21st October

There is a curse in the world in that anybody who fights a nazi will become a nazi.

The reason is that the nazis were fighting the nazis of their time, namely the financially irresponsible Jews who were rapidly ruining the world.

On closer inspection their depiction of Jews a’la 1920 breaks down into a million pieces that can never be put together again.

But so does our modern fairytale about nazism.

In fighting, we hate.

In protecting, we love.

It takes time, but eventually both will happen. World War 1 almost failed because the soldiers had not learned to hate yet. An incendiary is needed until the flames feed themselves.

22nd October

What if medieval and modern antisemitism really are much the same, and not two unrelated strains as both Theodor Herzl in AJS and Henry Ford’s paper in TIJ as well as myself earlier on believed?

What if the demand for objectivity ever since the Enlightenment has changed the outward face of an otherwise known behaviour?

There are some strange dynamics going on. TIJ is almost a bore. Weak arguments and complete refusal to see one’s own share in the problem. The simple fact that Jewish action is a reaction against events in the Medieval era is mentioned and then swept under the rug as in compliance with the Jew’s own nature.

“We put an innocent man in prison, and when he came out, he turned to crime. Not our doing, he must have had it in his nature. Put a white innocent Englishman in prison and he will emerge unscathed.”

Right.

And that is even assuming that we are talking about a crime, since all descriptions of Jewish financial activity appear suspiciously close to modern standard business practices (which I myself do not admire, by the way).

23rd October

How old is a feeling?

Over how many centuries and generations can an argument evolve? Enmities are easily inherited. Kinship sometimes also.

Russia and Ukraine grew apart, with Ukraine growing more apart earlier than Russia was willing to admit. But where Russia is an ethnically mixed country, Ukraine is an ideologically mixed country as well. Those are different.

24th October

But look at me, the antisemite!

I finally broke the code.

An ancestor long ago initiated a practice for his descendants which slightly tinted the tribe in comparison to others. Centuries later, we can all safely say “they are different”. Then we “realise” that their difference is quintessential to some modern development.

This realisation is the basis for racism. The “knowledge” that a whole group of people possess traits that are so ingrained that they do not see it themselves.

That is it! One more ingredient: Light the flame of hate, of aggression. Find someone who is done talking and wants action.

Difference points both ways, always.

Who should go in the oven, the Englishman or the Frenchman? Their cultural development is widely different, and certainly all can attest that they have “inherent traits” that sets them apart.

Who destroys the world? According to which latest theory?

25th October

I think it is fair that the authors of TIJ fight against the label antisemite.

It is a cheap way to dismiss an argument.

We all know the nature of these issues. I cannot even call it “racism” without labelling, which solves nothing.

The grand problem is of course the elephant in the room: TIJ is not about a rational argument, but about rationalising their emotion.

That is how we feel about them. But what if that is wrong? What if our feelings about their perceived feelings is also a fluke of human nature?

Reading chapter 5 in TIJ reeks of language that I remember from less than 15 years ago in my home country in the aftermath of 9/11 in the wars to follow.

People shrugging off epithets, because they want to discuss “the problem” rationally, not the emotions. They believe themselves to be beyond emotions, (and probably are!).

In the naive turmoil, the more obvious approach is neglected, but it can be reconstructed by reading what Jews and their detractors are saying out loud.

I would fearlessly apply rational measures in predicting the trajectory of a projectile in physics. Conversely, in a social science discussion, I would only brandish the term “rational” for the effect of provoking my opponent with a lofty claim that I can think clearly, he cannot.

In reality, I have already seen how the authors of TIJ have read AJS. Swept away by their own enthusiastic realisation that they broke through the wall of political correctness and realised that Jews themselves were almost in agreement with what they had been saying all along!

“Yes!”, they must have thought, when they saw that Theodor Herzl mentioned how the Jews were able to fight back against repression economically.

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.10 - CAUSES OF ANTISEMITISM

But all these efforts cannot be directed against Jews alone, and where they have nevertheless been made, severe economic crises with far-reaching effects have been their immediate consequence. The very impossibility. of getting at the Jews nourishes and embitters hatred of them.

Everything the Jews say to unflinchingly confirms their suspicions:

its [antisemitism’s] immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects

When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.

Perhaps the entire discussion would have gone by in a better way if media polemics didn’t have a habit of changing course constantly.

In this case, the problem comes into fruition by the framing of the very “Jewish Problem”. A Jew could easily have retorted “You mean, the Gentile Problem?”.

And why not? After all, Jews did not invent international finance.

“But they did! They even say so themselves.”

Yes, they did, and yes, they do say that too.

But you are both wrong.

CIRCUMSTANCES invented international banking and advertising. Put any other ethnic group with a comparatively similar background into similar circumstances and watch the game play out.

“No true Aryan would EVER do what the Jews did!”.

Dream on.

And here is my solid ground, for now:

Wars can stop, once we begin to think “I would have done the same as the Nazis”, “I too would have attacked Ukraine”, “I too could have perpetrated the 9th October terror acts against Israel”, or even “I too could have demanded the annihilation of the Palestinians”.

Because they all share a very understandable human behaviour, and it is our arrogance in thinking we are culturally saved that truly starts the next war.

We are the rogue teddybears. The fluffy little monsters.

Our human owners have just momentarily left us in the cold, that is all.

26th October

The Gentile Question is here. Whether people deny it or not, it is in their lives and will not go away. The question of whether the Gentile will adapt to the new way of doing business, that he himself have helped invent. Will he accept a 1000 years of debt slavery as a retribution for the 1000 years he subdued the Jews for reasons of religious zeal and fanaticism?

Two can play this game.

27th October

TIJ - Ch. 5 - Anti-Semitism — Will It Appear In The U.S.?

● The Jewish Question (“why is the Jew always among the controlling elite of the world?”) can only be dealt with by exposing the machinery to public daylight. ● Discussing the Question is not anti-semitism, and certainly not violent. It may even be respectful to Jews. ● Political correct journalists evade the issues that both Jews and non-PC gentiles discuss. ● Disliking Jews is antisemitism and tells nothing about the Jews. ● Antisemitism erupts in prosperous areas too, e.g. in Russia. ● Jews hate Christians too (saying gentiles call them “Christkillers”, ousts Jews who turn to Christianity). ● Antisemitism will erupt in America, but with a change in flavour.

As noted earlier, TIJ spends a lot paper trying to convince us that they are serious, and that they do not hate the Jews, they just want to have a sensible discussion about their problematic nature.

I have previously compared with Theodor Herzl’s AJS, and I have now looked at a few paragraphs from another book that TIJ quotes, Werner Sombart’s 1910 book The Jew and Modern Capitalism (J&MC). In both cases the authors of TIJ could certainly have done a better job digesting these authors. And that does not even account for a consideration that even Herzl and Sombart could write from an already biased perspective.

As always, I must reflect upon our own time.

When TIJ hardly discerns between rich and poor Jews, equating them as a homogeneous lump, we need to conscientiously look at our own current ideas. Are we thinking that male culture permeates everything in the white patriarchal camp? Are we believing that all men share language, thought patterns, carnal desire for women? That all white or black people do share behaviour?

And if so, what should we make of that? Should the theory be discarded because it is reminiscent of antisemitism?

Or in other words: Is discussing the “Jewish Question” acceptable? Should we discuss entire sub- or super-national groups as homogeneous entities at all?

The authors of TIJ writes from their gut, which is always a guaranteed way to trigger our emotions in either direction.

We cannot get a break in the public media [not because our analysis is full of misquotations, but] because the media is controlled by our opponent.

Luckily they got their own printing house.

TIJ divides Jews into their stance on religion, customs and willingness to integrate, and gentiles into those that dislike Jews, and those reasonable, who do not dislike them, but just want to discuss the problem they constitute, namely their unwillingness to dissolve their existence as a separate identity group (and no third group for those who happen to like Jews). They have their unsurpassable economic genius, and they need to put it to good use, not just think of themselves as they are persecuted.

Especially when we say things like:

See, the thing is that the white man has never suffered from the notion that he belongs to a superior race, which is why he can emerge as the colonial overlord and still shake hands with the negro and Indian slaves. They are fellow beings and their captain charts the course which they endure together.

Circumventing PC: Reading Jewish literature

TIJ seems to have discovered the value of reading the Jews’ own literature.

The overtones resonate with today’s critique of CRT as focussing on race again. To solve an invisible race problem, we need to “learn to see colour again”, as the tenet goes.

Oh the irony that TIJs statement is coming from those who now holds the record in race awareness. But now I am stereotyping antisemites.

Still, it is wise to be recognisant of the dynamics here: We are overly sensitive to being scorned.

Even if “we” reject “you”, we will still react intensely to you licking your wounds and developing your own pride.

We will be blind to our part of the bargain.

(Intermission: TIJ and the Protocols)

Fast-forwarding momentarily, it is no secret that the Protocols — which have fallen into their hands — have confirmed everything they suspected.

What a historical irony! The musings of an old pro-Aristocrat who sees no problem in regurgitating rivers of mediocre antisemitic mud, just to fill in the gaps between genuine pro-tzar revelries, those very musings fifteen years later triggers a genuine explosion in the minds of these simple Americans.

Now we can see how they step by step try to drag the reader to his proper spot in the theatre where he can await the grand exposition: That the Jews have a secret plan for world domination. That is why their choice of words remain dubious and odd.

It is good that we have the bible.

The IMF really takes prize as prime candidate. And behold! The Harlot of the IMF grabbed the world by its throat and subdued it and sold its daughters and sons into abject slavery, as toys for amusement for the wives of the Egyptians.

That is the “piling on” I mentioned earlier, which would make a strange spectacle in a court room, like when one presents the accused as being witnesses close to the crime scene and also having a name that rhymes with Nebuchadnezzar so no further questions your honour.

Who is the bigger racist?

I frankly skipped diving into the accusation that Jews are the ones who are really angry with Christians and not the other way around.

I can say with confidence that I saw nothing of that bitterness in Herzl’s AJS, and hence I ascribe those feelings to an overly sensitive disposition.

As already noted, Herzl is way ahead of him:

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.9 - CAUSES OF ANTI-SEMITISM

Antisemitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; […] Its remote cause is our loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards—that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction.

I could not find anything in Werner Sombart’s J&MC that gave reason to think the Jews hated Christians. I may continue to investigate if I find a representative book among Jewish literature.

The Protocols also produces this same notion that in reality Jews hate everybody, and the author of the Protocols certainly knows how to push buttons, so I assume it is an established notion in Russia.

Since the Aryans are an impulsive people, they naturally reacts to the Jews’ cultural arrogance. And yet, somehow, it is implied that the Jews are of a lower nature (lacking a Kantian idealism?) than the Aryans, even though the latter is described as reacting like simians.

Intrinsic assumptions must account for the difference in treatment.

The best thing about having a choir of politically correct writers around you is that the debate can quickly be derailed into “did too, did not”-territory. Have the Jews ever said that in some districts in Russia? Probably.

Herzl uses it.

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.24 - METHOD OF RAISING CAPITAL

Many latent political forces lie in our financial power, that power which our enemies assert to be actually and now as effective as we know it might be if we exercised it. Poor Jews feel only the hatred which this financial power provokes; its use in alleviating their lot as a body, they have not yet felt.

But continues:

[…]

The credit of our great Jewish financiers would have to be placed at the service of the National Idea. But should these gentlemen, who are naturally satisfied with their lot, decline to do anything for their co-religionists who are unjustly held responsible for the large possessions of certain individuals — should these great financiers refuse to cooperate — then the realization of this plan will afford an opportunity for drawing a clear line of distinction between them and the rest of Judaism.

Quite like TIJ says, Jews are not afraid to discuss the matters at hand internally.

The contours of the painting remains the same, but the colours are vibrantly different.

Further, and with the preceding context intact:

THEODOR HERZL - A JEWISH STATE, p.43 - CONCLUSION

Again, people will say that I am showing our enemies the way to injure us. This I absolutely dispute. My proposal could only be carried out with the free consent of a majority of Jews. Individuals or even powerful bodies of Jews might be attacked, but Governments will take no action against the collective nation.

The equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded; for the first attempt at withdrawal would immediately drive all Jews, rich and poor alike, into the ranks of the revolutionary party.

And then it comes:

The first official violation of Jewish liberties invariably brings about an economic crisis.

Therefore no weapons can be effectually used against us, because these cut the hands that wield them. Meantime hatred grows apace. The rich do not feel it much, but our poor do. Let us ask our poor, who have been more severely persecuted since the last renewal of Anti-Semitism than ever before.

In both quotations, the entire human aspect which was cut out of TIJ stands out in glaring clarity. These are comprehensible emotions.

Invading America

TIJ fears the worst:

In genuinely biblical proportions, we are reminded of swarms of locusts coming to eat away everything.

The banker will excel at business and pluck our resources. The pauper will become a king of garbage. All Jews, high and low, will contribute to this. But we discern and in fact “cares deeply for the poor Jew” lest we should stand accused of kicking anybody lying down already. We are not monsters.

The proposed solution

And finally it seems like I get my burning question answered: What solution do they propose?

After all this talk, it turns out that we just need to write about them, not poison them and burn them to cinders.

See, this is the one overarching problem I have: Where does Holocaust start?

Because when I look at the material, I see a lot of intellectuals who want to face the Jews and make them responsible citizens.

Is the fact that their grand tale is built on imaginary features bound to provoke, like the nice policeman who accidentally accuses someone wrongly of stealing something they already own, and whose friendly demeanour evaporates as he cannot get the delinquent to dispose of the stolen item (as it really is his own)?

PARADISE LOST