Why the Jews Hate Those Who Love Them

Andrew Anglin points at Yori Yanover, who asks, Must Jews Dislike the Christians who Like Them? Yanover's answer is an emphatic yes:

In other words, while I and my fellow faithful Jews like the fact that the next pogrom will not come from an Evangelical torch and pitchfork crowd, we still don’t trust you. You can’t say you love me for who I am, because who I am includes a thorough rejection of the essence of your ideology, all of it, completely, I hold that there’s no truth to it whatsoever.

But wait, there's more.

Now do you love me? Do you love me in a future in which Jesus doesn’t come, and you continue to hold on to your faith, and I to mine?

Or, at least, can you keep the narrative about my seeing your light to yourselves?

That’s [what] we’re really asking.

Yanover imagines himself as a jewish superpope, who speaks for all the jews. It is a voice which is totally unselfconscious about jews force feeding others with their narrative, their tikkun olam and "light unto the nations" excuses for turning everyone else's life upside down for their own benefit, never mind their noxious holocaust narrative, which they insist everyone else must learn and describe as they see fit, with special laws and fines and prison terms for heretics.

But I think Anglin's response to Yanover gives Christians too much credit:

One might even go so far as to assert that continued existence of the Jews as a people is dependent on American Christian Zionists.

Surely, if it was not for them, we would cut the funding to the Jew state tomorrow, as aside from the weird cult, there is simply no logical reason to support these Jews. The fact that they use the money to commit genocide against the indigenous people of Palestine removes the humanitarian burden of protecting the allegedly persecuted Jews, even if you believe this Holocaust gibberish.

If it were not for the doctrine of Christian Zionism, most Christians would, by default, be Antisemitic, as this has been the default position of Christians since the beginnings of the religion. Thus, we would not continue to allow Jews to continue to run our government, economy and media.

Christians have bitterly opposed abortion and homosexuality, yet the jews have gotten their way on these domestic issues. Why would Christian opposition to Israel, or any other point of foreign policy, be different? Anglin knows it isn't Christian Zionists who control the money, the media or the political parties, it's the jews. It's their money and media which moderate the policies of the United States, not the other way around. It has very little to do with what voters want, Christian or otherwise.

The jews make mountains out of molehills. They know there is a built-in limit to Christian "anti-semitism". Yanover admits they're all but toothless now, but even if Christians returned to a more traditional position, seeing jews as a separate people, as accursed Christ-killers even, they'd still also see jews, even jews as blatantly alien as Yanover, as potential Christians, potential brothers in spirit. Christians have always welcomed jews to "convert", to infiltrate and manipulate them from within, even during the many brief periods of "persecution" that the jews complain most bitterly about.

The jews clearly wouldn't have nearly as easy a time infiltrating and manipulating White societies if Christianity didn't exist. Anglin's argument that the jews wouldn't exist if American Christian Zionists didn't exist is far less plausible.

It seems to me that the Christians who love the jews who hate them are suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome. The affliction in self-proclaimed Christian Zionists, like Vox Day, is particularly obvious and acute. They insist on seeing the jews as partners, or at least as peers, even after looking directly at evidence which indicates otherwise.

Having a faith in beliefs which can't be proven one way or another is one thing. Maintaining a truth which has been demonstrated false is something else. The first is a form of spirituality common to most men. The second is pathological. In this case the cause, the pathogen, is jews.

Though Christians make a spectacular show of the symptoms, and bashing Christians is perfectly semitically correct under the current, thoroughly judaized regime, Christians aren't the only ones afflicted. Christianity appears to be only one method by which jews "capture" the minds of their "hostages". Sharing short-term measures of fame or wealth or power seems to explain more.

Why do the jews hate those who love them? Because that's their nature. Race is real. The parasite's interest is not in loving or assimilating or cooperating with its host. The parasite's interest is in infiltrating, the better to manipulate, the better to exploit the host. Christians prefer a more purely spiritual view, which tends to preclude such an understanding. It's more difficult to explain why those who are comfortable thinking in secular, biological terms refuse to understand.

The Country Club Thing

As an addendum to Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiding as Ethnic Warfare I quoted Rob Eshman's use of the jewish narrative to excuse jewish behavior:

It’s not complicated, really. Poor little Jordan wanted to show those WASPs whose country clubs he couldn’t join that he was smarter, richer, better. What he failed to understand is that just about every Jew, every minority, shares the same impulses. But only a select few decide the only way to help themselves is to hurt others.

Sailer's response to Eshman was:

I really am going to have to write about the country club thing one of these days. I've found an Anti-Defamation League report from a half century ago on country clubs that's pretty interesting.

I can't wait. Of course, the country club thing is only one of several common tropes in jewish tales of woe specific to America. Other, similar tropes focus on the relatively brief period during which there were informal limits on the number of jews admitted to some universities (discussed here) and informal restrictions on where they could work or reside (ala Gentleman's Agreement, discussed here and here). The irony is that the jews are able to tell their one-sided woe-is-me version of this history only because the "WASP" defense of themselves and their institutions was not strong enough.

The explanation for jewish hostility is less complicated than either Eshman or Sailer will admit. It's racial animus. The jews are parasites, hyper-aware of their otherness, the distinction between themselves and their host, in both body and mind. Conflicts of interest between them and their hosts are unavoidable. Jewish excuse-making and guilt-tripping is one mechanism for managing it. They understand the animus. They wish and indeed need to monopolize the explanation of it, to spin it in their favor.

The jewish narrative, stripped to its essence, is: YOU aren't US, YOU should feel bad about that and try harder to please US. The double-think takes root in hosts with universalist, or at least pluralist tendencies. It expresses itself as a form of willful confusion about who US is: B-but, WE are all US, let US try harder to please US!

To see through this, you must be willing to think about what US means, and especially in biological terms, as the jews do. At least a few fans of Sailer's "race realism" and "human biodiversity" are on the cusp of such understanding. As one commenter wonders:

What is this Jewish problem or hangup about country clubs? Freedom of association is a natural and okay thing. If WASPS didn't want to have them, that's their right. It is a PRIVATE club, not PUBLIC property like a library. Why couldn't Jews just have their own clubs? Did it REALLY bug Jews that much that WASPS didn't prefer them over their own kind? Why would they? Do Jews need validation so badly?

Why indeed. It is only a mystery as long as you pretend that jews are part of your US, or even wish to coexist with your US. They don't. You are there to be infiltrated, manipulated, exploited. For their own good. This is why the suicide meme is so insidious. It is premised on, relies on, and even adds to the muddled thinking about who US is, abetting the "suicide" it purports to deplore.

While waiting on Sailer to share his little ADL tidbit, I'd like to recommend something Revilo Oliver wrote. It indicates not just how well established, how essential this "country club thing" is in the jewish psyche, but also how fruitless it is to go searching through history for ways to excuse jewish parasitism.

The following text comes from Oliver's The Jewish Strategy:

III. THE JEWISH STRATEGY AT WORK: ANCIENT ALEXANDRIA

In the early years of our era, the Jews were then (as now) busy selling religion and revolution to the natives, and that is undoubtedly what the Emperor Claudius meant in 41 A.D. when, in his letter of warning to the Jews in Egypt (preserved in a papyrus now in the British Museum, R Lond. 1912), he described them as "the fomenters of a universal plague."

Claudius' phrase is the best description of the biologically innate nature of Jews that I have seen. I hope this does not startle you; if it does, I recommend a little objective observation of Jews engaged in collective action.

The publication of these papyri in the British Museum stopped with Volume V, just short of the group of papyri, beginning with #1912, that deal with Jews and Christians in Egypt. These, however, were edited in a separate volume by H. Idris Bell, London, 1924, which can be found under his name in any good library. Why the official series stopped where it did (and has never been continued), I do not know. One suspects there was a Jew in the woodpile.

P. Lond. 1912 is a long papyrus fragment excellently preserved. It is a private copy of an edict by Claudius that was posted in public places in Alexandria in 41 A.D. and is complete. It is in Greek, not Latin, because in Egypt every literate person (Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and the comparatively few Romans who were there as governors and military commanders) knew Greek, whereas only the Roman officials knew Latin at all. Bell believes that our Greek text was translated from Claudius's Latin, but I am certain that the text is what Claudius himself dictated to a secretary in Greek. Like every educated Roman of his day, Claudius spoke and wrote Greek fluently, and furthermore he was something of a scholar and wrote his two major historical works (now lost) in Greek. This Greek text contains stylistic peculiarities that are characteristic of Claudius's mentality, but would probably have been smoothed away by a translator.

Claudius, who was born in 10 B.C., was the son of the male child with whom Livia was pregnant at the time that Augustus married her. If that child was legitimate, it was the son of Livia's first husband and the younger brother of the Emperor Tiberius. If the child was illegitimate, as many suspected, Augustus was probably the father, but never acknowledged the paternity. Claudius's mother was the daughter of Mark Antony. Claudius in infancy suffered from poliomyelitis or a similar disease that left him with a partly paralysed foot, some impediment in his speech, and muscles of the face and neck subject to spastic contractions. Regarded as unfit for public life, he devoted himself to historical and antiquarian studies, becoming both erudite and pedantic. He was quite intelligent, but timorous, excitable, and gullible, especially toward persons who showed him some attention and professed friendship during the first fifty-one years of his life, when he was regarded as an awkward and ridiculous political nullity, the butt of his nephew Caligula's wit. Among those who thus acquired his gratitude and confidence were a number of clever Jews of great wealth and influence in Rome. Among these was Marcus Julius Agrippa (note the purely Roman name; a grandson of the Herod who appears in many versions of the Christ story), who, when the barbarian mercenaries rioted after the assassination of Caligula and, while plundering the palace, found old Claudius hiding in a closet and dragged him out to proclaim him emperor, by subtle and crafty machinations and bribery managed to get Claudius installed and recognized as emperor by the Senate. Claudius rewarded him generously, and was always under the influence of the prominent Jews in Rome. That is what makes his pronouncement so significant.

Alexandria was, of course, founded by Alexander the Great as a Greek city in conquered Egypt, and it became under his Greek successors, the Ptolemies, the capital of that country. Its position as the only real harbour in Egypt added to its great prosperity, and naturally Jews came streaming in from their colonies all over the civilized world. Alexandria became the New York of the ancient world, i.e., the largest Jewish city. The Jews took over two of the five quarters of the city for their ghettoes, from which they unofficially but effectively excluded white people, but naturally insisted on pushing their way into all the other quarters of the city and making themselves obnoxious in their normal ways. Jews always betray the countries in which they are feeding on the natives, so naturally, when Augustus attacked Egypt, the Jews naturally betrayed the Greeks, who remained loyal to Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies. Augustus punished the Greeks for their loyalty by depriving them of their local self-government, and rewarded the Jews for their treason with many special privileges, including the right to have a kind of Jewish government of their own.

The Jews, now riding high, naturally pushed the Greeks around more than ever, thrusting themselves into the gymnasia and other Greek institutions that were traditionally for Greeks only and inciting riots whenever they were so "persecuted" that the Greeks did not recognize them as a vastly superior race. The result was an endless series of civil disturbances that the Romans were powerless to prevent because no government dared to revoke Augustus's grant of special privileges to the Jews. In the second year after Claudius became emperor, there was another one of the perennial riots in Alexandria that became virtual civil wars in the city, which was the most populous in the ancient world.

The Greeks of Alexandria despatched an embassy of their leading citizens to Claudius to request restoration of their local government and explain the cause of the riots, and the Jews, of course, sent an embassy of their own to snivel and whine about being "persecuted" by the wicked goyim.

The edict of Claudius of which the papyrus is a copy is addressed to the Greeks of Alexandria and announces his decision concerning the requests made by their envoys.

Omitted here are the contents of the document, both in the original Greek and Oliver's translation.

The translation could be polished a bit, but it will show the meaning. The sentence in which we are particularly interested, delineated in detail, reads:

But if (they do) not, I shall in every way wreck vengeance upon them inasmuch as (=on the grounds that) they are persons who foment (=incite, propagate) a universal (=ubiquitous, found everywhere) disease (=pestilence, plague) of the oecumene (i.e., the settled and inhabited world, as distinct from jungles, steppes, and deserts).

You will have noticed that Jews were behaving normally in Alexandria, not only whining about being "persecuted" because of their Love of God while pushing their way into every place where the despised goyim hope to have a little privacy from them, but even illegally importing fellow parasites to prey on the white cattle, just as the Jews are constantly importing thousands of their congeners into the United States, not only across the border from Canada, but by ships that land thousands of the dear creatures at Red Hook on Long Island, whence they are carried by limousine to the New Jerusalem commonly called New York City, in open defiance of the immigration officers, who know about it but dare not intervene.

The country club thing is a parasitic thing. It is a pattern of behavior in jews which can be traced back as far back into recorded history as you care to go.

Answering the American Studies Association

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren't "white" in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn't subject to the usual standards by which "white" states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on "what it means to be pro-Israel." A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the "tyranny of small differences," as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening's. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one's support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist's responsibility to guard Israel's survival, to guard Israel's interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor "dual loyalties" and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What's best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is "unanswerable" only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the "anti-semitic movements" which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally "liberal" jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally "conservative" jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No "dual loyalty" here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don't face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any "anti-semitic movement"? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.

"Anti-Semitism" as Racial Animus

Why Netanyahu Gave Pope Francis His Father's History of the Spanish Inquisition, Tablet Magazine:

Understanding the book’s unique argument enables us to understand why Netanyahu chose to give such an ostensibly undiplomatic gift to the Pope. The Times recounts:

As a historian, Mr. Netanyahu reinterpreted the Inquisition in “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain” (1995). The predominant view had been that Jews were persecuted for secretly practicing their religion after pretending to convert to Roman Catholicism. Mr. Netanyahu, in 1,384 pages, offered evidence that most Jews in Spain had willingly become Catholics and were enthusiastic about their new religion.

Jews were persecuted, he concluded — many of them burned at the stake — for being perceived as an evil race rather than for anything they believed or had done. Jealousy over Jews’ success in the economy and at the royal court only fueled the oppression, he wrote. The book traced what he called “Jew hatred” to ancient Egypt, long before Christianity.

In other words, Ben Zion Netanyahu’s argument shifted the root blame for the Inquisition from religion to ingrained racial animus–from the spiritual to the secular. If one was going to give the pope a book about the Inquisition, then, this would be the one. Moreover, not only does the book’s revisionist reckoning partially absolve Christianity for Spanish persecution of the Jews, it offers a contemporary message of pressing relevance. At a time when Christian anti-Semitism has receded–evidenced not least by the friendly relations between the Vatican and the state of Israel–secular and racial forms of anti-Semitism have been on the rise, particularly in Europe, where a nearly a quarter of Jews say they are afraid to publicly identify as Jewish. The anti-Semitism diagnosed by Ben Zion Netanyahu is alive and well.

In other words, the diagnosis of the jews is that racial animus comes entirely from the goyim. This "unique argument" is the same double-talk that Douglas Rushkoff spews.

In trying to shift the root blame away from their parasitism, and particularly to their White hosts, jews try to have it both ways on race. They insist race doesn't exist and the jews aren't biologically distinct. Yet by invoking racial animus to explain "anti-semitism" they are implicitly acknowledging the reality of race and their biological distinctiveness.

Setting aside the self-serving jewish double-talk, "anti-semitism" is best understood as anti-parasitism. It has been the historic reaction of a variety of hosts to jewish infiltration, manipulation and exploitation.

Jewish Identity: Revolting

Via Daily Stormer, Douglas Rushkoff: "the thing that makes judaism dangerous..."

The thing that makes judaism dangerous to everybody - to every race, to every nation, to every idea - is that we smash things that aren't true. We don't believe in the boundaries of nation states, we don't believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and judaism really teaches us how to see that.

In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force. We're breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they're not real, and that's very upsetting to people.

Rushkoff's brief observation calls to mind a similar expression of a similar attitude by Barbara Spectre. Both examples deserve to be better known, especially among those who are either ignorant of or deluded about the nature of jews and their views.

The revolutionary impulse is a long-term and well-established characteristic of jews. But then so is double-talk. When jews aren't bragging about their thirst for destruction they're denying it, trying instead to pin the blame on someone else. This duality is visible even in the very brief statements above, indicating just how closely related the two things are in jewish minds.

Jews imagine themselves victims as a way of justifying their aggression against others. It's always and completely everybody else's fault. Especially White people.

Douglas Rushkoff on returning to religious core values, from 2004, provides a more fleshed out version of this jewish rationale. Starting at 2:21:

Rushkoff: Well, understandably, after a couple of thousand years of persecution in Europe, and after the holocaust, alot of jewish attention went to wondering about how many jews are there, how many of us are left. And there's sort of this mindset of looking at ourselves as an endangered species that needs to be protected. That kind of became a dominant theme in judaism.

And it's understandable that that would happen. But the problem is that the obsession with numbers starts to make the prime jewish directives to fight assimilation, prevent intermarriage, you make sure your son marries a jewish girl so the children will be raised jewish, and the money is spent creating social forums where jews can meet new jews to make other jews. And you go to synagogue and you'll hear the rabbi speaking about these issues of assimilation and protecting jewry.

And it's not the most appealing face for a spiritual path. It's not the most appealing invitation that you're doing judaism in order to help judaism, rather than doing judaism in order to somehow make the world a better place. Which is a much more, it's a more appealing notion, I mean from a marketer standpoint, it's a more appealing notion, it's a better sell. But it's also, it's a more jewish one.

Interviewer: You've even gone further though. You've said this whole notion that jews form a race or a people is a false assumption. Explain that.

Rushkoff: Yeah. It's funny, the first person to talk about the Israeli people - am? Israel - in Torah, is the pharoah. Right? He's the bad guy, and he's doing it because he's scared that these Israelites are gonna replicate too much and then not support him in a war.

The first people to talk about a jewish race were the Spanish during the Inquisition, because so many jews had converted to Catholicism they needed a new reason to hate them. So they said well it's not their religion, it's their blood, you know it's always going to be there.

And finally it was Hilter basterdizing a bit of Carl Jung, who said that, well, the jews have this genetic memory, so even if they're only 1/8th or 1/16th jewish eventually what's going to come out of them is this anti-establishment, kind of anti-fascist, disrespect for the fatherland - so we better kill them.

The problem is that jews ended up accepting this as our truth. You know, that judaiasm which was really born to defy all of these boundary conditions, to defy the notion that, oh, you move to this country and have this religion and believe in that god - that that's ludicrous.

You know, that there's sort of this one god pervades everything, it doesn't matter where you live, that race isn't a real thing - as any geneticist today will tell you that race isn't real - but no, it seems that just as the world is waking up from these obsolete notions of race and nation state, it seems that jews are clinging to it as our sense of meaning, that well we're a people, we're a race, and this is the aspect of judaism we have to defend. And it seems ironic to me because these obsolete notions are part of what judaism was born to dissolve.

One takeaway from my recent series of podcasts examining jewish identity is that the most central tenet of jewishness, at the heart of their "religion", is their belief in themselves as a people. That belief is literally more important than any other, including any beliefs about god. But there's more. The jews are not just a people. They are a parasitic people. They not only thrive at the expense of others, they are acutely aware of it.

This is the reason for their double-talk and denial, dissembling and dissimulation. Rushkoff supplies an excellent example here. He's not just regurgitating someone else's lines. He's thought it through. What the interviewer mistakes as a critique of jewry and denial of peoplehood is actually the opposite. He's offering an apology, advising and excusing jews while blaming other peoples.

Rushkoff's main concern is that his people are making their peoplehood too obvious, and he doesn't think this is good for them. He's disdainful of other people's religions, but favors the pretense that jewishness is about religion because he knows others buy it. Jews, he knows, know better.

To make sense of Rushkoff's statements is to understand that he sees jewish smashing and corroding, dissolving and obsoleting as good and only good when it comes to smashing, corroding, dissolving and obsoleting other peoples and nations. In contrast, he cares about the jews and wants them to continue. He thinks that the best way for them to do it, amidst all the destruction and harm they're wreaking on the nations and peoples around them, is to not flaunt their own nation state and peoplehood so openly.

"Our poison is wonderful!", Rushkoff says about his people, to his people, "Let's not forget how it works and who it's for!"

Pew Polls Jews

Pew's recent poll, A Portrait of Jewish Americans, showcases the essential duplicity of jewish identity. The poll, conducted by Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, puts the oldest, best example right out front. They distinguish two main types of jew: "jews by religion" and "jews of no religion".

The term "jews of no religion" presents a problem for those who misunderstand (or want others to misunderstand) the true nature of jewishness, specifically by mistaking it as a type of theology or "faith". The second page of the report, Sidebar: Who is a Jew?, finesses the problem with the usual double-talk:

One of the first decisions that had to be made in conducting this study and analyzing its results was to answer the question, “Who is a Jew?” This is an ancient question with no single, timeless answer. On the one hand, being Jewish is a matter of religion – the traditional, matrilineal definition of Jewish identity is founded on halakha (Jewish religious law). On the other hand, being Jewish also may be a matter of ancestry, ethnicity and cultural background.

Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 2 goes over the issue of matrilineality and the biological nature of jewishness in more detail. Suffice it here to note that even the "religious law" is actually a matter of ancestry. So the "ancient question" does in fact have a "single, timeless answer". Being jewish is, and always has been, a matter of ancestry. All along the jews have also pretended otherwise.

The primacy of ancestry comes through in the flowchart Pew uses to describe how they categorized poll participants. Those who "were raised jewish or have a jewish parent" but profess no "religion" are counted as jews. Those who claim no jewish parent are excluded, even if they regard themselves as jewish.

It's not on the flowchart, but Pew also inquired about the parents of those who claimed to be "jews by religion". They buried those numbers (and another hint of the primacy of ancestry) in a brief reference in Chapter 3: Jewish Identity:

Nearly all Jews say they had at least one Jewish parent, including 96% of Jews by religion and 97% of Jews of no religion.

All in all, 98% of Jews (and, by definition, 100% of Jews of no religion) were raised Jewish or had at least one Jewish parent; 2% of Jews had no such background but indicate they had a formal conversion to Judaism, while 1% did not formally convert.

In other words, jewishness is 96-97% a matter of ancestry.

Here are a few more of the relevant and interesting bits from that same chapter. According to jews this is what being a jew is about:

U.S. Jews see being Jewish as more a matter of ancestry, culture and values than of religious observance. Six-in-ten say, for example, that being Jewish is mainly a matter of culture or ancestry, compared with 15% who say it is mainly a matter of religion. Roughly seven-in-ten say remembering the Holocaust and leading an ethical life are essential to what it means to them to be Jewish, while far fewer say observing Jewish law is a central component of their Jewish identity. And two-thirds of Jews say that a person can be Jewish even if he or she does not believe in God.

Importance of Being Jewish

More than four-in-ten U.S. Jews (46%) say being Jewish is a very important part of their lives, and a third (34%) say being Jewish is somewhat important to them. One-fifth of Jews say that being Jewish is not too (15%) or not at all important to them (5%). Jews by religion are nearly five times more likely to say being Jewish is very important to them compared with Jews of no religion (56% vs. 12%).

Nearly nine-in-ten Orthodox Jews (87%) and two-thirds of Conservative Jews (69%) describe being Jewish as very important in their lives. Far fewer self-identified Reform Jews say being Jewish is very important to them (43%). Among Jews who are unaffiliated with any particular Jewish movement or denomination, just one-in-five say being Jewish is very important to them (22%).

Pride, Connectedness and Responsibility

More than nine-in-ten Jews (94%) agree they are “proud to be Jewish.” Three-quarters (75%) say they have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people, and about six-in-ten (63%) say they have a special responsibility to care for Jews in need around the world.

Overwhelming majorities of both Jews by religion and Jews of no religion say they are proud to be Jewish (97% and 83%, respectively). Most Jews by religion also say they have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people (85%) and that they feel a responsibility to care for Jews in need (71%). Far fewer Jews of no religion share these sentiments.

What Does it Mean to be Jewish?

. . .

The survey asked Jews whether each of nine attributes and activities is essential to what being Jewish means to them, is important but not essential, or is not an important part of what it means to be Jewish. In response, roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Jews (73%) say remembering the Holocaust is an essential part of what being Jewish means to them.

From this it's clear that jewishness is more about peoplehood than religion, more biological than ideological. In fact the ideological portion is just another facet of the biological portion. In spite of their many profound ideological differences, the core beliefs that jews share most religiously have to do with seeing themselves as part of and concerned for the well-being of their people, a biological collective.

Theologically speaking, note that the jewish collective sees God as unnecessary but regards their guilt-tripping and extortion narrative as essential.

A Reminder to HBDers and Race Realists

A comment to Steve Sailer's Smith student in trouble for liking boys:

Michael said...

People telling Jews they can relax now since we've "won" remind me how easy it is for victory to lead to relaxation and then defeat. Yes, Jews are now the establishment, and it's tempting to feel we can relax now, but that's especially when we have to be most on our guard. Historically, victory is usually followed by softening and defeat. It's only Jewish paranoia - one of the healthiest, strongest, and most positive of Jewish instincts. The lack of understanding gentiles have for this powerful instinct betrays a fatal weakness in their character and sheds some light on why they ultimately didn't have what it takes to retain power - and an exceptionally tough and enduring will to victory that has a chance of sparing Jews from this historical pattern.

Comments on this site never fail to remind me of how dangerous the temptation to relax really is. I have no doubt if Jews did relax, guys like the hideous and creepy "agnostic" would immediately crawl out of the woodworks with their festering resentments and Jews would once again be banned from country clubs and similar places.

Fact of the matter is, we are dealing with whites, Aryans if you prefer, who have historically been the most virulently racist genetic group in history. All groups are racist, but none as virulently as European whites. It's probably a genetic character trait but if you compare historical racist attitudes it is clear as day that no other race or civilization equals white Europeans. Even modern day white Western self-hatred, which although helped along by the Jews is an essentially white European construct, is a kind of racism in reverse! It's the same need to demonize and hate an entire people that seems genetically white, just this time directed inward! Even the white attempt to get away from racism ends up being just racism in reverse, its surreal! It would be comic if it wasn't so sad. Orwell said that Western Communism was just nationalism attached to another group, and its the same with Western anti-racism - it's just racism attached to one's own group.

The Muslims noted the Crusaders inability to treat any other race as equals. We are not dealing with a mildly racist people like the Chinese or the Arabs, with whom perhaps Jews might be able, over time and in the right cultural climate such as exists in the secular West today, to relax their guard.

9/19/13, 11:07 AM

This is a good example of how jews argue. Whites are condemned first for not being "racist" enough, for not having the instincts of jews. Then also for being too "racist", for supposedly exceeding the jews at demonization and hate. The hypocrisy and contradictions are beside the point. The point is to condemn Whites, as a race, in direct contrast to jews.

This is a reminder that jews are 1) acutely aware of the reality and importance of race, and 2) see themselves as racially distinct from and at odds with Whites.

Typical Hyper-jew Behavior

Twitter / jonathanchait:

Age Of Treason -- "A pro-White perspective on jewish influence" -- calls me a "Hyper-jew." Seems overstated. http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2013/05/biden-on-jewish-influence.html

For the hyper-jew, nothing is ever too jewy. Especially not himself.

They do, however, fret that Biden's Praise For Jews Might Be Too Much.

Jews have power, but it is based on lies. The biggest lie is that jewish power doesn't exist. The hyper-jew laughs, nervously, because he knows, and worries.

Peekaboo, Another Jew

A reminder from Venezuela regarding the cryptic, biological nature of jewish identity.

Venezuela's 'anti-Semitic' leader admits Jewish ancestry, The Times of Israel, 13 May 2013:

In an interesting twist, [Nicolás] Maduro, the political successor of the late president Hugo Chávez, told the press last week that he himself was descended from Sephardic Jewish ancestors.

“My grandparents were Jewish, from a [Sephardic] Moorish background, and converted to Catholicism in Venezuela… The mother of [Minister of Communication and Information] Ernesto Villegas also comes from a similar background,” Maduro said last week

Yet, he said, “if there is a people that has a rich socialist tradition, it’s the Jewish people… We respect their history.”

He said the people who hated and killed Jews during the Holocaust were members of the far-right who built on the ideas of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and not supporters of the ideals advocated by the Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin.

“Karl Marx was a Jew,” he noted.

In casting left/right attitudes as pro-jew/anti-jew Maduro argues not only that jews matter, but that he identifies with them as a people, both biologically and ideologically, seeing himself on their side not only by heritage but in his view of history and politics as well.

The article is vague on this point but Maduro's grandparents, like others of "similar background", would most likely be descended from jews who last openly practiced judaism at least 500 years ago. After "converting" such crypto-jews somehow miraculously managed to identify a mate and raise a family with "similar background" through 25 or so generations.

The History of the Crypto-Jews/Hispanic Sephardi conveys the usual jewish explanation for this remarkable phenomenon:

The experience of the Crypto Jews in the Western Hemisphere was a litany of suffering, continual fear, social, political, professional, and religious suppression and murder. As late as the 1850s the Inquisition was finally officially ended in Mexico, and elsewhere a little sooner; however, overt discrimination and random incidents of lynching and murder continued until well into the 1950s in what we now call "Latin America".

The final result of approximately one thousand years of persecution and murder of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (minus the three hundred years of the "Golden Age") caused many families who immigrated to the New World to become Crypto Jewish, while living their public lives as Catholics. In the Americas, some of the Crypto Jews reverted back to being openly Jewish, only to find a few years later that the Inquisition had followed them to their new homes, and they were forced to go back into hiding again. All of these people, the "Conversos" or "New Christians", were forced to submit to Catholicism, thus in Hebrew they are referred to as the "Anusim" or "those who were forced."

It has been approximately fifteen-hundred years since the emergence of Crypto Jews in the Iberian Peninsula, and five-hundred years since Crypto Judaism moved to the Americas. Today we find a large Crypto Jewish presence throughout the Western Hemisphere. No one knows for sure how many there really are, however in Brazil alone an estimated 10 to 25% of the total population are Crypto Jews, which translates to 15 to 40 million people.

While not all people of Crypto Jewish lineage are prepared at this time to accept the challenge to return to living a fully Jewish life, there are thousands, if not millions who are hungry to learn and to reconnect with G-d as Jews.

Three things to note here.

Jewishness has more to do with genetic lineage and an awareness of oneself, furtively or not, as a jew. Religion ranks somewhere below both.

The jewish version of history is a one-sided "litany of suffering, continual fear, social, political, professional, and religious suppression and murder" of jews. According to jews, whatever mischief jews get up to the Other gets the blame for it all, including even for jews disguising themselves.

The period jews regard as their "Golden Age" occurred during the Moorish/muslim occupation of Spain. From the perspective of jews, however bad muslims have been, European Christians have always been worse.

Stephen Steinlight on Jewish Power and Interests

Stephen Steinlight writes about the interests of jews vis-a-vis Americans, Whites, and non-jews in general in Bridging America Project, AJC: Global Jewish Advocacy, October 2001.

Preface: Challenging A Crumbling Consensus

In a rare experiment in candid public discourse about America's changing demography, American Jewry needs to toss reticence and evasion to the winds, stop censoring ourselves for fear of offending the entirely imaginary arbiters of civic virtue, and bluntly and publicly pose the same questions we anxiously ponder in private.

But we should ask the hard questions no matter what, recognizing that only straight talk will get us anywhere. We cannot consider the inevitable consequences of current trends � not least among them diminished Jewish political power � with detachment. Our present privilege, success, and power do not inure us from the effect of historical processes, and history has not come to an end, even in America.

Abandoning the Field to Nativism and Xenophobia

Not far down the list of awful consequences, our unspoken acquiescence leaves the anti-determinist camp, with some notable exceptions (such as the thoughtful and moderate Center for Immigration Studies), largely in the hands of classic anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and racist nativist forces. The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration (Europeans being defined as Nordic or Anglo-Saxon), a position re-asserted by Peter Brimelow, must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change.

Posing the Sphinx Questions

What are some of those large vexing questions we would prefer not to speak aloud? Let's throw out a few and see how many sleepers we can awaken. The big one for starters: is the emerging new multicultural American nation good for the Jews? Will a country in which enormous demographic and cultural change, fueled by unceasing large-scale non-European immigration, remain one in which Jewish life will continue to flourish as nowhere else in the history of the Diaspora? In an America in which people of color form the plurality, as has already happened in California, most with little or no historical experience with or knowledge of Jews, will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection? Does it matter that the majority non-European immigrants have no historical experience of the Holocaust or knowledge of the persecution of Jews over the ages and see Jews only as the most privileged and powerful of white Americans?

Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.

It is also true that Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry, theoretically a boon in terms of the formation of favorable public images of Jews and sensitizing the American people to issues of concern to Jews.

Supporting Immigration by Reducing Its Scale

It is also, frankly, in our own best interest to continue to support generous immigration. The day may come when the forces of anti-Semitic persecution will arise once more in the lands of the former Soviet Union or in countries of Eastern Europe and Jews will once again need a safe haven in the United States. The Jewish community requires this fail-safe. We will always be in support of immigration; the question is whether it should be open-ended or not? The question is what constitutes the smartest approach to supporting immigration?

Immigration Policy and Identity Politics

Our current policies encourage the balkanization that results from identity politics and the politics of grievance.

Jews and Identity Politics

We Jews need to be especially sensitive to the multinational model this crowd (many of them Jewish) is promoting. Why? Because one person's "celebration" of his own diversity, foreign ties, and the maintenance of cultural and religious traditions that set him apart is another's balkanizing identity politics. We are not immune from the reality of multiple identities or the charge of divided loyalties, a classic staple of anti-Semitism, and we must recognize that our own patterns are easily assailed, and we need to find ways of defending them more effectively as the debate goes on.

For Jews, it is at best hypocritical, and, worse, an example of an utter lack of self-awareness, not to recognize that we are up to our necks in this problem. This has been especially true once we were sufficiently accepted in the United States to feel confident enough to go public with our own identity politics. But this newfound confidence carries its own costs; people are observing us closely, and what they see in our behavior is not always distinct from what we loudly decry in others. One has to be amused, even amazed, when colleagues in the organized Jewish world wring their hands about black nationalism, Afrocentrism, or with cultural separatism in general � without considering Jewish behavioral parallels. Where has our vaunted Jewish self-awareness flown?

I'll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.

I am of course simplifying a complex process of ethnic and religious identity formation; there was also a powerful counterbalancing universalistic moral component that inculcated a belief in social justice for all people and a special identification with the struggle for Negro civil rights. And it is no exaggeration to add that in some respects, of course, a substantial subset of secular Jews were historically Europe's cosmopolitans par excellence, particularly during the high noon of bourgeois culture in Central Europe. That sense of commitment to universalistic values and egalitarian ideals was and remains so strong that in reliable survey research conducted over the years, Jews regularly identify "belief in social justice" as the second most important factor in their Jewish identity; it is trumped only by a "sense of peoplehood." It also explains the long Jewish involvement in and flirtation with Marxism. But it is fair to say that Jewish universalistic tendencies and tribalism have always existed in an uneasy dialectic. We are at once the most open of peoples and one second to none in intensity of national feeling. Having made this important distinction, it must be admitted that the essence of the process of my nationalist training was to inculcate the belief that the primary division in the world was between "us" and "them."

I say all this merely to remind us that we cannot pretend we are only part of the solution when we are also part of the problem; we have no less difficult a balancing act between group loyalty and a wider sense of belonging to America. That America has largely tolerated this dual loyalty � we get a free pass, I suspect, largely over Christian guilt about the Holocaust � makes it no less a reality.

At the very least, as the debate over multinational identity rises, I hope the Jewish community will have the good sense not to argue in favor of dual citizenship and other such arrangements. I would also advocate that those who possess dual citizenship to relinquish it in order not to cloud the issue and to serve the best interests of the American Jewish community and of American national unity. The recent case of the Israeli teenager who committed a murder in suburban Maryland (his victim was a young Latino) and fled to Israel, where he was permitted to remain despite attempts at extradition by U.S. prosecutors, with considerable congressional support, must never be repeated. That incident inflicted serious damage on Israel's good name, and it shapes the public's perception of Jews as people in a special category with additional rights who have a safe haven where they can escape the reach of American justice.

Dr. Stephen Steinlight was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. For the past two and a half years he has been a Senior Fellow at AJC.

It is a long piece and there is much more, but that is enough for the following analysis.

Steinlight acknowledges that jews have enormous power. He is both a representative and spokesman of that power, which he wants jews to retain and even increase. To accomplish this he believes jews should advocate more openly and loudly, be more self-aware and self-concerned, strengthen their identity and engage more actively in identity politics, and continue to create and maintain "safe havens" for themselves. He says this even as he pathologizes and demonizes others, especially Whites, for thinking or doing anything similar, or for that matter objecting in any fashion to jews doing any of this.

Steinlight's critique is a call to action for his fellow jews, who in his mind aren't working smart or hard enough in pursuit of their own collective best interests. His thoughts, on the surface riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy, only appear that way to those who will not see how they are rooted in the ruthless pursuit of answers to a single burning question: What is best for the jews?

Furthermore, and more to the point for those of us who aren't jews, Steinlight sees the best interests of others as, at best, in conflict with, and at worse, as a threat to the interests of jews. Us and our interests are trifles, of no consequence whatsoever except to the extent we can be co-opted, manipulated or otherwise exploited as he and his tribe see fit.

How Anti-Whiteness is at the Heart of Jewish Identity

The flip side of sweeping explanations that overlook the jews are the ones that are all about them. Where the jew-blind explanations are primarily for the non-jews, to keep us busy thinking about anything but jewish influence and power, the jew-centric explanations, which we'll examine here, reflect how jews see the world and explain it to each other.

These jew-centric explanations of the world present a surreal, uncompromisingly one-sided view in favor of jews - how they've continually been wronged by others, most especially Europeans. This sick anti-White narrative is today the prevailing narrative in media, academia and politics. It comes from the jews.

New History: How Anti-Judaism Is at the Heart of Western Culture, by Adam Kirsh, Tablet Magazine, 13 Feb 2013:

The title of David Nirenberg’s new book, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, uses a term pointedly different from the one we are used to. The hatred and oppression of Jews has been known since the late 19th century as anti-Semitism—a label, it is worth remembering, originally worn with pride by German Jew-haters. What is the difference, then, between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism? The answer, as it unfolds in Nirenberg’s scholarly tour de force, could be summarized this way: Anti-Semitism needs actual Jews to persecute; anti-Judaism can flourish perfectly well without them, since its target is not a group of people but an idea.

Nirenberg’s thesis is that this idea of Judaism, which bears only a passing resemblance to Judaism as practiced and lived by Jews, has been at the very center of Western civilization since the beginning. From Ptolemaic Egypt to early Christianity, from the Catholic Middle Ages to the Protestant Reformation, from the Enlightenment to fascism, whenever the West has wanted to define everything it is not—when it wants to put a name to its deepest fears and aversions—Judaism has been the name that came most easily to hand. “Anti-Judaism,” Nirenberg summarizes, “should not be understood as some archaic or irrational closet in the vast edifices of Western thought. It was rather one of the basic tools with which that edifice was constructed.”

This is a pretty depressing conclusion, especially for Jews destined to live inside that edifice; but the intellectual journey Nirenberg takes to get there is exhilarating. Each chapter of “Anti-Judaism” is devoted to an era in Western history and the particular kinds of anti-Judaism it fostered. Few if any of these moments are new discoveries; indeed, Nirenberg’s whole argument is that certain types of anti-Judaism are so central to Western culture that we take them for granted. What Nirenberg has done is to connect these varieties of anti-Judaism into a convincing narrative, working with original sources to draw out the full implications of seminal anti-Jewish writings.

The main reason why Judaism, and therefore anti-Judaism, have been so central to Western culture is, of course, Christianity. But Nirenberg’s first chapter shows that some persistent anti-Jewish tropes predate Jesus by hundreds of years. The Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera, writing around 320 BCE, recorded an Egyptian tradition that inverts the familiar Exodus story. In this version, the Hebrews did not escape from Egypt but were expelled as an undesirable element, “strangers dwelling in their midst and practicing different rites.” These exiles settled in Judea under the leadership of Moses, who instituted for them “an unsocial and intolerant mode of life.” Already, Nirenberg observes, we can detect “what would become a fundamental concept of anti-Judaism—Jewish misanthropy.” This element was emphasized by a somewhat later writer, an Egyptian priest named Manetho, who described the Exodus as the revolt of an impious group of “lepers and other unclean people.”

As he will do throughout the book, Nirenberg describes these anti-Jewish texts not in a spirit of outrage or condemnation, but rather of inquiry. The question they raise is not whether the ancient Israelites were “really” lepers, but rather, why later Egyptian writers claimed they were. What sort of intellectual work did anti-Judaism perform in this particular culture? To answer the question, Nirenberg examines the deep history of Egypt, showing how ruptures caused by foreign invasion and religious innovation came to be associated with the Jews. Then he discusses the politics of Hellenistic Egypt, in which a large Jewish population was sandwiched uneasily between the Greek elite and the Egyptian masses. In a pattern that would be often repeated, this middle position left the Jews open to hostility from both sides, which would erupt into frequent riots and massacres. In the long term, Nirenberg writes, “the characteristics of misanthropy, impiety, lawlessness, and universal enmity that ancient Egypt assigned to Moses and his people would remain available to later millennia: a tradition made venerable by antiquity, to be forgotten, rediscovered, and put to new uses by later generations of apologists and historians.”

This "exhilirating intellectual journey", presented as a "new history", is really just the same old tired promotion of the same old jew-excusing apologia, replete with persistent jewish tropes:

• That the defining feature of non-jews, and specifically "the West", i.e. Whites, is "anti-jewism".

• That jews are powerless, innocent victims.

• That non-jews try to invert and otherwise manipulate history.

These are actually just variations on the most common jewish trope of all: The problem is not the jews, it's anyone and everyone else!

Jews are not unaware that there are other points of view. They simply do not compare to their own. Rather than denying the idea that, "the Hebrews did not escape from Egypt but were expelled as an undesirable element", they invert and thereby co-opt it. Taken together with the hundreds of conflicts and expulsions since, the moral of the jewish narrative is that everyone else is the undesirable element, the "lepers".

With the rise of Catholic polities in the Middle Ages, anti-Judaism took on a less theological, more material cast. In countries like England, France, and Germany, the Jews held a unique legal status as the king’s “servants” or “slaves,” which put them outside the usual chain of feudal relationships. This allowed Jews to play a much-needed but widely loathed role in finance and taxation, while also demonstrating the unique power of the monarch. The claim of the Capet dynasty to be kings of France, Nirenberg shows, rested in part on their claim to control the status of the Jews, a royal prerogative and a lucrative one: King after king plundered “his” Jews when in need of cash. At the same time, being the public face of royal power left the Jews exposed to the hatred of the people at large. Riots against Jews and ritual murder accusations became popular ways of demonstrating dissatisfaction with the government. When medieval subjects wanted to protest against their rulers, they would often accuse the king of being in league with the Jews, or even a Jew himself.

The common thread in Anti-Judaism is that such accusations of Jewishness have little to do with actual Jews. They are a product of a Gentile discourse, in which Christians argue with other Christians by accusing them of Judaism. The same principle holds true in Nirenberg’s fascinating later chapters. When Martin Luther rebelled against Catholicism, he attacked the church’s “legalistic understanding of God’s justice” as Jewish: “In this sense the Roman church had become more ‘Jewish’ than the Jews.” When the Puritan revolutionaries in the English Civil War thought about the ideal constitution for the state, they looked to the ancient Israelite commonwealth as described in Judges and Kings.

Surprisingly, Nirenberg shows, the decline of religion in Europe and the rise of the Enlightenment did little to change the rhetoric of anti-Judaism. Voltaire, Kant, and Hegel all used Judaism as a figure for what they wanted to overcome—superstition, legalistic morality, the dead past. Finally, in a brief concluding chapter on the 19th century and after, Nirenberg shows how Marx recapitulated ancient anti-Jewish tropes when he conceived of communist revolution as “the emancipation of mankind from Judaism”—that is, from money and commerce and social alienation.

Religion, no religion, kings, no kings - the common thread is jews somehow managing to get special status and privileges. The jewish narrative explains this by imagining ubiquitous "anti-jews" who only imagine jews exist. Unsurprisingly, the "exhilirating intellectual journey" concludes by imagining Marx not as part and parcel of a quintessentially jewish revolutionary tradition but as an "anti-jew".

Not until the very end of Anti-Judaism does he touch, obliquely, on the question of what this ancient intellectual tradition means for Jews today. But as he suggests, the genealogy that connects contemporary anti-Zionism with traditional anti-Judaism is clear: “We live in an age in which millions of people are exposed daily to some variant of the argument that the challenges of the world they live in are best explained in terms of ‘Israel.’ ” For all the progress the world has made since the Holocaust in thinking rationally about Jews and Judaism, the story Nirenberg has to tell is not over. Anyone who wants to understand the challenges of thinking and living as a Jew in a non-Jewish culture should read Anti-Judaism.

More important, let's touch on what this all means for Whites today. We live in an age in which millions of Whites are exposed to, and to a terrifying extent, have accepted the jewish narrative - a viewpoint utterly hostile to themselves.

Whoever did whatever to whom in the past, today it is jews who police the mainstream media and public political discourse and fill it with terms like "anti-semitism", "Israel" and "Holocaust". These terms reflect their obsession with themselves and their best interests, which includes imposing their way of seeing the world, their self-obsessions, onto everyone else.

Reinforcing this point, a "related content" link on the article above takes the reader to an older article from October 2011, Ron Rosenbaum Confronts 'The End of the Holocaust':

Alvin Rosenfeld is a brave man, and his new work is courageous. The book is called The End of the Holocaust, and it is not reluctant to take on the unexamined pieties that have grown up around the slaughter, and the sentimentalization that threatens to smother it in meretricious uplift.

The real “end of the Holocaust,” he argues, is the transformation of it into a lesson about the “triumph of the human spirit” or some such affirmation. Rosenfeld, the founder and former director of the Jewish studies program at Indiana University, which has made itself a major center of Jewish publishing and learning, is a mainstream scholar who has seen the flaw in mainstream Holocaust discourse. He has made it his mission to rescue the Holocaust from the Faustian bargain Jews have made with history and memory, the Faustian bargain that results when we trade the specifics of memory, the Jewishness of the Holocaust, and the Jew-hatred that gave it its rationale and identity, for the weepy universalism of such phrases as “the long record of man’s inhumanity to man.”

The impulse to find the silver lining is relentless, though. Suffering and grief must be transformed into affirmation, and the bleak irrecoverable fate of the victims must be given a redemptive aspect for those of us alive. In fact it’s an insult to the dead to rob their graves to make ourselves feel better. One recent manifestation Rosenfeld has shrewdly noticed is the way there has been a subtle shift in the popular representation of the Holocaust—a shift in the attention once given to the murdered victims to comparatively uplifting stories of survivors, of the “righteous gentiles,” of the scarce “rescuers,” and the even scarcer “avengers,” e.g., Quentin Tarantino’s fake-glorious fictional crew.

Rosenfeld is not afraid to contend with the fact that, as he writes, “with new atrocities filling the news each day and only so much sympathy to go around, there are people who simply do not want to hear any more about the Jews and their sorrows. There are other dead to be buried, they say.” The sad, deplorable, but, he says, “unavoidable” consequence of what may be the necessary limits of human sympathy is that “the more successfully [the Holocaust] enters the cultural mainstream, the more commonplace it becomes. A less taxing version of a tragic history begins to emerge, still full of suffering, to be sure, but a suffering relieved of many of its weightiest moral and intellectual demands and, consequently easier to be … normalized.”

Normalized? The Holocaust as one more instance in the long chronicle of “man’s inhumanity to man”? Rosenfeld’s book offers a welcome contrarian take on the trend. Yes, we’ve had enough, as Rosenfeld points out, of museums that cumulatively obscure memory in a fog of well-meaning but misleading inspirational brotherhood-of-man rhetoric.

Here, stripped of the usual misleading brotherhood-of-man rhetoric, is an even more specific and virulent example of jewish self-obsession. Rosenbaum and Rosenfeld see sympathy, everyone's sympathy, as something the jews alone deserve.

What we haven’t had enough of is a careful consideration of the implications of the Holocaust for the nature of human nature. As George Steiner told me (for my book, Explaining Hitler), “the Holocaust removed the re-insurance from human hope”—the psychic safety net we imagine marked the absolute depth of human nature. The Holocaust tore through that net heading for hell. Human nature could be—at the promptings of a charismatic and evil demagogue, religious hate, and so-called “scientific racism”—even worse than we imagined. No one wants to hear that. We want to hear uplifting stories about that nice Mr. Schindler. We want affirmations!

And the fact that it was not just one man but an entire continent that enthusiastically pitched in or stood by while 6 million were murdered: Doesn’t that call for us to spend a little time re-thinking what we still reverently speak of as “European civilization”? Or to investigate the roots of that European hatred? How much weight do the Holocaust museums give to the two millennia of Christian Jew-hatred, murderous pogroms, blood libels, and other degradations? Or do they prefer to focus on “righteous gentiles” in order to avoid offending their gentile hosts?

And for all their “reaching out” and “teachable moments,” how much do the Holocaust museums and Holocaust curricula connect the hatred of the recent past with contemporary exterminationist Jew-hatred, the vast numbers of people who deny the first, but hunger for a second, Holocaust? It’s a threat some fear even to contemplate—the potential destruction of the 5 million Jews of Israel with a single well-placed nuclear blast—a nightmarish but not unforseeable possibility to which Rosenfeld is unafraid to devote the final section of his book.

Rosenbaum, a perpetually offended professional jew, thinks the problem with jews is that they aren't self-obsessed and offensive enough. The threat, as he sees it, is "human nature", which is just another way of saying everyone and anyone else.

Rosenbaum goes on and on in this vein, expressing his contempt for "the non-jewish majority" because, in his opinion, they don't care enough about the jews.

Consider the Faustian bargain that Holocaust museums in America have so often made with the non-Jewish majority: The survivors and eyewitnesses of the Holocaust are dying, and the only way to get Americans to care about the destruction of the Jews, the only way we will get a (nearly) front row seat on the National Mall in Washington for our Holocaust museum, is by convincing Americans that the Holocaust can be a “teachable moment” in America’s uplifting struggle against intolerance. Rosenfeld calls this bargain “the Americanization of the Holocaust,” and even though he’s on the executive committee of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum he’s not happy about the tendency.

In discussing, for instance, the Los Angeles-based Museum of Tolerance (the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Holocaust museum), he says that “by situating the Holocaust within a historical framework that includes such quintessentially American experiences as the Los Angeles riots and the struggle for black civil rights, both of which are prominently illustrated, the Museum of Tolerance relativizes the catastrophe brought on by Naziism in a radical way. America’s social problems, for all their gravity, are not genocidal in character and simply do not resemble the persecution and systematic slaughter of European Jews during World War II.” It’s a critique I first saw articulated by Jonathan Rosen in a 1993 New York Times op-ed called “The Misguided Holocaust Museum” back when the museum on the Mall was first opening. At first I was surprised, but then I was persuaded, at least to a certain extent, by Rosen’s impassioned dissent from the conventional wisdom.

And of course there is the difficult question of how one compares such tragedies. Why not a Cambodian genocide museum? In what ways are the Cambodian, the Armenian, and the Rwandan genocides similar and different from the Nazi genocide? If the Rodney King riots do not deserve being placed on the same plane shouldn’t the casualties of slavery in America, an institution that killed the bodies and murdered the souls of those who survived, count just as much?

There’s an argument that it’s a politically savvy heuristic strategy to unite with other sufferers against the murderous haters rather than set our suffering apart. And Jews have a strong record of concern for the sufferings of others. Solidarity! But Rosenfeld is on a mission not to allow the differences of the identity of the Jewish victims to disappear, and he is both a moral thinker and an astute cultural critic.

Rosenbaum's argument: Hey jews, you're letting everyone forget that it's all about the jews.