The Eye Opener

Jewish Character Traits in Israel

JTR

Like any nation, the modern state of Israel has a discernible collective psychological attitude: a communal "personality." It is formed at its core by the conviction that Israel is a Jewish island, a people under constant siege by hostile goyim. A key ingredient of the Israeli public persona, much championed, is that Jews are tough, emotionally hardened, and ruthless, a self-image epitomized in the "sabra" (literally meaning a cactus fruit, but colloquially meaning a Jew born in Israel). In popular Israeli folklore, the Jews of Israel are "thorny and tough on the outside, but soft inside."

The sabra image also has deep psychological sources in the nationalist "lessons" learned from the Holocaust, a situation where a perceived lack of Jewish physical force and power in the diaspora (galut) throughout the world inevitably must -- sooner or later -- lead to disaster at the hands of Gentiles.

Zionism, in whatever form, has invariably dovetailed with some of the central tenets of classical religious Judaism, including the old "people apart" syndrome: Jewish alienation from all other peoples. "The civil religion [of Israel]," notes Charles Liebman and Eliezer Dov-Yehiya, "has been most forceful in asserting that Israel is an isolated nation confronting a hostile world ... The growing importance of traditional Judaism and Jewishness is associated with the centrality of the Holocaust as the primary political myth of Israeli society, the symbol of Israel's present condition and the one which provides Israel with legitimacy ... The Holocaust to a great extent fashions 'our national consciousness' and the memory is omnipresent in Israeli society."

"Israeli political culture," says Israeli professor Myron Aronoff, "reflects not only the general theme of the few against the many, but a growing emphasis of 'them against us' ... The traditional concept of Esau hates Jacob [Gentiles hate Jews] and a nation that dwells alone became explanations of reality and legitimization of Israeli policy." As former lobbyist for Israel Doug Bloomfield once noted, some Israelis tend to have a "You owe us" and "Screw the world" attitudes. Zev Chafets remembers an Israeli concert he attended in 1969, two years after he moved to Israel from America: "As the show drew to a close, the group swung into an up-temp number. 'Ha'olam Ku'lo heg'denu,' they sang. 'The whole world is against us.' The audience knew the song and joined in on the chorus ... [:] 'The whole world is against us; never mind, we'll get by; we don't give a damn about them anyway.'"

Jewish scholar Daniel Niewyk describes the racist dimension of this Zionist ideology of alienation from others, especially as it developed in Germany:

At the heart of the Zionist critique of liberal assimilation lay the conviction that Jews constitute a unique race. It was the belief in insurmountable racial differences that made the inevitability of anti-Semitism credible, just as it rationalizes the view that every effort to assimilate must go aground on the barrier reef of biological determinism ... The maintenance of that [racial] purity was essential to German Zionism, for it acknowledged the essential prerequisite for nationhood to be [in the 1922 words of Zionist Fritz Kahn] "consanguinity of the flesh and solidarity of the soul" together with the "will to establish a closer [Jewish] brotherhood over [and] against all other communities on earth."

Amnon Rubenstein notes the disturbing irony expressed in this world view of the Israeli people: "The establishment of Israel was an attempt to make Jews like everybody else. They would now have a state. It has not worked out that way. Israel has made Jews more, not less, exceptional. The pariah people, it seems, have simply succeeded in creating a pariah state." Perhaps, however, this situation is inevitable. Unmentioned by Rubenstein is the religiously-based "nation apart" self-concept always so deeply embedded in Jewish mass psychology, a self-understanding and communal choice that apparently cannot be shaken, even in a secular nation-state context.

Jewish Stranger Anxiety I give many examples of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in my trilogy [on Judaism] and have suggested in several places that Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism is biologically based. It was noted above that individualist European cultures tend to be more open to strangers than collectivist cultures such as Judaism. In this regard, it is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite pattern is found for infants from North Germany. The Israeli infants were much more likely to become "inconsolably upset" in reaction to strangers, whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the North German babies were the opposite -- findings that fit with the hypothesis that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and ethnocentrism. From Prof. Kevin MacDonald's Preface to the paperback edition of his Culture of Critique, online at his website.

Non-Jewish scholar Virginia Dominguez, who spent long periods of time in Israel in later years doing research, noted the traditional Jewish narcissism and interest in pedigrees of identity expressed by the Israelis she met:

"What do you mean you say you are not Jewish?" I was asked on several occasions. "That you're not religious? That your mother wasn't Jewish? That 'we the Jews' wouldn't count you as a Jew because you had some Jewish ancestry but not the right ones, according to Halacha?" I was incredulous at first. I had no way then to anticipate this reaction. Everything else seemed to point to the importance of Jewishness, and to controlling both the content and limits of Jewishness.

The omnipresent stresses of a predominantly military state, the emphatic "we versus them" paradigm of traditional Jewish identity, the glorification of power and aggression, millennia-old disdain for non-Jews, and the emotional powder keg of Holocaust death camps as a motivational tool have invariably led to the noxious Israeli collective persona that is so much remarked upon by non-Israelis (often even Israelis themselves) who spend much time in Israel. Common traits of this "national character" are arrogance, insolence (chutzpah), coldness, roughness, and rudeness, to begin a long list of unpleasant "uncivil" attributes.

Many Diaspora Jews, in describing this Israeli character, tend to romanticize it. "There is a coldness," notes Jewish scholar Norman Cantor, "a mystery, a distance from humanity about [Israelis] that anyone from another country who lives and works in Israel for a half a year will be impressed by." "Israelis have a reputation for bad manners," notes Jewish American immigrant to Israel Charles Liebman, "to the extent this reputation is deserved it stems from the sense of familiarity that Israelis feel towards one another." Adam Garfinkle adds that "Israelis are sometimes rude to an extent that it even bothers other Israelis." "The behavior of young Israelis," Israeli Jay Gonen writes, "... is characterized by a high degree of chutzpah or gall; it is direct, blatant, unruly, clever, humorous, and indicates a certain lack of sensitivity to social requirements ... [It has a] disregard for rules, regulations, social norms, and good manners." Melford Spiro, in his study of the kibbutzim, discusses "insolence" as an "outstanding characteristic of the sabras" (native-born Israelis).

Herbert Russcol -- a Jewish American emigrant to Israel -- and his sabra wife Margarit Banai described the Israeli national character this way:

"Horror stories" about the chutzpah -- of the sabra-men, women, and children alike -- are notorious. What appears to be (and often is) their cheek, their insolence, has shocked and enraged everyone who has met them. Sabras freely admit their chutzpah as a people, but are rarely aware of being chutzpadik themselves. They will tell you, "Oh, we're terrible. It's a national vice. I am not so bad, but I have some very rude friends" ... Chutzpah is alarmingly close to chauvinism, and it must be admitted that the sabra is usually passionately chaunvinistic in an era when no gospel has been more discredited in the West than blind, excessive patriotism.

"The deliberate and unadorned frankness [of Israelis]," notes Zionist historian Melvin Urofsky, "so highly prized by Israelis, scornful of Westernized and 'assimilated' manners, struck [Jewish] Americans [who sought to live in Israel], accustomed to some courtesies in life, as downright rude. (As late as 1965, a study of bureaucratic behavior in one large Israeli enterprise disclosed that 60 per cent of officials in contact with the public did not believe in greeting a visitor, nor would they reply to his greeting; an even higher percentage would not offer him a chair, simply letting him stand during the interview.)

Such attributes, it may be recalled, are among those that Jews have been noted for across the centuries. Leon Poliakov rhetorically remarks on the inevitable echo here in the European Jewish past: "Are the Jews congenitally unsociable and rude, or are they this way as a result of having been segregated in ghettos? Such was the form of the question in which arguments raged [among non-Jewish intellectuals] in the 18th century on the eve of Emancipation."

As Joyce Starr notes: "Among Americans who have had extensive dealings with Israelis, whether in government, business, or Jewish circles, the first adjectives that comes to their lips are arrogant, willful, and sometimes infuriating." Ms. Starr, who is also Jewish, notes the interchange she had with a man called J.R., "a high-ranking Israeli intelligence officer":

"Most Americans I interviewed in the government sphere -- the State Department, Defense Department -- use certain words when they describe Israelis."

"Arrogant," J. R. replied.

"Yes, arrogant is a word that comes up frequently."

"By the way, I think it's true. It applies to most Israelis. American fairness and Israeli fairness are different."

"What is Israeli fairness?"

"Israeli fairness is 'You give me 75 percent and leave 25 percent.'"

"Do they know they do it?"

"Most of them do not. I think most of them believe that by some divine decree, they deserve to get everything."

"What is divine decree?"

"It comes from God." He saw me laughing. "It"s not funny, Joyce."

"To the brief tourist," wrote Leonard Wolf, a Jewish resident of Israel in 1970, "[Israelis] are a rude, unsympathetic people, intent on themselves, irresponsive to nuances of feeling. Americans, who are instantly, if not profoundly, genial, are apt to find the slow pace of Israeli friendliness cold, comparing the Jewish hotelkeepers and tourist guides they meet unfavorably with the extraordinarily warm Arabs."

In 2001, a Jewish ethnic newspaper, the Forward, noted that the national Israeli propensity to be cheats and hustlers (always evasive of the law) probably had roots in Jewish history in other lands:

[There is] universal awareness that something is definitely rotten in the state of Israel. This is, after all, a country in which bending the rules is said to be a national pasttime, cutting corners a way of life and cheating the authorities the proof of merit ... Sticklers for the law are ridiculed and abused, where anyone who works by the book is branded a sap, a "freier," the worst insult in modern Israeli lexicon ... Many people believe Israeli laxity, which borders on anarchy, is a national personality trait that cannot be eradicated by laws alone. Some trace the trait all the way back to the historical Jewish Diaspora, where Jews often found solace in bending the rules imposed by the often anti-Semitic authorities.

In 1986, B. Z. Sobel, an Israeli sociologist at the University of Haifa, discussed his research into reasons why so many Israelis emigrate from Israel to other lands. Among the motivations for leaving, he noted that "there is indeed an edginess [in Israeli society]; tempers flare, and verbal violence is rampant ... A large proportion of those [Israelis] interviewed for my study ... have been abroad [overseas] or were born or raised abroad, and in almost all cases reference is made to the fact that 'people are nice in chutz la'aretz.' Strangers wish you a good day as they make change or pass you in the street, whereas at home [Israel] you can consider yourself fortunate to receive minimally civil treatment."

"Americans are much more polite, I would say," remarked Israeli journalist Ze'ev Schiff, "while we are rude and have no patience ... You can see it when some of us are waiting in a queue in a bank or waiting for a bus ... This is the way we deal with each other, with the Egyptians, the Europeans, whoever." As Joyce Starr adds: "The tension [in Israel] spills out in sudden eruptions of rudeness. You can be standing in line in a gas station, and suddenly there will be an outbreak of shouts and terrible cursing for no apparent reason except that people explode in Israel."

Moshe Shokeid notes the comments of an Israeli identified as "Eli," and his perceptions of the Israelis he met in New York City: "When I looked at the crowd, I subconsciously saw myself in the mirror. When you see other Israelis screaming in Hebrew, you realize that you possibly look the same. Unfortunately, I rediscovered the ugly Israeli."

In the 1980s, Virginia Dominguez, a Cuban American sociologist, fluent in Hebrew and a Fulbright scholar in Israel, worried that obnoxious Israeli behavior and Jewish self-obsession threatened to push her into the camp of the anti-Semites:

Has my obsessive, long-term encounter with Israeli society over the past six years turned me into the anti-Semite I never was? I find myself sharply intolerant of the noisy, brash behavior of most Israeli children. I coin terms of description that are even explicitly judgmental. I get exasperated with the perennial references in the [Hebrew] media to the Jewishness of well-known public figures abroad.

Wendy Orange, a Jewish American, a new immigrant to Israel, noted with irritation the commentary of a group of Christian visitors she overheard in Jerusalem restaurant:

I overheard one Ghanaian woman say, "Just ghastly, these people!" She's talking to a pregnant Irish woman, who responded wholeheartedly: "I never imagined they'd be so crude ... so rude." The Ghanaian, tall and dignified, her hair wrapped high in a colorful African sash, became more emphatic: "No manners ... They drive like madmen." She paused. "They are far more barbarian than I was warned. And I was warned, my dear, many times."

In 2001, Great Britain's online Telegraph newspaper noted

Israelis -- who take pride in being blunt and outspoken -- are to teach children good manners in an attempt to cut the nation's tendency towards violence. From the next school year, 12-year-olds will be taught how to behave politely, which knife and fork to use at table, and how to resolve arguments without shouting or coming to blows. Ronit Tirosh, director-general of the Education Ministry said: "We are a brutal and impatient society, and the delicacy learned through these lessons may reduce our society's violent tendencies." Israelis are proud not to say thank you and relish the informality of life ... Israeli life is a bruising contest of one-upmanship. The deepest fear is to be thought a "sucker" who obeys the rules. Brusqueness has been cultivated by native-born Israelis as a reaction against the manners of Europe's Diaspora Jews, who were seen as cringing and subservient ... Educationalists have become worried about the level of playground violence.

Traditional Jewish chutzpah is of course an integral part of the Israeli identity. "To a large degree," says Israeli professor Jay Gonen, "... Herzl's impact [on Jewish nationalism] was due to a quality of chutzpah, or unmitigated gall, which became an integral part of Zionism and was subsequently elevated almost to an art form by native-born Israelis, or sabras." An example of how far this chutzpah can go was evidenced in an incident during the Palestinian uprising -- known as the Intifada -- that began in 1987 against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Of the hundreds of Palestinians shot and killed or wounded by Israeli troops in the Intifada's first year, one young Arab teenager, Nasir Hawwash, was shot in the head and lay in a hospital, irrecoverably brain dead. One day Nasir's brother received a telephone call from a Jewish Israeli citizen, an emissary for the family of a fellow middle-aged Israeli in the hospital with a serious heart condition. The stranger on the phone asked that the Hawwash family donate Nasir's heart to save the Jewish man in the hospital who needed it.

"Nasir's older brother," notes Glenn Frankel, "was appalled that an Israeli would ask such a thing. She told him, 'This is how we'll make peace between Arabs and Jews.' He was not buying it. 'How can you make peace when you shoot someone and then you take the heart to give life to another Israeli?' he told her."

As the story for the heart request made the Israeli news, one Palestinian "radical" noted that "If we give the Israelis this heart, soon they'll be shooting us for our organs."

The Arab boy's father was eventually offered "more money than [his] family would have seen in a lifetime" for his son's heart, but he told the Israeli pleaders no. "What did they want from me?" he asked. "This was my son. They took him away, then they wanted his body. This I could not give."

---

The preceding text is excerpted from When Victims Rule, online at Jewish Tribal Review. The title is editorial; JTR's in-text citations have been removed. I have added the excerpt from Kevin MacDonald.

Gibson, Jesus, and the Jews

Irmin

Gibson Capitulates Mel Gibson is passionately angry at critics of his upcoming film about the death of Jesus Christ. In remarks quoted in the New Yorker magazine, he denied "The Passion" is anti-Semitic and accused some of those leading the chorus against the film of being "anti-Christian." Gibson said he personally has been the target of "vehement anti-Christian sentiment." [...] As proof of his desire to avoid confrontation, Gibson cited his decision to cut a scene in which Caiaphas says "his blood be on us and on our children" soon after Pontius Pilate washes his hands of the captive Christ. "I wanted it in," he said. "My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me." WorldNetDaily, September 9, 2003

The WorldNetDaily story excerpted above is entitled "A passionate Mel Gibson strikes back against critics," but it actually details Gibson's reluctant capitulation to Jewish power. The script of The Passion, his upcoming film about Christ's Crucifixion, was initially intended to be a scrupulously faithful adaptation of the gospels; it has now been revised in an attempt to silence vociferous Jewish objections. Gibson is, as his brother suspected, "wimping out," putting his fear of Jewish anger above his professed religious beliefs.

The scene that Gibson cut itself represented a concession to Jewish sensitivities. According to the New Testament, "his blood be upon us and upon our children" was shouted by a Jewish mob ("the whole people" in the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation), not simply by Caiaphas, a high priest in the Jerusalem Temple (Matthew 27.25; cf. 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16). That major concession -- removing the verse from a Jewish mob and assigning it to a single Jewish priest -- was nevertheless unacceptable to organized Jewry, so Gibson has now excised the entire scene, fearing Jewish retaliation. "Fear of the Jews" (ton phobon tôn Ioudaiôn) is, incidentally, a New Testament phrase (e.g. John 7.13).

Conservative Christians believe that all sacred scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3.16). The operative theological term is theopneustos in the Greek New Testament, divinitus inspirata in the Latin Vulgate, the preferred translation for traditionalist Catholics like Gibson. Sacred scripture is of divine origin, a longstanding Christian belief that was proclaimed as irrevocable dogma at the Council of Trent, the Church council that forms the basis for Gibson's brand of Catholicism.

In simpler terms, the events reported in the New Testament are present in the text because God wants them to be there. Not all details pertaining to Christ's Crucifixion are recorded in the various New Testament accounts, but those that were recorded express almighty God's intentions. They are historical facts that God wants mankind to know, which is why he inspired the four evangelists to write them down. If God were the director of Gibson's film, "his blood be upon us and upon our children" would appear in the script, just as it appears in the New Testament.

The orchestrated Jewish campaign against The Passion left Gibson with a choice between placating Jews and accurately dramatizing what he regards as the inspired Word of God, and he chose the former. To his credit, he stood up to Jewish pressure longer than most Christians would have, but the final result is the same as if he had capitulated on the first day. Jewish organizations have successfully asserted their right to oversee Christian depictions of the central event of the Christian religion. No film of Christ's death can be shown in American theaters without a Jewish imprimatur. The New Testament is anti-Semitic hate-speech.

For those of us who are not Christians, Gibson's capitulation confirms our suspicion of modern Christianity's weakness, despite its numerical strength in the United States. It would be impossible to envisage the fathers of the Catholic Church or the heroes of the Protestant Reformation acknowledging, as Gibson has, the right of anti-Christian Jews to act as censors of Christian sacred scripture. If you believe, as Gibson does, that the Christian God inspired the New Testament, you shouldn't listen to the exegetical opinions of Abraham Foxman, who (after all) doesn't believe in the Christian God and doesn't accept his New Testament. Pious Jews believe, on the contrary, that Jesus suffers five deaths a day in Hell, one in boiling excrement.

We should also note an historical irony. Jews oppose any faithful dramatization of the Christian account of Christ's death because it would suggest Jewish responsibility for deicide. As the ADL's Foxman complained, "the [unrevised] film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus." Yet on this subject the Christian New Testament and the Jewish Talmud are in complete agreement, a fact which the Jewish organizations attacking Gibson would never freely admit:

According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

The more popular accounts -- which were nevertheless taken quite seriously -- such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name "Jesus" was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition still persists.

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London: Pluto Press, 1994), 97-98.

In other words, a faithful Talmudic version of Christ's Crucifixion would not, on the contentious issue of Jewish responsibility, be any different from the film that Mel Gibson planned to make, before "fear of the Jews" convinced him to revise God's inspired script.

---

For anyone willing to wade through the Jewish Talmud, Carol Valentine has assembled a professional presentation of the text, along with commentary, at her come-and-hear website.

How It Fits Together

Dr. William Pierce

We've talked about many subjects on these American Dissident Voices programs, but one theme which has appeared in nearly every program has been the role of the Jews, either in our history or in our lives today. To a certain extent that's been unavoidable, because of the influence they have over current events through their control of the mass media and because of their historical role in communism. But it's more than that. [Image: William Pierce.]

What I've said, in one way or another on several programs, is that the Jewish role in our lives goes far beyond the fact that their control of the news and entertainment media gives them a big influence on popular culture and on the political process. Today I want to talk again about this Jewish role. I want to try to give you an overview of it first. There are about 14 million Jews in the world today, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Yearbook for 1997. Nearly half of those -- about six million -- are now in North America, where they make up just over two per cent of the population but wield far more influence than any other group.

The world's 14 million Jews think and act like one big family -- even though, like most families, they do a lot of arguing and squabbling among themselves. They go to different synagogues -- Orthodox and Conservative and Reform -- or to no synagogue at all. There are atheist Jews, and there are Jews who have converted to Christianity. There are capitalist Jews and communist Jews, homosexual Jews and heterosexual Jews. There are rich Jews and middle-class Jews and even a few poor Jews, but despite this apparent diversity they do a better job of cooperating with each other and looking out for their common interests than any other ethnic group in the world.

Why is this? Why are Jews more racially conscious than anyone else? Why are they so much more ready to collaborate with each other than members of other groups? Part of the reason is in their religion. It is an ethnocentric religion, a racist religion. Whereas Christianity and Islam, for example, are universalist religions, religions for anyone who chooses to believe in them, Judaism is not. Judaism is a religion only for the Chosen People, only for the circumcised sons of Abraham. Jews are defined in terms of their bloodline, not in terms of their faith, which is why non-religious Jews like Freud or Trotsky or even Marx, the father of atheistic communism, are considered just as much Jews as the most pious synagogue-goer, with sidelocks and yarmulke. The non-religious Jews don't believe the hocus-pocus in their Torah, or Old Testament, but they nevertheless are steeped in the folklore and traditions of Judaism. They are as familiar as their religious cousins are with the claims that Jews are a Chosen People, destined to own all of the world's wealth and be waited on hand and foot by non-Jews. And they are familiar with the tales of persecution, from the time of the pharaohs until the time of Hitler: with the tradition of being universally hated by all the other peoples of the world -- which is why they believe they are justified in avenging themselves on non-Jews whenever they have the opportunity.

I'll not spend any time quoting Bible verses to you today, but if you doubt what I've just told you about the religious basis for Jewish ethnocentrism, just read the Old Testament: especially the five books of Moses and the book of Isaiah. Study them carefully. Even the bowdlerized King James translation is pretty clear. If you really want to rub your nose in this subject, do some browsing in the Talmud -- or for a solid scientific treatment, read the books recently written by a real expert on the subject, California State University psychology professor Dr. Kevin MacDonald. All three of his books are available from National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this program. Those books are subtitled "Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism," and "An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements." Pretty heavy reading, but very convincing, very thorough.

This tendency of the Jews to stick together, always to favor their fellow Jews over non-Jews, and to work for the interests of their tribe instead of just for their individual interests is a fact: a very enviable fact. It is the primary reason for their extraordinary level of wealth and power through the ages.

You know, there are clubby little groups of White men who cooperate with each other to advance their interests. But those interests are personal and individual, not racial or even tribal. And virtually all of the really influential groups of this sort -- the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, or groups of very rich and powerful men, corporate bosses or bankers, are in fact heavily larded with Jews. They're not racial groups at all, even if they don't have any Blacks or Chinamen in them. They're simply special-interest groups, whereas the 14 million Jews of the world form a huge, self-conscious racial-interest group. They really are unique in this regard.

I wish that our people had the same degree of racial consciousness the Jews do. The Jews understand the power of togetherness. Most of our people don't. And this is largely the reason why we're in the mess we're in today. I'll come back to this point in a few minutes.

The second thing for us to understand about the Jews is their very unusual mode of existence, living nearly everywhere as a small minority among other peoples. If one looks at their history in the Biblical period, they were at most times a people on the move, living as strangers and aliens among other peoples, getting kicked out of one place after another, always on terms of enmity with the Gentile host population. Only for a little over 400 years, from approximately the time of King David until the Babylonian conquest, did they really have a national existence in the ordinary sense of the word, with geographical borders.

When the Babylonians dispersed the Jews throughout the Middle Eastern and the Mediterranean world in the middle of the sixth century BC, the Jews adapted amazingly well to being a minority everywhere and a majority nowhere. Five hundred years later, in the first century BC, the Greek writer Strabo commented: "The Jews have penetrated every country, so that it is difficult to find any place in the world where their tribe has not entered and become dominant." Note those words: "There is no place where they have not become dominant." The great geographer and historian Strabo was not the only scholar of the ancient world to make that observation about the Jews. The Jews became dominant by accumulating a substantial portion of the wealth of every country that they infiltrated. And they accumulated their wealth by collaborating with each other and preying on the host population. Their collaboration was based on their racial consciousness, on their conviction that they were a distinct and unique people, superior to the people among whom they lived and deserving of whatever they could take away from their hosts. The Jews in Rome did not think of themselves as Romans who happened to believe in Judaism, but as Jews who happened to live in Rome. And the same for every other country where they lived.

With the sort of attitude and behavior the Jews had they were bound to be hated by everyone -- and they reciprocated. The Jews regarded the hatred they had for their hosts as justified, just as they considered deceiving and exploiting their hosts to be justified; but their hosts' hatred of the Jews they regarded as "bigotry" and "persecution." Their history is a chronicle of one "persecution" after another, right down to modern times. During the Middle Ages they were kicked en masse out of every country in Europe, repeatedly. They pretend today that this supposed "persecution" was the result of religious bigotry on the part of their hosts, but in fact it was simply self-defense on the part of their hosts, the same sort of reaction to their presence that the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans and everyone else in pre-Christian times had had. And it was this barrier of hatred between the Jews and the rest of the world which made it possible for them to maintain their identity and their sense of racial self-consciousness. If you want to study some of these details of Jewish history for yourself, there are many good books available. One I have read and found valuable is A History of the Jews by Abram Sachar. Sachar was the president of Brandeis University, and of course, he looks at history very subjectively and from a very Jewish point of view. But his history is revealing, and you can find it in most large libraries.

Now, this peculiar mode of existence of the Jews I have described changed to a certain extent shortly after the Second World War, with the theft of Palestine and the establishment of the new state of Israel on Palestinian territory. Today one-third of the world's Jews live in Israel, but this is only made possible because the other two-thirds are continuing their existence as parasitic minorities among Gentile hosts. Without a constant supply of money extorted from Germany, the United States, and other countries, Israel could not continue to exist. Israel would have gone under half-a-dozen times in its warfare with its neighbors during the past 50 years if the United States had not provided massive military and diplomatic support. If all of the Jews in America and Europe sold their television networks and newspapers and film studios and moved to Israel, that flow of blood from their hosts would be cut off, and Israel soon would cease to exist.

The third thing we must understand about the Jews is the way in which they maintain their status as the dominant minority among us today. In Strabo's day it was through their accumulated wealth. They were able to buy influence and special privileges for themselves. It remained that way pretty much for the next 1900 years. Throughout the Middle Ages they made themselves useful as sources of money to kings and popes and emperors. They would suck the wealth from the host population, and then give or lend some of it to the rulers in return for being allowed to keep their privileges. Although they usually were tolerated for their usefulness by the rulers, they were hated intensely by the general population. The Jews bought the tolerance of the rulers, but of course, they couldn't afford to buy the tolerance of the people.

And so until quite recently the Jews maintained a separate existence among the host population, often living in ghettos, not mixing socially with their hosts, generally not engaging in the same occupations, and regarded with disdain if not revulsion by everyone. The great advantage for our people of this mode of existence was that the damage done by the Jews was mostly economic, although they also caused political mischief when it suited their needs. But they had almost no cultural influence on our people. They didn't write books or plays, they didn't paint or compose music, they didn't clog up our universities, they didn't run for public office, and of course, they didn't have television studios or newspapers or advertising agencies. And so to a large extent they lived their lives, and we lived ours.

That began changing drastically approximately 200 years ago, with the advent of the mass media and mass democracy, and the change accelerated greatly during this century. Jews understood immediately the potential that newspapers and other media gave them for extending their influence from the rulers to the whole population, and democracy made this extension of their influence relevant; democracy provided the tool for transforming influence into power. I've described on other programs the way in which the Jews acquired control of our mass media and, through the media, control of the political process, and I won't repeat that story today. There's an up-to-date summary of Jewish media control in the National Vanguard Books catalog, which is available from the sponsor of this program.

But I do want to emphasize this very important point: the way in which the Jews maintain their position as the dominant minority in our society has changed. It used to be moneylending and bribes, and the pressure was exerted only at the top, on the political leaders of our society; today it's control of the mass media of news and entertainment, and the pressure is exerted at every level of society. Some people still talk darkly about international Jewish bankers -- and of course, there are such animals today, just as there also are international bankers who are not Jews -- but the control of the media is the key to Jewish power today, not control of banking. The most important Jews today no longer are the Rothschilds and Warburgs and Hambros and Sassoons, but instead are the Eisners and Levins and Newhouses and Redstones and Bronfmans and Sulzbergers: the Jewish media bosses.

So now let's look at the details of the Jewish application of influence through media control. Most people have a very limited range of real life experiences. Television and films and glossy magazine advertisements provide an enormous expansion of experience for the average person, by substituting artificial experiences for real experiences. On the television screen viewers experience artificial social relationships, artificial romances, artificial conflicts, artificial life. In advertisements they are given artificial ideals of beauty and fashion, artificial life-styles to which they can aspire. And in their newspapers and newsmagazines they are given a carefully filtered, a carefully slanted, view of what is happening in the world.

And unfortunately most people do not have sufficient powers of discrimination to distinguish the artificial world of the media from the real world of everyday experience. The two worlds merge in their minds, and they can't tell them apart. What people see on the television screen is not just entertainment; it is a collection of artificial experiences which merges with their collection of real experiences and gives them a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions. Cleverly designed advertisements don't just show potential customers what is available and give them the information they need to choose what they want; clever advertising actually creates new wants, new desires, that didn't exist before. The advertisements manipulate people's desires and motivations. In a similar way television entertainment manipulates viewers psychologically. It changes their values and attitudes. It strongly affects the way they see things -- including political issues and political candidates.

Well, I hardly have to tell you that the modern mass media give enormous power, unprecedented power, to whoever controls them -- especially in a democracy. And really, no knowledgeable person who is honest will dispute my conclusion here. There are many people, who are not knowledgeable, who believe that they can watch television without being affected by it, who believe that they make up their minds independently without relying on the artificial reality supplied by television, but most of these people are mistaken, and the experts will agree with me on this. The mass media do shape public opinion, and in a democracy they do control the political process.

So now the only question which remains is this: To what end do the Jews who control the media use their control? What is their aim? What do they want? Now, the Politically Correct answer is that all the Jewish media bosses want is what any other businessman wants. The media bosses are simply businessmen, and their aim is simply to run their businesses at a profit.

Well, I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. It simply is not a coincidence that everywhere you look in the mass media you see Jews in control. It's not a coincidence that a group making up only a little over two per cent of the population has virtually complete control over the mass media. The unanimity of the mass media on virtually every major issue of our time simply is not a coincidence. It is simply not a coincidence that the media bosses all just happen to have adopted the policy of hushing up Black-on-White crime and publicizing as widely as possible any White-on-Black crime. All of these things are planned and deliberate. They are the consequence of conscious collaboration. Only a fool can believe that it's all just coincidence.

The Jewish media bosses know what they want. It is control -- not just of the media, but of us: of everything. They want to own us and, to the extent that they cannot own us, to destroy us. Unfortunately, I cannot play for you a secret recording of one of their summit meetings, where they discuss their goals and their strategy, a la the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I can only offer you the historical record and common sense. The record, for those who have eyes to see and an open mind, is pretty clear, beginning with the account in the book of Genesis of the takeover of Egypt by Joseph and his brothers so that they could all "eat the fat of the land" [Genesis 45.18], on through the ages to the Marxist takeover of Russia early in this century and the attempted takeover in many other countries.

You know the Germans didn't begin throwing the Jews out of Germany in the 1930s because of Christian bigotry. It was because they wanted their country back. The Germans wanted to run their own universities and schools, their own newspapers and films, their own legal and medical professions.

If you want to understand the historical record, you must study it. I can't go through all of that for you in a half-hour program. I can only point the way. And as for the commonsense aspect of understanding what the Jewish media bosses are up to, we just need to clear the cobwebs out of our heads and realize that every racially conscious group strives for mastery, for domination, not just the Jews. That's Nature's way. That's the way it is in every barnyard and every schoolyard.

And that is why the media propaganda takes the deliberate slant it does: trying to make us feel guilty, trying to kill our sense of racial consciousness while the Jews keep theirs, trying to persuade us to give up our arms, trying to silence all our dissident voices. Their aim is for us to be racially unconscious, for us to be ashamed of our nature and our traditions, for us to be afraid to organize for our common good, afraid of being thought racists. The deliberate aim of the Jewish media propaganda is to disarm us morally, to make us rootless and defenseless, and then to destroy us. That is what is happening now.

Think about it, and you'll see how it all fits together.

---

ADV broadcast of December 12, 1998. For documentation of Jewish media dominance, see the NA's Who Rules America? Also see Prof. Kevin MacDonald's homepage.

Jewish Intolerance

Savitri Devi

Jewish "racism" has been much discussed. And the doctrine of the "chosen people" is often regarded as an expression of this "racism." Yet in reality the Jews of Antiquity (I mean, of course, orthodox Jews) believed that membership in their race, that is, in the "family of Abraham," had value only if it were combined with exclusive service to the "jealous God" Jehovah, Israel's exclusive protector. According to the Bible, Moabites and Ammonites, though enemies of Israel, were closely connected racially to the Jews. Did not the former descend from Moab, son of Lot and his eldest daughter, and the latter from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot and his youngest daughter? (Genesis 19.36-38) Now, Lot, son of Haran, was the nephew of Abraham (Genesis 11.27). Evidently genealogical kinship did not facilitate relations between these peoples and the children of Israel. If blood joined them together, their respective cults nevertheless separated them. Chemosh, god of Moabites, and Milcom, god of the Ammonites, were in the eyes of the Jews "abominations" -- as were all the gods of the earth, save their own God -- and their worshippers, enemies to be exterminated. [Image: Savitri in India, ca. 1935.]

Jewish racism, independent of religion -- the attitude which consists in accepting as a Jew and treating accordingly anyone born Jewish, whatever his religious beliefs might be -- is apparently a much more recent phenomenon, dating at the earliest from the eighteenth or the seventeenth century, that is, from the time when masonic lodges of Israelite inspiration began to play a role in determining the politics of Western nations. It was perhaps a product of the influence of Western rationalism on the Jews -- in spite of themselves. It found its most striking expression at the end of the nineteenth century and during the twentieth in Zionism, which could be called an innovative, avant-garde Jewish nationalism. The Zionist movement does respect, certainly, the religious tradition of the Talmud and the Bible, but without in any way being identified with it. Its political faith is "national," but could not be compared with that of modern Greece, since the latter is so inseparable from the official state religion. But I shall call Zionism a nationalism rather than a "racism," because it implies the exaltation of the Jewish people as such, without any enthusiastic consciousness of a blood solidarity uniting all the various desert peoples customarily called "Semitic."

Although modern in its expression, this Jewish nationalism is not in its essence different from the solidarity which, after the introduction of the Mosaic law, existed among all the children of Israel from the thirteenth century before the Christian era. The religion of Jehovah played a paramount role then. But its role consisted precisely in forming a feeling in all Jews, from the most powerful to the most humble, that they were the chosen people, the privileged people, different from other people, including those closest to them in blood, and exalted above them all. The Jews have felt that more and more in modern times, without the aid of a national religion; hence the decreasing importance of this religion among them, except in a few permanent centers of Jewish orthodoxy.

Intolerance on the Occupied West Bank (Hebron, August 2001): A Palestinian mother is kicked by a Jewish boy while a Jewish woman rips off her Islamic headscarf.

In other words, the Jews, who for centuries had been an unimportant Middle Eastern tribe among so many others, a tribe quite close to others in language and religion before Abraham and especially before the Mosaic reform, gradually became, under the influence of Moses and his successors, Joshua and Caleb, and then under the influence of the prophets, a people completely filled with the self-image they had manufactured; having nothing but contempt for men of the same race who surrounded them and, with greater reason, for people of other races; seeing only "abominations" in all their gods; even repudiating, as the prophet Ezra commanded after they returned from their long Babylonian captivity, those of their kinsmen who, having remained in Palestine, had married Canaanite women, under the pretext that the latter would loosen the link that bound them and their families to Jehovah and thus weaken their consciousness that they were a "chosen people," a people unlike others.

They could have remained so indefinitely, isolated from the rest of the world by a national pride as incommensurable as it was unjustified, for even in Antiquity they were already rather mixed-race hybrids, if only because of their prolonged sojourn in Egypt. Had the Jews remained in their self-imposed isolation, the world would certainly have suffered no great loss -- quite the contrary. But they did not, because the idea of a "single, living God" -- the "true" God, in contrast to "false" gods, to local gods whose power was limited to other peoples -- could only imply, sooner or later, the idea of universal truth and human community. A God who alone "lives," while all others are merely insensate matter, at most inhabited by impure forces, can only be, logically, the true God of all possible worshippers, that is, of all men. To refuse to admit it would have required that they ascribe life, truth and benevolence to other peoples' gods as well, in other words, that they cease seeing them only as "abominations." And that the Jews refused to accept, after the sermons and threats of their prophets. The One God could indeed prefer a single people. But it was necessary that he be, by necessity, the God of all peoples -- the one whom they, in their insane folly, were unaware of, whereas the "chosen people" alone paid him homage.

The first attitude of the Jews, as conquerors of Palestine, toward peoples who worshipped gods other than Jehovah was to hate and exterminate them. Their second attitude -- after Canaanite resistance in Palestine had long ended, and especially after the Jews had lost most of what little international significance they had ever possessed, being reduced to mere subjects of Greek kings, Alexander's successors, and later of Roman emperors -- was to throw into the spiritual pasture of a declining world not only the idea of the futile emptiness of all gods (except their own), but also the false concept of "man," independent of and distinct from peoples; of "man," a nationless citizen of the world (and "created in the image of God") whom Israel, the chosen people, the people of Revelation, had the mission of instructing and guiding to true "happiness." This was the attitude of those Jews, more or less conspicuously daubed with Hellenism, who from the fourth century AD until the Arab conquest in the seventh century formed an increasingly influential proportion of the population in Alexandria, as well as in all capitals of the Hellenistic world, which would later become the Roman world. It is also the attitude of the Jews of our own era -- an attitude which, precisely, makes them a people unlike others, a dangerous people: the "ferment of decomposition" of other peoples.

It is worth tracing the history of this attitude.

Its seeds, as I have suggested, already existed in the fanaticism of the servants and prophets of the "sole" and "living God," from Samuel to the redactors of the Cabala. An important fact that should not be forgotten, if one wants to try to understand it, is that the "sole God" of the Jews is a transcendent god, but not immanent. He is outside of Nature, which he created from nothingness by an act of will, and in his essence is different from it, different not only from its sensible manifestations, but also from everything that could, in a permanent way, underlie them. He is not that Soul of the Universe in which the Greeks and all other Indo-European peoples believed, and in which Brahmanism still sees the supreme Reality. He made the world as an artisan manufactures a marvelous machine: from the outside. And he imposed upon it whatever laws he wanted, laws that could have been different, if he had wanted them different. He gave man dominion over all other creatures. And he "chose" the Jewish people from among other men not for their intrinsic value -- that is clearly specified in the Bible -- but arbitrarily, because of a promise made once and for all to Abraham.

From this metaphysical perspective, it was impossible to consider the gods of other peoples as "aspects" or "expressions" of the sole God, and all the less so since these gods represented, for the most part, natural forces or celestial bodies. It was also impossible to emphasize less the indeterminate variety of men and the irrefutable inequality that has always existed among the various human races and even among people more or less of the same race. "Man," whatever that might be, had to possess, alone of created beings, an immense intrinsic value, since the Creator had formed him "in his own image" and had placed him, for that very reason, above all other living creatures. The Cabala states the matter clearly: "There exists the uncreated Being, who creates: God; the created being, who creates: man; and ... the remainder: the entirety of created beings -- animals, plants, minerals -- which do not create." This is the most absolute anthropocentrism, and a false philosophy from the outset, since it is obvious that "all men" are not creators (far from it!) and that some animals can in fact be creators.

But that is not all. From this new humanist perspective, not only did Jewry maintain its position as the "chosen people" -- the "holy nation," as the Bible says -- destined to bear unique Revelation to the world, but everything that other peoples had produced or thought had value only insofar as it was consistent with this Revelation, or insofar as it could be interpreted in that sense. Unable to deny the enormous Greek contributions to science and philosophy, the Jews of Alexandria, Greek in culture (and sometimes with Greek names, like Aristobulus in the third century BC), did not hesitate to write that all of the most substantial products of Greek thought -- the works of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Aristotle -- were only due, in the final analysis, to the influence of Jewish thought, having their source in Moses and the prophets! Others, such as the famous Philo of Alexandria, whose influence on Christian apologetics was considerable, did not dare deny the obvious originality of Hellenic genius, but only retained, of the ideas they elaborated, those which they could, by altering or even by deforming them completely, bring into "concord" with the Mosaic conception of "God" and the world. Their work is that hybrid product which in the history of ideas bears the name "Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy" -- an ingenious collection of interrelated concepts drawn more or less directly from Plato, though not always in the spirit of Plato, mixed together with old Jewish ideas like the transcendence of the sole God and the creation of man "in his image." All of this was undoubtedly a superfluous scaffolding in the eyes of orthodox Jews, for whom the Mosaic Law was sufficient, but it was a marvelous instrument for seizing spiritual control over the Gentiles, in the service of Jews (orthodox or not) eager to wrest from other peoples the direction of Western (and later, global) thought.

Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy and religion, increasingly permeated with the symbolism of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia and so forth, and professed by the ever more racially debased people of the Hellenistic world, constitute the backdrop against which Christian orthodoxy gradually emerged in the writings of Paul of Tarsus and the first Christian apologists, eventually taking shape during a succession of Church Councils. As Gilbert Murray remarks of the latter: "it is a strange experience ... to study these obscure assemblies, whose members, proletarians of the Levant, superstitious, dominated by charlatans and desperately ignorant, still believed that God can procreate children in the womb of mortal mothers, misunderstood 'Word,' 'Spirit' and 'divine Wisdom' as persons bearing those names, and transformed the notion of the soul's immortality into the 'resurrection of the dead,' and then to think that it was these men who followed the main road, leading to the greatest religion of the Western world."

In this Christianity of the first centuries, preached in Greek (the international language of the Near East) by Jewish and later by Greek missionaries to raceless urban masses -- so inferior, from any point of view, to the free men of the ancient Hellenic polis -- there were undoubtedly more non-Jewish elements than Jewish. What dominated was a common religious subject I dare not call "Greek" but rather "Aegean" or "Mediterranean pre-Hellenic" -- or even Near Eastern pre-Hellenic, for the people of Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia all more or less exemplified it in their primeval cults. It was the myth of the young god cruelly put to death -- Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus -- whose flesh (wheat) and blood (grape juice) became food and drink for men, and who came back to life in glory every year in Spring. This subject had never ceased to be present in the mysteries of Greece, as much in the classical era as before. Transfigured and "spiritualized" by the allegorical meanings attached to the most primitive rites, it manifested itself in the international "salvation" religions, namely in the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and Attis, Christianity's rivals in the Roman Empire. As Nietzsche saw so clearly, the genius of Paul of Tarsus consisted in "giving a new meaning to the ancient mysteries," taking hold of the old prehistoric myth, revivifying it, interpreting it in such way that, in perpetuity, all those who accepted his interpretation would also accept Jewry's prophetic role and its status as "chosen people," bearer of unique revelation.

Historically next to nothing is known about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so little about his origins and the first thirty years of his life that some serious authors have even doubted his existence. According to the canonical gospels, he was raised in the Jewish religion. But was he Jewish by blood? Several scriptural passages tend to make one believe that he was not. It has been said, moreover, that the Galileans formed a small island of Indo-European population within Palestine. At any rate, what is important, as the source of the historical turning point that Christianity represents, is that, Jewish or not, Jesus was presented as such, and what is more, was presented as the Jewish people's expected Messiah, by Paul of Tarsus, the true founder of Christianity, and by all the Christian apologists who followed over the centuries. What is important is that he was, thanks to them, integrated into the Jewish tradition, forming the link between it and the old Mediterranean myth of the young vegetation god who died and rose again, a myth the Jews had never accepted. He became the Messiah, acquiring the essential attributes of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus and all the other dead gods who triumphed over Death, pushing them all into the shade for his own profit, and that of his people, with an intransigence that none of them knew, the typically Jewish intransigence of Paul of Tarsus, his teacher Gamaliel, and all the servants of the "jealous God," Jehovah. Not only was "new meaning" given to the ancient mysteries, but this meaning was proclaimed the sole good and the sole truth, the rites and the myths of pagan antiquity, from the most remote times, having only "prepared" and "prefigured" it, just as ancient philosophy had only sensitized souls to receive the supreme revelation. And this revelation was, for Paul as for the Jews of the Judeo-Alexandrian school before him, and for all the Christian apologists that followed -- Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Ireneus, Origen -- given to the Jews by the God "of all mankind."

Jewish intolerance, until then confined to a single people (and to a despised people, whom no one dreamed of imitating) extended itself, with Christianity and later with Islam -- that reaction against the Hellenisation of Christian theology -- to half the globe. And, moreover, it is that very intolerance that accounts for the success of the religions linked with the tradition of Israel.

I have mentioned the salvation religions, in particular the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and her lover Attis, which flourished in the Roman Empire when Christianity was still young. At first sight, each of them had as much chance of attracting to itself the restless masses for whom Roman order was not sufficient, or was no longer sufficient, and who, increasingly bastardized, felt alienated from any national cult, whatever it might be. Each of them offered to the average individual all that the religion of crucified Jesus promised, and with rites all the more able to assure his adhesion, since they were more barbarous.

In the third century AD, the worship of Mithra -- the old Indo-European solar god, contemplated through the thousand deforming mirrors that the races and traditions of his new worshippers represented -- seemed destined to become dominant ... provided that no decisive factor should intervene in favor of one of his rivals. The god was popular among Roman legionaries and their officers. Emperors had believed it worthwhile to receive initiation into his mysteries, under a shower of the Bull's hot, redemptive blood. A growing number of common people followed the movement. One can say with complete confidence that the world dominated by Rome just barely failed to become Mithraic, instead of Christian, for some twenty centuries. One can say with no less certainty that, though it did not become Mithraic, this failure was due neither to any "superiority" of the Christian doctrine of salvation over the teachings of the priests of Mithra, nor to the absence of sanguinary rites among Christians, but rather to the protection granted to the religion of the Crucified by the emperor Constantine, and not to any other factor. Indeed it was Christianity's very intolerance -- especially, perhaps even exclusively -- that procured the preference of the master of the Roman world. [Image: Mithras Tauroctonos ("Mithra the Bull-Slayer").]

What the emperor wanted above all was to give to this immense world, populated by people of diverse traditions and ethnicities, the most solid unity possible, without which it would be difficult to resist for long the external pressures of the so-called barbarians. Unity of worship was certainly the only kind of unity that he could hope to impose on his empire, on condition that it could be achieved quickly. Among the popular religions of salvation, Mithraism undoubtedly counted the greatest number of faithful. But it did not seem capable of being spread rapidly enough, first and foremost because it did not claim to be the only Way and the only Truth. It risked allowing its rivals to survive, and the unity that Constantine so much desired would therefore not be accomplished -- or would take centuries -- whereas the interest of the empire demanded that it be done within a few decades.

One could say as much of the old cult of Cybele and Attis: its priests did not proclaim, following the example of the Jews, that they alone possessed the truth; on the contrary, they believed, as did all men of Antiquity (except the Jews), that truth has innumerable facets, and that each cult helps its faithful grasp an aspect of it. They, too, would have allowed rival religions to flourish in complete liberty.

Fourth-century Christianity, although penetrated with ideas and symbols borrowed from neo-Platonism, or from the old Aegean mystical substrate, or from still more remote forms of the eternal Tradition, had itself inherited the spirit of intolerance from Judaism. Even its most enlightened apologists, the most richly nurtured in traditional Greek culture -- such as a St. Clement of Alexandria or an Origen who, far from rejecting ancient wisdom, regarded it as a preparation for that of the gospels -- did not put the two wisdoms on the same plane. There was, they believed, "progress" from the former to the latter, and the Jewish "revelation" retained its priority over the distant echo of the sole God's voice which one could detect in the pagan philosophers. As for the great mass of Christians, they dismissed as "abominations" -- or "demons" -- all the gods of the earth, except that One who had been revealed to men of all races through the Old Testament prophets -- Jewish prophets -- and through Jesus and his posthumous disciple, Paul of Tarsus, the latter entirely Jewish, the former regarded by the Church as a Jew, a "son of David," though in fact his true origins are unknown and even his historicity could be questioned.

The profound link that attaches Christianity (and in particular the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass") to the ancient mysteries ensured its survival down to our own era. And it was, for Paul of Tarsus, a stroke of (political) genius to have given to the oldest myths of the Mediterranean world an interpretation that ensured to his own people an indefinite spiritual domination over that world and over all the peoples it was destined to influence during the centuries that followed. It was, for the emperor Constantine, a stroke of genius (also political), to have chosen to encourage a religion which would, by its rapid diffusion, give to the ethnic chaos that the Roman world then represented the only unity to which it could still aspire. And it was, for the German tribal chief Clodwig, known in French history as Clovis, again a stroke of genius (political, in his case also) to have felt that nothing would better ensure him permanent domination over his rivals, other German leaders, than his own adhesion (and that of his warriors) to Christianity, in a world then already three-quarters Christian, where bishops represented a power to be sought out as allies. Political genius, not religious -- and still less philosophical -- because in each case it aimed at power, personal or national, at material stability, at success, but not at truth in the full sense of the word, that is, accord with the Eternal. It involved mundane human ambitions, not a thirst for knowledge of the Laws of Being, nor a thirst for union with the Essence of all things -- the Soul, at once transcendent and immanent, of the Cosmos.

For if it had been different, there would have been no reason for the religion of the Nazarene to have triumphed for so many centuries: its rivals were its equals. Christianity had only one practical "advantage" over them: its fanaticism, its infantile intolerance inherited from the Jews -- a fanaticism, an intolerance, which, during the early days of the Church, cultivated Romans or Greeks could only find laughable, and which Germans, nurtured in their own beautiful religion, simultaneously cosmic and warlike, could rightly find absurd, but which would give to Christianity a militant character, which it alone possessed, since orthodox Judaism remained -- and would remain -- the faith of a single people.

Christianity could henceforth be combated only by another religion with equally universal pretensions, just as intolerant as it. And it is a fact that, until now, it has lost ground on a significant scale only when confronted by Islam and, in our era, by the false religion which is Communism.

---

The preceding text is from Chapter III of Savitri Devi's Souvenirs et réflexions d'une Aryenne (Calcutta: Savitri Devi Mukherji, 1976). Trans. Irmin Vinson. Savitri's footnotes have been omitted; the title is editorial. The original French text is also available.

How to Begin Practicing Asatru, Today!
by Stephen A. McNallen

Suppose you have decided that you are ready to begin practicing Asatru. How can you start?

First of all, you don't have to get anyone's permission, or join any organization. Nor do you have to be an expert in the traditional lore of the Germanic peoples at this point in your development. Academic knowledge is important, but it can come later. You can start following our ancestral spirituality right now, today.
How? Here are some suggestions:

Begin living by the moral code of our ancestors. You'll find a list of appropriate virtues listed elsewhere on this site, in the article titled " Twelve Traits ." Memorize them, or copy them and put them where you will see them every day. Compare your deeds to the standards of the Germanic Way and begin shaping your life along a nobler path!

Honor the Holy Powers . Walk outside, and somewhere where you have privacy, raise your arms in greeting, look skyward, and say something like:

"I salute you, the Holy Powers of my people! Not as a slave or servant, but as a freeborn member of the Folk and as your younger kin. Nor do I come to you on my knees, but standing proud and tall. Speak to my soul, that I may grow in wisdom. Be my inspiration as I strive to grow wiser, stronger, and larger of spirit. May my feet walk the way of my noble ancestors, as I continue my journey!"
Later you will want to honor the deities in a more individual way, but a simple declaration like the one above will get you started.

Honor the ancestors. Make a simple shrine for them in your house - on a small table, or your night stand, or on a shelf, for example. On it, place photos of your forefathers and foremothers and perhaps items that belonged to them. Remember them daily, talk to them, share your life with them. Placing flowers on this shrine every now and then would be a nice touch. Recall them on their birthdays.

Bless your meals. You can say something like -

"In the names of the Holy Powers may this food be blessed, and may it bless us who partake of it. May it connect us with the Earth and Sky from which it came, to the Holy Powers, and to each other. Let it help us to live, to grow, and to work our will in the world!"
All these things are simple, but they are things you can do right now, today. In the following section we will consider some of your next steps.

Following Asatru: After the First Step

The guidelines given in the previous section were pretty elementary, but they will get your feet planted on the Way of our ancestors.

What now?

Now it's time to start learning.

More Resources

There is a vast amount of information on the AFA web site, and most of it will be useful in your quest. In particular, visit the Resources page and examine the growing list of items archived there.

Then, purchase and read some of the essential works on Asatru. You will find our suggested reading list elsewhere on this site.

The AFA's Living Asatru is a good guide to day-to-day living of our ancestral religion. Also useful is A Book of Uncommon Prayers , which offers some simple and non-submissive ideas for talking with the Gods and Goddesses. In addition, the AFA produces two videos providing a broad overview of our religion; these are Steve McNallen on Asatru and Asatru: A Native European Religion . All these, and more, can be ordered directly from us.

Northern Magic by Edred Thorsson gives information on Asatru and on some of our traditional magical lore, as well. The Rites of Odin by Ed Fitch also contains much of value. It is important we make clear that Fitch's book in particular does not depict Asatru as practiced in the AFA, but there is still a wealth of information contained in its pages.

Two volumes of mythological lore and heroic tales are The Poetic Edda by Lee Hollander and The Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson. The Eddas are available in several different translations, and you may want to investigate several of these.

Of the books that relate to the practice of native European religions in ancient times, almost anything by H. R. Ellis Davidson can be recommended without hesitation. Gods and Myths of Northern Europe is the best starting place, though Myth and Symbol in Pagan Europe is also superb. For an introduction to the culture of our tribes as seen through Roman eyes read The Germania and Agricola by Tacitus, available in Penguin paperback.


Contacts

Certainly you can practice Asatru all by yourself - but it was meant to be shared with others! You can contact Asatruar in your area through The Grove , a feature on the AFA's web site. If there's no one in your area, please feel free to contact the AFA directly.

Growing

The items listed above will give you a firm theoretical basis in Asatru. But only actual practice will bring true development. Asatru is defined not by what you know or even what you believe, but by what you DO! The way of our ancestors is meant to be lived, not dryly dissected by people who have lost the passionate essence of the Gods and the ancestors.

In particular, it is important to honor the main seasonal festivals to consider yourself Asatru. Winter Nights, Yule, and Easter are usually considered the essential three holy times that must be celebrated.

You have embarked on an adventure - the journey back home, to your ancestral heritage. Congratulations, and may your reward be rich!

The following article is one man's interpretation of what has became known as 'National Bolshevism' or the 'Red and Brown Axis.' It does not purport to be an official version of Edward Limonov or the National Bolshevik Party's views any more than it is FolkandFaith.com's views. As with any and all articles on the site, feedback and intelligent dissent is fully welcomed. Offer an intelligent rebuttal and it may get put up on the site as well. As with all other political theories given space on this site, please recall that this is just an alternative view to the mainstream political view.

---

Nationalist Socialism, Nationalist Communism and National Bolshevism

by Andrew Webb

I've written this essay on the demand of the owner of this site, in order to make clear some vital distinctions between three ideologies: national socialism, national communism and National Bolshevism. (A note: when I refer to 'the movement' in this essay, I am referring to the large number of anti-'Semitic' and racialist groupings traditionally associated with the Far Right, in North America, Europe and European colonies such as South Africa and New Zealand).

NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM

Flag of Edward Limonov's National Bolshevik Party	Russian National Socialist Flag

What is National Bolshevism?

To answer this, we must look at the development of the socialist idea.

It was generally agreed, in the patriotic and anti-Semitic circles in Europe at the time, that the Russian Revolution of 1917 (and the aborted revolutions in Hungary in 1919 and Germany in 1918) were Jewish affairs. Jews had been fomenting subversion against the absolute monarchist regimés of Europe since the days of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and had appropriated the socialist idea for use as a means of gaining power. This subversion culminated in the Russian Revolution.

The Slavic racial element played a role, of course. Contemporaries of the revolution such as Hitler, Spengler and Lothrop Stoddard noted that Russia, since Peter the Great, had been divided into two: on one side, the Westernised Petrine aristocracy, mostly of German stock; on the other, the Asiatic residue possessed of a deep, primitive religiousness and a hostility to anything Western. The Revolution saw an uprising among the Asiatic racial element against the Westernised aristocracy.

What the Jews did was harness the Asiatic maelstrom and used it as a stepping-stone to power. Jewish Bolshevists exterminated the Petrine ruling class, and killed and starved millions of Russian supporters of the old regimé, in particular the peasants (who, as a class, have always been despised by Jews everywhere).

When does the 'national' in National Bolshevism enter the picture?

With Stalin's ascent to power to in 1924, Trotsky's exile in 1928, and the purges of the communist party rank and file (which, as we know, mostly consisted of Jews) in the 1930s, some anti-Semites claimed at the time that this saw the end of Jewish influence in the Soviet Union. Therefore, Hitler and other fascists were mistaken in detecting a Jewish component in Stalinism. This doctrine is one version of National Bolshevism.

As well as this, Stalin was condemned by the (Jewish) Trotskyists, for restricting socialism to 'one country', for not fomenting subversion elsewhere. Stalin had made socialism too nationalistic - a 'national socialism', in fact -when socialism, at bottom, is incompatible with nationalism. Stalinist 'national socialism' of this kind is often called National Bolshevism as well.

(Wartime Russian propaganda never referred to the Nazis as 'national socialists': that was the term used by the Stalinists to describe their own communism. The communists testifying at the International Military Tribunal always referred to the Nazis and the Wehrmacht as 'Hitlerians' or 'fascists').

In Weimar Germany, some communists, such as the Jew Karl Radek, advocated an alliance between Germany and Communist Russia, as early as 1919. It was felt that were Germany to take such a course, it would be resisting the West, which had imposed the Versailles Treaty upon it. In other words, Germany would turn Bolshevist out of nationalist and geopolitical reasons. That idea survived into the 1930s and could be found in the left-currents of German National Socialism, as represented by Goebbels, the Strasser Brothers, and Ernst Röhm and his communist Brownshirt faction.

So far, we have identified three National Bolshevisms: one, anti-Semitic, pre-war Stalinism; two, nationalist communism (or what I call national communism); and three, the advocacy of an alliance between Germany and a Bolshevism which may or may not be Jewish.

THE MYTH OF PRE-WAR ANTI-SEMITIC STALINISM

Did an anti-Semitic Stalinism of the 1930s exist?

In my opinion, no: the notion that Jews had been purged by Stalin in the 1930s is a falsehood. This is proved by the Holocaust Revisionist Walter N. Sanning's The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (1983), a study of Jewish demography in Europe and the Soviet Union before and after the "Holocaust".

Sanning's figures showed that from 1926 to 1939, the Jewish population in the Soviet Union increased from 2.6 million to 3 million - a jump of over 12%. Furthermore, the Jewish population of Leningrad increased from 84,000 in 1926 to 200,000 in 1940 and the Jewish population of Moscow increased from 131,000 to 400,000 in the same years.

As for the war, 200,000 Jews died as servicemen in the Red Army and 130,000 Jewish civilians died in the Nazi-occupied areas of the Soviet Union. An unknown but high percentage of the latter were killed as partisans, or in retaliation for partisan atrocities; others were killed by the Soviet natives for their role in the slaughter and deportation of tens of thousands of Slavs.

Added to this, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence concerning Jewish commissars, Jewish partisans, Jewish collaborators with Soviet occupiers, and so on. Jewish communists, and Jews in general, supported the Soviet Union's war against fascism, and certainly the very Jewish Roosevelt administration did.

THE DEJUDAISATION OF BOLSHEVISM?

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union stopped, at some point, being Jewish. Historians of international relations would agree that the Soviet Union had become an enemy of America (and hence Jewry) sometime around 1948. Stalin, of course, armed Israel in its "war of independence" against the Arabs in 1948, funnelling arms through Czechoslovakia, and the USSR was one of the first States to recognise Israel diplomatically. But 1948 also saw the breakdown of amicable relations between America and the USSR. And by 1953, the year of the 'doctor's plot' and Stalin's aborted plan to exterminate Soviet Jewry, the love affair between the Jews and Soviet communism was over.

The question is: why did the Jews fall out with Stalin? The answer, I think, is to be found in Sanning's statistics.

The USSR incorporated 2 million Jews in 1940 (with the annexation of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and North-Eastern Romania), raising its Jewish population from 3 to 5 million. But it lost 1 million Jews in the war, many of those in senior positions in the communist hierarchy. The majority of those fatalities - 700,000 - had died in labour camps in the Siberia and the Urals alongside millions of other Soviet citizens.

Stalin had been prepared years in advance for a European assault on the USSR. Before and during the Nazi attack, he deported millions of Soviet citizens (Sanning gives the figure of 25 to 30 million) away from the front line and to Siberia and the Urals. There they were put to work manufacturing arms and electricity.

The production of arms and electricity required skilled personnel. Jews occupied the leading administrative positions in the Soviet Union and formed the most educated class, standing at the top of the social pyramid in the Soviet Union, just as they do in America now. Stalin deported them for this reason. (A large number of women and their children were deported because many women were employed in Soviet industry, thanks to feminist reforms).

Sanning estimates that of the 3.6 million Soviet Jews living in areas which later came under Nazi control, 80%, or 2.9 million, were evacuated. Five million people alone from the Ukraine were deported, a high proportion of whom were Jews or ethnic Russians (both of whom occupied the leading professional and administrative positions in Ukraine, to the detriment of Ukrainians).

Because of the losses in the labour camps, and in combat with European armies, the élite Soviet Jewish class was gutted. Although a large number of Jews remained in the Soviet Union - over 4 million - the power of the Jews there had been broken.

(For more on the implications of Sanning's work, see Yggdrasil's essay Princeton Tries to Explain a Drop in Jewish Enrollment; or "What is Communism?"

This is why neo-fascists who were more sensitive to geopolitical developments, such as Francis Parker Yockey and Jean-Francois Thiriart, proposed an alliance between post-war fascism and Soviet communism. They believed that were the Russians to win the Cold War and overrun Europe, Europe would be dejudaised as well. Therefore, an opening could exist to mobilise the Continent for a war against America (and Israel).

NATIONAL COMMUNISM

After the war, and the breakup of the European empire, a new phenomenon emerged: national communism, or more accurately, national liberation communism.

Yockey held that ever since the First World War, the 'Outer World' (the non-European colonial world) had been agitating against the colonial powers Europe and America. He called the desire of the coloured races to overthrow the white man 'Bolshevism' (although of course, the anti-colonialist tendencies were not restricted to the communism of the USSR).

It was Europe's defeat at the hands of America in WWII, Yockey argued, that saw the downfall of the European colonial empire - the largest in history. 'Bolshevism' stood triumphant. Although America, by winning the war against Europe, inherited Europe's empire, it showed no interest in maintaining it, giving the most valuable possessions away (China and India in particular).

Many of the 'Outer World' countries did not win their independence at once, having to overthrow colonial rulers like Britain and France by force. The national revolutionaries adopted communism as an anti-colonialist ideology, as communism is uniquely suited to that purpose. But they gave it a different slant from orthodox Soviet Marxist-Leninism, a more 'national' flavour. Hence Maoism, Castroism, Ho Chi Minhism and the rest.

This independence from Soviet communism, however, was only ideological. After achieving independence, a country like Vietnam or Cuba would have no option but to join forces with one of the two communist superpowers, China and Russia.

NATIONAL SOCIALISM

By 'National Socialism', I am not referring to the German variety, of course, but a post-war variant of national communism. More or less, other anti-colonialist tendencies in the 'Outer World' did not want to go the whole route towards communism, opting instead for 'socialism', which would see the retention of some private property.

In addition, they differed from the national communists in that they followed the policy of non-alignment. This refers to the practice of neutrality in the Cold War: non-aligned countries went with neither the East nor West, choosing instead a 'Third Position'.

The most famous exponents of the 'Third Way' were Juan Peron (Argentina), Nassar (Egypt), Sukarno (Indonesia), and a host of other Third World demagogues. Yockey writes, in his essay The World in Flames (1961):

No estimate would be complete which leaves two great political developments out of account, both of recent years. The first is the Arab Revolt, led by a great and vigorous man, Gamal Abdul Nasser. The second is the formation of nationalist, neutralist regimes by such brilliant statesmen as Marshal Jozef Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Nehru of India, Field Marshal Ayub Khan of Pakistan, General Ibrahim Abboud of the Sudan, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Sukarno of Indonesia, Nkruniah of Ghana, and others. These personalities embody an Idea, none are out for money or publicity. They live simply, work for and live for their ideas. One such man, in a position of leadership, is a world-historical force. All lead weak political units, and cannot by themselves fight either of the great world-powers. But all want independence for their people; Nasser, for example, for some 300,000,000 Moslems. Each is a symbol to great human masses. Their significance, in each case, in this Estimate, is that they diminish the Jewish-American power without augmenting the Russian-Chinese power. By their Palestine policy, the Zionists may even succeed in driving the Arab world to fight for Russia. Eventually responsible leadership for a restive mass of some 180,000,000 Latin Americans will evolve. Already the seeds of revolt against Jewish-American economic domination have been sown. Witness Cuba.

Nowadays, the surviving national socialist regimes include Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Burma. The Burmese junta are the authors of a manifesto called 'The Burmese Path to Socialism;' Iraq and Syria both subscribe to the Arab nationalist and socialist ideology of Ba'athism.

The national socialist regimés mentioned by Yockey have either crossed over into the American sphere of influence or have become irrelevant. Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Egypt now serve as vassals to the West; the African nations have become insignificant - which is another way of saying that they are so strife-torn that no superpower can be bothered gaining a foothold there. (I am speaking of the black African states, of course, not the Arab ones in North Africa: Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, because of their proximity to Israel, occupy important places on the geopolitical chessboard). For the most part, the West has regained control over all its errant colonies - except that the Jews of Washington and Tel Aviv, and not Europeans and Americans, now rule 'the West'.

JEWISH ANTI-COMMUNISM

Up to 1948, we could say that all Jews were united in support of two causes: 'Bolshevism', as defined by Yockey, and the destruction of fascism and monarchism in Europe. Jews, in America and elsewhere, were Stalinist communists or liberal supporters of communism.

Then, after 1948, Jewish-controlled America became the biggest enemy of communism. All at once, we saw: former Jewish communists, such as Sydney Hook and Irving Kristol, leading an ideological assault on communism and founding the neoconservative movement; the Red Scare; the coming to American consciousness of the extent of Stalin's cruelty; accusations that the USSR was 'anti-Semitic'; and so on. Why?

Yockey's answer was as follows: in 1917, the Jews gained control of the Soviet Union; in 1933, the Jews gained control of America upon the election of Roosevelt; in 1945, the Jews, through the USA, controlled Europe and the entire colonial world; but by 1948 or thereabouts, the Jews had lost control of the Soviet Union, for the reasons described above.

At the end of the war, the Jews, possessed a vast European colonial empire; but, with the onset of the Cold War, they had to fight the colonial subjects who wanted 'Third Positionism' or an alliance with the Soviet Union.

But Jews are inherent Bolshevists, motivated by one desire: to destroy European-Western civilisation. Their quarrel is not with the peoples of the coloured races, but Westerners. They do not hate Russia with the same intensity that they hate the Germans.

As Yockey writes, in The World-:

Most of the cinema in North America treats Russia and Russians as interesting and admirable, human and good. The cinema's purpose in the general scheme of propaganda is to control the emotional attitudes of the population. Control of the intellectual attitudes is the work of the press, and here Russia is treated negatively. Why this duality? Every ruling regime gives perforce in its propaganda a picture of itself, and the Washington Zionist regime itself suffers from this quality. Russia is not a total enemy, but a rival. The Korean war, 1950-1953 expressed the limited hostility of the Washington regime toward Russia and its official war-aim was not "victory" or "unconditional surrender" [as per against Nazi Germany], but "a just truce". When the Germans in Russia make some new technical advance, Eisenhower congratulates the Moscow regime. Roosevelt never congratulated Hitler on such occasions. The Russian flag is flown in the United States on all festive, "international" occasions. Never did the German flag appear, nor does it today. The fundamental ineradicable Jewish hatred of Germany appears in the fact that even the Germany they control directly is not permitted to sit among the United Nations, on a par with the other puppets. The spate of anti-German films in the theatres and on television continues unabated. The anti-Russian films are few indeed. One conclusion emerges, of military-political significance: in the Third World War, the Washington regime will list Germany among its enemies. Already the radio propagandists say "Russia and Red Germany." The intention here is, not only that the German rifle battalions be slaughtered by the Russian advance, but that the way be opened for the bombardment of Germany again, this time with more destructive bombs.

To a certain extent, Jewry considered communist Russia and China to be friendly rivals, not deadly enemies, like Nazi Germany, which had to be destroyed at all costs. And, certainly, Jewry sympathised with the Bolshevist aims of the Russians and Chinese- eg, the goal of the liberation of the Third World from European and white domination.

THE FACTIONAL SPLIT IN JEWRY

One of the most common objections to anti-Semitism is that anti-Semites lump all Jews together, making them out to be a monolithic conspiracy, when clearly Jews disagree on a good many questions - Israel for instance.

Most rational non-Jews, who are not completely deluded by philo-Semitic and Zionist propaganda, will agree that Israel and its supporters in Diaspora Jewry are a vicious bunch. But, say the incorrigible philo-Semites, 'Not all Jews support Israel. Why, my friend Greenburg hates Israel, and he's a Jew'.

The fact that Bush Jr (like every American president before him) is a slave of Israel, and that his foreign policy is written for him by hard-right Zionist Jews like Richard Perle, is an open secret. But we all know, too, that Jews such as Noam Chomsky, Israel Shamir, Israel Shahak, Norman Finklestein and even mainstream Jewish reporters such as Suzanne Goldenberg (of the British newspaper The Guardian) and Orla Guerin (of the BBC) number among the biggest boosters of the Palestinian cause.

The dichotomy is explained by the fact that Jewry now is in the possession of the mightiest military and political power in history - the United States - and all the vassal states which the US has conquered through force or diplomacy. As the ruling élite of the Jewish-American State, it is under an obligation to maintain the empire if it does not wish to surrender it. At the same time, it feels sympathy for the 'Third World', even for the Palestinians in their national liberation struggle against Israel.

Jewry is divided into two factions: on the left, we find the liberal Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews who feel that the Arabs are their natural allies in the struggle against European civilisation; on the right, the neoconservative hawks - a tendency represented now by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz - who want to use goyim armies to annihilate the enemies of Israel.

Yockey, describing the factional split in Jewry, writes in The World- that:

It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function independently. As Zionists, they are committed to the destruction of the Western Civilization, and in this they sympathize with Russia, with China, with Japan, with the Arabs, and as such they anathematize Germany, which is the mind and heart of the Western Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly remain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization even while destroying its soul and its meaning. In a word, they are working simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit! If a commander of a fortress sympathizes with the enemy, but yet insists in defending the fortress rather than surrendering it, he has surely found the highest formula of destruction.

GOOD JEW, BAD JEW

William Pierce, in a radio talk, once spoke of the factional divisions in the (2002) coalition government in Israel: on one side, Shimon Peres, the leader of the Labour Party, the "dove"; on the other, Ariel Sharon, the leader of the Likud, the "hawk". Peres and Sharon, Pierce said, were 'good cop and bad cop', or at least hoped to present themselves as so to the goyim of the West.

Clearly one could not find two Jews more dissimilar than, for instance, radical leftist Noam Chomsky and extreme Likudnik Richard Perle - but are they that dissimilar?

Both the Zionists and anti-Zionists only differ in the field of foreign policy. The Zionist Right in America generally agrees with the social program of the anti-Zionist Left. That is, both favour: more forced immigration of non-whites; more multiculturalism; more MTV; more pornography; more cultural nihilism; more permissiveness towards Negro and Hispanic crime; more attacks on the cultural heritage of Europeans and Americans; and so on. Certainly neither Jewish faction can abide any Nazism, fascism, anti-Semitism or "racism" of any sort (although the neoconservative Right is sympathetic to anti-Muslim "racism"). Holocaust Revisionism is definitely out.

The truth of the matter Jewish-American "liberals" and "conservatives" are working towards the same Jewish-Bolshevist goals: they only disagree on how these are to be implemented.

The neoconservatives believe that 'democracy' and 'free markets' will do the trick and should be imposed upon recalcitrant Muslim nations, by force if necessary. The radical Jewish-American left, on the other hand, focuses on domestic policy: it wants to eliminate 'capitalism'.

That 'capitalism' is not, of course, Jewish capitalism (Jews are the wealthiest economic group in America), but the capitalism of the Rockefellers and Fords and other Yankee, WASP, East Coast plutocrats - the kind who ruled America before the ascent to power of Roosevelt and his gang of Jewish liberals and crypto-communists.

The America before 1933, as Pierce wrote, was, for all its faults, healthy and white, and for this reason the American Jews of both the Right and Left hate it and want to extirpate it. The neoconservatives may not be as obsessed with destroying European culture and civilisation from within as the liberal and anti-Zionist Jews are, but this is because they give the political destruction of enemies of Israel more priority than anything else.

Even so, the neoconservatives are not completely indifferent to domestic politics. They will use the opportunity of a civil state of emergency, like the present one that exists in America, to crack down on white nationalists, anti-Semites, Holocaust Deniers, and so on.

OPPORTUNITIES & STRATEGIES

The Bush administration, since 9-11, has been a godsend for anti-Semites: America, as a power, has become completely Israelised; it emanates the obnoxiousness, the self-centredness, the solipsism and the bullying arrogance of the Jew. As a result, it has alienated the Muslim world and not a few independent-thinking Europeans, of all political persuasions, as well. (At this rate, we can only hope that Bush and his neoconservative coterie win re-election in 2004).

It is possible that Jewry will win its war against the Muslim enemies of Israel: after all, it won the war against Nazi Germany, and against post-Stalinist Russia - both of whom were tougher opponents than the Arabs. But the world has become tired of Jews. One can say that Jewry has long been the chairman of the board of the 'Bolshevist' corporation, but now the shareholders - the coloured peoples of the Third World countries the USA rules or seeks to rule - are becoming disgruntled. Perhaps the coloured peoples will look for, and find, a new leader in the person of Russia or China.

What of the peoples of European descent? Should they join forces, like the National Bolshevists of old, with the Third World enemies of Jewry - ie, China, Russia and the 'rogue states'?

Obviously, the National Bolshevism of Yockey, Thiriart, Otto Remer ended in failure: by the 1980s, it was apparent to all that any alliance between European nationalists and the USSR would fail to deliver the goods. The world economy had been torn apart in the 1970s, and the USSR's brand of socialism - unlike China's - was incapable of weathering the storm. The USSR, then, was placed in a position of extreme weakness, with the results we all know. We in the movement sided with a loser; it is possible that, by siding with the Arabs, we are siding with another loser, and that the Arabs will be defeated just as the Russians were.

One of the problems with Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism is that neither of them possesses a true antagonism towards the Jews and Israel. The truth is that Judaism is part and parcel of the Arabic-Middle Eastern culture, history and civilisation. At bottom, the quarrel between the Arabs and the Jews is nothing more than a brother's quarrel - like, for instance, a quarrel between French and Germans. The Muslims really only make two demands on America and Israel: that Israel withdraw from the Occupied Territories, evacuate the settlements, and allow the formation of a Palestinian State; and that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights. Were Israel to do so, it would guarantee peace with the Palestinians and with Syria, and the entire Muslim world, and we in the West would lose an ally in the Arabs.

On the other hand, we in the West who are aware of the Jews' true character have grievances against the Jew too numerous to mention. At bottom is our visceral disgust for the Jew: we do not see him as a wayward brother, as the Muslims do, but a total enemy who is completely foreign to us and who is responsible for the most terrible crimes in history. We will not be satisfied by a mere Israeli withdrawal from the Territories and the Golan - what good would that do us?

Eventually, we in the West will need to wage war against the Jew - a total, no-holds barred, war. The Arabs and the rest of the coloured world will have no stomach for that: their opposition to the Jew is merely political, not racial, cultural, spiritual.

Furthermore, the Arabs and the rest of the Third World will oppose the revival of an America and a Europe under a white, as opposed to Jewish, leadership. The three superpowers today are China, Russia and Israel-America. The coloured races have no real objection to this arrangement: they much prefer that America and Europe be ruled by Jews than by whites, for Jews are fellow members of the 'Bolshevist' club, and victims, like them, of Western "racism" and oppression.

Suppose that the Negroes of America were given a choice between the present Jewish-controlled politicians - who at least can be counted upon to give them plenty of welfare - and a government of white separatists: who would they choose? The question answers itself.

FNF NOTE: At this point I must object. Why should they have to choose between either? Why not give them a government and a community/land of their own which they and they alone are responsible for its success or failure?

It is true that Westerners who want to overthrow Jewish rule are in a vulnerable position, that we need all the help we can get - and that means help from the Russians, Chinese and the Arabs. American nationalists should not even spurn offers of assistance from disaffected Negroes and Hispanics.

THE VERDICT ON NATIONAL SOCIALISM

Whether or not one adopts a National Bolshevist stance - and by that I mean a stance of anti-Semitic socialism - depends on one's economic views. Some in the movement see capitalism as a degrading, exploitative, unstable economic system which must be replaced with socialism at all costs; others have no problem with it. Clearly, socialism, at the present, is further away from realisation in the Western world more than ever. Despite the recurring financial and economic crises which have occurred since 1970, capitalism still endures. I would venture to say that, at this point in time, socialism - or even corporatism, which has been championed by many distinguished theorists of post-war fascism - is an unrealistic option.

At any rate, we in the movement should strive for product differentiation: that is, offering prospective recruits something they will not find in, for instance, the ideologies of anarchism/Marxism, environmentalism, conservatism, and so on. Our strength lies in our willingness to address racial politics, and, above all, our willingness to name the Jew.

Certainly anti-Semitism is compatible with a wide variety of ideologies: there is no reason why the Green parties around the world should not stand on anti-Semitic, anti-Israel platforms and espouse Holocaust denial. Likewise, there is no reason why a 'pink' liberal cannot be racialist: after all, the Democrat Party in America was the bastion of Southern racialism for many years.

But it just so happens that only our movement is left to take up cudgels on the race question and the Jew question. The Jews and their vassals have seized control of all the disparate political factions of the West - on both the Left and Right - and succeeded in removing any "racist" and anti-Semitic ideological elements. The movement, on the other hand, has been left alone. Part of this is because our movement, in the post-war years, has been too small and unimportant for the Jews to infiltrate and take over; but mostly it is because we have deliberately fostered an environment in which no Jew could ever feel welcome.

As a result, we in the movement have the monopoly on racialism and anti-Semitism, and, in these present times, when the Jewish domination of American and European policy is becoming clear to even the most imperceptive individuals, we should be exploiting that monopoly as much as possible. That means, then, putting our doctrines on economics and social policy on the back burner for the time being. The movement, at the present, is incapable of steering the Western world towards socialism: but it can foment anti-Semitism, which will do more to destabilise the Jewish (and Masonic?) political and financial power structure more than any socialist polemics.

---

Russian National Unity and National Bolshevik Flags provided courtesy of FOTW. For further information on the flags of the rising 'Red and Brown Axis,' visit:NAT. BOLSH. FLAGS

---

FNF NOTE: The author's conclusion that for now, we must place all other Social Justice issues and environmental concerns aside are entirely disagreed with. Our greatest strength is that we are not just simple minded racists like the majority of the "movement" he speaks of. Our strengths are given to us by the fact that we are concerned with a plethora of issues, folkish autonomy is but one of the many issues we are taking heed to. Those that only concentrate one the one issue, we believe, are doomed to failure. The so-called "movement" that is referred to throughout the article has only that one cause. It is for that reason that their "movement" is stagnant and hasn't moved anywhere for decades. The very thought of giving space on one of their websites to causes like National Bolshevism, National Anarchism, and Third Position movements would send most of these pathetic right-wing reactionaries into anaphylactic shock! Instead, we must move forward, not left or right, and continue in the fight for National Freedom, as well as Social Justice!

To discuss this article and other issues please visit the Folk And Faith Forum.