17th October

When I as a young student learned about international relations, I had a hard time figuring out the mechanics of society. How revolutions came to fruition, how wars were started, given that war is an enterprise involving thousands, these questions have more to do with understanding consensus as a wave system. Sometimes the agreement fractures - between politicians and constituents or between revolutionary groups.

Nothing in this week’s TIJ chapter contradicts that this is the view I need to take.

Treat people differently, and they develop awareness of their difference, which will soon form a blockage against integration. The smallest thing can start these processes. A culture which has a special way of celebrating a holiday unique to them. Friends and colleagues pick up on these matters and use them in jokes. It’s not much, but enough that a small fissure in consensus has opened up. If pressures rise, it will expand into an unsurmountable crevice.

On both sides are people throwing rocks on each other. They both deny reunion is possible, unless the opposing side make amends for their inimical behaviour.

Human beings are proud beings.

Honour and self-esteem matters to most, albeit not as much as food and water. And yet undeniably history is full of perilous undertakings trying to shake off perceived shackles.

This is a matter we have reduced to the word freedom. But that is cleansing of the motivational content. Once upon a time in France, England, Russia, Austria, Poland, Prussia people loved their monarch, male or female while the aristocracy were often been frowned upon. (Sometimes the other way around).

A monarch can enjoy the full acceptance and loyalty of an entire country, if they feel he is the protector of their way of life. The country can be poor, and the people’s freedom inexistent, but as long as no rift in mutual affection opens up on a large scale, the bond is unbroken. Freedom has some bearing, but limited.

But a catholic king atop a protestant people will lead to problems, if in an era where religion matters.

Often this debate is reduced to materialism versus idealism, which is strange to me.

There is nothing idealistic about feeling hurt over an unreasonable infraction against your person, except perhaps in the attempts to rationalise those feelings under an accepted social code.

18th October

The International Jew is guilty of piling on instead of focussing on a stringent argument, that is true. But inside the foggy guilt-by-association connections, the authors seem to believe they present a solid case.

So where are we now?

• In Biblical times the Jews learned that they could loan to strangers with interests, but the Law of Moses kept their inclination to finance in check. They lost their spiritual light when they took the Canaanites as slaves. (Ch.1)
• The diaspora made them traders, but they behaved as if they were still a master race and a nation without a country. They work hard and accomplish much. (Ch.1)
• The Gentiles lack their ability to cooperate and help each other gain foothold. (Ch.3)
• The problem is the International Jew, not the poor Jews. (Ch.3)
• Jews sit aloof and control as much on the world stage as they can, for the sake of control.
• Jews stood to gain in WW1 in Germany by elusive and clandestine actions, such as being socialists. (Ch.2)
• They made a success in America by turning their low human instincts into an asset, such as becoming kings of garbage and recycling. (Ch.3)

The essence remains a tight coupling of this notion of the “Jewish character” with more or less historically accurate facts, not to mention almost frivolous attribution of entire thought systems to “Jews”.

Key to the latter is that a single person may come up with a theory, and if that person is Jewish, it automatically invokes the rule that his motive is devotion to his race.

19th October

In the coming chapter, TIJ says things that make a decent man cringe. I must always remember, that to them, the threat of the International Jew is real. He exists, is incurably bent on mastery and is in possession of an unstoppable financial genius.

Just one thought keeps nagging me.

Why not counter the Jew with the same recipe with which the Industrial Revolution stamped out all previous ways of existence — competition?

Those self-providing farms which could feed a big family and as a surplus produce a few extra items to be sold on the market could not compete with the steam and belt driven factories. They succumbed and many ended up in history’s worst slum areas in big towns. Those very non-jewish magnates felt little appreciation for children worked to exhaustion in 12 hour shifts or more.

The farms and people of crafts succumbed to a superior mentality (as the industrialist has it). Now the latter is faced with en even more superior mentality. Take up the challenge, compete. Beat the purported Jew in his own game. It’s a little late to develop a conscience after all the harm done to civilisation.

20th October

The poor Jews. Dearborn Independent is ambiguous about the matter as they balance a kind of sympathetic view that the poor Jews pay the price for the iniquities of the Jewish oligarchy. Other times they remind us that all Jews have solidarity with each other and all share the same nature and desires.

I am starting to focus on the prejudice below sea level which holds that all Jews are just “sick” in some way. Rich or poor.

Modern hysterical media riots are dangerously close to walking that edge too. “Not all men, but always men” is defended with much the same loquaciousness that TIJ offers, namely that the controlling oligarchy is “not all Jews, but always Jews” (close to verbatim from TIJ chapter 4).

It smells of people defending their prejudices.

Now I am in a real awkward spot, because I genuinely feel for the women who are struggling to recover their self-esteem and value in society. Or matters much worse.

Then again, I don’t need a bad argument to be true and I don’t need to generalise to Men or Jews at all to feel sympathy.

The real challenge is to figure out what is real. The Jewish question seems like a fancy now. To Henry Ford it was real. But the next chapter is not titled “Real or Fancy” but “Fact or Fancy”. Then Fact must equal Real, and like Goebbels in Der Angriff or numerous articles in Der Stürmer or Volkischer Beobacter they resort to naming people who are more or less Jewish and more or less in central positions.

This is why I live on an island, frankly. My horrible fellow people shy away from drawing sharp contours with hundreds of precise pencil strokes, which is what it requires, and contend themselves with broad water colour strokes that sweeps across all sorts of boundaries.

Jews a hundred years ago had a vested interest in social theories that challenged the hegemonies of the world, around which society was structured. Especially poor Jews stood to gain from this. But such a theorising person is - qua his hopefully long tenure in academic disciplines - defined by his (or her) knowledge, not his religion.

What is real?

Are Jews taking over the world? Are white supremacists? Are white men?

Probably.

But the more they escalate to altitudes where they can actually do anything, the more they cease to be any of the above. We are always defined by our knowledge and experiences, and take a person away from gritty reality of economic survival and, say, make him a politician, and soon he will be estranged from the very people he came from.

Theodor Herzl’s essay provides several references to a separation in peace from those well-off Jews.

TIJ - Ch. 4 - The Jewish Question — Fact Or Fancy?

● Complaints about 1920’s cancel culture that suppresses open talk on “the Jewish question:”. ● Focus must remain on the cultural aspect: Anybody can be rich, only Jews control. ● “Jewishness” trumps Mosaic religion as determiner. ● The Jewish problem: They seem to be perfect at what they do. ● We need Gentile industry and profits on production, not Jewish banks and profit on loans.

I know everybody who reads history exclaims at some point that little ever change. That reaction is hard to avoid when one realises that these good honest people, who just want to alert the world to the disaster of a hostile takeover by an elite of Jewish Leninist capitalists, are being harassed.

Their articles are not printed, they are being silenced and cancelled.

Their politically correct opponents try to sugarcoat the matter by insisting that the emblematic world controllers are not black / white / men / Jews but “financiers”.

Feel at home? Politics have not changed all that much, and neither has racism.

And just like today you are given the choice between cowardice or prejudice. Choose which side to placate.

I consider myself lucky that I can sit on an island and read books without having to demonstrate my politically incorrectness by agreeing with uncivilised buffoons, nor my political correctness by agreeing with an expurgated version of social constructivism downgraded to fit the emotional atavism of a handful of protesters.

When the authors of TIJ sought to prove the ubiquity of Jewish thinking by attributing the dictatorship of the proletariat to Jewish political theory, they bought a one-way ticket to La La Land.

The problem is hardly that people are afraid to discuss it, but that they are unwilling to check their functioning cognitive apparatus at the door.

They disagree from start to finish. True, Jews (certainly Theodor Herzl) are well aware that Jews are skilled in business. But they are also aware that the Western civilisation made them good at that and helped shape their current culture. TIJ denies that part, which is always easy. TIJ’s patching up of history to ignore the fact that Jews were shaped by forces beyond their control is ridiculous at best.

TIJ refuses to discuss the problem in any other form or fashion than as an ethnic issue: Jews have one and only one nature which manifests itself in various ways depending on circumstances in life. You could in principle swap poor and rich Jews and the world would never notice.

I feel the presence of utter brilliance.

The Jewish Question

Let’s clarify:

Candidly TIJ rejects the Jews’ own feeling of victimhood and turn the tables around by saying that the Jews are exploiting the world.

All those economic pogroms that the Jews are ceaselessly committing against humanity. There’s the reason for our almost defenceless situation.

TIJ vacillates as usual on the matter of poor Jews. It is insinuated that they exhibit a passive cultural complicity in the acts of the international bankers, which results in the poor Jews paying the price for the righteous and certainly unstoppable anger of the Gentiles.

The authors want to be able to rebuke them too by pointing out their shared behaviour, their race nature.

Thus the logic hypothetically becomes: 1) World in pain because of Jews in power. 2) Solution: Poor Jews take responsibility and stop supporting their brethren at the top.

But we will never know, as TIJ points to a problem, but is skimping on solutions. One should not forever accuse a minority without suggestion solutions. Out there in the dark, someone else will approach the problem in a untoward way.

Always a Jew …

The very fact that a majority of Jews have little desire to understand what goes on in the mind of a managing director of IMF or a chairman of the American Federal Reserve has little impact on the conclusions.

Incidentally, only a few of the directors of IMF had Jewish blood in them, while a sizeable portion of chairs of US Federal Reserve had Jewish parents or grandparents, suggesting a larger prevalence in USA, (and that having a Jewish grandparent in your childhood dominates your own thinking far later).

Since most “advanced” ideologies can be attributed to Jews (if you write for Dearborn Independent), all economic planners that act from theory are Jew or know a Jew or has eaten food produced by a Jew.

So is “not all men, but always a man” dangerous? The statement serves little purpose pointing it out, as it can only function as a generalisation from a subgroup to a super-group. I would avoid it altogether.

But is the comparison really all that bad? Men are genetically hardwired to rape women (excuse me..!?), or at least to have their way with them. Isn’t that like the Jews are genetically or culturally predisposed to finance?

Put next to each other, both accusations reveal a lack of understanding about human nature that is profound.

Conversely, I can of course see the problem from the point of view of women, who cannot figure out who they can trust. Men’s response ranges from contemptuous sneering back to grovelling submission as if they have accepted that their very manhood is the problem in itself. The problem is purely statistical and both men and women need to accept that. That is about all I have to say on the matter, which has cost society an undue amount of time already.

The problem with “Jews” on top is that they have a strange tendency to be well educated and almost seem to think they can cover over they perverse cultural tendencies for world domination (which they share with street sweeping Jews who dream of glory and might) by dressing it in theoretical terms, be it Marxism or Austrian School economics, which are perfectly in agreement with each other when you strip the Jewish science part out of it.

“Be it human or divine”… is divine gift still on the table to these people? They are fighting shadows on the walls that are unbelievable.

As a reflex, we respond to all of the above as I did that those Jews who have risen to high positions have done so by educating themselves. Their cultural background is likely an advantage, as the consensus seems to suggest in the Jewish communities as well (albeit for different reasons than TIJ are willing to accept).

TIJ turns that argument around: By denying the fact that religion is central, it must be their Jewish nature.

Is it their religion?

Paradoxically this clear split between rich and poor Jew does not count towards abandoning a bad theory. Instead, it is used as an argument against TIJ’s detractors, who still refuse to open a book and understand the theory behind the “world controller’s” actions.

Note how multifaceted the problem becomes when fractured through Herzl’s mental prism.

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.10 - EFFECTS OF ANTI-SEMITISM

The world is provoked by our prosperity, because it has for many centuries been accustomed to consider us as the most contemptible among the poverty-stricken. It forgets, in its ignorance and narrowness of heart, that prosperity weakens our Judaism and extinguishes our peculiarities. It is only pressure that forces us back to the parent stem; it is only hatred encompassing us that makes us strangers once more.

Business practices

I will skip a longer quip on Jewish business practices. It contains a romanticising of the past …

Followed by a wilful ignorance of our own mercantile nature …

Add a little on one side of the scale, subtract a little on the other side, and for a brief moment one could almost believe that the Gentiles are half decent and the Jews are incurable money-grabbers, and not the other way around.

He really had to say that.

PARADISE LOST