of people, who influenced so much the world in science, and culture.
    I wonder why people hate them so much.

  32. @AaronB

    You have complicated the thought that this Anglican atheist had that the author had contributed considerably to my understanding, with the help of intuition and introspection, the hold of Jewishness on Jews. (It is not difficult to see how Zionism came to give emotional substance to the lives of many in the 20th century of course, but, despite the attractions of gap years in Israel and the like, there must, I thought/think, be more).

    In my imagination I still see the idea of my living forever through the gene pool of my extended family (“blood is thicker than water” said a cousin to me recently when noting that she was a life member of the political party most traditionally opposed to mine) as analogous to what the author attributes to Jewish ethnocentricity. It is not a big stretch to see people able to emphasise the memes as much as the genes and shore up the cultural affinity (despite all the varieties of tradition, ritual, practice and language that Jews have embraced over 2000 years) with Jewish ritual of which the Friday night family dinner may be the most universal. If there is a reason for supposing that this will not disintegrate it maybe that, despite Israel becoming at best a neutral element for young diaspora Jews, the decay of other ethnic groups’ solidarity and health will have served as a lesson to Jewish neighbours not to let things fall apart in the same way.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  33. Polemos says:

    Hobbes uses Moses as example of ‘personating’ the sovereign, making this argument to show how the sovereign we see is just the personation of the sovereign we as individuals cannot see. This invisible sovereign is the accumulation of all the people who bind themselves to the covenant and acts as One Man, whom Hobbes then explicitly says is a Mortal God. It is not the man who sits on the throne that Hobbes speaks of, but the Man the people form out of their collective spirit and mutual vows. They fear this Man not necessarily out of fear of being killed, but by the fear that the Man will kick him out of himself and forbid the offender any clothes, large buildings, art or commerce, scientific investigation, or decent conversation. Each person who acts to exclude or ostracize or punish in this way is personating, in their own life, what the Mortal God commands for them in their own life; the ‘state of nature’ is a hypothesis Hobbes invents (he also explicitly says that, not meaning it to be the case of our actual histories) to justify shifting the hostility from one another to the Us v Them scale. He’s reversing Socrates in Republic, who moves from the individual to an imaginary city to explain the individual, as Hobbes gets us to see why Nations fight by asking us to consider why we don’t forget to lock our own doors or why we take our arms when going out into the country or beyond. Both of them take it as given that people are personed and persons are peopled, and both conclude there must be One who rules (in) either, the people or the person.

    My Hobbes material is from the usual, or rather the material surrounding the usual, chapters from Leviathan.

    Definitely is right to see how a nation is a spiritual form of life. A biological form of life has many fractal patterns, in all of its molecules, its organisms, its generations, and the niches this form of life stakes out in its world, of which it is one of that world’s forms. For informational purposes, much of that “dirt” or “dust” reality is already spiritual, invisible to the eyes or hands or tongue but accessible to their analogues. What holds a body together, after all? It’s far more than just what we cannot see or taste, but we feel this is less miraculous when we look at bugs under microscopes or access our neighbor’s wifi, but the same polyform multidimensional universe remains. Wonder takes a change in understanding that not all ghosts are dead, and not all of the dead become ghosts, but some are both and others are neither. Finding out you’re already dead is a shock to a lot of people, so fear of dying remains.

  34. @Laurent Guyénot

    “… in your Psalms quote, “forever” (whatever the Hebrew word) is obviously synonym with “all the days of my life”…”

    Indeed it is. The text literally says “for length of days”. See : Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible – Scripture4All, Psalm 23, last sentence.

  35. Sorry, but this whole article is extremely biased & in many ways inaccurate. Though, the author, whose strong anti-Judaist stance is evident, has shown perspicacity in some matters, especially with regard to normative Judaism, I think most of his sources are either marginal or utterly wrong (or simply of no importance), I would just offer a selection of serious works on Jews & Judaism (actually, just a few books, but better than nothing).

    [MORE]

    Alan Segal: Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion

    Moshe Idel: Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders

    Walter Laqueur: The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day

    Albert Lindemann: Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews

    Amos Elon: Israelis

    Paul Mendes-Flohr: The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History
    ….

    and these are works I find shallow or self-congratulatory:

    Paul Johnson: A History of the Jews

    Prager-Telushkin: Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  36. @Rodop

    “…Whatever the case, having in mind their small number, there is no other group of people, who influenced so much the world in science, and culture. I wonder why people hate them so much…”

    Because, to use your own expression, “there is no other group of people, who influenced so much the world in…science and culture”? Yes, but also in pseudo-science, degenerated culture and destructive politics, and we goyim are on the receiving end of these “contributions”.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Rodop
    , @Druid
  37. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Ethnocentrism is not a “naturalistic” fact. It cannot be made sense of using HBD principles.

    Your genes merely want to survive – obviously having no narrow preferences with regard to who you mate is the optimal survival strategy.

    Further, refusing to be absorbed by a stronger foe – remaining stubbornly independent – can come at immense cost and is clearly a sub-optimal strategy. Jewish genes would have been much, much better served by intermarriage and assimilation.

    Ethnocentrism is held together by a belief in the supernatural. This is evident also from the fact that Europeans completely lost their ethnocentrism the moment they gave up their religion, and that secular Jews have a much higher intermarriage rate.

    Only people who have supernatural beliefs can be ethnocentric.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Art
  38. @AaronB

    Genes only “survive” if they mate with similar genes (we are talking here of course about gene-plexes, not about individual genes). Race-mixing does not assure the survival of a race, it assures its own destruction.

    “…Only people who have supernatural beliefs can be ethnocentric…”

    It depends on what kind of supernatural beliefs. Universalistic religions do not strengthen ethnocentrism, neither do hyper-individualistic salvation schemes.
    The best solution is a religion that is either ethnic or strongly ethnocentric in itself.
    Judaism fulfills both requirements.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Anon
  39. @j2

    Sadducee view, not Pharisee. For sure it is also Zionist view, but not Kabbalistic.

    I would have made my article too long if I had mentionned the Talmud of the Kabbale.
    1) The Kabbale (the root of all occultist Western traditions) is not materialistic in the sense that it believes in spirits, angels, demons, egregors, etc. However, it is materialistic in the sense that it seeks to uses these exclusively for material, worldly purpose (for example, to gain physical immortality). The Kabbale is basically magic.
    2) the Talmud also incorporates the notion of eternal life (as well as resurrection, on the side), but in order to distinguish the souls of Jews from the souls of the Goyim, who are like animals.
    But that doesn’t change what I said: Biblical Judaism, which remains the core and the foundation of the Jewish frame of mind, whether religious or atheist, is exclusively oriented toward the eternal existence of Israel.
    It is true that most everyday religious Jews believe in their eternal life, but, as I explained, this is coming from Reformed Judaism, on one hand, and from man’s natural tendency (natural religion), on the other. They believe so in spite of the Hebrew Bible (though probably not aware of). Again, educated Jews and every biblical scholar knows that the Hebrew Bible is materialistic.

    • Agree: utu
  40. @Bardon Kaldian

    You are talking about Jewish mysticism, which is as little “mainstream” in Judaism as is Sufism in Islam.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  41. Svevlad says:

    To visualize how Judaism works, try to imagine what would happen if every single nation ever started thinking that way – yup, that’s the sound of eternal global war.

    It’s not just a Jewish thing, it’s a way of thinking that’s widespread from the Adriatic eastwards, except the Jews really really mastered that behavior and long-term (ab)use of it. For proof, just look at the politics of the Balkans, MENA and the Caucasus

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  42. @Franklin Ryckaert

    First, I gave a link (Segal) to notions of afterlife in all western religions (which includes all variants of Judaism). Another work on this topic worth reading is this:

    Hiroshi Obayashi: Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions

    For specifically Jewish notions, one of the better books is:

    Leila Leah Bronner: Journey to Heaven: Exploring Jewish Views of the Afterlife

    As regards Kabbalah, most people don’t know it has been Jewish mass movement from, say, 16th to early 19th C, virtually a parallel religion of most European Jews. It began in the 11th C Provence & Spain as an esoteric sect for a handful of imaginative intellectuals, but in next centuries had become popular & mass Messianic movement, sucking in hundreds of thousands & leading to disasters of false expectations (in the case of Sabbatai Zevi). Chief authors on Kabbalah are Gerschom Scholem and Moshe Idel.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  43. @Rodop

    Whatever the case, having in mind their small number, there is no other group of people, who influenced so much the world in science, and culture.

    Er…not quite.

    Of course they are over-represented in many fields, but so were, say, Italians in Florence from 1300-1600 (Dante, Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo,…), or Germans from 1770-1830 (Hamann, Herder, Kant, Hegel, Euler, Goethe, Gauss, Mozart, Beethoven, Clausewitz, Scheele, Grimm brothers, Humboldt brothers,..) & later- which dwarfs all Jewish achievement put together.

    During some historical periods, some groups are high achievers. From ca. 1850-2000 Jews have been super-achievers; from 1750-1945, “Aryan” Germans had been hyper-achievers.

    And I won’t mention ancient Greeks, those mortal gods.

  44. Agent76 says:

    May 24, 2019 The richest 10% of households now represent 70% of all U.S. wealth

    Share of top 1% wealthiest increased to nearly 32% in 2018 from 23% in 1989.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-richest-10-of-households-now-represent-70-of-all-us-wealth-2019-05-24?mod=mw_theo_homepage

    Oct 22, 2014 113 Federal Reserve members make $250,000 annually

  45. Blake says:

    Only explanation for calling them a race is if he only came across the European Jews (ashkenaz) in USA. Judaism like Islam or Christianity is made up of many ethnicities.

  46. @Laurent Guyénot

    GUYÉNOT:: “Is the Hebrew Bible materialistic? There is no expectation of an afterlife in the Torah.”

    Wrong: Ecclesiastes 12: And the dust returns to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave it.. for all is vanity. … – (Read on Sukkot)

    The Hebrew Bible is not materialistic. The 5 books of Moses is not all there is to there is to the Hebrew Bible.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  47. GUYÉNOT: Is the Hebrew Bible materialistic?

    Blind: Thanks for asking! The answer is no!

    The Jewish Bible supports the idea of life after death, but gives contradictory answers to the question of where it happens…
    ● Life after death wherever God lives –
    Ecclesiastes 12:7-8 (read on Sukkot) . “And the dust returns to the earth as it was; and the spirit returns to God who gave it. Vanity of vanities..all is vanity.”

    ● Life after death wherever God lives –
    Psalms 23 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life;
    and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

    ● Life after death(both heaven and hell) here on Earth – Daniel 12: 1-2. some “..people shall be saved, every one whose name shall be found written in the book..many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to EVERLASTING life, and some to shame and EVERLASTING contempt.

    ● Life after death, place undefined, probably here on Earth – Isaiah 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling hath seized the ungodly: ‘Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with EVERLASTING burnings?’

    ● Life after death possibly “upward” somewhere, but who knows? – Ecclesiastes 3:21 “Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth?”

    ● Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul (Nehfesh) in hell; (Sheol)

    ● Samuel I Chapter 2 6. The Lord kills, and returns to life; he brings down to Sheol, and brings up.

    The contradictory answers are due to different books of the Tanakh being written by different authors with different opinions, at different times. The fact that 2 of the 3 quotes above are both from Ecclesiastes, yet give different answers, just goes to show you: the last verse(12) of Ecclesiastes was added by a later editor to make it politically correct. However, both those Ecclesiastes verses do agree on the name of the entity that (possibly) survives death: “spirit” (רוּחַ ruach). But note that Ecclesiastes 3 says that man has no more claim to it than the beast. (Human exceptionalism is dismissed)

  48. AaronB says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    I am not so sure.

    If you look at the facts, Europeans were quite ethnocentric while Christian, and only lost that once they became atheist.

    Judaism is a universalist religion – Jews have a special mission to mankind.

    Furthermore, Judaism does not promote racial purity. Officially, the father can belong to any race whatsoever and the child will be considered 100% Jewish. And converts from all races enter the Jewish ethnic stream throughout history, and can become very prominent.

    What Judaism, and all religions, do promote is the survival of the religious unit – which is not a natural unit, but a supernatural one.

    However, in the real world, religions generally coalesce around a particular race or ethnic group more or less, so that survival of the religious unit is somewhat coterminous with that of the ethnic unit.

    But never perfectly so.

    However, it does not seem that race can be established as a primary value – in naturalistic terms, it is unclear why genes would care if races rather than individuals survived.

    And indeed we see that any group that adopts the naturalistic perspective, ceases to be ethnocentric.

    As for religion, it often promotes ethnocentrism as a second order effect, but never as a primary value. The survival of the Jewish people, it was seen, is not the survival of a racially pure group.

  49. Anon[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Ethics work better when they are based in physical reality, not make-believe.

    A belief in the metaphysical does not mean that ethics are not “based in” physical reality.

    Nor does a belief in the metaphysical mean that ethics “work worse” in physical reality. Quite the opposite.

    A lack of metaphysical belief quickly leads one to an ethics based in observable cause and effect outcomes.

    What that looks like is” If I kill John, I get his land and that is good”, etc.

    In fact, this is the Jewish ethic that is repeated throughout the Tanakh. ie: “Genociding the Canaanites / gentiles is good because we get their land as a result” (justified by any number of false political excuses like the farcical “idolatry” that merely means not prostrating oneself to the Jews).

    The modern statement of that torah-based genocidal Jewish, land-stealing ethic is “is it good for the Jews”?

    In fact, this is the core ethic behind the ultimate Messianic goal of the Jewish political group.

    A society that believes in the metaphysical has an investment in something that continues beyond this life. Therefore, the promise of earthly reward (eg: as the result of murder, theft, etc) is subsumed to the preservation of the soul and the respect of its counterparts in one’s neighbors.

    That understanding is the basis of modern ethics as Western civilization knows them.

    Materialist ethics, as represented by the Jewish religion, which logically and quickly become homicidal are not that basis. They are what existed prior to civilization.

    The belief in the metaphysical is merely the injection into wider society of the belief in higher principles that allow it to largely transcend a primary orientation toward widespread animalistic reward seeking behavior.

    Without this visualization of a higher ethics and principles that the metaphysical soul and its heaven provides, ethics and behavior would devolve as the result of a widespread perception that what is “good” is measured by what one gains from any deed no matter how barbaric.

    Atheists and other materialists may transcend this animal ethics and the resultant behavior nonetheless, but make no mistake that they have merely adopted and secularized what is in essence an ethical system born of the historical metaphysical religious view (or metaphor if you wish). This metaphysical religious view is responsible for these socially widespread ethics. Atheism is not responsible for socially widespread higher ethics that transcend animalistic cause and effect ethics. This religious view was born to counter the natural cause and effect ethics of atheists and other materialists.

    Functional civilization was the result. Within that functional civilization today, we have a variety of marauding mafias that have either informally rejected these higher ethics for materialist ethics (Italians, Mexicans, etc) or have formalized lower materialist ethics (Jews) into a system that is masquerading as a respectable religion.

    Judaism keeps itself together, in spite of their animalistic ethics, by directing those ethics only onto gentiles whom Judaism openly states that it perceives as literal non-human animals. Within their own group, they deify one another and therefore are able to apply a higher tier of ethical behavior within their group. As a result, the Jews get civilization within their group and open non-ethical de facto war with all non-Jewish groups. As their texts state.

    Materialists can rationalize away “god” when practicing higher ethics, but most of society does not and will not operate in such nuanced niche territory that, frankly, is the domain only of a small selection of higher IQ individuals who are not anywhere near a majority. This is why the metaphysical is still relevant today and will continue to be relevant for as long as we continue to breed human beings as they presently exist.

  50. @Laurent Guyénot

    Guyénot “Ecclesiastes is not even part of the Tanakh”

    Blind: What shit!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible
    Ketuvim (Writings)[hide]
    Poetic
    Psalms Tehillim
    Proverbs Mishlei
    Job Iyov
    Five Megillot (Scrolls)
    Song of Songs Shir Hashirim
    Ruth Rut
    Lamentations Eikhah
    Ecclesiastes Qohelet
    Esther Ester
    Historical
    Daniel Daniyyel
    Ezra–Nehemiah Ezra
    Chronicles Divre Hayyamim

    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ecclesiastes-kohelet/
    BIBLE
    Ecclesiastes (Kohelet)
    Traditionally read during Sukkot, the Book of Ecclesiastes grapples with the meaning of life.

    Guyénot expresses extremist fringe-cult opinions.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  51. AaronB says:
    @Professional Stranger

    His thesis makes no sense. What difference does it make “where it came from” if Jews did in fact accept the afterlife for over 2,000 years?

    One can argue the details all day, but there is already enough evidence against his thesis.

    Today, orthodox Jews are hugely concerned with the afterlife. So the materialist psychology he describes as the source of their power is simply incorrect.

    And we know the afterlife featured prominently in the Talmud. So again, the materialist psychology he describes as the source of Jewish power has not been operative for over 2,000 years.

    So the thesis is obviously wrong.

  52. @Svevlad

    Yes, you are right.

    In fact, the “racism” that jews blame on whites actually originates and emanates from their own tribe.

    The nose uses projection as a reflex, constantly accusing us of doing exactly what they are doing.

    When you begin to understand the JQ, you realize why the world has been turned upside down.

    They’re nuts.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Tsigantes
  53. @AaronB

    judaism is not remotely universalist in actual practice, no matter what high sounding phrases are promoted for marketing purposes.

    judaism is particularist.

    The main reason Christ came was to remove the chains of particularism to extend God’s love to all of mankind.

    The jews are no longer God’s chosen people, but they are unwilling to accept this fact, and this is the essence of jewish supremacism.

    jews project onto whites their own cohesive group ego inflation, calling whites “supreeeeeeeeemists,”
    when in fact it is jews that are the group with the mistaken God complex.

  54. ““The Bible speaks of an immortality right here on earth. In what consists this immortality? It consists in this: the soul continues to live and function through the children and grandchildren and the people descending from them. ”

    I am ever amazed at the varied strategies to dismantle the faith and central point of life even for the Jew —

    It is the relationship one has with God in this life and the next.

    Jesus’ story about Lazarus refutes the premise here.

    ———————————
    The Jewish Bible supports the idea of life after death, but gives contradictory answers to the question of where it happens…”

    The references cited are not contradictions.

  55. I recognize that the jews of reject Christ and therefore his teaching.

    Jews themselves may consider the Torah, the Pentatuch materialistic as they did beseech God to allow them to be as other nations and one example was to have a King in authority over them.

    But in reality the nation of Israel is but a place holder for something spiritual —

  56. Alright, my last post on the topic ….

    The author is, as far as I know, mostly correct re normative Judaism. Just, his presentation is frequently literal & ahistorical.

    Judaism remains a rather down-to-earth religion & its early concepts are similar to those we can find in the Epic of Gilgamesh & Homer: when you die, your psyche, which is just a shadow without vital energy, goes somewhere under the earth crust (Sheol, Hades) & leads there an unenviable “existence” of a devitalized semi-conscious entity (see Odyssey’s visit to Achilles).

    This is a strange belief & I don’t get how people came to it. It seems more natural, for a primitive mind, that there is some force giving you life, and after you die- it dissipates or evaporates like a mist, and there is the end to all individual existence. Why an anemic shadow would persist somewhere in an underground pit is a mystery, at least to me.

    Jews got their resurrection ideas from Persians after the exile (6th C BC), and they also tinkered with Greek Platonic ideas of immortality of the soul. Later, some had adopted a rather crude variants of reincarnation.

    So, you have at least four ideas.

    1. when you die, it’s over forever

    2. there will be resurrection, in final days (official belief)

    3. soul is immortal (also official, but not too consistent with 1 or 2)

    4. reincarnation (many variants of Kabbalah)

    So, while you can juggle with quotes from the Bible, Talmud etc., it remains that for historical Jewish culture in past, say, 500-1000 years, the accent remains on this life & general ideas of afterlife are not as central as are for Christians.

    Historical Christianity remains otherworldly & pessimistic, while Judaism is thisworldly & mildly optimistic, similar to Islam (which also affirms Heaven & Hell, but is, like Judaism, more oriented toward taboos on food & other elements of behavior).

    As a skeptical Jew had said: When a good Christian dies, he goes to Heaven; the same with good Hindu. When a good Jew dies- he just dies.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  57. anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Moi

    Jake, there is no such religion as Mohammedanism.

    Don’t bother, for they know and still do it on purpose. These cursed Islamophobes try to attribute polytheist values on Islam, by using such false terminology, but it burns them that such deceit never sticks. But, as long as Satan is on their side, they will keep trying.

    Also, good Christians Americans are so nutty and ignorant that they diss Islam, the only religion, other than Christianity, that honors Christ.

    Exactly! I see these pagan lowlifes with “Allah is Satan!” T-shirts, and I am first irritated and then somewhat amused.

    Those idiots don’t see that the God they refer to as “Satan,” is the same God who the blessed Christ worshipped (of course, let’s be clear, this is not the “god” in the man-like imagery of “the father,” with the beard and all). In Islam, the Almighty One is beyond imagination, and thus such imagery is pure heresy.

    This is their core theist ideology, which is essentially an oxymoron they call Monotheistic Trinitarianism;

    The Trinity is the teaching that the one God of all existence, consists of three divine persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    Those idiots don’t see that Muslims worship the “one God of all existence” directly, and hence they are referring to the Almighty One as “Satan.”

    How pathetic are they?!

    • Replies: @Moi
    , @anon
  58. @AaronB

    “…Judaism is a universalist religion – Jews have a special mission to mankind…”

    That is a different kind of “universalism” than in the universalist religions of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. In these religions anyone can convert and the religious community is not congruent with an ethnic group. Conversion to Judaism is possible but is not encouraged and converting to Judaism means becoming a member of the Jewish ethnos.

    As for Judaism’s “mission to mankind”, some people see that as arrogant (the “light unto the nations” complex and all that). Islam arrogates itself a similar mission, but here it becomes openly militaristc : Islam has to conquer the world (“for Allah” of course).

    The 3 Abrahamic religions all try to “change the world” and thus have been in conflict with the world throughout history. Buddhists only try to change themselves and thus Buddhism has been the most peaceful religion of the world.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @anonymous
    , @Druid
  59. @Bardon Kaldian

    All kinds of unscholarly people write all kinds of unscholarly books on religions, and find whatever they want to find there, doing their own salad. My topic is about the Jewish elites’ world view, which is biblical. You’re mixing the issues. If you read my article carefully, I am not even claiming that “Judaism” is materalistic: Reform Judaism, which is an imitation of Christianity (with Israel as the suffering Messiah instead) includes belief in the afterlife. That is not the point.
    I don’t know Moshe Idel, but you should read what Israel Shahak writes about Gershom Scholem– and I had come to the same conclusion before reading him: Scholem pretty much “invented” Jewish mysticism, to deceive the Goyim and the Jews altogether. Easy to check: quote me a book about Jewish mysticism before Scholem invented it.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  60. AaronB says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Well, Christians often fell short of their high religious standards as well.

    Humans are rather imperfect beings.

    But the Jewish religion itself is concerned with the spiritual salvation of all of mankind, so it is correct to describe it as a universalist religion.

    That was my only point.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  61. @Robert Dolan

    Dolan: judaism is not remotely universalist

    Blind: Judaism needs to be qualified by “Orthodox” and “Reform”.

    A huge schism exists within Judaism on the question of Jewish nationalism: Reform, with guys like Alan C. Brownfeld, and Ultra-Orthodox. It’s like 2 different religions, with 2 different gods: one religion worships a universal god and the other a national god.

    But tracing the nationalism, via the religious route:
    [[In Geiger’s view, “the essence of Judaism was the religious-universal element. All the remainder was the fruit of historical conditions…and..should be abolished.”]] —– Rabbi Abraham Geiger (1810–74) was a leading ideologists of the Reform movement.

    That means: it’s OK to cherrypick your old religious myths.

    Geiger’s “All the remainder” included Jewish nationalism, and it was the fruit of the historical conditions of defending a set of universal religious principles while living amongst people hostile to it.

    In other words: the religious universal element came first, then a religion was needed to carry it, then a nation was needed to defend the religion, “then a KING was needed..” [1 Samuel 8:10.] to rule the nation, then a nation-state was needed to secure the nation, then idolatrous ideas of “holy nation” and “holy state” found their way into the religion. Concepts directly opposed to the original set of universal religious principles!
    Then came the final step: the Jewish Zionist Atheist, where defending the nation-state became an end in itself.

    However in Reform Judaism, there has been a return to grass roots lately. Pittsburgh Platform 1885 says “we consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community”. And for even more recent updates click this..

    http://www.acjna.org/acjna/default.aspx Allan C. Brownfeld explains Reform Judaism’s position on Jewish nationalism – The American Council for Judaism.

    How Judaism needed nationalism to defend universalism, is an example of using devices contradictory to your principles in order to defend them. Another example is the US cause in Vietnam: “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”.

    AND FINALLY:
    Purging Judaism of nationalism is a work in progress. The principle that is evolving is: Nothing is holy but god himself, all else you make holy are idols. The story so far goes something like this..
    Moses destroyed the golden calf the Israelites had made, while he was up on the mountain. But then he slipped up himself….. Numbers 21:9. “And Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it upon the pole; and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked unto the serpent of brass, he lived.”
    An error Hezekiah corrected …. Kings II Chapter 18:1. “Hezekiah..began to reign..he broke in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did offer [sacrifices] to it; and it was called Nehushtan.”

    Get the pattern? Destroying idols. No-one and no-thing is immune.

    Nevertheless, “holy name”, “holy altar”, “holy nation”, “holy seed”, “holy day” and “holy land” remain. More work needs to be done.

    See also: “Israel’s 50-Year Occupation Is Challenging Judaism’s Moral Integrity” – By Rabbi Allan C. Brownfeld http://www.acjna.org/acjna/default.aspx

  62. @anon

    These words by Welsey Clark (son of rabbi Benjamin Jacob Kanne) would be more useful if put side by side with Deuteronomy 7:24, where Yahweh says that he will deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them…” (7:1–2). And why not add Maimonides’ Book of Commandments: “Putting the seven nations to the sword is a duty incumbent on us; indeed, it is an obligatory war.”

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  63. anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    I penned a reply to Moi above, but it applies more to Islamophobic godless lowlifes like you.

  64. AaronB says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    That’s not quite correct.

    Only the earliest and most primitive forms of Buddhism was about only changing oneself, and this was heavily criticized as selfish by later Buddhism, that of Tibet and the Far East.

    But even early Buddhism was highly evangelical. To believe one is in possession of the tools for salvation, and not want share it, would be insanely selfish.

    As for the relationship between religion and violence, Buddhist countries were as violent as any other countries. Japan was a hyper violent Buddhist society, and Thailand and Burma were in a state of unceasing warfare, and today, Buddhist monks are at the forefront of violence against Muslims in Burma.

  65. AaronB says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    I don’t understand.

    Last year we were being told here that elite Jewish opinion isn’t biblical, but based on the Talmud, indeed that its an egregious mistake to think that Judaism was a biblical religion, etc, etc.

    All sorts of quotes were gathered showing how the Rabbis considered the Torah less important than the Talmud or at least seriously incomplete without it….

    Now we are being told its really the opposite, that the a Jewish elites view is biblical, and the Talmud is ignored….

    Man, just when you think you have a handle on the Unz editorial line 🙂

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Anon
  66. anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Islam arrogates itself a similar mission, but here it becomes openly militaristc : Islam has to conquer the world (“for Allah” of course).

    You think screaming “thief” will obfuscate your own thievery?

    Who actually has been trying to conquer the world in our current reality? The Muslims or the Supremacist Pagan Polytheist Mangods-Worshipping Whitey Christians? Do you even see reality, or are you living in some hallucinatory existence?

    But, as I have said before, Islam will indeed “conquer” the world… not militaristically as you put it most deceitfully (you are a lowlife), but simply by espousing the truth of its Monotheism. The following simple truth will prevail over all mankind, and all pagan peoples will in time humbly submit to it, on their own accord.

    Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” Surah 112

    Buddhists only try to change themselves and thus Buddhism has been the most peaceful religion of the world.

    Yeah, like no one knows about the terrorist buddhist monk scumbags in Burma, Sri Lanka, etc.?

    Enjoy your hallucinatory world, pagan… for it will not last, I promise you.

  67. Truth3 says:

    The fact that they do not fear retribution in the next world is all you need to know to fear what they will do in this world.

    Boycott them.

    Avoid them.

    Tell the truth about them.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  68. DaveE says:

    This is a fascinating piece. It’s going to take some study to fully digest it all….. but I think the author is definitely onto the truth.

    The Jew seems to base its evolutionary strategy on the insect world, like an ant colony. Whether this is done consciously I don’t know, but the result is the same, an infestation that’s impossible to destroy without destroying the surroundings, also.

    And of course the obvious parallels of everything being done collectively, while deviation is unheard of and definitely prohibited. I’ve heard that ants will destroy their own if they “get out of line”……… or lobsters pulling their fellow captives back into the pot if they try to escape.

    I’ve often thought that “The Bug” from the ’80’s movie “Men in Black” was an apt metaphor for The Chosenites, with its many component bugs acting and appearing as one big, ugly, pernicious and mendacious creature whose basic purpose is to destroy Humanity…….

    Anyway, thanks for a brilliant piece.

  69. Moi says:
    @anonymous

    Indeed, it is sad. I was raised to respect all religions.

  70. j2 says:
    @AaronB

    I do not know much of Judaism and nothing of Jews, but I have this, maybe wrong, impression that Zionism, including B’nai B’rith and Freemasonry, was the driving force in the creation of Israel and whatever plots (like two world wars) were caused by this plan. Am I wrong in assuming that Zionism is not especially religious but more nationalistic and therefore the question if the leaders of Zionism valued more Talmud or Torah is rather irrelevant? And while there were clear and intentional instances of fulfillment of prophesies (such as the great persecution, people being collected from many countries, and just read from Sanhedrin 97b forward some time: work for no pay (slaves), hairless and so on), they were merely needed to convince religious Jews that the time of redemption has come (though there was no Messiah) and they can move to Palestine and create Israel? Then it would also follow that Zionists are also not Kabbalistic (and did not believe in Zohar), but some of the religious Jews to be convinced were. All this resulted to what certainly looks like a messianic plan, but it was simply a nationalistic plan, and a plan for world control of course, as Ron Unz’s last article points out.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  71. Anon[932] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Judaism is a universalist religion – Jews have a special mission to mankind.

    You are a liar.

    1. In the Jewish texts, the Rabbis state that they only consider Jews to be “man”. Therefore, your use of the term “mankind” is typical Jewish deception and a reference only to Jews.

    This, combined with your statement, is a primary illustration of exactly why you people are reviled and why you are a lowlife.

    Judaism mandates an upcoming apocalyptic harvest period where non-Jews will be genocided preceding the Jewish messianic period of Jewish world rule.

    How does that “serve” non-Jews?

    Of course, you will not explain your vague claims of service. Your lack of explanation invalidates them.

    2. Judaism is not universalist. Universal morality implies that all morality will be evenly applied across all groups. Jews have a two tiered system of morality. One system for Jews and one for non-Jews. You know this to be a fact. The originally Jewish concept of “love thy neighbor” referenced only fellow Jews. The Jews are commanded to subsume if not genocide non-Jews toward acquiring their land and resources. Per the Jewish texts.

    In contrast, Christianity applies universalist morality and is therefore universalist. It has one set on moral standards to be applied to Christians and non-Christians alike. That is the meaning of universalism.

    Furthermore, Judaism does not promote racial purity. Officially, the father can belong to any race whatsoever and the child will be considered 100% Jewish. And converts from all races enter the Jewish ethnic stream throughout history, and can become very prominent.

    Jews actively practice racial purity more than any other race and western cultural group. See my (later) below comments about Jewish inbreeding disease and phenotype.

    Maternal genetics are prized above belief, which is not indicative of religion but race, and in the United States it is visually obvious from any racial dot map that, going only on skin color, the two most racially pure neighborhoods with a significant population in the United States are represented by Jewish Flatbush Brooklyn and the all-Jewish town that is north of NYC.

    Furthermore, your implied definition of race is a false one. Skin color is not the sole determinant of race. It is only one proxy. Genetic inclusion and exclusion determines race, as Jews know.

    As the representatives of the only humans that are relatively unmixed with pre-human hominid genetics, the “White” race exists due to relative genetic exclusion of those hominid genetics. Better tribes within that modern broad category have ever-less hominid genetics.

    The Jewish race exists due only to genetic inclusion of Jewish maternal genetic lineage, though it stringently practices genetic exclusion through tough cultural barriers to joining the primary Ashkenanzi cultural group (to the point that they are more inbred than any other race in the West and the only group to experience widespread inbreeding disease).

    Skin color is not the only qualification for race, though it is a large (but not sole) proxy for some races. Darker skin color is an accurate but not the sole defining phenotype proxy for the presence of pre-human (and sometimes archaic) hominid genetics.

    For an example of an exception that disproves the skin color = race rule, non-White groups (groups with significant hominid admixture) with especially high European-Neanderthal admixture, like Jews and other Armenoid types, can still have nominally White skin.

    In contrast, “Black” skin is universally an accurate proxy for the presence of archaic hominid genetics that originated from any one of many archaic hominid species (Erectus, Heidelbergensis, etc).

    The survival of the Jewish people, it was seen, is not the survival of a racially pure group.

    In comparison with racially pure groups, the difference between Judaism and a racially pure group is the difference of no difference. The bulk of the Jewish group represents a racial purity that matches or exceeds any other European group. Where that purity migrates over to the Sephardic or Mizraim Jewish groups, tight cultural barriers are in place that largely prevent genetic crossover.

    Jews don’t see “falasha” as part of their group and Asian Jews are inconsequential in number; especially in any region where long-legged Ashkenazi ladies are in abundance for cross-breeding.

    Heck, if you were an actual cultural group and not a race then your primary narrative about the Samaritans would not include their supposedly corrupted racial admixture as a reason to reject them. But it does.

  72. @Laurent Guyénot

    You can’t be serious. As for Jewish spiritual culture, it has had many phases & had been influenced by virtually all neighbors.

    Inter-testamental Judaism is mostly interesting for us for its visionary voyages & a mixture of “high religion”, astronomy & low occultism. Three books of Enoch are best examples.

    The Complete Apocrypha: 2018 Edition with Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees

    Then, there were Merkavah mystics somewhere around 4 C AD, while Kabbalah proper began as a set of speculations in 10th-11th C AD. It was well known in European circles so that Latin translations of Kabbalistic texts were available in the 16th and 17th C.

    This, Christian Kabbalah uneasily mixed with central Western esotericism, Hermetism (Corpus Hermeticum dates back to 1st C AD Pagan Alexandria, and that’s where the West’s chief esoteric tradition of alchemy, correspondences etc. comes from). Later Western occultists mixed their version of Kabbalah (Tree of Life, worlds of emanation, Adam Kadmon) with Hermetism & Neo-Platonism and created a mess which has persisted to the 21st C.

    Garth Fowden: The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind

    Scholem invented nothing (although his interpretations of Kabbalah seem to be influenced by his friendship with philosopher Walter Benjamin). He was just first serious modern scholar of Kabbalah, which was generally shunned by secularized modern Jews & treated with contempt as something shameful, a relic of primitive superstitions.

    Moshe Idel is a prolific scholar & the best modern author on Hebrew Kabbalah.

  73. Anon[932] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    I don’t understand.

    Last year we were being told here that elite Jewish opinion isn’t biblical, but based on the Talmud, indeed that its an egregious mistake to think that Judaism was a biblical religion, etc, etc.

    All sorts of quotes were gathered showing how the Rabbis considered the Torah less important than the Talmud or at least seriously incomplete without it….

    Now we are being told its really the opposite, that the a Jewish elites view is biblical, and the Talmud is ignored….

    Man, just when you think you have a handle on the Unz editorial line

    All that Jews need to do to correct any confusion on the part of their critics is to open yeshivas to non-Jews, complete with full instruction, so that they can learn the ultra secretive Jewish religion in-full rather than to put it together from the outside.

    After all, why all of the secrets and esoterism? What is there to hide, exactly?

    Though, given what we do know I doubt that the Jews will be open to teaching non-Jews that Jews refer to them as non-human animals slated for slavery or genocide (depending on the passage) and that the Jewish religion is literally centered on a plan for world rule.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  74. AaronB says:
    @j2

    Zionism was ostensibly secular, yes, for the most part. But it was also highly idealistic, communistic, and it was derived from the religion, so it clearly had a religious dimension.

    Purely secular people would never have the motivation, courage, and self sacrifice to pull something like that off – they’d be hedonistic, individualistic, consumers.

    But yes, whether they derived more inspiration from the bible or Talmud is rather a moot point.

  75. AaronB says:
    @Anon

    Lol, there’s nothing secretive. We’re not Druze.

    As a non-Jew, you’re welcome to visit yeshivas and sit in on lectures.

    Plus, if you convert, you will receive full orthodox Jewish instruction, where all the “secrets” will be revealed 🙂

    Jews have their crazies and their fundamentalists and their just plain bad people too. I’m sure you’ll find your garden variety racists who believe gentiles are slated to be slaves to Jews, although I personally never knew anyone who said that, and it’s obviously against the spirit of the religion.

    • Replies: @refl
  76. Anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Islam arrogates itself a similar mission, but here it becomes openly militaristc : Islam has to conquer the world (“for Allah” of course).

    You think screaming “thief” will obfuscate your own thievery?

    Where did we steal? We occupy Europe, our new homelands after we were pushed out of central Asian origin by East Asiatic hordes, and we occupy two and one half continents that were only inhabited by a bunch of roving pre-civilizational cannibals who would have been genocided ad completely erased by the Chinese if they had first arrived.

    Whereas Islamic Arabs and Turks took the Levant, Iran, Pakistan, North Africa, Spain, and one of our tribe’s original homelands in Anatolia. All civilized lands before the high number, low resource sand niggers with their Jewish programming invaded to take them from us and the Dravidians whom we had prior left in India.

    The Muslims or the Supremacist Pagan Polytheist Mangods-Worshipping Whitey Christians?

    Reading you write Jewish bullshit in our language is like watching a mindless monkey attempt to mimic human behavior. Literally nothing that you think or write is your own.

    [MORE]

    But, as I have said before, Islam will indeed “conquer” the world… not militaristically as you put it most deceitfully (you are a lowlife), but simply by espousing the truth of its Monotheism.

    You don’t even understand your pseudo-faith because you don’t understand its Judaic root.

    “Monotheism” is nothing more than a metaphysical concept for tribal imperialism. It literally means nothing more. It’s the worship of the “one tribe”. “God” only being a metaphysical concept for this tribe’s power, in the faith of your Judaic root. Even the Jews know and state that every tribe has its own God.

    Your religion is foundation-free without Judaism. It literally defines you. Because sand niggers are so consistently over-zealous morons (my personal experience even apart from religion), you were programmed with the most militant aspects of Judaism but everything else is a pale shadow. In the coming apocalypse, and after you do your homicidal and demonic work of participating in the worldwide mass genocide, the Jews state that you will all be genocided. They are exactly correct.

    You people are mindless robots. Over-emotional and over-zealous to the point that you don’t even care about the root of your religion or what it actually means. You can be wound up to commit mass murder easier than Africans. That is you. Stupid, murderous, sub-human automatons who don’t eve know why you do what you do. You are slated for genocide for that exact reason.

    Abandon your Jewish programmed pseudo-faith now and you might survive. Do not abandon it and the texts state that you absolutely will not survive.

    The following simple truth will prevail over all mankind, and all pagan peoples will in time humbly submit to it, on their own accord.

    Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” Surah 112

    Is that the “simple truth”, you intellect free sand nigger? You can’t even be bothered to study the source of your own religion. You can not prove to me that your statement is the “truth” because you can’t explain what it even means. You are being wound up for murder and will be murdered for your animal efforts.

    Yeah, like no one knows about the terrorist buddhist monk scumbags in Burma, Sri Lanka, etc.?

    Please. Islam is not fooling the world with your claims of victimhood anywhere in the world. The sane world literally hates you with every fiber of its rational soul, as it would any retard-level rabid murderous nigger who doesn’t even know that he is a willing tool of a psychopath.

    We know what you did to India, the Levant, Iran, and Anatolia and you are doing the same thing in the nations that you mention. Islam has zero claim to nor place in a single one of those nations. You are the militant arm of Judaism and its harvest and nothing more. The Buddhists should ship every last Islamist out of those nations and unapologetically imprison anyone who will not leave. Death for those who will not leave after that. No Islamist can protest the death penalty with a straight face. You, yourselves, use it so haphazardly as the low IQ, Jewish-golem, sand-nigger-barbarians that you are.

    Enjoy your hallucinatory world, pagan… for it will not last, I promise you.

    Says the Jewish monkey who cannot comprehend his own programming. Please keep the threats coming so that not a single one of us, down to the last woman, feels remorse when your usefulness to the Jews is complete.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  77. @anonymous

    “…Who actually has been trying to conquer the world in our current reality..?”

    Good, and who has been trying to conquer the world in our past reality? Look at this map :

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg

    How did that happen ? Not peacefully. Pure violent imperialism. If you think imperialism is so bad, then why is Islamic imperialism not bad too ? Why divide the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb ? Last time I checked, harb means “war” and not “peace”.

    Should I mention that the Muslims took female captives and were allowed to use them as sex slaves ? The permission for this abhorrent crime came from no other than “Allah” himself (yes, your famous “pure monotheistic” god, good old “Allah”) in sura 4 :24 :

    “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hand possess”.

    “Whom your right hand possess” means female captives or slaves. We “unbelievers” call such a thing “rape”. That is your “noble” religion Islam, “revealed” by “Allah”.

    Islam is a rogue religion, just like Judaism, but of a violent and less cunning sort. Both should be outlawed by the UN.

  78. anonymous[224] • Disclaimer says:

    The title, Israel as One MAN, says it all.

    What all of these religious comparisons between sky gods and materialistic gods share is that they blindly omit and/or condemn the life-giving essence of Nature and Woman. The tree grows fruit, not for its own benefit, but offers it as a gift to the next evolutionary stage of life and all sentient beings. What gifts are we preparing for the next evolutionary stage of life? Nothing! We aren’t even planning a world for the next seven generations, only the present generation.

    Neoliberalism has been thoroughly discredited as an economic policy because it was derived in sociopathic self-interest. This deeply ingrained patriarchal mentality that women are somehow inferior and feminine values are weak, therefore worthless, is what is running the western world right now.

    We need to salvage the remains of a society ravaged by the dangerous and deeply flawed ideology of the past 40 years, which has an end goal of rolling the whole world back to a time where no basic human rights and protections existed.

    The major flaw of Neoliberalism:

    John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) put forward a game theoretic formulation which argued that a system driven purely by self-interest could maintain equilibrium as everyone’s self interest would be balanced by everyone else’s

    Nash won a Nobel Prize in economics

    His most famous game was called “Fuck You Buddy” where the only way to win was to betray your opponent

    Reinforced priority of competition and irrelevance of cooperation for personal or group strategies

    Paranoid schizophrenia was later acknowledged as a cause of this excessively individualistic approach to social relations

    Yet, a whole global economic system continues based on the mental illness of one of its major theorists.

    Even before John Nash, Friedrich von Hayek, an Austrian economist considered the father of neoliberalism, did not believe in social justice or anything ‘public’. A fascist by any other name.

    Today, we are seeing the effects of privatization of everything, the ‘greed is good’ mantra of fellow libertarian Milton Friedman that has taken predatory capitalism repeatedly beyond the brink of disaster. It has become THE threat to humankind and the natural environment.

    Perhaps the only woman respected by the leaders of today is Ayn Rand.

    “The famed right-wing author found early inspiration in 1920’s murderer William Hickman.
    There’s something deeply unsettling about living in a country where millions of people froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it, or who take pleasure at the thought of privatizing and slashing bedrock social programs like Social Security or Medicare. It might not be so hard to stomach if other Western countries also had a large, vocal chunk of the population that thought like this, but the U.S. is seemingly the only place where right-wing elites can openly share their distaste for the working poor. Where do they find their philosophical justification for this kind of attitude?

    It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand, a popular cult-philosopher who exerts a huge influence over much of the right-wing and libertarian crowd, but whose influence is only starting to spread out of the U.S.

    One reason most countries don’t find the time to embrace Ayn Rand’s thinking is that she is a textbook sociopath. In her notebooks Ayn Rand worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of “ideal man” she promoted in her more famous books.”

    https://www.alternet.org/2015/01/how-ayn-rand-became-big-admirer-serial-killer/

    At 4:30 in the video clip below, Dr. Mate describes Trump as a traumatized individual, but that same description of this Cluster B personality disorder can be applied to all those who display self-aggrandizement, exceptionalism, “being chosen”, supremacism, toxic masculinity, etc. They blame others for showing signs of weakness rather than examining their own insecurity.

    To then slather on awards like candy to celebrate this dysfunctional behavior and justify its “normality” is to perpetuate and deepen the chasm between Nature and Man.

    https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=WUl7f2xs_4M&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuR07OtEhKPE%26feature%3Dshare&fbclid=IwAR3kTm878TyywlE1ipR1M69Vlskoa_eUzjn5rdlSigCMUA2SVUbHi_Hy2bA

    Imagine if the human body adopted a neoliberal system of operation, when cells compete against one another for survival. There’s a name for that. We call it cancer.

    • Agree: utu
  79. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Is not Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) part of the Ketuvim, which is a part of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), which is traditionally read annually during Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles)? I understand there was controversy about including Ecclesiastes in the Hebrew Bible, much like there was controversy about James and Revelation being included in the New Testament.

    At any rate, the Preacher in Ecclesiastes does not believe in the afterlife. Professional Stranger is being disingenuous in quoting it. Whatever soul man and his fellow animals may have look forward to “the same fate,” with “no further reward” and “no advantage” over a dead dog.

    Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

    Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten…in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

    Furthermore, this bit of commentary on the book of Job enforces your viewpoint on Judaic interpretation of the afterlife.

    My purpose is to discuss these questions and show that the author of Job methodically uses “death as extinction” in his logical arguments, but reverts to the popular concept of Sheol in his emotional ruminations and outbursts.

    Aron Pinker (2007) Job’s Perspective on Death. Jewish Bible Quarterly.
    http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/352/352_Deathjob.pdf

    • Replies: @Professional Stranger
  80. This is a very intriguing article and I would say that it certainly lays out a solid historical framework for grasping the depth of understanding needed to see contemporary reality and affect change within it. However, there is something that doesn’t appear to fit. Why would the parasite willingly destroy its host? What kind of host is a destroyed nation of migrants going to be? I find it hard to believe that a movement this deep would be making mistakes, but they also seem to be running everything into a dead end.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @ThreeCranes
  81. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Pagan is Latin for “villager, rustic,” but effeminate city-slickers refer to them as lowlifes. Listening now to Beethoven’s (beet-farmer) Symphony No. 6 in F major, Op. 68, Pastorale and realizing how lowly rural folks are perceived by overly domesticated pussies like yourself.

  82. Check the tale of the scorpion and the frog.

    The explanation is that the will to destruction is in the scorpion’s nature.

  83. S says:

    A Program For the Jews (1939) – Harry Waton

    ‘Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, and all the rest continue to live in the Jewish people, and in due time they will live in the whole human race.’

    The New Rome (1853) – Theodore Poesche and Charles Goepp

    pg 104

    ‘All the world are now Jews..’

    I’ve come across this thought before in other places.

    If it is the case that everyone is already in reality Jewish, myself included, as Poesche and Goepp claimed in their 1853 book The New Rome why is it that I and everyone else can’t simply move to the Jewish state of Israel right now, immediately claim citizenship, and have the claim respected?

    Is it perhaps that Goepp and Poesche, despite being quite correct in many of their other geo-political assertions, were mistaken in this?

    Regarding Waton’s claim that at some time in the future everyone will in effect be Jewish, how exactly is this to come about and manifest?

    Is it via inter-marriage where after numerous generations, possibly taking a very long time indeed, that everyone will have a biological Jewish mother?

    If so, is that all that different in substance from what the Han Chinese are doing to the Tibetans by flooding Tibet with Chinese ‘immigrants’ and biologically ‘mixing’ them away, ie genociding them?

    Someone might say not so, but then doesn’t most every group when they engage in this sort of thing rationalize it away by telling themselves a variant of it not being about power, but rather, it’s a heaven approved mission to ‘civilize’ this or that ‘barbaric’ group of people.

    Or, that it’s all just ‘a natural progression’, when it’s not ‘natural’ at all, nor necessarily ‘progress’.

    Is it perhaps in addition to this that everyone is to become Jewish by educational means? Or, by the adherance to what are referred to as the Noahide laws?

    If so, will these future converted Jewish people be fully accepted as Jewish by other Jewish folks, or, will they as some assert is in reality often the case with conversion, not be truly accepted, and be ‘second class’?

    [MORE]

    Is this all that different when Anglo-Saxons or Russians in the past attempted to Anglicize or Russify various peoples, Jewish amongst them?

    They thought they were absolutely right in their ‘mission’ to do so, though generally it tended to make a bigger mess of things. The biggest mess of all it seems is made when one group attempts to simply biologically genocide the other.

    Or, is it the case with the Jewish people, that unlike every other past people throughout history, that they have absolute truth and its proper interpretation on their side, despite what their own holy books have told them of past error on their part?

    Of course, too, there are no doubt individuals, likely many, as well as peoples, who ultimately for whatever reason, may not wish to be Jewish. Would Mr Waton, were he still alive, immediately conclude in such a situation that such persons and peoples ‘hated’ both him and Judaism. Would he be okay with his people via what is sometimes referred to as ‘organized Jewry declaring ‘war’ on such individuals and peoples?

    If that were Mr Waton’s response, would it be possible that he was the ‘hater’ and not the other way around?

    A person might say, okay then, this or that people might simply withdraw from the present order and be done with it. It’s not that easy though. The Chinese and Japanese, whom historically as ‘insular’ peoples already were separate, wished to be left alone, and by and large leave others be, a seeming ideal model, have since the 19th century been by force of arms (ie violence), or threat of the same, forced to join in.

    Similarly, the fate of modern Germany is not encouraging.

    The Germans, albeit imperfectly (whose perfect?) and with continental ambitions in Europe and Eurasia, attempted to separate their destiny from that of the Jewish people living in Germany. Once achieving some small steps in this area, they had war declared upon them almost immediately by the global Jewish community (1933).

    By the Fall of 1941 [Sept 1939, UK declaration of war upon Germany/Fall 1941, US ‘undeclared naval war’ with Germany and ‘Lend Lease’ violations of neutrality and international law] the entire US/UK bloc, with truly global ambitions of obtaining total world power (see the ‘New Rome’ book linked below) and which had long targeted Germany for conquest, was effectively at war with Germany. Everyone knows the ultimate result of the war.

    [The Anglo-Saxons, since the time of Cromwell, and with their unfortunate British and American Israelism ideology, have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Jewish people. Those adhering to the British Israelism ideology, Queen Elizabeth for one it is said, have quite literally (somehow) thought they were of the ‘Lost Tribes of Israel’. The relationship is ultimately bad and unhealthy for both peoples I submit. If a person thinks that, what is at best in part a quazi co-dependence and submerging of identity, and being a part of such a relationship, is all healthy and good, they might differ.]

    Let’s leave Germany, Japan, and China wholly aside.

    If hypothetically a people wishes for whatever reason to wholly separate themselves from another, and ‘perfectly’ does so, though to be sure no one’s perfect, ie pay’s off every dime of debt to them, compensates them fairly (market rates) for property ‘nationalized’, and being sure they have a ‘homeland’, if not at minimum a reasonably safe and comfortable place to depart to, when asked finally to physically leave, is that ‘hate’ or, rather simply the exercise of a natural right?

    If John wished to end what in his view was an unproductive and unhealthy relationship with Sally, and do so amicably as much as is possible, is that hate on John’s part? Is John therefore ‘anti-Sally’ in attempting to do so?

    And what could be said of Sally if she didn’t accept this expressed desire of John’s to end the relationship, not only refusing to leave him, but instead accusing him publicly, and to various legal authorities besides, of doing all sorts of mean spirited and physically violent things to her, even attempting to murder her, though many of these claims may well ultimately prove to be greatly exaggerated, if they are even true at all?

    John for his part bitterly makes his own accusations against Sally, and who can say ultimately how many of the counter-accusations are entirely true?

    Broadly, the historic relationship between the Jewish and various European peoples has been a lot like those presented on old television sitcoms from the 1950’s and 60’s, where the ‘relationship’ between a husband and wife literally consist of perpetual arguing and, or throwing dishes at each other the entire time.

    One or the other might leave briefly, ie for a night or a few days, but sure enough they are soon back together again, and back to continuous fighting. On these old TV shows, with their canned laugh tracks, they attempt to present such situations as funny, but of course in actual fact it’s not. Such ‘marriages’ are in reality ‘made in hell’, and to the extent those much like them sadly do indeed occur, such men and women in such a ‘relationship’ should likely never have married each other in the first place.

    The answer to such obviously poisonous and unsustainable relationships for both parties , before one kills the other, is to divorce.

    Short of a (preferably amicable) real, and true separation, ideally agreed to by both parties, it’s all too often that murder suicides take place. Or, almost as bad, the Fatal Attraction scenario, where one party forceably and ‘permanently’ ends the ‘relationship’. The latter two scenarios certainly aren’t ‘best practice’.

    I’d be curious as to people’s thoughts on this overall subject.

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

  84. @Laurent Guyénot

    Very interesting. I had no idea that Clark was Jewish on his father’s side. Per Wikipedia, Benjamin died when Wesley was age 3. His mother was Methodist, and she did not tell Wesley of his Jewish ancestry. On his 16th birthday, he was adopted by his step-father, Viktor Clark, and had his surname officially changed, with Kanne becoming his middle name.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  85. Art says:
    @Baxter

    What is the ultimate ‘sin’ a Jew can commit?

    Go to jail.

    Screw someone real good – make a killing – and not go jail – is the ultimate Jew achievement (even other Jews).

    p.s. 9/11 Larry has to be the ultimate number one Jew – the ink on the insurance contracts was not even dry – and those buildings free fell in nine seconds – what a guy!

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  86. @anon

    Stranger wrote in Comment 47 (towards the bottom): The fact that 2 of the 3 quotes above are both from Ecclesiastes, yet give different answers, just goes to show you: the last verse(12) of Ecclesiastes was added by a later editor to make it politically correct.

    Anon 210: the Preacher in Ecclesiastes does not believe in the afterlife. Professional Stranger is being disingenuous in quoting it.

    You miss the point. The question under discussion is: “Is the Hebrew Bible materialistic?”, and WHO put it the verse in the Hebrew Bible, or WHO agrees with it, has got nothing to do with it. It point is simply that IT IS IN the Hebrew bible. And that’s all it takes to answer the question with a definitive “NO”!

    ______
    Folk myths improve with with time, with little additions and improvements, ancient and modern.

    Another example from Ecclesiastes:
    Ecclesiastes “all is vanity” (vanity = הֶבֶל hebel) A more literally correct translation is “all is nothing” or “everything is useless” – as found in some translations. But “all is vanity” is a big improvement, it adds a new level of meaning.

    “All is vanity” has come to mean “all is ego”, as in this famous illusion painting (Charles Gilbert 1892). Is it a young woman preening herself at her vanity mirror, or is it a gruesome skull?]]

    The original Hebrew word translated as “vanity” (hebel הֶבֶל) means “vapor” not “puffed-up pride and vanity” or “ego”.

    Folk myths grow and evolve over time, same as country folk music. The “holy” books are only folk myths. Don’t try to freeze them. Let them evolve. Same goes for “all is VANITY”. It has improved with time. Like old whiskey.

  87. @Roger Smith

    Excellent points, Roger. The Big Jews already have total dominance of the USA, but it’s not enough for them. Now, with the help of their useful idiots at Google, they are going after our First Amendment, making it illegal to even criticize Israel. They’ve been trying to take down the Second for some time now. With their money, they own both political parties

    Where does this all end? Christianity, it seems, has been defeated, with the majority in the US being Christian Zionists (quite an oxymoron). Few Catholics, outside of E Michael Jones, have the courage to take them on. Even the current Pope is a Zionist.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  88. Much of Jewish history is about a weak people with a strong God surrounded by strong peoples with weak gods.

    In more modern times, it’s been about people with weak bodies but strong minds surrounded by peoples with strong bodies but weak minds. In the end, the minds win over body. Man controls horse, not vice versa.

  89. “judaism remains a rather down-to-earth religion & its early concepts are similar to those we can find in the Epic of Gilgamesh & Homer: when you die, your psyche, which is just a shadow without vital energy, goes somewhere under the earth crust (Sheol, Hades) & leads there an unenviable “existence” of a devitalized semi-conscious entity (see Odyssey’s visit to Achilles).”

    When limted to the Torah as the author so desires, this is a mighty thread worn posit.

  90. Dumbo says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    This is a strange belief & I don’t get how people came to it. It seems more natural, for a primitive mind, that there is some force giving you life, and after you die- it dissipates or evaporates like a mist, and there is the end to all individual existence. Why an anemic shadow would persist somewhere in an underground pit is a mystery, at least to me.

    It makes much more sense to believe in a continuation of existence of the individual, however it may happen, than it ceasing completely.

    Historical Christianity remains otherworldly & pessimistic,

    Otherworldly, I guess so, pessimistic, it depends how you view it. Chesterton said it is both very pessimistic and very optimistic.

    similar to Islam (which also affirms Heaven & Hell, but is, like Judaism, more oriented toward taboos on food & other elements of behavior).

    Yes, both religions are obsessed with minute points of behavior, from how to eat to how to … anything, while Christianity evolved into something more interesting with time. Jesus himself was many times preaching against the Oral Law and against an overtly literal or blind following of laws (see his points about Shabbath, woman in the well, adulterous woman, etc).

  91. Milton says:

    The Church Fathers stated that before the Second Coming there would arrive a individual who would be accepted by the Synagogue of Satan (modern-day Zionists) as the Jewish Messiah. Not the suffering Messiah, but rather the same type of messiah that the Zealots of Christ’s day were expecting: a political, military messiah. A man in the mold of Simon bar Giora, Eleazar ben Simon, and John of Giscala. A man in the mold of the wicked rulers of Israel: Ahab, Manasseh, Jehoram. But the Church Fathers also were adamant that coinciding with the reign of the Antichrist will be the arrival of the Two Witnesses, Enoch and Elijah, who never died but have been supernaturally preserved for their ministry against the Antichrist. When these Two Witnesses return in supernatural, public fashion, there will no longer doubt about God’s existence from the “God is a Delusion” crowd. Humanity and Israel will face a stark choice: embrace the true Messiah or follow after the Antichrist. I firmly believe that the signs of the times point to the imminent arrival of these two blessed witnesses. History is about to be made. Stay tuned!

  92. @Robert Dolan

    The author is correct. Judaism is all about what you can plunder on earth and it clearly shows in the business, economic, and social practices of Jews from prostitution, organ selling, drugs, money lenders, and their other penchants of deception against the goy.

    This is by far and away the finest analysis of the Jewish problem I have ever read. The author nailed it and Ron is to be commended for publishing it.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  93. sheliak says:
    @Moi

    Completely incorrect interpretation of Christ’s position within Islamic theology.

  94. @Ilya G Poimandres

    who and what can sop the Jews….the Chinese and Chinese global power?

    I cant see the Jews doing to the Chinese what they have done to european/american/canadian whites…an to negroes everywhere. in to the Chinese addition there are Iran, Korea..both halves etc. a huge part of oriental asia: these can deal with the Jews.

    India cant’t deal with the Zionists! India is one huge patsy of a nation in the face of the white skin. Indians/India have no defense against the Khazars..period.

    it is quite likely that after America Khazaria will get the Indians to initiate a destruction between themselves and the Chinese, leaving the rest of the world safe for Khazar control. it is my opinion that India is the next host for the parasite to use to further its plan for the world, as the USA dies on its economic feet.

    the Khazar target is China, and who best to do that job for the Khazars but the Indians?

    I don’t think the Jews are very worried about Russia. Russians have reconstituted themselves nicely from their Soviet fall, and interim Zionist exploitation that fall led to. but the Zionists clearly have enough influence over Russia to almost dictate Russian policy in Syria relative to Israel. that and the strength of the Russian fifth column inside Russia itself, must literally assure the Khazars of restoration of Zionist power over all of Russia almost as soon as Putin goes home.

    and if not as soon as that surely in time the Jews will control Russia again. I don’t see how Russia can avoid becoming such control at some future point. the problem for the Zionists therefor are Iran/China and most of Oriental Asia. the Indians will take care of that for the Zionist, while conveniently costing themselves their own existence..solving that problem for the Zionist at the same time

  95. @AaronB

    But the Jewish religion itself is concerned with the spiritual salvation of all of mankind

    Uh huh.

    OK, but he was just some random crank, right?

    Nope — Yosef was the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel.

    His funeral in Jerusalem was the largest in Israel’s history, with an estimated attendance of 850,000.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-closes-down-for-rabbi-ovadia-yosefs-funeral/

    Benjamin Netanyahu: “The Jewish people have lost one of the wisest men of this generation.”

    Shimon Peres: “When I pressed his hand, I felt I was touching history, and when I kissed his head, it was as though I kissed the very greatness of Israel.”

    “Spiritual salvation of all mankind.” I see.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @anon
  96. @Robert Dolan

    We live in hope..

    I’ve some familiarity with Jewish thought so what I’ve read thus far of M. Guyénot’s article is not a complete surprise… That said? This article is one of the most appalling indictments I’ve ever read…

    But also: That the birth of Christianity and its message of universal love and brotherhood could arise from such a pestilential source must surely be proof of the existence of God..

    • Replies: @JP
  97. AaronB says:
    @James Forrestal

    Not every individual or generation lives up to the spirit of that religion.

    Christianity says turn the other cheek, but several centuries later developed the Inquisition, the Crusades, the massacre of Cathars, the religious wars of the 16th century, the massacre of the Hugenots, the destruction and massacre of Aztec and Inca civilization, with Popes formally granting European countries “ownership” of parts of the Americas, the burning of witches, the sanctioning of slavery, and much more.

    And yet does the failure of generations of Christians deprive Christianity of its essential moral character? It does not, in my view. While these things occurred, it cannot reasonably be said that they characterize the message of Jesus – yet for detractors, they do.

    In the Hebrew Bible it says all men were made in the Divine image, and that Israel’s special mission was to be a witness to God among the nations, and that non Jews who recognize God and act morally have a share in heaven.

    But you will characterize Judaism by some crazy remarks by a modern Rabbi who is known for making crazy remarks? He also said, btw, that the Jews who died in the Holocaust died because they were the souls of sinners who deserved to die. That hardly endears him to Jews.

    He’s considered a great Rabbi in Israel despite his history of offensive statements, not because of them, and because he did much good work in other areas. And btw, that remark about gentiles was condemned by the ADL and lots of other Jews.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  98. Art says:
    @AaronB

    Ethnocentrism is not a “naturalistic” fact.

    Only people who have supernatural beliefs can be ethnocentric.

    Really?

    Ethnocentric is a fancy word for tribe. Tribes have been with humanity forever. Most all tribes have some mutual god figure tied to natural causes.

    As we leave behind tribalism and individualistic gods, thing get better – PERIOD.

    Science is the new religion – it leads us to a rational beginning. And it leads us to an idealistic philosophy.

    Think Peace — Art

    • Replies: @anon
  99. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    • R. Dolan: The jews are no longer God’s chosen people
    • Jew Testament: “The people of Israel, chosen.” (Romans 9:4)

    Who’s right, you or the Holy Hook?

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  100. Seraphim says:
    @Professional Stranger

    @“Ecclesiastes is not even part of the Tanakh”

    Guyénot should have abstained to make such statements which show his actual lack of familiarity (not to say ignorance) with the subject. It puts all his allegations on a very shaky ground. His waffling about the role of Christianity in the demise of Christendom shows that he did not understand much about Christianity and its ‘conflict’ with Judaism.
    He actually tries to mitigate his hostility to it, despite his perfunctory exculpation of “Russian Orthodox Christianity today” for its supposed ‘strong national flavor’ (of which he doesn’t know much, as of Orthodoxy in general). The truth is that all theorizations of ‘volkisch’ nationalisms (German in particular) are imitations of Judaism, as all ‘Arian’ (‘white’) fantasies à la Gobineau and Houston Chamberlain, actually hostile to the Church and no less ‘materialistic’ than Judaism.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  101. @Roger Smith

    The point isn’t to destroy the host, it’s to blind it and numb its capacity to think. The ideal host works tirelessly day after day and remembers nothing. It doesn’t even remember that it has been performing the same task for years. Each day, it believes, is its first day on the job. It has been lobotomized by drugs.

    When a worker becomes habituated to the drug and his consciousness begins to work its way towards the light, like a stem of grass through asphalt, then he must either be reeducated or, if that fails, washed out of the system entirely.

    So, once you become conscious, if you want to stay alive, you must camouflage yourself by pretending that this day is your first day on the job and hope that somehow, somewhere, you will encounter another being like yourself who too has woken up.

    But you must be careful. The person to whom you confide your revelations may turn you in. Then, without threat or force they will separate you by telling you that you qualify for a special program reserved for gold-star workers. You will be feted as they parade you past the other workers. In reality they are escorting you to the recycle bin.

  102. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Forrestal

    Jew Testament will tell you the same thing as this foul Rabbi. “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.” (Romans 15:27) Pay up Christcucks, Buy-bull says so!

  103. @Anon

    Troll button already used

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  104. Art says:
    @Robert Dolan

    I am struck by the idea that judaism is pure materialism and rejects the idea of an afterlife.

    So….if there is no reward in heaven for good behavior, and no punishment in hell for bad behavior…..well, you see where this is going.

    This supports the particularist philosophy that jews do “what is good for the jews” and to hell with the rest of humanity.

    Really – is it good for the Jews?

    Do the sins of the father fall on the son.

    The Big Jew Rothschilds screwed over Europe with debt – the Little Jews in Germany paid the price.

    For 2,000 years the Little Jews have been held back by the crimes of the Big Jews. The Big Jews just move, taking the money – the Little Jews get the hell.

    Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  105. @anon

    I’m right.

    First of all, that is not the KJV translation.

    Second, Paul is talking about the PAST, and the OT.

    Yes, the jews WERE the chosen people in the OT.

    Christ came to save the jews, then when they rejected Him,
    God offered salvation to all of mankind.

    The NT is a new deal, a new covenant, open to jews and gentiles.

    “Israel” and “Jerusalem” in the NT generally refer to spiritual Israel
    (heavenly Israel) and not the 1948 Israel of the flesh.

    Technically…..Christians are now God’s chosen people, but Christian humility,
    and jewish brainwashing, have cucked Christians into becoming zionist lunatics.

    The idea that jews are STILL “God’s chosen people” after they KILLED THE SON OF GOD,
    is so stupid I have to give the jews credit for having balls the size of grapefruits
    to keep pushing that kind of outrageous bullshit.

    • Replies: @anon
  106. @anonymous

    We can have monotheism without the knock off religions based on Judaism. Islam can conquer the world but it is based on a false history. Abraham isn’t the father of the Arabs. Why would anyone want to be descended from a probable rapist anyway? We will never be free from this evil until people stop believing in these false myths. We have Deism, we have Zoroastrianism which is the real living father of monotheism along with the long deceased Egyptian Atenism. Why remain spiritual slaves to someone else’s story?

    I’m going to say somethings that is real racist but according to my current understanding I believe it to be true. Did Western Europeans and Arabs adopt the psychopathic Jewish God because they were too stupid to come up with something captivating to believe in themselves? These people were late intellectual bloomers according to World History and I doubt they would have accomplished anything of note without standing on the shoulders of the Greco-Roman giants that came before them. Western Europeans have left us very little regarding their indigenous religions (I wonder if they were just copies of other and older pagan religions?) and strangely Muslims are monotheistic but they worship a pagan rock. World History pretty much ignores them until more recent times. These two groups have no great living indigenous religions like the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, or Zoroastrians have. In world history these people never contributed anything meaningful until recently. People study ancient Greek philosophy and not something some German tribal sage said 3,000 years ago.

  107. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art

    > As we leave behind tribalism

    You’re an utter moron, Art, and an unscientific one at that. Humans naturally organize on tribal levels because of our brain’s neocortex size. Never heard of Dunbar’s Number? Real simple:

    “Group size is found to be a function of relative neocortical volume…”

    Robin Dunbar (1992). “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.” Journal of Human Evolution 22 (6): pp. 469–493

    You may as well speak of abandoning traditional digestion or traditional reproduction as another glorious leap forward.

    > thing get better – PERIOD.

    You’re so certain of the progressive narrative that you have to shout at everybody with all caps.

    • Replies: @Art
  108. @joeshittheragman

    Well said. In addition to being a narrow matrilineal tribalistic cult, self-promoting & self-serving to the strict exclusion of all goyim.

  109. @Art

    No……it wasn’t the jews that paid the price……..it was FIFTY FIVE MILLION

    GENTILES THAT PAID THE PRICE.

    • Replies: @Art
  110. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    First of all, no translation has special magical properties. Second of all, the Jew Testament doesn’t say what you say it says, it just says what it says. Fanatical all-caps shouting doesn’t change that.

    > zionist lunatics

    Who else but zionist fanatics wrote the Jew Testament? Have you ever actually read it?

    • Matthew 21:5 “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you.”
    • John 12:15 “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion; see, your king is coming.”
    • Romans 9:33 “See, I lay in Zion a stone…”
    • Romans 11:26 “The deliverer will come from Zion…”
    • Hebrews 12:22 “Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”
    • 1 Peter 2:6 “See, I lay a stone in Zion.”
    • Revelation 14:1 “Standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000.”

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @Titus
  111. Anon 2 says:

    OT Poland thrashed Israel 4:0 in Euro 2020 soccer qualifiers.
    Sic transit gloria mundi. Why are the Jews unable to put up
    a better fight?

  112. Seraphim says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    Hasbara troll masquerading as KKK ‘Whitey’.

  113. @anon

    I laid it out for you, dipshit.

    My analysis is correct.

    I have at least 40 IQ points on you, and years of theological study.

    • Replies: @anon
  114. @Jake

    Like you say, the problem is the Talmud but the problem is also the old testament because it has tied whites to the Jews and helped to deracinate us. Blaming the Talmud for the Jews is the
    right wing Christian way or at least maybe the Western Christian way(as opposed to the EasternOrthodox Christian way) to hang onto the Hebrew Bible. Laurent Guyenot wrote an excellent essay about this appropriately called “The Hook” not long ago. It is right here on this site. You should read it.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  115. Art says:
    @Robert Dolan

    The Big Jew Rothschilds screwed over Europe with debt – the Little Jews in Germany paid the

    price.

    No……it wasn’t the jews that paid the price……..it was FIFTY FIVE MILLION

    GENTILES THAT PAID THE PRICE.

    An excellent point!

  116. Art says:
    @anon

    As we leave behind tribalism and individualistic gods, thing get better – PERIOD.

    Group size is found to be a function of relative neocortical volume…”

    Group size?? Neocortical volume??

    Where did I mention group and brain size?

    p.s. I was thinking of you (222) – clearly – you needed the EMPHASIS!!!!!!!

    Think Peace — Art

    • Replies: @anon
  117. Rodop says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    OK, can you give me some examples of “pseudo-science, degenerated culture”

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  118. @Seraphim

    Yes, I should have abstained from that statement. And yes, my understanding is limited. And Yes, I learn much from comments on unz.com. So thank you for correcting me. I actually made a confusion, in my answer to comment #4, between Ecclesiast and Sirach (called L’Ecclesiastique in French, a source of confusion). But my argument remains valid. Ecclesiast, though written in Hebrew and included in the Tanakh, belongs to the Hellenistic period, according to most scholars (the Persian period, according to others). And besides, it is not a counter-argument to my thesis, on the contrary: it is fondamentally and explicitly materialistic. To set the record straight, I reproduce what I wrote in the article, which is correct:

    In the Hellenistic period, Greco-Egyptian dualism infiltrated Jewish thought. The Wisdom of Solomon, written in Greek in Alexandria in the first century BCE, asserts that, “God created human beings to be immortal,” and criticizes those who “do not believe in a reward for blameless souls” (2:22-23). But such books never made it into the Jewish canon, as rabbinical Judaism vigorously rejected anything Greek. Moreover, even within Hellenistic Judaism, the materialist viewpoint prevailed. According to Ecclesiastes,
    “the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same: as the one dies, so the other dies; […] everything comes from the dust, everything returns to the dust” (3:19–20).
    “The living are at least aware that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing whatever. […] There is neither achievement, nor planning, nor science, nor wisdom in Sheol where you are going” (9:5-10).

    In the quote mentionned by Professional Stranger in comment #4 from Ecclesiastes 12: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave it,” the right translation for ruah is not “spirit” but “breath”.

  119. Seraphim says:
    @Achilles Wannabe

    The ‘Eastern Orthodox Christian way’ hangs on the ‘Hebrew’ Bible as much as the Western.

  120. LondonBob says:

    No Jews don’t believe in heaven and hell, I have discussed this was a religious Jewish friend.

    No the Puritans weren’t influenced by Jews, they had been expelled a long time ago. Indeed Jews play no role in British history until the Victorian era as they were expelled not so long after they came over with William the Conqueror. A peculiar Catholic obsession to link Puritans with Judaism.

  121. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Yeah, you laid out your dipshit excuse-making for the Jew Testament, trying to twist it into saying exactly the opposite of what it says. Your creative interpretation of the Jew Testament isn’t an analysis. As far as IQ goes, the Jew Testament says the opposite; Paul states that Christcuck dupes are mostly ignoble idiots. “Not many of you were wise by human standards…not many were noble…” (1 Corinthians 1:26) Science confirms that part of the Buybull.

    “A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.” –The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313497266

  122. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art

    Where did you mention group size? When you denounced the tribal. “Tribe” is by definition a smaller political group than a state. Thanks for proving just how intellectually challenged you are.

    By definition, a band was a small, egalitarian, kin-based group of perhaps 10–50 people, while a tribe comprised a number of bands that were politically integrated (often through a council of elders or other leaders) and shared a language, religious beliefs, and other aspects of culture.

    The Difference Between a Tribe and a Band
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Difference-Between-a-Tribe-and-a-Band-1673365

    • Replies: @Art
  123. @follyofwar

    I know the story of Clark finding out late that his father was Jewish. But I suspect it was made up to justifcy his crypto-Zionism all along. In any case, as I have often said, I suspect that his oft-repeated story about the Pentagon memo is a trick to: 1) cryptically sign the new war as fufilling biblical prophecies, and 2) at the same time, blame it on “the Pentagon generals”. Like Democracy Now who interviewed him, he is a pseudo-whistelblower working for the the controlled opposition. I may be wrong, of course… But the point is: as the proud son of a long line of rabbis, he cannot ignore what the “seven nations” mean in the Bible.

  124. @AaronB

    “and that non Jews who recognize God and act morally have a share in heaven.”

    And the good Rabbi already made clear what that share will consist of, i.e. sweeping the floor, emptying the trash cans and swabbing out the chamber pots. Gee, thanks a lot for sharing.

    • Replies: @Caruthers
  125. @Jake

    The BOTTOM LINE: Jews ALWAYS seek is destruction of Jesus’ work and eradication of His followers.

    (((All subsets of Jews)))

    …always swirl widely and end up back on the same page, which first and foremost is about being anti-Christ and anti-Christendom and therefore necessarily anti-peoples of historic Christendom.

  126. @Rodop

    Pseudo-science : Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Frankfurt School sociology, “race-is-a-social-construct” anthropology.

    Degenerated culture : nearly everything from Hollywood and on TV. Attack on Christianity. Promotion of pornography, promiscuity, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, trans-genderism. Promotion of Black “rap” and “gangsta” culture and race-mixing.

    The promotion of mass non-white immigration and wars-for-Israel in the Middle East fall under “destructive politics”.

    Thanks for the “contributions” of this “unique” people !

    • Replies: @Rodop
  127. Caruthers says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Indeed. The “Hebrew Bible” repeatedly lionizes aggressive war and genocide for the benefit of the Chosen People, which is primarily defined by genealogy and ancestry, and which is therefore essentially a racial concept. Most religious holidays in Judaism celebrate the death and defeat of rivals.

    The Talmud, the official interpretation of the religion, is replete with the most vicious and categorical racism, positing an absolute, ontological difference between the infinite value of the Jewish soul and the worthlessness of the Gentile soul, and enjoining Jews to discriminate against Gentiles as a religious imperative.

    It is only a “universal” religion in the sense that the White Man’s Burden was a universalist concept, and slaveholders were acting on universalist principles as they claimed their “peculiar institution” benefited the slaves.

    That the rabbi was so loved and celebrated shows that the Israeli populace either agreed with his views, or sympathized with them, or, at the very least, did not find them especially troubling. Let us celebrate Gentiles who speak similarly about Jews, but who do “good works” in other areas.

  128. @Jake

    Islam doesn’t batter Christianity, it supports and protects Christianity, which cannot protect itself if it actually follows Christ’s directive to turn the other cheek. Actually Islam IS corrected Christianity. Islam largely agrees with other Christian denominations about Christ’s divine message, it agrees that Jesus was born of a holy virgin, it agrees that Jesus is Messiah, it agrees with Christian conceptions of spirituality, and it largely agrees with other Christian denominations in its conception of the afterlife. (Dante’s Divine Comedy is a wholesale plagiarism of Islam’s Isra and Mir’aj literature, as Asin Palacios demonstrated at length.)

    Muslims are ordered by their Prophet to protect and defend Christians “until the end of time.” https://covenantsoftheprophet.org

    Islamophobes (like Wahhabis) are ignorant and deluded Zionist brainwashing victims. Islam is the one Christian denomination—the only surviving and vibrant one—that can and will save European civilization and prepare it for the coming of Jesus, peace upon him, the one true Messiah.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  129. Islam denies the divinity of God Incarnate Jesus.

    The Triune God comprised of God The Father, God The Son Jesus, and The Holy Spirit, the mystery of Christianity beyond human comprehension, is called “polytheism” by Islam and is thus subject to penalty of death under islam.

    So Islam is murderously anti Jesus and anti Christian which is why the Jews are so eager to have it in the formerly Christian West.

  130. utu says:

    The first time I have encountered the idea that Nazism emulated Judaism was in Umberto Eco’s essay in a niche art journal. Recently I tried to locate it but I failed. That I do not remember the name of the journal does not help.

    It is interesting that a Polish historian (Feliks Koneczny) wrote about Nazism as an emulation of Judaism already before WWII and then in underground publications during WWII in Poland. He worked on his Jewish Civilization before WWII which he finished right after the war. It has been published since in Polish but for obvious reasons not widely know. Supposedly an English translation from a small publishing house in Poland is available: https://sklep.antyk.org.pl/p,the-jewish-civilization,6451.html

    Here are excerpts form article on Koneczny’s take on Jewish civilization:

    [MORE]

    “Civilizational” Boundaries in Christian-Jewish Relations
    Andrew K. Wise
    https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/download/1552/1406/

    Koneczny was quite explicit in his judgment of ―Jewish civilization. In his learned opinion, since its origins it had been an incomplete civilization, defective, not possessing all the categories of being, without Truth and Beauty. Indeed, he detected only the tiniest provision of the intellectual categories of being. As an example of these shortcomings, Koneczny noted that for Jews historical thought itself is very, very difficult. From my own experience, I know that for Jewish students it is difficult to acquire this sense, difficult to understand the historical nature of people and things…He consistently maintained in his works that the civilizational question is more a matter of mentality than one of race. Thus, the key concern with Jewish civilization was the threat that the Jewish way of thinking posed to Latin civilization.

    For Koneczny, Jewish civilization was frozen in time. Already in his Plurality of Civilisations (1935), Koneczny was maintaining that the whole of community life the whole structure of Jewish civilization with a mass of detail is contained in the rules of the Old Testament. It is a sacral civilization. Jewish civilization added in time a second source-book of Jewish religion and civilisation—the Talmud… It may safely be said that there is nothing in heaven or earth which is not debated there, but always exclusively from the sacral angle… Not a corner of life escapes the restraint of rules allegedly coming from Jehovah. Jewish civilisation would become even more strongly sacral.

    The fundamental flaw in Jewish civilization is that it is sacral, which leads Jews to embrace a priori thinking and a suspiciousness towards secular learning. As early as 1926, Koneczny was writing in Ateneum Kapłańskie (the most important organ for the Polish clergy during the interwar period) that ―of all religions the Jewish one is most identical with a civilization. The Talmud is this civilization, because it contains the method of collective life in all its details, not neglecting a single category, but with several huge defects (such as the lack of scholarship)… In Jewry religion and civilization are the same. He added that while religion ―is the most important part of a civilization…only religions of a lower order create civilizations and these are also of a lower type. Koneczny later concluded that in ―sacral civilisations religion acts as a brake on progress. A religion which defines everything in categories of being must at the same time petrify everything, and in consequence its adherents are often helpless in face of new currents emerging in the process of time. Where everything is established a priori, where there is no doubt and no inquiry, progress is excluded and instead there is danger of stagnation. For Jewish civiliza- tion, this meant that there was no ―creative originality.

    Koneczny placed special emphases on Jewish legalism, which is evident in Mosaic law. He believed that the contractual agreement between them and their god meant that Jews placed law before ethics. Koneczny found that over the course of centuries there emerged here and there apriori law. It imparted sanction not to existing circumstances and was not created in a natural manner, but it was imagined, invented…Mosaic law was a prototype of apriori law. Koneczny believed that this focus on apriori law is a fundamental feature of Judaism, and consequently Jewish civilization. He stressed that ―[a]mong Jews…law is not based on ethics, but precisely the opposite: ethics are based on law. He theorized that this sacralized law became the regulator for all aspects of Jewish life, leaving no room for the development of ethics. An elephantiasis of law thus emerged: the more law the better!

    Another important factor for Koneczny was the notion of Jewish chosenness. He concluded that this special relationship with God and the faith that all must end with the Jews ruling the world was the most immutable, distinguishing characteristic of Jewish civilization. Koneczny thus identified an ethic of exclusivity that generated contempt, then hatred, for foreigners. In all of universal history, Jews have developed hatred to the highest degree… This all highlights the defective nature of Jewish civilization. This collective predestination reflects Jewish emphasis on the collective, rather than the individual, and precludes a personal relationship with God that is found in Catholicism.

    Koneczny posited that even while Jewish civilization embraced the ethic of exclusivity Jews have been forced to live among other peoples, to live within other civilizations. According to Koneczny, Jewish civilization experienced significant changes among other nations,‘ but what is most interesting is that the changes occurred for the better: the supplement of a defective civilization in many directions and lifting it to a higher level in each case. For example, Jews embraced other languages in order to express a higher order of abstract thought, since Hebrew was itself a language able to facilitate civilizational development only to a certain level, beyond which it becomes a brake on higher development.

    In 1981 George Steiner published “The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.” which caused a stir after being adapted for the stage. There Adolf Hitler gives his defense speech in which:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Portage_to_San_Cristobal_of_A.H.
    First, Hitler claims he took his doctrines from the Jews and copied the notion of the master race from the Chosen people and their need to separate themselves from the “unclean”. “My racism is a parody of yours, a hungry imitation.”

    Next, Hitler justifies the Final Solution by maintaining that the Jews’ God, purer than any other, enslaves His subjects, continually demanding more than they can give and “blackmailing” them with ideals that cannot be attained. The “virus of utopia” had to be stopped.

    Hitler then states that he was not the originator of evil. “[Stalin] had perfected genocide” (Soviet famine of 1932–33) “when I was still a nameless scribbler in Munich.” Further, Hitler asserts that the number of lives lost due to his actions are dwarfed by various world atrocities, including those in Russia, China and Africa.

    Finally, Hitler maintains that the Reich begat Israel and suggests that he is the Messiah “whose infamous deeds were allowed by God in order to bring His people home.” He closes by asking, “Should you not honour me who have made … Zion a reality?”

  131. Druid says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    They also have a tendency to push their peopl to the front of the line, many of whom are very mediocre. Its a religio- ethnic nepotism.

  132. Druid says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Militaristic? You lost your case there. Is it disingenuous and hatred, or do you actually believe that?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  133. Right off the bat, Laurent Guyenot impressed & wrote:
    “The American rabbi Harry Waton had a theory to explain the organic unity, persistence and progress of the Jews. He wrote in his Program for the Jews, published in 1939: “Hebrew religion, in fact, was intensely materialistic and it is precisely this that gave it persistent and effective reality.”

    Dear Mr. Guyenot,

    Speaking respectfully, I think Rabbi Waton’s interesting insight, quoted above, is succinct, but in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor,” a very similar & powerful conclusion is reached.

    The Inquisitor insisted that The Christ would have fared better had he come down from the cross, & did better at the monumental task of fulfilling human material needs.

    Uh, maybe Rabbi Waton knew that dark & scary truth without his having read “The Brothers Karamazov”?

    Nonetheless, “thanks” for the intense enlightenment, Laurent.

  134. @Farrakhan.DDuke.AliceWalker.AllAgree

    thus subject to penalty of death under islam.

    Wrong

  135. Art says:
    @anon

    Where did you mention group size? When you denounced the tribal. “Tribe” is by definition a smaller political group than a state.

    Arn’t Saudi and Israel “tribal” countries?

  136. @Farrakhan.DDuke.AliceWalker.AllAgree

    FarrDD: The Triune God .. of Christianity .. is called “polytheism” by Islam

    Stranger: Christianity is called polytheism by Judaism, too.
    If the trinity doctrine is not enough to convince you that xtianity is polytheism, the fact that xtianity recognizes SEPARATE independent gods of good and evil, should do it!

    Satan as “an independent god of evil” is a christian polytheist corruption of the Jewish bible. In the Jewish Bible, “Satan” is always the humble servant of God. God CREATES EVIL and Satan delivers it. Don’t shoot the messenger!

    👉Isaiah 45:7. “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and CREATE EVIL;”

    In a monotheistic religion the one god must create evil. If another god did it, the religion would be polytheism. but christianity IS polytheism, so it has no problem with a separate god of evil. xtianity postulates this world as a struggle between the 3 gods of good, and the 1 god of evil.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  137. anon[361] • Disclaimer says:

    How a book that glorifies uses of unearned
    assets ( gold jewelry, metals , grains , building materials ) which rightfully belongs to other can claim any moral authority ?

    How can a book that seeks misappropriation
    and embezzlement of the fruits of the labors of someone else can provide a lighting rod for moral development ?

    How can the followers of the book claim to be force for good ?

    Also is unfathomable the way moral argument has been made against Hitler and against Baalami ( in the book- A Program For The
    Jews) by the rabbi .

    If certain practices , ideas, and expectations are good for Israelis ( Jews)
    , Jews should be last person to say that it’s not for non-Jews.

    Conflict is not necessary.

    Hitler could have his way and Jews could
    have theirs .

    Same is true for Balam.

    It seems Jews wanted to deprive the rest of the world the very things they want and the way they want .

    Or am I missing something !

  138. “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

    ― Richard Dawkins

    The consequences of worshipping such a monster would seem to have bourn fruit.

    • Replies: @root
  139. AaronB says:
    @Professional Stranger

    Mostly agree.

    Bruce Charlton, a man with a thoroughly modern and positivistic mentality interprets Christianity in its most literal and obvious sense – and explicitly rejects monotheism and claims authentic Christianity is polytheistic.

    The Trinity as aspects of the divinity is not problematic for Judaism – the problem is, Christianity does not clearly make that claim, nor does it clearly posit distinct Gods. It’s sort of both.

    That is why it was always held to be a confusing doctrine that stumped the intellect. A mysterium tremendum.

    There have been authoritative orthodox Jewish opinions that accept Christianity as monotheistic, or at least not pagan and not “heathen”.

    Although the Trinity has always made Christianity more problematic for Jews.

  140. AaronB says:
    @Professional Stranger

    And yes, Judaism is a non dualistic system which does not posit evil as having a separate source from good. In this respect it is similar to Eastern religions.

    Evil is in some sense not quite real in Judaism – its just that we humans cannot comprehend the mysterious ways of God. The whole book of Job illustrates the need for Faith, and our inability to understand.This is strikingly similar to Eastern traditions.

    Christianity is confusing on this subject too – Lucifer is a fallen angel so lesser than God, and has in some sense been already defeated, but is still an independent force that fights God.

    However, Christian mystics come closer to the Jewish and Eastern path. I do not know about Islam.

  141. @Druid

    The prophet Muhammad himself was a warlord who engaged in numerous battles in which booty was taken and slaves were made. Female captives could be used as sex slaves. One fifth of the war booty was destined for Muhammad himself, who received a special “revelation from Allah” to that effect, which can be found in Qur’an 8 : 41 :

    And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily, one-fifth of it is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives (of the Messenger), and also the orphans, Al‑Masaakin (the poor) and the wayfarer”.

    After his death his successors the caliphs conquered a major part of the ancient world for Islam. Muslim armies conquered Spain in 712 and could only be stopped at Poitiers in France in 732. The reconquista of Spain took 760 years. The Balkans were conquered by the Muslim Turks and occupied for some four centuries. Constantinople, conquered in 1453, is still in Turkish hands. Vienna was besieged by them in 1683. Muslim armies also conquered Central Asia and India.

    Muslim rulers have the duty to spread Islam by the sword. Muslim “theologians” divide the world into 3 parts : Dar al-Islam (“house of Islam”), the part already conquered for Islam, and Dar al-harb (“house of war”), also called dar al-kufr (“house of the unbelievers”), the part yet to be conquered. Between the two lies a zone called Dar al-sulh (“house of treaty”) were a temporary “peace” is maintained until the Muslims are strong enough to wage further wars. Ideally such “peace” should not last longer than 10 years. The ultimate aim is to conquer the whole world.

    This is the real nature Islam, an aggressive movement to conquer militarily the world and subjugate it to Islamic rule. It is not “prejudice” or “hatred” to acknowledge this reality, but ignorance and naivity to believe otherwise.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @anon
  142. Anon[363] • Disclaimer says:

    Spinoza is one of the vertices of all philosophy — it’s awkward to see his name beside Mahler’s… And if he isn’t mainstream that’s because few philosophers have the reach to interest in him and grasp his concepts.

    **
    “Psyche” wasn’t understood as a beyond-bodily reality even in Greek/Hellenistic culture for centuries (see Jaynes’s Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind for a full treatment of the matter)

  143. The Book of Genesis, whose anthropological materialism is the most explicit, betrays Mesopotamian and Persian influences that cannot be anterior to the Babylonian Exile. Significantly, it uses the Persian word Pardes to designate the “Garden” (of Eden), but turns its meaning upside down: whereas in Indo-European myths, Paradise is the happy world where the righteous dead become immortal by eating from the tree of life, in Genesis, it is a past lost forever for all mankind, and the stage of the drama that brought into the world the double scourge of death and labor; for death bears no promise, and work no spiritual reward.

    That the Book of Genesis in its current form probably postdates the Babylonian exile is a position which many scholars would support, but the rest of this is simply wrong. The word pardes does indeed appear in the Hebrew Bible just not in Genesis, as can easily be confirmed (e.g., here: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_6508.htm). On the other hand the actual term for “Garden of Eden” in Genesis, Gan Eden, has a long history of use in Jewish tradition as a name for the “paradise” to which the righteous dead will indeed return in “the World to Come” (ha-Olam ha-Ba)–a concept which is very much present in Jewish thinking about “life after death.” It is true that this conception, in explicit form, appears to postdate the Hebrew Bible itself, but if the goal is to describe the Jewish character as reflected in its religious traditions (and not, say, merely the presumed worldview of the writer of Genesis), then it is simply wrong to say that in its view “paradise” is lost forever for all mankind. Quite the contrary.

    Guyénot undoubtedly is correct regarding the collectivist nature of Jewish conceptions of “salvation” (he might, for example, have quoted the famous mishna which serves as a recurring epigraph in the Sayings of the Fathers: “All Israel has a share in the World to Come”), but his characterization of the metaphysical particulars of that salvation is debatable. Some Jews of course have taken the kind of strictly materialist view Guyénot claims as normative (he has quotations from them, after all, to back him up), but there is ample evidence that many Jews, both historically and today, would vehemently disagree. Unfortunately, gaffes like the one here, or the howler he commits in the comments above when he declares that “Ecclesiastes is not even part of the Tanakh . . . it belongs to Hellenistic literature rejected even by rabbinical Judaism” (lol wut?) don’t inspire much confidence that he is a reliable guide to that debate.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    , @bitte
  144. Seraphim says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Well, the main source of confusion consists in considering the so-called ‘Hellenistic Judaism’ as something entirely different from ‘Hebraic Judaism’, ‘infiltrated’ if not ‘polluted’ by Greco-Egyptian thought (as if Moses was not ‘influenced’ by it in the first place), instead of its expression in the Greek language for the use of Jews who were not speaking Hebrew anymore, whence the Septuagint, which is the ‘Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Greek language. The confusion is accentuated by the conception of the Scriptures as a ‘Book’ descended from Heavens once and for all (rather like the printed English “Bible’) and not a historical process of unfolding revelation and interpretations (and revisions due to inevitable corruption of texts in the process of copying them) of the Word, until the final revelation of the Incarnation of the Word.
    A parallel process took place in the Aramaic speaking Middle East, where the Hebrew Scriptures were translated in the Aramaic language (the Targum) which would be the base of the Scriptures used by the ‘Oriental Christians’.
    I see that you persist in the confusion of the ‘Ecclesiastes/Qohelet’, written by Solomon and part of the Tanakh, and ‘Ecclesiasticus/Wisdom of Ben Sirach’, translated in Greek from Hebrew in the Hellenistic period, but not included in the Tanakh. The ‘Book of the Wisdom of Solomon’ was written in Greek in the Hellenistic period, but the existence of Aramaic fragments of it raises many questions.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  145. @Seraphim

    You don’t need to talk about “confusion”. It is just a question of different “points of view”. Your point of view is valid: Judaism cannot be reduced to its first manifestation (whether we consider that starting point to be the Mosaic tradition or the Tanakh as compiled in Babylon). The same can be said of every religion: Islam cannot be reduced to the Koran, as Wahhabism claims it should. I am fully aware of this point of view. In an article, I cannot go around describing my subject from every viewpoint. I chose a particular viewpoint, which is also valid: the starting point is like the DNA of the religion. You can add many things to it, yet the fundamental character will not change. And I think it is beyond dispute that the oldest strata of the Hebrew Bible is agressively materialistic and holistic. And, as I said, it is not materialistic because of some kind of primitivism: it is materialistic because it is at war with every other religion.
    This point of view is important to document because it happens to be the point of view of many elite Jews: I took as example the Straussians, who are definitely the most influential elites Jews today: They are intensely biblical (and prophetic) and therefore materialistic and holistic (in short, Machiavellian, if we agree with Strauss’ understanding of Machiavelli. But the same can be said of most Zionists since Ben-Gurion. (we could say they are like the Wahhabists of Judaism). If I had written about the Jewish faith of the Jewish masses, I would have taken a completely different viewpoint, for I am aware that most religious Jews believe in the afterlife. My point is to document how the elites who are shaping the NWO read the Bible and take their worldview from it, not how it should be read.
    Now, regarding the other “confusion” which you accuse me of, I am sure you understand that the error I made in a comment (I don’t proof read my comments) doesn’t affect the general thesis. If I had written, like you do,

    ‘Ecclesiastes/Qohelet’, written by Solomon,

    then, yes, there would be reason to lose confidence in my knowledge of biblical scholarship.

  146. @Gott mit Unz

    I do make errors. And I do appreciate when someone points them out, so that I can improve my text. I am not a biblical scholar, and even if I were, I would make errors here and there, unless I get some colleagues to proofread my articles. But then, I wouldn’t write such articles, for fear of losing my job (I lost my job anyway). So I take note: Pardès is not the name of the Garden of Eden, and my point about this Paradise being an inverted version of the Persian Otherworld of the good dead is not conclusive. Does that weaken the general thesis of the article?
    Nex point:

    Some Jews of course have taken the kind of strictly materialist view Guyénot claims as normative (he has quotations from them, after all, to back him up), but there is ample evidence that many Jews, both historically and today, would vehemently disagree.

    I don’t claim it is “normative”; I claim it is widely shared by many of the most influential Jews, including Zionists, whether religious or not. (more in my comment 146)

  147. For this reason, all other religions negate the earth and the material world and are indifferent to the well-being and progress of mankind on this earth.

    This Rabbi dude was obviously fucking retarded. Ever seen the interior of St Peter’s? St Paul’s? St Michael’s? Chartres? Notre Dame?

    That set of gold-plated expressions of earthly might negates the material world, does it? Does it fuck.

    Religions are – always and everywhere – all about some pack of grifters convincing people with the worldly-wisdom of a dim 4 year old, that they (the grifters) have the answer to all the Big Questions.

    Never mind that as technology advances, all of those answers turn out to have been horse-shit.

    To (almost) quote the (almost-) masterful new ‘Toast’ vehicle “Year of the Rabbit”:

    “[Life] is a rat eating its own babies, babies made of shit, and once it eats its own shit babies, it shits them out again, and then it noshes them, and that goes on and on until the sun turns cold and the sea goes back into the sky.”

    Or to (almost) quote The Dread Pirate Roberts (channeling Schopenhauer):

    Life is pain, Princess: anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

    But there is always a market for grifters to exploit the bottom 4 quintiles of the IQ distribution with tales about a glorious life everlasting… just pay for my palace and I’ll tell you how to get in.

  148. Parfois1 says:

    Full marks for a great article and cogent scholarship. It discusses and provides a gateway into the origins and evolution of Jewish power from a historical and cultural perspective while leaving wide scope for alternative theories. A tour de force indeed.

    • Agree: Erebus
  149. Parfois1 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The reconquista of Spain took 760 years.

    Normally I would not quibble with that statement, but its careless repetition gets annoying because it shows … well, carelessness and that affects credibility. The northern mountainous regions of Iberia (Spain did not exist as a country until late 15th century) were not conquered by Islam (though they were raided a few times). Navarre, Aragon and Portugal were freed in the 10th century while Castille and Leon completed the reconquest by the 13th century, leaving only a miniscule Islamic presence in Granada until 1492. Don’t know why the Christians left it alone for so long, perhaps for commercial reasons.
    By that time the Portuguese were forging an empire in North Africa, starting with the conquest of Ceuta in 1415.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  150. @Parfois1

    Like any action, a reconquest lasts as long it is not completed. The Reconquista was completed in 1492, therefore it lasted 781 years from 711 (I had my numbers wrong in my comment above). Further details are for historians.

  151. refl says:
    @AaronB

    The idea that Jews should open their jeshivas to non-Jews to resolve any suspicion against Jewish conspiracies falls far behind what the article establishes

    We can compare the structure of the Jewish community to concentric orbital spheres in a gravitational field, with Yahweh’s ideology and prophecies at the core: in the inner spheres is the elite minority for whom Jewishness and Israel are permanent concerns

    If I suppose that there was some Jewish elite in New York that declared war on Germany to drive non-zionist Jews out of Europe and into the Middle East, letting a huge portion of them die in a crazed eugenistical program – if I believe that there was an idea as crazy as this, and if I follow the general line if articles here on Unz.com, then I am driven to believe this – then the most obvious consequence must have been that most Jews who saw this coming, ran from it (and most probably did).
    The zionist elite might have consisted of nothing more then a few ultrarich, ultrainfluential families with their personal rabbies, who knew how to get their way. And I understand that a great many Jews were and are today unable to disconnect from their power.
    As a not very well trained Christian I know that this whole thing can only lead to disaster on a gigantic scale. He who elevates himself will be humiliated. That is about everything you need to know.

    Else, I am not to much into studying religious issues. When at University, I was quite into German idealism, for its universalist qualities. I always ran from anything völkisch – and still could be an enthusiastic student.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  152. root says:
    @Capt. Roy Harkness

    Pathetic Dawkins claimed this was a joke while on stage with Odious Sacks.

    At 4:08 and more at 19:55 (where Dawkins also denies this “joke” is anti-semitic but rather anti-god).

    • Replies: @root
  153. root says:
    @root

    I couldn’t embed the video, here it is:

  154. @Laurent Guyénot

    Guyénot: In the quote mentionned by Professional Stranger in comment #4 from Ecclesiastes 12: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, And the spirit returns to God who gave it,” the right translation for ruah is not “spirit” but “breath”.

    The quote came from the JPS
    ז וְיָשֹׁב הֶעָפָר עַל-הָאָרֶץ, כְּשֶׁהָיָה; וְהָרוּחַ תָּשׁוּב, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר נְתָנָהּ. 7 And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns unto God who gave it.
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3112.htm

    Strong’s shows “ruwach” רוּחַ occurs as, number of times:
    Spirit or spirit 232, wind 92, breath 27, side 6, mind 5, blast 4, vain 2, air 1, anger 1, cool 1, courage 1, misc 6
    NOTE: “spirit” is by far the most common. But of course the translators decide whether the word is being used literally or figuratively. In other words: it is usually used figuratively as “spirit”.

    http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7307&t=KJV
    Of course Strong’s searches the xtian KJV, but it is very close to the JPS, and its the best search engine available.

    What you are arguing now is that the Hebrew Bible WOULD be materialistic, if people translated it the RIGHT way, YOUR way!

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Seraphim
  155. AaronB says:
    @refl

    You make a reasonable point. To be honest, I only skimmed the article very hastily, because it was so full of eye rolling errors and elementary mistakes, and motivated distortions and just plain silliness.

    I suppose if one wishes to posit some nefarious elite etc etc, then the fact that the overwhelming majority of mainstream Jews interpret their religion a certain way is beside the point.

    It kind of reminds me of Freudian theory – can’t be proven, and any attempt to disprove it only establishes that one is trying to deceive, etc, etc.

    The truth is Laurent is a materialist HBD believer – he is motivated to show that a successful group like the Jews is so because it too is materialistic. He is trying to vindicate materialism.

    When the most obvious fact staring anyone in the face is that multi-generational concern can only rest on a supernatural foundation, and that as Europeans became more materialistic they lost the capacity for long range thinking of the kind Jews still retain – rooted as they still are in the supernatural.

    Anyways, this is just one more nail in the coffin of white people, and the attempt to deepen the materialistic sickness that is killing them rather than move towards health.

    Stuff like this is why I finally abandoned whiteness and returned to my Jewish roots.

    I used to be really into German idealism as well, but I discovered to my surprise that Judaism actually combines universalism with particularism in a very fruitful way, and is a very different religion than I had supposed.

    • Replies: @root
    , @refl
  156. AaronB says:
    @Professional Stranger

    The most common usage of ruach in Judaism is “ruach hakodesh”, which literally means “holy spirit”. When a great Rabbi has some extraordinary insight, its said he has been visited by the “ruach hakodesh”, the holy spirit.

    Maybe its the holy breath 🙂

    Of course, spirit also means alcohol, so it’s clear that the Holy Spirit in Christianity is merely referring to drinking vodka….

    I now understand everything about Europe lol – Laurent has given me the key!

    Of course, ruach hakodesh is only used like that for millennia by all the sacred scriptures and great Rabbis, not the secretive elite that Laurent alone has special access to, which, we now know, is really entirely materialistic…

    Which of course vindicates Laurents own HBD materialism, and will become the basis for the rejuvenation of the European nations, just as it, err, has been for Jews.

    Good times at Unz 🙂

  157. root says:
    @AaronB

    Stuff like this is why I finally abandoned whiteness and returned to my Jewish roots.

    You’re doing great kid.

  158. refl says:
    @AaronB

    a successful group like the Jews is so because it too is materialistic

    Call me stupid, but their success does not interest me the least bit, not to use stronger words. And if the Pastafari community turned out to be economically successfull, they would not interest me neither.
    I simply find the idea of a god who cares for the economical advancement of “his” people worrysome. At times I have taken pleasure in throwing blasphemical remarks at people whom I knew had grown up at catholic schools. But never would I have been so deprived as to imagine god as a real estate agent.

    The idea of a materialistic religion appears odd, but I could pass it by. If that religion has consequences that threaten humanity, noone in his right mind can stay calm.
    I fear that that Jewish preacher from Galilea still has something to say.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  159. Tsigantes says:
    @Phyllotaxis

    To think this joyless benighted people are doing ‘something right’ you yourself must be a warmonger for profit and a financial parasite. No doubt you also believe these practises equate with intelligence and will take you right to ‘the top’ – including a fantasy of world domination.

  160. AaronB says:
    @refl

    A God who does not care for the welfare of his people, and for the welfare of mankind, would be rather useless 🙂

    Look, the modern world has tried this. It didn’t work out. Everything is self destructing.

    God as you imagine him could never have inspired the music of Bach, or the work of Michelangelo.

    The modern world is finished, and the whites who cling to it are goners. You strike me as an old white man who represents the dying world of modernity – it is a generational thing.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @refl
  161. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:

    “The great error of individualistic psychology is the supposition that man thinks. […]. for it is not man himself who thinks but his social community. The source of his thoughts is in the social medium in which he lives, the social atmosphere which he breathes, and he cannot think anything else other than what the influences of his social environment concentrating upon his brain necessitate. […]. The individual simply plays the part of the prism which receives the rays, dissolves them according to fixed laws, and lets them pass out again in a predetermined direction and with a predetermined color.”

    Such quotation, and this article’s author’s quotation of it bring up a curious perplexity. Did Gumplowicz and do they who quote him approvingly judge themselves not men, not thinking, or miracle-exceptions to the rule that explains everyone else?
    Does the perplexity cross their minds?

  162. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Organisms are organisms (or “individuals” if we want to employ the approximation), not races.
    They can groups as “races” if it serves their own interest.
    The reason many “social scientists”, and rhetoricians on the right and left have claimed that organisms don’t exist as entities separate from the “group” is because, well, that kind of preaching served their own interest…
    So AaronB’s points — for once — stands.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  163. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    The modern world is finished. Now, the goners may be succeeded by… just other peoples nor related with them, making room for others still in a pre-modern world, or go further to a new mindset (thus a new world — the world and the mindset having their real chances to come into being because they can exist, though you seem to believe the counter conviction).
    The option you champion/prescribe, a return to previous mindsets for a people that has left them behind is out of the question.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  164. @Robert Dolan

    What could be done to ensure a more just allocation of national wealth? In the old days, circa 100 AD, Roman authorities instituted a fiscus Judaicus, a ‘Jew tax,’ precisely to offset the extra cost burden placed on society by Jews. Dare we suggest reinstating such a thing? A few trillion dollars could go a long way to right the wrongs of modern society.

  165. ps: Japanese don’t do goy.
    Iceland either.

  166. AaronB says:
    @Anon

    The belief that the world is evolving is itself just a modern concept – it is a reversal of the traditional concept that the world is devolving.

    Modernity seems new, but it is merely the systematic reversal of all traditional concepts.

    Once that has played out, the only possible direction to go is “back” – once every last traditional concept is flipped on its head, and we are at the end of that particular game with LGBT etc, then there is only one direction to move in – “back”.

    Or, we can “mix” the old and its opposite, modernity, to achieve some hybrid state, but as modernity developed, we already passed through these “mixed” stages – and anyways that would still be moving “back”.

    In the end God and Truth are timeless because it contains all possibilities. Connecting with God satisfies your longing for eternity and wholeness – novelty, the desire for the ever new, is merely a substitute for wholeness, which contains all possibilities within itself, all possible newness.

    • Replies: @root
    , @Anon
  167. Tsigantes says:
    @Robert Dolan

    While I agree with your remarks, I’m mystified as to how you arrived at this answer to Svevlad who says none of what you say.
    I found his statements incomprehensible – i.e. that the jews’ behaviour is not unique but the same as all of the peoples of the Balkans, MENA and Caucasus. He doesn’t specify a period so I assume all periods. Sorry, but his is an outrageous, stupid and ahistorical statement….

  168. refl says:
    @AaronB

    The dying world of modernity has been dying for quite a while. The thing that bothers me is that it has been doing so so noisily and with so much evil done to so many people.

    It does not bother me to belong to some dying life form, for as long as I am sure that I am doing the right thing, I am an example. Whites have conquered the world over the past couple hundred years and it is coming home on them – do I care? The only sort of people I cannot do with is anyone who believes himself to be something extraordinary, who wants to be served an extra dish.
    The jewish people I have got to know were quite regular and I would certainly not wish them any harm. The exception were two Israeli guys I met on different occasions, who might have had some orthodox education (as I have come to supose) and were extremely arrogant.

    Germans have Weltfrömmigkeit, and you certainly know what I am talking about. Others have similar ideas. If some god told me that he had chosen me for a special relationship with him, I would tell him to bugger off and do his job properly.

    And as I know that I am right, I know that Zionist, materialistic Jews have inflicted on their own people tremendous and irrevocable harm, which must hit with a vengeance. Notwithstanding, there must be other forms of Jewishness, who in all innocence will probably be hit along with the Zionists.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  169. @Anon

    Individual entities, whether in the plant, animal or human kingdom, are products of endogamic, homogeneous groups. If that were not the case, species or sub-species, the building blocks of nature, would not exist. Without such building blocks, nature itself would not exist, cultural Marxist pseudo-science be damned.

    • Replies: @Anon
  170. root says:
    @AaronB

    Once that has played out, the only possible direction to go is “back” – once every last traditional concept is flipped on its head, and we are at the end of that particular game with LGBT etc, then there is only one direction to move in – “back”.

    Wasn’t your King David gay?

    https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2019/6/9/on-biblical-celebrities-and-jewish-symbolism

  171. Titus says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    First of all, great article. Great paradigm to use in understanding Jewish thinking/behavior. Absolutely fundamental.

    First, neither Psalms nor Ecclesiastes are part of the Torah (=Pentateuch).

    Lev 18:5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live [obtain eternal life] by them: I am the LORD.

    The Rashi commentary on Lev 18:5 and the Palestine Targum both support that this verse promises eternal life on the basis of obedience. Christ himself acknowledged this very principle when approached by Jews who ask him how they might obtain eternal life and he told them to obey the law (keep the 10 commandments). See Mark 10:17-19.

    God’s covenant with the Jewish people (styled variously as “the law”, “the law of Moses”) offered eternal life on the basis of obedience [Deut. 30:19].

    Beyond that, with regard to the verse in Psalms, those are the words of King David and its beyond a stretch to suggest he, in his words, was somehow outside of Jewish religious orthodoxy. The principle message of the Torah was that eternal life was a function of obedience.

    Second, Ecclesiastes is not even part of the Tanakh (=Hebrew Bible): as I wrote (but you obviously didn’t read), it belongs to Hellenistic literature rejected even by rabbinical Judaism.

    Sure it is. Here’s a Tanakh link to it. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/book-of-kohelet-ecclesiastes

    You could have found much better quotes, for there are many exceptions to the rule, but the rule remains: no individual immortality in the Torah. Take off your Christian glasses and you will see it.

    In this case, “many exceptions” would disprove “the rule”. The easy resolution in all this is found in your own words, the “evolution of Judaism”. There’s a wide gulf between what the Torah or OT actually teaches and what modern Judaism might claim that it teaches. Modern Judaism is a divorce from OT Judaism regardless of whatever lip service Jews might give to the Torah or claims that its part of their canon.

    The Talmud is the very revelation of the Jewish penchant for hijacking the Torah to suit their purposes. So, it should come as no surprise that they see a denial of individual immortality in its pages and support for immortality as a nation in spite of the fact that the prophet of Isaiah clearly taught that this earth would ultimately be consumed by fire.

  172. Titus says:
    @anon

    Note to self: Find the word Zion in the New Testament and somehow magically imply that translates into support for Zionism.

    You, sir, are retarded.

  173. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    They still pursue their own interest. Pursuing the “group” ‘s interest happens when it is compulsory or it is believed to benefit the individual entity.
    You could even talk about organs, within the organisms, that each pursue their interests, within the confines of what the “forceful” organization of the entire organism allows them, lol.

    I am sure you know much more than I do about cultural Marxist pseudo-science, but as far as I know it’s a mainstay of every leftist theory to pretend that individuals have as their purpose the “community” and the “community” ‘s purposes per se (not because it is to their convenience to, or to pretend to).

  174. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Perhaps we disagree less than it could seem. I too have the “sensation” (I would be at a loss to name it any other way) that there is a whole, and history is its progressive unfurling, the self-styled actors being only acted/spectators.

    Even subscribing to this… I don’t think we can know what will come next. This, it seems to me, stays true even if the future of mankind is exhausted by the overturning of all what is in history. How could we know to what degree, in what forms and ways, it would be reversed in the future? We don’t even really know all what is behind our time, and my mind goes to the human mind prior to the transition from “oral” civilizations to “written” civilizations.

    But you seem to wish for a return to a, say, 17th or 15th or 10th century mindset, not a before-Christ mindset.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  175. AaronB says:
    @refl

    Jewish spirituality is not about being better than others -it is about spreading God’s message to mankind, and the message is one of peace, kindness, and charity.

    I am not aware of too many people in the ancient world who had this message – the Romans certainly did not.

    I cannot defend the actions of many members of today’s Jewish generation – and believe me, no one knows better than Jews that Divine wrath is visited upon iniquity. It is the cornerstone of our history. That being said, there is always a righteous remnant.

    Jewish “specialness” is entirely a function of God’s message to mankind – and that implies that the gentiles are of supreme importance in God’s eyes.

    It does not imply personal superiority – and in fact the Bible portrays the Jews as particularly troublesome and difficult. What other national book portrays its own people so poorly? It is because Jewish specialness is not racial – it is a function of living up to God’s task.

    As for not wanting the burden, I believe Noah tried to avoid it as well – in many ways it is too heavy a burden.

    But God is God, and it is not for us to contend with him.

    As for the rest of your attitude, it is unbearable – I choose God and Life.

    You chose death – I do not know why.

  176. AaronB says:
    @Anon

    Well the thing is, I don’t think the modern mentality is really anything new – take any old idea, flip it, and you have a modern idea. In other words, nothing was invented – the old ideas were just reversed.

    Were men dominant? Well now it must be women. Was Faith valued? Well now it must be skepticism. And so forth for each modern idea – nothing new was invented.

    So in a sense modernity has always existed.

    I suppose sooner or later mankind would have to embark on the experiment of reversing every concept and see where that led, on a truly grand and systematic scale.

    But reversing old concepts was something individuals had always done in a smaller basis – atheism is as old as man, and 9th century Baghdad struggled with feminism – so modernity has always existed nested in tradition.

    If anything new emerges now, it will only be something that has always nested within tradition – an old idea that we have not yet flipped on a grand scale. We are running out of such ideas.

    I do agree with you, however, that there are old ideas that have not been flipped yet and we will probably be surprised by the next ones our society chooses to flip.

    I also think we will probably have to run this experiment to the bitter end before we return to sanity, if we survive.

    I think the modern desire for novelty-in-time is a substitute for the Absolute (although I hate that phrase) which contains everything – which is obviously God, and wholeness, and infinity.

    As for what precise “balance” we will settle into after the Experiment, yes, it probably will be somewhere between the extremes of ancient times and modernity.

    I do not deny development, but endless progress circles back on itself necessarily, as I hope I’ve explained.

    An idea can only develop into its opposite – if it goes on developing, it mustgo back to the original idea and describe s circle.

    So endless progress is incoherent – but development is possible – simply because everything must oscillate between itself and it’s opposite. Once it reaches its opposite, if it continues going, it must go back to the opposite of its opposite – which is its original self 🙂

    Make sense?

  177. Seraphim says:
    @Professional Stranger

    Obviously ‘breath’ in that context is the ‘breath of God’, the πνεῦμα, the Spirit. God is Spirit, anyway.

    • Replies: @Professional Stranger
  178. tao says: • Website

    Metzitzah B’peh. Hormones in the male foreskin, empathy, compassion, et al, et cetera, sucked off via the Rabbi. Until circumcision isn’t, then insanity is.

  179. @Seraphim

    The Septuagint uses that word..
    Ecclesiastes 12
    7 καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ ὁ χοῦς ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὡς ἦν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς τὸν θεόν ὃς ἔδωκεν αὐτό
    7 [before] the dust also return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return to God who gave it.
    https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/ecc012.htm#007
    https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=27&page=12

    But Google translate https://translate.google.com/?source=gtx_c#auto/en/%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%B5%E1%BF%A6%CE%BC%CE%B1
    … Just shows Greek πνεῦμα = English spirit

    Nothing about “breath”. Looks like the Greek translators already made a judgement call.

  180. bitte says:
    @Gott mit Unz

    Since you seem knowledgeable of the topic, I have a question for you:
    What are the constants, the unifying characteristics of Jewishness?
    Are these the beliefs, or the rituals, or the genetic lineage? Or what?
    If there are no constants, then who is a Jew?
    I haven’t come across any exposition that would illuminate the issue, so I give it a try here.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  181. In more detail:
    Looks like the Greek translators already made a judgement call when they translated Hebrew “ruach” רוּחַ as Greek πνεῦμα (spirit), in this context.

  182. Seraphim says:

    “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. 2 But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water”
    ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. 2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος.
    והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים (Wəhā’āreṣ hāyəṯāh ṯōhû wāḇōhû wəḥōšeḵ ‘al-pənê ṯəhôm wərûaḥ ’ĕlōhîm məraḥep̱eṯ ‘al-pənê hammāyim).
    Word: רוח אלהים
    Representation: RUKh ELHIM
    Transliteration: Ruach Elohim
    Noun: “Elohim’s directing power”
    Strong Concordance: H7306 and H430.
    “Elohim ‘directing power’= Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ – Basileia tou Theou”=Kingdom of God
    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: Basileia:
    1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule
    1a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom.

    • Replies: @Professional Stranger
  183. anarchyst says:
    @bitte

    That’s easy…
    Jews are the only group that lacks a moral component. Jews are very amoral, think nothing of screwing a “goy” out of money, possessions, or even reputation or life. You see, the jewish talmud elevates the jew above all others, “goyim” being “livestock with souls, created only to serve the jew”.
    This amorality is a critical component in jewish life and is partially responsible for jewish successes. When one does not possess a moral compass that defines and separates “right from wrong” THAT in itself gives the jew greater latitude to “get what he wants” as there are “no limits” on what a jew may do to gain the advantage in just about any situation. The lack of a moral component within jewish life is a major reason for jewish supremacy in civilized societies.

  184. Rodop says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Sorry, I thought that by chance I have found myself in a group of sane people discussing world matters.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  185. @Rodop

    You can always make aliya to the websites of the ADL, SPLC or any other kosher site. Proclaiming woke Goyim as “insane” does not work anymore.

  186. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Christianity would have been a foot note in the history if it were not for the imperialistic dream of child killer wife killer emperor Constantine . Same goes for Buddhism whose spread was possible by imperial edict financial and political muscles .

    Islam in its early days were attacked by the Mecca tribes often with the help of the Jews .Early Islamic community was sanctioned by the Mecca tribe . Raids against their caravans by early Muslim came in response to those attacks.

    (Iran ,Syria and Iraq would be perfectly legal in attacking those countries who put sanctions on them – may be the future will confirm their sufferings and the legitimate retribution )

    Islam did not become a predominant religion in Syria Palestine and Egypt until 12- 13 century long after the conquest of these countries.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  187. Patrick says:

    Jewish immortality in the Jewish people is Confucian. In China they do the same thing except it is more focused on immortality through family bloodlines through a process of ancestor veneration. People are encouraged to be good parents because they want their children and grandchildren to venerate and remember them. Ancient Romans did the same. Roman households had household shrines to the ancestors, the Roman concept of the afterlife was that spirits of the dead lived on earth with the living. And so the afterlife of a soul was determined by how well the situation their descendants were in. Nowadays both Christians and Pagans are reviving ancestor veneration. I have a shrine to my ancestors. The idea of soul survival with ethnic groups and family bloodlines is correct.

    • Replies: @Art
  188. @Seraphim

    Seraphim quotes Genesis 1: “the Spirit of God moved over the water”
    … Ruach Elohim

    Stranger: Good example of “ruach” used in the sense of “spirit”!

  189. @anon

    The difference is that “childkiller and wifekiller” Roman emperor Constantine was not the founder of Christianity and figured as its “prophet”.

    Indian emperor Ashoka renounced violence after converting to Buddhism. Thereafter he send peaceful missionaries into the world. There is not such a thing as “Buddhist jihad”.

    All Muslim military expansion beyond the Arab peninsula was pure imperialism. Not converting the subject population by force had little to do with Muslim “tolerance”. Such people represented a handsome source of income because of the jizya tax. All first Muslim conquests were in lands of Christians and Zoroastrians. Those people were already “people of the Book”, so why subjugating them? The answer is : jizya.

    In India the Hindus were clearly “polytheistic idolators” according to Muslim theology. Hence they should be converted by force, but the Muslim rulers didn’t do that because then they would lose their jizya income from India’s millions of Hindus.

    All of this clearly shows that Muslim expansion was imperialism out of greed and not out of “piety”.

  190. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckeart: All Muslim military expansion beyond the Arab peninsula was pure imperialism

    Imperialism is just the name given to the territorial expansion that all pack-animals do, when the human animal does it. Religion is just an excuse, and the flavor of the religion varies.

  191. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckeart: There is not such a thing as “Buddhist jihad”.

    Stranger: Yes there is.
    [[Buddhism as a justification for colonialism
    During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a number of Buddhist figures, such as Kimura Shigeyuki and Mitsui Koshi, upheld the Japanese nation not only as the culmination of Buddhist cultural development, but also as a legitimating factor in Japanese imperial policies. In this context Buddhist nationalist movements and key figures such as the Zen teacher Sōen Shaku (1859–1919) often justified Japanese military expansionism in terms of the missionary spread of Buddhist teachings and the “upholding of humanity and civilization” (Soen; see Sharf). ]]
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/colonialism-and-buddhism

  192. Art says:
    @Patrick

    And so the afterlife of a soul was determined by how well the situation their descendants were in.

    So, if you steal enough money in your life – then you will stay alive in the memory of your ancestors – GREAT!

    Is that why the Chinese are notoriously money hungry and greedy? Is that why Chinese culture stops growing and stagnates after a point. Powerful moneyed oligarchs take control of Chinese culture – then they suppress innovation.

    In idealistic Christian Western culture – it is better to be known for your goodness and creativity – not your greed. The emphasis of Christian culture is on hope and the future – new life is venerated.

  193. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    1 The answer is : jizya.

    Yes it bis because the counterpart to that for Muslim is military service and yearly donation to the poor ( not for mosques ) at 3 percent of the income .

    2 -Roman emperor Constantine was not the founder of Christianity and figured as its “prophet” – yes you are right He like the killer Columbus was anointed saint
    Without these 2 none in the Europe outside Rome would have been Christian in Europe and none in America and you wont be talking about anything here .

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  194. As an ideology, it seems quite liberating.
    Had I been a Jew, I would not have this guilt and the heavy weight of good and evil on my shoulders.

    • Replies: @McAron
  195. @Vojkan

    It is like an atheistic person without a Christian or Muslim background but with support of his tribe/community. Such people used to get ostracized or excommunicated.
    Damn, these Jews have a head start of 3,000 years.

  196. McAron says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    True, but you would have undergone circumcision at 8 days old, which would have left you permanently and irremediably traumatised. You probably would be quite neurotic, with a deeply repressed self-hate and a paranoid fear that the rest of the world is out to gaz-chamber you. I’d rather be a Goy.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  197. Seraphim says:
    @anon

    And without the killers Mahomed and his mass murderers ‘companions’ nobody would have been Mahomedan and the world would have been a better place.

  198. I take exception to the idea of ‘parasites’. In the same way, you can describe the king and the church as
    ‘parasites’. For a man who works in the field, it could look so, for him everybody who does not toil land is a ‘parasite’, if he is silly enough.
    Jews are an alternative church; you may dislike it, fine, but ‘parasite’ title is out of place.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  199. anarchyst says:
    @McAron

    Let’s not forget the long-lasting STDs that the jewish “mohel” infects the infant with by fellating the infant jew…

  200. JP says:
    @Capt. Roy Harkness

    its message of universal love and brotherhood could arise from such a pestilential source must surely be proof of the existence of God.

    Universal love is a contradiction. To love is to hold something especially dear. There are 7 billion people on this world, if you love them all the same as you love your family it’s functionally no different from loving no one. If this idea was fully followed it would surely destroy society, and the closer we get to it the closer we are to annihilation, in the manner of The Camp of the Saints.

  201. @israel shamir

    Perhaps I shouldn’t have started with Henry Ford’s quote, to which you seem to object, because my topic is not “Jews”, but Israel as a whole. And Israel is not a king or a church, or a social body fulfilling a function within the nation. Israel is a nation in itself, living inside other nations. And I think the metaphore (it is nothing more than a metaphore) is accurate in two respects: First, the Mosaic covenant: how do you call a nation destined to “suck the milk of other nations”, if not parasitism? Second, the way Israel has taken control of the nervous system of the US and of its foreign policy: it is very much like something we find in the organic world.

    • Replies: @S
    , @McAron
    , @israel shamir
  202. S says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    I’d meant to post this earlier in this thread as it’s related to what you were saying here. It’s an excerpt of an October, 1870 article published in the then hugely influential Boston (US) based Atlantic Monthly entitled ‘Our Israelitish Brethren’.

    The title in more modern English would translate as ‘Our Jewish Brothers’ and is apparently a reflection of the unfortunate Anglo – Israelism ideology then present in New England.

    Note that it says that due to Jewish non-compliance with Roman Catholicism and Islam (‘superstitions’), but also the Jewish people’s ‘absorbing the wealth of every country in which they lived’ they were not tolerated in Portugal, Italy, and Morocco.

    While the Jewish people certainly should have been aided to the extent possible in finding a legitimate national home, is it not understandable that most peoples are not going to want another alien people living amongst them which (for whatever reason) ‘absorbs the wealth’ of the country?

    There was at the time (latter 19th century) a misguided belief amongst powerful elements of the Anglo-Saxon elites and hangers on of inherant A-S superiority to every other race and group, such that most all others would be changed to their will and be made Anglo-Saxons, both physically and psychologically.

    The possibility of the reverse occuring didn’t seem to occur to them.

    Atlantic Monthly (Oct, 1870) – ‘Our Israelitish Brethren’

    In 1492, under Ferdinand and Isabella, three hundred thousand heroic Israelites preferred exile to apostasy. Many of them found a resting-place only in the grave or in the depths of the sea; for neither Portugal nor Italy nor Mohammedan Morocco would tolerate the presence of a people who would not comply with their superstitions, and who, by their frugality, continence, temperance, and industry, absorbed the wealth of every country in which they lived.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1870/10/our-israelitish-brethren/306257/

  203. Parfois1 says:
    @S

    Looks like the groundwork for Jewish supremacy was set earlier than I had supposed. On the other hand it fits the pattern of “follow the money’ trail: from Portugal, Spain and Italy (?), they moved to the centres of the then nascent mercantilism (Holland) followed by branching off to England and from there hitching a ride to America.

    Also notice the religious connection: they were expelled from Catholic countries (emphasis on New Testament) and thrived in the Protestant ones (relying more on O. T.).

  204. S says:

    Also notice the religious connection: they were expelled from Catholic countries (emphasis on New Testament) and thrived in the Protestant ones (relying more on O. T.).

    Cromwell, ‘our chief of men’, and the Puritans, were practically living out of the Old Testament in 17th century England. It was the Puritans which largely settled New England, particularly Massachusetts, and it was this area of the United States which had a strong ‘American Israel’ belief present, ie the absurd idea that the A-S were the ‘lost tribes of Israel’, a manifestation of the lingering effects of the original Puritan colonization some two hundred years after the fact.

    It would explain why someone such as James Parton, an apparent Anglo-Saxon, could write this article in Boston, Mass, rather than a seemingly more logical article entitled ‘Our Germanic Brethren’.

  205. McAron says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    how do you call a nation destined to “suck the milk of other nations”, if not parasitism?

    I suggest: vampirism. The vampire also gets immortal by sucking the vitality of mortals.

  206. @Laurent Guyénot

    Jews are wannabe Brahmins of our world; their main function is – like that of Indian Brahmins – to guide the nations. Sucking wealth is just a tool to allow for this guidance. This guidance can be perilous for others, yes, but that is the idea. That’s why the parasite metaphor is misleading.

  207. @israel shamir

    To “guide the nations” is not their function, but only their pretext given to the nations for sucking their milk. This “Israel as Messiah of the nations” paradigm is utter deception, and needs to be exposed as such. It is certainly not biblical anyway. How in the Book of Joshua, for example, did Israel guide the Canaanite peoples they proudly exterminated (reportedly)? The Pax Judaica prophecized in Isaiah means explicitly total submission of the nations to Zion (and destruction of the rebellious 7 nations). Even if the Jews had sincerely tried to guide the nations, they utterly failed, unless guiding them into world wars counts. No thanks for their “perillous” guidance.

    • Replies: @S
  208. @S

    Thanks. I’ll read this long article carefully. The love affair between the British aristocracy and the Jews, and the formers’ intense desire to be Jews, which gave birth to such strange theories as British Israelism (the British, or rather the Saxons being “Isaac’s sons” and the 10 lost tribes, etc.) would have fitted nicely in my previous article on the “Holy Hook” (https://www.unz.com/article/the-holy-hook/), about the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament) as Jewish Power’s Trojan Horse into Gentility. I have a section about it in my book FromYahweh to Zion.

    • Replies: @S
  209. @israel shamir

    Shamir: “Jews are wannabe Brahmins”

    Stranger: Far too broad a generalization. Jews came in all flavors. Qualify your statement.

    Similarly with the opposite: “Jews are parasites”. The private central-bank-and-currency owners are certainlty parasites, and most are Jews. However most Jews are NOT private central-bank-and-currency owners.

  210. Hellene says:

    FWIW, Greeks refer to themselves as ‘Ελλην’ (Hellenes) who are from ‘Ελλας,’ (Hellas) ie, Greece for westerners. Hellene is the son of Deukalionas and Pyrras. Hellene’s sons are the progenitors of the main Hellenic tribes. ‘Ell’ means light… So Israel is not the only nation who bears the name of one person.

  211. S says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Yes, it’s an intriguing article well worth the time to read.

    I found the below excerpt of particular interest in regard to the emboldened portion regarding Andersonville, which appeared at the start of a long list of other alleged atrocities.

    The things is, the referenced accusations regarding ‘planned’ mass murder at the South’s Andersonville POW camp are now, albeit quietly, generally acknowledged to have been fraudulent. The associated ‘trial’ of its commanding officer, the solitary and hapless Henry Wirz, which resulted in his execution, is widely seen as having been a complete farce. Wirz himself is seen as having been a scapegoat for Northern picque regarding its huge wartime losses.

    What is sometimes referred to as the ‘Black Legend’ (Black Propaganda?) in regards to Spain’s history has now also come into widespread serious question and dispute as to the actual validity of the claims.

    It all just begs the question.

    This is not to say that bad and terrible things don’t happen historically to be avoided as best possible. There’s a big difference, however, when a bad automobile accident takes place between two vehicles, both parties involved losing someone precious, and taking this same bad accident and accusing one or the other of the parties involved of being a murderer in a deliberate effort to run someone off the road.

    A black legend is a historiographical phenomenon in which a sustained trend in historical writing of biased reporting and introduction of fabricated, exaggerated and/or decontextualized facts is directed against particular persons, nations or institutions with the intention of creating a distorted and uniquely inhuman image of them while hiding their positive contributions to history.

    ‘Of the giant wrongs to which they [the Jewish people] have been subjected for the last ten centuries,—the huge Andersonville outrages,—few readers need to be reminded.’

    Atlantic Monthly (October, 1870) – Our Israelitish Brethren

    ‘Of the giant wrongs to which they [the Jewish people] have been subjected for the last ten centuries,—the huge Andersonville outrages,—few readers need to be reminded. In the slaughter of the Jews of Seville, in 1391, thirty-five hundred families were murdered. In 1492, under Ferdinand and Isabella, three hundred thousand heroic Israelites preferred exile to apostasy. Many of them found a resting-place only in the grave or in the depths of the sea…’

    ‘..The favorite office of the Spanish Inquisition for two centuries was to “question” the sincerity of those two hundred thousand Jewish converts; and the national amusement was to witness the burning of Jewish Rabbis and Jewish maidens. Similar atrocities were committed, as we all know, in England, Germany, and France.’

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Legend

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1870/10/our-israelitish-brethren/306257/

  212. Art says:
    @israel shamir

    Jews are wannabe Brahmins of our world; their main function is – like that of Indian Brahmins – to guide the nations.

    That is mythological BS.

    Really — “to guide the nations” – what have the Brahmins brought India? A shameless hierarchy, cow worship, and endless poverty?

    Really — “to guide the nations” – what have the Jews brought the West but cultural disintegration, wars, and endless debt?

    Parasites have different DNA then their host – some parasites form a symbiotic relationship with their host. Some parasites take over their host and make their host sick.

    Clearly Jews claim a different DNA – and clearly, they attempt to take over their host, making their host sick. See America today.

    Parasite is an appt word to describe the Jews and their culture in the West.

    Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @Professional Stranger
  213. DinoN says:

    After reading most of the comments, I had to take a Strong Drink! I can’t believe that people could waste so much time fighting about GOD & Religion. I believe that GOD wants us to be, at least good and I take “do unto others as would have them do unto you” very seriously. GOD, who ever he is, Bless everyone for doing Good & Punish those who do Evil.

  214. @Art

    Art: Parasite is an appt word to describe the Jews and their culture in the West

    Stranger: The parasite is the group of private central bank owners. And they are all Jews. However, remember, not all Jews are private central bank owners.
    .
    COMMENT: CONTROL of its HOST, and DISGUISE of its presence is the goal of every PARASITE

    [MORE]

    ● FOR EXAMPLE: The private-currency Ponzi-scheme PARASITE. In 1913 with “Federal”-Reserve act America formally became a HOST of the PARASITE. The PARASITE now CONTROLLED its HOST’s currency. And he who pays the piper calls the tune. So the PARASITE CONTROLLED the HOST nation’s government, too.
    Using this CONTROL, the PARASITE then drafted ITS HOST into its service as their Foreign Legion.
    The deal with America was: we would fight all their wars of financial colonial expansion, and they would give us a credit card that we would pay for their wars on.
    But for the PARASITE it was still a freebie.
    👉The PARASITE’s plan was always to destroy its HOST, the credit card and all the debt on it, about 100 years later. And that time is NOW!

    ● FOR ANOTHER EXAMPLE: http://mentalfloss.com/article/17636/6-horrifying-parasites-kevin-federline-isnt-one-them
    [[A female sacculina neatorama PARASITE “injects” herself into the crab.. Once inside, the jellylike sacculina starts to take over. She grows until eventually she pops out of the top of the crab, and from this knobby protrusion, she will steer the Good Ship Unlucky Crab for the rest of their co-mingled life. Packed full of parasite, the crab will forgo its own needs to serve those of its master. It won’t molt, grow reproductive organs, or attempt to reproduce. It won’t even regrow appendages, as healthy crabs can. Rather than waste the nutrients on itself, a HOST crab will hobble along and continue to look for food with which to feed its PARASITE master.]]

    ● THE PARALLEL: Just as the saccullina PARASITE CONTROLS its HOST the crab by steering it to serve the PARASITE’S interests, so the private-currency Ponzi-scheme PARASITE CONTROLS its HOST America by steering it into wars. All the wars we have ever fought since the PARASITE infected us in 1913, have been in the PARASITE’s interest, never our own.

    Re: “The Essence of Control Is Its CONCEALMENT – selective and psychologically comforting concealment sanitizes the manipulation”

    COMMENT: CONCEALMENT is the main form of defense of every PARASITE.

    ● FOR EXAMPLE: The private-currency Ponzi-scheme PARASITE. In America they call their banks FEDERAL-Reserve banks, and their currency FEDERAL-Reserve Notes. The “FEDERAL” part is to suggest FEDERAL-government and CONCEAL the fact they are PRIVATE. And their FEDERAL-Reserve Notes look just like FEDERAL-government notes – more CONCEALMENT.

    ● FOR ANOTHER EXAMPLE, click this link:
    [[Cymothoa exigua PARASITE enters the HOST fish and REPLACES it’s tongue .. and CONCEALS the job by the PARASITE’s body looking just like the HOST’s original tongue.]]

    ● THE PARALLEL:
    The private-currency Ponzi-scheme PARASITE enters a HOST nation and REPLACES the HOST’s currency. The PARASITE CONCEALS the operation by making its currency look just like the HOST’s original currency.

    ● AND THE CONCEALMENT WORKS: 99% of Americans don’t know the parasite exists.

    ● BUT OCCASIONALLY THE PARASITE BLOWS ITS OWN CONCEALMENT:
    Here, the Federal Reserve describes itself as “an independent entity within the government”, which is the classic definition of a PARASITE: one independent entity living within another. Click this.. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/duke20110202a.htm

    • Replies: @Art
  215. S says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    To “guide the nations” is not their function, but only their pretext given to the nations for sucking their milk. This “Israel as Messiah of the nations” paradigm is utter deception, and needs to be exposed as such. It is certainly not biblical anyway.

    What you are referring to here, ie Tikkun Olam, ‘repairing the world’, is a variant of what I call a part of the ‘dynamics of empire’.

    No individual or people likes to tell themselves when they are engaged in empire building, ie obtaining ever more wealth and power at typically someone else’s great expense, that what they are in reality doing is lying, cheating, stealing…murder, in order to do so.

    They also don’t like to look at their own motivations, which are typically not pretty, ie selfishness, greed, lust for power, etc.

    Instead, they engage in self deception in an attempt to rationalize it away, and tell themselves the people(s) which are targeted to be on the receiving end of the empire building are ‘barbarians’ who need to be ‘civilized’, ie ‘repaired’ if you will in other words…though the ‘barbarians’ typically already have their own civilization which they are often enough content with already.

    Too many of those amongst the empire builder’s own people who may not be personally profiting from the endeavor simply go along and stay quiet.

    Protests by those on the receiving end are received with bewilderment and disregarded by the empire builders, who tell themselves the mindless barbarians don’t know what’s best for themselves, that indeed, they unconsciuosly in reality desire to be a part of the empire.

    The roads and bridges built are said to be unilateral ‘gifts’ to the uncivilized when in reality it is to facilitate the targeted country’s resources being looted.

    This is a bad business historically which many a people often to their ultimate great sorrow have engaged in.

    They too in a great many instances told themselves that theirs was a heaven sent mission.

    Are not the Jewish people involved, ie Barbara Spectre amongst others with their Tikkun Olam rationalization for ‘multi-culturalism’ and its prerequisite ‘mass immigration’, and now having their own secure homeland, engaging in something like empire building?

    Just below is a gold ‘stater’ coin issued by Vercingetorix and his Gauls in what is present day France.

    This coin was issued before the ‘barbarian’ Gauls were ‘civilized’ with the Roman version of Tikkun Olam.

    Below that are four additional images of coins minted by the Romans celebrating victory after many tens of thousands of Gauls had been slaughtered and enslaved, their civilization largely destroyed, and Vercingetorix captured. This was all for the Gauls own good so as to ‘civilize’ and ‘repair’ them.

    The one at the bottom right hand corner is Vercingetorix trussed up as a war trophy. After years of imprisonment at Rome he would be executed via ritual strangulation, also for his own good, naturally.

    Nowadays it is thought the Gallic Wars were fought in large part because Rome simply desired direct ownership and control of Gaul’s rich gold mines.

    It’s said by those compelled to engage in empire building that the uncivilized barbarians need ‘guidance’, but isn’t it the empire builders themselves, who ever they might be, irregardless of whether you call the end product ’empire’ or ‘world union’, who are in reality the barbarians, uncivilized, and likely themselves more than anybody in need of ‘guidance’ and ‘repair’?


    Gallic Vercingetorix gold stater coin


    Roman Vercingetorix coins after Gallic defeat

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vercingetorix

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  216. S says:

    I’ll add here, there is another way (in part) to effect conquest.

    If a people had very high intelligence, significantly higher than a particular other group of people, it could be done. Not suggesting it would be moral (I don’t think it would be) but if this highly intelligent people could convince this targeted less intelligent people everyone was the same (ie ‘equal’) and convinced the targeted people to allow the more intelligent people to live amongst them, all whilst the more intelligent people maintained their identity, the more intelligent people would in time tend to dominate over the less intelligent one.

    If elements of this less intelligent people attempted to protest their being dominated, they could be supressed by being called ‘haters’, ‘racist’, etc. After all everyone is the same..ie ‘equal’, and distinct identity doesn’t really exist.. Under cover of stated spiritual belief, when this intelligent people is accused of (in effect) being a race, they could say ‘nonsense’ and claim to be ‘merely a religion.’

    This more intelligent, though not necessarily more moral people, could be doing this acting under self deception, and or with various things they might tell themselves to seemingly excuse it, but that doesn’t make it okay or right.

    If north-west Europeans, ie ‘Whites’, could have done this with Africa and its people in the 19th century, they’d still be running and controlling things there today.

    I wouldn’t be for that though as it wouldn’t be moral, in addition to my thinking empires are in general a bad business, no matter how one might attempt to rationalize away the conquest of others.

  217. Seraphim says:
    @S

    Are you sure that the Gaulois (or other Cimbro-Teutonic barbarians) were not engaged in ’empire building’ themselves? The looting expeditions of the Celts were legendary in Antiquity and predate Roman imperialism by a few centuries. They were amongst the ‘Sea Peoples’, if not the leaders.
    The ‘Celts’ were warlike peoples, brigands and pirates, far from the ‘victims’ of the ‘selfishness, greed, lust for power’ of the Romans, far from ‘content with what they had already’. They were animated by the same ‘selfishness, greed, lust for power’ like the Romans. Were not these peoples who gave birth to predatory ‘capitalism’?

    • Replies: @S
  218. S says:
    @Seraphim

    I wasn’t suggesting the Gauls were ‘pure as the driven snow’. I think several hundred years prior to the Gallic Wars of Caeser the Celts (of which the Gauls are certainly a part) had invaded Northern Italy and sacked Rome. Might have been the Gauls themselves who did that.

    The point being made was that empires are terribly destructive, for both those on the receiving end, and ultimately for the ’empire builders’ themselves. That was all.

    As for ‘predatory capitalism’ I don’t know who gave birth to it. I think in modern times there was Adam Smith’s famous book in 1776, the ‘capitalist bible’, which I see making into an inhuman science commerce, at least how it’s been applied.

    I see that though as part of a larger manufactured dialectic with the creation in 1789 (the French Revolution) of Capitalism’s controlled counter-revolution, what in time would be called Communism.

    I don’t see ‘greed’ or ‘predatory Capitalism’, as belonging to just one people.

    Ancient Rome had the billionaire Marcus Crassus, who bought up real estate in all sorts of extremely unscrupolous ways it is said. I imagine there’s plenty of others like that around the world then, and now.

  219. Seraphim says:

    As was for long suggested by Max Weber in his seminal book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, the ethic of capitalism which got rid of the precept of ‘love thy neighbor’ and made a virtue out of greed, was forged by Protestantism which spread among the Germano-Celtic peoples, copiously fecundated by Jewish money.

    • Replies: @S
  220. hamtok says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    De-indoctrination probably wouldn’t work – it’s in the genes. Radical surgery is called for.

  221. hamtok says:

    Very erudite and convincing thesis and liberally supported examples from life.

  222. Seraphim says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Islam not only disagrees, but actually condemns Christ’s divine message which is:
    “I AM the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life… Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.”.
    The Christ did not come to ‘save the European civilization’. Mahomed came to destroy it.
    You are a sorely deluded chap (and ignorant on top of that) who paves his own way to join Mahomed in the eighth bolgia of the hell where Dante put Mahomed.
    As for the asinine idea that Dante ‘plagiarized’ the story of the fake ascent of Mahomed to heaven you must read what Dante said about Mahomed:

    “Even a cask with bottom or sides knocked out
    Never cracked so wide as one soul I saw
    Burst open from the chin to where one farts.

    His guts were hanging out between his legs;
    His pluck gaped forth and that disgusting sack
    Which turns to shit what throats have gobbled down.

    While I was all agog with gazing at him,
    He stared at me and, as his two hands pulled
    His chest apart, cried, “Look how I rip myself!

    Look at how mangled is Mohammed here!
    In front of me, Ali treks onward, weeping,
    His face cleft from his chin to his forelock.

    And all the others whom you see down here
    Were sowers of scandal and schism while
    They lived, and for this they are rent in two.

    But there is time for you to come to your senses and repent.

  223. S says:
    @Seraphim

    Yes, I read the book years back. Weber presents a brilliant and well stated thesis.

  224. Art says:
    @Professional Stranger

    Stranger: The parasite is the group of private central bank owners. And they are all Jews. However, remember, not all Jews are private central bank owners.

    It is true – not all Jews are central bankers – it is true that many Jews if not most Jews, lead moral Western business lives – BUT it is also true that politically, most Jews support the parasitic money changers and bankers in their quest to control society.

    Because they fear society, Jews cannot resist the urge to control society. Look at America today under Jew control – we have become dangerously dysfunctional. Our freedoms and good will for each other are being lost. We have a buffoon for a president, who squanders our good name away on the Jews.

    Do No Harm — Art

    p.s. See Fred Reed’s article today – most all that US dysfunction can be traced back to Jew advocacy politics.

  225. anarchyst says:

    Wait till the first trial for “holocaust denial” takes place here in “the good ol’ USA”. It’s coming…in the guise of a “hate crime”…

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 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 Laurent Guyénot Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?