Simeon Solomon, "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego," 1863
1,266 words
Jews are always hyper-aware that they are Jews—and that you and I are not. They never lose sight, even for a moment, of the radical difference between our two races. It is imperative that whites learn to recognize the Jew, become sensitive to the presence of the Jew, see the Jew, as clearly as they see us.
Whenever Jews read a newspaper, Reform rabbi Albert Vorspan explains in his humorous book My Rabbi Doesn’t Make House Calls: A Guide to Games Jews Play
“Jews can usually identify each other,” Vorspan declares. “There is a strange subliminal alchemy of intuition, guesswork and sensitivity which leads Jews to be able to locate the landsman (fellow Jew).”
Through a magical intelligence system, “Jews know that Jerry Lewis, Danny Kaye, Jack Benny, Allie Sherman, Milton Berle, Bess Myerson, Sandy Koufax, and Saul Bellow are members of the mishpachah (family).”
Vorspan suggests an effective exercise anyone can use to refine their consciousness of who’s Jewish and who’s not. He calls it “Locating the Landsman,” or LTL.
My Rabbi Doesn’t Make House Calls supplies the following (1969-vintage) list for readers to test their LTL ability. Who on the list is Jewish and who’s not? (Answers at end of article.)
Simon and Garfunkel
Kirk Douglas
Tony Curtis
Arthur Goldberg
Arthur Burns
Henry Kissinger
Sarah Bernhardt
Groucho Marx
Bernard Malamud
Jonas Salk
Disraeli
Abe Fortas
Abba Eban
Jacob Javits
Walter Lippmann
Sigmund Freud
Dore Schary
Lorne Greene
Modigliani
Heinrich Heine
Alan Arkin
Albert Einstein
Tom Okker
Pierre Mendès-France
Yevgeny Yevtushenko
Nicholas Katzenbach
John Wayne
Harlow Shapely
General Mark Clark
Juan Bosch
Charlton Heston
In Vorspan’s judgment, a quiz score for Jews taking the test of 90%-100% correct (no more than three wrong answers) is excellent; 80%-89% correct (no more than six wrong) is good; 70%-79% (maximum of nine wrong) is “embarrassing”; and less than 70% (more than nine wrong) constitutes failure.
The Question of Accuracy
Rabbi Vorspan avers that some “imperialistic Jews” impermissibly attempt to claim non-Jews as landsmen: e.g., entertainer Danny Thomas (“if he’s not Jewish, he ought to be”).
My own experience is that Jews are conservative in this regard. It is rare for them to classify non-Jews as Jews. Mistakes, of course, inevitably happen.
Markedly unsavory Jews are another matter. Such Jews are ignored, if possible. Vorspan proposes Dropping the Landsman (DTL) as a way of dealing with them. He lists the following examples of who should be dropped: Jack Ruby, Ralph Ginzberg, Walter Winchell, Bernard Goldfine, Ilya Ehrenburg, Roy Cohn, and Mickey Cohen.
Vorspan suggests lying about Jewish status in the following manner (of course, he doesn’t call it lying): “Karl Marx was born Jewish, yes, but he was baptized in childhood, grew up as a Christian, and became an anti-Semite. Besides, he was the prophet of communism, and don’t you see how bad the communists are treating three million Jews in Russia?”
This is a familiar feint. A well-known variant is: “How could Jews be both the leading capitalists and the leading Communists?”
Strangely, whites are easily tricked by such simpleminded deviousness.
From an opposite perspective it is necessary to guard against racialists who too frequently classify individuals they don’t like as Jews, such as Franklin Roosevelt or Soviet NKVD head Lavrentiy Beria (a Mingrelian Georgian).
Racialist publications should generally be avoided as authority for identifying Jews. Too often they are untrustworthy. There are exceptions: William Pierce, Wilmot Robertson, or Henry Ford’s The International Jew are highly reliable.
Whether someone is Jewish or non-Jewish is purely an empirical matter. Let the chips fall where they may. There are plenty of whites who are as bad as the worst Jews.
Who’s a Jew?
Of course, whites must ultimately define for themselves who’s Jewish, rather than blindly rely upon Jewish definitions. Germany’s Nuremberg Laws are a good model. Germany defined Jewishness with the needs and interests of Germans uppermost in mind. Each race must establish its own parameters.
Is a half-Jew Jewish? A quarter Jew? A person who’s one-eighth Jewish? How about someone with even more remote Jewish ancestry?
There are no right or wrong answers. It’s a matter of drawing lines. As far as I’m concerned, a half-Jew is a Jew, whether the Jewish parent is the mother or the father. I don’t care what the Jews say.
Thus, actress Jane Seymour (Jewish father, white mother) is a Jew, as was comedian Peter Sellers (white father, Jewish mother).
A quarter Jew (one Jewish grandparent) like Donald Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, is also Jewish.
Someone who’s one-eighth (one great-grandparent) or one-sixteenth Jewish (one great-great-grandparent: e.g, Elvis Presley) I classify as non-Jewish. Nevertheless, I note any Jewish ancestry, regardless how remote.
How about converts to Judaism? Are they “Jewish”? For example, Negro entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr., or Marilyn Monroe.
Converts are not Jewish. But the fact that they convert is significant. Converts often end up with Jewish spouses, in-laws, and children. In doing so they effectively remove themselves from the white race and entwine themselves genetically, psychologically, socially, and culturally with Jews.
Those who marry without converting also set themselves apart. Their spouses are Jewish and any children are biologically half-Jewish. They tend to identify with Jews to the detriment of their own race. An example is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who has children by his Jewish wife. (Both Reid and his wife converted to Mormonism).
Genetically intertwining with the host population’s elites through intermarriage is a method Jews use to extend their power over non-Jews. It is notable that behind the Iron Curtain many leading Communist officials had Jewish wives.
Conclusion
Playing LTL even in a casual way increases one’s awareness and intuitive grasp of the Jewish problem enormously. However, maximum value is extracted by adopting LTL as a serious hobby.
This is impossible to do in your head. The amount of data is so great that the limitations of human memory cannot cope with it. It is therefore necessary to take notes, either alphabetically by hand on 3″ x 5″ index cards, or on your computer. Record all citations to source(s).
This provides a much better feel for Jews and their enormous power historically and today. The inductive scientific method, building understanding through the notation of hundreds or thousands of random, unanticipated particular instances, is a potent learning tool even for someone who knows a lot about the subject. Locating the landsman really opens one’s eyes to the vast extent and depth of Jewish influence.
Through conscious effort whites can develop the same uncanny ability to identify Jews that Jews themselves possess. Indeed, it is easy to surpass most Jews.
A C-C commenter summed up well the consequences of systematically and conscientiously cultivating the LTL habit:
This is probably the most critical step: just getting people to make the distinction between Jews and Whites. To pay attention to who is Jewish and who is not, and consider it an important and relevant thing to know. If you can get people to do that, eventually they will start noticing things on their own, and will then seek out more information about Jews and be receptive to it.
Answer to quiz: All except the last seven are or were Jewish.
7 Comments
For me, the test for locating the Landsman incorporates parentage, but looks much more at heritage – what is the sum of their behaviors towards us, and why? This is part of Metzger’s astute observation, “It’s not Jews per se that are the problem. It’s Jewish thinking (thought and values that we have internalized) that is the problem.
This is how subconscious/superconscious a force we are dealing with; going beyond KMac’s observations, we realize the importance of being Aware of what Horus the Avenger calls the Consensus Trance, an unquestioned acceptance of the Values and Ideas that are Suggested to us all of the time.
This leads to the worst things that can happen to our beliefs, which work together – an intellectual belief in Fatalism, LINKED to a Mindset of demoralization.
What are the most common examples provided of this, the first being understood and accepted by the smallest of children, the second being understood and accepted by adolescents of all ages?
From the comic strip “Peanuts,” Good Ol’ Charlie Brown, and, adding thirty years to Charlie Brown, Homer Simpson.
Both are under the Consensus Trance, both refuse to question why they always play a Game devised BY Others, FOR Others, with the Rules made up as they go along, by Others.
Both are victims of the thinking the Jews have chosen for us, that of cattle in the stockyard, silently awaiting the inevitable, of which they have no idea is coming.
So, it’s not just Jews by the horizontal component of Race; it is also Jewish THINKING, which affects the horizontal component of Culture, and works relentlessly to insure we never have the opportunity to look UP, save to see their manufactured Dreams for us, and feel envious we can not purchase them.
The Solution is as light as a thought, and as simple as replacing theirs, with ours.
All it takes is focus, discipline, and the channeled light from the heat of white-hot anger, burning away the soft mists of Illusion.
And where can one learn to accept that anger, and learn to work with focus and discipline to use it as a servant angel that YOU control, rather than a demon that controls YOU?
“First Rule of Fight Club IS?”
Focus Northwest
Yes, Jews do make such mental calculations. Consider this from Zev Chafets:
Many younger American Jews remember the fear their parents and grandparents had of Gentiles in general. American Israeli journalist Ze’ev Chafets relates how his maternal grandmother, born in Sterling, Illinois, maintained a mental map of Jewish and Gentile America:
“Pontiac [Michigan] never had enough Jews for a Jewish neighborhood, but from the time I was a small boy I was aware that it had a special Jewish geography, and my grandmother was its da Gama. She would point out an unremarkable brick home on a leafy street and confide, “That’s a Jewish house.” Downtown she would pause near a certain store and say, “This is a Jewish business.” Occasionally, when we passed a parking lot, she would point out a Chevrolet or Plymouth and say, “There’s a Jewish car.” None of these cars, shops, or houses impressed me as being especially Jewish, but I was prepared to take her word for it.
“At first I thought that mastering Pontiac’s Jewish geography was some sort of Sunday school lesson, like memorizing the Hebrew alphabet or the kings of Judea. But as I grew older, I realized that my grandmother mapped out the town reflexively, more for her benefit than mine. Jewish houses, stores, and offices were safe havens, places she could count on if, for example, she needed to use a bathroom, or was being chased through the streets by a sex-crazed cossack rapist.”
Why do you try to use as identitifiers for your two supposed “races” this:
1) Jew, an uppercase, proper noun with historical continuity and an implied shared culture.
2) white, a lowercase, common noun that’s essentially meaningless, including as it does Jews, Germans, some Turks (per the article here), and millions of others.
What’s your point?
I take it you feel that “white” should be capitalized? (If not, I don’t catch the drift of your question.)
William Pierce routinely capitalized “white” (and Gentile). I remember reading his reason for this but have forgotten what it was. G. L. Rockwell also capitalized “White.” TOO capitalizes “White,” but as far as I know has never articulated why.
Wilmot Robertson wrote “white” with a lower case w. Interestingly, flipping through Revilo Oliver’s later, more explicitly racialist writings, I don’t see that he used the word white at all. He seems to have favored the term Aryan.
Conventional (non-racialist) practice is to write “white” with a lower case w. “Jew” is always capitalized, and I, for one, have never been tempted to write “jew,” as some racialists are wont to do.
I don’t consider “white” to be meaningless. It’s a better designator than anything except Aryan. It’s true that a difficult line must be drawn through West and Central Asia to include some people and exclude others. No one has devoted any thought to this, but it presents an interesting problem requiring conscious refinement of the concept of “white race.”
Either white or White are acceptable to me.
I agree that White should be capitalized. So should Black, for that matter. In the context of the United States, these are the names of ethnic groups and hence should be regarded as proper nouns and therefore capitalized.
Andrew Hamilton made a point that deserves much greater elaboration, as it ties directly, even forcefully, to the metapolitical project.
Andrew Hamilton wrote:
In reply:
Oliver’s “later, more explicitly racialist writings…favored the term Aryan.”
Oliver, tragically doomed because of the great failure of what has been the foundation of post-World War II White Nationalism, the Charlie Brown Principle, spent most of his life as a political commentator making what I call Oliver’s Error.
Oliver’s Error is defined as follows:
(1) Being rational with the irrational
(3) Being nice and trying to argue with people who intend to destroy you, your Family, your Race, Christianity and Civilization.
I suspect Oliver knew the rising tide of color was going to win, demographically, at least for a season, in what America would become.
He knew that the last time Western Civilization got into a straight-on battle between quality and quantity, quantity won, overwhelming the better few. The example of World War II lends itself to reflection.
Thus, Oliver recognized that the Consensus Trance (HT: Horus the Avenger) placed the WN Leadership into explicitly accepting a false duality, explicitly accepting the false choices put before it by both wings of the One Party.
Oliver used the terms “Aryan” to describe the vertical component of our Race.
Oliver, if he had it to do over, would have made a wonderful teacher for guys like Robert Mathews, and David Eden Lane. He could do the encyclopedic overview of the situation we face, and Kevin Alfred Strom could have worked out study outlines and multimedia to use these as teaching tools.
Oliver would have focused on the conscious formation of the Racial Vanguard, the Aristocracy Ludovici spoke of.
Thus, with my fascination with historical counterfactuals, let me put forward one more idea concerning what Oliver would have done, in his later years.
He would have formed a small church, in the Northwest Republic, and used it to develop what Christianity SHOULD have become.
From there, his teaching materials would be used as the foundation of true, and truly effective, missionary work.
With the like of Robert Mathews and David Eden Lane as members of the Church Patriarchate, we could have seen the dynamic, assertive foundation of a much better world.
I also suspect such efforts would have attracted the attention, and very active support, of Sam Francis, another good man who was Charlie Browned into a premature denial of his Talents, and a premature death.