Counter-Currents
The Self-Exterminating Jew:
Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who?
Greg Johnson
3,425 words
Gilad Atzmon
The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics
Washington, D.C.: Zer0 Books, 2011
Gilad Atzmon (born 1963), is an author I have followed for years without even trying, thanks to the efforts of helpful anti-Semitic spammers who make sure that I receive at least five links to every new Atzmon piece. (My rule is that if I get more than five links to a given article, I will read it.) Atzmon is a Jew born in Israel who now lives in England, where he supports himself as a jazz saxophonist.
Atzmon is also a prolific author of political commentary on Israel, Zionism, and Jewish issues in general. He is also the author of two novels, A Guide to the Perplexed and My One and Only Love. The Wandering Who?, his first non-fiction book, is a collection of his articles.
Self-Hatred, Self-Extermination, and Decadence
Gilad Atzmon belongs to the category of Righteous Jews. He is an eloquent and fearless critic of the loathsome dishonesty, hypocrisy, and truculence of the apologists of Jewish mischief around the world. He has been called an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, and a self-hating Jew. He calls himself a “proud self-hating Jew.”
I used to think that the concept of the “self-hating Jew” was just another question-begging verbal cudgel to silence Jewish dissent. But that was silly, really, because self-hating whites are as common and prolific as rats. Practically the entire leadership stratum of the white race is now infected with the mental virus of ethnic self-hatred, with ethnic self-extermination seen as the only path to redemption.
Reading though The Wandering Who?, I see the same pattern, which was not apparent when I encountered these articles separately: Gilad Atzmon really is a self-hating Jew. Indeed, he is a self-exterminating Jew, an advocate of Jewish assimilation into a common, leveling, all-consuming “humanity.”
Now, I will grant that, viewed objectively, the Jews give the rest of us far more reason to hate them than to love them. But still, I find it disquieting when a Jew thinks this way. From a biological/Nietzschean point of view, it strikes me as decadent. It is as if conscience and objectivity have hypertrophied and metastasized like cancers to the point of threatening their owner’s survival.
A healthy organism is not “objective” about its own survival. One may entertain all sorts of legitimate doubts about the wars and oppression and lies undertaken in the name of one’s people. But a healthy organism cannot contemplate the void of extinction without rebelling. When it comes to survival, a healthy organism takes its own side.
It is possible for Jews to be critical of their own people without hating them or themselves. Examples include Yuri Avnery, Yoav Shamir, and Norman Finkelstein. But Atzmon is like our self-hating white leadership. If he had his way, Jews would disappear as a distinct people altogether, blending into the great cosmic oneness of liberal global humanity, the graveyard of peoples that seems like utopia to those who, through self-hatred, have become weary of life. Liberal nirvana as ethnic self-annihilation.
Positive and Negative Identity
According to Atzmon, there are three kinds of Jews: (1) followers of Judaism, (2) human beings who just happen to be of Jewish origin, and (3) Jewish chauvinists who emphasize their Jewishness over any bonds of common humanity. “The first two categories,” he notes, “may denote a harmless and innocent group of people” (p. 16).
The Jewish chauvinists, however, are another matter. They include Zionists, who are Jewish political nationalists. But for Atzmon the category really encompasses all Jews who have any ethnic self-consciousness, no matter how attenuated or anemic, etiolated or ironic.
Atzmon actually calls distinctly ethnic foods and practices “symptoms.” The disease, apparently, is ethnic self-consciousness. The cure is deracination, the loss of a sense of ethnic distinctness, the removal of all boundaries to merging into a sea of universal humanity and global homogeneity.
Atzmon believes that the only positive source of Jewish identity is the religion of Judaism. Therefore, Jews who no longer follow Judaism, no longer have any reason to think of themselves as Jews. For Atzmon, secular Jewish ethnic identity survives not through the positive affirmation of the Jewish religion but merely through the negation of non-Jews. In Atzmon’s words, “Emancipated Jews are identified by negation—they are defined by the many things they are not” (p. 61).
The core of this negative Jewish identity is fear and hatred of the goyim, which is cultivated through constantly rehearsing and reliving the history of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, we are told, is entirely unrelated to Jewish behavior but is instead merely an irrational manifestation of evil on the part of non-Jews. Religious Jews are God’s chosen people. Secular Jews are Hitler’s chosen people.
Yes, religious Judaism also contains a great deal of chauvinistic hatred of non-Jews and prescriptions to exterminate them and take their lands. Atzmon would not deny that. But in addition to these negative elements, there is a positive affirmation of Jewish identity. Once that religious affirmation is gone, argues Atzmon, the positive content of Judaism is reduced to gefilte fish and klezmer, plus ethnic self-assertion and ethnic hatred, i.e., chauvinism and kitsch.
Atzmon simply dismisses a much more substantial positive foundation for a secular Jewish identity: nationhood, kinship, peoplehood, blood. Jews are the seed of Abraham. As Kevin MacDonald points out, genetic studies show that Jews are a distinct people. Widely separated Jewish communities are more genetically related to one another than to the peoples among whom they live. No, Jews are not a “pure” race. They have picked up a good deal of foreign blood in their wanderings. But Jewish identity does not require purity. All it requires is a taint.
Jewish peoplehood is a “positive” basis of a common Jewish identity. Yet it is not religious. Indeed, it is more fundamental than Judaism. The Jews were a people before the covenant, before the law, before the religion of Judaism. And Jews remain Jews even when they reject Judaism. Even if every single Jew became an atheist, there would still be Jews. Judaism would then be just a phase that the Jewish people once went through.
The Ethics of Ethnic Partiality
Atzmon argues that the preservation of a Jewish identity in an emancipated, secular context is simply unethical. When Jews were emancipated from the control of their rabbis and allowed to take part in life outside their ghettoes, they adopted a conscious policy of speaking publicly in the universalistic moral language of Christianity and the liberal Enlightenment. But among themselves, they continued to practice ethnic partiality:
“Be a Jew at Home and a Goy on the Street.” . . . Rather than encouraging the modern Jew to genuinely assimilate into a homogeneous authentic universal ethos of equality, the Haskalah [Enlightenment] Jew is destined to live in a dual, deceptive mode, if not practically a state of schizophrenia. (p. 55)
Schizophrenia aside, this policy has served Jews well. They have ridden it all the way to political and cultural hegemony over whites. It boils down to the principle that what is theirs, they keep; what is ours is negotiable. When Jews want something from whites, they appeal to white universal morality, objectivity, and impartiality. And whites very often grant Jews their requests. But when whites want something from Jews, Jews have no compunction about practicing ethnic partiality, although of course they need to keep this cloaked lest they provoke reprisals. As Michael Polignano writes:
In every transaction between a partial man and an impartial man, the impartial man is at a disadvantage. When the impartial man has a benefit to confer, the partial man appeals to the other’s impartiality and often walks off with the prize. But when the impartial man needs something from the partial man, his appeals to impartiality fall on deaf ears. As social interactions multiply, so do the partial man’s advantages at the expense of the impartial man. (The essence of the Jewish strategy of dominance is to practice ruthless partiality while urging their victims to be free of prejudice and partiality.)
If whites keep playing by rules like that, we will have nothing in the end.
Atzmon flatly states that “This behavioral code, though being very pragmatic happens to be non-ethical by definition” (p. 57). He has two arguments for this claim. First, “It is based on deception—both self-deception and deceiving the other” (p. 57). Second, Atzmon accepts Kant’s claim that genuine ethical principles are universalizable, and claims that a dual ethical code fails to meet that criterion (pp. 62–63). Atzmon’s conclusion is that for emancipated Jews to lead ethical lives, they must adopt a single, universal ethical code, which is the moral basis of Jewish assimilationism.
Atzmon’s first argument, of course, is correct: Jews are guilty of deception when they preach universalism to us and practice partiality among themselves.
His second argument, however, does not follow. Ethnic partiality need not be deceptive. One can be quite frank about it. And one can consistently will it to be a universal law. One can be partial to one’s own kind—and allow others to be partial as well. This is the basis of what Frank Salter calls “universal nationalism.”
It would be perfectly consistent, ethically speaking, if Jews were to drop their deceptive use of universalism and frankly embrace a universal nationalism. But of course, Jews have no incentive to do this, because the present arrangement delivers them real power, which they prize far more than mere intellectual consistency. So it is we whites who will have to end the charade, and the only practical way to do this is to separate ourselves completely from Jews. Which brings us to the topic of Zionism.
Zionism
Atzmon believes that the logical conclusion of secular Jewish chauvinism (negative identity) is Zionism, i.e., Jewish racial nationalism: the project of creating and maintaining Israel as a Jewish homeland; Jewish fascism, if you will. Atzmon claims that even avowedly anti-Zionist secular Jews who retain a Jewish identity are complicitous in Zionism, which seems like a paranoid exaggeration were it not the case that Atzmon has been persecuted by just such Jews for his anti-Zionist views.
Throughout The Wandering Who?, particularly at the beginning of chapter 7 (pp. 58–9), Atzmon offers many quotes from the founders of Zionism that he thinks are self-evidently damning. The founders of Zionism recognized that anti-Semitism rises from real conflicts of interest between emancipated Jews and non-Jews competing for economic, political, and cultural dominance. They recognized that Diaspora Jewry tended toward a parasitic and destructive economic and cultural profile. They recognized that Jewish emancipation also opened the way for the destruction of the Jewish people through assimilation into European society. They recognized that, since Jews could not return to the ghetto, the only solution to both anti-Semitism and assimilation was the creation of a Jewish homeland in which Jews can live as Jews without daily facing competition with non-Jews or the temptation to assimilate into their society.
As a White Nationalist, this all sounds quite reasonable to me. Thus I think it is a shame that the Zionist project has failed to create a homeland for all Jews. Instead, we have more Jews in America than in Israel. And Israel has become a menace to the world due to its paranoid and aggressive policies and its vast arsenal of conventional, biological, and nuclear weapons.
Where did Zionism go Wrong?
But it is worth asking why, precisely, the Zionist project went wrong. For Atzmon, the answer is simple: ethnonationalism, by its very nature, leads to monstrous behavior. Whites cannot be White Nationalists, because that will lead to acting like Nazis. Jews cannot be Jewish Nationalists, because that leads them to acting like Nazis as well. Atzmon writes about his visit in 1984 to an Israeli prisoner of war camp in occupied Lebanon: “The place was a concentration camp. The inmates were the ‘Jews’, and I was nothing but a ‘Nazi’” (p. 6).
From my viewpoint, however, ethnonationalism does not entail brutality. Indeed, in the long run, it is the only real alternative to the destruction of all peoples by liberal globalism, with all the hot and cold violence that entails. The reason that Israel is such a powerful, aggressive, treacherous state is not because of Zionism per se. It is because of the failure to complete Zionism.
Specifically, Israel is a problem because of the power of the US Jewish community, which has effective control of America’s mass media and both political parties, which allows the Jewish community to dictate American foreign policy in the Middle East. The United States gives billions in direct aid to Israel every year, plus billions more in indirect aid. The United States has also spent more than a trillion dollars on the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are direct results of Jewish control of American foreign policy.
Because of Jewish domination of the United States, Israel can afford to be an aggressive and expansionist power. What would happen if the United States shook off Jewish control? What would happen if the Zionist project were completed and all Jews settled in Israel?
It seems highly unlikely that Israel would cease to exist. Jews are a wealthy, powerful people on their own, even without the ability to bleed off the lives and money of other people for Jewish gain. But without control of the United States, Israel would be forced to become a better neighbor. Israel has a lot of simmering disputes with its neighbors because it currently has no incentive to settle them. Ideally, I would like to see a two-state solution, a Jewish state to which to send our Jews, a Palestinian state to which to send our Palestinians.
The dream of the Zionists was that the Jews would become a normal people in a normal homeland. That has not happened yet because whites have allowed Jews to have it both ways: to be national Jews in Israel and international Jews abroad (while always working for the interests of Israel). Jews are not going to change this situation, because it works to their advantage. Only whites can change it, by breaking the power of Diaspora Jewry and forcing them to go to Israel. But it would be nice, occasionally, to encounter an honest Jew who sees the logic of this. Because this solution is really the only way of avoiding a far more ferocious settlement of differences down the road.
The “Innocence” of Religious Judaism
Atzmon claims that religious Jews “may” be “a harmless and innocent group of people” (p. 16). Yet by Atzmon’s own standards, religious Judaism is just as morally “guilty” as secular Jewish chauvinism. First, as I have argued, the secular idea of a Jewish people is just as “positive” a basis for Jewish identity as Judaism. Second, Judaism is the basis of the extremely negative attitudes toward non-Jews that Atzmon attacks in secular Jews. Third, Judaism sanctifies the same dual ethical code, including deception, that Atzmon attacks in secular Jews. Finally, although Zionism was initially a secular movement, religious Jews are the fastest growing population in Israel and the most aggressive and enthusiastic Zionists. And why wouldn’t they be, given that the secular Zionists were merely following the precedents of the Bible in taking Palestine as a Jewish homeland?
Self-Hatred and the Logic of Assimilation
For Atzmon, the only alternatives to Jewish chauvinism are religious Judaism or Jewish assimilation. Since Atzmon was raised a secular Jew, Judaism is not an option. Thus he chose assimilation. Atzmon decribes how his passionate attachment to a non-Jewish art form, jazz, was the beginning of the breakdown of his Jewish chauvinist upbringing: “. . . my emerging devotion to jazz overwhelmed my Jewish nationalist tendencies; . . . it was probably then and there that I left Chosen-ness behind to become an ordinary human being” (p. 4). After his first trip abroad, he felt “I somehow already yearned to become a Goy or at least to be surrounded by Goyim” (p. 7).
Why does Atzmon’s enjoyment of a non-Jewish musical form lead him to reject his Jewish identity? Why does he think it is either one or the other? Why is it all or nothing? A person with a healthy positive sense of ethnic identity would not experience the achievements of other peoples as a reproach or refutation. Do Jews really premise their sense of self-worth on the absolute worthlessness of other cultures, such that their ethnic identity could be overturned by a single Charlie Parker record? That does not sound like the Jewish culture-vultures I have seen in action. Besides, such a brittle people could never have stuck around this long.
Why can’t Atzmon simply be an ethnic Jew who appreciates the ethnic arts, cuisines, etc. of other peoples? Jazz, after all, is not a “universal” art form, but an expression of black American identity. (Atzmon specifically mentions black American jazz musicians). Why then is Atzmon willing to reject his own ethnic identity merely to embrace a “symptom” of black American ethnic identity? Later on, he embraces the “symptoms” of Palestinian identity, learning Arab music and going so far as to call himself a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian.
And if Atzmon is willing to embrace the ethnic “symptoms” of other people, why does he take such a jaundiced view of secular Jews who wish to embrace their own ethnicity? (See especially pp. 72–75.) I think the answer to all these questions is that Atzmon is driven by ethnic guilt (self-hatred) to seek to efface his own ethnic identity and to embrace alien identities.
This is the real meaning of cultural universalism or multiculturalism. There is no “global” or “universal” culture or multiculture. (Although with enough mixing, there someday will be.) Today, though, there is merely a global marketplace in which the dead and decontextualized products of authentic, integral cultures are purchased and consumed in inauthentic ways by the deracinated children of other cultures. Multiculturalism is just a “symptom” of cultural decadence, an expression of the cultural death-wish of the self-loathing, the alienated, and the rootless.
And make no mistake: whites are being intentionally cut off from our roots, force-fed a corrupting synthetic junk culture, and taught to hate ourselves in order to destroy us. In Israel, Jews use pornography and “Western” popular culture as weapons in their ethnic warfare against the Palestinians. Their cousins in Europe and America are using the same tools against us, to the same end.
Matt Parrott likens universalism to a suicide cult like Jonestown. Shedding one’s ethnic distinctness to merge with a universal humanity is the ethnic equivalent of suicide. Jews since Paul of Tarsus have been poisoning the wellsprings of white civilization with this cosmic Kool-Aid.
It is inevitable that, from time to time, a Jew like Atzmon will drink it as well. But Jews routinely decide on policies knowing full well that some Jews will inevitably fall victim to retaliation or “friendly fire.” But they coolly calculate that, even with such casualties, these policies still serve their greater ethnic interests.
* * *
From a White Nationalist point of view, I have more in common with Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, than with Gilad Atzmon, the self-exterminating Jew. I don’t want Jews to assimilate to white society. I want them to leave it. I have no objection to Jewish nationalism, so long as they pick up their own tab. In fact, I insist upon it. But I do object to Diaspora Jews suppressing and stigmatizing our own nationalism.
Atzmon preaches liberal universalism, whereas I would destroy it. Liberal universalism would be fatal to whites even if it had not made us susceptible to a Jewish takeover. I am trying to get my people to swear off the cosmic Kool-Aid, and although it might tickle some people’s Schadenfreude to watch Atzmon quaff the stuff, I think it is far more important to overthrow it as a principle.
The Wandering Who? is, in short, a disappointing book. It does not deserve to be mentioned alongside the works of such Righteous Jews as Israel Shahak
Yes, Atzmon digs up interesting quotes. Yes, he skillfully demolishes bad arguments. But that does not change the fact that his overall argument is wrongheaded. Gilad Atzmon is definitely a brave man. But bravery in the defense of false and destructive principles makes him an admirable enemy rather than an ally or a friend.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
39 comments
One of your best articles this far. But it is still refreshing to see a universalist Jew honest enough to conclude that if we (Europeans) can’t have nationalism, neither can they.
I also liked MacDonald’s review.
Thanks for your kind words. I like the MacDonald review as well.
There exists another peril within Jewish Nationalism, that is Judaism. Their religion is one of, a nation in diaspora, thus if they were to move into Israel, Judaism would cease to exist.
I don’t think so. Judaism is flourishing in Israel.
I have always felt exactly the same about Atzmon, which made me approach his stuff with caution after initial enthusiasm. He is often way over the top, and beats any regular anti-semite by accusing and defaming his own ethnic group.
Also, when reading his attacks I always imagine how it feels like if the same fanatical anti-ethnonationalist fury is directed against my own group, as is mainstream among White intellectuals today, who are imitating the old-school-self-hating Jews from a hundred years ago. Atzmon merely attacks Jews in order they drop their double-standards, and apply the same ethnocidical strategies they advocate for others on themselves. By that he does expose large amounts of hypocrisy – but he also comes off as, well, a bit inhuman to me. Because that’s what pushing people, – any kind of people -, into the “all-consuming humanity” dissolve paradoxically means.
Exposing hypocrisy is a double-edged sword, since one can resolve it two ways. One is to follow the principle that one betrays: in this case universalism. This is what Atzmon and the left demand of Israel. The other is to reject the underlying principle and embrace a new one. This is what I advocate. Most Jews already practice the ethnonationalism principle. They just pay lip service to universalism because they benefit from doing so. If whites take ethnonationalism seriously, Jews will lose that advantage.
I have tried this past year reading a few of Atzmon’s articles but I could never get past the first two sentences.
BUT I did read MacDonald’s review of Atzmon’s book and though I got through it almost to the bitter end, I was left with an empty feeling.
I have much to say about this review by Greg Johnson as it is both penetrating and sparkles with a “critical” eye. It is a much better review than MacDonald’s. But I need to think through a few issues before I get my thoughts totally in line.
Let me say this for now. I, (like Atzmon), am very critical of the people I grew up with, the Jews, having been raised in an upper middle-class Bnai Brith intensive synagogue.
And I too growing up, (apparently like Atzmon), saw the Gentiles as having a greater stability and soundness of mind than my co-religionists.
Where Atzmon and I part ways is that I do not see any redeeming qualities that Jews can offer society unless they utterly repudiate their Judaism, their racial-pact with collective Jewry, their leadership’s crimes against humanity (including the destruction of White Christian America/Europe, and their “separatist” world view.
Atzmon is more of a “Jewish dissenter” arguing from the “inside.” Where I am OUTSIDE THE PALE and fight to bring Jewry in ALL OF ITS ASPECTS to an end.
Boris Pasternak, a Jew who converted to the Russian Orthodox Church (as I have) put it quite bluntly in the opening chapters of Dr Zhivago:
“Their national idea has forced the Jews to be a nation and nothing but a nation – and they have been chained to this deadening task all through the centuries when all the rest of the world was being delivered from it by a new force which had come out of their own midst….And they actually saw and heard it and let it go!
“Come to your senses, stop. Don’t hold onto your identity. Don’t stick together, disperse. Be with all the rest. You were the first and the best Christians in the world. You are now the very thing against which you have been turned by the worst and weakest among you.” [End of Quote]
I, Brother Nathanael Kapner, have repudiated the “identity” I was raised to embrace, being a Jew with attachments to “Judaism.” (Every Jew, whether secular or religious has an ATTACHMENT to “Judaism”).
BUT … I am now, as Pasternak advises (I read Pasternak’s passage when I was a very young man) “with the rest.”
As for Atzmon, (as Greg Johnson seems to suggest), in the final analysis, has nothing worthwhile to offer mankind except for a few barbs and jabs now and then against the IsraHell machine.
But a fighter worth his name MUST aim for the KNOCK OUT PUNCH!
+Brother Nathanael Kapner
Great video Brother. Thanks. It’s a pity that Covington didn’t like it. Are you planning to upload more videos?
Greg Johnson,
If all Jews resided in Israel (the actual land) then they wouldn’t be a nation in diaspora. I was referencing that which defined them for -I don’t know my bible, but-a very long time. That is to say, we have our share of “Israelis” in NY.
But I agree with you that a Jewish nation would be a good thing as nations would be good for all of us.
Judaism is not essentially a Diaspora religion, since Jews have been both settled and wandering over their history.
Where do you get this idea that Paul taught that all ethnic groups should merge with a universal humanity?
Most anti-Judeo-Christians will cite Gal 3:28 as their source.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (KJV)
Paul is not saying that males and females no longer exist, and he’s not saying that there are no slaves or freemen. He’s saying that no matter our identity and status we are all one in Christ, that is equal in the eyes of the Lord. Christ unites us.
This isn’t a call to sunder race distinction, it affirms those distinctions but unites us all in Christ.
Yes, and once one is all one in the body of Christ, why, what objection could one have if a black Christian wants to wed one’s white Christian daughter? For Christianity, spiritual brotherhood trumps blood ties.
There are plenty of possible objections, but none of them are guaranteed to work. That’s no different to your daughter marrying someone of your own race of whom you disapprove: there’s no end of ways to object but there’s no way to be certain your objections will be heeded. (Well, there is one way…) The problem with doctrinal universalism is that it makes objections that much less likely to succeed. It does this on a moral basis (it’s “wrong” per se to object); and it does it by, in effect, blurring distinctions, which makes it more difficult to see or value differences.
For Christianity, spiritual brotherhood trumps blood ties. Yes, and that is why Christianity united Europe in Christendom.
The only reason my daughter would ever marry a Black, Christian or otherwise, would be because some Atheist Stalinist made it law to do so.
I don’t recall thousands of White women marrying Blacks in the last 2,000 years of Christian Europe. But I do note it on the rise now that the Atheists and Jews are in control.
Surely if a black man can share the same church and the same heaven with you he can also marry your daughter.
It would be interesting to know if the Church ever refused the sacrament of marriage to mixed race couples.
Atheists and Jews use universalist “one race” arguments to pave the way for race-mixing.
Surely if a black man can share the same church and the same heaven with you he can also marry your daughter.
Yes he can Greg. But a traditional Christian would note differences in race and advise against such a mingling as being doomed to failure or troubles.
It would be interesting to know if the Church ever did refuse marriage on those grounds but its more interesting to note that the Church never promoted that Europe invade itself with Blacks nor promote miscegenation.
The Church may tolerate such things, but it doesn’t (at least not historically) promote such things.
Well churches today play a very big role in importing and establishing colonies of non-Whites in the US and Canada. I am sure it is the case in Europe and the Antipodes as well.
There we agree. It sickens me the role the Catholic Church plays in dissolving nations, especially my own nation. And I know personally many Catholics who are equally outraged by some of my Church’s activities. Yet, I will point out that the Catholic Church is the least of the offenders.
The rise of USA evangelist religions, a WASP creation, are the main source of promotion of miscegenation not to mention Jew idolatry.
Btw, I love Counter Currents and reckon you are doing a bang up job here Greg. (Maybe I should have put that in the other thread but will throw it in here.)
Pat,
Do you see how deeply miscegenated is Mexico, with overwhelming Indian blood over the European? Guess what: the mess started long before the Jews or the atheists took over. The perpetrator was… a Pope!
Right after the Conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Pope Paul III, in his Bull of 1537, had recognized the personality of the Indians, and declared them fit to receive the sacraments, including marriage to the Spaniards.
The implications of this provision were enormous, as it left the cross-breading between Amerindian women and the Spaniard conquerors legitimated.
In the best book ever written about the history of Mexico, Catholic José Vasconcelos wrote: “In the Hispanic world this policy prevented a separation system of castes, like the one that has divided the Anglo-Saxons of the north” (Breve Historia de México, Ediciones Botas, 1944, p. 205.)
Chechar, I know next to nothing about Mexican history and bow to your knowledge. What I would say is that I agree with Pope Paul III in principle yet it’s not something to promote. In principle yes, but not in practice.
Did the Catholic Church ruthlessly enforce herself upon the Mexicans, both Spaniard and Indian? If so did she win? From what I’ve read and seen of Mexico the Catholic Church lost that nation to other forces not of her making.
Pat,
Nope. Actually, New Spain was a sort of religious paradise for the Catholic Church: the triumph of Counter-Reformation in most of America if you want to see it that way (remember that New Spain covered many southern states that presently belong to the US). In fact, thanks to the Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of Independence, New Spain was Judenfrei: which means that we cannot blame the tribe for the incredible mestization that took place over a continent during that period.
It was precisely the history of how New Spain regressed to “Mexico” (the name of the old Aztec capital) what refutes the single-cause hypothesis: that the Jews are behind every single ill of modern history.
Well that is very interesting and something I’ll be keeping mind. But is the present day situation tied to Catholic Church activated race mingling?
Wouldn’t it be far more attributable to the collapse of the Catholic Church’s grasp of the nation? I mean, ok, so the Church accepted inter-racial marriage but is that a cause for the current drug cartel related complete collapse of that nation and spread into the USA?
I’d hazard it has more to do with US politics which is decidedly Jewish and race abignating than anything at all to do with the Church or tolerance of miscegenation.
The USA is a race negating nation. It exports its creed which is both Jewified and WASPified (in evangelistic Protestant malformation) on to the rest of all nations. Its mantra is not strictly Jewish but a composite of Jewish universalism with WASP negation.
The USA is the epicentre of the world’s problems and to it we should look. She is dominated by Jews and a WASP religion in Evangelistic so called Christian religions.
Pat,
@ But is the present day situation tied to Catholic Church activated race mingling?
Perhaps I was unfair to say that the Pope was the main perp. The real culprit was the Ring of greed of the Europeans (lust for gold).
@ ok, so the Church accepted inter-racial marriage but is that a cause for the current drug cartel related complete collapse of that nation and spread into the USA?
To a certain extent, yes: I have not seen a single pure white among the drug lords. Hadn’t the continent became a giant experiment on miscegenation we wouldn’t have the present mess of today.
@ The USA is the epicentre of the world’s problems
Absolutely. That’s why I baptized one of O’Meara’s essays, “The US: The Greatest Enemy of the White Race”.
Unfortunately Greg Johnson’s humane “solution” to the JP is a non-starter. Precisely because they are essentially a parasitic Tribe which concentrates on a fairly limited set of lucrative economic roles – essentially, mediating other peoples’ creative transactions – “all Jews” cannot sustain a Jewish state from w/in. It is precisely necessary that very large numbers of Jews (currently >2/3) live outside the Jewish entity in other host-nations in order to bleed off the wherewithal ($$$, weapons) that keeps the so-called Jewish state on the map. Instead, exactly the opposite is going to happen. By and by, probably via extreme regional violence, Israel is going to go under…and the survivors of that cataclysm (if any) are going to arrive mostly in America. Which will then be the final concentration of World Jewry. How tragic. When I told “libertarian”-Zionist Ilana Issacson (aka Mercer) that I intended to live long enough to see Israel off the map, and the power of organzied Jewry in America broken, she understood the implications of my statement exactly….and became angry & frightened. But so it will be.
The early Zionists were quite frank that Diapora Jewry was an essentially parasitic and destructive people. One of the goals of Zionism was to get Jews to adopt a normal, non-parasitic way of life. In the late 19th century, that meant, in large part, to farm, hence the Kibbutz farming movement. Well, the Kibbutzs now employ guest workers to do hard labor (shades of American farms today) and Israel as a whole is but a parasite on the US taxpayer and remittances from Jews around the world. The more things change . . . But the early Zionists were still right: Jews need to become a normal, non parasitic people, a people that does everything a normal people does, rather than just parasitic economic niche dwellers with an aversion to honest labor. That process was never completed, because Zionism was never completed. The Diaspora has, in effect, imposed its own parasitic survival profile on Israel — not that it was a hard sell, of course. If Zionism were completed, however, this could not happen.
@ …and became angry & frightened. But so it will be. – CompassionateFascist
Perhaps this is why another self-hating Jew (who incidentally has commented about Atzmon in my blog), who blogs under the curious penname of “NY Untermensch”, is starting to take Alex Linder’s solution seriously as the only way out of our present dilemma. No kidding: just see the last entry of his blog.
@ he is a self-exterminating Jew, an advocate of Jewish assimilation into a common, leveling, all-consuming “humanity” … From a biological/Nietzschean point of view, it strikes me as decadent. It is as if conscience and objectivity have hypertrophied and metastasized like cancers to the point of threatening their owner’s survival.
The last phrase, “It is as if conscience and objectivity have hypertrophied and metastasized like cancers to the point of threatening their owner’s survival”, strongly reminded me a headache of mine when interpreting an item of the relatively new field known as Psychohistory. I cannot comment broadly on my headache but will quote a passage from the first chapter of my book:
Jewish peoplehood is a “positive” basis of a common Jewish identity. Yet it is not religious. Indeed, it is more fundamental than Judaism. The Jews were a people before the covenant, before the law, before the religion of Judaism. And Jews remain Jews even when they reject Judaism. Even if every single Jew became an atheist, there would still be Jews. Judaism would then be just a phase that the Jewish people once went through.
Identifying as “Hebrews” would be an appropriate way for such (“ex”)Jews to highlight the ethnic/religious distinction. I have no way to know, but it’s seemed to me ever since thinking about it that the immediate difficulty the Jew who’d prefer to be “human rather Jewish” faces is the lack of a viable (believable) alternative group belonging. WN-ish claims of Jewish hyperethnocentricity notwithstanding, many Jews obviously do opt out (through intermarriage, disregard or disillusionment). The problem from a racialist perspective is what they opt into: too often, like Atzmon, an overly optimistic, reality-negating, all-dissolving universalism; not necessarily because they believe it, or because they figure it hurts whites, but for lack of any other choice. Whatever you think of (or plan for) them, it’s better to have these Jews spreading pro-group ideas rather than spreading yet more race-denial and associated rubbish. (Consider it them doing (part of) your dirty work for you.)
Shedding one’s ethnic distinctness to merge with a universal humanity is the ethnic equivalent of suicide. Jews since Paul of Tarsus have been poisoning the wellsprings of white civilization with this cosmic Kool-Aid.
That’s unfair. “Universalism” in the 1st century AD didn’t mean quite what it does in the 21st. Pauline universalism had much more in common with racialism than modern race-denying liberal universalism. The region Paul lived in at the time wasn’t racially uniform, but the degree of racial alikeness was sufficient that his pan-ethnic universalism “made sense” — particularly when, with the benefit of hindsight, you consider some of the sillier things racial kin (or close enough to) were prepared to butcher each other over.
Explicit racial consciousness, we know, is rare. And until racial thinking is explicit and systematic, thoughts about races (vague conclusions) are mostly unconscious, and depend everywhere and always on numbers. The sorts of conclusions subconsciously drawn about race at local, national or regional proportions of 95% your kind/5% others, we should assume, are bound to differ from the sorts of subconscious conclusions drawn about race at proportions 65% your kind/35% other, and so on according to various combinations. Since few in Paul’s time had any inkling of how many Aethiopes or Dravidians or Mongolids the world contained (or one day would) it would be more reasonable to assume Paul’s thoughts on universalism were influenced by the racial context in which he lived (not necessarily “homogeneous,” but fairly closely racially related, or at least not absurdly unrelated/differentiated) rather than those thoughts being part of some long-range plot to undermine the White Man 2000 years hence.
You can check my reasoning by posing the following counterfactual question: had vast numbers of other kinds inhabited Paul’s world would he have propounded the same doctrine nonetheless? Perhaps he would have wished to, but Paul, remember, wrote in order to persuade. I find it impossible to believe he would have attempted to persuade Greeks, Romans, Galatians etc to strive to overcome ethnic belonging if it meant mixing it with hordes of negroids and whatnot. He simply would not have been so cavalier. “There is neither Greek nor Negro” isn’t quite the same thing as neither Greek nor Jew (and every Greek would have known it). And if he couldn’t be so cavalier about it then it’s not the same doctrine being propounded.
Ethnocentrism is probably distributed on a bell curve. Low ethnocentrism Jews tend to assimilate and leave. This means that Jews who remain tend to become more ethnocentric over time.
I agree that ethnocentrism is probably normally distributed. But I believe that conscious decision making is quite capable of overcoming inherited ethnocentric tendencies. In an environment conducive to (or permissive of) it, an individual only needs to see more for himself outside or beyond his ethnicity than within it in order to set in motion the process of progressively distancing himself from it*, and, in more extreme cases (Atzmon?), reaching a point of renouncing it altogether. Viewing ethnocentrism solely through the prism of heredity leaves one blind to all this.
* Isn’t that at least partly true in your own case, Greg? You’re a member of the American founding stock which makes up what was once recognized by all as the “American” ethnicity. If you’re prepared to make common cause with individuals and groups that historically were only marginally related to it (particularly if the sentiment is sincere more than it is strategic) then I think that qualifies as an example of the phenomenon I describe.
I agree that ideas also play a role in our behavior, but it also seems reasonable to say that when ideas trump “instincts” it is more likely in the cases of people who have weak instincts.
My ethnocentrism is very weak on the instinctive level, which was a curse but is now a blessing, since the sooner people in North America shed their old-world national identities and the petty nationalisms that come along with them, the sooner we will be able to construct a viable pan-European White Nationalism which, as far as I am concerned, is the only way we can save our race in North America. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. And although in Europe, it makes sense to preserve local and national identities, there needs to be an overlay of pan-Europeanism as well. Because I really do believe that our race in Europe will best survive if we form a pan-European federated Imperium of some sort.
Are you trying to say that throughout the centuries of the Colonia New Spain was actually governed by crypto-Jews, not by the Spanish crown, the Catholic Church and a strong spirit of Counterreformation? (If so how would you explain that the most visible victims of the Inquisition were Jews and crypto-Jews —“judíos y judaizantes” to use the language of the time.)
Of course the brutality was very much exaggerated but that’s not my point.
In other words, crypto-Jews, not the zeal of counter-reformist Catholic Spain which had just won both the Reconquista and the Conquest of Mexico ruled New Spain? Is this what you are saying?
If you believe that those poor bastards had any political or cultural influence in New Spain, that’s the first time I see this interpretation of the history of the curious country where I was born. If you believe that crypto-Jews (“judaizantes” as they were called here) had any real power from 1519 to 1821 in this part of North America, that would remind me those who believe that the Jews were behind the French Revolution, the American Civil War and even 9/11, in other words: paleologic nationalism (see e.g., my response today to a “truther” who believes that Israel did 9/11).
I very much doubt that white nationalism will ever mature with such “paleologic” modes of thinking. I already read MacDonald’s CofC and presently am reading the first book of his trilogy on Judaism. His approach is very sane. And scientific. On the other hand, the approach of those who see Juden under every stone isn’t.
@ Chechar you see the Jews as victim,
This proves my point. Anyone who has visited my blog knows that my position on the Jews is among the toughest in WNism. And you are telling me that I view the tribe as “victims” because I expressed doubts that Jews ruled over New Spain???
You see: this “logic” of yours is pure and distillated paleologic thinking, the subject of my above-linked entry. It reminds me a featured writer at Majority Rights who declared, within his main MR article itself, that I must be Jew… because I don’t believe in the truther movement! Firstly I thought it was a joke. Then to my surprise I discovered that this featured writer was no kidding (like many truthers he’s obviously paranoid).
We are talking about New Spain (1521-1821), right? Not about modern Mexico. Well, I looked at the link you provided above. It corroborates what I said above! Quoted from your link:
Yes: poor bastards. But thanks to our Inquisition this part of NorthAm was Judenfrei for no less than three centuries: more than a whole century than the current live of Mexico.
Actually I read the whole article.
You started this discussion addressing New Spain as a subject (“…many Marranos went to the area of New Spain”), not modern Mexico. There’s a huge difference between the two. A huge difference between burning at the stake every Jude you find or granting him/her citizenship.
Of course I knew about the influence of Jews after the nefarious movement of Independence (1810-1821), and that more recently the Zabludowski Jews dominated Mexican TV news for decades. But that was not the point in my discussion with Pat way above. The discussion was about whether universal Christian values screwed the continent racially long before the emancipation of the Jews in independent Mexico.
You don’t have to lecture me about 19th century or present-day Jewish influence on deracinated Mexico. I’m aware of that. For example, in the first post of the page where I’m translating MacDonald’s CofC I say:
The scandal was about the etiology of the financial recession that began that year. I know personally some of the notable Jews who signed the document and it made me mad. That alone moved me to start translating CofC.
P.S.
See eight minutes of this film about how Jews were handled in my town (incidentally, the actor that features the Grand Inquisitor, now deceased, lived a few of blocks from my home). It is a pity that the Inquisitor’s discourse has no English subtitles because it gives you the picture of the spirit of New Spain.
P.P.S.
After the Grand Inquisitor’s speech the other Dominican said (my translation): “We welcome this Auto de fe for punishment of some and an example to all. It punishes offenses against religion and morality. These Judaizers [crypto-Jews] will be delivered to the justice of the secular arm, to which we ask forgiveness and compassion.”
Then the man richly dressed in a yellow suit noted the prisoners’ various offenses against morality and public order in New Spain. The Jews always got special treatment. The former would be punished with “flogging, banishment, galleys, imprisonment or confiscation of property. And the relapsed Judaizers present and absent are condemned to be burned in flames of fire, until they become ashes and nothing remains of them in the memory of this land.”
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment