The trouble with Jew centric theory

We are saturated in hateful anti white propaganda. To counter this propaganda it is enormously effective to suggest that those spreading it do not internally identify as white, even though they may superficially look white, that those piously bemoaning white privilege and piously saying “white like me” do not in fact think they themselves are white, but rather, by white, they mean “goy”, that they are preaching hatred against the outgroup that they hope to exterminate by means of their underclass allies, hence the oddly suicidal Jewish enthusiasm for the Islamification of Europe.

It is a devastatingly effective meme. Wonderfully effective. And there is quite a lot of truth to it. And it works great on the anti Christian propaganda also, linking it to the the anti white propaganda. If someone is genuinely an atheist, he will not care about Christians, though he might well worry about Muslims. Show me an active, energetic prosyletizing atheist, and he energetically prosyletizes against Christians, not Jews and not Muslims, and most of the time he interprets the old testament as not meaning what it says, but rather what twenty first century Jews today think that it means – in other words, the vast majority of active, energetic, prosyletizing “atheists” just somehow happen to believe that Jews have a special pipeline to God, which is an odd belief for an “atheist” to have.

But then you wind up overlooking anti male propaganda and the huge epidemic of false rape accusations and frivolous domestic violence accusations. And wind up overlooking leftist victories before 1930s, in particular the war of Northern Aggression, and worst of all, overlooking the emancipation of women.

Jew centric theory always winds up saying that 1930s leftism, the leftism of Hitler and FDR, was just fine, that leftism was not too bad until Jews got in on it, that leftism was just fine until the Frankfurt School corrupted it. It was not just fine.

The future belongs to those that show up. Whites, particularly high IQ whites, only succeed in reproducing within the patriarchal family structure.

If you believe we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth, have to unemancipate women.

If we are going to unemancipate women, 1930s leftism is not OK. If 1930s leftism is not OK, we wind up with Moldbug’s Puritan/Harvard hypothesis.

If you would rather blame everything on Jews than on Harvard, or on the Frankfurt School rather than the Harvard of 1800, you wind up not being able to enjoy this rebel anthem:

93 Responses to “The trouble with Jew centric theory”

  1. JRM says:

    “If you would rather blame everything on Jews than on Harvard, or on the Frankfurt School rather than the Harvard of 1800…”

    These are not mutually exclusive territories. “Harvard”, as we term the ideological umbrella, has much to answer for; so do the Jews.

    The Jews become a problem in America after the mid-1800’s; we can’t blame the Jews for the War of Northern Aggression, but we do get to blame them for the Immigration Act of 1965.

  2. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Irresponsible people like to blame history.

  3. anon says:

    “All the same, you need only consider, a little more closely, the pretty puss of the average kike, male or female, to remember it forever…. Those spying eyes, lyingly pale…that uptight smile…those livestocky lips that recall: a hyena…. And then out of nowhere there’s that look that drifts, heavy, leaden, stunned…the nigger’s blood that flows….

    Those twitchy naso-labial commisures…twisted, furrowed, downward curving, defensive, hollowed by hate and disgust…for you!

    …for the abject animal of the enemy race, accursed, to be destroyed…. Their nose, the “toucan” beak of the swindler, the traitor, the felon…the sordid schemes, the betrayals, a nose that points to, lowers toward, and falls over their mouths, their hideous slots, that rotten banana, their croissant, their filthy kike grins, boorish, slimy, even in beauty pageants, the very outline of a sucking snout: the Vampire…. It’s pure zoology!…elementary!… It’s your blood these ghouls are after!…

    It’s enough to make you scream…to shudder, if you have the least inkling of instinct left in your veins, if anything still moves around in your meat and your head, other than pasty lukewarm rhetoric, stuffed with cunning little tricks, the gray suit of bloodless clichés, marinated in alcohol….

    Grins of the kind you find on Jewish pusses, understand, aren’t improvised, they don’t date from yesterday or from the Dreyfus Affair…. They erupt from the depths of the ages, to terrify us, to draw us into miscegenation, into bloody Talmudic mires and, finally, into the Apocalypse!

    Louis-Ferdinand Céline

    Mort á crédit (Death on the Installment Plan, 1936)

    (Hey don’t blame me for the quote above, Mort á crédit is literature, widely regarded as one of the 20th century’s greatest novels.)

  4. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Merkel and Hildebeest are women and women don’t count.

  5. imnobody00 says:

    Blaming the Jew or the Muslim is only a way of deferring one’s own faults. Why could the Jew or the Muslim go against Western civilization IN OUR OWN LANDS. I quote Mark Citadel about the Muslims but it could be applied to the Jews:

    Think back a moment to one of the key critiques of feminism; this being that the concept of the ‘patriarchy’ as an international body of men with nefarious designs to disenfranchise women at every turn, is a conspiracy theory without basis. It’s a conspiracy theory that has to be appealed to in order to explain the existence of this inequitable system that we have. If there was no conspiracy, feminists would have to admit that the way societies treat men and women are in fact grounded in brute facts about male and female behavior.

    While conspiracy theories such as ZOG or the Eurabia Project are not without merit (indeed aspects of such theories tend to be true in some instances), underlying this are the same problems. Blame is deliberately shifted away from oneself in order to avoid unpleasant conclusions. The unpleasant conclusion that we can reach with regard to the Islamization of Europe is one that many of Islam’s critics will not acknowledge: that there is something intrinsically wrong with our societies, and this is why they are being eroded and transformed by a hostile foreign power.

  6. Wagner says:

    Jim, this isn’t a question of origins, that is a distraction from the issue. The issue is what is happening now. Moldbug’s genealogical scapegoat of puritanism is accurate but the question is who are the brightest, most persuasive “puritans” today?

    • Wagner says:

      B. is the only one who’s been able to pluck at your wreath. That alone is significant in regard to the JQ. Without Jews there is a lot less of a dialectical push, so it will be lobotomizing to genocide them. But if B. is actually a malignant threat we need to make that sacrifice.

    • jim says:

      If we are going to restore patriarchy, have to punish Queen Caroline, not the Jews.

      You are telling me that without the Jews selling Queen Caroline corrupting romance stories, Queen Caroline would have been be faithful to King George.

      I don’t think so.

      • Wagner says:

        We’re not talking about punishment, we’re talking about the coup. Many of the Juggernauts of progressivism are Jews, therefore…

        • jim says:

          Come the coup, if the progressive leadership gets helicopter rides to the Pacific Ocean, there is going to a lot of Jews getting wet. It does not follow that we should give Jews helicopter rides instead of the progressive leadership.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Its a lot easier to distinguish skypes from aryans then it is to distinguish virtuous aryans from heretical aryans, its a category error to try and apply to same thinking to both situations in a colorblind fashion.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Any advanced people, if they wish for decent living for decent people, must expel aliens from their society as a matter of course.

            A simple unadorned principle; square it with the ideological system of choice however you like.

          • pdimov says:

            “It does not follow that we should give Jews helicopter rides instead of the progressive leadership.”

            The point of awarding helicopter rides for leftism is to make people not be leftist. Since Jews can’t stop being (ethnically) Jewish, helicopter rides for being ethnically Jewish make no sense.

      • Koanic says:

        Jews are effeminate. Women are effeminate.

        Civilization requires the conquest of matriarchy.

        r/K. Same shit, different day.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      To blame for the Anglo colonies being the most successful, especially compared with those of the Spanish and French? Stop handing the self-flagellators their preferred implement of self-torture, and then please do refrain from continuing on so provincially!


  7. glenfilthie says:

    That’s a heart breaking tune Jim.

  8. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Seems like a false dilemma to me.

    It makes sense to be careful about accusations of heresy amongst your fellow tribe-members, because being hasty of accusing your fellow tribe members of heresy is more or less emblematic of the chronic disloyalty syndrome that afflicts the solipsistically minded leftist, his propesity for hating the near and ‘loving’ the far (because the near can intrude into his narcissistic fantasy realm, while the far exist only as abstractions he can project himself upon).

    Khazars and semites are *not* your tribe members though. They are aliens, and you can treat them the same way you would treat any other alien: with free tickets.

    To either a boat ride, or a helicopter ride.

    • jim says:

      It is obviously wrong to give Jews the helicopter ride because other Jews make movies like “The Kingdom of Heaven”.

      On the other hand, it is morally right to encourage unassimilated Jews to move to Israel by not letting them join the country club because other Jews make movies like “The Kingdom of Heaven”.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        I would contend that ‘assimilated skype’ is an oxymoron.


  9. Markus says:

    I understand where you’re coming from Jim and likewise see the similarity between negroe blaming white and white blaming jew, it is also easy to look at history and figure that jew or no jew aryan civilizations tend to commit the same mistakes over and over again.
    That said I’d sleep better at night if there were no jews at all instead of having them in Greater Israel.

  10. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The Afro.-plantation owners should have been stopped sooner, but better late than never. Anti-whites defending the importing of coloured labour are as obvious as ever… I encourage everyone to kick _hard_ against such An. Cap. wriggling and then the point will get across.


  11. Now that many on the right, not just the fringes or Hitler armband-wearing lunatics, are noticing that the Jew seems to be behind every negative social movement meant to destroy western civilisation, we suddenly have solemn topics like this saying actually Jews aren’t at fault for anything.

    Who was behind modern feminism? Second-wave feminism was an entirely Jewish movement. Sexual liberation in general is a Jewish movement. Sexual neuroticism has always been a hallmark of Jews in general.

    Now that everyone’s awake and noticing, we have articles like this “Hey, wait a minute, don’t focus on us Jews over here destroying your society – no, it’s 50% of your own people who are at fault! Yeah, focus on them.”

    • jim says:

      Who was behind modern feminism? Second-wave feminism was an entirely Jewish movement

      Modern feminism was a logical consequence of first wave feminism, as for example the not in the least Jewish Amelia Earhart being carried across the Atlantic like a sack of potatoes by a man, and then getting a ticker tape parade for her great heroism, Madame Curie getting not one but two noble prizes for work that no one would remember if a man did it. (Who discovered radon, a similar but enormously more important discovery?)

      And similarly, the very Jewish civil rights movement was a logical consequence of the not in the least Jewish War of Northern Aggression.

      You cannot roll back second wave feminism, except you undo first wave feminism and female emancipation.

    • jim says:

      Second-wave feminism was an entirely Jewish movement.

      Therefore first wave feminism was just fine, and the 1950s prove we can live with it.

      No, if it lives, we will die.

    • jim says:

      Now that everyone’s awake and noticing, we have articles like this “Hey, wait a minute, don’t focus on us Jews over here destroying your society – no, it’s 50% of your own people who are at fault! Yeah, focus on them.”

      How about we just focus on the people destroying our society without worrying too much about their ethnicity?

      How much is too much?

      It is too much when you start to imply that first wave feminism was just fine, the FDR leftism and Hitler leftism was just fine.

      • Cavalier says:

        It wasn’t civilization-ending. What we have now is civilization-ending.

        • Alfred says:

          All slopes are slippery

          • Cavalier says:

            Some slopes are slipperier than others.

            And sometimes a certain group turns your slope into an oil slick.

            Desperately ignoring the oilmen won’t help us clean up the mess.

            And before we can cleanse the slope we need a great man to cleanse the oilmen.

          • Alfred says:

            Sure you can’t ignore the jew problem. But I’d say first-wave feminism was just as civilisation-ending as what we have now. The moment you accept gender equality you make patriarchy an unprincipled exception and unprincipled exceptions seldom last.

            My grandfather once said that ‘a good wife knows when to be quiet and let the man do the talking’ which back then I thought was awesome and radical. In hindsight I realise he was in fact a very pozzed man and that that remark was just an unprincipled exception, a leftover of old tradition.

        • jim says:

          Sustaining civilization was an unprincipled exception to concessions we had already made. Unprincipled exceptions are hard to maintain. You are standing on a slippery slope.

          Having agreed to moral and legal equality for women, society, horrified by Wiemar and frightened of the consequences of Wiemar, quietly and furtively decided to have patriarchy in practice. Not really going to fly. If we want patriarchy in practice, have to openly proclaim it morally right and legally enforce it.

          • jim says:

            If you want patriarchy, have to have Queen Caroline whipped, or divorced with only the clothes she stands up in.

            • Cavalier says:

              By all means let us return to patriarchs the power of life and death over their women.

              That doesn’t change my point, which is that there is a lot of cushion where patriarchy enough to sustain modern industrial civilization can effectively exist, as demonstrated by the gap between 1820 and 1960, that patriarchy is an organically occurring phenomenon, and that it takes a lot of deliberate and systematic effort by an extremely large and invasive state to stamp it out everywhere. In fact, it seems to take 2/3 or more of the entire federal budget out of an entirely overgrown government, that Leviathan on the Potomac, as well as a TV powered by Hollywood dredging cultural sludge into nearly every home.

              If tomorrow Washington collapsed into its own private singularity, I suspect most of the Cathedral-wives with any residual value would find themselves privatized so fast your head would spin, and you’d scratch it and wonder if you just saw what you think you just saw.

              • jim says:

                Patriarchy is not that easy.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The Biblical patriarchs seemed to do okay with minimal state assistance. They were responsible for most of their own justice, for instance.

                  I exaggerate, but only slightly.

                  And supposing Washington collapses into its own private singularity, and all the Big Daddy gibs and make-work jobs dissipate into the aether…where is a Cathedral-wife’s next meal going to come from?

                  I rather suspect the answer to that question is, “from some man”.

    • lalit says:

      Holy Shit! Is this “the Oswald Spengler of the Asia time?”

  12. peppermint says:

    I’m an enthusiastic proseltysing atheist, though I’m embarrassed to share atheism with the “secular” humanist “atheists” who smuggle in some kind of theology in their utilitarianism.

    NS or nothing. Maybe Orthodox Christianity under the Emperor of the East ,just as long as it doesn’t try pushing the whole feed the hungry google people thing.

    The coed teachers at my elementary school cooed over Greek paganism suggesting a moral obligation to be hospitable towards strangers, presumably believing they could use that to force googles on ancient Greeks. Could it happen that way? The new weltanschauung recognizes that a reputation for hospitality is important, and it’s also important to be supportive of others of the nation, but parasitic behavior must never be rewarded, and all other concerns are subservient to the 14w.

    • pdimov says:

      “The coed teachers at my elementary school cooed over Greek paganism suggesting a moral obligation to be hospitable towards strangers, presumably believing they could use that to force googles on ancient Greeks.”

      If only we could watch them try. Would have been fun.

      • Dave says:

        Even better, walk into a gay orgy in Ancient Greece and ask if men who love each other should be allowed to marry. “Sure, most of us are married,” they’d say. “No, I mean married to each other, not to women.”

        They would surely think you an imbecile or a lunatic. Marriage has nothing to do with love and everything to do with raising children.

    • lalit says:

      Peppermint, is there any hope of reviving European Paganism? The Greeks and Romans left behind meticulous records regarding their traditions, religion, Gods, beliefs, philosophy and the like. Perhaps it is time to revive them from the dead much like Israel revived Hebrew from the Grave?

      You might want to talk to Nassim Nicholas Taleb who is a practitioner of Greco-Roman Paganism.

      Personally, I would go for the ancient Norse religion which is really Badass, but damnit, those Bloody Northerners left no written records regarding their practices, beliefs and traditions.

      • jim says:

        Actually the Icelanders left some records regarding their practices, though not explicitly, it was more like the air that they breathed, implied and taken for granted, rather than stated.

        The icelandic priests were warrior priests. Leading the posse against wrongdoers was an integral part of their religion. Being a priest required a sword or a battle axe, and required you be pretty good at it. In order for such a religion to exist, you need a justice system that rests directly on personal honor and private vengeance, that does not reserve violence to the police, and that punishes all crimes with fines, death, or exile.

        According to Snorri, the Norse gods were deified ancestors. A long time ago somewhere in what is now Eastern Europe, two tribes met, fought, made peace, fought some more, and eventually merged through exchange of (mostly female) hostages. These two tribes are the ancestors of what we would call the Aryans, and the patriarchs of these tribes were deified to become the Norse Gods.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Patriarchs… Correct!

        • lalit says:

          Warrior Priest is a pretty bad-ass concept. I agree. If you give the monopoly of violence to the Police and the state, emasculation of men follows, feminism arises, patriarchy dies, society disintegrates. A man derives a large part of his alphatude in the eyes of his woman by his ability and willingness to do violence (towards her as well as rival men) to keep her. You get rid of this and you have destroyed the man!

          Down with the state’s monopoly on violence! Death to it, I say!

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Ialit”, look to make sure your use of “patriarchy” meshes with “Jim”‘s use of “patriarchs”. The meaning is different.

            Good grief! No wonder this blogger keeps getting bogged down with edgy-ism… “Hitler”, Confederates and patriarchy. Oh, my!


            • jim says:

              But it does.

              I argue that fathers and husbands need to cooperate and organize to control women, that because nature has given women so much power, men need organize the difficult task of making sure the law gives women very little power.

              That we do not have the patriarchy that feminists imagine, but we should.

              One key law that we need is to make it legal for the husband to kill an adulterer, but illegal for an adulterer to kill the husband, except in self defense. It is not enough merely to make adultery (in the sense of sex with another man’s wife) illegal and punishable by death. In order to make the husband alpha in his wife’s eyes, and thus prevent the adultery from happening at all, it has to be punishable by the husband.

              • Alan J. Perrick says:

                But why pretend like women who think with their aching wombs actually know what they’re talking about? The changes need to be made in the court systems, by men of character, not at the meta-cultural level which involves a society’s usually passed-away patriarchs.

                There are a few people who call each other patriarchs and so-on, and even people on the internet who do it, who aren’t even on the level of the Quiverfull “patriarchs”, but the most anyone should be called are _potential_ patriarchs. If the lower time-preference time-frame isn’t enough to excite a person into action, that person likely does not have the character necessary to be of any use in the developing of any kind of good society.

              • Alfred says:

                Husbands cooperating sounds like friends cooperating, which in cathedral-saturated culture seems impossible. So far my experience is that sons, brothers and fathers have most fertile ground for cooperation.

  13. imnobody00 says:

    There are three theories:

    1) The Jew centric theory
    2) The Puritan theories.
    3) The De Jouvenel theory (

    1) and 2) are about the culture. 3) is about power. Jim does a good job of refuting 1). This is not to say that secular Jews haven’t had any importance in the last stages of liberalism. You must see secular Jews as conversos to a non-theistic religion (liberalism, born of the Enlightenment). As conversos, they are specially fanatics. They also retain some features of their former faith: the hate to Christian or white culture and the in-group preference for other Jews. But their influence in liberalism has been very recent in historical terms.

    I think that 2) and 3) have merit and are very compatible. A system of insecure power combined by an ideology that is prone to holiness spirals has produced that the Western civilization goes farther and farther away from reality until becoming self-destructive.

    Having said that Moldbug is slightly mistaken about the Puritan hypothesis. His theory doesn’t fit with the fact that the Enlightenment ideas were produced first in France, not in Massachusetts. How the Continental Enlightenment fits with the Puritan liberalism? I propose the following outline:

    INITIAL STATE: A society composed by
    Very high class: Church.
    High class: King (and below him, aristocracy).
    Middle class: Bourgeois.
    Low class: peasants, artisans, etc.
    (The primacy of the church had steadily been eroded through the last centuries of the Middle Ages).

    FIRST REVOLUTION: The Reformation. It was the revolution of the king and princes against the Catholic Church. Ideology: Calvinism, Luteranism, etc. See William Cavanaugh’s book The Myth of Religious Violence.

    After that, the society is

    High class: King (and below him, aristocracy and church, which is the intellectual branch, although retaining much power)
    Middle class: Bourgeois.
    Low class: peasants, artisans, etc.

    SECOND REVOLUTION: The bourgeois revolutions (French Revolution, American Independence, The Glorious Revolution in England and similars). Ideologies: Puritanism (in England), Liberalism (that is, the Enlightenment, in France). After that, the society is

    High class: Bourgeois with an intellectual branch of Puritans (in UK and USA) Enlightenment philosophers (in France)
    Low class: peasants, artisans, etc.

    Although most of the people in America was Puritan, the American Independence was made by philosophers of the Enlightenment branch, not by Puritans (Franklin, Jefferson cutting his Bible, etc). So the American constitution is based on Enlightenment ideas (read the Declaration of Independence). With time, American Puritans adopted more and more ideas of the Enlightenment

    See for example Scroll down until you find “Considerable differences existed between Christendom of the 1600s and early 1700s and Christianity of the late 1700s:”

    This adoption of the Enlightenment ideas was more after the victory of the Enlightenment-based American republic. American puritans adapted to the Enlightenment official ideology, producing a hybrid of Christianity and Enlightenment: The Social Gospel, The Quakers.

    This was holding two incompatible systems at the same time. So, with time, they ended up rejecting Christianity and adopting Enlightenment in full (Unitarianism, Political Correctness). They retained some Puritan attitudes: holier-than-thou, the city on a hill, wealth as a mark of the elect.

    For me, the difference is in the original sin. Once a person rejects this idea, it has rejected the pillar of Christianity. Puritans were obsessed with original sin. Man is bad, this is why the focus is on self-improvement, trying to be holier and more Christian.

    Enlightenment philosophers rejected it (Rousseau said that the man is good and institutions are bad). When one rejects original sin, the evil of society cannot be blamed to the evil of man, but to evil institutions. Social reform is the way to go. The Social Gospel for example show that this people are no longer Christian but a hybrid religion of Christianity and the Enlightenment on their way to atheism.

    So Moldbug was wrong, these were not Puritan ideas but Enlightenment ideas that were adopted by Puritans (for the record, I am not Puritan at all)

    • imnobody00 says:


      Slightly off-topic:

      With time and the spread of education, a new middle class arises: the educated people. The intellectuals will break with the bourgeois and join these educate people to bring the communist revolutions in name of the people. In communist societies the educated people and intellectuals will rule. In capitalist societies will ally with the bourgeois. It is the rise of the managerial class (see )

    • Candide III says:

      Look up _Anglomanie_ and Voltaire’s

      • imnobody00 says:

        Thank you. I will do it. I had some knowledge but it is better to read it. I am a learner.

        It seems to me that Voltaire’s praises of Puritans are only limited to the things they share with the Enlightenment and to the things they differ with the Catholic church. This does not seem that Voltaire draws his ideas from the Puritans. Voltaire was a deist and not a Christian and Puritans were still Christians at this time (well, in case of the Quakers, half-Christians while Voltaire is not Christian at all).

        I accept there was a cross-pollination between Enlightenment and Puritanism in both ways. After all, both ideologies were weapons for the bourgeois to take the power.

        Anyway, Enlightenment philosophy was influenced by Puritanism but it is also derived from Descartes, which is independent from Puritanism. English philosophers are also heavily influenced by Puritanism but also by Descartes, which rejected Thomistic philosophy and started modern philosophy. IMHO, Descartes is the origin of the Enlightenment.

        Except if you tell me that Descartes was also influenced by Puritans. I have not seen any evidence about that. But if you know this, please let me know. I am only a learner. And I am very interested in the origin of Descartes’ ideas

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      You’re right about a lot of this ideology, but there’s no reason to even go there when the issue of race comes up, and one takes the side of the multi-racial vs. the homogenous white group… Let’s stay focused.

  14. Cavalier says:

    The leftism of any decade before 1970 was sustainable. That doesn’t mean it was good, but it was sustainable, and being sustainable, was okay. So if we could have frozen the leftism at 1950, it would have been okay. The only problem is that we didn’t freeze it at 1950, probably because it’s just simply impossible to freeze at 1950, so it rapidly progresses to 1960, which is when all hell breaks loose.

    If we got back to 1950 and stayed there, we would have a 90% white country, a TFR of 3.0, virgin brides, very little divorce, no divorce-rape, no marital rape, real fathers not beta-schlub eunuch cucks, freedom of association, livable inner cities, a still-virile low church Christianity, no Vatican II, still-unchallenged world hegemony, etc. etc.

    • urquhart says:

      If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

      (This also applies to restoring the Stuarts, incidentally.).

      • Anon says:

        you can push that back the beginning of time. “lol, guess humans jave never produced abnything good, best to kill ourselves.”

      • Cavalier says:


        It merely serves to illustrate the point that the Jews’ conversion to Progressivism coincided with our dramatic acceleration from a rather tepid, restrained Anglo leftism with plenty of unqualified exceptions for all the important things in life into a cracked-out coked-up supercharged Jew-infested Anglo leftism, to the point today that Cathedral edict commands belief that the races are equal, the sexes are equal, and a litany of other insane beliefs, such as that men can become women and use women’s bathrooms.

        Until Boas, for example, eugenics was a hobby horse of the left. Among other things, the British had a great field of anthropology, the Germans had a great field of anthropology, and the Americans had a decent field of anthropology as sort of an extension of the Royal Society, but Boas came to America and utterly fucked American anthropology, and then America utterly fucked the British and the Germans and everyone else, so America’s fucked anthropology is now the standard across basically the entire world.

        No surprise, then, that the subversive shitstain Boas was a Jew convert to Progressivism, and one of his primary concerns was oppressing antisemitism, and in so doing he basically killed all of Darwinism in all of academia.

        We probably would have gotten here eventually, but the damage done by men like Boas and his students (like Margaret Mead, who basically made up everything in her entire career) is incalculable. We would be colonizing space by the time an Anglo left unpolluted by Jew conversos finally reached this point, if it ever reached this point.

      • jim says:

        Entropy always increases, you always have to impose order.

        Which means you institutions with moral and coercive power to impose order.

        We could have had the fifties and kept them indefinitely provided that during the fifties Senator McCarthy gave commies helicopter flights to the Pacific ocean, provided that immoral women were publicly whipped, provided that the shotgun marriages of the 1950s featured actual shotguns that might actually be used to shoot those inclined to skip the marriage.

        And when I say “return to the 1790s” that is pretty much what I mean. The 1950s, plus the coercion that it takes to make the 1950s stick around.

  15. anon says:

    “Most people still haven’t grasped the fact that Jews are the principal exponents of the massive non-White immigration invasion into White countries and of course only into White countries.

    Examples include Job Cohen in Holland, Barbara Spectre in Sweden, Ervin Kohn in Norway, Anneta Kahane, Angela Merkel and Gregor Gysi in Germany, Gerald Kaufman and David Cameron in England, Ronit Lentin and Alan Shatter in Ireland, and George Soros and Larry Summers in the USA.

    Most Jews consciously push for unlimited non-White invasion into these nations. A century ago, Emma Goldman, Bela Kun, Jacob Javits, Vladimir Lenin and Bolshevik affiliates followed a similar agenda, working for Jewish power. It must be understood that it’s been a long standing Jewish policy to subvert and genocide Whites.”

    • jim says:

      Angela Merkel etc is not Jewish. The principle exponents of massive nonwhite invasion are non Jewish.

      • anon says:

        Okay, then I have another list for you.

        A list of neocons who have promoted the endless wars in the Middle East

        • Orthodox says:

          Not all gooks are chinks, but all chinks are gooks.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          If the Neocons are out to protect Israel and have tremendous power, why does Israel not even own Sinai and Gaza today, territory they already conquered and were forced to give back by the international community?

          When I looked at the personnel of the South African anti-Apartheid movement, I found shocking over-representation of Jews taken in as refugees from the Bolsheviks. They were about 0.1% of the population and at least half of prominent anti-Apartheid organisers. Yet most of these Jews, it turns out, are also opposed to Zionism and Israel, and the Bolsheviks they fled were meant to be a Jewish movement.

          There’s clearly something special about Jews. They are both capable and potentially dangerous. But they certainly don’t look very organised.

          • anon says:

            The Yinon Plan (aka, A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties) explains why, or this, more recently from WikiLeaks


            Hillary Clinton: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”

            Here are are a few illustrative excerpts from the Yinon Plan (full text linked below)


            “The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track.

            The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

            Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria.

            In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible.”

            Now compare this to what Gen Wesley Clarke revealed about the lead-up to the Iraq War.

            Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Are we still going to attack Iraq?”   He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

            This document, and the events which have followed its publication, should lay to rest once and for all any illusions we might have harboured in relation to the various wars in the Middle East.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              What does any of that have to do with the questions I asked? If the US invaded Iraq for Israel, the US would have let Israel keep Gaza and Sinai.

              Sounds like the US decided to invade Iraq for whatever reason, then sold it to voters as “good for Israel”.

              • anon says:

                Nice try, Schlomo

              • pdimov says:

                My recollection is that Israel decided to return Sinai on their own as an act of goodwill, but comically, Egypt didn’t hear about it as there was no communication between the two countries and nobody told them.

                But I could be wrong. 🙂

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Israel returned Sinai as part of a peace treaty with Egypt, which it was forced by the US to sign despite winning its war with Egypt.

                • pdimov says:

                  “On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.[167]”

                  “The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The U.S. was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, and some historians claim that they may never have received the offer.[168]”

                  This was what I was remembering. You’re talking about the 1979 treaty.

    • Alfred says:

      In Holland there is Job Cohen pushing open borders but there is also Jan Marijnissen, Diederik Samson and Femke Halsema and many more non-Jewisb politicians who all push for open borders.

      • Jew says:

        You can always point out pro-immigration Jewish intellectuals and politicians. But these are co-opted seculars who have embraced the sources of power whose roots are in (post-)Christian leftism. It is simply wrong to suggest most European Jews embrace Islamization as Jim does here in appeasing certain readers. Euro Jews are leaving the continent. They are voting with their feet and not because Israel still has more Muslims.

        • Virtually every Jewish outlet and most Jewish journalists (who are vastly over-represented in media) cries and cries about how unlimited immigration is sacrosanct, and one reason they always cite is that immigration restrictions will eventually lead to restrictions on Jews.

          Sure, Jews themselves go and live in Israel with tight immigration restrictions, yet at the same time fight tooth and nail against any majority-white country maintaining its demographic integrity.

          The question of “What is good for my host country?” is never asked. Instead, it is asked “What is good for the Jews?”

          • Jew says:

            No one of any remotely serious intellect or social position champions literally *unlimited* immigration (everyone of real influence knows how to hedge and qualify), so that’s b.s. Yes, Jews should renounce their history of leftism. Unlikely? More likely than you can find more than ten (a generous guesstimate) percent of Euro Jews saying they want to live among large numbers of Muslims, notwithstanding that many still support the EU empire. They are quite sincere in thinking the EU is good for you, and not just good for Jews, not that i agree. So there is some confusion given recent revelations of what the likes of Merkel will do to her nation.

            Anyway, Israel is the most alt-right nation in the world and as such it should indeed be a model for others. Build the wall, arm your men. But it would help if gentiles on the right were as obsessed with saying so as they are in finding Jew-left conspiracies. Leftist Jews are simply using their intelligence to assimilate to the leftist sources of modeern gentile power. They are not actually creating anything new. You will corner them better by championing Israel as the model for all nations than by subtle suggestions of “restrictions” on Jews. Outlaw the left and the leftist Jew will go away.

            Jews are disproportionately successful because even if they are leftists they inherit (through the co-evolution of culture and human genetics) a few thousand years of mental struggle with the real anthropological truths of Biblical revelation. We have a good head start on everyone else. If you can accept that in good spirit then you can be a leader for your own nation and for the global masses just getting their first (desired, unavoidable, and resented) tastes of superior Western ways and lashing out at the West’s globalizing “firstness” just as you lash out at Jewish firstness.

            • jim says:

              No one of any remotely serious intellect or social position champions literally *unlimited* immigration (everyone of real influence knows how to hedge and qualify),

              That is not just true. By and large there is no hedging or qualifications. There is hedging and qualification in long mode blog posts in the part that is too long that nobody reads, but on television it absolutely simple – that any restriction on the right of every person in the entire world to come to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting democrat is absolutely, shockingly, outrageously wrong, and completely morally abhorrent.

              More likely than you can find more than ten (a generous guesstimate) percent of Euro Jews saying they want to live among large numbers of Muslims,

              One hundred percent of European Jews, as near to 100% as makes no difference, say with their mouths that they want unlimited Muslim immigration, but say otherwise with their feet. Damn near every Jew in London says he voted for the Muslim Mayor that wants to strip Jews of their power and wealth, and possibly murder them, and if he did not vote for that mayor, would never say so in public in front of his fellow Jews.

              And should you twit him on the issue he will tell you the Andalusian Golden age was indeed Golden, and the crusades were morally abhorrent and a complete failure, and that throughout most of history Muslims have been wonderfully civilized compared to Christians.

              Indeed he does not want to live in a majority muslims society. But neither does he want to oppose the mass movement of Muslims to Europe.

              • Jew says:

                My point has only been that you can’t show me many Euro Jews saying explicitly that they want *unlimited* Muslim immigration. Your last paragraph gets close to the truth: Jews fear Muslims; they understand that they cannot remain long in societies with large Muslim populations; but they are too weak and/or morally and intellectually confused to speak out against the immigration. They have drunk too long the Utopian poison. It’s not that they want to move to Tower Hamlets or make certain North London neighborhoods more accessible to Muslims. They have identified with the left for too long (e.g. they never learned that modern – as opposed to older religious – antisemitism was invented by Karl Marx) and now don’t know what to think or do, except quietly leave. But there have been some Jewish leaders saying that if things don’t change, there will soon be no Jews left in Europe. Which is why there are now these pompous displays among gentile English politicians going after the Labour Party’s resentment of Jews (while doing nothing much about immigration).

                • jim says:

                  My point has only been that you can’t show me many Euro Jews saying explicitly that they want *unlimited* Muslim immigration.

                  Depends on your definition of “explicit”. They are not proposing any limits. If you want to limit Muslim immigration, have to stop the boats, as Australia does. Australia has ads in Syria, in Aleppo on the mobile phone system, showing a small boat in the high seas with a short vague menacing message in Arabic implying that if you head to Australia, the Australian navy is going to do something very bad to you and your boat.

                  From time to time someone in Europe says

                  “Hey, violence and the threat of violence is working great for Australia. Let us try it. Let us do what Australia does to stop illegals.”

                  and as near to 100% of European Jews as makes no difference declare him morally abhorrent. I would call that explicitly rejecting any limits.

  16. Wilbur Hassenfus says:

    “the vast majority of active, energetic, prosyletizing “atheists” just somehow happen to believe that Jews have a special pipeline to God, which is an odd belief for an “atheist” to have.”

    In my experience many atheists rail against the Old Testament in particular.

    • In my experience very few atheists focus much at all on religious Jews. When’s the last time you heard them complaining about Hasids dodging military service in Israel or overtaking the local government on Kiryas Joel and using the public coffers to fund their private schools? They are, for the most part, strangely silent on what is on its face a very theistic religion.

      • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

        Atheists are atheists because culture war against lower-class white Christian *people*. They don’t hate Black Christians or religious Jews, and the worst thing they’ll ever say about a Muslim is that the absolute worst of them are almost as monstrously evil as the nice old Christian lady next door. Not a word against Hindus, and Buddhism, well — that’s for sale at Whole Foods! Can’t get more respectable than that. Not a thing wrong with it.

        They don’t rail against the OT because Jews. They rail against it as a Christian text because it’s farther from modern Cathedralist norms than the NT, hence a juicer target.

  17. Candide III says:

    Anti-semitism is a distinctly prole phenomenon, and proles had it best in times of 1930s (economic-left) leftist regimes. Whether proles’ good fortunes in that period was due to leftism is an entirely separate question, but it’s too complicated for magical thinking, so you have support for 1930s-style socialism combined with anti-semitism that is typical of much of European “far-right” parties.

    • Anti-semitism is a prole phenomenon… which is why the elites and powerful for the last few thousand years keep expelling Jews over and over (or at least that’s what those who say we should be afraid of anti-semitism claim).

    • Cathal says:

      Did you ever hear about this severe worldwide depression which took place in the 1930s?

  18. lalit says:

    “Show me an active, energetic prosyletizing atheist, and he energetically prosyletizes against Christians, not Jews and not Muslims”

    Here in India, it is the other way round. Every active energetic atheist in India proselytizes actively against Hindus, not Christians and not Muslims.

    I guess that the governmental power structure in any country (if it can get away with it) actively tries to subvert the majority religion since it is a rival power center. The state, like the Christian God, is a Jealous State. It cannot tolerate Dual-loyalty or competing loyalties. Individual loyalty must be to the state alone, to the state religion alone, and not to any competing ideology. Hence it’s behavior.

    Generally, the state cannot get away with this sort of thing in Islamic countries and so it does not dare, except in post-Ataturk, Pe-Erdogan Turkey and that also probably. But it seems in any other country, this rule regarding the state trying to subvert the majority religion Holds.

    • jim says:

      “Show me an active, energetic prosyletizing atheist, and he energetically prosyletizes against Christians, not Jews and not Muslims”

      Here in India, it is the other way round. Every active energetic atheist in India proselytizes actively against Hindus, not Christians and not Muslims.

      And is likely a crypto progressive Christian, rather than a crypto progressive Jew. But here in America, probably a crypto Jew.

      But it is not Jews using the state, but the state using Jews. And in India, it is the state using Christians.

      • lalit says:

        Woah Jim! Do you have some sort of a crystal Ball? When it comes to social theories, there is only one way to test whether a theory is correct or not. What is the predictive power of those theories? When that same theory is applied to another culture in another place, can the theory predict what is likely happening there?

        And Jim, you are killing me with your predictions. You know nothing about India, never been there, but your predictions regarding what is likely happening in India are uncannily true enough to be Eerie! You absolutely right that it is crypto progressive Christians doing this in India. That it is the state using Christians (Or as some Hindus believe, the Christians using the state to propagate their ideology). Here is an example of one such crypto progressive Christian pulling down and mocking Hindu traditions.

        The name he has seems Hindu at first glance. So mocking Hindu traditions seems a lot like cultural self-criticism. Note that he posits his name as Mihir S. Sharma. The “S” stands for Simon. I guess, you can do the rest of the Math yourself Jim.

        This is your second such Eerie prediction, Jim.

        I’m now eagerly waiting on your predictions of a TrumpSlide. Hindus love him because of his stand against Islam

        Note, I call them Hindus and not Indians. I’m not calling them Radical Hindus. They are just Hindus. Indian Americans who vote Democrat are not cultural Hindus and therefore not Hindu. They are ideologically closer to crypto progressive Christians rather than Hindus.

        • peppermint says:

          i thought the whole point of splitting with pakstan was to make Indian the same as Hindu, so I suppose it’s now time to reconquer the good parts

          • lalit says:

            Yes, this is what some Hindus wanted. When Pakistan was formed, the muslims promptly kicked out all the Hindus out of Pakistan. The Hindu population of Pakistan fell from 20% to 1.6% in bout of religious cleansing. The Hindus wanted to do the same and kick out all the Muslims in India. But, at that time the Hindus cucked themselves by vesting their trust in two leaders (Much like the Germans are cucking themselves today by appointing Frau Merkel as their Chancellor)

            One of them leaders was a Bald, Frail, bespectacled, cathedral Educated lawyer cum stage managed Sainted mystic hexed by Halitosis with a prior career in South Africa. He taught the Hindus that if someone wanted to kill them, then by Jove they must submit and meekly allow themselves to be killed. He taught pacifism and celibacy to his followers while himself sleeping with teenage Girls as a septuagenarian. This man went on a hunger fast unto death to emotionally blackmail the Hindus into stopping their slaughter of the Muslims. The Majority Hindus being eternal Cucks allowed themselves to get blackmailed and immediately stopped kicking out the Muslims.

            The other was a Grade-A Nimrod cum Jackass who was desperate to win the Cathedral controlled Nobel peace prize. This Person also became India’s first prime minister and he realized that By Jove, if the Muslims were kicked out of India, he could kiss the Nobel Peace prize Good bye. So he had to keep the Muslims in India by shooting Uncucked Hindu Militias that were still trying to kick out the Muslims after the majority got cucked by Baldy’s fast.

            End result: India was 6% Muslim in 1947. It is 15% Muslim today and rising. This has also led to India becoming overpopulated since the Hindus too are popping out babies left right and center in a bid to prevent the Muslims from attaining a majority via Womb Warfare.

            And now Pakistan has the American Blue Empire as well as the Global Ummah as well as a fifth column of Indian muslims on their side while the Hindus are pretty much alone.

            Hindus are pretty much fucked. The Hindus believe theirs to be the eternal faith. They are now realizing that it is not so. Now they realize how the Greeks, Romans, Gauls, celts Lithuanians, Egyptians, Persians Felt as they say their culture, their religion and their traditions being swallowed whole by Desert Abrahamisms.

            • jim says:

              Holiness spiral. Phariseeism.

              Suppose however, your religion rests on big impressive temples that people attend for big impressive ceremonies. Suppose these temples are the personal property of the sovereign. And the Sovereign appoints a high priest who takes a dim view of excessive and conspicuous holiness, takes a dim view of priests who are conspicuously holier than he is. Or suppose the temple is in part the personal private property of some priest, in part state property, like the shrines in Japan. In that case, no holiness competition, since the shrine goes to the son or son in law of the current priest.

              Suppose, however, the temple is controlled by a synod, a committee, rather than being the private personal property of one priest, or fully one the control of one high priest appointed by the sovereign. In that case, the committee is apt to be controlled by the most holy, the pharisees. Suicide is apt to ensue.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                How important was it that Restoration English religion was ideologically sound – the cultural power of the religion – versus the Test Acts which excluded non-adherents from the institutions?

                England contained a ton of people who didn’t adhere to the Church of England. In the 1851 census, the number of people attending Church of England services was only about equal to the number of people attending non-conformist and Catholic services, and Jews (most of those were people attending non-conformist Christian services). The cultural power of the Church therefore seems to have been relatively limited. It was the conservative party, about half the population.

                What was significant was that from the Restoration to the early 1800s, you could not hold public office without being an adherent to the Church of England, and you could not be a university professor without being an adherent to the Church of England until 1871. You were allowed to be excessively and conspicuously holy but you were not allowed to do so and be in power at the same time.

                Although this system eventually proved unstable, 200 years is a pretty good run as human systems go.

              • lalit says:

                Another Eerie statement, Jim. In fact this is exactly what used to happen when India was ruled by kings. There is a famous story of Emperor Bhoja (advised by the high priest) who did exactly this with a sect called the Nalapitas whose doctrine is alarmingly the same as the Cathedral.

                In the days when Kings ruled India, every temple was owned by a family and only some one born into that family or someone adopted by that family (if the priest found that all his sons were delinquents) could become priest. I once argued with you regarding this point. Now I am forced to concede your point based on that facts of Indian history. Everything started to go to hell once governmental committees started controlling temples. But isn’t it Funny, Jim? Governmental control extends only to Hindu temples. Mosques are controlled by hereditary imams. Minority institutions in India are exempt from Governmental control. For this reason there is a huge clamour amoung formely Hindu sects claiming to be non-Hindu so as to have control over their own temples. The Sikhs (Formerly martial sect of Hindus) did this suiccessfully, another community called the Lingayats managed this and the Ramakrishna mission is now trying to do this albeit unsuccessfully.

                It is not a coincidence that most Indian reactionaries are also monarchists. We just don’t know where to look. The descendants of some of our great kings are still alive today, but they are a bunch of cock-sucking hermaphrodites not the least bit worthy of their great ancestors. Clear proof of the dangers of genetic dilution.

                • jim says:

                  Everything started to go to hell once governmental committees started controlling temples.

                  Committees are always a way of hiding power and policy, of putting power into hands that would be violently unpopular and forcefully opposed if seen, of implementing policies that would be violently unpopular if seen.

                  Instead of one central authority declaring “All temples shall do X”, where X is something violently unpopular, each particular temple all by itself just happens to eventually wind up doing X, and if it cannot quite get away with doing X, does half of X, then three quarters of X, then nine tenths of X, and people say one temple, doing nine tenths of X, is controlled by conservatives, and the other temple, doing X completely, is controlled by radicals, and do not inquire why every temple is doing almost the same thing as every other temple.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Clear proof of the dangers of genetic dilution.”

                  Fortunately we now have cloning.

Leave a Reply