The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Eastern European Jews and the Case of the Marginalized Elite
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Professor Paul Gottfried

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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

The story of Eastern European Jews who immigrated to America in the beginning of the twentieth century is a story of “self-marginalization.” The more dramatically Eastern European Jews progress socio-economically, the more strenuously they identify with “marginalized groups” and seek to undermine the white Christian majority population. And though he takes care to guard against charges of being Politically Incorrect, David R. Verbeeten’s The Politics of Non-Assimilation: Three Generations of Eastern European Jews in the United States in the Twentieth Century (De Kalb: NIU Press, 2017) is a goldmine of sociological evidence revealing this critically important phenomenon which so many scholars are happy to ignore.

The Dissident Right may find Verbeeten controversial as well. Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. [In Search of Anti-Semitism, by Paul Gottfried, Takimag, April 6, 2009] Other Jewish immigrants in other times and places have behaved very differently, including backing causes which today would be called reactionary or even “racist.”

Most Sephardic and German Jews who came to this country disappeared quickly into the gentile gene pool. As late as 1920, a plurality of American Jews, mainly those of German and Sephardic descent, voted for the Republican presidential candidate, Warren Harding. (Presumably the 38% who voted for the socialist Eugene Debs came from the newly enfranchised Eastern European Jews) [U.S. Presidential Elections: Jewish Voting Record, Jewish Virtual Library, Accessed April 20, 2017]. One of the earliest religious congregations to declare for Southern secession was the Temple in Charleston, Beth Elohim, the congregation of Confederate secretary of state Judah Benjamin. Thousands of Jews, of German or Sephardic origin, fought for the Confederacy [Jewish Confederates, by Hunter Wallace, Occidental Dissent, June 5, 2013].

Verbeeten gamely attempts to explain the change in American Jewish political attitudes but sometimes avoids the obvious. There is no demonstrable correlation, he tells us not very convincingly, between the fear of anti-Semitism and the compulsive affinity of Eastern European Jews for “left-wing activism.” Although Eastern European Jews went into the Democratic Party en masse, we’re told the party they chose may have “harbored” more anti-Semites than did the Republican Party. He also claims that “rather than antisemitism, the Jewish Left is far more decisively correlated with secularization.” The proof we are given is that Orthodox Jews, even of Eastern European provenance, remained “conservative.”

The author, a Cambridge PhD with whom I’ve corresponded for years, is far too intelligent to take such assertions seriously. It seems unlikely those Jews who eagerly assimilated feared and/or loathed the goyim whose company they were seeking. It’s equally unlikely Jewish leftist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, which constantly claim rampant anti-Semitism among white Christian heterosexuals, are free of any fear of antisemitism.

Besides, the attraction of Eastern European Jews to the Democratic Party was not the chief measure of their radicalism. There was a disproportionately large Jewish membership in the Communist Party. Verbeeten analyzes this inconvenient truth in his discussion of Eastern European radical Alexander Bittelman, one of the architects of the American Communist Party. He also notes the heavy Jewish vote cast in 1948 for the Soviet-appeaser Henry Wallace and the very noticeable Jewish presence in almost every culturally Leftist pressure group in the US for the last century. This radicalism tells us more about American Jewish political attitudes than the fact Jews voted for FDR.

Verbeeten’s insistence that Jewish radicalism and Jewish self-marginalization correlates not with fear of antisemitism but secularization raises an obvious question. Why were earlier Jewish immigrants to America far less likely than the Eastern European latecomers to become permanently radicalized once they stopped attending synagogue or performing Jewish rituals?

Lots of German and Sephardic Jews broke away from their ancestral ritual community, without going on to support Stalin’s Five Year Program or demanding transgendered rest rooms. Admittedly Orthodox Jews are more likely than other Jews to vote Republican now, perhaps because of the GOP’s fervent support for Israel. But Orthodox congregations have also had their fill of Jewish leftists (like Abe Foxman). And though Orthodox Rabbis have not very often marched for gay rights, it’s doubtful “secularization” is the chief reason Eastern European Jews remain on the political and social left.

More importantly, a leftist mindset is by no means peculiar to Eastern European Jews. This group has behaved like other ethnically cohesive minorities in America drawing friend/enemy distinctions. That such groups would support the Left is entirely predictable. Their members view themselves as a minority struggling against an Establishment from which they think (or would like to think) they’re being excluded. Pointing to the majority “enemy” that allegedly threatens one’s minority existence makes perfectly good sense from an in-group perspective. Having an enemy, even an imaginary one, at the gate prevents loss of collective solidarity—and benefits those whose job it is to exaggerate the danger of hostile outsiders.

The German Jewish patricians whom Verbeeten discusses as the managers of Jewish philanthropies were not particularly interested in maintaining Jewish solidarity. They admired the Protestant upper-class whom they tried to imitate. German Jewish philanthropists were far more indulgent than Eastern European Jews in dealing with the social elite who snubbed them, according to Verbeeten. The prejudice they encountered in seeking membership to private clubs and opulent WASP neighborhoods was viewed as a temporary inconvenience. It was not something they cared to denounce since they hoped to become the friends of those who were snubbing them. Such conduct was not unusual for a group seeking admittance into a higher social stratum.


However, once Eastern European Jews took over these philanthropies, and formed the American Jewish Congress in 1918, they attacked white Christian discrimination in any and every form. Of course, these vaunted Jewish warriors against discrimination were far from equally critical of those who attacked them from the Left. Indeed they’ve often bent backward to excuse the hateful antisemitism of blacks and other designated victim groups. Such hypocrisy is deemed an acceptable cost to maintain the Jewish alliance with the socially marginal.

What is equally remarkable about this Jewish “self-marginalization” that Verbeeten discusses is its intergenerational character. It has not faded over time but resulted in jumping from one Leftist commitment to the next, from Alexander Bittelman’s Stalinism through support for the Civil Rights revolution in all its phases down to feminism, gay marriage and crusades for illegal immigrants.

We are clearly dealing with a group that embraces all kinds of Leftist causes, most of which have a destabilizing effect on what remains of a traditional Christian society.

Let me repeat: I don’t find anything about this behavior that has characterized all Jews at all times (unlike MacDonald). Non-Eastern European Jews often rushed to assimilate when given the opportunity; some of the major conservative figures of the nineteenth century were Jewish converts to Christianity, like the English Jew Benjamin Disraeli and the German Jew Friedrich Stahl. And Jews from the former Soviet Union, who are also “Eastern European,” have been generally strongly Zionistic but do not demonstrate the persistent, peculiar social behavior that Verbeeten associates with his study group. [The Election And The Jewish Vote, by Jay Lefkowitz, Commentary, February 1, 2005]

Neither David Verbeeten nor I would overgeneralize about these tendencies. The radicalizing influence of Eastern European Jewry on American Jewish politics refers to a general trend. It should not be taken to mean that every descendant of every Eastern European Jew who came in America is necessarily on the anti-Christian Left (I have met many who are not). Nor does it mean that German and Sephardic Jews have not contributed individually to this trend.

For example, Verbeeten presents Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as a prime example of the Jewish Leftist politics that he’s investigating. But Frankfurter, who was an avid New Dealer and a champion of using the Supreme Court to end racial segregation, was a Viennese, not an Eastern European Jew. Two leading writers on the Holocaust, who emphatically blame the white Christian West for Nazi atrocities, Deborah Lipstadt and Daniel Goldhagen, are of German Jewish descent. The payroller of Leftist causes worldwide George Soros was, like my ultraconservative father, born in Budapest.

Verbeeten is examining the general cultural and social influence of a particular ethnic subgroup, not the atypical behavior of individuals who form limiting cases. One might also expect, all things being equal, that Jewish refugees from the Nazis would exhibit sympathy for the Left as the presumed enemy of the enemy from whom they fled.

Yet the general trend is there.

To end with a personal story: My eldest aunt, who lived into her late nineties, attended synagogue regularly in her later years. In the 1960s, she and her husband had been conservative Republicans, but in 1996, shortly before her death, she told me that her Rabbi had warned his congregation against voting for Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole.

What was the reason for this sudden reversal? This utterly bland moderate Republican, my aunt was told, was a hardened anti-Semite. Arguably, increasing one’s contact with Jewish communal activities may also increase the likelihood of becoming a Leftist. My aunt, in fact, did go on to vote for Bill Clinton.

Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of MarxismHis most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Jews, Jews 
Hide 124 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is the best satire I’ve read recently. ADL is leftist! Voting for FDR = radicalization! Lol. Thanks, great comedy.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Anonymous
  2. Jewish anti-goy hatred is widespread, extreme and immoral. It is high time this issue was addressed. Books like this are a step in the right direction, even if they do not go far enough.

    • Agree: Druid
  3. anarchyst says:

    It is interesting to note, that during and after the Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia, NOT ONE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE WAS TOUCHED. Only Christian and Russian Orthodox church property was “repurposed” for secular uses.
    The Jewish Bolsheviks hated ethnic Russians and were the majority of the communist commissars, and pretty much ran the country until some of them were marginalized by “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

  4. FKA Max says:

    These older comments of mine might be interesting to this discussion:

    Andy Samberg, who co-wrote the song “Boombox,” is Alfred J. Marrow’s grandson:
    He is Jewish; his maternal grandfather, industrial psychologist and philanthropist Alfred J. Marrow, served as the executive chair of the American Jewish Congress. Samberg has described himself as “not particularly religious.”[8][9][10] He is a third cousin of U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin, as their maternal grandfathers were first cousins.[11]
    “The Authoritarian Personality” gained widespread attention among academic and lay audiences alike
    For example, in a speech before the annual conference of the National Urban League in 1958, psychologist Alfred J. Marrow argued that the psychological causes and consequences of extreme hatred were evident simply by scanning the daily newspapers. Marrow said “the problem is primarily psychological in nature, [and] we must turn for guidance and help to the behavioral scientists.”

    It’s ironic that the Madoff scandal, with its tales of exclusive country club life and high-priced international hedge funds, has been so destructive to an organization that was founded to be the voice of the Jewish masses. The AJCongress was founded in 1918 and became a populist counterbalance to the American Jewish Committee, which was dominated by the wealthy and conservative German-Jewish establishment.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    By the way, MacDonald has replied to this piece on TOO.

    Sure enough, when he talks of the transformative effects of Jewish activism on the US would not have occurred he avoids focusing on what characteristics a few hundred million people need have for their culture and society be transformed by a few million (at most) immigrants.

    He probably finds the topic unpleasant.

    As for me, I trust at least 50% of the Jewish-driven (which means not Jewish-caused, and is not to be conflated with it) transformations highly positive for the American society.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  6. MarkinLA says:

    If you want to see this just below the surface hatred then go to any Jewish web site are start a thread about what the US should have done to save Jews in WWII. You will see a whole world of crazy just like Bibi’s recent brain fart about how 4 million Jews would have been saved if only hundreds of bombers were sent on suicide missions deep into Germany and Poland in 1942.

    But if it saves one Jew, it was worth it.

  7. Admittedly Orthodox Jews are more likely than other Jews to vote Republican now, perhaps because of the GOP’s fervent support for Israel.

    Which is really sad because it’s likely true. Meanwhile, the State of Israel is probably the most “anti-Semitic” state in the universe. You’d think that Orthodox Jews would know that by now.

    The wonders and absurdities never cease.

  8. nickels says:

    An altogether massive part of Jewish identity is, pardon the bluntness, simply Anti-Christianity.
    Which follows from the Talmudic legacy, no doubt, and the Jewish leaders desire to keep their masses under control via fear mongering and artificial division.
    It worked as a tactic for preserving identity, but at what cost?

    • Replies: @Jake
  9. For example, Verbeeten presents Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as a prime example of the Jewish Leftist politics that he’s investigating. But Frankfurter, who was an avid New Dealer and a champion of using the Supreme Court to end racial segregation, was a Viennese, not an Eastern European Jew. Two leading writers on the Holocaust, who emphatically blame the white Christian West for Nazi atrocities, Deborah Lipstadt and Daniel Goldhagen, are of German Jewish descent.

    Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, in correspondence with president Roosevelt, cited Bernays and Ivy Lee, who authored the term ‘Public Relations’, as “professional poisoners of the public mind, exploiters of foolishness, fanaticism and self-interest”.

    Bernays had long advocated public opinion be scientifically manipulated to advance self interest. As a Jew the unhappy information about the Nazis using his books must have been daunting. He realized the attack on the Jews was not emotionally motivated but was a deliberate, planned political campaign. more

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  10. utu says:

    Conclusion: Neocons are the most assimilated Jews because they are Republican. Is this what Gottfried meant?

    • Replies: @JohnnyD
  11. JohnnyD says:

    Louis Brandeis was another Central European Jew (his parents were from Prague) who embraced Zionism and liberal political causes. However, Brandeis didn’t become interested in Judaism or Jewish issues until his fifties. Phillip Weiss has argued that Brandeis became a Zionist once Woodrow Wilson sought to put a “real Jew” on the Supreme Court as a way of wooing the Eastern European Jews ( Weiss’s article is an interesting read for anyone interested in Woodrow Wilson, Zionism, and Eastern European Jewry.

    • Replies: @anon
  12. JohnnyD says:

    That’s not all what Prof. Gottfried meant. If you read Prof. Gottfried’s articles or his memoir, you’ll see that Prof. Gottfried believes the opposite: Neocons are extremely provincial and tribal, as if the Lower East Side is the center of the world. There’s an obvious difference between German Jews voting for William Harding or Calvin Coolidge and Neoconservatives supporting which ever GOP candidate loves Bibi the most.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @annamaria
    , @Ace
  13. sage says:

    I call this argument ‘good Jew/bad Jew’. It’s a simple dialectic. Republican vs. Democrat, Coke vs. Pepsi, Capitalism vs. Communism, Zionist vs. Liberal Jew, Orthodox Jew vs. Secular Jew, Left vs. Right, Conservative vs. Liberal, Black vs. White. These arguments are meant for fools, even when a brilliant man makes them in an eloquent fashion. In my opinion, there are those who love the world, and those who love the divine. I guess we all have our favored dialectic.

    • Agree: jacques sheete, utu
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  14. Alden says:

    Last week the Jewish Press had an article claiming FDR was personally responsible for the deaths of 200,000 Jews in WW2.

    That was followed by numerous anti Semitic statements allegedly made by FDR. How twisted they are. The Jewish tool FDR an anti Semite.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Hibernian
  15. mcohen says:

    It is with great sadness that i do declare that american jews have lost the plot.unfortunately this applies to larger population as well.
    Thats right it had all gone to hell

  16. Anonymous [AKA ".tg"] says:

    Can the differences between Eastern European and other Jewish immigrants have to do with different social standing in their old countries?

    A sense of beeing down-trodden, versus no such sense.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  17. Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002 does not picture these E European jews as nice people.

  18. @Robert Magill

    H.N. Hirsch, ‘The Enigma of Felix Frankfurter’, New York, 1981 does not show an agreeable personality

  19. @sage

    These arguments are meant for fools…there are those who love the world, and those who love the divine.

    I think the world was made for fools. Divinity included.

  20. Before starting, let me say that the silly comment by Mao Cheng Ji is strong evidence that the Eastern European Jews have been quite effective in brainwashing even the Chinese. The ADL most certainly IS leftist and voting for FDR was an act of foolish desperation by disoriented ordinary Americans and a calculated move by the EEJ’s to radicalize American society – leftist Jews filled the Roosevelt Administration.

    The article is spot on re EEJ’s. The growing anti-Semitism in this country is entirely justified by their actions and one day will explode in an outburst of murderous rage – we have seen this movie before. That said, not all Jews are disloyal termites. The Sephardic Jews in the South before the Civil War were fierce upholders of the social order and were widely respected; the second most powerful man in the Confederacy, Judah P. Benjamin, was a Sephardic Jew and proud of it.

    The arrival of EEJ’s in this country – with honorable exceptions, of course – was a tragedy for the United States.

  21. Z-man says:

    I could elaborate but…Fuck the Jews!

  22. peterike says:

    Well, the German Jews in America may not have been the type to push race mixing and transgenderism (leave that to the Eastern Euros), but they were hardly paragons of virtue. It is the German Jews, after all, who helped finance the Bolshevik revolution. It is the German Jews who gave us the Federal Reserve and, from that point forward, effectively gained control of the nation. It is the German Jews who schemed with the British to extend WWI when the Germans offered peace in 1916, and to push their puppet Wilson into entering the war, the war that ultimately ruined Europe for good. And the wealthy German Jews did not a thing to rein in their Eastern cousins when they moved into the forefronts of the Communist party, open border agitation, pornography, race mixing propaganda, foul mouthed comedy, or any of the other nice things the Eastern Jews have given to us.

  23. @Anonymous

    Sure enough, when he talks of the transformative effects of Jewish activism on the US would not have occurred he avoids focusing on what characteristics a few hundred million people need have for their culture and society be transformed by a few million (at most) immigrants.

    If a few hundred million Americans were ever given a voice about the transformation of their society, the transformation would have never happened. How many times has the transformation been rejected before being sold out by the politicians elected to stop it? Reagan’s landslide has been reversed by immigration. America would vote very differently if only people whose ancestors were citizens prior to 1965 were allowed to vote.

    The nation was given away by the WASP elites, not the masses, and you are calling the several hundred million out for not staging a violent revolt, which is the only way that our corrupt and compromised leaders would have changed course.

    As for Jews, their group negatives far outweigh whatever positives they bring, and I don’t see many Jews of any background protesting.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    , @FKA Max
  24. Wally says: • Website

    The wolf in sheep’s clothing says:

    ” Two leading writers on the Holocaust, who emphatically blame the white Christian West for Nazi atrocities, Deborah Lipstadt and Daniel Goldhagen, are of German Jewish descent.”

    Don’t be fooled. Without opening your eyes to the fraud of the ‘6M Jews, 5M other, & gas chambers’ nothing will change. Nothing.

    Gottfried is hustling you.

    Shysters like Lipstadt & Goldhagen are easily debunked with science and rational thought.

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    “One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one.”
    – endorsed by 34 “reputable historians” and published in the French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979

    Only Liars Want Censorship

    • Replies: @Anon
  25. Agent76 says:

    Feb 28, 2017 Jews Protesting Israeli Settlements in Hebron

    On February 28, 2017 a number of groups have gathered in New York City in a Open Shuhada Street rally, to protest the past 50 years of occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and in particular against the Israeli settlements in Hebron.

  26. utu says:

    Harry Moses Abramovitz wanted to join the Greenvale Country Club, a place known never to admit Jews.

    First, Harry went to court and had his name changed to Howard Trevelyan Frobisher.

    After that, he flew to a plastic surgeon in Switzerland who transformed his Semitic profile into a Nordic one.

    Next, he hired an elocution tutor from England to teach him to speak like a native Brit.

    And finally, Harry worked his way into the graces of several well-established members of the Greenvale Country Club.

    Two years after embarking on his project, Howard Frobisher appeared before the club’s membership committee.

    “Please state your name,” the chairman said.

    In a clipped Oxfordian accent, Harry replied, “I’m Howard Trevelyan Frobisher.”

    “And, tell us, where were you educated, Mr. Frobisher?”

    “Eton and Oxford.”

    The chairman beamed. “And what is your religious affiliation?”


    • LOL: Z-man
    • Replies: @Hibernian
  27. fnn says:

    With the lunatic Wilson gone from the scene, both parties were conservative in the Harding-Coolidge Era. Famously, even FDR ran on an ultra-conservative platform in 1932 and picked a very conservative running mate. Of course FDR quickly transformed himself after the election.

    • Replies: @conbabe
  28. I read the full article I think in vdare and macdonalds reply, macdonald seemed to agree with gottfreid and pasted a lot of quotes from his earlier works to prove. The short of it is yes sure their is nuance to the jewish question certainly gottfried is a good jew i can name many more because they are rare and we remember them, sure its true most jews are pretty unaware of what they are doing or not really doing much.

    but the bigger point is and why articulating the nuance triggers the nazis is on whole jews have been disastrous for whites for a thousand years, they have also been good in certain ways which has allowed them to repeatedly re enter our nations and begin again what always turns out a corrosive process. To be honest although i would gladly expel them all tomorrow I really wish it were not necessary.Like many whites and many good jews i see the possibilities if only, but alas it does not seem meant to be.
    My guess is the way the denouement of the cathedral will break the jews will be offered a last chance, I think that chance is actually being offered right now.Right now whites are waking up realizing they are under attack, and beginning to discern their enemies this process where whites are currently the less powered require some forbearance from whites to gain allies, this is the opportunity for jews to get in early when skin in the game has consequences, eventually as this turns from political to physical as whites realize they can not win politically but can certainly win physically then it will be too late for jews and others to declare themselves whites. frankly it doesnt look good for jews only a handful are declaring for white advocacy to any degree worth trusting.

  29. Matt C says:

    ‘This group has behaved like other ethnically cohesive minorities ‘

    Nonsense, as are the somersaults to make Jews internally diverse in their fear and loathing of Christian European societies (not a monolith either though you wouldnt know it from this author).

    Judaism, *since before Christ* has promulgated an ethnocentric, Master Race mythos in which non jews are subject to theft, murder and genocide for such rimes as living on land Jews want.

    This non-universalist ethos and tribal god is foreign to Christianity, and it is of course Jews who have led the way in conflating any sort of European ethnic rights with ‘hate’ as they support a Jewish ethnostate’s ongoing efforts to wthnically cleanse more land… a ‘homeland’ that need not interfere with Jews living as a hostile, privileged, globalist elite all over the West.

    • Replies: @Jake
  30. @Alden

    FDR was no jewish tool.
    In his last speech to congress he did not follow the written speech, but said ‘that ten minutes with Saud had taught him more about zionism than hundreds of letters of rabbi’s’.
    FDR after his death was quickly cremated, the USA people never knew that in his coffin there just were his ashes.

  31. @Anonymous

    E European jews are not semites, they are the descendants of the Khazars, a people who lived N of the Crimea, who in the 8th or 9th century wanted to upgrade their heathen religion to monotheism.
    But, they had christian neighbours in the west, and Muslim in the east, they did not want to offend either, so they chose judaism.

    Shlomo Sand, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, London, New York, 2009, 2010 (Tel Aviv, 2008, hebrew)

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
  32. Jake says:

    Jewish identity is almost exclusively two things. The older is claim of being descended from Abraham, from being part of a tribe of Abraham’s descendants. The second is being anti-Christ. Because the first is about genetics/tribalism/race/nationality, Jews have tended to express the second in terms of intense hatred of groups they see as the most Christian or the groups that have been most prohibitive of Jewish activities that harm their people.

    Jews do not hate all white Christian nationalities equally. Jews do not fear the Christian conservatism of all white nationalities the same. Jews long have seen one or two European nationalities as being their BFFs, or at least as having Elites who could be counted on to back Jews at the expense of their own lower orders, their own poor white people.

    • Replies: @Z-man
    , @jilles dykstra
  33. Jake says:
    @Matt C

    “Judaism, *since before Christ* has promulgated an ethnocentric, Master Race mythos in which non jews are subject to theft, murder and genocide for such rimes as living on land Jews want.”

    This seems to be how the religion evolved so that it was fully in place by the time the Persians conquered the Babylonians and so inherited the Jewish Problem. But its source is not the covenant with Abraham, nor with the Laws of Moses. I would say that its source is Semitic culture that makes certain the Abrahamic call of Semitic culture gets coiled back. The same basic problem is true of Arabs and Islam.

  34. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Nobody knew Nietzsche until he was introduced to America in mid 20 th century by some “erudite” Jewish guy Sure his choice couldn’t be innocent or uninformed given Nietzsche’s hate to religion and mainly to Christianity

    • Replies: @Jake
  35. “I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. ”

    The problem with this idea is that Disraeli was already talking about Jewish radicalism on the left(though blamed the dominant societies for it).

    “The native tendency of the Jewish race, who are justly proud of their blood, is against the doctrine of the equality of man. They have also another characteristic, the faculty of acquisition. Although the European laws have endeavoured to prevent their obtaining property, they have nevertheless become remarkable for their accumulated wealth. Thus it will be seen that all the tendencies of the Jewish race are conservative. Their bias is to religion, property, and natural aristocracy: and it should be the interest of statesmen that this bias of a great race should be encouraged, and their energies and creative powers enlisted in the cause of existing society.

    But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish its choice allies, and what have been the consequences?

    They may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or in the Christian form, the natural equality of man, and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God coaperate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.” – Benjamin Disraeli

  36. Miro23 says:

    Another aspect is that ethnic patronage networks become increasingly rewarding as they grow in size.

    The early Jewish presence in the US really didn’t hold much power as an ethnic block, and they probably found the best opportunities within the Anglo world. In the 21st century the situation is completely different with a self identified Jewish group controlling the US financial system, the media, dictating to Congress and comprising half of US billionaires.

    So the rewards of promoting and using the US network are far greater than in past centuries.

    In fact the US looks rather like British Imperial India with a smallish ethnic British administration holding all the keys to power. Indian troops fought in Great Britain’s wars but London never arranged for Imperial India to entirely fight and finance its wars.

  37. annamaria says:

    ‘Neocons are extremely provincial and tribal…”
    Agree. This explains their generally bad manners.
    Their supposedly “intellectual” designs for American policies are deeply pedestrian and are based on the idea of bullying a weaker side. Think of Wolfowitz or Feith or Kristols: they ooze vulgarity and they are known for their “natural” lack of scruples. And then there is the Kagans’ clan of neo-nazi collaborators….
    Banality of evil indeed.

  38. Z-man says:

    Jews long have seen one or two European nationalities as being their BFFs, or at least as having Elites who could be counted on to back Jews at the expense of their own lower orders, their own poor white people.

    Who pray tell?

    • Replies: @Jake
  39. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Challenging years;: The autobiography of Stephen Wise
    He tells his congregation few years before Wilson becomes the governor and the president in NY congregation that Mr Wilson will become the gov of NJ. He will be nominee and become the President before finishing his term as Governor He will be reelected as president.

    Rothschild recently unloaded on Tablet columnist how his family was involved with Balfour declaration and how it was achieved by Weismann

    These people would recruit Wilson Brandies will be there man . Brandeis became Zionist after meeting with them
    Wilson found it useful in many ways .

    Wilson has hinted of some dark forces always hovering around – it is inscrutable discreet and inter-connected and very powerful .This force he reckoned was driving the world

  40. Jake says:

    That is a gross oversimplification. Americans of radical German background knew of Nietzsche long before the middle of the 20th century.

    I’ve heard the same false claim made about Karl Marx, that if not for Jews America never would have been cursed with his ideas. Just ignorant, is all I can say.

    Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto for the 1848 Revolution across the German states. The revolution, which was led preponderantly by Gentiles as crazy and vicious as Marx, failed. Thousands of the German revolutionaries fled to America, where their anti-Catholicism found a home in the Know-Nothing movement. Almost all of them fell into one of two camps religiously: atheist/agnostic/Deist, or Liberal and heretical. Thus, the post 1848 German Revolution immigrants immediately latched onto every Left wing cause they could find, all of which then were part of Liberal Northern Protestantism. Those German radicals supported Abolitionism and Feminism, both founded in America by Yankee WASPs. They all hated the South and Southerners (seeing them as America’s version of the Junkers and the Catholic landed gentry and yeoman farmers. They all became Republican Party voters and activists, linking hands with Yankee WASP Unitarians, Universalists, Quakers, Congregationalists, and social gospel Episcopalians and Methodists, as well as with liberal German Lutherans.

    Those German 1848 Radicals in America knew all about Karl Marx when they arrived here.

    • Agree: iffen
  41. Jake says:

    Cultural and linguistic Germans, meaning the English after the rise of the Puritans and the Germans beginning with Frederick the Great of Prussia. It took a while for it get rooted deeply in France, but it began with the French Revolution.

    In each case, there is in place a staunch and unrelenting anti-Catholicism that feels compelled to deny history as well as an anti-agrarian animus. That meant that those Elites would find many, perhaps most, of the poor they ruled to be deplorable. Not simply because of poverty, but because those poor would know deep down that the new Elites were usurpers and/or backers of things that destroy healthy culture.

    So the new Elites in late 16th and 17th century England and in 18th and early 19th century Prussia and in Revolutionary France, and then again in late 19th century France, turned to Jewish bankers.

    The Jews did NOT cause any of it. Largely, even totally, post-Christian Elites who feared and hated large swaths of the Christians they ruled, were seeking money and moral justification to strike major, perhaps death dealing. blows to the poor white trash they feared.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  42. Ace says:

    Stanley L. Cohen’s “Dissent on the Lower East Side: the Post-Political Condition” makes it sound like the LES was heaven on earth. That every communist and subversive who loathed the rottenness that is America congregated there is a big plus to this fellow. Nice panegyric to free speech though.

    Counterpunch. April 25,2017.

  43. Philip Neal says: • Website

    I suggest that the Jewish attitudes you contrast with each other reflect the religious divide between progressive and orthodox rather than national origins. For instance, Deborah Lipstadt, though of German extraction, comes from a modern Orthodox family.

  44. Paul Gottfried speaks with a forked tongue. Here is what he thinks of da goyim:

    Paul Gottfried: I’m not much impressed with the “traditionalism” of the American heartland or (to use that ridiculous neologism “red states”). That heartland, in which I’ve spent much of my life, has supplied the teeming footsoldiers for McCain, Karl Rove, the inexpressibly stupid “W,” and loudmouths like Sean Hannity. It is the American heartland that now identifies patriotism with launching wars of choice in the name of spreading “our democracy.” Its inhabitants, moreover, suffer from the vulgar eating habits and lack of cultural literacy that their critics often impute to them. However perverse in their political judgments these critics may be, they are right about the ignorance and gullibility of heartland Americans.

    Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights.

    He was interviewed by (((Ilana Mercer))).

  45. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    As Chesterton observed back in the twenties, the problem with the American countryside, whose inhabitants he admired and sympathized with, was and is that they get their culture from the towns*, which culture is toxic and generally hostile to themselves and their ways of life.

    *Particularly NYC/Madison Avenue, now LA/Hollywood as well.

  46. Good article by our distinguished paleoconservative Paul Gottfried. The link to Kevin MacDonald is important as is his book “Culture of Critique”.

    Take a look at the excellent youtube presentation on the Jewish lobby by Gottfried “The Influence of the Jewish Lobby.”

    Very important is new DNA data on the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe:

    The Ashkenazi are 95% of the Jews in the USA. This is the group that has the high IQ of 115 and contributes so many chess champions, Nobel prizes, billionaires, etc. Jews that MacDonald identifies in “Culture of Critique” over the last 150 years are entirely Ashkenazi. Zionism, cultural anthropology, psychoanalysis, New York intellectuals, Frankfurt school, Straussian neoconservatives are all Ashkenazi. We need to understand their origin and genetic character. This is the most important issue today history, politics, social science, and world peace.

  47. He also notes the heavy Jewish vote cast in 1948 for the Soviet-appeaser Henry Wallace

    “Soviet-appeaser”? How quaint! So, if person was not a bad, mad and dangerous to know Russophobic Cold Warrior, he was an “appeaser”?

    Lots of German and Sephardic Jews broke away from their ancestral ritual community, without going on to support Stalin’s Five Year Program

    And what’s wrong with supporting Pyatiletkiof the Soviet government? Besides – the link is a dud.

    We are clearly dealing with a group that embraces all kinds of Leftist causes, most of which have a destabilizing effect on what remains of a traditional Christian society.

    By far, the Protestantism had much more destabilizing effect on what WAS a traditional Christian society.

  48. @anarchyst

    It is interesting to note, that during and after the Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia, NOT ONE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE WAS TOUCHED. Only Christian and Russian Orthodox church property was “repurposed” for secular uses.

    This is not true. All religions (as organized forms of worship) were affected, included Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, various sects. Kharkov’s central synagoge was nationalized and turned into a bakery.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  49. @jilles dykstra

    E European jews are not semites, they are the descendants of the Khazars, a people who lived N of the Crimea, who in the 8th or 9th century wanted to upgrade their heathen religion to monotheism.

    No, they are not Khazars. There is no academically recognized proof of this inane theory.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  50. @LonelyBear

    First, Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is not 115. It only around 105. Second, there are not that many Ashkenazis.

    It is the RCC/Zioevangizer-cucks who promote the Jews.

    The Ashkenazis came at the end of the 19th century. What they did and discovered was built on Caucasian/European Christendom.

    Today, many Ashkenazis marry blacks/Asians. The myth of the “smart Jew” is still perpetuated by the Zioevangicucks.

  51. Rabbi Henry Abramson’s video histories of Jewish personalities and locations, particularly Jews in Poland-Lithuania, are quite instructive. One overarching impression is that Jews in Poland were heavily involved with Talmud and Talmudic disputation, and also with mysticism. Both practices made that segment of Jewry unpalatable to Heinrich Graetz, who chose not to include Kabalah, for example, in his important, 7-volume history of the Jewish people, the first modern history (written in German) of the Jewish people and a foundational text for Jews everywhere —

  52. Z-man says:

    The Anglo-Americans definitely let their guard down and are now owned by the Jews. Their greed and naiveté got the better of them, and the other races (nationalities) that you (Jake) mentioned.
    Ah, only fifty or sixty years ago there was still Anglo control with snobbish superiority no matter how grating it could get at times to other white ethics but really wasn’t that bad, but now it’s total submission of all Europeans/Euro Americans to the power of the TRIBE! WASP’s you f*cked up!!
    The new Anglos must rise up…whoever the f*ck they (we) are.

  53. Hibernian says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Roosevelt said “I am that kind of conservative because I am that kind of liberal,” or vice versa. He was a conservative of sorts, compared to the hard core left. He may have been somewhat less radical in the ultimate goals that he desired, and he was a lot more patient.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  54. Hibernian says:

    FDR had the patrician’s attitude towards Catholics, Jews, and Blacks. That is well known.

  55. Hibernian says:

    Maybe a little heavy handed.

  56. JohnDoe says:

    The gargantuan amount of the German STEIN, BERG & MAN in the “game” begs to differ from this entire article.
    Also, who were the British Zionists again? Or the German Zionists? Or the Bankers? Oh, that’s right, not Eastern Europeans.

  57. To understand the nature of Jews, ideology is of secondary importance. More important are personality, intelligence, physiognomy, heritage, and history.

    The problem begins with the notion of the ‘left’, which is too vague and expansive by definition. It can be anything from Swedish Social Democracy to Pol Pot’s horror-show in Cambodia.
    The ‘left’ is also used to include Civil Rights, feminism, ‘gay rights’, and ‘immigration rights’.

    But I would call stuff like ‘gay rights’ the ‘post-left’. When something changes TOO MUCH, only the label remains and the thing becomes meaningless. Calling ‘gay rights’ the ‘left’ is about as useful as the term ‘Republican’. Republican Party began as a Northern Political Movement and its representatives waged on war on the South to end Slavery. Today, Republican base is in the neo-confederate South. The descendants of Segregationists are now Republicans, and descendants of Abolitionists are now Democrats. So, what does ‘Republican’ mean?

    Same goes for the ‘left’. Today’s so-called ‘left’ is nothing like the Left of the past. It disdains the working class. It favors the upscale privilege of the ‘creative class’. It favors pan-elitism on the global scale over the ideal of national elites defending, representing, and serving their own people.
    The French Revolution is called ‘leftist’, and it was nationalist. It rejected the earlier political mode of pan-aristocratism whereby aristocratic elites across Europe formed closer affinities with one another than with their own respective peoples. So, even though kings and aristorcrats fought occasional wars, the elites of France were more likely to be chummy with elites of Spain, England, Prussia, Austria, Russia, etc than with their own people who were treated as ‘les miserables deplorables’. The French Revolution was nationalist. Its demand was that the leaders of France must represent and serve the French people.

    What we see in the current ‘left’ or ‘post-left’ or globo-neo-elito-aristocratism is the rise of Elysium mindset among the elites all over the world. Thus, Merkel, Macron, May(despite Brexit), Trump(despite his bogus promises), Abe of Japan, and etc all feel closer to one another than to their own peoples. (Abe is said to be a nationalist, but he’s just a Tokyo Shoeshine Boy). The only nations that have measure of stable autonomy are Russia, Iran, and China(but the educated elites of each nation have gone globalist). And the educated ‘leftist’ elites in media and academia never defend or represent their own people. They rub shoulders with one another and belong to the same Elysium club and marry one another. They all disdain their own national folks… with the possible exception of Jews who still stick by Israel(though, to be sure, there is a cohort of post-Zionist Jews who now denounce Israeli nationalism like goy elites denounce their own nationalism).

    In a way, the reduction of ‘racism’ among Western elites have hastened globalist-imperialism. In the past, the West allowed the elites of the Non-West to come study in the West but drew a line between the West and non-West when it came to power and privilege. So, Asian-Indians like Gandhi went to UK to study. But the Western elites also made it clear (1) “non-whites are not welcome permanently in the West” (2) “we don’t mix with the w*gs, ni**ers, chin*s, and ra*heads.”
    So, the elites of non-West could come and study in the West. But it was made clear that they didn’t belong in the West, especially as social climbers. So, Gandhi might get a law degree in UK, but he better not think he had the same rights as whites in white-ruled nations.


    Some people might say this was unpleasant, but it was beneficial in the sense that it FORCED the non-white elites to reconnect with their own kind and serve and represent them. Suppose Gandhi had been treated real nice by whites as one of their own. Then, Gandhi might have settled in UK and become part of the globo-imperialist empire. The reason why so many non-white elites turned against Western Imperialism was that the Western elites, when push came to shove, favored their own kind(even unwashed masses) over even the elites of non-Western world. So, even though Gandhi went to same school as British elites and became chummy with highfalutin blokes, the attitude of the British elites was, “We are white, and you’re still a w*g.”

    Western Imperialism did offer favors to comprador non-white elites. But it was still a race-ist enterprise wherein white elites still felt greater loyalty to white masses than to foreign elites(even though non-white elites received comparable education of the white elites).
    And this fact made the non-white elites return to their homelands, reject Western Imperialism, and struggle for national independence and national sovereignty. This was the Golden Age of Nationalism. And it was made inevitable by Western race-ism. Race-ism is a great thing because it fosters ethno-socialism. It means white elites should care about white masses and white poor. It says white elites should favor fellow whites over non-elites. Thus, race-ist nationalism has a mitigating effect on elitism and snobbery. Without it, elites just wanna rub shoulders with other elites around the world and neglect their own folks. Without nationalist-race-ism, white elites just wanna hobnob with non-white elites than care about white ‘deplorables’. This is why there is the rise of White Death in the US. White masses have no love and leadership from white elites. In contrast, even during the terrible Great Depression, white leaders like Hoover and FDR sent a clear message to hurting white folks that white leaders care about white folks. Globalists want to sever the ties between national elites and national masses. Globalists denounce such bond as ‘nativist’, ‘populist’, and ‘race-ist’, but it is the truest kind of effective socialism. It’s like what Buchanan said about how the elites are abandoning the lower half of America. Globalists also spread cultural pollution to destroy the culture of morality among the masses. For the masses who have much less than the elites, a primary source of power is morality. Morality guides them, restrains them, and teaches them the art of self-control against excesses of ‘seven deadly sins’. The masses are fooled into thinking that morality is repressive and oppressive, and it is ‘liberating’ to let loose and indulge in excessive behavior, but the effect of this is like selling opium to the Chinese. It offers momentary illusions of heaven that leads to long-term hell, or white death.

    Western Imperialism was race-ist, and this fired up nationalism among non-white elites. If Western Imperialism had been anti-race-ist, it’s likely that non-white elites might never have developed nationalist mentalities and instead have chosen to collaborate with Globalist Imperialism emanating from the West. And that is happening today because Globalism is a universal imperialism where all elites get to join together to take a dump on all the masses. So, white elites take a dump on white masses. Latin American elites take a dump on Latin American masses. Asian elites take a dump on Asian masses. Russian elites take a dump on Russian masses, even though Putin restrained it somewhat. Indeed, one of the reasons for the end of Communism in the USSR was that the Russian elites wanted to be part of the globo-rich club than feel an affinity for their ‘loser’ masses. They take a dumb on their own people through financial games, ‘free trade’, and open borders. Meanwhile, these elites around the world attend the same schools, marry each other, and identify with pan-elite-global-privilege than with the ethnos and territory of their own homelands.

    Now, suppose the Train Scene had been different in the movie GANDHI. Suppose the white elites would have offered a hand to the brown Hindu. Suppose Gandhi had been treated like Fareed Zakaria is treated. Suppose Gandhi had been called ‘sir’ by white folks. Suppose white guy even said, “Mr. Dot, you can marry my daughter.” The chances are that Gandhi would have felt, “Why should I return to India and represent those stinkpot losers who shi* and bath in the same river when all these nice rich fancy folks treat me as their equal?” He might have decided to stay in the West and hobnob with the ‘better kind of people’. The reason why Lee Kwan Yew decided to return to his people and do something for them is possibly because some British called a ‘chinaman’ in the UK. Singaporeans should hail the ‘racists’ for making Lee return to his own kind and serve and lead them.

    This is why Western race-ism was a great thing. It not only led to ethno-socialism between white elites and white masses but it encouraged non-white elites to reconnect with their own people. And this was a revolutionary idea in the non-West, as it had been in the West with the great French Revolution. Traditionally, most societies around the world were about elites hogging everything and treating their own people as subjects and serfs.
    It is no wonder that Western imperialism gained dominance so fast in the non-West. There were weak ties between elites and masses in the non-West. So, the non-white elites could easily be won over by the Western imperialists with bribes. They were more than happy to collaborate. Or, if the non-white elites refused to collaborate, it was easy for the Western Imperialists to reach out to the masses and play the role of ‘liberator’ since the masses were treated like crap by the native elites. This was easy in many cases since the ruling elites were not even of the same tribe as the masses. When Brits came to India, much of it was run by the alien Mughals.

    So, what eventually led to the rise of nationalism(as ethno-socialism) among the non-whites? It was Western race-ism. The white guy who called Gandhi a ‘black ass’ did wonders for India.
    Gandhi was a haughty princeling snob, but he was forced by white race-ism to champion brown race-ism and brown nationalism… culminating in this: Whites tossed Gandhi out of the train, and Gandhi tossed the British ‘white asses’ out of India.

    Indeed, if white people want to do the non-West a favor, they should start acting ‘racist’ toward non-white elites. Imagine the positive effect of gathering a bunch of people like Jeet Heer and Fareed Zakaria and calling them names like ‘bloody do*head’, ‘fat w*g'(Heer is fat), ‘filthy muz*ie’, ‘curry-stinking cow-lover’, etc. They would develop a greater sense of national identity and purpose. They would decide to leave the West and return to India and do something constructive like building more toilets so that half the population won’t shi* all over and make the nation look like it does in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.
    Back in Gandhi’s days, the Brits had lots of useful names for the Hindus, and this made Hindu elites return to India to defend and represent their own people. But ever since globalism made the West anti-race-ist, we have all these comprador non-white elites now working as Servitors of Empire. Imagine if the West had been ‘racist’ toward Amy Chua and called her ‘chop chop empress salad suzie wong ho’. She might have left the US in a huff and married some Chinese guy in China and would be raising Chinese patriots and warriors. Instead, she married some Jewish stud and raises kids for the IDF and ‘gay rights’. Globalism steals not only white elites from white masses but non-white elites from non-white masses. It is leading to Elysiumism.
    We need more African, Indian, East Asian, Arab, Muslim, and Latin-American elites reconnecting with their own peoples/masses. It’s terrible that so many globalized elites of all races now prefer to remain in the Elysium Club than return and represent their own kind like Gandhi and Nehru did. So, if white ‘progressives’ really care about non-white folks, there is no greater favor than to call non-white elites names like ‘ugabu*a’, ‘chin* chong’, ‘do*head’, ‘spic*’, and ‘ra*head’. At least once in awhile. Non-white elites, feeling miffed, are more likely to return home and do things for their own people than settling in places like NY, London, Paris, Berlin, and etc to “get what is mine”.

    What has been overlooked by historians is the liberating power of white race-ism. White race-ism was great because it meant white elites cared about white masses. It was a kind of racial socialism. And that is the only kind of socialism and humanism that are workable due to Goldilocks rule. Individualism-libertarianism is too petty and atomized. A worldview should not place oneself at the center of everything. That is egotism. But then, universalism is too wide and vast. I mean there are over 200 nations in the world and so many cultures and etc. How can anyone ‘save the whole world and all of humanity’? No, the middle ground for humanism is the ethno-nation. That way, you are part of something bigger than yourself but also part of a culture-territory with definite identity, heritage, and meaning. White ‘racism’ pressured non-white elites to identify and represent their own kind. It was a revolutionary idea for much of the world. For most of history, non-white elites saw their own people as subjects. But non-white elites learned a valuable lesson from white race-ism. They noticed that the source of white power was the unity of white elites and white masses. And that understanding became the basis for non-white ethno-nationalism in the Age of Anti-Imperialism. Indeed, race-ist-nationalism was the main force against imperialism. It’s like the Viet Cong were fighting for their motherland for their own race. While Saigon elites were a bunch of Viet Cucks offering their women to American men who killed Viet Cong patriots, Hanoi elites were committed to national unification and liberation. To be sure, the neo-Leninism of the Hanoi regime was terrible commies stuff, but Hanoi was still motivated by ethno-nationalism whereas Saigon was into total cuckery. Same was true of Cuba. The Cuban-cucks were like Puerto Rican elites. They could be bought for a price. In contrast, Cuban patriots, like Algerian patriots, were into nationalism whereby elites and masses would unite to throw out foreign imperialists.

    In a way, the French Revolutionary model — unity of national elites and national masses as equals under the sun — was the culmination of Jewish Political Philosophy. Even though Jews also had elites and masses throughout their history, no people were more united as a race, culture, and community than the Jews were. This unity of elites and masses was one reason for their resilience. Jewish idea of justice is founded on the belief that every Jew is part of the Covenant with God. Thus, every Jew counts. So, it’s not enough for some Jew to make money and become rich and forget his brothers. It’s like Joseph become successful and rich in Egypt but takes care of his father and brothers(despite their trying to ruin him at one time). And Moses, upon discovering his true identity, leads the people out of Egypt(even though it may be more myth than history, but then, myths matter in forming a mindset among a people). Moses could have had a good life as an Egyptian. He could have taken out some Jews and left behind the rest. But he insists he must lead ALL Hebrews from Egypt. Surely, Jews know this as the source of their own power, and this is why they try to discourage nationalism and race-ism among other peoples. Even as Jewish elites feel a connection to Jewish masses, they want gentile elites to dump their own masses and join up with Jewish elites in the globalist enterprise.

    Anyway, ideology is a poor indicator of why Jews are the way they are. After all, what is ‘left’ yesterday is not what is ‘left’ today and ‘tomorrow’. The meaning of the ‘left’ is controlled by those with the power. So, the ‘left’ can mean anything. If the ‘left’ is anti-capitalist, how can ‘gay rights’ be ‘leftist’ when it is clearly the product of capitalist narcissism, hedonism, and decadence?
    Also, the homo agenda is not about ‘gay rights’ anymore. Homos won the right to be homo and do their homo thing long ago. What goes by the name of ‘gay rights’ now is really about homo privilege, homo supremacism, and homo-worship. ‘Gay marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage'(bogus term since only homos would do such thing) is not about equality. It is about the homo privilege to redefine terms and meaning that affect us all. After all, we all knew what the true meaning of Marriage has been since time immemorial. So, why did homos get to redefine it? Homos say they are just asking for ‘equality’, but having the power to force society to give equal recognition to things of unequal value is not equality. It is the product of homos having MORE power and privilege than others. Suppose I say silver should have the same value as gold in the name of ‘metal equality’. On the surface, it looks like equality, but it is bogus since we are forcing equal value on things that are not equal in value. Homosexuality is about fecal penetration among homo men. It’s about a penis entering what is not a sex organ, a poopchute. It has no biological purpose and never created a single life. It only leads to butt cancer. As for lesbian stuff, it’s not physically gross but meaningless just the same. Just how does a hole have sex with another hole? As for tranny stuff, that is downright demented, with frankenstein medicine cutting off penis and balls to get fake vagina.
    ‘Gay rights’ was meaningful when it said sexually weird people do exist and should be allowed to be what they are and do their own thing. But ‘gay rights’ in the Current Year is about forcing the rest of us believe that homosexuality has equal value as real sexuality. It’s like a Creationist saying that schools must teach young people that Creationism is just as much a science as evolution in the name of ‘science equality’. Now, Creationists should have the right, under the Constitution, to believe what they want to. But they have no right to force society to recognize their bogus ‘science’ as real science. Forcing us to recognize Creationism as being equal in value as Evolution is not equality. It is Creationist privilege to bend the rules of science.
    Also, if ‘marriage equality’ is really about the equality of individual choice in pursuit of happiness, why are only homos allowed to alter the meaning of marriage? Why not incest-sexuals and polygamists? So much for equality. ‘Marriage Equality’ is really about privilege and power. Homos have immense power because (1) homos are disproportionately represented in elite institutions and industries and (2) Jews, the most powerful people in the US, push their agenda with media, finance, hollywood, government, education, and etc.

    But it’s now more than about homo privilege and moving into areas of supremacism and worship. One sign of supremacism is to be above-the-law and above-moral-norms. Those with supremacist power are exempt from blame even when they make a mess of things. Stalin and Mao were never blamed in USSR and China even when they made a mess of things because they had supremacist power. In the current West, homos are above-moral-norms even when they do most to muck things up. Why did the HIV epidemic spread in the 80s and 90s? Because homo men were going wild in bath-houses by porking each other’s bungholes all over, that’s why. Even a ‘conservative’ homo like Andrew Sullivan was getting bunged up the ass by Negroes. If a man as fuddy duddy like Allan Bloom got AIDS by getting bunged by other homos, imagine how libertine young homos were acting. They were sucking and butt-banging all over. So, the responsible thing is to blame homo behavior for all this rot. BUT NO, so says Homo supremacism. Homos are so very great, and we must never blame them for anything. So, what is to blame for the HIV mess? “Reagan’s Indifference”. This is like blaming WWII on the unpreparedness of the Allies than on Hitler.
    But it’s even worse than that. Homos who claimed to be secular are now infiltrating every church and turning Christianity into worship of a homo penis up a poop-hole. So, Jesus died on the Cross to celebrate men sucking each other’s penises. Or, Jesus died on the Cross in honor of men who want their puds cut off so as to get fake vaginas. This lunacy is billed as ‘gay rights’ when it’s about Homo Privilege, Homo Supremacism, and Homo-Worship. In the USSR, Jewish communists and atheists sought to destroy Christianity by destroying churches and sending priests to Gulag. They failed. So, in the West, the destruction is viral than physical. Instead of physically smashing churches and shooting priests, the globalist project has homos enter the church as clergymen and alter the meaning of Christianity from the inside. It’s like how virus enters and cell and messes it from inside. Viral invasion, unlike physical invasion, is invisible and once the infection has taken place, nothing can be done about it.

    But then, the same logic holds for ‘antisemitism’. At one time, it made good sense to sound alarms about ‘antisemitism’ because there were blatant discrimination against Jews and even breakouts of terrible violence, culminating in the Holocaust. But today, what does ‘antisemitism’ mean? It usually means any voice that is critical of Jewish power and Israel. So, Stephen Walt is an ‘anti-Semite’ for discussing Jewish power.
    ‘Antisemitism’ used to mean hostility toward Jews and denial of basic rights to Jews. Now, it means criticism of Jewish supremacism and imperialism. Holocaust Denial used to mean those who said it didn’t happen. Now, it means not being deferential enough to Holocaust as a worldwide neo-religion.
    And the recent Hate Hoaxes where many of the threats made against Jews were made by Jews posing as ‘anti-Semites’ goes to show how ridiculous the whole thing has become.
    It’s especially exasperating since Jews, who continue to sound the alarm about ‘nazis’ , have done most since the end of the Cold War to wage wars(especially in the Middle East)that have led to world-war-levels of destruction, death, and mayhem. How is it that it’s acceptable to Jews(even Liberal ones) that the main donor to the GOP is Sheldon Adelson who called for the nuking of Iran, a nation with zero nukes of its own?

    So, terms like the ‘left’ mean nothing because it can mean just about ‘anything’. ‘Gay rights’ is, at best, post-leftism, not true leftism. If leftism is to have meaning, it has to be seen as a movement where the elites lead the masses.
    Today’s post-leftists may claim to be for People Power since they are for Diversity. They claim to lead and champion the People-of-the-World. But increasing Diversity leads to weakening of people power and expansion of elite power. The more a people become diverse, the more difficult it is for the masses to join together and make demands on the elites. If Vietnam were excessively diverse, would Vietnamese have been able to unite as one people to overthrow the French and kick out the US? So, the so-called ‘leftist’ leaders who push for Diversity are only serving the elites. What the selfish elites fear most is the rise of the homogeneous working masses. What they do not fear is Diversity since Diversity is inherently divisive and leads to fracturing of mass power. Rising Diversity in the US had led to the masses being divided among white patriots, white traitors, and people of color. Also, even among the People of Color, there are so many divisions among various groups, each one accumulating its own pokemon points of grievance. This BLM movement was, in part, a rebellion against Homomania. Blacks used the Police Brutality as excuse to be heard in the Age of Obama that became the Age of Homo and Age of Illegal Immigrant. Blacks saw globalism turn the idea of the Dream(MLK and black cause) into a cause in favor of illegal immigrants.

    Also, it makes little sense to compare German Jews of 19th century with Eastern European Jews of the 20th century. For one thing, prior to the massive immigration of late 19th century and early 20th century, there were relatively few Jews in the US. Also, prior to massive influx of immigrants from Southern Europe and Eastern Europe, the US was overwhelmingly Anglo-Northern European. So, given those two factors, most Jews tried to fit in prior to the new immigration wave of the 19th century. And I suspect Eastern European Jews would have acted likewise IF they had been the dominant Jewish group in America prior to massive immigration in late 19th century. Also, most of the US was agricultural throughout most of the 19th century. Jewish power has always been centered in cities, and urban power rose to its full heights only in the 20th century. After all, at the turn of the century, 80% of Americans were still in agriculture. Also, the kind of radical ideologies that came to the fore in the 20th century, especially with the implosion of the Old Order in WWI, simply did not exist in the 19th century or were in a state of incubation than full outbreak. Indeed, consider how radical many German Jews became in the 20th century. If 19th century German Jews were mostly concerned with assimilation and acceptance following Emancipation, 20th century German Jews had other ideas and different attitudes. Even if German Jews were less radical than Eastern European Jews, they were more radical than German gentiles. The attempted communist putsch after WWI was mostly led by German Jews. There were many radical Austrian Jews, and the short-lived Hungarian communist regime was also dominated by Jews. Also, Jews were heavily represented among the radical, dissident, bohemian, modernist, anti-religious, and/or anti-traditionalist elements in German society, not least because Jews were concentrated in cities. And even though Italian Fascism had a sizable share of Jews, most Italian Jews were still on the Left.

    So, it doesn’t tell us much to compare German Jews(in US or in Germany) of the 19th century with German Jews(in US or Germany) in the 20th century. Indeed, this is true of Germans as well. Germany was, relatively speaking, one of the less anti-Jewish nations in the 19th century. And even during the Great Depression, Hitler got 1/3 of the vote, not the majority. Still, it’s amazing how Germans, a less anti-Jewish people in the earlier century, became the most virulently anti-Jewish people during Hitler’s reign.
    And German-Americans used to be a proud bunch and they maintained their own cultures in many communities in the US. But under pressure during WWI, German-Americans became obsessed about proving their Americanism, dropping German-ness, and just becoming good generic Americans(a process hastened even more by disaster of WWII). So, times change and people change. After all, Anglos changed a lot to, both in UK and the US. Anglos were once the most race-ist people, but the became the most anti-race-ist people, what with jungle fever being the religion of New Britain.
    And same can be said for Russians. In the 19th century, Russians were seen as the most reactionary and conservative of all Europeans. But after WWI, they became the most radical and revolutionary. Why the sudden change? Because the elites changed and the narrative changed. And same was true of Chinese, who were regarded as hopelessly backward sick men of Asia who were incapable of embracing revolution. But then, under Mao, Chinese took the idea of revolution to extent that even alarmed the Soviets. Even the Soviets at their most radical didn’t pull something as crazy as the Cultural Revolution.

    Perhaps, German Jews and Anglo Jews were more committed to assimilation since they had genuine respect for German and Anglo achievements. After all, Anglos and Germans dominated the modern world and industrialization. Also, UK, Germany, and US made the fastest social progresses on many fronts. So, even if there was anti-Jewish discrimination in those nations, Jews could believe that things would get better, and besides, thing weren’t so bad, at least compared to what other Jews in other places had to deal with.

    Eastern European Jews felt more contempt for the gentiles of their world. ‘Dumb Polacks’ needed a 100 people to screw a lightbulb. Russian gentiles were drunkards and louts. Polish elites were petty, servile(to foreign rulers), and uninspired. Russian elites were corrupt, self-indulgent, and vain. Russian elites sucked so bad that they had to hire Germans to run the military and business. Later, Russians relied on Jewish merchants to do a lot of stuff. With elites so corrupt and masses so drunk & loutish, Eastern European Jews felt there was no hope for the world unless there was a violent revolution to wash away the scum.

    Also, when these Jews came to the West or the US, they were met with the disdain and contempt of Germanic or Anglo-ized Jews. These assimilated Jews put on airs. Eastern European Jews felt like ‘field ni**ers’ dealing with ‘house ni**gers’. The assimilationist Anglo/Germanic Jews seemed more eager to win approval from Anglo elites than identify with fellow Jews from the shtetls of Eastern Europe. House Jews were acting like fancy-ass mulattoes. So, the resentments were personal and tribal.
    But Eastern European Jews couldn’t make social/political progress by making a tribal case. After all, the US and gentile nations had small Jewish populations. If Jews bitched about things as Jewish Matters, gentile elites would be irritated and gentile masses would be pissed off. Why should gentile elites care so much about Jewish issues? (Of course, with the rise of Jewish power and prestige, things have changed over the years. Today, white gentiles show great concern for matters purely on the tribal basis of Jewish interest. Something is of great value simply because it is ‘Jewish’ even if it is irrelevant or even detrimental to the lives of most gentiles.) And why should gentile masses care about Jewish concerns when they have problems of their own in farms and factories? So, the only way these Jews could gain traction was by adopting radical causes that gave them moral righteousness and justification as champions of the downtrodden and oppressed. So, even though Jewish radicals did embrace Leftism, the deeper motivation was tribal and personal. They wanted the good life, the power, the success, and etc. But they arrived with nothing from Eastern Europe. On the one hand, they felt that they deserved better and should rise to the top since they are so smart, energetic, and ambitious. So, they wanted what the Anglo elites and German-American Jewish elites got. But they were, for the time being, on the bottom. So, they needed political and economic allies. And this meant forging ties with the working class. But this alliance couldn’t last for long. Why? Most working class folks were born-working-class types. They were mediocre in mind and ambition. Most of them were cut out for nothing more than working class or middle class stuff at best. So, their lower social status was part of their DNA. In contrast, many Eastern European Jews had the DNA to make the climb to elite status. But they were stuck in the social bottom as immigrants. So, they had to make a pact with the working class. But their big dream was to rise way above the working class, middle class, and even upper-middle class. Their dream was to go the very top and stay there. Some Jews joined the radical labor movement. Others joined gangsterism. But both were driven by the same resentments. And there was often an osmotic flow between labor and gangsterism and business. It’s like in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA where Jewish gangsters form a pact with the Labor Movement.

    The problem with Jews and leftism has to do with genetics and ethnicity. Unlike natural proles or born-proles — people born with lower IQ who are only good for working class jobs, the kind of person Bruce Springsteen sings about in The River — , lower-class Jews were only situational-proles. After long periods of Jewish traditionalism(that held back progress), gentile discrimination against Jews, social-political repression in Eastern Europe(shared by gentile masses as well, because most Russian masses were even more desperate than many Jews), and other factors, many Jews were on the social bottom at turn of the century. But unlike ‘dumb Polacks’, Russian drunkards, or American Working Class, many of these Jews had the genetic traits that could rise far above working in an assembly line. But since they were stuck in the social bottom, they had nowhere to go but to join labor movements, communist movements, and etc. Also, back then, even most Jewish businessmen were peddlers and petty salesmen in many parts of Eastern Europe and America. It’s like the Jewish guy in RAGTIME.

    But deep down inside, many Jews surely felt that they could do much more in life than these dumb goyim. If most working class goyim had no prospects beyond earning a steady salary, the hyper-ambitious Jews were craving for more. This restlessness can be sensed in Willy Loman character in DEATH OF A SALESMAN, who is too impatient for his own good. His failure is not so much capitalism as impatience for success, as if there’s some easy trick.

    So, Jewish leftists couldn’t remain wedded to class-based leftism for too long. When many Jews were poor and on the bottom, the idea of anti-rich revolution had an appeal to Jews. But as opportunities opened up and American Jews climbed the social ladder, their commitment to communism became more symbolic, rhetorical, and strategic than sincere and real.
    In some ways, this was reflected in the USSR as well because Jews were more likely to rise up the ranks than other groups. Jewish communists became the new bourgeoisie within the hierarchy. But if Jewish Soviets were now stuck with the communist system, American Jews increasingly stuck with communism/ radicalism as a useful faith than desired fate. (It’s like American Christians liked to keep business and religion separate. Make money & gain wealth but attend Church & make prayers without having to live the Christian life as preached by Jesus.) After all, most Jewish American communists & radicals remained in capitalist US than moved to communist USSR And many Jews who did go to USSR soon came back. They found communism appealing for its moral purity, quasi-spiritual uplift, themes of redemption & justice, and etc. But they found its actual practices repressive and unbearable. So, communism was something to be championed OVER THERE but not OVER HERE. Sure, Jewish leftists pretended as if they wanted a revolution in the US too, but deep in their hearts, they knew the US would not turn communist, and they were glad for it. In the US, they could have the best of both worlds. They could claim to be ‘radical’ and feel morally & ideologically holier-than-thou to all those crass material capitalists. But they could also partake of that material-capitalism, often more successfully than others. The result was something like Hollywood + Marx. Those Hollywood Leftists loved to live the good life like capitalist pigs with swimming pools and yachts and cocktail parties and even orgies. But they claimed to be ‘progressives’ hounded by evil McCarthy and the Red Scare.

    Another problem for Jewish leftism was the ethnic factor, made all the more powerful due to Holocaust and Zionism/creation of Israel and later, the Six Day War. (Oddly enough, just when Jews were urging white Americans to drop their racial/cultural identity, Jews were strengthening their own. So, Jewish war on racial-nationality identity wasn’t idealistic but strategic. In order for Jews to boost their own identity, competing identities had to be weakened. If Jews really believed in the ideal of post-nationalism, they would have abandoned their own identity as well.) It’s true that all societies have elites and masses. And many members of the elites rise from the masses, at least if the system is reasonably meritocratic. So, it wasn’t just the talented Jewish poor who later rose to elite ranks. There were white gentiles who were born into working class but rose up the social ladder due to higher IQ and greater talent. After all, if you’re a son of a white gentile working class father and have an IQ of 140, the chances are you will do well in school and climb the social ladder. Thus, you will rise out of working class status. Even so, if you choose to keep the ideology of your working class father, you can still feel a sense of oneness with the working class who are of your blood and ethnicity. If a child of white American working class gains elite status, he is no longer of the proles in class terms, but he is still of those people in racial/cultural terms. Even a rich German-American may identify with poor German-Americans on the basis of shared race and culture. It’s like Putin rose to the top, but he seems to feel something genuine in relation to the Russian masses.

    In contrast, such persistence of bond proved problematic for Jews. When Jews were part of the working class, they had no choice but to rub shoulders with white working class like Archie Bunker. Working class Jews had to make common cause with working class gentiles. The difference was most people like Archie Bunker and his ilk could never be anything more than working class. In contrast, a Jewish working class guy, being of higher IQ, may have a son who might climb the social ladder to become a dentist, and then, the dentist’s son might become president of some Ivy League university.
    The thing is, once Jews make the climb to the top, they felt NOTHING in common with the working class, most of whom were not Jewish. This is different in Israel where the working class is mostly Jewish. But in goy societies, Jews feel affinity with working class only when they are situational-working-class members themselves. But once they climb out of working class ranks, they just see deplorable goy mobs with pitchforks.

    But because many Jews started on the bottom, their formative political identity in the modern world was ‘leftist’. Leftism was useful for two reasons. It was for poor folks and it stressed class over race. For many impoverished Eastern European Jews, such an ideology made good sense.
    Also, as Jews were a minority among the working class, they feared racial identity. (Things are different in Israel where the working class identity is Jewish.) Also, things got schizo for working class Jews because much of the working-class gripe was ‘antisemitic’. Indeed, even Karl Marx said unkind things about the Jew and the Jewish Problem. Marx equated Jewishness with capitalism and said the Jew would be cured of his greedy ways only if capitalism was abolished. It’s like an alcoholic can only be cured by total absence of alcohol. According to Marx, the Jews, due to factors of culture and history, were helplessly addicted to capitalism; so, as long as capitalism was allowed, Jews would be greedy and exploitative. Jews simply couldn’t resist it, no more than a degenerate gambler could resist another round of poker. The only way to cure the Jew was Prohibition of Profits. For working class Jews, this was problematic. The Left had its reasons for being anti-Jewish. Too many Jews were capitalist. But then, the Right had its reasons for being anti-Jewish. Too many Jews were socialist or too many Jews were into ‘finance capitalism’ that was parasitic than productive.

    On the one hand, the poor working class Jews identified with fellow working class(most of whom were gentile) and agitated against the rich, both gentile and Jewish. But surely, a part of the working class Jewish psyche took pride in Jewish power in business and enterprise. Even as they suppressed this aspect of themselves, they did appreciate Jewish capitalist success as a kind of Jewish power and matter of Jewish pride. It’s like even as communist Chinese bashed capitalism in China, they were furious when the Vietnamese communists treated Chinese business class in terrible ways in the late 70s. And in time, the communist Chinese learned from overseas capitalist Chinese to build their own economy.

    Anyway, as time passed, the economic basis of leftism mattered less and less to Jews. Most working class Jews made it out of the dumps. The American Working Class was more likely to be nationalist than globalist. They were more likely to cling to guns. They were less likely to fall for the bait of ‘white guilt’. So, just like the meaning of ‘communism’ changed in China, the meaning of ‘leftism’ changed among Jews. And this post-leftist meaning has no semblance to true leftism of old.
    Homo-agenda, as celebration of hedonism-narcissism-materialism-elitism, cannot be true leftism. If what is most heralded by Wall Street is ‘leftist’, then I’m Kermitty the frog. Also, open borders is a means of diminishing People Power. Imperialists did this all the time. British took Asian-Indian merchants and used them as middlemen agents in Uganda. French used African soldiers in Vietnam. Japanese used Korean soldiers in Manchuria, and then US used Koreans in South Vietnam. US brought over Asian immigrants to do farm labor in Hawaii, thus leading to more loss of native land to the real Hawaiians. British elites bring in non-whites, symbolically hug them, and denounce white working class as ‘racist’. Imperialists like to mix up peoples. It destroys the power of the native masses, and the diversity makes it difficult for the masses to come together into a united force. Look at the fate of Hawaii due to diversity. The native hullahoopers lost their own land, and the Asian masses are divided along ethnic lines. It’s a perfect laboratory of globalism. It is a deracinated vacation destination for globalist elites who hog all the wealth and privilege for themselves.

    Another thing we have to assess about Jews is Personality. It is Jewish Personality that explains why Jews are the way they are: meddlesome, troublesome, contentious, complainy, neurotic, and etc. After all, imagine if most Jews had the personality of Dan Quayle, Guillermo, Mike Pence, Max Von Sydow, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, or Luke Wilson. Jews wouldn’t be problematic.

    Now, there is no single Jewish personality, but certain kind of Jewish personality is more common among Jews than other people. Consider guys like Albert Brooks, Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen, Abe Foxman, Ayn Rand, Susan Sontag, Pauline Kael, Martin Peretz, Saul Alinsky, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, Dustin Hoffman, Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Cynthia Ozick, Betty Friedan, Edna Ferber, Mel Brooks, Don Rickles, Sandra Bernhardt, Barbra Streisand, Ron Rosenbaum(who flips out about ‘white bread’ being ‘racist’)and etc. Despite their differences in ideology or politics, their personalities tend to be contentious, aggressive, irreverent, combative, agitated, pesky, arrogant, contemptuous, and etc. They are also funny, witty, engaging, insightful, revealing, and etc. But they love trouble and crisis. They love to pull the fire alarm and freak people out. They like to drive people crazy like Marx Brothers do. They are into some kind of shtick. So, it is shtickism of personality that better explain why Jews are the way they are than ideology(where ‘leftism’ can be molded from Stalinism to Wall Street support of ‘gay marriage’).

    Now, this kind of personality can be found among Greeks, Southern Italians, and Hindus too BUT without the comparable IQ, and that is crucial. The Joe Pesci character in CASINO is aggressive and nasty, but he hasn’t the brains of his Jewish partner. Brute force only goes so far.

    Also, once Greeks and Italians leave their homeland, they tend to disappear into other communities over time. Greekness is rooted in Greek soil, and so is Italian-ness. Also, what is portable about Greek culture and Italian culture has become too generic and universal to be the basis of ethnic-identity. Everyone knows of Greek mythology and Sistine Chapel. In contrast, what is Jewish remains very Jewish. A non-Jew can study Jewish history but can never own it. In contrast, anyone who loves Italian opera can ‘own’ it as a fan of opera. Also, even though there is a land called Israel, Jewishness is rooted in the heaven via the covenant with God. So, Jews don’t have to be on Jewish soil to feel this linkage to Jewishness no matter where they are.

    If we had a device that we could press and change Jewish personality worldwide, things would change so fast. It’d be like the Nude Bomb.
    It would denude the Jews of their Jewish personality, whereby most Jews would have the personality of someone like Guillermo or Mike Pence: nicer, gentler, and kinder.
    Then, so much of Jewish politics and power would change. Jews would be less neurotic, less paranoid, less contemptuous, less hostile, less sadistic, less like Howard Stern who loves to drive people crazy like he did with Tom Snyder. Bob Dylan pulled the same shtick with a Time reporter.

    Now, why did Jews develop such a big personality? Maybe this has something to do with their conceit of the Covenant. Most cultures were defined by leaders and followers. Few were leaders and most were followers. Followers looked to the rulers for leadership. So, it was a culture of obedience. So, if their rulers fell or were defeated, the followers just went with the new boss. It’s like the Japanese after loss in WWII. The Japanese masses became dogs of the US, the new boss. Japanese defined themselves in terms of blind service to the master. ‘Samurai’ means to serve or something like that. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant said each Jew is the blessed child of God, the true God of all that be. So, no matter where Jews went, they felt like numero uno. And Jews loved the dominant personality who, even in defeat, could talk big as the messenger of God. Jews thus developed the prophetic tradition, and the Jewish prophecy was different from the mode of prophecies in other cultures. In most cultures, prophets were seers or soothsayers who served their lord. So, some Egyptian soothsayer may read the stars and offer advice to the lord. Same in China. In contrast, the Jewish prophet served God. He spoke the voice and words of God. So, the Jewish prophet was, in a way, bigger than even the Jewish king. This is why King David repents before Prophet.

    Anyway, imagine a Jewish community long ago. Even when it’s down on its luck and without power, it clings to the notion of its members as the Chosen of God. So, they are not willing to just follow the New Boss, the victorious gentiles. They want to continue to believe that they are unique and special. So, if some Jewish guy with big personality stepped forward and spoke like a prophet, he was much admired as the Jew with Big Balls, and then Jewish women had sex with him and produced more kids with the Big Balls personality. Since Jews often had to maintain their power through words since they lost in terms of weaponry(and since there was ban on idolatry), the prophets with verbal skills were favored.

    But such Big-Ballsiness led to yet more neurosis. After all, it’s one thing to talk big. No matter how big one’s balls were in expression, the power was with the ones with the Sword and Spear. Jews couldn’t defeat the Babylonians, Assyrians, or Romans with words. So, even as Jews talked with big balls, they also had to develop the skill of cunning, of feigning submissiveness and obedience before the gentile power that had power over Jews. Even as Jewish Balls grew large, the Jewish pud has to feign limpness at times so as not to startle the gentile masters. But of course, this was a ploy. The real Jewish agenda was to eventually pop a boner, see the gentiles defeated, and then stick them in the ass. But, they had to play for time. This too led to neurosis because a part of Jewish personality is brash, pushy, aggressive, and loud. But such one-dimensionality would have led to Jews getting whupped. So, Jews had to mask such emotions and be patient, diplomatic, and accommodating. If Jews had played it only like Joe Pesci in GOODFELLAS and CASINO, they would have ended up like his characters: deads. And of course, some Jews got too arrogant and ended up like them… like the guy in THE COTTON CLUB. That’s a stupid form of chutzpah.

    In a way, the Jewish way was Swimming against the way of human nature. Generally, humans go with the flow. They follow the Power. So, if A is the winner, people go with A. If A loses and if B is the winner, people go with B. It’s the natural flow of things in the politics of power. And most ancient peoples were like this. They followed a certain ruler or elites, but when they fell, the people just went with the New Boss.
    In contrast, Jews refused to go with the flow of such dynamics of power. They stuck to the Covenant that said Jews are the center of God’s attention and favor. So, even in defeat, Jews had to summon tremendous Will to Power within themselves to sustain their culture or conceit. And when times were bad and when all seemed lost, it took the prophet with the Big Personality to come to the fore and talk big and inspire the Jews. And such people became the heroic model for Jews, and they got the most prestige and got the most women and passed down the Big Balls genes…. along with the cunning genes. After all, if they acted Big-Ballsy all the time, they could get killed. So, they had to be passive/aggressive than just aggressive. This is why, even when Jews are being passive, there are hints of aggressive energy, and even when Jews are being aggressive, they play passive. It’s like Jews are driving the hostility against Russia in the ‘new cold war’, but they play the ‘victim’ of Russian ‘aggression’. (Perhaps, one reason why Jews came to dislike Jesus was He acted stupid and ‘dumb’ in their eyes, a crime against the way of Jewish cunning. He had a big personality and was good at playing the role of prophet. But He lacked the cunning to save His own skin. This is why it took St. Paul to finish the job since he combined piousness with cunning to spread the ideas far and wide.)

    There is also the factor of Jewish physiognomy, and this is in relation to Jewish IQ. Every group has its share of good-lookers, okay-lookers, and uglers. Good-lookers tend to be more at peace with themselves. They feel blessed by life. They like the way they look and they like the fact that others like them. But the uglers feel they’ve been wronged by life. They feel victimized even though no one did them wrong. They were born the way they are, but even as they rationally know it’s no one’s fault, they feel wronged by the world. This leads to bitterness.
    This is true of all groups. In any group, the good-lookers feel better about themselves and their place in the world. Meanwhile, the uglers are filled with resentment. So, why should this matter with Jews more than with other groups? Higher IQ and pushier personality.

    Take Mexicans. Many Mexicans are short, squat, and hardly lookers. But they are not high in IQ and they are rather passive. So, they don’t get so upset about being uglers. Take Guillermo. He’s no looker, no ladies’ man. And Jimmy Kimmel uses him like Letterman used dogs in Stupid Dog Tricks. But Guillermo is happy to have some attention, some tacos, some tequila, and some cookies. That’s all he asks for in life. And many Mexicans are like that. And this is also true of ‘white trash’ elements. Many are uglers and fat and gross. But if they have their TV shows, macaroni and cheese, and bag of chips while watching some dumb show, they are happy.
    So, their uglerity doesn’t amount to much.
    In contrast, Jewish uglers have higher IQ and pushy personalities. Jewish good-lookers are bound to be less troublesome. Confident in their looks, they are content to be what they are. But Jewish uglers feel ‘wronged’ by life. But they don’t want to be honest and admit they are really bothered by their uglerity. So, they come up with all sorts of psycho-ideological-moral-social-political reasons for why they are so pissed with life.

    Suppose Woody Allen had been born with the looks of Paul Newman or Robert Redford. He would have been less neurotic and nutty. While Paul Newman, like Robert Redford, was involved with political causes, he was always at peace with himself. He felt good about the way he looked. So, his political causes were an extension of his physical narcissism: “I look good, so I have a good heart as well.”
    In contrast, Jewish uglers adopt social causes not as an extension of physical narcissism(since they have no reason to feel confident in that regard) but as revenge for the injustice of their lack of appeal. They grab onto some kind of cause-as-excuse to strike out at the world that done-them-wrong by making them unattractive. Of course, this operates at the subconscious level, but it’s there. And this goes for antifa guys as well. Most antifa guys are gentiles but they are uglers. They get no love, so they force their ‘righteous love for mankind’ on society by attacking ‘injustice’. But men who look like Clint Eastwood would hardly want to join something like antifa.

    • Replies: @conbabe
  58. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max

    Mr. Gottfried is most definitely a “White Supremacist,” didn’t anyone notice that he is throwing up the “White Power” hand sign in the picture above [I am being sarcastic]?

    Two members of alt-right accused of making white supremacist hand signs in White House after receiving press passes

    The journalists say the hand symbol is innocent – but it has been condemned as ‘racist’ by the Anti-Defamation League

    The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) characterises the symbol as a “racist hand sign.”

    “Some white supremacists, particularly in California, may use a two-handed hand sign in which one hand forms the letter ‘W’ and the other hand forms the letter ‘P,’ to represent WP or ‘White Power,’” an entry in the ADL’s hate symbols database reads.

    A Paleo Epitaph

    by Paul Gottfried

    April 07, 2008

    By the way, this is also rumored to be the article, which inspired Richard Spencer to coin the term ‘Alternative Right’

    Differences between the Eastern European immigrant community in the US and the older German-Jewish establishment — and their commonalities

    In short, I agree with Paul Gottfried. The distinction between the Jews deriving from Eastern Europe and the previously existing Jewish community are often important. As noted above, in the absence of the very large number of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, the transformative effects of Jewish activism on the US would not have occurred. The German-Jewish elite did indeed have influence far beyond their numbers, but their tiny numbers and relatively conservative attitudes would have prevented them from having the transformative effects that their much more numerous—and much more radical—Eastern European cousins had.

  59. @attilathehen

    Gottfried is not entirely honest in his discussion of Jewish power, but he has a very legitimate point in this passage you quote. What kind of fools repeatedly vote the likes of Graham or McCain into office?

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  60. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    What change specifically are you referring to?

  61. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Yes, I get frustrated with McLame and Grahamnesty being returned to the Senate. Fortunately, the influence of the RCC/Zioevangizers is dwindling. Hopefully these 2 idiots will gone.

  62. @Jake

    Jewish identity to me is ‘eternal innocent victim’.
    Therefore the holocaust will never go away.

    It is as with the Armenians, their genocide is such a part of their identity that any rational discussion about how and why Armenians died in WWI is impossible.
    Jews complain galore about antisemitism, any explanation of the phenomenon is rejected, though even books written by jews offer this explanation.

    Same with the Armenians, even a book written by Armenians admit that it all began with Armenians murdering Ottoman officials and citizens, but this was acceptable, they discriminated the Armenians.

    In a tv broadcast the wife of the Dutch supreme rabbi stated that hating jews had existed for thousands of years, I then thought ‘and still you learned nothing from it’.

  63. @Hibernian

    I sometimes wonder what kind of world we would have now if FDR had not got polio.
    As a playboy busy with poker he could not have done much harm to the world.

  64. @SolontoCroesus

    Graetz’ most remarkable statement is that conscience has no role in judaism.
    Cited by
    Houston Stewart Chamberlain, ‘Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts’, 1898- 1907, München
    Confirmation in
    Israel Shahak, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years’, 1994, 2002, London

  65. @LonelyBear

    Sephardic jews, the real semitic jews, indeed are quite different.
    If the Sephardic Newsletter still exists, anyone can convince himself.

  66. @Lyttenburgh

    What did they make there (at the bakery)?

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
  67. mcohen says:

    the comments seem to be outdoing the story in the quest for knowledge of jewish history.interesting stuff.yet no mention is made of the pale of the settlement.

    jews leaving the pale of the settlement and spreading out over the world was a major event in jewish history.this was brought on by ww1 when the russian empires grip was broken.bearing this in mind the bolshevik revolution can be viewed in a different light
    when you begin to look at jewish history in europe and life for jews in the pale and what it took for jews to break free from a life of poverty and hardship you can begin to understand the events of today.100 years in not a long time in the overall scheme of things but in 2 generations the word zion has taken on new meaning.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  68. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Now I know why I hate Americans. Every one I meet is either a jew or a hick.” — Kingsley Amis

    • Replies: @iffen
  69. iffen says:

    either a jew or a hick

    Powerful political combination. See you in Jerusalem.

    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
  70. utu says:

    […]we have to liken it to an expert biologist agreeing that the difference between alligators and crocodiles are significant and worth documenting. Whereas, the non-specialist may be content with the knowledge that he should not swim in the water with either species.

    What is illogical about generalizing on Jewish behavior based on general traits of Jewish behavior? Eastern European Jews may not have the table manners of their Western European brothers. They tend to be well, uncouth, and given to overt manifestations of iconoclasm against white Christian culture. In fact it sometimes takes them one or two generations before they wish to join (or found their own) exclusive gold clubs. But the core of their mentality is the same: Jewish supremacism and the push to infiltrate, subvert and ultimately replace white Christians in positions of leadership in politics, media and culture.

    I thought it would not be long before a dishonest and self-serving Jewish response would appear. They could not allow this inroad to be made and their culpability exposed. And sure enough it did: Goffried asserts that Jews, generis, are not a unitary biological threat, but rather only some ideologically motivated Jews are a threat. Nice try Schlomo. This goes against centuries of testimonials about the Jews, and most importantly an evolutionary analysis of their long run collective behavior, which analysis is the most illuminating and coherent.

  71. Ben Frank says:

    Jewish Americans must stop being pro-open-borders. Open borders are anti-American.

    Jewish Americans are terrified of Christians. So they love Communists and Muslims, thinking that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. WRONG.

  72. mcohen says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Hey beef…what is it beef .what is your got beef.everybody have beef.
    All skin no sausage…… beefcupcake

    Radioislam is a gay porn site.please do not bring these disgusting links to unz

    From the wiki link

    The Pale of Settlement included much of present-day Lithuania; Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland (East-Central Europe); a part of eastern Latvia and parts of western Russia. It extended from the eastern pale, or demarcation line, to the western Russian border with the Kingdom of Prussia (later the German Empire) and with Austria-Hungar

  73. @Beefcake the Mighty

    What did they make there (at the bakery)?

    It might surprise you, but in the bakery they made bread and various pastries.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  74. Jack Burton says: • Website

    Where are all the good Jews? It’s sort of like when Trump trots out a “good black woman” who voted for him and is nationalist, even though 94% of black women (98% for single black women) voted for Hillary.

    Jews are certainly intellectually and financially able to found a pro-white organization yet we’ve never seen one in their entire history, rather they are adamantly opposed to it.

    Gottfried has his merits just like Finkelstein and David Cole, but are they really part of our people and true advocates? I don’t see it.

  75. conbabe says:

    I had read somewhere that he nicked Al Smith, the 1928 Irish Catholic nominee’s platform.

  76. conbabe says:
    @Priss Factor

    This is a lot to read and I’ll get to it. I just want to comment now that I agree completely with the Ghandi comment and thought the exact same thing as I watched the film. Ghandi’s vanity was wounded. He wasn’t a nationalist so much as a snob.

  77. Carnac123 says: • Website

    I think that Jews in politics and the public eye are starting to realize that they are not hidden anymore and the American people are watching them with great interest. Americans cannot understand why many, many Jews are either anti-American and/or for programs and laws that are detrimental to the American nation. They wonder why most are flaming liberals and want dangerous immigrants in the country. When I talk politics with most Jews it is like talking to a foreigner. It is like talking to an old time Bolshevik. I think this latest piece we have just read was written to try and take some pressure off the Jewish community by saying “hey…we are not all like that”. The writer is running interference against the knew awakening that does not include most Jews. Most people do not dislike Jews for being a Jew. I don’t. Like everyone…they have good and bad among their ranks. Most people are suspicious of the Jew because wherever they go they seem to ‘anti’ the country they are in. We are suspicious of them because of their organizations that are hateful and discriminatory to white males. If the Jews want to be liked……then act like Americans. Quit allying your organizations to socialism.

  78. @Beefcake the Mighty

    You want confirmation from me that they did indeed made breadloafs in the… bakery?



    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  79. geokat62 says:

    Quit allying your organizations to socialism.

    I think the more pertinent advice is: Quit funding your organizations.

  80. @Carnac123

    Most people do not dislike Jews for being a Jew.

    Neither did NSDAP and Germans.

    But Poles probably did.

    A more significant point is that A Jews hate B Jews for being poor, dumb and crude. The civil war among Jews, acute and genocidal — Jew vs Jew– in 20th century; low simmer today — is what Big Jews (h/t Art) and ADL, etc. work so zealously to keep concealed, mostly concealed from the knowledge of other Jews.

    Read Exodus 32 very carefully, bearing in mind that even as he was being smuggled out of Vienna to Britain, Sigmund Freud penned an argument that Moses was not a Jew


  81. @Lyttenburgh

    Indeed. According to Wiki (yeah, I know), it was used by a Jewish workers club as part of the Comintern.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
  82. “Khazars” – a slight correction.

    German Jews alarmed at the arrival of Eastern European Jews in the early part of the 20th century referred to them as “Asiatics” publicly and tried to distance themselves from the former. This was of course at a time when these Jews were driven by poverty to violent crime.

    Eastern European Jews intermarried with Khazar (Turkic) females for some reason in the 10th century and admittedly a new Central Asian admixture entered their gene poor but this would be analogous to the Greek blood in Sicilians.

    German Jews seem to have intermarried a great deal with Romans.

    Sephardic Jews are quite Hispanic looking.

    Point being that the Jewish race was one of admixture as oppose to conversion.

  83. JAKE

    In point of fact the German socialists mostly entered the Northern Midwest where they saw an ability to proselytize in Milwaukee, Detroit, Minnesota and Cleveland.

    Jews fleeing Communism who arrived in the Midwest in the 1920’s – 1950’s despised the German-American progressives and were pure Capitalists-mostly Deli owners and pawn-brokers in my own Midwestern city.

    Unions were about the only thing German (Mostly from Munich) Socialists in the Midwest and Eastern European Jewish immigrants agreed upon.

    There were heated pitched battled between the two groups my own city of Detroit, in fact.

    Capitalism tends to be a better system for the entrepreneur or skilled professional and Socialism is somewhat better for poor workers, unsurprisingly Jews ran AGAINST the German-American progressive (Socialists) in the Upper Midwest around the Great Lakes.

  84. @Carnac123

    Most people do not dislike Jews for being a Jew. I don’t. Like everyone…they have good and bad among their ranks.

    Doesn’t it make more sense to ask why Jews seem to hate non-Jews, especially in America? I tend to doubt a whole lot about Jewish persecution outside America being unwarranted, and I doubt quite a bit of the persecution stories, also. But Jews have absolutely no reasonable historical grudge in America, yet they are always on the attack, with the intent of destroying America, and they are doing a good job of destroying the nation. Why? It’s just visceral tribal hatred on the part of Jews towards others, and it’s white Christians that they hate in Europe and America. It’s not even worth arguing at this point. The Jewish voice in America has been nothing but a big middle finger to white Americans for decades, and Jewish power has been completely organized towards destroying America.

    There is absolutely no reason to take seriously any accusations of racism, hatred, nazism, intolerance, greed, or anything else, coming from Jews. Jews need to be answering the questions. I’m worried about the world that my children will inherit, and care nothing about securing further wealth and power for future generations of Jews.

  85. @anarchyst

    I have been to Russia twice and met some fairly high level people. Everyone said that the Bolsheviks exterminated between 30 and 100 million Russians. Solzhenitsyn was in the Gulag death camps and he said that 70 million were killed and they could not but notice that the leaders of the death squads were usually Jewish and that the directors of all but one camp were Jewish. Lenin said by class war “I mean the killing of all members of the opposing classes, even the babies.”

    • Replies: @mcohen
    , @Lyttenburgh
  86. mcohen says:
    @Wayne Pacific

    Hi wayne. Did you fly or walk to russia. Which hotel did you stay in when you were in mosbull. Sorry moscow.

  87. @Wayne Pacific

    I have been to Russia twice and met some fairly high level people.

    Defie “high level”. Were they MMORPG Elf-wizards of 80 lvl? 🙂

    Everyone said that the Bolsheviks exterminated between 30 and 100 million Russians.

    “Everyone” would be a lie. The number of “millions killed by Reds” is a lie that has no basis in reality. Don’t pull the facts from your arse.

    Solzhenitsyn was in the Gulag death camps and he said that 70 million were killed and they could not but notice that the leaders of the death squads were usually Jewish and that the directors of all but one camp were Jewish.

    Solzhenitsin is a notorious liar, who was also a nark in the prison (that’s why he got assigned light labour). There were no “death camps” in the USSR. The number of 70 millions is pulled out from the ass. There is not factology proven evidence that the leaders of the “death sqyuads” were Jews, because there were no death squads in the USSR. I’d like to see you sources.

    Lenin said by class war “I mean the killing of all members of the opposing classes, even the babies.”

    Source or GTFO

    • Disagree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @iffen
  88. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Do you read Russian? Most of my sources are in Russian (well, d’uh!). Try to enter “синагоги закрытые после революции” in Google or Yandex. This will, probbaly, make you finally enLYTTENed.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  89. lavoisier says: • Website

    This is a very interesting comment. I too have wondered how the Jewish hostile elite managed to exert such a negative influence on the West while being such a tiny minority. Certainly being in control of the media has facilitated their ability to cause significant harm.

    But it still does beg the question: What is our collective responsibility for allowing our societies to be hijacked by these hostile elites ? How and why did the Russian people participate in the mass murder of their own people, even if the leaders of this genocide were Jewish?

    Jewish malfeasance is very real and it must be brought to light. To cover it up or make excuses for it will not help to solve the very real problems their hostility has created for Western Civilization. Ultimately their hostility harms them too as once stable societies start to disintegrate and civilization fails.

    But my God we are fools!! What is wrong with us that we could allow this to happen? Is it simply a case of being sold out by Wasp elites or is there something far more destructive at work within our own culture and our own civilization? Perhaps our own biology? Are we just sheep ready to be led?

    The brain dead white liberal who despises himself and his own culture demands a more in depth explanation than the Jews made him do it.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @OilcanFloyd
  90. @Beefcake the Mighty

    So, no?

    What a looser… Okay! Just o indulge you, seeing as you incapable of doing of anything by yourself,_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8E#.D0.A5.D0.B0.D1.80.D1.8C.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2

    Knock yourself out. Your beloved PediWikia.

    I must apologize. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. A bloody “kenssah” (sp?), not a synagogue. Kharkov’s synagogue was repurporsed for a sports hall. Can you, a person, obviously limited in many ways, manage such a feat as to search a page using a key word “синагога”? Or is this beyond you?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  91. iffen says:

    A bloodless revolution like the English one, and Lenin came from Western Europe like William and Mary!

    Someone needs to keep an eye on those Western Europeans.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
  92. @Lyttenburgh

    Aww, you’re so sweet. Does longing for the Red days of yore always produce such fine temperament?

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
  93. FKA Max says:

    Professor MacDonald has done precisely that. He spent the last several years mainly focusing on pathological altruism in Northern Europeans

    John Maynard Keynes put it this way:


    Keynes sometimes explained the mass murder that took place during the first years of communist Russia on a racial basis, as part of the “Russian and Jewish nature”, rather than as a result of the communist rule. After a trip to Russia, he wrote in his Short View of Russia that there is “beastliness on the Russian and Jewish natures when, as now, they are allied together”. He also wrote that “out of the cruelty and stupidity of the Old Russia nothing could ever emerge, but (…) beneath the cruelty and stupidity of the New Russia a speck of the ideal may lie hid”, which together with other comments may be construed as anti-Russian and antisemitic.[130] […] Keynes was a supporter of Zionism, serving on committees supporting the cause.[133]

    John Maynard Keynes described the Jewish character and explained Jewish influence (on Europe/the West) in an interesting way:

    Keynes had this idea that Jews had brought the idea of longing for immortality to Pagan Europe. He saw that longing as positive but felt that many Jews distorted it into a longing for money. He thought that the Jews influenced the rest of Europe to love money too much and that had ruined much of European civilization. Keynes believed that by 2020, European civilization would have gotten past its Jewish-inspired love of money and would focus on other things.

    The Slave Soul of Russia

    Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering

    Daniel Rancour-Laferriere

    Publication Year: 1996

    Why, asks Daniel Rancour-Laferriere in this controversial book, has Russia been a country of suffering? Russian history, religion, folklore, and literature are rife with suffering. The plight of Anna Karenina, the submissiveness of serfs in the 16th and 17th centuries, ancient religious tracts emphasizing humility as the mother of virtues, the trauma of the Bolshevik revolution, the current economic upheavals wracking the country– these are only a few of the symptoms of what The Slave Soul of Russia identifies as a veritable cult of suffering that has been centuries in the making.

    Bringing to light dozens of examples of self-defeating activities and behaviors that have become an integral component of the Russian psyche, Rancour-Laferriere convincingly illustrates how masochism has become a fact of everyday life in Russia. Until now, much attention has been paid to the psychology of Russia’s leaders and their impact on the country’s condition. Here, for the first time, is a compelling portrait of the Russian people’s psychology.
    Russian history offers numerous examples of the exploitation and debasement of human beings.
    After the Mongols invaded in the mid-thirteenth century they extracted obeisance, financial tribute, and military assistance from the princes of Rus’ lands for at least the next century and a half.

    In Russia, as in most other large cultures outside of the Western world (Japan, China, India, etc.), emphasis is placed on the collective. What cross-cultural social psychologists call collectivism predominates over individualism. To oversimplify somewhat: the beliefs, needs, and goals of the “in-group” are accepted as being more important than those of the private self,

    In his time in Russia, Jason Jones discovered that the people of the vast, frozen, politically troubled country all share, at the very least, a national philosophy: “Don’t be a pussy.”

    In China the explanation is likely this (the same selection pressures could have applied to the Jewish community/population). Article by Mr. Unz:

    How Social Darwinism Made Modern China
    A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.
    One could even keep this with a psychological Darwinian orientation by suggesting that risk taking, or aggressiveness-both traits often claimed to have genetic bases-led to great profit. — Jews (2R 1.3%; 3R 62%) carry low-activity MAOA at much higher rates than Whites (2R 0.2%; 3R 36%
    Genghis Khan very, very likely was a carrier of the low-activity MAOA allele, the “warrior gene.”

    It seems that very harsh and “Social Darwinist” environments and cultures do not necessarily select for intelligence exclusively, or maybe not even predominately, but that they mostly select for risk taking, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, i.e., psychopathic and rather anti-social traits. […] when it comes to mass-immigration of high(er) IQ but also high(er) PQ people from China, etc. into Western cultures and nations, particular into more altruistic, individualistic, trusting(less corrupt, less cut-throat, less Social Darwinist) Protestant/Northern European cultures and nations:
    According to one hypothesis, some traits associated with psychopathy may be socially adaptive, and psychopathy may be a frequency-dependent, socially parasitic strategy, which may work as long as there is a large population of altruistic and trusting individuals, relative to the population of psychopathic individuals, to be exploited.[81][86] It is also suggested that some traits associated with psychopathy such as early, promiscuous, adulterous, and coercive sexuality may increase reproductive success.

    Because of the harsh conditions of day-to-day life in the Pale, some two million Jews emigrated from there between 1881 and 1914, mainly to the United States.[8] However, this exodus did not affect the stability of the Jewish population of the Pale, which remained at 5 million people due to its high birthrate.
    This is what is important to understand — which many (White/Northern European) people in my experience still fail to realize — and what distinguishes lower IQ (Africans, etc.) from higher IQ (mostly East Asians and Jews) high-frequency low-activity MAOA carrier populations/groups: Higher IQ low-activity MAOA carriers can much better gauge and “calculate” risk than lower IQ low-activity MAOA carriers can, and therefore engage in very different types of crimes, and they do so often undetected and much more successfully than their fellow lower IQ low-activity MAOA carriers.

    The interesting thing about this phenomenon is that this Eastern European population had overshot its ecological niche, so that poverty was widespread. But despite this, they continued to have very high fertility, which I theorize was due to their intense collectivism and ethnocentrism rooted in the religious fundamentalism that typified this population prior to their attraction to political radicalism and Zionism). (On the other hand, individualists typical of Western societies tend to delay marriage and have fewer children during times of economic hardship [e.g., the depression of the 1930s].)
    For example, Albert Lindemann notes the effects of the influx of a number of Russian Jews to Atlanta in the early twentieth century — often described as “barbaric and ignorant” by the established German Jewish community. These Jews often owned saloons and were accused of selling liquor to Blacks, thus contributing to public disorder. After the race riot of 1906, the liquor licenses of several Jewish-owned saloons were revoked

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  94. FKA Max says: • Website

    The nation was given away by the WASP elites,

    This statement is demonstrably false!

    The nation was mostly given away by the Irish-Catholic elites.

    “His single sentence to provide any historical background is: ‘[Multicultoacracy rose] out of deep Protestant and Quaker roots’, which makes no sense. Quakers have never been at the helm of opinion-shaping in the USA. And ‘Protestants’, generally, created racialist states where-ever they went: The USA, South-Africa, Australia. The Roman Catholic Church, as a self-consciously universalist entity, seems a more likely entity to blame. Sure enough, the rise of proto-Multicultacracy in the USA clearly correlates with the waves of Jews and Roman-Catholics through Ellis-Island.
    “This ‘Blame the Protestants’ idea has been popular in recent years among Jewish conservative intellectuals […] It has been picked up by many persons even of Protestant background, who want to seem respectable. The absurdity of the notion, again, is clear in the historical record: Nationalism in the USA was strongest when Protestantism was strongest; it is weakest today when Protestantism is at its lowest ebb in 400+ years of white settlement of North America.

    But you are correct, that he, for example, does not distinguish between Protestant and Catholic culture within Western Civilization, which is a bit annoying to me, because I feel this distinction has extreme significance (as you will see and read, if you browse through my commenting history here at the Unz Review); he just uses the generic “Christian,” and even calls the U.S. a traditionally “Christian” country, when it is clearly a traditionally and historically Protestant county and culture. Very, very annoying to me, because it gives the Catholic Church immense power, cover, and protection in the U.S. for all kinds of nefarious activities, e.g., advocating for open borders towards Latin America, because they are “Christians” just like us.
    California and the End of White America
    The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.
    The entrepreneurship and economic dynamism of most immigrants, the strong family values and Catholic faith of Latinos, the fierce anti-Communism of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees–these did not go unnoticed during the Reagan era. In 1984, during the heated debate over the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act, none other than right-winger Patrick J. Buchanan had denounced the proposed legislation as mean-spirited toward hard-working illegal immigrants, and as late as the 1990 publication of his conservative call-to-arms, Right from the Beginning, Buchanan was still casually referring to illegal immigrants (let alone to legal ones) as stalwarts of American optimism and economic advancement.
    Many of the White pro-immigration politicians, no matter if Democrat or Republican, were/are Roman Catholics, but I think even many of them were lied to and misled.
    The chaos and violence we are now witnessing in California and in Berkeley is most definitely the result of long-standing Catholic Church conspiracy against the traditional and historic American culture (Protestant) and peoples (North-West Europeans), in my opinion. Yes with some help from the Jewish community, but the Catholic Church was/is the main driver behind this pro-mass-immigration and pro-open borders policy and propaganda, in my opinion.

    St. Reagan

    Reagan’s 1986 comprehensive immigration bill turned out to be the most liberal amnesty for illegal aliens in our nation’s history, and set the stage for the present problem of 12 million aliens here unlawfully.

    Reagan was not a Catholic himself, but had a long and strong association with the Catholic University of Notre Dame
    Long-time Notre Dame president Theodore Hesburgh played a key role in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
    Without taking into account the Vatican element, one cannot fully understand the logic of Invade the World/Invite the World , in my opinion.

    the relationship between the pope’s demand for open U.S. borders and the fact that 90% of immigrants are Roman Catholics; the Vatican takeover of the Republican Party.
    For obvious reasons, American lay Catholics oppose the Vatican’s view on unrestricted immigration into the U.S. While the security-survival of the Papacy is greatly enhanced by this migration, as described by Ryscavage, the security-survival of the Catholic layman and his/her family are obviously undermined for economic, educational, medical, social and other reasons. Thus, as with family planning and abortion, the security-survival interests of the Catholic layman is pitted against the security-survival interests of the Papacy.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    , @OilcanFloyd
  95. lavoisier says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    Very interesting perspective.

    We need more of these perspectives if we have any hope of finding the cure for this disease.

    There are many Jews who are fighting the destruction created by their radical bretheren. I include Dr. Gottfried in that category. This recognition, however, is not meant to excuse Jewish malfeasance in the decline of Western civilization. But we have played the larger role in our destruction by being so easily manipulated and controlled.

    I think the only hope for our warring tribes to have any peace requires a full confession. The Gentiles have all been stained by the holocaust, even if they had absolutely nothing to do with it and in fact fought against Germany.

    It is long past time for the Jewish people to recognize their own roles in mass genocide and to come clean about their genuine and destructive hatred for the Gentile.

    Absent this confession, I see nothing but animosity between us and little hope for a peaceful resolution.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  96. lavoisier says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    Agreed. Along with the Jews the Catholics have been the most ardent troublemakers in America.

    And I was raised Catholic.

  97. FKA Max says:

    There are many Jews who are fighting the destruction created by their radical bretheren. I include Dr. Gottfried in that category.

    I absolutely concur!

    The most Righteous one of them all, in my opinion, is Mr. Ron Unz.
    He provides this incredible and indispensable website, without which Mr. Sailer and all the other Alt Right/Dissident Right writers could not do the amazing jobs they all have been doing.

    He supports the Alt Right/Dissident Right financially, and takes flak for it, which is probably the most important and admirable thing one can do

    The thesis of Jewish intellectual supremacy does not withstand critical examination. This is not to say that apart from the contributions of the Jewish Left the mainstream Jewish community has had little positive impact as real anti-Semitists and race haters propose. On the contrary, many hardworking Jews with no interest in criticizing or undermining Gentile culture have made important contributions to science and polity. The opening quotations to this essay are of historical interest and are not the opinion of the authors. However these contributions, as critics such as Kevin MacDonald have shown are unfortunately over-shadowed by the “culture of critique” of Leftist Jews who, like Leftist Gentiles, see Western culture as flawed.

    There is concern by Jews and other people of goodwill about the spread of real anti-Semitism (i.e. genuine hatred of the Jews and not merely concern with the “culture of critique”) in Europe today. Those of us knowledgeable about Asia are well aware that phenomena such as Hitler-fascination and Holocaust denial are popular amongst the Chinese and especially the Indians. None of these peoples have guilt about the holocaust and none accept the Jews as a “chosen people”. [38] How “smart” is it to adopt a group evolutionary strategy (to use Kevin MacDonald’s terminology) which will undermine the people with whom one has lived for centuries? How “smart” is it to expect the Chinese and Indians, the likely powers to replace Whites after the fall of America, to fall for the same ruse? Insightful Jewish critics such as Stephen Steinlight, are already questioning the rationality of the “culture of critique” and we must do the same. [39] Is it too much to hope that a sizeable portion of the Jewish intellectual elite may come to see that their survival is intimately linked to ours? [40]

    by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White

    Ideally, I would like to see a relationship between white Western Gentiles and Jews, which resembles the relationship the oceanic whitetip shark has with the pilot fish, if that is even a possibility? Maybe this is just my naive, Northern-European pathological altruism/idealism speaking/thinking, and I am just deluding myself?:

    While pilot fish can be seen with all manner of sharks, they prefer accompanying the oceanic whitetip, Carcharhinus longimanus.[19] The pilot fish’s relationship with sharks is a mutualist one; the pilot fish gains protection from predators, while the shark gains freedom from parasites.[20] It was often said by sailors that sharks and pilot fish share something like a “close companionship”;[21] there were even tales of this fish following ships which had captured “their” shark for up to six weeks[22] and showing signs of distress in its absence.[23][24]

    Whatever the veracity of such reports, it is extremely rare that a shark will feed on a pilot fish,[25] and smaller pilot fish are frequently observed swimming into sharks’ mouths to clean away fragments of food from between their teeth.

  98. @FKA Max

    WASP elites didn’t have to step aside for Jews or Catholics, or allow large numbers of either group into the country, but they did. The country was theirs to lose, and it didn’t have to happen.

    As for Reagan, to hell with him. He turned on the people who voted for him.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  99. FKA Max says: • Website

    On Memorial Day in 1927, a riot erupted between supporters of Benito Mussolini’s Italian Fascism and the Ku Klux Klan; the Klan’s stated purpose to march was that “Native-born Protestant Americans” were being “assaulted by Roman Catholic police of New York City. […] Following World War I, nativists in the twenties focused their attention on Catholics, Jews, and south-eastern Europeans and realigned their beliefs behind racial and religious nativism. The racial concern of the anti-immigration movement was linked closely to the eugenics movement that was sweeping the United States in the twenties.

    WASPs did not just step aside voluntarily for Jews and Catholics without a fight, i.e., the Immigration Act of 1924. They were bullied into stepping aside over a prolonged period of time:


    Siskel & Ebert vs. the WASPs

    There is an ADL:

    There is a Catholic League:

    This website – last updated in July 2015 – is the only WASP advocacy effort I have come across:

    […] the American Anglo-Saxon Protestant upper class, bombarded by waves of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century and facing radical change in American society, […]

    Instead, they have retreated into a small conception of themselves, one based largely upon popular negative stereotypes.

    Paul Blanshard understood and had firsthand experience with Catholic/Vatican demographic warfare by means of high fertility rates and immigration.

    Full text of “Communism Democracy And Catholic Power

    Conquest by Fecundity

    Perhaps the most important factor in the penetration of Catho-
    lic power into non-Catholic territory today is a phenomenon
    which is almost never discussed frankly in public, the stimulated
    Catholic birthrate.

    SANGER: Well, if you read their papers, where they point out Boston, that that’s what had happened in Boston in Massachusetts. They had simply out-bred the Protestants and they’re — they — in Boston in Massachusetts they have control. I read that in their own papers
    The Curley Effect Versus the Kennedy Effect

    James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston, used wasteful redistribution to his poor Irish constituents and incendiary rhetoric to encourage richer citizens to emigrate from Boston, thereby shaping the electorate in his favor. As a consequence, Boston stagnated, but Curley kept winning elections. We present a model of using redistributive politics to shape the electorate, and show that this model yields a number of predictions opposite from the more standard frameworks of political competition, yet consistent with empirical evidence.

    So the churches right wing makes sure the poor non-White Catholics have more children than they can care for, and the church’s Left wing keeps them in the pews through its social gospel discourse and demands that wealthy responsible White People submit to invasion by their parishioners.

    Every Sperm is Sacred – Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life

    A lecture at New York City’s Town Hall was closed down by police ostensibly acting on orders of political authorities under pressure from powerful Catholic church officials. Subsequent appearances in Albany, Syracuse, and Boston were canceled or interrupted. These incidents sustained her image as a daring, romantic figure and earned her the moral and political support of progressive leaders of New York’s Protestant and Jewish communities, including Rabbi Stephen Meyer Wise, a leader of the Jewish Reform Movement, and Samuel Rosenman, a young Jewish assemblyman from New York City, who would subsequently serve as a principal adviser to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Reform doctrine in the Protestant and Jewish faiths allowed for relativism in matters of sexuality and for reasonable differences of individual conscience in family size. The rabbis had long ago encouraged sentiment in marriage and recognized the virtues of sexual expression in promoting human happiness. Within one generation, average Jewish family size declined to national norms and subsequently fell below them. By contrast, the Catholic church in these years closed ranks around a traditional morality rooted in ancient Augustinian canons demanding individual discipline and self-sacrifice. Divorce, contraception, and abortion were absolutely enjoined, as they remain today. Birthrates among American Catholics dropped markedly only after the introduction of the pill in the 1960s.

  100. @FKA Max

    WASPs did not just step aside voluntarily for Jews and Catholics without a fight, i.e., the Immigration Act of 1924. They were bullied into stepping aside over a prolonged period of time:

    Fight or no fight, the WASP elites still stepped aside, and they didn’t put up much of a fight since they lost. They were the elites of the most powerful nation on earth, and lost to two minority religious groups that they could have easily crushed and sent packing. What foreign or native power would have stopped the WASP elites from using the full power of the government and military to turn things around? What law said that they had to allow waves of Jews and Catholics into the country in the first place? What sense did it make to flood the nation after 1965, and again under Reagan? That’s not fighting.

    What possessed the WASP elites and their descendants to allow things to go to pot is beyond me. I don’t know, since I’ve never met one. But I do feel confidant that if average Americans had ever been given a voice and a vote on the transformation of the nation, it would have never happened. Even at this late date, enough real Americans are left to slap the Democrats down in the midterms, and to elect Trump in protest. Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, Tea Party, Trump, etc. were all attempts to stem the tide at the ballot box, and all were betrayed by the elites and their stooge politicians.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  101. @lavoisier

    What is our collective responsibility for allowing our societies to be hijacked by these hostile elites?

    I don’t think there is a collective responsibility among whites, unless we are faulted for not staging armed rebellion. Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, the Tea Party, voting Democrats out in the last midterms, and voting for Trump as a protest were all attempts at revolt by voters, that were all based on false hopes to be subverted by hostile elites and/or crooked politicians. I think it’s clear why the voting booths where I live were pretty much empty when given the opportunity to vote for McCain or Romney, and packed for the last midterms and the recent elections.

    Leaving Jews aside, the demographic change over the last twenty or so years took many people by surprise, but it’s all been contested. The continuing demographic change is what has really sealed the deal, and it was invisible to Americans in many areas, until it was too late. I guess Americans could be faulted for being comfortable in the prosperity that they earned, but that’s hardly worse that selling us all out. Still, the anti-immigration lobby was strong enough to put a stop to the amnesty plans of Dubya, Obama and others, even though Americans were comfortable, so I think the venality of our politicians is far more of an issue than the foolishness or stupidity of white Americans. We never got to vote on the change. We were offered dishonest and likely compromised politicians, but never yes or no votes on specific issues.

    I doubt that the problem with whites has much to do with a genetic predisposition towards being nice. Whites are fully capable of being violent or tribal, and I don’t need to lead an academic discussion to prove that point. If there is a genetic predisposition that makes whites vulnerable to bad leadership, it could our willingness to seek order and follow orders. When I look around at whites, I don’t see rugged individualists.

    Still, none of this explains why WASP elites bowed out so ungracefully. They have always been more than ready to defend their turf against their cousins of lower-castes and different geographical areas. There were more than enough intelligent, wealthy and powerful WASPs to fend off the Jews and Catholics, but they didn’t, and that is the issue to me.

    I personally wouldn’t care if Jews and Catholics were in charge if they were good at what they are doing, and weren’t hostile. But they are are chaotic and hostile rulers, and, since the mask is fully off, it’s probably too late to mend the relationship. An enemy must be recognized as an enemy.

    • Replies: @Anon
  102. woodNfish says:

    One might also expect, all things being equal, that Jewish refugees from the Nazis would exhibit sympathy for the Left as the presumed enemy of the enemy from whom they fled.

    And just why would that be? The NAZIs were socialist fascists, ie Leftists. Seems to me there is a real disconnect in what Jews say about the holocaust and how they respond to it politically. What are they hiding? Is the holocaust in fact a lie to hide their communist sentiments behind?

    I am beginning to think Jews are second to the worst group ever allowed into the USA. Blacks being the first.

  103. FKA Max says: • Website

    I think you might be overestimating the power of the WASP elite, and underestimating the influence and manpower of the Vatican at the ballot box. You are correct though, that WASPs controlled the country to a large degree.

    This from 1921:

    From The Family Herald, London, 1921

    By a series of elaborate calculations Mr. Rossiter arrives at the conclusion that there are “nearly fifty-five million of men, women and children of British ancestry, welded into one vast and surprisingly homogeneous element.”
    “This element,” he says “is the pillar which supports the Republic. It is the element which manages and controls the United States.

    This from 1964:

    At a discouraging point in the 1964 primary campaign against Barry Goldwater in California, political operative Stuart Spencer called on Rockefeller to “summon that fabled nexus of money, influence, and condescension known as the Eastern Establishment. ‘You are looking at it, buddy,’ Rockefeller told Spencer. ‘I am all that is left.’”[1]

    This from 2008:

    Ironically, it seems the distinctions Wasps systematically used to raise their status and maintain a stranglehold on power have ultimately come back around to limit and weaken them. “Yes, changes were made out of necessity,” a distinguished old-guard Wasp told me. “The people controlling the clubs were not the people controlling the world anymore.”

    This from 2014:

    For further information and study on this topic, I recommend the WASP Question by Andrew Fraser:

    Tom Sunic interviews Andrew Fraser

    Published on Aug 13, 2014
    An interesting interview with Professor Andrew W. Fraser about his book “The WASP Question”.

    This is from 2017:

    In a way 2016 was a repeat of the 1964 Republican primary, in my opinion, though with a different outcome: the Rockefeller Republican (Donald Trump) defeated the Goldwater Republican (Ted Cruz).
    Was Ted Cruz supposed to play the same role in 2016 as Barry Goldwater did in 1964, so Hillary could be elected to pass Amnesty and open America’s borders even further to immigration from the rest of the (Catholic) World and to start and continue new and old wars?

    The nominee is an Episcopalian, and would be the court’s only Protestant. There are five Catholic and three Jewish members […]
    In my opinion, Donald Trump is a WASP agent/advocate as well, and that is why I support him

    The official state motto of Rhode Island is simply “Hope.” The state motto appears on the great seal and flag of Rhode Island.

    The use of the word “Hope” was probably inspired by the biblical phrase “hope we have as an anchor of the soul.”

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    , @Hibernian
  104. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    There were more than enough intelligent, wealthy and powerful WASPs to fend off the Jews and Catholics, but they didn’t, and that is the issue to me.

    If you really want a hostile viewpoint, think of it as payback for Maryland. But nobody actually thinks that way.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  105. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Most of the top Jewish American organizations such as ADL and AJC have traditionally vociferously denied the factuality of the genocide committed by Turkey against Christian Armenians and done everything they can along with Israel, to stop the US Congress from recognizing that genocide.

    This is an interesting example of anti-Christian Jewish behavior that has been explored but not enough.

    Some of these Jewish groups have relented a bit but still the hypocrisy of some Jews who are anti-Christian in this sense while pushing the Holocaust is striking. Not sure if most people have thought about this aspect of American Jewry. I am not including all Jews but just the most powerful Jewish groups, including AIPAC.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  106. @iffen

    Whew, goo luck I don’t have an allergy for straw. I mean, this strawman here is yuuuuuge!

  107. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Aww, you’re so sweet. Does longing for the Red days of yore always produce such fine temperament?

    Mine temperament is not fine, by no means, no. But I’m more interested in what produces such lame trolls like you? I mean – there must be some standards for the top-class trolling to be observed, while you appear to be just a super-dense pindos!

  108. @Anon

    Payback for Maryland? Payback for the colony? In what way? I never viewed the old English Catholics as hostile like many Irish, Italian, Latino and other Catholics.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  109. @FKA Max

    I think you might be overestimating the power of the WASP elite, and underestimating the influence and manpower of the Vatican at the ballot box. You are correct though, that WASPs controlled the country to a large degree.

    I wouldn’t think there is much of a WASP elite left, because the WASPs who once controlled the nation largely gave up control, and without a fight.

    I just find it odd that the WASP’s successors (who didn’t really conquer them) find it necessary to destroy the demographics and culture of the U.S., when most Americans wouldn’t care one bit that they are in power, if they just left the nation alone and did a good job. How many Americans really care if their rulers are well off and socially isolated, as long as they get their small slice of the pie, and are left alone to carry on as Americans? Those are all expectations of Americans, which our current foreign and hostile elites, and their uninvited immigrant guests, either don’recognize, or choose to trample upon.

    I think it says something that white Americans are as materially comfortable as any of their ancestors, but were still willing to vote for Trump. Take away the votes of the post 1965 immigrants and their families, and there would be little talk of a “stolen election.”

  110. anarchyst says:

    It is the misplaced concept of externalized altruism that will doom whites to a substandard existence, as whites are the only race that has this externalized altruism trait and has given others an (unfair) advantage to the detriment of our own kind. Look at the “civil-rights” system that has marginalized us whites. According to the civil-rights crowd, only whites can be “racist”. Christianity plays a part in this misguided concept of “helping the downtrodden”. Now that the “downtrodden” have been lifted up, they are now exercising their internalized altruism to make sure that they get what they feel is “owed” to them. Us whites are now becoming the “downtrodden” without any recourse. You see, all of these other races and cultures, beginning with the jews and ashkenazics, followed by the blacks, and arabs are now blaming “whitey” for all of their ills, and demanding “justice”.
    It is long overdue for us whites to internalize our altruism, and do what is best for our race, without consideration for the way it affects other races and cultures.
    It is time to take back what is rightfully ours, starting with “freedom of association” which has been long denied to us, and us alone. Every race and culture is free to exclude others, all except whites.
    So-called “civil-rights (for some)” laws and statutes will have to be “rolled back”, along with the abolition of the flawed court-generated doctrine of “disparate impact”. If they cannot be “rolled back” officially, we can informally refuse to abide by them.
    We can start now, by forming associations, carefully crafted to keep out undesirable SJWs and government infiltrators.
    When I am called “racist” (which I wear as a badge of honor), I thank my accuser(s) profusely while shaking their hand(s). The bewildered, confused looks on their faces is priceless.

  111. Japanese and Jews in American might have been social justice warriors but never blamed whites for THEIR problems in particular.

    They don’t have to, their IQ is probably a few points higher than the average East Coast Irish-Catholic or Blue-Blood and an entire substratum above an Anglo-Celtic from old Colonial Stock in Southern Indiana or Kansas.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    , @Hibernian
  112. @Norman Bates

    “Japanese and Jews in American might have been social justice warriors but never blamed whites for THEIR problems in particular.

    They don’t have to, their IQ is probably a few points higher than the average East Coast Irish-Catholic or Blue-Blood and an entire substratum above an Anglo-Celtic from old Colonial Stock in Southern Indiana or Kansas.”

    None of that is actually true Norman. Maybe Japanese don’t harbor resentments, but I wouldn’t know since they rarely speak up. Jews, on the other hand, never quit complaining, attacking and blaming whites for anything and everything, whether it happened, or not. To hear the average American Jew, they experienced the Holocaust in Europe, and American whites are to blame! How crazy is that? When they aren’t complaining about the holocaust or pogroms and blaming American whites, they bitch about some imaginary country clubs that most whites wouldn’t have been allowed to join, had they even existed.

    As far as intelligence goes, whites in all parts of the nation produced enough intelligent people negate Jews. In case you don’t know, old stock Southerners played a huge role in the founding and running of the nation, and have contributed far more than Jews ever have.

  113. @SolontoCroesus

    I’ve read the engrossing six (it’s 6 not 7) volumes by the venerable professor; his opposition to the Zohar is very clear in it…

  114. @iffen

    What you gonna do once you get there?

  115. Hibernian says:
    @Norman Bates

    Check out Commodore John Barry and also the Silver Kings: Fair, Mc Kay, O’ Brien, and Flood.

  116. Hibernian says:

    Most of the “old English Catholics” of Maryland were Irish Catholics. That doesn’t mean they were just like Teddy Kennedy or Richie Daley.

  117. Hibernian says:
    @FKA Max

    “the influence and manpower of the Vatican at the ballot box. ”

    Yea, because wardheelers take their orders directly from the Pope. You’re living in the past, haven’t you noticed the strident pro-choice advocacy of Ferraro, Pelosi, etc.?

  118. Hibernian says:
    @FKA Max

    “a riot erupted between supporters of Benito Mussolini’s Italian Fascism and the Ku Klux Klan;”

    The best result in a situation like that is for both sides to lose.

  119. Hibernian says:
    @FKA Max

    “As a consequence, Boston stagnated, but Curley kept winning elections.”

    Let’s blame Irish-American Roman Catholics for the fact that Route 128 is not as illustrious as Silicon Valley. Of course California has suffered Brown pere and Brown fils, and they were among our boys too.

  120. Anonymous [AKA "RHM1860"] says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Have you looked at the ADL site recently? They promote every LGBTQ cause under the sun including using the right pronouns. Apparently, they needed to look for new sources of hate since the number of Holocaust incidents in America has been so low, some Far Right Wingers would even go so far as to suggest that there have been none. Is that Holocaust Denial if I say there was never a Holocaust in America? What does the ADL say? And for the FDR and radicalization synonymy, Gottfried suggests that the heavy Jewish vote for Wallace in 1948 and his Progressive Party considering that the Progressive Party was a Communist Front tells us more about Jewish Leftist leanings than a vote for FDR and his socialist program that kept the United States mired in a depression longer than would have been necessary if FDR had not pursued an economic plan that was admired by both Hitler and Mussolini. You don’t know anything and need to stop embarrassing yourself among the grownups. Children should be seen and not heard from.

Current Commenter

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

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS