web analytics

Tag: Jewish Question (JQ)

Categories
Maxfield Parrish

Fallen Leaves

Years ago I had a site called Fallen Leaves where I collected my texts related to the mistreatment of children and adolescents. The WordPress designer of the Quentin theme, the theme I used in the old incarnation of this site, then came up with the Quintus theme: the theme I originally used in Fallen Leaves. When I realised that this new theme italicised all the quotes, I was disappointed and suspended my work on trauma on that site.

I then used the same domain to upload everything I had written about the Catholic Church’s most famous relic, and not only removed the Quintus theme, but the site title itself. Fallen Leaves became The Medieval Turin Shroud. But I didn’t want to delete some of my Fallen Leaves entries.

Now that I’m doing a backup of those old sites I found that I had written more than ten entries critical of a Jew who talks about child abuse on the internet. I was surprised that I had written so many posts about him; it was no longer clear in my memory.

In my personal life I don’t interact with Jews; only with mestizos, castizos and criollos (the latter are the descendants of Spaniards who haven’t stained their blood in Mexico). The Jew I used to criticise in Fallen Leaves was the first Jew I ever had problems with in my life. I never met him personally but, since there were only a few of us on the internet who read Alice Miller, it didn’t take me long to meet him online.

For a normie like I was when I met this guy, it is easier to begin to glimpse what the Jewish problem is if his subversion begins to manifest itself. But I post this entry only because I was surprised that there were so many texts I wrote about him years ago.

By the way, the visual experience of my Fallen Leaves before I abandoned the Quintus theme (an unwise and irreversible move on my part) was completely different: the background was green and the large top image was the above painting by Maxfield Parrish. You can still see there close-ups of the fresco Garden of Opportunity that tastes to me of what the ethnostate of the future should be like, where ephebes can go and pick up nymphs to perpetuate the fair race…

Categories
Abraham Lincoln American civil war Hitler's Religion (book) Mein Kampf (book) Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 6

Editor’s note: This is the first regular article after the June 8th accident: some excerpts from Richard Weikart’s chapter ‘Did Hitler derive his anti- Semitism from Christianity?’
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Hitler blamed the Jews for just about everything that he opposed: communism, capitalism, internationalism, liberalism, materialism, egalitarianism, pacifism, and, of course, Christianity. That sneaky rabbi Paul had formulated his version of Christianity, Hitler believed, on the “Jewish-Bolshevik” principles of human equality. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he complained that the Christian churches were not sufficiently anti-Semitic. He asked, “In the Jewish question, for example, do not both denominations [Catholic and Protestant] today take a standpoint which corresponds neither to the requirements of the nation nor to the real needs of religion?” A few paragraphs later, he remarked that Protestantism was better than Catholicism in defending the national interests of Germany, but it was still deficient, because it “combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.” For Hitler, Christianity was essentially Jewish and thus weakened the German effort to combat the Jewish threat. He certainly did not see his anti-Semitism as congruent with the teachings and policies of the Christian churches…

Anti-Jewish animus was sometimes tempered by the Christian ethic of loving one’s neighbor and even one’s enemies. Also, Christians often opposed the biological racism that flourished in intellectual circles in the late nineteenth century. Historian Leon Poliakov remarks, “Judeo-Christian tradition was both anti-racist and anti-nationalist.” If one reads the biological racist literature of early twentieth-century Germany, one frequently finds that racist ideologues criticized the Christian churches for their racial egalitarianism.

Christian anti-Semites differed from racial anti-Semites because Christians usually did not object to the Jews as a biological entity; rather, they opposed their religion. If Jews would give up their Jewish religion and be baptized into the Christian faith, they would be accepted as full-fledged members of German society, as they often were. But the secular, racial form of anti-Semitism that flowered around 1900—and which Hitler embraced— regarded conversion and assimilation as the absolute worst things that could happen, because then Jews would intermarry with Germans. Hitler believed this would pollute the German bloodline with inferior hereditary traits. Thus, the key difference between Christian anti-Semitism and racial anti- Semitism was that the former wanted to assimilate the Jews into German society while the latter believed it was necessary to eliminate them physically from Germany. Racial anti-Semites usually did not see the churches as allies in their campaign against the Jews.

NS propaganda: “Baptism did not make him a
non-Jew” from Ernst Hiemer, Der Giftpilz (1938).

One of the leading figures in developing the racist anti-Semitism that became prominent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term anti-Semitism. Marr warned in a popular book in 1879 that the Jews were conquering the Germans in a racial war. This battle of the Germans against the Jews “was from the beginning no religious [war], it was a struggle for existence, that was waged against the foreign domination of Jewry.” Marr, a harsh critic of Christianity, depicted his theory about the racial struggle against Jews as a secular, scientific standpoint. Because he believed the Jews were a race, not a religion, he advocated segregation and discrimination, not assimilation, as the cure for the “Jewish question”… Marr’s antireligious, racist version of anti-Semitism gained many adherents at the end of the nineteenth century, especially as biological racism exploded in popularity among secular-minded intellectuals…

In the period 1919 to 1923, one of the main topics in Hitler’s speeches was the Jewish threat. In August 1920, Hitler delivered a programmatic speech in Munich on “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” Hitler depicted the Aryans or Nordic people as a race that developed in the northern parts of Europe. Because of the harsh climate, the Aryan race developed a diligent character, viewing labor as a duty to the community. Also, the tough conditions of life weeded out the weak and sickly among them, giving them greater physical stamina and contributing to the development of an inner life. The Jews, on the other hand, never developed an appreciation for labor.

In sum, Hitler said, “We see that here two great differences lie in the race: Aryanness means a moral conception of labor and through it what we hear so often today: socialism, sense of community, common welfare before self-interest—Jewry means an egoistic conception of labor and thereby mammonism and materialism, the exact opposite of socialism!”

Hitler emphasized these moral and immoral traits of Aryans and Jews were biological and hereditary. In answering the question, “Why Are We Anti- Semites?,” Hitler made clear that he opposed the Jews’ supposedly hereditary immoral qualities, especially their laziness and greed. His anti- Semitism was not based on religious considerations. To be sure, he did mention a couple of passages from the Hebrew Bible, but these were used to illustrate Jewish greed and immorality, not because he opposed their religious beliefs or practices. Not only do we find zero Christian anti- Semitic themes in this speech, but Hitler specifically distanced himself from Christianity by accusing the Jews of spreading Christianity, a theme he would take up often later, but usually in private, not in public forums…

The secularized version of anti-Christian anti-Semitism that became prominent in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Germany was grafted onto the earlier Christian version of anti-Semitism. Centuries-old caricatures of the Jews were reinterpreted as Jewish biological traits. Further, the Christian churches in Germany and Austria continued to peddle a good deal of anti-Jewish animosity in the early twentieth century, thus giving succor to the Nazi anti-Semitic juggernaut. Both Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Christian anti-Semitism—thus, both religion and secularization—were necessary conditions for the advent of the Nazi Holocaust. The anti-Semitic message that Hitler preached, however, was far more anti-Christian than Christian.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: In this chapter I begin to glimpse the tragedy of the leading NS ideologues and their compromise with the Christian masses of Germans.

The fact is that, publicly, they could not speak out. And they themselves believed in an Aryan and fictitious Jesus because there was no research like Richard Carrier’s (see the video linked in the sticky post).

That’s why they focused so much on the JQ—the CQ was taboo in Nazi Germany, as it still is now in American white nationalism.

For example, it is common on the racial right to distort the driving force that moved the Yankees to war with southern racists, something that Robert Morgan has taken issue with a galaxy of conservative commenters on The Unz Review for some time now.

The following is his last exchange this month but, as I don’t yet know how to modify the theme code of this new incarnation of WDH (the software automatically italicises all indented quotes and turn the indented quotes brown), I won’t indent Morgan’s next quotes or those he argues with:
 

Robert Morgan: Jared Taylor is such a brazen liar I decided to make an annotated version of his remarks about Lincoln.

“Lincoln didn’t like slavery, but he didn’t like blacks, either.”

Yet Lincoln was more responsible than any other man for freeing them and turning them loose on white people. I ask you, is this the action of a man who hated blacks?

“Once they were free, he wanted them gone.”

Correction: he once or twice said he wanted them gone, but his actions prove he didn’t.

“In 1862, when you’d think he was busy fighting a war, he was worrying about how to get rid of black people.”

But not worrying very much, apparently. In his last public address before being assassinated, he called for them to be made citizens and given the vote. It should be easy to see from this facile turnabout that at heart, Lincoln was no racist, but a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian.

“He appointed James Mitchell as United States Commissioner of Emigration [of negroes] to find a place, far away, where all blacks would go. Mitchell invited a delegation of blacks to the White House so Lincoln could ask them to clear out.”

And here we come to the nub of the matter. Any “plan” that relied on all the negroes volunteering to leave was not a plan at all, only a pipe dream.

“This was the first time blacks had set foot in the White House on official business and not as servants, slaves, or workmen.”

In other words, on terms of equality with whites. Another first from Jared Taylor’s hero, “Honest” Abe. I suppose it’s fitting, in a way, that a liar such as Taylor should admire Lincoln, one of the greatest and most successful liars to ever hold the American presidency. And that’s saying something!

“He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other.”

Let’s note that this is the exact opposite of what Taylor and other Civil War revisionists argue. They are quite fond of making the astonishingly stupid claim that the Civil War had NOTHING at all to do with slavery. Why, it was only an attempt to save the Union, doncha know! LOL.

“He told them he had picked out a nice place for them in Central America, and asked them to convince all other blacks to pack up and go there.”

Asked them! To convince all the other blacks to pack up and go there! LOL. Yes, very realistic! If Lincoln actually believed that had a snowball’s chance in hell of happening then he must have been even stupider than the average “white nationalist” who buys into the lie that Lincoln didn’t like negroes.

“But, somehow, it’s today’s Democrats—not Lincoln in 1862—who are ‘the real racists’.”

Jared Taylor’s comical attempt to portray the Great Emancipator as “the real racist” is an epic fail.

Sollipsist: “No matter how big you make the word NOTHING, it still fails to accurately represent the factual and historical arguments that correctly identify slavery as a catalyst rather than a first cause.”

Robert Morgan: Lincoln says it’s the ONLY cause. Again, as Taylor puts it: “He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other. ”

How’s that for “factual and historical”? So who’s lying here? JT? Lincoln? Both?

Sollipsist: “It would be progress just to get most people to the point at which they’d realize (or maybe even grudgingly admit) that economics, manufacturing concerns, and centralized political control had ANYTHING to do with sending 600,000+ people to their death.”

Robert Morgan: In The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the Union soldiers sang the line Let us die to make men free! N.b., they didn’t claim to be willing to die for manufacturing concerns, for economics, for tariffs, for centralized political control, or even to save the Union. Their cause was freeing the slaves. Without this moral cause, it’s hard to see how they would have justified the war, either to themselves or anyone else.

Robert ‘S.’ Hartman revisited

On Sunday I wrote ‘On Robert S. Hartman’ but only to this day a German commenter informed me that Robert Schirokauer Hartman was Jewish on his father’s side.

For the couple of years that my father treated Hartman we did not learn that he was half-Jew, which explains Hartman’s attitude towards his native Germany, and why he fled Nazi Germany.

I was so shocked that Hartman’s father was Jewish, that today I started a ‘stub article’ (short article in need of expansion) on Metapedia about him. Hopefully, other editors will expand the article. On the Metapedia talk page I explained what motivated me to start that page.

On Robert S. Hartman

Update of 4 April, 2020: It now looks like
this guy was Jewish on his father’s side!

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I learned the word axiology after I met Dr. Robert Hartman when he got along with my father. I even got to play a game of chess with Hartman at his home in Cuernavaca, a game that ended in a draw by the way. His book El conocimiento del bien, published in Spanish by FCE in 1965 (The Knowledge of Good: Critique of Axiological Reason, 2002 Rodopi Press), is still in the library that my father left.

I recall that when we played in Cuernavaca, Hartman opined that the machine would never beat man in chess, and he argued citing philosophers who said that, as man programmed computers, they could never beat him. Since Hartman died not long after we played that game, he didn’t see Kasparov losing a match with a computer.

There’s no need to read Hartman’s very dense axiological work The Knowledge of Good because the man was a typical neo-Christian idiot, as we can see from his words: ‘I had seen Hitler organize evil, and I had determined to try to organize good…’

I remember Hartman’s gestures. He was a very good-natured German, always smiling, married to a Swedish woman. Hartman liked to take naps after lunch and was wealthy enough to take taxis from Mexico City to Cuernavaca when he visited our home. Using metaphor, on one occasion he told my father that as a young man he had escaped from Nazi Germany, ‘¡Me salí por la ventana!’ (‘I went out the window!’). How was it possible for a well-educated German to be completely blind that the greatest Aryan revival in history happened in his native country (he was born in Berlin)?

White nationalists focus on Jewry ignoring that it is much more serious for Aryan Christians to honour the god of the Jews. See for example this pious stupidity that a well-known American racialist said yesterday about the coronavirus. I can say the same about Hartman.

I have complained that the root cause of the darkest hour in the West has been the reversal of values that has occurred since the time of Constantine. Hartman’s case exemplifies this reversal perfectly, although like the German philosophers Hartman wrote The Knowledge of Good in an altogether secular way. However, in Freedom to Live he openly said:

We can almost see our spiritual history as a struggle between Jesus and Aristotle. It was Aristotle who, 300 years before Christ, channelled human thought into the dangerous current in which Christian love was to drown—the overvaluation of systems or thought patterns and the undervaluation of human life.

So far so good? In that same book Hartman said that it bothered him that church services are more social events than spiritual experiences, and that Jesus was relegated to the role of an almost legendary figure. He also complained that Jesus didn’t live with us; that we forget that we don’t become Christians merely by being members of churches, and that Christianity is not a collective but an individual issue (the opposite of what the subversive tribe believes!).

I remember the times Hartman visited our house on Palenque Street—the same house I refer to in the great Cathedral’s dream with which I open Whispering Leaves. I was fifteen when Hartman died, which makes me think I played that game of chess with him when I was fourteen.

Hartman’s axiological tragedy is the tragedy of whites in general including the nationalists who, like the German philosopher, continue to cling to the ethics bequeathed to us by the Semitic authors who wrote the Gospels.

Judeo-Christianity

Today, during my meal’s dessert, a revelation came to me. The symbol of this blog could very well be an iceberg. While white nationalists can see the iceberg’s tip (Judaism), they cannot see what lies beneath the sea (a Christianity that sustains it).

In modern America, the red carpet was rolled out for the Jews since the 19th century in line with the dominant Judeo-Christian, liberal ideology. So obvious it is that the latter is the invisible basis of the former that, as I said yesterday in ‘The Worst Scum’, if the pagan Vikings had conquered the American continent, Jewry would never have been empowered in North America.

Categories
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

200 Years Together, 1

Editor’s note: Due to the fact that the anti-Aryan System throughout the Anglo-Saxon world discourages discussion of the Jewish Question, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fiction work [1] has yet to be published by a respectable house in English. However, there is a preliminary translation of 200 Years Together on the internet. I’ll be reproducing it with a few syntactic corrections of my own.
 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

Two Hundred Years Together

Volume I – The Jews Before the Revolution

Chapter 1: Before the 19th century

In this book the presence of the Jews in Russia prior to 1772 will not be discussed in detail. However, for a few pages we want to remember the older epochs.

One could begin, that the paths of Russians and Jews first crossed in the wars between the Kiev Rus and the Khazars—but that isn’t completely right, since only the upper class of the Khazars were of Hebraic descent, the tribe itself being a branch of the Turks that had accepted the Jewish faith.

If one follows the presentation of J. D. Bruzkus, a respected Jewish author of the mid-20th century, a certain part of the Jews from Persia moved across the Derbent Pass to the lower Volga where Atil [west coast of Caspian on Volga delta], the capital city of the Khazarian Khanate rose up starting 724 AD. The tribal princes of the Turkish Khazars, at the time still idol-worshippers, did not want to accept either the Muslim faith—lest they should be subordinated to the caliph of Baghdad—nor Christianity—lest they come under vassalage to the Byzantine emperor; and so the clan went over to the Jewish faith in 732. But there was also a Jewish colony in the Bosporan Kingdom [on the Taman Peninsula at east end of the Crimea, separating the Black Sea from the Sea of Azov] to which Hadrian had Jewish captives brought in 137, after the victory over Bar-Kokhba.

Later a Jewish settlement sustained itself without break under the Goths and Huns in the Crimea; especially Kaffa (Feodosia) remained Jewish. In 933 Prince Igor [912-945, Grand Prince of Kiev, successor of Oleg, regent after death of Riurik founder of the Kiev Kingdom in 862] temporarily possessed Kerch, and his son Sviatoslav [Grand Prince 960-972] wrested the Don region from the Khazars. The Kiev Rus already ruled the entire Volga region including Atil in 909, and Russian ships appeared at Samander [south of Atil on the west coast of the Caspian]. Descendents of the Khazars were the Kumyks in the Caucasus. In the Crimea, on the other hand, they combined with the Polovtsy [nomadic Turkish branch from central Asia, in the northern Black Sea area and the Caucasus since the 10th century; called Cuman by western historians] to form the Crimean Tatars. But the Karaim [a Jewish sect that does not follow the Talmud] and Jewish residents of the Crimean did not go over to the Muslim Faith. The Khazars were finally conquered by Tamerlane [or Timur, the 14th century conqueror].

A few researchers however hypothesize (exact proof is absent) that the Hebrews had wandered to some extent through the south Russian region in west and northwest direction. Thus the Orientalist and Semitist Abraham Harkavy for example writes that the Jewish congregation in the future Russia “emerged from Jews that came from the Black Sea coast and from the Caucasus, where their ancestors had lived since the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity.” J. D. Bruzkus also leans to this perspective (another opinion suggests it is the remnant of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel). This migration presumably ended after the conquest of Tmutarakans [eastern shore of the Kerch straits, overlooking the eastern end of the Crimean Peninsula; the eastern flank of the old Bosporan Kingdom] by the Polovtsy. According to Harkavy’s opinion the vernacular of these Jews at least since the 9th century was Slavic, and only in the 17th century, when the Ukrainian Jews fled from the pogroms of Chmelnitzki [Bogdan Chmelnitzki, Ukrainian Cossack, 1593-1657, led the successful Cossack rebellion against Poland with help from the Crimean Tatars], did Yiddish become the language of Jews in Poland.

In various manners the Jews also came to Kiev and settled there. Already under Igor, the lower part of the city was called Kosary; in 933 Igor brought Jews that had been taken captive in Kerch. Then in 965 Jews taken captive in the Crimea were brought there; in 969 Kosaren from Atil and Samander, in 989 from Cherson and in 1017 from Tmutarakan. In Kiev western Jews also emerged in connection with the caravan traffic from west to east, and starting at the end of the 11th century, maybe on account of the persecution in Europe during the first Crusade.

Later researchers confirm likewise that in the 11th century, the “Jewish element” in Kiev is to be derived from the Khazars. Still earlier, at the turn of the 10th century the presence of a “khazar force and a khazar garrison” was chronicled in Kiev. And already in the first half of the 11th century the Jewish-khazar element in Kiev played “a significant roll.” In the 9th and 10th century, Kiev was multinational and tolerant.

At the end of the 10th century, in the time when Prince Vladimir [Vladimir I. Svyatoslavich 980-1015, the Saint, Grand Prince of Kiev] was choosing a new faith for the Russians. There were not a few Jews in Kiev, and among them some educated men were suggested taking on the Jewish faith. The choice fell out otherwise than it had 250 years earlier in the Khazar Kingdom. Karamsin [1766-1826, Russian historian] relates it like this: “After he (Vladimir) had listened to the Jews, he asked where their homeland was. ‘In Jerusalem,’ answered the delegates, ‘but God has chased us in his anger and sent us into a foreign land.’ ‘And you, whom God has punished, dare to teach others?’ said Vladimir. ‘We do not want to lose our fatherland like you have.’” After the Christianization of the Rus, according to Bruzkus, a portion of the Khazar Jews in Kiev also went over to Christianity and afterwards in Novgorod perhaps one of them—Luka Zhidyata—was even one of the first bishops and spiritual writers.

Christianity and Judaism, side-by-side in Kiev, inevitably led that the learned zealously contrasted them. From this dynamics emerged the work significant to Russian literature, “Sermon on Law and Grace” [by Hilarion, first Russian Metropolitan] in the middle 11th century, which contributed to the settling of a Christian consciousness for the Russians that lasted for centuries. “The polemic here is as fresh and lively as in the letters of the apostles.” In any case, it was the first century of Christianity in Russia. For the Russian neophytes of that time, the Jews were interesting, especially in connection to their religious presentation, and even in Kiev there were opportunities for contact with them. The interest was greater than later in the 18th century, when they again became physically close.

Then, for more than a century, the Jews took part in the expanded commerce of Kiev. “In the new city wall (completed in 1037) there was the Jews’ Gate, which closed in the Jewish quarter.” The Kiev Jews were not subjected to any limitations, and the princes did not handle themselves hostilely, but rather vouchsafed protection for them, especially Sviatopolk Iziaslavich [Prince of Novgorod 1078-1087, Grand Prince of Kiev 1093-1113] , since the trade and enterprising spirit of the Jews brought the princes financial advantage.

In 1113, Vladimir, later called Monomakh, out of qualms of conscience, even after the death of Sviatopolk, hesitated to ascend the Kiev Throne prior to one of the Svyatoslavich’s, and “exploiting the anarchy, rioters plundered the house of the regimental commander Putiata and all Jews that had stood under the special protection of the greedy Sviatopolk in the capital city… One reason for the Kiev revolt was apparently the usury of the Jews: probably, exploiting the shortage of money of the time, they enslaved the debtors with exorbitant interest.” For example, there are indications in the “Statute” of Vladimir Monomakh that Kiev money-lenders received interest up to 50% per annum.

Karamsin therein appeals to the Chronicles and an extrapolation by Basil Tatistcheff [1686-1750: student of Peter the Great, first Russian historian]. Moreover, in Tatistcheff: “Afterwards they clubbed down many Jews and plundered their houses, because they had brought about many sicknesses to Christians and commerce. They had brought great damage. Many of them, who had gathered in their synagogue seeking protection, defended themselves as well as they could until Vladimir would arrive.” But when he came, “the Kievites pleaded with him for retribution toward the Jews, because they had taken all the trades from Christians and under Sviatopolk had had much freedom and power… They had also brought many over to their faith.”

According to M. N. Pokrovski, the Kiev Pogrom of 1113 had social and not national character. However the leaning of this “class-conscious” historian toward social interpretations is well known.

After he ascended to the Kiev throne, Vladimir answered the complainants, “Since many [Jews] everywhere have received access to the various princely courts and have migrated there, it is not appropriate for me, without the advice of the princes, and moreover contrary to right, to permit killing and plundering them. Hence I will without delay call the princes to assemble, to give counsel.” In the Council a law limiting the interest was established, which Vladimir attached to Yaroslav’s “Statute.” Karamsin reports, appealing to Tatistcheff, that Vladimir “banned all Jews” upon the conclusion of the Council, “and from that time forth there were none left in our fatherland.” But at the same time he qualifies: “In contrast, in the Chronicles it says that in 1124 the Jews in Kiev died in a great fire; consequently, they had not been banned.” Bruzkus explains, that it “was a whole Quarter in the best part of the city… at the Jew’s Gate next to the Golden Gate.”

At least one Jew enjoyed the trust of Andrei Bogoliubskii [or Andrey Bogolyubsky] in Vladimir. “Among the confidants of Andrei was a certain Ephraim Moisich, whose patronymic Moisich or Moisievich indicates his Jewish derivation,” and who according to the words of the Chronicle was among the instigators of the treason by which Andrei was murdered. However there is also a notation that says that under Andrei Bogoliubskii “many Bulgarians and Jews from the Volga territory came and had themselves baptized” and that after the murder of Andrei his son Georgi fled to a Jewish Prince in Dagestan.

In any case the information on the Jews in the time of the Suzdal Rus is scanty, as their numbers were obviously small.

The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that in the Russian heroic songs (Bylinen) the “Jewish Czar”—e.g. the warrior Shidowin in the old Bylina—is “a favorite general moniker for an enemy of the Christian faith.” At the same time it could also be a trace of memories of the struggle against the Khazars. Here, the religious basis of this hostility and exclusion is made clear. On this basis, the Jews were not permitted to settle in the Muscovy Rus.

The invasion of the Tatars portended the end of the lively commerce of the Kiev Rus, and many Jews apparently went to Poland. (Also the Jewish colonization into Volhynia and Galicia continued, where they had scarcely suffered from the Tatar invasion.) The Encyclopedia explains: “During the invasion of the Tatars (1239) which destroyed Kiev, the Jews also suffered, but in the second half of the 13th century they were invited by the Grand Princes to resettle in Kiev, which found itself under the domination of the Tatars. On account of the special rights, which were also granted the Jews in other possessions of the Tatars, envy was stirred up in the town residents against the Kiev Jews.”

Something similar happened not only in Kiev, but also in the cities of North Russia, which “under the Tatar rule, were accessible for many merchants from Khoresm or Khiva, who were long since experienced in trade and the tricks of profit-seeking. These people bought from the Tatars the principality’s right to levy Tribute, they demanded excessive interest from poor people and, in case of their failure to pay, declared the debtors to be their slaves, and took away their freedom. The residents of Vladimir, Suzdal, and Rostov finally lost their patience and rose up together at the pealing of the Bells against these usurers; a few were killed and the rest chased off.” A punitive expedition of the Khan against the mutineers was threatened, which however was hindered via the mediation of Alexander Nevsky. “In the documents of the 15th century, Kievite Jewish tax-leasers are mentioned, who possessed a significant fortune.”

[1] Solzhenitsyn’s first non-fiction work is The Gulag Archipelago (1973). Two Hundred Years Together (2002) was published in Russian.

Unz commenter, 10

‘Jews only get away with what whites raised in their masochistic Christian culture let them get away with; they only have as much power as whites give them’.

Categories
Christendom Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Judea v. Rome St Paul

Commissary to the Gentiles, 5

by (((Marcus Eli Ravage)))

If Paul’s own writings fail to convince you of this interpretation of his activities, I invite your attention to his more candid associate John. Where Paul, operating within the shadow of the imperial palace and half the time a prisoner in Roman jails, is obliged to deal in parable and veiled hints, John, addressing himself to disaffected Asiatics, can afford the luxury of plain speaking. At any rate, his pamphlet entitled “Revelation” is, in truth, a revelation of what the whole astonishing business is about.

Rome, fancifully called Babylon, is minutely described in the language of sputtering hate, as the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, as the woman drunken with the blood of saints (Christians and Jews), as the oppressor of “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” and—to remove all doubt of her identity—as “that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” An angel triumphantly cries, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen.” Then follows an orgiastic picture of ruin. Commerce and industry and maritime trade are at an end. Art and music and “the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride” are silenced. Darkness and desolation lie like a pall upon the scene. The gentle Christian conquerors wallow in blood up to the bridles of their horses. “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.”

And what is the end and purpose of all this chaos and devastation? John is not too reticent to tell us. For he closes his pious prophecy with a vision of the glories of the new—that is, the restored—Jerusalem: not any allegorical fantasy, I pray you, but literally Jerusalem, the capital of a great reunited kingdom of “the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.”

Could any one ask for anything plainer?

Of course, no civilization could forever hold out against this kind of assault. By the year 200 the efforts of Paul and John and their successors had made such headway among all classes of Roman society that Christianity had become the dominant cult throughout the empire. Meantime, as Paul had shrewdly foreseen, Roman morale and discipline had quite broken down, so that more and more the imperial legions, once the terror of the world and the backbone of Western culture, went down to defeat before barbarian invaders. In the year 326 the emperor Constantine, hoping to check the insidious malady, submitted to conversion and proclaimed Christianity the official religion. It was too late. After him the emperor Julian tried to resort once more to suppression. But neither resistance nor concession were of any use. The Roman body politic had become thoroughly worm-eaten with Palestinian propaganda. Paul had triumphed.

This at least is how, were I an anti-Semite in search of a credible sample of subversive Jewish conspiracy, I would interpret the advent of a modified Jewish creed into the Western world.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: This final instalment of Ravage’s essay says exactly the same that Evropa Soberana says in his ‘Judea vs. Rome’essay—but from the other side!

Some time ago a correspondent in Germany told me that he missed, in the later editions, the Conservative Swede essay that, on pages 77-88 of the 2014 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, appears as ‘The historical demise of Christianity’ (and on this site as ‘The Red Giant’).The reason I eliminated that essay from the print edition was the author’s behaviour.

Ten years ago, Conservative Swede was furious when I mentioned the Third Reich at the anti-jihad site Gates of Vienna. Then he invited me to read an essay on his blog on the subject and asked me if I wanted to eliminate the Jews. Already in 2010, in the now defunct blog Mangan’s, I mentioned two books to awaken visitors to the Jewish question: MacDonald’s and Lindemann’s. Faced with that awakening of mine to the Jewish question, the Swede replied that he would retire from blogging: which he definitely did. I was stupefied but years later I suspected that Conservative Swede could have, in his bloodline, Jewish background.

That’s how ‘The Red Giant’ was eliminated in the most recent editions. Now, to the 2019 edition of The Fair Race that will soon be available, I’ve added the essay by Marcus Eli Ravage that concludes with the entry above. It is the only essay by a Jew in the 2019 edition: an essay that can also be read as a PDF (here).

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Jesus Reformation

Commissary to the Gentiles, 2

by (((Marcus Eli Ravage)))

But even these plots and revolutions are as nothing compared with the great conspiracy which we engineered at the beginning of this era and which was destined to make the creed of a Jewish sect the religion of the Western world. The Reformation was not designed in malice purely. It squared us with an ancient enemy and restored our Bible to its place of honor in Christendom. The Republican revolutions of the eighteenth century freed us of our age-long political and social disabilities. They benefited us, but they did you no harm. On the contrary, they prospered and expanded you. You owe your preeminence in the world to them.

But the upheaval which brought Christianity into Europe was—or at least may easily be shown to have been—planned and executed by Jews as an act of revenge against a great Gentile state. And when you talk about Jewish conspiracies I cannot for the world understand why you do not mention the destruction of Rome and the whole civilization of antiquity concentrated under her banners, at the hands of Jewish Christianity.

It is unbelievable, but you Christians do not seem to know where your religion came from, nor how, nor why. Your historians, with one great exception, do not tell you. The documents in the case, which are part of your Bible, you chant over but do not read. We have done our work too thoroughly; you believe our propaganda too implicitly. The coming of Christianity is to you not an ordinary historical event growing out of other events of the time; it is the fulfilment of a divine Jewish prophecy—with suitable amendments of your own. It did not, as you see it, destroy a great Gentile civilization and a great Gentile empire with which Jewry was at war; it did not plunge mankind into barbarism and darkness for a thousand years; it came to bring salvation to the Gentile world!

Yet here, if ever, was a great subversive movement, hatched in Palestine, spread by Jewish agitators, financed by Jewish money, taught in Jewish pamphlets and broadsides, at a time when Jewry and Rome were in a death-struggle, and ending in the collapse of the great Gentile empire. You do not even see it, though an intelligent child, unbefuddled by theological magic, could tell you what it is all about after a hasty reading of the simple record. And then you go on prattling of Jewish conspiracies and cite as instances the Great War and the Russian Revolution! Can you wonder that we Jews have always taken your anti-Semites rather lightly, as long as they did not resort to violence?

And, mind you, no less an authority than Gibbon long ago tried to enlighten you. It is now a century and a half since The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire let the cat out of the bag. Gibbon, not being a parson dabbling in history, did not try to account for the end of a great era by inventing fatuous nonsense about the vice and degradation of Rome, about the decay of morals and faith in an empire which was at that very time in the midst of its most glorious creative period. How could he? He was living in the Augustan Age in London which—in spite of nearly two thousand years since the coming of Christian salvation—was as good a replica of Augustan Rome in the matter of refined lewdness as the foggy islanders could make it.

No, Gibbon was a race-conscious Gentile and an admirer of the culture of the pagan West, as well as a historian with brains and eyes. Therefore he had no difficulty laying his finger on the malady that had rotted and wasted away the noble edifice of antique civilization. He put Christianity down—the law which went forth from Zion and the word of God from Jerusalem—as the central cause of the decline and fall of Rome and all she represented.

So far so good. But Gibbon did not go far enough. He was born and died, you see, a century before the invention of scientific anti-Semitism. He left wholly out of account the element of deliberation. He saw an alien creed sweeping out of the East and overwhelming the fair lands of the West. It never occurred to him that it was precisely to this destructive end that the whole scheme of salvation was dedicated. Yet the facts are as plain as you please.

Let me in very brief recount the tale, unembroidered by miracle, prophecy or magic.

For a good perspective, I shall have to go back a space. The action conveniently falls into four parts, rising to a climax in the third. The time, when the first curtain rises, is roughly 65 B.C. Dramatis persona; are, minor parts aside, Judea and Rome. Judea is a tiny kingdom off the Eastern Mediterranean. For five centuries it has been hardly more than a geographical expression. Again and again it has been overrun and destroyed and its population carried into exile or slavery by its powerful neighbors. Nominally independent, it is now as unstable as ever and on the edge of civil war. The empire of the West, with her nucleus in the City Republic of Rome, while not yet mistress of the world, is speedily heading that way. She is acknowledged the one great military power of the time as well as the heir of Greece and the center of civilization.

Up to the present the two states have had little or no contact with one another. Then without solicitation on her part Rome was suddenly asked to take a hand in Judean affairs. A dispute had arisen between two brothers over the succession to the petty throne, and the Roman general Pompey, who happened to be in Damascus winding up bigger matters, was called upon to arbitrate between the claimants. With the simple directness of a republican soldier, Pompey exiled one of the brothers, tossed the chief priesthood to his rival, and abolished the kingly dignity altogether. Not to put too fine a point on it, Pompey’s mediation amounted in effect to making Judea a Roman dependency.

The Jews, not unnaturally perhaps, objected; and Rome, to conciliate them and to conform to local prejudice, restored the royal office. She appointed, that is, a king of her own choosing. He was the son of an exciseman, an Idumean by race, named Herod. But the Jews were not placated, and continued making trouble. Rome thought it very ungrateful of them.

All this is merely a prelude, and is introduced into the action to make clear what follows. Jewish discontent grew to disaffection and open revolt when their Gentile masters began importing into Jerusalem the blessings of Western culture. Graven images, athletic games, Greek drama, and gladiatorial shows were not to the Jewish taste. The pious resented them as an offense in the nostrils of Jehovah, even though the resident officials patiently explained they were meant for the entertainment and edification of the non-Jewish garrison. The Judeans resisted with especial strenuousness the advent of the efficient Roman tax-gatherer. Above all, they wanted back a king of their own race and their own royal line.

Among the masses the rebellion took the form of a revival of the old belief in a Messiah, a divinely appointed savior who was to redeem his people from the foreign yoke and make Judea supreme among the nations. Claimants to the mission were not wanting. In Galilee, one Judas led a rather formidable insurrection, which enlisted much popular support. John, called the Baptist, operated in the Jordan country. He was followed by another north-country man, Jesus of Nazareth. All three were masters of the technique of couching incendiary political sedition in harmless theological phrases. All three used the same signal of revolt—“The time is at hand.” And all three were speedily apprehended and executed, both Galileans by crucifixion.

Personal qualities aside, Jesus of Nazareth was, like his predecessors, a political agitator engaged in liberating his country from the foreign oppressor. There is even considerable evidence that he entertained an ambition to become king of an independent Judea. He claimed, or his biographers later claimed for him, descent from the ancient royal line of David. But his paternity is somewhat confused. The same writers who traced the origin of his mother’s husband back to the psalmist-king also pictured Jesus as the son of Jehovah, and admitted that Joseph was not his father.

It seems, however, that Jesus before long realized the hopelessness of his political mission and turned his oratorical gifts and his great popularity with the masses in quite another direction. He began preaching a primitive form of populism, socialism and pacifism. The effect of this change in his program was to gain him the hostility of the substantial, propertied classes, the priests and patriots generally, and to reduce his following to the poor, the laboring mass and the slaves.

After his death these lowly disciples formed themselves into a communistic brotherhood. A sermon their late leader had once delivered upon a hillside summed up for them the essence of his teachings, and they made it their rule of life. It was a philosophy calculated to appeal profoundly to humble people. It comforted those who suffered here on earth with promised rewards beyond the grave. It made virtues of the necessities of the weak. Men without hope in the future were admonished to take no thought for the morrow. Men too helpless to resent insult or injury were taught to resist not evil. Men condemned to lifelong drudgery and indigence were assured of the dignity of labor and of poverty.

The meek, the despised, the disinherited, the downtrodden, were—in the hereafter—to be the elect and favored of God. The worldly, the ambitious, the rich and powerful, were to be denied admission to heaven.

Categories
St Paul

Renaming the problem

This image comes from page 50 of the book Pablo: El Santo Aventurero (Paul: The Holy Adventurer) originally published in English by the David C. Cook Foundation and translated into Spanish in Barcelona, Spain.

Translated back into English, the title of the chapter is ‘The Earthquake (Acts: 16: 20-37)’ and the captions, with a man from a Roman province accusing Paul, say: ‘These men are Jews and are trying to cause problems by teaching customs contrary to Roman law’. The others respond: ‘Yes, we heard him’.

Notice the hair colour of the white Roman leader and his subjects. The message of this illustrated book for white Christians is that the Jew Paul was the good guy, and the pagan whites the bad guys.

How long will it take for white nationalists to awaken to the fact that ‘the Jewish problem’ ought to be renamed as ‘the Judeo-Christian problem’?