The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Jews in the Cathedral: A Response to Curtis Yarvin
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Having read deeply into the Jewish Question for almost 20 years, I’m always fascinated by novel objections to anti-Semitism. This was the case when I was prompted to turn to the writings of Curtis “Mencius Moldbug” Yarvin by a recent Keith Woods video (“Unqualified Reservations on Moldbug”). I think I first heard about Yarvin around 8 years ago, but there never seemed to be a “hook” sufficient for me to want to read his work. It was only with the Woods video, and an interesting video response to the Woods post from the academic YouTuber “The Distributist,” that I learned that Yarvin had at some point discussed the Jewish Question, or at least his personal stance on anti-Semitism. It was finally time for me to bite. For the past few weeks, I’ve been giving serious consideration to Yarvin’s short 2007 essay “Why I am not an anti-Semite,” as well as many of his other essays.

Yarvin, probably the foremost thinker of the “Neoreactionary movement,” is in my opinion a talented and generally thoughtful writer. We seem to share a great interest in the writings of Thomas Carlyle, and while I disagree with what I perceive to be Yarvin’s glossing over of Carlyle’s old-form socialist (in a good sense) tendencies with the implication that they were a kind of youthful phase he imbibed from friends and later outgrew,[1]Yarvin quotes Walt Whitman on the socialist tendencies of Carlyle, adding “You will indeed see Carlyle, especially in his early works—before he has entirely rid himself from his old group of Radical friends, to be exact—take just this tack. Much of it is still found in Chartism (1840).” Carlyle in fact wrote his excellent “Chartism,” a thoroughly socialist anti-establishment work, in his mid-40s, and reiterated some of its ethos in Latter Day Pamphlets around a decade later. It’s quite clear that throughout his life Carlyle had an intense sympathy for the White British working classes, and, unusually for his time, for the Irish as the worst victims of the excesses of imperial mercantile interests. I think we’d have a mutually enjoyable discussion on the subject of the “Sage of Chelsea.” My aim in this essay, however, is not to explore Yarvin’s writings in general, or to critique or otherwise examine the ideas behind the Neoreactionary movement. Quite frankly, there are many people better qualified and well-read in some of these ideas than I am, or ever will be. Instead, since my work is concerned primarily with the history of anti-Semitism, I want to focus specifically on “Why I am not an anti-Semite,” and to tease out and highlight some of its problems.

I have to confess to hesitating in writing this essay for a few reasons. The first is that the Yarvin piece dates from 2007, rendering it 13 years old at this point. How accurately it can be said to reflect Yarvin’s current ideas about anti-Semitism is therefore less than clear. Since he hasn’t issued any further statement on the matter, however, I am left to assume that it continues to represent his fundamental stance on the issue. My second reason is that Yarvin’s essay is, from my perspective, very short — a little over 1,600 words. As someone who regularly writes pieces around 4,000-8,000 words in length, I get the impression that Yarvin’s essay isn’t as complete or evidenced as it should, or could, be in terms of deserving a lengthy critique. I would certainly regard it as somewhat unfair if I’d simply written down a few thoughts, only for someone to invest several thousand more words in an effort to rubbish them. On this matter I can only say (and this is a compliment) that the relative novelty, even strangeness, of some of Yarvin’s comments, at least when compared with rather tired rebuttals to anti-Semitism from the likes of Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Žižek, and stereotypical Jewish apologists, are in fact deserving of a response, regardless of their brevity. Finally, a large part of my work over the last eight years has involved an attempt to offer an evidence-based apologetics for attitudes and beliefs, both historical and contemporary, that are regarded as anti-Semitic. A key part of this effort has been direct engagement with influential counter-narratives (see my recent long essay on the weaknesses of Middleman Minority Theory), and Yarvin’s renewed and ongoing influence in certain Rightist circles really does necessitate the production of a serious corrective view.[2]Yarvin has only been discussed once previously at The Occidental Observer, where he has been discussed, in poor context in my opinion, by Marcus Alethia, as a “brilliant neoreactionary thinker and half-Jew.”

“Why I am not an anti-Semite.”

Before critiquing the relevant arguments, we should begin first with a representative summary, using his own words, of the reasons why Yarvin is “not an anti-Semite.” Yarvin opens by explaining the origins of his essay. One of his over-arching ideas is that of “the Cathedral,” a term he coined to describe the elite network of academics, mainstream journalists, media moguls and capitalist oligarchs who preach the official “faith” of political correctness. Yarvin has often characterised “the Cathedral” as fundamentally Christian, especially Calvinist, in origin. In mid-2007, however, Yarvin was challenged on Twitter by “a fan of Kevin MacDonald” who asked why:

in my classification of American castes and conflicts, and my discussion of the belief system of the ruling Brahmin caste, I neglected Jewish influence. Specifically, as per MacDonald, I neglected the importance of Jewish intellectuals in the transition of the American establishment from 1920s style “super-protestantism” to postwar secularism and multiculturalism.

Yarvin’s essay is therefore an extended response to the Twitter user and, more broadly, to MacDonald and those of like mind.

Admirably, Yarvin opens his essay by laying a few cards on the table. He moves first to a definition of anti-Semitism, initially expressing admiration for Murray Rothbard’s definition of an anti-Semite as “anyone who proposes legal disabilities against Jews,” before adding that “by this definition the creed is basically extinct.” Yarvin then asserts that “anti-Semitic” is instead a useful “adjective for anyone with negative views on Jews as a whole.” Yarvin then notes that there are “many bad reasons not to be an anti-Semite. For example, anti-Semitism is unfashionable. If you want to be fashionable, don’t be an anti-Semite.” In fact, Yarvin goes so far as to say:

Anti-Semitism MacDonald style is probably the most courageous political belief anyone can hold in 2007—at least if you live anywhere west of Gaza City. This does not make it right, but it certainly does not give anyone who believes in “diversity” and “the environment” any right to sneer. I admire conviction, I despise cant. Anti-Semitism was cant in Munich in 1936, or in 1886 for that matter. It is cant in Tehran today. In California in 2007, it can be nothing but conviction.

Yarvin also makes it clear early in his essay that his father is Jewish. He explains, “This does not make me Jewish, but surely it makes me suspect, at least to some anti-Semites. But if this was my best reason for not being anti-Semitic, surely it would tend to confirm rather than refute MacDonald’s theories.” With these preliminaries out of the way, Yarvin proceeds to his reasons for rejecting anti-Semitism.

His first reason is that it isn’t at all obvious that Jews have an influential role in the direction of modern culture and politics. He flatly denies that they are in any way key players within “the Cathedral.” He writes:

Basically, the reason I neglected [Jewish influence] is that I don’t see it. But the point is certainly debatable. … The basic question is whether, as I argue, multiculturalism is best understood as a simple development of mainline Protestantism, or whether, as Anonymous believes, it should be seen as a Jewish-Protestant syncretism.

Yarvin rejects any such argument because it fails “the five tests of belief system classification,” something that he himself invented. Why exactly the rather simple and empirically testable idea that Jews are influential in culture and politics, and especially influential in multiculturalism, should be subjected to such a bespoke process is left unstated. Instead, Yarvin concedes that “many multiculturalists come from a Jewish background,” but counters with the assertion that “multiculturalism does not claim to be Jewish, and it’s pretty hard to get from massacring the Midianites to supporting open borders.” So, cutting out a lot of inconsequential and distracting filler, Yarvin’s first reason for rejecting the idea that Jewish influence has played a role within “the Cathedral” is that multiculturalism does not explicitly advertise itself as a tool of Jewish interests, and that ancient Jewish tales of racial genocides on their own soil don’t correspond well with hostile acts among non-Jews in the present.

Yarvin’s second objection to anti-Semitism is that be believes Jews do not act collectively. He argues that: “It’s not just that [MacDonald] believes in group selection—he believes in group action. I believe in human action. A group is not a person.” This is correct, but it’s not at all clear why such a strong distinction in terms needs to be made. I’m sure that Kevin MacDonald believes in individual human action also. The relevant point here is that a group is a collective of “human persons” who might have, or perceive themselves to have, individual interests “in common,” and who act according to those shared interests. In this sense, actions can be shared and steered by a group. Yarvin does accept that “Germans, Sioux or Irishmen” could:

act collectively in ways that favor Germans, Sioux or Irishmen. But in order for this to work, you need a cohesive belief system that rewards altruism on behalf of the group, and discourages “defecting” actions that would otherwise favor the individual. You need, in other words, an actual movement of ethnic nationalism.

Elaborating the point, Yarvin insists that Judaism, which he places in scare quotes, has this only “in theory.” He explains, “The whole Torah is a story of pure asabiya. The Jews get their asses kicked when they’re divided. They kick ass when they’re together.” In reality, Yarvin argues, Judaism is merely “an evolving system like any other,” and has abandoned this kind of system. Jewish ethnic nationalism is said to be found today only “among Zionists, Hasidim, etc., and certainly not among the Reform and socialist Jews who in the middle of the century became part of the American elite.” So Yarvin’s second reason is therefore that Jews in the American elite do not exhibit ethnic nationalism.

Yarvin’s third reason for rejecting anti-Semitism is that Jewish behaviour in twentieth-century America is less like infiltration and more like assimilation. He argues that Jews did not necessarily compete against the WASP elite, but rather imitated them, mimicked their ideologies, and ultimately grafted themselves onto them:

Basically, the Jews (like my ancestors) who came to the US were people who wanted to get ahead—as individuals. They were done with the ghetto and the shtetl. They wanted money and power. Doesn’t everyone? It was only natural, therefore, that they would be drawn to the social patterns of the most prestigious class in their new country—the mainline “super-Protestants.” Like most converts, they adopted the most fashionable views of the Brahmin elite, which was already well down the road toward secularization and Unitarianism in the modern sense of the word. Indeed, for the earlier-arriving and (much as I hate to admit it, since my ancestors spoke “jargon”) more cultured German Jews, much of this process had already happened in Europe. Reform Judaism is pretty much Protestantism in all but name, as is of course “scientific” Marxist socialism. Whereas the Brahmins had no reason at all to adopt Jewish ways of thought. Nor do I see any way in which they did. The assimilation was entirely in the other direction.

So Yarvin’s third reason for rejecting anti-Semitism is that any Jewish presence in “the Cathedral” is really the accidental result of early twentieth-century status-hungry Jewish migrants copying the attitudes and ambitions of American “super-Protestants.”

Finally, and this was the main focus of the Keith Woods video, Yarvin rejects anti-Semitism because it relies on “an enormous mass of corroborating evidence.” Yarvin rather strangely insists that:

A historian is not a mere collator of facts—he or she is creating an interpretation, much like a trial lawyer. The goal of history is to paint a picture of the past. The test, for any reader, is simply whether you find that picture convincing. Volume of evidence has not much to do with it. [emphasis added]

This last sentence, sure to stun every prosecutor and historian in the West, is the curious hill on which Mr Yarvin decides to die in the cause of rejecting anti-Semitism. Not only does he wish to die on it, but, it would seem, he wishes to do so in flamboyant fashion. Yarvin insists that masses of evidence in support of one’s case are in fact

a contrary indicator, because a lawyer with a weak case often feels the temptation to try to inundate the jury with a vast mass of detail. The strategy is essentially to demand that the reader either agree, or do the work of assembling the same detail into a counter-narrative. The canonical example is Johnnie Cochran’s great gambit, “if the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.”

For a canonical example this is extremely poor, and the analogy of the trial lawyer is itself awful. For a start, Johnnie Cochran’s defense of O.J. Simpson, and the entire context of the above quote, wasn’t based on “inundating the jury with a vast mass of detail,” but on finding very small weak points in the prosecution case that could be critiqued and exploited ruthlessly — in this case, whether or not a single pair of gloves fit his client’s hands—hands that were swollen because Simpson stopped taking his arthritis medication. I also think that, rather than being the result of Johnnie Cochran’s often ridiculous defense strategy, O.J. Simpson walked free because the jury was majority Black — a canonical example of group action if there ever was one.

There is simply no methodological comparison to be made, despite the rhetorically attractive style of Yarvin’s presentation. Taken to its logical conclusion, Yarvin’s reasoning would suggest a poor level of evidence produced in support of a history would be a positive indicator of its quality — a theory I urge Mr Yarvin to test by submitting something un-referenced and poorly-backed to any respectable history journal. Alternatively, he can try a new career as a prosecutor while employing the same nonchalant dismissal of detail and see just how successful he can be. For now, however, we need only summarise that Yarvin’s fourth reason for rejecting anti-Semitism is that it boasts too much evidence.

Yarvin’s four reasons for rejecting anti-Semitism are therefore:

  • Multiculturalism does not explicitly advertise itself as Jewish.
  • Jews in the American elite do not exhibit ethnic nationalism.
  • Jews merely copied the attitudes and ambitions of WASPs.
  • Anti-Semitism relies on an excess of evidence.

Response to Yarvin

In trying to gain my own understanding of Yarvin’s approach, I felt it necessary first to address his Jewishness. Other than his essay on anti-Semitism, I don’t find much in the way of a Jewish identification in his work. This corresponds well with findings that mixed-ethnicity children of Jewish fathers tend to have a much lower sense of Jewish identity than those with Jewish mothers:

A higher ratio of non-Jewish mothers is linked to a lower ratio of Jewish attachments within mixed-married homes. … Every systematic study of the Jewish community has shown that Jewish mothers provide more intensive and extensive connections to Jews and Judaism than do Jewish fathers in mixed-married households. Whether the measure is cultural, institutional, social, or religious, having a Jewish mother in the household (born or converted) makes the households far more likely to incorporate Jewish activities and values.[3]S.B. Fishman, Double or Nothing? Jewish Families and Mixed Marriage (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2004), 128.

Having a lower level of Jewish self-identification, of course, doesn’t translate automatically to having no identification with Jews at all. Yarvin’s assertion that having a Jewish father “does not make me Jewish,” probably needs to be problematised, not because Yarvin is Jewish, but because he is extremely likely to hold simple familial sympathies that lend themselves to a certain level of affection or affinity with Jews and Judaism. His employment of the analogy “If your father is Catholic, are you not allowed to be an anti-Catholic?” is also more than a little disingenuous given the rather obvious skirting of the issue that Jewishness is a matter of ethnicity as much as religion; of blood as much as belief. There’s an entirely different social and psychological texture between telling your Italian Catholic father you don’t believe in Christ and, for example, saying you’ve developed a distaste for Italians. For these reasons, Yarvin is correct in explaining that having a Jewish father “makes me suspect, at least to some anti-Semites.” It certainly makes him suspect to me. To borrow the notorious phrasing of Mel Gibson, Yarvin has a “dog in the fight,” even if it’s a little on the small side. Objecting to anti-Semitism, and offering arguments against it, is likely to bring some form of reward, even if in this case it’s limited purely to the psychological relief of absolving one’s paternal kin of certain charges. This understanding doesn’t help to unravel the specific arguments proposed by Yarvin, but it does assist with comprehending their origin, as well as helping to explain the resistant and strange quality they uniformly demonstrate.

Yarvin’s essay opens, very cleverly in my opinion, by mixing surface-level magnanimity with subtle salvos. For example, hidden beneath the early, somewhat patronising, praise of Kevin MacDonald is a barb left glaringly undeveloped for the rest of the essay. This, of course, is the denunciation of anti-Semitism as “cant in Munich in 1936, or in 1886 for that matter. It is cant in Tehran today.” Why exactly negative views on Jews as a whole should be regarded as cant (insincere, hypocritical, sanctimonious, quasi-fashionable speech) in any of these time periods or locations is left undeveloped. In fact, the essay is striking for its overwhelming neglect of history and the antagonistic advance of Zionism, seeming at times to proceed from the idea that the phenomenon began in 1950s America. There’s a clear implication in Yarvin’s phrasing that anti-Semitism was “easier,” or at least more fashionable in Germany (1886 and 1936), an argument that while true in one sense (it was more culturally pervasive) is misleading in its neglect of certain key interim periods. The Weimar Republic, for example, had a wide range of speech laws at least commensurate with those found in modern Europe, and more extensive than anything found in contemporary America. Anti-Semitic speech was prosecuted very regularly,[4]See, for example, C. Levitt, “The Prosecution of Antisemites by the Courts in the Weimar Republic: Was justice served? Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, vol. 35. (London: Secker and Warburg, 1990), 151-167. and many of the leading anti-Semitic ideologues of 1936, including the likes of Julius Streicher, had surely demonstrated “conviction” in their beliefs during their many terms in prison before 1933.[5]See R. Bytwerk, Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Sturmer (New York: Cooper Square Press, 2001), 24. See also the example of Arnold Spencer Leese, an Englishman imprisoned for publishing anti-Semitic pamphlets.

Additionally, there are very few periods in history in which anti-Semitic arguments could be regarded as the product of insincere cant. The overwhelming trend has been that anti-Semitic speech has been a risky anti-elite activity, bringing the possibility of death or mutilation under certain medieval European monarchies[6]For English examples see J. Gillingham, Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, Volume 25 (Woodbridge, 2003), 145. For French examples see, N. Roth, Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia (New York: Routledge, 2003), 605. There are many examples from medieval Germany of anti-Semitic agitators having limbs severed, or being executed. See, for example, Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998), 12., and the risk of severe social ostracism and imprisonment in more recent times, even for figures of significant public standing such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, Henry Ford, and Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, all of whom underwent periods of extended personal angst or troubles over the impact that expounding anti-Jewish ideas could have on their lives.[7]For Nietzsche and Wagner see R. Holub, Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015). For Lindbergh see K. MacDonald’s Preface to The Culture of Critique.

The question remains as to the tactical benefit of dismissing historical anti-Semitism, or contemporary middle eastern anti-Semitism as “cant.” Quite simply, one of the major problems facing Jewish apologists is the ubiquity and uniformity of anti-Semitism. Common coping strategies invariably involve attempts to artificially break up the historical pattern, either by suggesting that anti-Semitism “mutated” over time like a virus, that it was carried from one culture into another, that it has been more sane in some time periods than others, or, as Yarvin seems to suggest, that it is more of a fad in certain contexts. By opening his essay with a denunciation of “cant,” even glossed over with praise for MacDonald, Yarvin in fact signposts his work, consciously or not, as being related to the tradition of Jewish apologetics.

Yarvin’s first major argument for rejecting anti-Semitism is that he “doesn’t see” the “importance of Jewish intellectuals in the transition of the American establishment from 1920s style “super-protestantism” to postwar secularism and multiculturalism.” Clarifying his point, Yarvin stresses that “multiculturalism does not claim to be Jewish,” as if this is in any way evidence. It in fact only raises a number of questions:

  • “Claims” aside, is there any objective evidence that Jews have a played a special role in promoting pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism in Western societies?
  • Since multiculturalism is an idea and cannot itself “claim” to be anything, isn’t the better approach to ask if Jews claim to be multiculturalists?
  • Is there any evidence that Jews played an important role, as Jews, in the transition of American immigration policies between the 1920s and 1960s?

Is Multiculturalism Jewish?

Have Jews played a special role in promoting pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism in Western societies? The historical record is clear that the first advocacy of multiculturalism in its modern political form arose in the works of Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), the German Jew and proto-Open Borders philosopher who pushed Enlightenment ideas on tolerance to their limit with such questions as: “For how long, for how many millennia, must this distinction between the owners of the land and the stranger continue? Would it not be better for mankind and culture to obliterate this distinction?”[8]M. Mendelssohn, “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden,” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367. Mendelssohn’s primary motivation, in the context of the decline of the absolute monarchies, was to ensure that Jews could preserve their unique identity within the framework of a future multicultural society — a combination he felt would ensure Jewish safety and continuity in Europe. The primary requirement for such a future would be the delegitimisation of the notion of a core, hegemonic culture to which others are expected to assimilate. Mendelssohn was in fact the pioneer of an entire movement (Haskalah) of Jewish intellectuals known as the maskilim, all of whom disseminated the philosophy of tolerant multiculturalism in Enlightenment circles, and who provided the ghetto Jews of Europe with a methodology of superficial assimilation and an ethnically safe Jewish secularism — that of being “European outside, Jewish inside.” Scholar Ephraim Nimni has argued that present-day multiculturalism is inextricably linked to benefits for Jews and represents the accomplishment of Haskalah ideas:

If the Haskalah model was severely undermined by the rigidities of the European nation-state model, a post-Haskalah model is eminently feasible in the era of multiculturalism and multinational states, and consistent with the lifestyle and wishes of secular Jews in contemporary liberal democracies. … Diaspora Jews have a common project with other ethnic and national minorities, and post-Haskalah Jewish communities will find a sense of mission and an imprint of their collective personality. This sense of mission is appealing and mobilising, for it relates to an immediate Jewish interest as well as having a wider application in favour of other minorities … all of which is entirely congruent with the goals and aims of a post-Haskalah Jewry.[9]E. Nimni, The Challenge of Post-Zionism: Alternatives to Fundamentalist Politics in Israel (New York: Zed Books, 2003), 138. [emphasis added]

Mendelssohn’s Haskalah ideas, borrowed from, but also contrasted with, the attitude of European atheists, Deists, and liberal Protestant philosophers, especially Rationalists like Bayle and Locke (who, to be fair to Yarvin, were both Calvinists), who believed in a common humanity that could move toward a world of no religion, or of a single religious truth.[10]M. Mendelssohn, Moses Mendelssohn: Writings on Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible (Brandeis University Press, 2011), 53. For Mendelssohn, the notion of a future common humanity was merely territorial — European lands and communities would essentially become home to atomised individuals who were entitled to hold their own beliefs without pressure to assimilate to the values and traditions of a wider culture. In short, Mendelssohn’s multiculturalism would mean little more than the majority giving up its position of political, cultural, and demographic group hegemony as exemplified in the homogenous nation-state.[11]Ibid, 40. In Mendelssohn’s words, “It is obviously the duty of the stronger to … stretch out his arms and, like Augustus to cry out “Let us be friends!”
(M. Mendelssohn, Moses Mendelssohn: Writings on Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible (Brandeis University Press, 2011), 53.)
His ideas were also linked to activism for the legislative enforcement of multicultural tolerance and ongoing Jewish immigration. In Austria, for example, Joseph II’s 1781 Edict of Toleration (which Mendelssohn printed and distributed as propaganda) was the result of a literary scene that Mendelssohn had fostered in the cities, as well as the intervention of wealthy Court Jews.[12]A. D. Low, Jews in the Eyes of the Germans: From the Enlightenment to Imperial Germany (Philadelphia: Ishi, 1979), 17. Menasseh ben Israel (1604–1657) the Jewish intellectual behind the readmission of Jews to England under Cromwell, was also viewed as a proto-Haskalah figure by Mendelssohn, who looked at ben Israel’s efforts to promote “tolerance” in the Netherlands as a template for action, and who translated ben Israel’s apologetic The Vindication of the Jews into German in 1782. Perhaps the pinnacle of Mendelssohn’s career was his publication of Jerusalem (1783), a work of Utopian multiculturalism that propagandised the separation of Church and State, religious freedom, and the idea that “a man’s racial origin or religious affiliations would play no part in any sphere of life except that of religion.”[13]J. Katz, Exclusiveness & Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1975), 179.

As Jacob Katz has noted, deception about the nature of Judaism has been a central element of Jewish promotion of multiculturalism from the time of Mendelssohn. Because of the decline in power of the European monarchies and the rise of democracy, older Jewish privileges (e.g., tax farming and avoiding conscription) were also declining. The early Jewish promotion of multiculturalism was designed in part to enable Jews to acquire equal rights in legislation with the natives of European nation-states, thus providing Jews with opportunities to establish influential relations with new, rising native elites — parliamentary, commercial, and professional — and to obtain a new set of privileges. To use Yarvin’s terminology, Jews fully intended to become an integral part of, if not to lead or dominate, “the Cathedral.” The push for equal “rights,” and its justification, of course, was, as Katz points out, based on the lie that Judaism was “a broad-minded and tolerant religion.”[14]Ibid, 186.
(J. Katz, Exclusiveness & Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1975), 179.)

This was the ruse presented by the “Grand Sanhedrin” of Jewish representatives convened in Paris by Napoleon in 1807, after which Jews were formally acknowledged within legal proclamations for the first time as Frenchmen, and citizens of the French Empire.[15]E. Benbassa, The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 89. In a legal sense, and in terms of meaningful precedent, we can pinpoint the date on which Europe became multicultural as March 17 1808, a fact that is tied directly to the history, activism, ideas, and indeed the deceptions, of the Jews. The consequence was the perpetuation of an ethnocentric nation [Jews] within an increasingly atomised culture [that of the Europeans] in which the very notion of citizenship had been fundamentally diluted. From this proto-multiculturalism derives the intense suspicion of anti-Semites in the post-Enlightenment period that Jews had essentially deceived their way to citizenship, and that their assimilation was purely superficial, with the Jews remaining a “nation within a nation.” The fears of the anti-Semites thus reflected not only their antagonism toward Jewish clannishness and the reality of Jewish privilege, but also a growing awareness of the disintegration of their own ethnic and cultural cohesion. Such has been the fundamental dynamic of Western multiculturalism ever since.

Aside from the philosophy of the Rationalists and the activities of Mendelssohn and the maskilim, and the legal watershed of 1808, Western multiculturalism, in a radical demographic sense, is a very recent phenomenon, dating from the period 1945–1965 and accelerating rapidly over the last 30 years. This event, again, is inseparable from the Jewish historical trajectory, since the Holocaust narrative has been ruthlessly employed to destroy the moral foundations of the claims of Europeans to their own lands, to demonise any European employment of the language and ideas of race, to instigate a culture of European guilt and reparations, and to facilitate a perverse deification of the Jews and the revived “values” of Mendelssohn — tolerance, diversity, and pluralism.[16]See P. Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002). The Holocaust is the lynchpin of modern education in multiculturalism and human rights, without which it is difficult to imagine anything on the scale we are currently witnessing in the form of mass migration, White marginalisation, and the endless pushing of the frontiers of “tolerance” into new forms of the Different, be they sexual perversions, psychotic identities, or White radical self-abnegation.

In my forthcoming book On the Jews, I put forth the theory that there have been three sustained “Great Reactions” of long duration against the Jews in European society, between which Jewish populations adapted their positions and increased in strength. Anti-Jewish violence during the Crusades, the evolution of the so-called ‘Blood Libel’ and associated folklore regarding Jews, and the earliest expulsions of usurers, were key elements of the “First European Reaction” (1095–1290). Increased involvement of Church and State, and a somewhat sociological turn in the Church’s view of the Jews (e.g., the activities of Martin Luther in Germany and the war on the conversos in Spain) in the late medieval and early modern periods comprised the ‘Second European Reaction” (c.1380–1535). The “Third European Reaction” (c.1870–1950) was relatively short-lived, but was highly focused on the aftermath of Jewish emancipation and the fulfilment of Mendelssohn’s pluralist vision — the economic, social, and political impact of the Jews on European society. What began as opposition to Jewish political “emancipation” developed into a coherent political philosophy and ideology based on several key precepts:

  • Jews are a separate and distinct ethnic group, inherently different in traits and characteristics from Europeans.
  • Jews are incompatible with nationalism because they possess cultural and national aspirations of their own, cannot be integrated, and thus represent a state within a state.
  • The modern state has become subject to an aggressive, speculative, and exploitative capitalism pioneered, and in many cases operated, by Jews.
  • Jewish influence in public life is closely connected with the negative aspects of modernity and European racial decline.
  • The excesses of Jewish influence in public life under democracy required the democratic mobilization of anti-Semitism under anti-Semitic parties, an anti-Semitic press, and the expansion of anti-Semitism in culture.

As was the case in previous Reactions, Jews developed a formidable response. In the West, they strengthened existing ties with friendly European elites and formed their first formal, secular defense committees, from which they agitated for speech laws and other oppressive legislation. In the East they had two primary strategies. In the first, they began one of the largest propaganda hoaxes ever conceived and, under the guise of mass pogroms purportedly instigated by Russian elites, mass migrated to the West, especially the United States, accompanied by waves of media-induced sympathy. In the second, they threw their demographic bulk and intellectual aggression into Communism, forming its vanguard and using its momentum to exact revenge on a Russian elite that they felt had failed to support their interests, and against an East European peasantry they often viewed as little better than animals.[17]See Haim Nahman Bialik’s poem “The City of Slaughter,” a masochistic pogrom fantasy, which describes Ukrainian peasants as “wild ones of the wood, the beasts of the field.” In a final strategy, the Jews developed Zionism, with Palestine postulated as a Jewish homeland but instead coming to represent a colonial halfway house, a safe haven from which to operate in tandem with a growing and increasingly powerful Diaspora in the United States, and a nuclear-powered “safe space” to be utilized in the event of a Reaction. These strategies would be so successful that they would prompt historian Yuri Slezkine to describe the twentieth century as “The Jewish Century.”[18]Y. Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

World War II was comprised of a series of overlapping conflicts, one of which, the Third European Reaction against the Jews, unleashed decades, if not centuries, of suppressed inter-ethnic tensions throughout Europe. Jews were frequently active, and violent, participants during the war, meaning mass casualties were inevitable.[19]See B. Ginsberg, How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013). The number of deaths on all sides was significant. But honest, full, and unbiased accounts of why this inter-ethnic catastrophe occurred, and the true nature of its extent, remain absent from the mainstream, and extremely rare in scholarship. What instead emerged in the aftermath of the war was a “Holocaust Industry” that initiated an era of “White Guilt” that has, in turn, contributed heavily to the Western cultural paralysis and inertia of the present time.

In the aftermath of the Third Reaction, this paralysis and inertia was furthered by the further entrenchment and adaptation of the Jews within European civilisation. The period since 1945 has witnessed growing Jewish influence in Hollywood, academia, and the press, and the truly extraordinary growth in power of the Jewish defense leagues, most notably New York’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Buoyed by the financial support of wealthy Jewish donors from the worlds of international finance and the mass media, the ADL and similar organizations throughout the West have assumed an importance in public life far out of proportion to the size of the population they exclusively serve. Their legacy has been the rapid expansion of speech legislation in White-majority countries, the invention of so-called “hate crime” legislation, the slow creep of mass censorship, and, finally, the ceaseless promotion of the multicultural state.

Multiculturalism can be regarded as the zenith of Jewish adaption in the wake of Third Reaction. Any discussion of a modern-day “Cathedral” of interests that does not take into account the role of Jewish intellectuals and oligarchs in the expansion, promotion, and protection of the multicultural state is simply disingenuous. There is clear and unambiguous evidence that Jews played an important role, as Jews, in the transition of American immigration policies between the 1920s and 1960s, and that Diapora Jews, generally speaking, continue to describe themselves, and behave, as conspicuous multiculturalists (e.g., see the work of Kevin MacDonald on the United States, and Brenton Sanderson on Australia, as well as my own work on the U.K., Ireland, and the international mass migration scene — here and here).[20]See also, Frank, Gelya. “Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology.” American Anthropologist, New Series, 99, no. 4 (1997): 731-45. Of further interest is Judith Goldstein’s recently published, and extremely interesting, The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight Against Immigration Restriction, 19061917, in the course of which Goldstein writes that:

The AJC was the most active and important anti-restrictionist lobbying group. … It allied with Italian, German, and Scandinavian groups, but none of them displayed the interest, knowledge, and sophistication on the immigration issue that characterised the AJC effort. … In each of the legislation battles the AJC sought to delay consideration of test bills and to block their passage. … In their anti-restrictionist campaign, Jewish spokesmen glorified the long-time policy of open immigration and the practice of “cosmopolitan nationality.”[21]J. Goldstein, The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight Against Immigration Restriction, 1906-1917 (New York: Routledge, 2020).

That the historical relationship between Jews and multiculturalism, and the concept of “cosmopolitan nationality,” has recently dovetailed with the drive of international finance for mass migration and the liquidity of labor does not detract from the deeply historical and intense Jewish interest in, and involvement with, the multicultural project. Modern multiculturalism assists the cultural survival of non-host populations while suppressing the host via “antiracism” legislation, education, and social propaganda. As Stuart Schoenfeld has pointed out, Jews are prime beneficiaries of both.[22]S. Cohen, National Variations in Jewish Identity: Implications for Jewish Education (New York: SUNY Press, 2012 ), 146.

Do Jews in the American Elite Exhibit Ethnic Nationalism?

It really does defy belief that anyone could deny the strength of ethnic nationalism and identification among Jews in the American elite. In fact, the argument runs so strongly against common sense and popular knowledge that one can only conclude that the argument is being made entirely in bad faith. Jewish ethnic nationalism, in the form of Zionism, is at the forefront of American elite politics, something more than capably demonstrated in Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007). Zionist politics is supported tactically and financially by a considerable number of very influential Jewish politicians and oligarchs, who in turn represent some of the wealthiest figures in the contemporary American elite.

More than half of the top twenty political donors in America are Jews, and of these at least eight are committed Zionists (Sheldon Adelson, Stephen Schwarzman, Donald Sussman, Jeffrey Yass, Michael Bloomberg, Henry and Marsha Laufer, Josh Bekenstein, Bernard Marcus), with the precise political affiliations of Stephen Mandel, Deborah J. Simon, and James H. Simons unclear (Thomas Steyer would appear to be less inclined towards Zionism and is half-Jewish). Of the nine sitting Jewish Senators in Congress, eight (Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Chuch Schumer, Ben Cardin, Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Brian Schatz, and Jacky Rosen) have demonstrated more or less consistent support for Zionism as a political project, as well as legislation strengthening the position of Jews in the United States (e.g. legislation outlawing anti-Semitism). Only Bernie Sanders would appear to have a more ambiguous position on these matters.

The key point here is that these donors and politicians are the driving force of American policy on Israel, and are much more influential than either individual “Calvinist” or “super-Protestant” donors, and certainly much more influential than grassroots relatively less wealthy Christian Zionists who are themselves the puppets of a lucrative propaganda machine. Curtis Yarvin has attempted to explain away the nature of this kind of influence by making the argument that money is not directly linked to power (for a scholarly counter-argument, see here), even stating in a recent podcast “I don’t think [Jeff] Bezos has a lot of power.” With this level of reasoning, tied to Yarvin’s apparent deification of ultra-capitalists, it’s perhaps unsurprising to see a similar denial of reality in the face of obvious Jewish influence and strong Jewish identity in the American elite.

Did Jews want to imitate WASPs, or to topple them?

I agree with Yarvin’s statement that Jewish immigrants to America “wanted to get ahead … They wanted money and power.” I disagree with the emphasis he lays on the individual nature of this drive for money and power. Historically, Jews have placed a very heavy emphasis on economic, political, and social group co-operation. Jews remain notable for high levels of in-group philanthropy, and Jewish defense bodies tend to be extremely well-funded.

Contrary to Yarvin, there is very little evidence that Jews were “drawn to the social patterns of the most prestigious class in their new country—the mainline “super-Protestants.” In many cases, these positions were frankly impossible due to direct clashes of interest. As discussed above, some of the key concerns of the “super-Protestants” in the years of mass Jewish immigration (c.1880–1930) included controlling the demographic make-up of the country via immigration restrictions, and attempting to promote racial hygiene in the form of eugenics. Jews were very strongly opposed to both.

There is little question that Jews were keen to obtain the outward signs of social climbing in America — by, for example, entering certain professions or joining fashionable golf clubs. But underlying many of these economic advances was an outright hostility to the culture, politics, and behavior of the Protestant Brahmin class. In this regard, Yarvin’s definition of “assimilation” needs to be problematised. As I’ve argued elsewhere, and developed further in my forthcoming book, it is highly doubtful whether genuine Jewish group assimilation has ever occurred in any nation at any time. In the United States, Jewish “assimilation” has involved the academic deconstruction of WASP cultural heroes (e.g., T.S. Eliot, Richard Wagner), the pathologization of the WASP family (Freud, the Frankfurt School, and their intellectual followers), and the weaponisation of WASP children during the 1960s “New Left” revolution (perversely caricatured — using a phenotypically WASPish Jewish family — in Philip Roth’s American Pastoral); the Jewish identifications of the Jewish participants in the New Left are well-documented. With the vanishing of the WASPs as a visible cultural elite, the Jewish cultural elite has distinguished itself not by following old paternalistic WASP cultural patterns, but by moving its gaze onto less privileged White classes and targeting them with the same hostile attitude — the denigration and demonisation of rural Whites and their culture, the ongoing promotion of mass migration, and the pathologisation of White identity in its entirety.

The central problem with Yarvin’s argument is that none of the worst ideas and activities at the forefront of what he calls “the Cathedral” are Calvinist or “super-Protestant” in origin. Feminism, Cultural Marxism, modern consumer credit, international vulture fund capitalism, transgenderism and the concept of fluid sexual identities, Whiteness Studies, cosmopolitan pluralism, and open borders philosophies are simply stunning in the uniformity of their Jewish origins. Yarvin implies that because these ideas cannot be found in the Old Testament (“The Midianities!” he cries) then the fact they’ve been innovated by Jews is meaningless. We are expected to believe that these Jews are just wannabe-WASPs, despite their Jewish upbringing, Jewish spouses, and often explicitly Jewish self-explanations. What Yarvin neglects is that old-form Judaism is merely a template for “getting on in the world” and that Jewishness has been divorced from its exclusive reliance to the finer points of Judaism since at least the era of the maskilim. (This is one of the main reasons for the intense Jewish celebration of Spinoza, who was seen as ushering in a new method of “being Jewish.”) As Robert Amyot and Lee Sigelman have pointed out, “Jewish identity has been transformed from predominantly religious to predominantly ethnic.”[23]Amyot, Robert P., and Lee Sigelman. “Jews without Judaism? Assimilation and Jewish Identity in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly 77, no. 1 (1996): 177-89. What we see today is not an accidental elite. It’s not an elite built on mimicry. It is the culmination of the historical trajectory of the post-ghetto Jew — a hostile elite in power.

One need only look to the example of the old Russian Empire to see how Jews tend to view their relationships with elites, relationships that are built on self-interest more than imitation. For centuries Jews were content to be close partners with Russian nobles in the economic exploitation of the peasantry. Once the peasants were emancipated, however, and a new paternalistic attitude took hold among the nobles, resulting in the removal of certain Jewish privileges (tax farming and tavern keeping), Jews threw themselves first into attempts at the financial dispossession of their former partners and, when that failed, into the Bolshevik drive for their total elimination as a class.

Does anti-Semitism boast “too much” evidence?

When I first started looking into anti-Semitism and the history of the Jews, I was struck by the way in which anti-Jewish criticisms were often summarily dismissed in mainstream literature as vague and bigoted accusations built on stereotypes. The standard characterisation of anti-Semitic material has often been that it is based on a kind of lazy reasoning (e.g., “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools”) replete with gross generalisations about “the Jew.” There is certainly some material, normally centuries old, to which these descriptions could arguably be applied.

In more recent periods, however, anti-Semitism has come to rely on evidence and facts, with a certain focus on named individuals and their ideas and actions, as the only possible counterweight to the overwhelming power and influence of opposing forces. With nothing but truth on their side, the anti-Semites have thrown themselves ever harder on the need to offer as much as they can in defense of their arguments. As Hillaire Belloc remarked in his The Jews (1922), when men like German historian Heinrich von Treitschke were silenced for complaining publicly about “the unjust influence of the Jews in the press,” and later had their writings denounced as “the extravagancies of fanatics,” they were ultimately able to frustrate their opponents only “by the quotation of an immense quantity of facts which could not but remain in the mind.” The idea that someone can analyze Jewish power and influence credibly without being well armed with facts and data is ridiculous.

The simple fact remains that writing or speaking about Jews is a very difficult task — not just intellectually in terms of gaining a grasp of the relevant ideas and the vast quantity of literature, but in terms of the extremely negative reception such writings will inevitably meet. In some countries, writing negatively about Jews will lead to imprisonment. In most, it can lead to a loss of livelihood. In all, it will lead to a level of derision, scorn, and dismissal. This is the case regardless of the level of effort and scholarship that might be invested in such a work. I honestly can’t think of a more thankless task, which leads me to the belief that there must be at least some level of fanaticism in all who take up the pen in this way.

I recall my first encounters with the work of Kevin MacDonald, and being impressed with the bibliography and scale of reading involved — much greater than anything I was used to in some of the standard histories I’d read. I was quite stunned then, when I began to read some of the early criticisms of MacDonald’s trilogy, some of which have been regurgitated as recently as the Cofnas intervention in 2018. I’m thinking mainly of the accusation that MacDonald had taken some of his many hundreds of quotations “out of context,” as if taking an objective fact from an author’s book means that we are also bound to adopt or include his or her subjective opinions. Some of the criticisms of MacDonald’s use of texts were so infantile and pedantic that, rather than making me reconsider the utility of MacDonald’s thesis, it drove me to reflect on the absolute necessity of making claims about Jews as “watertight” as possible. Of course, nothing would ever be enough to appease certain elements, but, for the right people, it seemed to me that well-referenced, evidenced-backed work would be the only way of getting past those running intellectual interference. There could simply never be “too much” evidence.

Imagine my surprise, then, on seeing Curtis Yarvin’s claim that anti-Semitism now boasts “too much” evidence. I’ll grant Yarvin this — he is original. His main grievance seems to be that in order to disprove the claims of anti-Semites he’d have to wade through vast amounts of evidence in order to disentangle truth from fiction. His main problem with MacDonald’s work therefore seems to be that he doesn’t want to go through the same two hundred or so texts for each volume in order to offer a different interpretation. Having nothing to respond with, he simply denigrates the need for a response, walks away, and calls that a victory.

Conclusion

All of this, to use Yarvin’s metaphor, is a canonical example of glove waving. Who is really engaged in distraction here? Who is really holding up the trial by asking if the gloves fit, or, rather if they fit “the five tests of belief system classification”? Who is calling for acquittal if these gloves don’t fit? In Moldbug’s world, money doesn’t equal power, Jeff Bezos is a political “average Joe,” and the Jews are just Calvinist WASPs who like bagels. In Moldbug’s world, we live our lives under a “Cathedral” of interests dominated by the ideals of “super-Protestantism.” In Moldbug’s world, anti-Semitism is cant, and our best future lies in the kind of materialistic techno-oligarchy offered by Peter Thiel, the sickening personification of the Republican Party’s surreal combination of stale mercantilism and the international promotion of sodomy.

I’m glad I don’t live in Moldbug’s world. In my view, if I walk into a Cathedral and find it full of Jews, the chances are that I’ve walked into a synagogue by mistake. And so here we are, locked in together, along with history and a certain uneasy sense of inevitability. How to close the essay? Perhaps with Carlyle:

These days of universal death must be days of universal rebirth, if the ruin is not to be total and final.
Latter Day Pamphlets, No.1

Notes

[1] Yarvin quotes Walt Whitman on the socialist tendencies of Carlyle, adding “You will indeed see Carlyle, especially in his early works—before he has entirely rid himself from his old group of Radical friends, to be exact—take just this tack. Much of it is still found in Chartism (1840).” Carlyle in fact wrote his excellent “Chartism,” a thoroughly socialist anti-establishment work, in his mid-40s, and reiterated some of its ethos in Latter Day Pamphlets around a decade later. It’s quite clear that throughout his life Carlyle had an intense sympathy for the White British working classes, and, unusually for his time, for the Irish as the worst victims of the excesses of imperial mercantile interests.

[2] Yarvin has only been discussed once previously at The Occidental Observer, where he has been discussed, in poor context in my opinion, by Marcus Alethia, as a “brilliant neoreactionary thinker and half-Jew.”

[3] S.B. Fishman, Double or Nothing? Jewish Families and Mixed Marriage (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2004), 128.

[4] See, for example, C. Levitt, “The Prosecution of Antisemites by the Courts in the Weimar Republic: Was justice served? Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, vol. 35. (London: Secker and Warburg, 1990), 151-167.

[5] See R. Bytwerk, Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Sturmer (New York: Cooper Square Press, 2001), 24. See also the example of Arnold Spencer Leese, an Englishman imprisoned for publishing anti-Semitic pamphlets.

[6] For English examples see J. Gillingham, Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, Volume 25 (Woodbridge, 2003), 145. For French examples see, N. Roth, Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia (New York: Routledge, 2003), 605. There are many examples from medieval Germany of anti-Semitic agitators having limbs severed, or being executed. See, for example, Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998), 12.

[7] For Nietzsche and Wagner see R. Holub, Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015). For Lindbergh see K. MacDonald’s Preface to The Culture of Critique.

[8] M. Mendelssohn, “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden,” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367.

[9] E. Nimni, The Challenge of Post-Zionism: Alternatives to Fundamentalist Politics in Israel (New York: Zed Books, 2003), 138.

[10] M. Mendelssohn, Moses Mendelssohn: Writings on Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible (Brandeis University Press, 2011), 53.

[11] Ibid, 40. In Mendelssohn’s words, “It is obviously the duty of the stronger to … stretch out his arms and, like Augustus to cry out “Let us be friends!”

[12] A. D. Low, Jews in the Eyes of the Germans: From the Enlightenment to Imperial Germany (Philadelphia: Ishi, 1979), 17.

[13] J. Katz, Exclusiveness & Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1975), 179.

[14] Ibid, 186.

[15] E. Benbassa, The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 89.

[16] See P. Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002).

[17] See Haim Nahman Bialik’s poem “The City of Slaughter,” a masochistic pogrom fantasy, which describes Ukrainian peasants as “wild ones of the wood, the beasts of the field.”

[18] Y. Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

[19] See B. Ginsberg, How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013).

[20] See also, Frank, Gelya. “Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology.” American Anthropologist, New Series, 99, no. 4 (1997): 731-45.

[21] J. Goldstein, The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight Against Immigration Restriction, 1906-1917 (New York: Routledge, 2020).

[22] S. Cohen, National Variations in Jewish Identity: Implications for Jewish Education (New York: SUNY Press, 2012 ), 146.

[23] Amyot, Robert P., and Lee Sigelman. “Jews without Judaism? Assimilation and Jewish Identity in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly 77, no. 1 (1996): 177-89.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “It is cant in Tehran today.” Iranians have always treated their Jews well. They are, in the main, anti-Zionist, not antisemitic.

    • Agree: Montefrío, Agent76, Alfred
    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Alfred
  2. Of further interest is Judith Goldstein’s recently published, and extremely interesting, The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight Against Immigration Restriction, 1906–1917

    This is actually a republication of a book that originally appeared in 1990.

  3. Jewish behaviour in twentieth-century America is less like infiltration and more like assimilation. He argues that Jews did not necessarily compete against the WASP elite, but rather imitated them, mimicked their ideologies, and ultimately grafted themselves onto them:

    “Basically, the Jews (like my ancestors) who came to the US were people who wanted to get ahead—as individuals. They were done with the ghetto and the shtetl. They wanted money and power. Doesn’t everyone? It was only natural, therefore, that they would be drawn to the social patterns of the most prestigious class in their new country—the mainline “super-Protestants.” Like most converts, they adopted the most fashionable views of the Brahmin elite, which was already well down the road toward secularization and Unitarianism”

    What Yarvin says is very questionable. If Jews wanted to become like the Wasp elite, they would have converted to Protestantism, they would have merged with the rest of society and disappeared as a group. Instead of that, Jews remain as a distinct and separated group which is clearly not a religious group. Nobody cares about the distinction between atheists and Christians for practical purposes, nobody cares that Gary Snyder is a Budhist, or many other possible distinctions. But there is a sharp distinction between Jews and the rest of Americans. Why and how?

    Further bellow, the text talks about Jews being either a religious or an ethnic group. But maybe this alternative is wrong and Jews are neither a religious nor an ethnic group. If that was the case (that they are either a religious or an ethnic group), they might also have disappeared as a group. It doesn’t matter to what ethnic group one belongs, people who want to become plain Americans can become plain Americans and nothing else. Having another ethnic background and another initial religion doesn’t prevent them becoming plain Americans. Does someone care to say that Trump or Rumsfeld are German-Americans? People may say that they are Democrats or Conservative and that this influences the way they act, but not the fact that their families came from Germany.

    Jews are not an ethnic group because being an ethnic group doesn’t prevent being assimilated like other groups (native Americans). In fact, most Jewish men want to marry Germanic blond women (maybe this is also the case with women) and remain Jewish. And it’s not a religion. Years ago Uri Avneri said that Judaism was nothing more than a few (ridiculous) folkloric rituals. Recently two rabbis have said that Judaism isn’t a religion.

    The reason why Jews in the US remain Jewish isn’t difficult at all. It’s not because they are a different ethnic group or a special religion. Judaism is like other groups like the Hell Angels, or the Nato. the difference is that the Nato or the Hell Angels are groups that are a part of the US and Europe, that want to belong to them and is open to anyone from those countries. They form only a partial identity. They are military, but they are also full Americans. They have a special function inside the country. Jews don’t have a special function inside the US. As a group they are distinct from Americans. But why didn’t the assimilate like other people from different parts of the world or like native Americans?

    Many Jews certainly did. Some of the most intelligent have cut their ties to any formally or informally organised Jewish group. This is what Spinoza did a few centuries ago. He was happy to be a Dutch philosopher and nothing more. He didn’t want to be Jewish and he didn’t have to be Jewish. This also happens nowadays. You only don’t hear about those people because most don’t care to say goodbye before they leave the Jewish community.For others the question is more complicated because they live in The Country like Shlomo Sand. They may give up being Jewish but they still have to have the nationality of the country where they live. They have to assimilate in ways that American Jews didn’t have to do in the US.

    So, the question is what keeps the group as a group in the US? The answer is also simple: ideology and rewards. The ideology has to be very strong and the rewards quite high. And that’s the case. Rewards are money, positions and care, and the ideology is “we are Jews, we are special, we are better” (Germany has just announced that it is going to pay an extra half a billion to survivors of the Holocaust because of corona). But the ideology can also be money and the rewards can be “we are Jews”. Compare this with the poverty of the Hells Angels which have a primitive ideology and offer very low rewards linked with a lot of problems. It’s not very attractive being a Hell Angels, but they still exist even if they are declared to be socially undesirable.

    Yarvin says that Jews wanted to progress as individuals and because of that the group doesn’t exist. But of course, you may use the group as a way to progress individually. Later the group will expect something back and so it goes on. In this process the ideology is going to become stronger.

    • Thanks: m___, mark green
    • Replies: @Richard B
    , @Jake
  4. Yarvin is vastly overrated – impressive, at best, by the standards of internet bloggers. He is not an academic, and I don’t just mean in the sense of having formal credentials.

  5. Sean says:

    Joyce’s best article so far, but I don’t think Israel fits into any grand scheme. It was intended to attract Western Jews and it has not.

    • Disagree: Pheasant
    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @AndrewR
  6. The central problem with Yarvin’s argument is that none of the worst ideas and activities at the forefront of what he calls “the Cathedral” are Calvinist or “super-Protestant” in origin. Feminism, Cultural Marxism, modern consumer credit, international vulture fund capitalism, transgenderism and the concept of fluid sexual identities, Whiteness Studies, cosmopolitan pluralism, and open borders philosophies are simply stunning in the uniformity of their Jewish origins.

    On this point, Moldbug is right, and you are wrong. The ideas themselves are all entirely rooted in Liberalism (i.e. Universalism or “super-Protestantism”). You really need to read Moldbug’s “How Dawkins got pwned” series to understand the context of this essay. In it, Moldbug explains in detail how the modern Liberal belief system has its ideological origins in radical 17th century nonconformist Christian groups like the Unitarians and Quakers. The Quakers, for example, believed women were entirely equal to men in every way. Diggers believed in absolute wealth redistribution and the abolition of property. Moravians pioneered “multiculturalism” in their extremely multi-ethnic colonies. What were Rabbis teaching at the time?

    Note that these ideas were created before Mendelssohn even lived. The fact that he drew so heavily on them makes him ideologically liberal: a “super-Protestant”. Modern elite Jews are essentially the same; as Moldbug points out, Reform Judaism is basically Quakerism. Its only distinguishing feature is a fierce loyalty to Israel, a loyalty which is ethnic rather than religious in nature.

    I do agree that ethnic Jews make up a vastly disproportionate percentage of the modern radical Left. That, coupled with a serious suspicion of Zionism, probably makes me “anti-Semitic.” But even you admit this has nothing to do with “traditional” Judaism. Even if some Jews did intentionally use liberalism as a means to undermine Western society–something which would be impossible to prove–they were simply wielding a weapon forged and handed to them by our own radicals.

    Please do read “How Dawkins got Pwned,” even if you don’t end up agreeing with it, it would allow a more charitable and fleshed-out refutation.

  7. Thomasina says:
    @Sean

    True, but if the West continues to degrade (morally, physically, intellectually, economically) – OR – if there were a perceived threat (purposely concocted or real), then the attraction might be overwhelming.

    But that’s probably a ways off. Right now there’s a bunch of burned-out Blue cities to rebuild and milk and new politicians to buy.

  8. @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    “The fact that he drew so heavily on them makes him ideologically liberal: a “super-Protestant”

    Is there evidence that Mendelssohn took these ideas from the small, marginalized Protestant groups? Leftism existed in the ancient world -there’s no evidence Quakers, Diggers, Moravians took their ideas from ancient leftists.

    “Reform Judaism is basically Quakerism. Its only distinguishing feature is a fierce loyalty to Israel, a loyalty which is ethnic rather than religious in nature.”

    This “only” distinguishing feature (and massively unprincipled exception) makes all the difference in the world and should tell you that Judaism is nothing like small groups of radical, non-conformist Protestants.

  9. @Cameron232

    “This “only” distinguishing feature (and massively unprincipled exception) makes all the difference in the world and should tell you that Judaism is nothing like small groups of radical, non-conformist Protestants.”

    Indeed, the massive contradiction/hypocrisy of “internationalism for thee but not for me” gives the game away. Quakers didn’t deify England, and rather than “next year in London” they preferred to larp as Jews conquering the New World.

    Moreover, the hypocrisy is Jewish to the core: the same trick they pulled on Cyrus, pretending that their YHVH was the same as the One God that the Aryans were moving towards, while secretly remaining the tribal god of the Jews. (See Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion, or his articles here on Unz).

    It all boils down to the essential Jewish characteristic, chutzpah: lying that’s so in your face that naive Aryans can’t believe it could be a lie.

    It’s even self-referential: the Jews claim Goebbels promoted The Big Lie when he was actually talking about THEM.

  10. @Cameron232

    ” Leftism existed in the ancient world -there’s no evidence Quakers, Diggers, Moravians took their ideas from ancient leftists.”

    Surely cosmopolitanism, rootless or otherwise, was invented by the Stoics; who, in turn, heavily influenced Rabbi Saul of Tarsus, aka St. Paul. So much so that one of the earliest products of the “Christian forgery factory” (Bart Ehrman) were phony letters from Seneca to Paul.

    • LOL: thotmonger
  11. Thomasina says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    “Something which would be impossible to prove…”

    This is not a court of law, but a court of public opinion. The charge: the attempted murder of Western Civilization.

    In this case there is an abundance of direct and circumstantial evidence. What was their intent/motive? Were they just one of many do-gooder groups whose intention was to change the world and, as a result of their efforts, the world just miraculously fell into their lap, or was there continuous and intentional pressure applied in order to advance their group to the detriment of another? Like a methodical and prolonged poisoning.

    People are not stupid (unlike in the O.J. Simpson case where the Black jurors were looking for “anything” to acquit). I believe Unz featured an article about how the ADL got started. Some Jewish businessman raped and murdered a young girl in the so-called “racist” South, but tried to pin the murder on his Black maintenance man. Lots of New York Jewish money got poured into the Jewish businessman’s defense, but the people didn’t buy it; they believed the Black man over the White man. I think they ended up lynching that businessman.

    After you weed through the evidence, WHO stands out? Where was the force coming from and who continued to apply it? Was there blackmail, threats or bribery involved? Who benefited from the act? Who owns it now? Who are we not allowed to criticize? Whose history cannot be questioned?

    Sometimes the glove DOES actually fit.

    P.S. As soon as I saw the glove brought out in the O.J. Simpson trial, I knew by looking at it that it wouldn’t fit, not immediately. My mother always wore her old leather gloves for gardening because they fit snugly. But every spring, when she’d try to put her hands into the gloves, they wouldn’t fit. Over the cold and damp winter months, the gloves would always shrink (leather does that), and she’d always give them to me to wear for awhile in order to soften them up (expand them).

    O.J. was also wearing a surgical glove while trying to fit his hand into a previously blood-soaked glove. No way. Had he crammed his hand into the glove and then worn it for awhile, loosened it up, the glove would have fit.

    Sometimes there are spouses who were never really looking to be part of a family, but whose sole intention was collecting the insurance money upon your untimely and suspicious death.

    And sometimes there is a group of people (a nation within a nation) who never really wanted to be a part of the nation, but were only interested in advancing their own, accumulating wealth, power and control. “That’s understandable, everybody wants to advance themselves,” they’ll cry. But to the detriment of the host nation who took you in? That’s something an “insurance collector” or a psychopath would say.

    I’m sure the people will see it that way too.

  12. @Cameron232

    Is there evidence that Mendelssohn took these ideas from the small, marginalized Protestant groups?

    These groups were not “small and marginalized.” They literally founded Harvard. They settled all of New England and Pennsylvania as well. Under Cromwell, they even controlled England for a period (although the bloodthirsty Cromwell did, to his credit, attempt to reign in the most extreme elements of his coalition.) Since they were the dominant intellectual movement of the previous century, it is inconceivable that Mendelssohn’s almost identical ideas didn’t draw from them.

    Leftism existed in the ancient world -there’s no evidence Quakers, Diggers, Moravians took their ideas from ancient leftists.

    “Leftism” broadly (however you want to define it) has always existed. But the specific set of beliefs cited by Joyce– feminism, multiculturalism, open borders, etc., all at the same time–is uniquely liberal. For example, even if if Mr. O’Meara above me is correct in his assessment that the Stoics were “multicultural” (something I would dispute), they were most certainly not “feminist.” The reverse could be said of supposedly matriarchal ancient tribes like the Scythians.

    This all goes back to Yarvin’s main point: liberalism is a unique, specific religion descended from radical Nonconformists. We may see echoes in other leftist movements, but not replicas. Since the religion was created by these dissenters, and joined en masse by Jews hundreds of years later, it is clear that they were the ones being “assimilated.”

    This “only” distinguishing feature (and massively unprincipled exception) makes all the difference in the world…

    Most ‘Dissenters’ were not pacifists; some were even genocidal. Of course they saw themselves as carrying out necessary wars in order to civilize their barbaric neighbors. The similarities to modern left-wing Jews are blatantly obvious; this certainly isn’t an “unprincipled exception,” but instead further evidence of their link.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  13. Corvinus says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Liberalism is NOT a religion–it is a political ideology borne out of First and Second Great Awakening circuit riders, antebellum reformers, and late 1800’s Progressives.

  14. Corvinus says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    “The central problem with Yarvin’s argument is that none of the worst ideas and activities at the forefront of what he calls “the Cathedral” are Calvinist or “super-Protestant” in origin. Feminism, Cultural Marxism, modern consumer credit, international vulture fund capitalism, transgenderism and the concept of fluid sexual identities, Whiteness Studies, cosmopolitan pluralism, and open borders philosophies are simply stunning in the uniformity of their Jewish origins.”

    No. Each of these philosophies stem from from amalgamation of political, economic, and social forces forged by a number of related historical events.

  15. @Corvinus

    Liberalism is NOT a religion–it is a political ideology borne out of First and Second Great Awakening circuit riders, antebellum reformers, and late 1800’s Progressives.

    Your statement and my explanation are not mutually exclusive. The Great Awakenings, and the late 1800’s Progressives, are ideological descendants of Nonconformists.

    No. Each of these philosophies stem from from amalgamation of political, economic, and social forces forged by a number of related historical events.

    I’m actually confused, are you replying to me or to Joyce? Your quote is from Joyce. If you were replying to me, I’m not sure why you’d include it.

  16. @Thomasina

    Thomasina, you don’t seem to be disputing that Moldbug is correct about the origins of Liberalism. You just disagree on the reason why Jews have adopted it so fervently. Do they genuinely believe Liberalism, or are they cynically using it as a tool to undermine the West?

    I have various reasons for siding with the former explanation, but ultimately it doesn’t matter all that much. If all Jews were magically transported to Madagascar tomorrow, Liberalism would be weakened, but it would still exist, since obviously not all Liberals are Jews. The thing that needs to be destroyed is Liberalism itself. Do so and the so-called “Jewish question,” as Joyce’s type is fond of calling it, will resolve itself as both Jews and gentiles return to their own distinct, unique societies.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  17. Of course he denies being Jewish, but ‘systemically’ defends Jews.
    Of course he associates with the likes of Breitbart, Bannon and Thiel.
    Of course he advocates for “libertarian” oligarchs to run their own fiefdoms (as if they don’t already).
    Of course he’s a superficial poser (check that picture) angling for the mainstream.

    Why do people like Joyce legitimize such lightweight scum as someone worthy of debate or rebuttal?

    • Agree: G J T
    • LOL: Pheasant
  18. I’m sure it makes perfect sense to a Jewish brain to refer to something dark, evil, and satanic as a “Cathedral”.

    • Agree: Pheasant, G J T
    • Replies: @Z-man
  19. I did not read the most of this article, but, as I see it, most of the theses have already been stated elsewhere (better in books, but articles will suffice):

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-are-indigenous-to-israel-not-europe/

    Ashkenazi Jews Are Indigenous To Israel, Not Europe

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html

    Jews—The Archetypal Multiculturalists

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  20. AaronB says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Well put.

    I would also tie these ideas to larger trends in European thought like the Enlightenment, the deconstruction of religion and tradition through rationality, the scientific revolution, and the Romantic reaction, which being anti-science, was necessarily anti the West of its day (in practice they either looked back to the Middle Ages, or to exotic and savage cultures, with the latter clearly the dominant mode today).

    Rationality alone is a universalizing tendency.

    I dont blame the Unz commenters or Ron himself for being ignorant of the history of European ideas, but people who make it their special focus to identify the origin of these ideas, like Joyce and McDonald, should know. I have always felt they deliberately mislead- even though ignorance on this score dooms the prospect of a White Renaissance.

    But it has been a surreal experience to see this so called historiography unfold on Unz – as if the entire history of modern European thought, with its glories and its bold, daring moves (that ended in tragedy today), never happened, and Jews suddenly showed up and destroyed a Western community still living in the traditional Middle Ages. It was like an alternate universe.

    I have also always felt that it denied Whites the true glory of their heritage and made them seem so much less than what they actually were, which made me conclude the blame the Jews crowd were also an example of what Nietszche would call decadence as much as the left is, of a secret desire to diminish whites and make them seem small. Because it is a desire, not history.

    Of course, this troublesome and awe inspiring heritage has ended in tragedy and has to be overcome, or at least substantially modified, but its one of humanities most interesting stories, abd should confront it and be proud of it even if one mist ultimately reject it.

    • Replies: @thotmonger
  21. “As someone who regularly writes pieces around 4,000-8,000 words in length”
    Thanks for the warning, dude. I wonder whether Joyce comes flat out and says semitism is bad, but I don’t wonder enough to read that many words.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  22. @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Proto-SJW fringe Protestants can’t compare to Jews who shaped leftism in the 20th century and took things to the extreme.

    Many of these agitators had Eastern European origins like Saul Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer and Betty Goldstein/Friedan the first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and author of The Feminine Mystique.

    Over in South Africa people like Joe Slovo (head of the Communist Party and member of the African National Congress), Helen Gavronsky/Suzman (politician), Nadine Goldimer (novelist), and Albert “Albie” Louis Sachs (lawyer) who pushed for black rule had one thing in common – all were Lithuanian Jews like anarchist Emma Goldman.

  23. I have no doubt the the Cathedral is now the Synagogue. But it could not have always been so.
    If. as Dr Joyce says. the fin de siecle “super Protestants” had such ” direct clashes with Jewish interests” in “controlling the demographic population”. how come they let in a couple of million Ashkenazim Jews between 1880 and 1920?

    It has long been thought that Puritanism is Judaism for anglos. Could it be that rather than Jewish wannabe super protestants, we really had – have? – Wasp wannabee Jews?

  24. AndrewR says:
    @Sean

    Some “Western Jews” have certainly made aliyah. But having Jews in “the West” is immensely beneficial to Jews at this time, if it’s not inherently beneficial. Just like it would be beneficial to me to have you welcome my kids at your house, feed them and give them money to bring home, all while your children weren’t welcome at my house, and in fact are treated worse by you than you treat my kids.

    • Agree: Pheasant
  25. Pheasant says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘I did not read the most of this article,’

    Do not pass go do not collect 20 shekels.

  26. Pheasant says:
    @Badger Down

    ‘I don’t wonder enough to read that many words.’

    He makes videos too.


    Ask and you shall recieve.

  27. @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    “Moldbug explains in detail how the modern Liberal belief system has its ideological origins in radical 17th century nonconformist Christian groups like the Unitarians and Quakers.”

    Who was nourishing the Dissenter Protestant enthusiasm of the 17th Century? Richard H. Popkin collected a series of essays “Secret Conversions to Judaism in Early Modern Europe.” The Old Jewry, the meeting place for dissenters. The “Rapture of 1648.” Burke mentions the financial interests, he mentions the Illuminati. We can’t explain the world of today without filling in the gaps of the world of yesterday. It wasn’t necessary or practical for Edmund Burke to explain in detail the financial power structure of the world in 1789. It wasn’t necessary for Werner Sombart to explain how he knows that Jews were the predominant financial power in Britain by 1720. It is a maddening fact that the world as it is today is not accounted for in the history books. We know who rules the world today, and because we know who rules the world today, we know that their power and ascendancy was growing in a subtle manner over centuries. Niall Ferguson’s epigraphic quotation of Goethe. It says everything you need to know.

    Now, they have crossed their Rubicon, there is no hiding it anymore.

  28. Anon[315] • Disclaimer says:

    Minor correction: Moldbug wasn’t challenged on *Twitter* by a fan of MacDonald. He was challenged on his blog, Unqualified Reservations, which at that time had a comment section. His interlocutor was Tanstaafl, from Age of Treason, who was at that time a bit more sane.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  29. @James O'Meara

    My position is that the Death of the West is by analogy a physician assisted suicide where the patient was ill (but not terminally) and the physican’s assistance was to advance his own interests.

    I think MacDonald has said the Jews were a necessary but insufficient condition.

  30. The most infuriating thing about Jews isn’t their immense power ( some group is always going to be dominant) but the fact that they still have victim status..this Jewish lawyer Coleman on Twitter was spouting about how “Western Europeans are out to get us”..I almost tore my hair out. They have the world and the EU, all the politicians in their back pockets. Their NGOs are transporting horny, hostile opportunistic welfare shopping scum migrants into Europe w/impunity..Iraq was destroyed..Libya & Syria were destroyed using Wahhabi mercenaries because THEY demanded it. They have the Central banks, the think tanks, the media and they’re using these resources to try to install some corpse named Joe Biden into the WH. ( Bringing w/him “Truth & Reconciliation Committees” and basic Stalinism run by Scorpion Queen Kamala & Her Antifa flying monkeys…and they’re the victims…The poor Germans are losing their country to the worst filth of the ME & Africa & are still paying millions to Jews in Beverly Hills who were alive ANYWHERE in 1945…but they’re victims…it’s bloody ludicrous…the Europeans are the victims of European Genocide I & II & now the Great Replacement…this is the horror of the modern world; the present is nightmarish and tomorrow looks worse..

  31. Z-man says:
    @Prisoner of Azkaban

    Yeah, I read the title and was intrigued then I read a few paragraphs and saw it was a clap trap. Next.

  32. G J T says:

    Jewish writer uses extremely Jewy arguments, typical Jewish gaslighting to explain why Jews aren’t actually the predominant social engineers, and don’t actually control western society in every way imaginable. Shocker.

    None of Moldbug’s arguments are unique or particularly insightful. He is a typical Jew, which was made abundantly clear when Borzoi hosted him on TRS and he went right for the “Hitler was a homosexual” nonsense. They literally cannot help themselves.

    • Agree: Pheasant
    • Replies: @pB
    , @Morton's toes
    , @Lace
  33. pB says:
    @G J T

    None of Moldbug’s arguments are unique or particularly insightful

    id say the argument that antisemitism is wrong because there is too much evidence supporting it, is pretty unique and fairly insightful in a funny way at least in to the mind of the author

    • Replies: @G J T
  34. Anon[293] • Disclaimer says:
    @James O'Meara

    “chutzpah: lying that’s so in your face that naive Aryans can’t believe it could be a lie.”

    I sometimes wonder if it’s just our fate to be, call it what you want, naive, gullible, good natured, even dumb; that our fate will always be manipulation and abuse being herded around by jews as they have for so long and all throughout the centuries.

    These patterns of their totally psychopathic behavior are clear and easily recognized and apparent all throughout time in every single place they’ve ever been and then eventually were kicked out for one form of sabotage, subversion, abuse, or back stabbing or another. It strikes me that even with such consistently psychopathic and abusive behavior, we still cannot even recognize or break through their hold on the majority’s psyche is not at all encouraging. Because when it comes down to it it’s really a rather simple thing that we are dealing with here, the utter and naked abuse by pure psychopaths with zero conscience and or any kind of moral reservations about anyone but their own self … pure psychopathy.

    They operate on the excessiveness of every single horrible self-centered impulse they have and don’t just not care, they have no ability to even understand what caring is outside of for themselves. There is no indication whatsoever of empathy or generosity that is not some angle at improving their own position or power or wealth.

    It is why, when you look at their actions, their immediate response to everything is always a defensive attack, no matter how far down the cookie jar their hands were caught or how red handed they are … zero conscience, immediate attack, because psychopathy isn’t a central characteristic of types of people. That pure and abusive psychopathy is of course captured well and succinctly in the description that they “cry out in pain as they strike you”.

    So where does that leave us? I think the best strategy against these purely abusive psychopaths is to learn from how to deal with the most narcissistic abusive psychopaths is by consulting the psychiatric literature on dealing with narcissistic and abusiveness relationships and how to counter psychopathy. Because that is what this all is, regardless of all the noise of detailed minutia … a toxic relationship with an abusive psychopathic group that has bred itself over centuries to be a group of psychopaths.

    • Agree: Pheasant, Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Montefrío
    , @Pheasant
  35. geokat62 says:

    1. Is Multiculturalism Jewish?

    Is Bibi circumcised?

    2. Do Jews in the American Elite Exhibit Ethnic Nationalism?

    Do lions in the jungle exhibit predatory behavior?

    3. Did Jews want to imitate WASPs, or to topple them?

    Did the Romans want to imitate the Second Temple or topple it?

    4. Does anti-Semitism boast “too much” evidence?

    Does Science boast “too much” evidence?

  36. G J T says:
    @pB

    id say the argument that antisemitism is wrong because there is too much evidence supporting it, is pretty unique

    Fair enough. The argument itself is probably new, but it’s absolutely one I would expect a Jew to make. Only a Jew could come up with — and then actually put forth — something so asinine.

  37. @G J T

    I am at the 55:00 mark and he hasn’t used the words Hitler gay yet.

    Your comment is factually erroneous.

    (The first time I listened was ~ month ago and he definitely goes there but as I recall it was past the two hour mark.)

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  38. Richard B says:
    @UncommonGround

    Yarvin says that Jews wanted to progress as individuals and because of that the group doesn’t exist. But of course, you may use the group as a way to progress individually. Later the group will expect something back and so it goes on. In this process the ideology is going to become stronger.

    The first sentence in the above quote is typical of the pretzel logic so often found in Jewish Supremacy Inc. It’s like saying, I believe in personal growth. Therefore my family doens’t exist. It’s insane. But it’s common.

    For this reason, it doesn’t seem to help matters to unravel their logic without talking about the reason for it. And the obvious reason is to avoid responsibility for actions that any sane person would consider objectionable. And, let’s face it, JSI is chock-o-block full of objectional behavior.

    This explains their insane demands to be placed above criticism, loved unconditionally, and blindly obeyed. But the reason I refer to them as JSI, is because, not only are they making those demands, but, far more importantly, they have the power to effectuate those demands.

    That’s supremacy.

    Unfortunately, the rest of the above quote from the commenter is self-refuting. What’s the value of personal growth if the group you come from invalidates it by getting that individual to submit to their demands? Also, and this is the key point that so many, if not most people, entirely miss.

    The fact that blind obedience to a group’s ideology makes that ideology strong does not make that group more adaptive to the world their ideology is designed to control!

    Our behavior might be adaptive to itself. But that doesn’t mean it’s adaptive to the world. What we’re witnessing is The Pyrrhic Victory of JSI. Nothing fails like their success.

    But that’s not to underestimate the damage they can do, or say they won’t take the world with them. Who knows? It very well may be. On the other hand, history may yet have a joker up its sleeve.

    But my real concern is with us. Despair is disgraceful.

  39. saggy says: • Website

    The whole idea of someone explaining why he/she is not an antisemite is absurd, as they will surely not first list the reasons for being an antisemite.

    Here is reason #1 – the Jews openly write and speak about killing all non-Jews, but not now, only when they have taken control over their fate. So, we have in the ‘mishneh torah’ … from Chabad.org …. “A modern English translation and commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.”

    So, what have centuries of Torah scholarship produced …..
    “Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 26b, note that our Sages declared “Kill even the best of the gentiles”. Similarly, as mentioned above, the Rambam states in Hilchot Melachim #10 that the gentile who does not accept the universal laws commanded by Noah and his descendants should be slain. These directives, however, can be interpreted to apply only in time of war or in a time when the Jews have control over the gentiles. When the Jews are in exile or must take into consideration the dictates of the gentile authorities, an idolater cannot be slain merely because of the sin of idol worship.”

  40. Usura says:

    Excellent response. Yarvin is influential, very well read, and a respectable if idiosyncratic computer scientist. I appreciate his radicalism, his hatred of democracy, and his commitment to analysis of primary historical documents. He is still a word-hungry leftist’s best shot at understanding the libertarian to authoritarian pipeline. My bookshelf and knowledge have expanded due to his recommendations and analysis, and despite the often highly obtuse writing style, he’s occasionally funny. A bit of my own analysis of Yarvin’s essay follows.

    Whereas the [Boston] Brahmins had no reason at all to adopt Jewish ways of thought. Nor do I see any way in which they did. The assimilation was entirely in the other direction. The daughters of the Mayflower did not learn Yiddish.

    The assimilation of Jewish characteristics by Europeans had already occurred on the European continent; the “Brahmins” of Boston were totally ensconced in the methods of usurious finance capitalism, whose ascendancy was accelerated by the Cromwellian revolution. Coincidentally, the entire Cromwell line is occasionally cited by Moldbug as a prime example of functional monarchy.

    The daughters of the Mayflower did not learn Yiddish, but they did learn usury, after about 1500 years of being worn down by the unholy alliance between the European nobility and their Jewish revenue collectors. Tragically, philo-semitic Puritan Americans were later to be subjected to the same predatory financial methods of the Bank of England as were non-English nations, triggering waves of monetary reform in the colonies which contributed to the revolutionary war. It was well after the revolution, with the establishing of the first and second banks of the U.S., and finally the federal reserve, that finance usury reversed the laudable financial reforms implemented by Americans in the 17th and 18th centuries.

    What was this reason? Well, Anon argues that this reflects actual Jewish influence. He points to the fact that Cromwell rescinded the expulsion of Jews from England. But it is a little difficult to figure out how this could possibly have been the result of Jewish scheming. How can you scheme when you’re not there?2

    You will notice the footnote on this remark. If we are curious enough to read it, we get this:

    2. The answer, at least in part, is that there was a large community of Jews in the Netherlands, which had frequent contact with the Puritans during the Cromwellian Interregnum. Most notably, the influential rabbi Menasseh ben Israel, a Portuguese (Sephardi) Jew from Amsterdam, visited London in 1655 and personally petitioned Cromwell for readmission of the Jews. (While ben Israel was in England, a group of Amsterdam rabbis took the opportunity of his absence to excommunicate one of ben Israel’s more prominent and controversial students, philosopher Baruch Spinoza.)

    Ah, I see; it’s OK to make a false statement, as long as one includes a footnote that totally contradicts it.

    Menasseh’s delegation offered, in person, on English soil, to pay the English council 500,000 pounds sterling to repeal the laws against Jews, receive Oxford’s Bodlerian library, and turn St. Paul’s Cathedral into a Synagogue(!). He also wrote a scathing tract called “Hope of Israel” attempting to threaten the English if they did not acquiesce. Further, while Menasseh was petitioning, offering bribes, and publishing books, Rabbi Ben Ayabel, part of Menasseh’s retinue, was spreading rumors in London that Cromwell was the messiah. This is all in the context of Amsterdam Jewish printing presses flooding the English market with bibles and other more subversive texts for thirty years prior, often at a considerable financial loss.

    So they were there, and they did scheme.

  41. Anonymous[656] • Disclaimer says:

    Good Lord, here’s the short version. The Jew Yarvin is not talking about why HE’s not “anti-semitic”, he’s trying to pursuade people not to tell the truth. A large part of that is “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” It’s really that simple.

  42. anon[296] • Disclaimer says:

    Over at this front page UNZ review article, which discusses censorship of big tech, the following comment was denied publication by Mr. Giraldia, ex-CIA, the author:

    “Now you are mocking us, and flipping the bird, ex-CIA man.”

    That comment was made in response to the ridiculous openning sentence of the ex-CIA “dissident”:

    The current electoral campaign differs from that of 2016 in that the media, both conventional and online, has realized its power …

    Unfucking believable. The Global Propaganda Outfits of 5-Eyes only now have realized this power.

    p.s. ex-CIA man failed to note that Yelp’s CEO attended, we kid you not, Langley High School. A commentator noted this and somehow ex-CIA man didn’t censor it:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_High_School_(Fairfax_County,_Virginia)

  43. Altai says:

    Stephen Fry made the same suggestions, that Jews were just people with a different religion and maybe they were a little bit more nepotistic in networking but isn’t everyone.

    The interviewer had no choice in the modern world but to let him on with it despite the fact that Fry is an avowed atheist, so how can he also be Jewish? We don’t consider gentiles who have given up their religion to still be ‘Christians’ or ‘Muslims’. And like the example above, we don’t consider an Italian man who was raised atheist, converted to another religion or who gave up Catholicism to no longer be Italian.

    He even spoke about ‘Jews’ as if they were an other and outgroup to him despite his tireless Jewish ethnocentrism.

    An interesting example of ethogenesis being the various Anabaptist sects in North America whose numbers are becoming too great to be supported by self-sufficient agriculture. Most still speak dialects of German and all share close common ancestry and little to no recent shared ancestry with the greater population. What was once clearly a religious sect in it’s place of origin has become an ethnicity with more and more economically integrated groups being shorn off in schisms that will increase as their populations become too great for their self-sufficient lifestyle. (There is only so much land available good enough to farm productively with their methods, particularly in places like Canada and though they have increased their generation time with later marriage similar to patterns in Ireland following the famine, they won’t ever have low fertility) This may lead to the creation of yet another nation in a nation, the core colonies producing constant excess population to help dampen down loses to intermarriage.

  44. @Usura

    This ploy is as old as the hills and being played on the American people right now with how Supreme Court nominee Barrett proclaims for all she will be a completely who would never even imagine considering doing what Trump expects and as proof offers she never even discussed such things with him and pretends she has no idea what he is after in a judge.

    Actually, just as in the case of Jews never having approached and talked directly with Cromwell, she was completely vetted by the Federalist Society to whom she made clear how she would rule and it is they who talked to Trump and assured him she was okay.

    And in any case, Trump made extremely public through twitter exactly what he expected his judicial appointees to do. She confirmed she was on board by talking to the Federalist society. But you see, there was do direct contact between them, so they could honestly tell lawyer’s lies they did not discuss it and she had no idea what Trump wanted.

    Actually, she auditioned for the job by writing law review articles in which she made quite clear how she would rule.

    Moreover, in the case of judges, the issue really isn’t how they will decide specific case, but what strike zone they use for calling ball and strikes in cases before them, and whether they change it depending on who is pitching or batting. Those are the real issues she avoided by ducking behind the Ginsberg rule of not being able to discuss how she would rule.

    In fact, the issue isn’t how she would rule, but what she considers specific laws to be that apply to case. That’s what sets the strike she wanted to hide.

    Yarvel is an obfuscator as you have exposed in whose path Barrett treads .

  45. Agent76 says:

    Sep 10, 2019 Judaism, Zionism and Neturei Karta

    Interview with Rabbi Moshe Dov Beck, June 20, 2016, in Monsey NY.

  46. Hank T says:

    Yarvin is such a midwit it is hard to understand how anyone ever took him to be an “intellectual.” His only goal in life is to be the court jew for the homosexual looter Peter Thiel.

    • Troll: Pheasant
    • Replies: @Pheasant
  47. I recently read “Cynical theories”. Most if not all of the pivotal authors of the post-postmodern-antiracism-intersectionalsim- identity-politics cult aren’t Jewish (with the notable exception of Judith Butler who is very vocally not an ethnic nationlist and who would probably nmot define herself as Jewish). Quite a lot of critics of the SJ cult are Jewish, like Stephen Pinker.

    Also, Europe is not America, and certainly Germany isn’t. Ethnonationalism was the bane of the multiucultural Austrohungarian Empire, and it caused two horrible internecine wars that were far worse and deadly and more horrible for civilians and conscripted soldiers alike than the little bit of a civil war you ever had on American soil. One cannot overestimate the trauma of two wars on the generation of Europeans who survived. At least in Germany, all anyone wanted was please not another war. “Never again” was an anti-war- and anti-nationalist slogan in post-war Germany. “never again” in those days had nothing to do with the atrocties against the Jews. Nobody in mainstream post war Germany cared much about the Jews up until the late seventies, when the perpetrator generation left the helm (and the 1968-people took over).
    The precursers to the EU were conceived in the post-war-period. Central European states were more ethnically/linguistically homogeneous than they had ever been in the immediate post-war era, because of all the ethnic cleansing (including the “holocaust”). Nationalism, like all in-group-bias, thrives on conflict and competing groups, there was no ethnic conflict after the war, the was also prosperity, which also works against ethno-nationalism.
    The large organized foreign worker immigration that began to change ethnic homogeneity was not a jewish project (although I am sure the remaining Jews approved of it), it was the lobying of non-Jewish coal mine owners who wanted cheap labor, Italian pressure on Germany to take some of their unemployed (as a price for having been allowed to become successful again after the war) and US pressure to help NATO member.Turkey

    • Replies: @geokat62
  48. Tom says:

    Thanks, Andrew Joyce for a fantastically informative critique.
    Characteristic in the ‘group in question’ is an uncanny talent for emersion into a Host culture. Often exceeding the creative and professional efforts of the indigenous member’s performance. The city of New Orleans, an American heritage classic song made famous by Willie Nelson, was written by Steve Goodman (Jewish). Russian Jew Dimitri Tiomkin wrote dozens of scores for major Western films. It was known that he could capture the essence of the old west better than anyone. These are just two examples. Point? The Jews are loaded with talent and particularly a talent for imitating the host county’s culture. They did it for money in television up until the CBS Purge of 1970. (shows increasingly after that are heavily nuanced with liberalism and multiculturalism). After that their true cards were shown. Shows like The Andy Griffith Show, was produced and written by Jews. They are also noted for possessing an extraordinary talent for long-winded explanations that can render up as down, left a right, and right as wrong. This is apparent in post genetic heavy anthropology (Franz Boas) and psychiatry (Freud, et al) One needs to study the Abstract Expressionist movement (a Jewish Concoction) to gauge the extent of this particular genius. (A Rothko piece of nothing sells for $87 million! While they tried to turn classical European realism on its ear and created what I call a false market, where value is applied to garbage. Talk about subversion.Talk about bastardizing a culture. Talk about polluting a culture.

  49. Yarvin’s subtle point is that your endless deranged lists of circumstantial evidences is actually to deceive yourself. If you can keep your mind running from supposed point to supposed point, you can stop it from focussing on the truth. This is that your anti-Semitism is merely a projected out form of extreme self-hatred. The chaos of which may be coped with by many methods, but OCD gathering of nonsenses plainly works for you. And yet, with each additional listicle, no doubt, your stalking shadow must appear more ominous and so you desperately dive into into deeper LARP as yet more windmills must be reimagined and “slain”.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  50. geokat62 says:
    @Occasional lurker

    The large organized foreign worker immigration that began to change ethnic homogeneity was not a jewish project…

    Barbara disagrees with you, Occasional jerker…

  51. lavoisier says: • Website

    Very interesting article.

    Yarvin comes across as a real disingenuous simpleton in comparison to Mr. Joyce.

    I am surprised that RU does not comment more on your work.

    I really like Steve Sailer and admire his sense of humor and courage, but his pieces are fluff in comparison with the scholarly work of Joyce as exemplified here. And yet he will get far more comments for his pieces than Mr Joyce receives and has almost a cult like following.

    RU is like Mr Joyce. Scholarly, careful, thoughtful, and comprehensive.

    I would really like Mr. Unz to comment on these essays as I respect his opinion and his integrity.

  52. @Usura

    “The daughters of the Mayflower did not learn Yiddish, but they did learn usury, ”

    You make it sound like usury was a Jewish invention. It wasn’t. It existed everywhere in the ancient world as well as in India. Jews were the ones who “invented” the prohibition of usury (among coethnics) and the forgiveness of all debts in the Jubilee year. later Jews, Christans, and Muslims, who all inherited the prohibition of usury in the Hebrew bible, sooner or later found ways to circumvent the prohibition.

    The committed antisemites here sometimes sound like BLM/antiracist people. Everything is the Whites’/Jews’ fault. The US elite traitors to normal people must be happy about this state of affairs. They can discount and discredit dissidents on the right pointing to their antisemitism and racism, and they can placate the BLM crowd via giving diversity teacher and NGO leader posotions to the “activists”.

  53. @Anon

    “I sometimes wonder if it’s just our fate to be, call it what you want, naive, gullible, good natured, even dumb”…

    I am not a believer in “fate”. That said, I’d say the rest is inclination, given that one who is leading a satisfactory and pleasant life is less inclined to understand or sympathize with persons who seem born to be chronically dissatisfied and resentful, a posture which contributes to their own undoing by said persons, while disinclined to pay much attention to them, given that it seems there are better things to do with one’s time. Understandable, no?

    “I think the best strategy against these purely abusive psychopaths is to learn from how to deal with the most narcissistic abusive psychopaths is by consulting the psychiatric literature on dealing with narcissistic and abusiveness relationships and how to counter psychopathy.”

    Please offer examples of said literature. In my own admittedly limited acquaintance with the literature, Kohut (Jewish) was the principle exponent; Kohut, what’s more, became a “converso” once in the USA, but one strongly doubts that his adoption of “Christianity” (Unitarianism) was anything but religious, but rather a matter of convenience. That notwithstanding, his work is worthy of study if only because it represents a classic example of Freudian “projection”, perticularly with respect to “narcisstic rage” as it can be applied to the Jewish community, a topic he never touched.

    One can only laugh at the aping of “super-Wasps” such as that exhibited by Ralph “Lauren” (neé Lifschitz). Here one has an example of a physically unattractive person by European standards “narcissitically” enraged by the sexual contempt in which he is held (please do extrapolate) by those after whom he lusts. Thus the strategy and tactics employed are those of the bottome feeder who must purchase what he-she cannot obtain by natural means. But the hurt never goes away, oh no, it mutates into rage. How’s that for “psychoanalysis”?

    “Toxic”. Yessir.

  54. Jake says:
    @animalogic

    That is only a very slight exaggeration. And yet Jews in huge numbers hate and fear Iran and demand its destruction.

    What does that say about Jews?

  55. AaronB says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    I have been thinking lately that the best way to view apocalyptic antisemitism is as a utopian cult, as a kind of millenarianism.

    Some sort of evil enemy has to be defeated, and the world will be a utopia. That the basic discontents of being a human being can be overcome if an evil enemy is defeated and a life of perfection created.

    I’m reading Pursuit of the Millenium and Cosmos, Order, Chaos, which analyzes the history of these ideas from ancient times till now. Christian Europe was very millennarian and quite a few utopian dreams were put into practice, with the predictable senseless violence and cruelty that ended nowhere, but evidently the first figure to introduce the idea of an apocalyptic war between good and evil was Zoroaster, from whom the Christians borrowed it.

    There is a reasonable kind of so called antisemitism that merely says, look, we’re trying to build a nationalism here, and for that to be successful we cant have too many people who are foreign on religion and loyalty. We need a certain amount of unity and conformity. You jews have your own country now you can go to.

    Apocalyptic antisemitism however is as much against nationalism for Jews as it is against Jews being in White countries, because it sees Jews as the forces of evil in a war against the forces of good and preventing a utopia from being established.

    This kind of antisemitism- the dominant kind here – has deep and ancient roots in Manicheasim and has survived thousands of years. Its important to point out that the mainstream thinks exactly the same way, and is also millenarian and Manichean.

    So from every angle, millenarianism dominates our culture today, with few exceptions. Just as the mainstream is impervious to facts, ignores massive swathes of history, and doubles down on its narrative the more the world refuses to conform to it, so too do apocalyptic antisemites. Both are irrational utopian cults that cannot be falsified.

  56. Jake says:
    @UncommonGround

    Yarvin is correct that Jews assimilated to WASP Elite cultural biases and patterns. In fact, Jews in England did the same thing. Jews take to WASP culture like ducks to water. That is how and why English became THE global, universal language of Jews.

    It is a very simple process: 1) A Judaizing heresy will produce philoSemitic culture; 2) Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy; 3) Anglo-Saxon Puritanism is the religious determinant that formed, that finalized, that crystalized WASP (or if you prefer, Modern English) culture; 4) WASP culture, from its birth, harbored deep animosity, at times virtually genocidal hatred, against the vast majority of non-WASP whites: those hatreds of non-WASP whites are from a combination of theological reasons (meaning, of WASP heresies, including its form of Judaizing) applied to ethnic differences; 5) WASP culture naturally would draw Jews and facilitate their rise at the expense of white who were not Elite WASPs; 6) Jews naturally would ape Elite WASPs.

    So what were Elite WASPs like, what defined them culturally, in, say, 1900?

    While they all tended to remain members of a Mainline Protestant denomination, few actually believed in any doctrines of those churches that were older than the Enlightenment. Most were, deep down, Unitarian and or Universalist even when they might scoff at Unitarian and/or Universalist churches. WASP Elites despised Irish Catholics as inherently inferior intellectually and morally, and routinely lauded blacks as better people than Irish Catholics. WASP Elites saw most whites from the South as being better than Irish Catholics only because they were not Catholic.

    Jews of the same time held exactly the same views and hatreds. Jews condemned Irish Catholics for being religiously and intellectually and artistically backward and for being brutes toward the poor Negroes. The new immigrant Jews of the North despised white Southerners for the same reasons that WASP Elites despised white Southerners.

    WASP Empire is, and always must be, Anglo-Zionist Empire, because WASP culture is based on a Judaizing heresy.

  57. You see the whole thing assbackwards.

    It’s the crazy jews and their shabbos goy minions that see jewish internationalism as the road to utopia. The only glitch is that when jews gain power they tend to engage in mass murder and genocide.

    KMAC has mentioned that jew rule wouldn’t be so bad if they were decent and fair…..but they are the opposite of decent and fair. The WASP rulers might have been wealthy shitheads but they at least cared about our people and western civilization in general.

    With jew rule you’ve got a pack of paranoid desert savages that see the rest of humanity as beasts.

    I don’t mind that jews are nationalistic. The obvious problem is that jews are nationalistic but refuse to allow other people the same right of self-determination.

    The more you look at the JQ, the more you realize that organized jewry is a crazy death cult.

    How can white people continue to have a live and let live attitude when dealing with a live and let die crazy cult?

  58. @AaronB

    😂😆😂🤣….”Preserving our identity, nationalism for me …globalism, rape & Replacement for thee…filthy goyim”

  59. Bill says:

    Joyce quotes Moldbug saying:

    The basic question is whether, as I argue, multiculturalism is best understood as a simple development of mainline Protestantism, or whether, as Anonymous believes, it should be seen as a Jewish-Protestant syncretism.

    Of course, it is Moldbug who argues that multiculturalism is a Jewish-Protestant syncretism (without ever quite using those words). Puritanism (which is Moldbug’s preferred genesis story for multiculturalism) is a Jewish-Protestant syncretism, and the Puritans themselves went around claiming as much.

    Moldbug virtually never argues that multiculturalism is a development of mainline Protestantism—that’s a purpose-built claim for this essay. The Puritans were not mainline Protestants. The Unitarians were not mainline Protestants. The Quakers were not mainline Protestants. These movements defined themselves in substantial part *against* mainline Protestantism. The Puritans, for example, were kicked out of England and ended up in the US because they hated, violently, the Church of England for being too much like the Catholic Church. Obviously, the multicult went on to win and then to kill mainline Protestantism, but that’s rather beside the point.

    Everything is like this with him.

    • Agree: Alden
  60. AaronB says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    There seems 3 escapes from millenarianism.

    1) The world we see is an illusion, and not to be taken seriously. It has no substance and is like a dream. Eventually it all dissolves into the Void, and isn’t worth getting worked up about. The world is more play than serious.

    2) Viewed from a level we cannot access with our senses, All Is Well, and therefore nothing in this world matters much. This is often a corollary of #1.

    3) Heaven on Earth is impossible, but it exists after death.

    Except for a few mystics, the West veered between #3 and millenarianism, while the East always chose one and two.

    If the West is ever going to escape the trap of trying to create Heaven On Earth, it will have to chose between these three.

    #3 is unlikely to come back seriously. Two and three are increasingly being proved by science, but from my experience it is virtually impossible for Westerners to adopt, at least so far. The West seems trapped between three and millenarianism. Heaven on Earth or Heaven after death. But it cannot, so far, make a breakthrough and question the “reality” of the world. The idea that the physical world isnt real seems incomprehensible to them, or as just nonsense and meaningless. The unquestioned premise of every Westerner seems to be “positivism” .

    I think it is this strange spell on the Western mind that needs to be broken before it can make a breakthrough out of its current predicament.

  61. saggy says:

    Let’s have a quick look at Jewish ethics, as per the Mishneh Torah, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-Kochavim-Chapter-Ten.htm

    It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: “Do not be gracious to them.”

    Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him.

    But, that kind of thing could get the Jew in a bit of trouble, … and they’ve thought of that too … as explained here ….




  62. @GazaPlanet

    In which book does Burke talk about that? Also what is the Goethe quote of Ferguson?

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
  63. mr IC3 says:

    Excellent article.

    Will you come to the #IdentityPoliticsForum?

  64. mr IC3 says:

    There appears to be a meta-physical layer above The Cathedral. I wonder if that is the place where they place God.

  65. Art says:

    In Moldbug’s world, we live our lives under a “Cathedral” of interests dominated by the ideals of “super-Protestantism.”

    Another word is being stolen and twisted by the Jews. Moldbug wants to normalize Jew domination – make it acceptable.

    Using the word “Cathedral” to describe America’s operational culture is intellectually dishonest. Our culture is anything but Christian. Clearly America operates on Jew liberal culture. There is no “super-Protestantism” today. The great old-line Protestant intellectual centers of learning are now dominated by liberal Jews. Harvard and Yale espouse Jew values. They are closer to synagogues then Cathedrals. The last Christian power center in America, is the Supreme Court. It has no Protestants on it. Its background ethos is basically, the liberal Catholic catechism.

    History says, anti-Semitism (anti-Jew) comes and goes in cultures. Currently it is whispered midst the elite. When America fails – it will be a roar.

    p.s. The real story is that Jew liberalism has created something that may swallow it up and take everything down. Radical multi-culturalism could overpower the Jews.

  66. Jake says:
    @GazaPlanet

    It is a given that Jews will always back various Christian heresies. They are defined by being the race of anti-Christ, the race that chose anti-Christ.

    The issue then is Christian orthodoxy and Christian heresy. The issue is Christ and Christendom or chaos that unveils with Jews in charge per capita.

    The issue is the product of a specifically Judaizing heresy, Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, producing WASP culture, which has taken Semitism and planted it around the globe.

    In the Modern world, you cannot separate the WASP Problem from the Jewish Problem. You cannot solve the Jewish Problem without also solving the WASP Problem.

  67. mr IC3 says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Should the British bring back their people from Northern Ireland, leave Ireland to the IC1 White Irish people and reward them handsomely for their loyal service with new homes in Britain?

  68. My second reason is that Yarvin’s essay is, from my perspective, very short — a little over 1,600 words. As someone who regularly writes pieces around 4,000-8,000 words in length, I get the impression that Yarvin’s essay isn’t as complete or evidenced as it should, or could, be in terms of deserving a lengthy critique.

    This is highly unusual for him, as one of the most characteristic features of “Moldbuggery” is uncontrollable logorrhea. That Yarvin had such difficulty generating extraneous verbiage on this particular topic is perhaps a indicator that he was aware of the confused, self-contradictory of his “arguments” in attempting to deny the reality of systemic semitism. He usually generates higher quality pilpul than this mess. Is there anything about the Moldbuggian perspective that might lead him to engage in such an obvious demonstration of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias? As Dr. Joyce notes:

    Yarvin also makes it clear early in his essay that his father is Jewish.

    But there’s more than that. His father was not merely jewish, but a red diaper baby:

    “The Red Scare was based on a conspiracy theory too, but at least it was a real conspiracy with real witches—two of whom were my father’s parents. (The nicest people on earth, as people. I like to think of them not as worshipping Stalin, but worshipping what they thought Stalin was.) ”

    I cite this, of course, not to imply that Moldbug himself shows any signs of promoting the importance of dialectical materialism and proletarian control of the means of production — he doesn’t — but because it’s a marker for strongly-identified jews, as Communism served as a sort of secular religion for the Tribe during that era.

    On the claim that Yarvin’s mother was a goy — is there any source for that other than Yarvin’s unsupported assertion? How about his wife? Is she a MOT? Because… well, let’s take a look at a good example of Yarvin demonstrating obvious “the Tribe is always right!” moral particularism — from the Unz comments, no less*. He’s commenting on the deliberate, cowardly sneak attack by the air and naval forces of the Zionist empire on an unarmed US ship:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/joe-sobran-rip/#comment-308914

    Once again: if Israel whacked the Liberty, you can be sure they had “good” reasons to spare and plenty.

    He also refers to “the ‘Arabists’ who used the Liberty to spy on the Israelis on behalf of their pet Mooslims.”
    [“Arabist,” of course, is a long-discredited semitic canard — a pejorative term used by Zionists to refer to what would be more accurately termed “Americanists.” Anyone who questions the wisdom of fanatical Israel Firstism, in other words.]

    See also comment #129 on the same piece, where he explicitly confirms his view that any and all massacres of goyim by jews are automatically “morally justified”… because they were committed by jews, and jews always have a “moral right” to kill goyim, doncha know:

    Shorter Moldbug: Who cares if the Israelis deliberately shot up the USS Liberty? The fact that they did it proves they had good reason. [Moldbug quoting another poster]
    That’s an excellent summary, actually. I don’t see what’s inherently impossible or objectionable about it.

    Clearly his first, last, and only concern is “Is It Good for the jews?” Contrast with Yarvin employing the notorious “My Fellow White People” technique in comment #29 on this piece, where he reflexively defends his fellow tribesman Marcuse, while disingenuously claiming to be one of “us”:

    It’s more fun to blame the likes of Marcuse, because he is a durned furriner (in a way, say, Lytton Strachey isn’t). Like “anti-Semitism,” this distracts us from the actual source of the contagion. Which is, well, “us.”

    Whether he’s a mere mischling, or halachically-certified, he’s toxic semitism personified.

    *Yeah it’s him — links to his blogger account and the original Unqualified Reservations on blogspot.

    • Agree: Change that Matters
    • Thanks: utu, Morton's toes
    • Replies: @Lace
  69. cranc says:
    @AaronB

    A more perfectly inverted projection, there could be none.

    I hold no hope of a utopia. I just want normality to come back. I just want some sense of community and a common culture around which to organise a coherent society. I just want hetrosexuality among consenting adults to be the norm again, and not for gender fluid sexual minorities and perverts to be at the very centre of popular culture. I just want some kind of restraint on rampant usury and preditory financial activity. I just want a media that approximates the truth, rather than indulging in the most consistently outrageous lies day in day out. I just want some consistency to the application of laws, of principles of free speech, of the rights of political lobbies and the relations between countries.

    I am not hoping for a ‘coming’, first, second or whatever. Just a return to a sustaining, if imperfect and challenging life as was lived for so many centuries before Semitism took root in a global empire.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Montefrío
  70. Blissex says:

    Yarvin as most antisemites do bases his argument on a very old confusion, that between “the jews” and “some or many jews”.

    To believe that “the jews” are a cabal/clique as he seems to do is the most ridiculous antisemitism, as there is a wide variety of political and economic and religious positions among “the jews”.

    There are indeed cabals/cliques/conspiracies that are mostly jewish, and there are jews in many cabals/cliques, just as there are cabals/cliques/conspiracies that are mostly greeks, or masonic, or sicilian, or WASP, or shinto, and just there are greeks, masons, sicilians, WASPs, shintoists in many cabal/cliques.

    As a simple example, 70% of self-identified jews in England vote for the Conservative party, but that does not mean that “the jews” are Conservatives, or that the Conservatives are a conspiracy by “the jews”, any more than the similar percentage of over 70% of people over 70 means that “the oldies” are Conservatives or the Conservatives are a conspiracy the “the oldies”.

  71. gay troll says:

    Multiculturalism is certainly Christian and Roman in origin. Christ teaches the Jews to forsake their tribal covenant with Yahweh; he teaches them that Samaritans and all the world are their neighbors. Christ teaches the Jews not to judge or execute an adultress as demanded by the law of Moses. He denounces family and social status. He tells his followers never to resist their enemy. He tells them to donate all their wealth.

    Jesus says in the Gospels he only came to minister to sinners. His teachings are not for the righteous, they are for the wicked. Jesus came to destroy the Jews’ covenant with Yahweh and incorporate them into a multicultural empire. Although the golden rule is the Hagia Sophia, Jesus preaches it in a way that encourages Jews to destroy their lives. He says Jerusalem will also be destroyed in judgment, before his peers pass away.

    History is a form of propaganda and religion is its goal.

  72. Blissex says:

    «older Jewish privileges (e.g., tax farming and avoiding conscription)»

    While often “tax farming” was delegated to “the jews” by the elites it was because of cynical antisemitism, not as a privilege, see within the hebrew community how tax farming was often delegated to the despised Samaritans. It is a very sad and terrible aspect of elite political management has affected many other communities than “the jews”, and it goes back to the sumerians, 5,000 years ago:

    * The ruling classes of a country are often somewhat distinct from the population, often being conquerors, and often extract tribute from their population as taxes, which is hated.

    * To deflect such hate the ruling classes select some other foreign minority, one that is ideally easily identifiable by appearance, such as dress, nose shape, color of skin, hairstyle, and impose restriction on their ability to earn a living, such as forbidding them from owning land, being soldiers, or exercising most physical trades. As a result the foreign minority usually become traders, that is shopkeeper and moneylenders.

    * Such minorities vary over the world: jews in Europe, chinese in south-east Asia, armenians in the Ottoman empire, indians in the middle East, etc.

    * The ruling elites then routinely sell tribute assessments to these foreign minorities in exchange for the precious metals with which they pay their soldiers, and then send the foreign minorities to collect the tribute assessments, accompanied by the soldiers. With the purpose with deflecting the resentment for paying the tributes onto the collectors, as they are also easily identifiable as foreigners. On their part the foreign traders often try to extract as much as they can as quickly as they can from the tribute debtors using high interest rates and cheating on the details of what is owed, as they have no relationship to the debtors.

    * Periodically when tribute debts burden the populace too much the ruling classes, having been already paid in precious metals, institute “pogroms” against the tribute collectors they have themselves hired. There are 4,000-5,000 years old archaeological remains of foreign tax trader houses burned down containing tribute assessment cuneiform tablet broken into pieces. Today the role of buyers of tax assessments and hated collectors is performed by the “international bankers”, that buy government bonds, and countries like Argentina and Greece default on average every 15-20 years, with their politicians inciting virtual pogroms against the “international bankers”.

    Very unfortunately many of today’s jewish people believe in taking advantage of established tribal networks in finance and property (just as there used to be established italian networks in music, or there are chinese networks in restaurants, or irish networks in USA politics), where any sensible jew should consider in my opinion working only in activities as far away from “odious” activities such as collecting taxes, debt repayment or rent repayments as much as possible, and prefer “altruistic” activities such as medicine, teaching, charity, to erase a racist legacy from the long period whete cynical ruling classes all but forced “the jews” to take the role of scapegoats in those “odious” activities.
    Same for the chinese in south-east Asia etc.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Montefrío
  73. @GazaPlanet

    Who was nourishing the Dissenter Protestant enthusiasm of the 17th Century? Richard H. Popkin collected a series of essays “Secret Conversions to Judaism in Early Modern Europe.” The Old Jewry, the meeting place for dissenters.

    Thanks for the info, I’ll definitely look into it. It’s certainly plausible that there was some Jewish involvement in the Nonconformist movement (Cromwell famously allowed Jews to return to England). Again, not trying to excise all blame from Judaism here. But at the same time, it is indisputable that many gentiles genuinely, fervently believed in these crazy religious doctrines, just as tons of gentiles, including powerful and influential ones, genuinely, fervently believe in Liberalism today. There is absolutely no evidence most Puritan leaders, or leaders of other Nonconformists like George Fox or von Zinzendorf, had Jewish heritage. So I would guess Jews played, at best, a supplementary role.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Bill
  74. @AaronB

    A fair start would be to openly discuss, accept and understand the real and natural tendencies of human beings without recourse to morally and mythically charged ideas of Good and Evil. As things stand today, the “evils” of antisemitism and racism (among other things) are well past any rational discussion.

    On the other hand, another one of the natural tendencies of human beings is to go too far in the opposite direction to correct an imbalance. So some kind of millenarianism may be an appropriately natural if inherently unreasonable tendency. I can’t find it in me to trust in human reason in the long run, or in our ability to create anything without destroying something else of value in the process.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  75. utu says:
    @Blissex

    “…cynical ruling classes all but forced “the jews” to take the role of scapegoats in those “odious” activities…” – Another example that Jews are unable to accept responsibility for their action. Pathetic.

    • Replies: @Blissex
  76. Moldbug is childish and amateurish and dissembling and tiresome and he talks too much. There is really no point in reading or discussing him, much less dissecting his alleged “thought”. The mere fact he calls his Supreme Bogeyman the “Cathedral” instead if what any clear-eyed observer would call it, tells you all you need to know.

    At best he is an interesting crackpot, like Thomas Wictor or Jim Donald or Vox Day. Though I think all three of those weirdos are at least on firmer intellectual ground.

    Our bigger problem would appear to be books: the old-fashioned print kind. Books by sane people, that haven’t been “curated” yet. Libraries are either going new-media and virtual, or else they are homeless warehouses, or else they are Muslim day-care centers. The book trade online is dominated by evil Amazon, which will ban books at the ADL’s command. Actual bookstores are now rare as hen’s teeth. The universities have gone mad. The publishing houses are, like everything else, (((enemy territory))). Where are sane young people supposed to get a book-centered education? At least Vox Day is running his own publishing house, that’s a whole lot better than ranting on the Internet. More people should band together and use his roadmap.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @TheLatestInDecay
  77. AaronB says:
    @cranc

    Then you’re just an old fashioned nationalist, and not an apocalyptic antisemite.

    Most people on Unz, including Ron himself, are apocalyptic antisemites, heirs to Zoaroaster, just as the mainstream is.

    Millenarianism is something I’ve been guilty of myself, but as I move away from it, I can support a return to simple, sane normalcy. For me, I can give up my hope for Heaven On Earth by no longer seeing the world as important or human life as significant. Many find this depressing, I find it curiously liberating, even exhilarating.

    But what are you going to tell all those millions who find their lives depressing and unbearable, but can’t take my way out and see the world as an illusion and a dream, and human life un important?

    You have to give them something. You can’t just say life is boring, dull, depressing, and there is no way out. No heaven after death. No illusion – your physical situation is ultimately real.

    Such people, and they are the majority of mankind at least in the West, have no choice but to try and build Heaven On Earth.

    • Replies: @Lace
  78. AaronB says:
    @Sollipsist

    We cant discuss anything in a sane fashion without hysterics because we take everything too seriously. If salvation depends on the right answer, you cant be relaxed and balanced on an issue.

    So before we can discuss things rationally, we have to step out of the millenarian paradigm. Until then, too much hangs on these issues, the fate of the world, of the soul, it is too highly charged and full of consequence and importance, for us to relax about it.

    Sure, millenarianism would be the opposite tendency of complete apathy. A good middle ground would be to take effort to improve your situation but accept imperfection and don’t expect utopia.

    Yes, everything you create destroys something else of value, which only shows utopia is by definition impossible. And human has given is no reason to have faith in it.

    • Replies: @Lace
  79. @AaronB

    Yes, there’s an extremity to so much of discourse that I used to assume was merely fun hyperbole and amateur dramatics, but somehow is actually real.

  80. @cranc

    Bravo! My sentiments exactly. Very well stated. Kudos, sir!

  81. @Blissex

    “countries like Argentina and Greece default on average every 15-20 years, with their politicians inciting virtual pogroms against the “international bankers”.

    “Virtual pogroms”! ¡Ojalá que fuese así!

  82. Alden says:
    @Usura

    Old Massachusetts joke about an upright religious Puritan Family that owns a food and general supply store. It’s after dinner an hour before bedtime and the teen children are completing their chores.

    Dad. Nathaniel have you put the acorns in the oven to dry out overnight?

    Nat. Yes Father

    Dad Judith, have you mixed the ground up acorns with the coffee we’ll sell tomorrow?

    Judith Yes Father

    Dad Ezekiel have you smashed up the gravel and added it to the bags of dried beans yet?

    Zek Yes Father

    Dad Hezibzorah Have you added the dirt to the spices ?

    Hez Yes Father

    Dad Zipporah Have you gathered up the dead leaves to add to the tea yet?

    Zip Yes Father

    Patriarch Then come upstairs for our evening prayer.

    I know the Plymouth Brethren religion pretty well. They weren’t Christians they were wanna be jews. As were most of the smaller so called Protestant sects The Lutherans and Church of England were the only early Protestants who weren’t wacko Jewish front groups. I really, really would not be surprised if Calvinists , other Huguenots, Quakers Pilgrims Puritans were full of crypto jews.

  83. Alden says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Can you explain why the Protestants dumped the Christian New Testament in favor of the Jewish Old Testament?

    Only 2 explanations. They dived into the sex porn and violence of the OT for the same reason most people enjoy sex porn and violence Or that there were enough Jews in the movements to influence the over emphasis on the OT and ending observance of Christian holidays.

    One of the many reasons why I scorn the useless conservative movement is that there are so many bible thumping Old Testament Protestants in the conservative movement.

    • Replies: @utu
  84. All those words? What is the point?

    TELL THE GODDAMN TRUTH.

    The Tribe is EVIL.

    End of story.

    What matters is WHAT WE ALL DO ABOUT IT.

  85. Alden says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Universities are anti White racist Marxist and radical. But they keep all their books, unlike public libraries that are purging books published before 1980.

    Get a library card at your local college or university library. I first read Camp of the Saints in a community college library. College was of course rabidly anti White anti American and pro immigration of retarded criminal detrimental black and brown immigrants.

    Once you find the books you can buy them if you can find them Which will be hard. Or scan them.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  86. Lace says:
    @G J T

    How can Moldbug’s father be Jewish and he not be Jewish? Obama’s father was black and nobody usually identifies him as ‘half-white’.

    My experience, in being awash in all kinds of Jews for 45 years (NYC), has not been that the half-Jewish child is more ‘Jewishy’ because of a Jewish mother than a Jewish father, but I admit to not having known enough or researched it, so I will just accept what Joyce cites (no reason not to, and I don’t know why I have seen the opposite so often.) The ones I know, the Gentile women with Jewish husbands were too ‘sophisticated’ to go to synagogue much, but do observe all the holidays and do seders and such stuff.

    The period since 1945 has witnessed growing Jewish influence in Hollywood,

    Since 1945? That’s all it ever was, cf. Neil Gabler’s book An Empire of Their Own, starring Zukor, Goldwyn, Laemmle, the Warners.

    That’s sort of like Broadway, where Cole Porter was once told by Richard Rodgers that it ‘needs to be more Jewish’. I guess it’s true that Jews would never have written ‘Don’t Fence Me In’, but that’s a bad example, because it’s a poor song anyway. He’d learned by ‘Red, Hot and Blue’.

    They always tried, usually without success, to get into the most snobbish buildings on Park Avenue–although maybe that’s changed since the early 00’s. They weren’t welcome in those WASP strongholds, and there has not been a reduction in those Brahmins as one might have thought.

    • Replies: @Happy Tapir
  87. utu says:
    @Alden

    Jews were very much on the minds of Christian reformers like Jan Hus and Martin Luther. They both were very concerned about the salvation of Jews and having them converted to Christianity.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hussites
    HUSSITES, Christian reform movement, closely interwoven with the national and social conflicts prevailing in Bohemia in the 15th century, named after John Huss (Jan Hus; c. 1369–1415). They influenced European history through their reform ideology and their victories in the five crusades launched to subdue them (1420–34). Mainly because of their attitude to the Old Testament and their rejection of the adoration of relics and saints, contemporary Roman Catholics accused them of being a Judaizing sect. (An extremist group even insisted on introducing kashrut and sheḥitah.) The Jews sympathized with the “Benei Hushim” or “Avazim” (Czech husa, Heb. avaz: “goose”), seeing in their actions an approach toward Judaism. The Taborites, the belligerent radical wing, identified themselves with biblical Israel, calling their centers by the biblical names of Horeb and Tabor. The latter remained as the name of the town in southern Bohemia and as the designation of an assembly in the Czech language. The last refuge of Hussite opposition after its defeat (1434) was called Zion.

    However curious these biblical and linguistic influences may be, the fact is that the Hussites initiated an important change in the attitude toward the Jews through the interpretations of one of their leaders, Matthias of Janov (d. 1394), of figures like Antichrist as being Catholic and not Jewish, as was maintained by medieval Christianity. However, Huss himself attacked the Jews for their implacable opposition to Christianity.

    Mass conversions of Jews to Christianity did not follow Jan Hus or Martin Luther reforms. One may wonder whether Luther’s anti-Jewish writing that came later in his life could have come from the sense of betrayal: Look, I almost destroyed the Church for you and this is still not enough? So there were theories that Luther was under influence of some Jews, however, Hilaire Belloc in his book “The Great Heresies” dismisses it that there was no solid proof. Altogether he is not too harsh on Luther, instead he considers John Calvin as the real and true enemy of the Church and Christianity.

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
  88. Thomasina says:
    @Morton's toes

    G J T said: “Borzoi hosted him on TRS and he went right for the “Hitler was a homosexual” nonsense.”

    I don’t think G J T meant that he used that argument immediately, but that he used that stupid argument at all. You’re taking him too literally.

  89. @Alden

    You can get almost any book through bookfinder.com. It’ll cost some money but you can get the book.

  90. @Lace

    You go to the lower, less genetically pure group. A mutt and a thoroughbred produce a mutt.

  91. Pheasant says:
    @Anon

    ‘who was at that time a bit more sane.’

    Tanstaafl has always been sane having moved from being a liberal to a neoconservative and only then to a pro-White position after noticing Jewish double standards. Almost all of his debates with that nasty Lawrence Auster are still online in comment sections so you can see he has reached his current position through sane reasoning.

    Tanstaafl is one of the best pro-White voices on the Jewish question out there and I wish he would write more.

  92. Pheasant says:
    @Anon

    You deal with them by outgrouping them and preventing infiltration. This has to be done on a purely racial basis.

    Narcissists always fear outgrouping.

  93. Lace says:
    @AaronB

    I used to look at ‘the world’, ‘the human being’ that way, and I think it’s full of shit after trying it for 15 or so years. You’ve got the earth and, of course you try to make a heaven of it or a pleasurable hell at least. Otherwise, why even have a physical existence, and you can’t deny your own–or at least admit that your posting here is an illusion too, and we ought to be well aware of it. This idea of of the physical being an illusion goes through all religions, including the New Age quacks, who sell it for physical money. They’re the best at pretending ‘you’re really paying yourself’ when they tell you you damn well better proffer it to them, and many of them are Jews. Marianne Williamson is one of the worst. I still can’t believe she had the chutzpah to go and preach as a presidential candidate.

    You can’t prepare for anything specific in any heaven that isn’t physical and tangible. I guess maybe you prepare for things like ‘bliss’ and ‘oneness’. I don’t know whether I’m an atheist or not, for example, but I also don’t care and don’t believe in any of the religions I know of, although tribally I’m Christian, Catholic. I’m glad, because I find Catholic depictions of heavens after earth to be a form of heaven on earth, and no other even comes close, including anything Protestant. But even though Catholicism believes in ‘life after death’, we’ve done our best work ON earth. It’s there for the world to see, including thousands of the greatest of all artists. The Jews are earthy too, but they definitely needed a Rothko to break the dry spell. They even have to admit they are visually not ‘the most gifted’, Who wouldn’t rather go to a real Cathedral in France or Italy than a synagogue for furriers in the Garment District? or even just some spick’s homely Catholic Church in some New Jersey suburb? ‘Heaven after death’ is most often a consolation prize.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  94. Lace says:
    @AaronB

    E. M. Cioran said that “euphoria is the only authentic utopia”. (I think that’s the exact quote, don’t have it handy.) I was a little fearful when I first read that, but then I saw that, if you can handle euphoria well, or pretty well, or even badly, you find that there is a real utopia, just that it’s temporary. After that, you can sometimes lengthen the utopia by euphoric experience, but i’m not talking about opioids. Euphoria that leads to squalour doesn’t resemble even the most corny utopia designs.

  95. Lace says:
    @James Forrestal

    So Moldbug sees himself and other Jews as ‘mainly white people’? Not everybody thinks Jews are white. Some of them have even told me they consider themselves a more subtle form of People of Colour. I think they are that too. Jews must surely have committed miscegenation with blacks exponentially more than white Gentiles. Otherwise, why all those kinky-haired ‘white people’ who pass for Jews? I’ve seen a good number of those, and never any real whites with kinky hair?

    • Replies: @Blissex
  96. @Happy Tapir

    Reflections on the Revolution in France and The House of Rothschild.

    Anyway, he just mentions nations being in oceans of debt, creditors being injured and Secret Societies taking shape then in the footnote he refers to the documents of the Bavarian Illuminati.

    Niall Ferguson epigraph is here:

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/ferguson-rothschild.html?mcubz=0

    • Thanks: Happy Tapir
  97. It stands to reason that the instigators of religious wars, the banking powers, the secret societies and the Jews were more or less interlocking forces, not independent forces that fortuitously came together. After all, you’re unlikely to find an Anti-Roman Old Testament enthusiast wouldn’t be liable to go to the Jews to hear it from the donkey’s mouth.

  98. Alfred says:
    @animalogic

    Iranians have always treated their Jews well

    I shared an office in Tehran with an Iranian Jew at one time. After the Revolution, I was walking in M Street, DC, and this guy greeted me in Persian. He was sitting on a low wall. We had a chat. He told me that he left Tehran for Israel. After some years in Israel, he decided to leave. He said that the Israelis did not trust him and he could not do business. His family owned a jewellery store in Tehran.

    Later still, this guy figured in the collapse of a bank in Iceland. There was also a big scandal to do with his divorce and the theft of data and stuff like that. Amazingly, the story has been deleted by the Daily Mail of the UK. Goes to show who controls the narrative.

    Yachts, glamour, greed and Caprice: The playboy lifestyle of billionaire brothers arrested over bank collapse


    I did some more searching. This guy is now entirely clean. He has started a venture in Israel. 🙂

    The Israeli company says that the ProSpace balloon spacer helps reduce radiation therapy risks by pushing the prostate away from the rectum.

    • Thanks: mark green
  99. @Usura

    Ah, I see; it’s OK to make a false statement, as long as one includes a footnote that totally contradicts it.

    An old technique, famously practiced by the Huguenot exile Pierre Bayle, who paid obeisance to conventional belief in the text of his Historical and Critical Dictionary (1697) and (recognizing that the censors would never bother to read them), hid his contradictory arguments in the footnotes .

  100. Thomasina says:
    @AaronB

    Millenarianism – does it just come out of the blue, or is there a force?

    “Many if not most millenarian groups claim that the current society and its rulers are corrupt, unjust, or otherwise wrong, and that they will soon be destroyed by a powerful force. The harmful nature of the status quo is considered intractable without the anticipated dramatic change.

    Henri Desroche observed that millenarian movements often envisioned three periods in which change might occur. First, the elect members of the movement will be increasingly oppressed, leading to the second period in which the movement resists the oppression. The third period brings about a new utopian age, liberating the members of the movement.”

    A kind of “what goes up must come down” kind of thinking? Sounds logical enough to me. Sounds like history.

    I wouldn’t discount #3. It is coming, as sure as night follows day.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  101. @David In TN

    The larger point is that in a wealthy, sophisticated, formerly free society, you shouldn’t have to visit weird websites and pay ghastly sums just to get your hands on a book which was readily available only say fifteen years ago. And it isn’t because the books are rare or difficult to print, it’s because monsters have seized all the bottlenecks and the gatekeepers’ booths. They serve a monsters’ agenda, not the agenda of an allegedly free people.

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
  102. @utu

    …Hilaire Belloc in his book “The Great Heresies” dismisses it that there was no solid proof. Altogether he is not too harsh on Luther, instead he considers John Calvin as the real and true enemy of the Church and Christianity.

    The Lutheran Reformation would probably not have taken place were it not for the invention of the printing press. First, printing permitted the mass reproduction of indulgence documents. The 31-line indulgence printed by Gutenberg is the first dated piece of printed matter (1454, with blanks for the month and date). Gutenberg was, arguably, the first business-forms printer. The availability of an easily fillable form permitted a massive expansion in the sale of indulgences compared to what would have been possible had they needed to be written out in full by scribes. D.B. Updike estimates that several million indulgences had been printed in the half-century following the invention of printing.

    Second, printing enabled a great increase of literacy. Before its invention, books were rare and literacy was confined to churchmen, lawyers, and a handful of aristocrats. Printing enabled a larger number of people to become literate because they could afford books that were previously unavailable to them. The controversies over the key items of the Lutheran Reformation could and would have been dealt with internally by the pre-Reformation church prior to the invention of printing, because they would have been confined to clerics. Such arguments about the nature of the sacraments, predestination versus free will, whether the church should accumulate wealth or instead embrace poverty (as the Franciscans did), or the appropriate uses of visual art or instrumental music in the rites of the church, had been commonplace in earlier centuries, and had been disputed in the mediaeval universities or monastic orders. However, with the spread of printing, the laity began to be actively involved in these controversies, and the Roman Church lost control of them.

    In support of Belloc’s point, Lutheran (and Anglican) liturgies continued to bear strong resemblances to pre-Tridentine Catholic rites well into living memory. Indeed, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer was very nearly an English translation of the old pre-Reformation Sarum Rite, and most American Episcopalians who grew up with the 1929 prayer book would not find the 1549 version very different.

    Luther and the Anglican reformers were very interested in returning to the practice of “primitive Christianity.” Perhaps the earliest complete Christian liturgy surviving is the Liturgy of St. James, used by Eastern Christians of the Byzantine or Syriac rites. The form of this liturgy bears much more resemblance to those of Orthodox, pre-Tridentine Catholic, or early Lutheran and Anglican rituals than do the ceremonials of modern evangelical Protestantism – the heir of Calvin’s reform.

    Calvinism was and is certainly a radically reformed Christianity compared to Lutheranism or Anglicanism. The sacramental aspects of genuine primitive Christianity are much de-emphasized in Calvinism. Baptist sects (rejected by New England’s Puritans, and exiled to what Cotton Mather called “the fag end of civilization” – Rhode Island!), along with their offshoots, such as Seventh-Day Adventists and Pentecostals, are still farther afield.

    But is lex orandi necessarily lex credendi? The present state of Anglicanism, and also most of Lutheranism (excepting that of the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods), suggests that fidelity to older ritual forms is not correlated at all with credal fidelity.

    Our Orthodox brethren would remind us that, since 1054, schism has begotten schism.

  103. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    It’s not clear why books would be the issue, or even an issue. I am possibly the most bookish person since the death of Leopardi, but I do not believe there is any magic in books that is necessary to help our young men to make their way across what lies ahead. A simple understanding of what Jews are and how they operate, which was commonly available to every medieval peasant, and basically to everyone up until the mid 1960s, is all that is required. That’s not easy to come by these days, but the self-congratulatory publishing projects of a silly and self-absorbed person like Vox Day are not going to make it happen…

  104. I have no doubt that while the Cathedral is NOW actually a Synagogue, this can’t always have been so. Somehow the Jews took over from the “super-Protestants” or WASP’s. And if, as Dr Joyce says, the fin de siecle WASP ruling class had “direct clashes of interest with the Jewish interest” in “controlling the demographic make up of the country” how is it that the “super protestants” let in a couple of million Ashkenazi Jews between 1880 and 1920?

    There has long been an argument that Puritanism is Judaism for Angloes. Could it be that rather than the Jews being Mold Bug’s WASP wannabees, the WASP was a Jewwannabe?

  105. @AaronB

    It is rumored that the most repressive lese majeste laws in the world today are to be found in Thailand. However, if it is true that in a number of nations today the mere criticism of Jews can land you in prison, and that in medieval Germany just speaking ill of Jews could lead to execution or amputation of a limb, then Judeo lese majeste has not only been around a LONG time but now circumnavigates the planet.

    By the way, considering the power of Zionism today, why is there no curriculum anywhere devoted to it?

    • Replies: @Anon
  106. AaronB says:
    @Lace

    You mistake me.

    I’m not saying one should reject the world because it is a dream and an illusion. It is precisely because it is an illusion and has no ultimate significance that one is free to pursue pleasure, beauty, art, friendship, love without being anxious about whether one is doing it “right” or not. Life is too insignificant not to enjoy the good things of this earth.

    On the other hand, even the good things of this earth are also not that important and its no big deal if you lose them. Those things are fleeting anyways. And suffering and adversity are also not ultimately anything to get seriously worked up about.

    Its an attitude of lighthearted, carefree, abandon. You play your role in society – no overly serious attempt to question its foundation- without taking your role too seriously. You get married, have children, etc. Since failure is no big deal, you are even free to throw yourself with total commitment into some project or your work, without crippling anxiety about the outcome.

    Its an attitude of complete liberation. Nothing matters. Many find this depressing, I find it exhilarating.

    But it is one possible response to the contingencies of earthly life, and was the basic East Asian approach to life. In the West, glimmers of this can be seen in the Catholic Church, but mostly it was the province of mystics.

    I agree with you that Catholic art is infinitely superior to anything Jews have created, and is one of the world’s best religious art. But one reason this is so seems to me that they too saw life on earth as insignificant. People who think life is very important tend to build dull skyscrapers and boring practical box houses.

  107. Blissex says:
    @utu

    How was it the responsibility of “the Jews” for being discriminated against and forbidden to practice most of the less odious jobs?

    Scapegoat minorities, whether the “cagots” in France, the “burakumin” in Japan, the samaritans in Israel, the chinese migrants in east Asia, most “metics” in Greece, were often discriminated as to owning property and which jobs they could do, and ended up doing the most “odious” or worst paid jobs. Why should they accept responsibility for being given an inferior status?

  108. AaronB says:
    @Thomasina

    It comes from being human. Human life is inherently limited and frustrating and imperfect, especially life in civilization which involves multiple tradeoffs.

    Its natural to want to overcome our suffering and limitation and dream of some perfect state. Obviously, its worsened in time of economic pain or political oppression.

    The thing is, a perfect state on earth is impossible. The human animal is irredeemablly flawed, and has conflicting desires. For instance, we want excitement and we want safety. What would be a “perfect” balance of the two? Every civilizatioons answers differently, leaving many people frustrated.

    For instance, the level of safety Western civilization has chosen now is leaving me frustrated and unhappy, but I know many who love being coddled.

    So to dream of a perfect utopia is dangerous. It doesnt work. Instead there ends up death and suffering on a vast scale, and then people are exhausted and settle back down into the everyday frustration they tried to escape.

    The only true heaven on earth is to see through life abd no longer be seriously bothered by it. The other option is to hope for a heaven after death. That in itself, by simply devaluing this earth, goes a long way towards making people happy.

  109. Bill says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    And Toxoplasma gondii plays, at best, a supplementary role in mice’s genuinely, honestly felt sexual attraction to cat urine.

  110. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    This scarcity of information seems false. You might not be able to get your mitts on the precise book and cited material, but the identical information (and more often than not, verbatim) is available for free in multiple redundant locations. The only problems are finding it and organizing it.

    More difficult case for government classified secrets that are under armed guard like the transcript of Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover discussing the details of what they needed to do to bury the JFK assassination facts. That is out of reach. But anything that has ever been commercially distributed is available, the commentaries, the commentaries on the commentaries, AND the commentaries on the commentaries on the commentaries. Ron Unz is a star in this department but he has thousands of fellows.

  111. Blissex says:
    @Lace

    «Otherwise, why all those kinky-haired ‘white people’ who pass for Jews? I’ve seen a good number of those, and never any real whites with kinky hair?»

    Oh please, there are even a lot of far-east asians and austronesians with “kinky air”, and they are as far removed from “black people” as one can be. Races are such a fuzzy concept, they are almost useless. Culture is far more important.

    • Disagree: Lace
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  112. @Blissex

    There are no Far East Asians with kinky hair and if Austronesians have kinky hair it is because they are mixed with Papuans/Melanesians for whom kinky hair is one of their racial characteristics.

    That Jews (and Arabs) are mixed with Negro blood is well known in physical anthropology, hence kinky hair is common among them.

    Here is a picture of Alan Dershowitz and O. J. Simpson. Notice both have kinky hair. Technically both are “mulattos”, though in different proportions.

    • Thanks: Lace
  113. jsigur says:

    The very nature of handling anti-semitism in the MSM is to deal with as few facts as possible while attacking the character of the person exposing Jewish behavior. They all have to do this because counter auguments to well-fleshed out details of Jewish bad behavior is a losing battle. It therefore must be a censored topic thus legalizing the only permitted spin to be demonizing and name calling while distorting claims when possible.
    Jews have hid their primarily Jewish concerns over the last few years by essentially making the word
    Nazi” and “anti-semite” mean anyone for Trump. This has been done on purpose to confuse further an already confused electorate in these areas. Many Jews are now called Nazis. the Proud Boys, white supremacists and all this done intentionally to assure the public never understands the exact natures of what they are attacking which then encourages to look into unproductive areas for answers. Jews rule by lying because they are a hostile elite while pretending to be our friend.
    Clearly Jewish hypocracy is on full display on the multi-culturalism issue with their total support of illegal immigration everywhere but Israel. This is explained by the Jewish rationalization of “behavior for the goyim” and “behavior for Jews”.
    Until you understand that there is no free press in the US, it is very hard to go to the heart of the Jewish question. For me,911 proved to me that we had no free press but instead one huge propaganda machine. Then all you have to do is stumble into the fact of who owns most of the media and who makeup the editorial decisions and bingo, maybe you can then go down the rabbit hole

    • Agree: mark green
  114. “It was intended to attract Western Jews and it has not.”

    And if every last Jew moved back to Israel then pray tell me, what would they live on? I hope you aren’t credulous enough to believe by the sweat of their brows…

    P. S. A response to comment # 5.

  115. EldnahYm says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    The ideas themselves are all entirely rooted in Liberalism (i.e. Universalism or “super-Protestantism”).

    You’re just setting arbitrary starting points and cherry picking evidence. One could just as easily choose Renaissance Humanism as the starting point of liberalism. Or one could blame Enlightenment deists. This kind of false genealogy leads nowhere. Liberalism is the product of educated people. Protestants were the most literate people in the world. It doesn’t take a genius to see the linkage here. France successfully chased away most of its Protestants, but it did not change its course. Liberal ideas have infected the entire world, long past the point when Protestantism has any kick left.

    Religious non-conformism is not limited to Protestant sects, you can find analogies in Orthodox Christianity or in earlier forms of non-conforming Catholics.

    We know what communities like Diggers would be like in modern society. Current Anabaptists have similar views. But they are not particularly similar to Jews. It takes particularly demented people to link Anabaptist like ideas about community with Communism for example.

  116. Anon[419] • Disclaimer says:
    @thotmonger

    From the gimburg book ” the fatal embrace jews and the state” that those quotes are extracted ginburg ultimely resume the situation in wich jews attain a great deal of political influence within the state, ultimely lost it and then found thenself under the attack of the state the oposition and the clasical antisemites until 80% of the european jews were expulsed to eastern europe and the remaining had their rights limited

    He was quite optimistic that the same phenomenom could be replicated again under liberal institutions

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to 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 Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS