- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

The Eternal Outsider:
Veblen on the Gentleman & the Jew


Thorstein Veblen

5,010 words

Jack Donovan has done us a great service – or at least, done one for me – in his recent Counter-Currents essay “The Manly Barbarian: Masculinity and Exploit in Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class [2].” Veblen being one of those “names” one always hears and sees referred to, I have several time tried to read him, to no avail. As Jack says, it all seems “a lot of rambling, convoluted writing and thinking,” typical of a kind of dated, Edwardian “fine writing” in the social sciences that predates the current mathematical obsession, which replaced purple prose and “elegant variation” with supposedly more scientific “hard” numbers and graphs. As readers of this site know, I’m not afraid of the dense and repetitive writing of James, Lovecraft, or indeed Evola – I even have a theory about it [1] — but Veblen just seems like a bore in a seersucker suit and straw boater.

However, Jack’s suggestion that all the good stuff is in the first chapter of Theory appeals to my delight in finding distilled essences in lieu of wading through tedious volumes of old forgotten lore – part lazybones, part decadent aesthete [2] – and even better, the free sample chapter of one of the Kindle editions at Amazon contains the whole first chapter, as well as some swell pictures of horsies and such like illustrations of “conspicuous consumption.”[3]

I was particularly struck by his observation that the rest of the book also

suffers from a middle class bookworm’s ressentiment toward both “delinquent” bullies and predatory elitists (who he thinks have a lot in common)

Academics like Martha Banta, in her recent Oxford World Classics edition, think otherwise, on both style and value: “Twelve more tightly packed chapters lay ahead, each with insights . . . into . . . our times.” Such insights, according to Banta, include:

Veblen only overtly reveals his distaste when describing the dogs and horses put on display by members of the leisure class.

Display of good manners and good forms is a waste of time.

Modern day gentlemen are merely most discreet than feudal lords who gnawed on beef-bones.

The craving for gold and diamonds is lacking all social use.[4]

Church worship is another form of “honorific waste.”

Team sports and gambling follow the same impulse that leads to belief in God, since all are based on “animistic beliefs and anthropomorphic creeds.”

Philanthropy is further proof of social inadequacy.

Academic honors have little use in the modern world.[5]

Reading this, and Jack’s account of Veblen’s sneering views of such “barbaric” pursuits as hunting, etc., made me smell something more specific than a “middle class bookworm’s ressentiment” towards jocks. It occurred to me that I had read something like this before, from a similar period, but in much more vigorous prose (I mean Veblen’s, not Jack’s).

Then it hit me: Maurice Samuel, author of You Gentiles and The Gentleman and the Jew! Two works that would be classics in the literature of anti-Semitism, but for the fact that Samuel was a Jew, and thought he was defending, nay, writing an encomium to, the bitter, timeless hatred of the Judaic for the goyim.[6]

As a reviewer at Amazon says, to Samuel

Gentiles are not even remotely close to being God-people, but are more like children; they are not as serious and their worldview is shaped by sport. This sporting mentality manifests itself in war, competition, business, religion, scholarship and a host of other worldly activities. Samuel believes that Jews can partake in these affairs as well, but they aren’t as good at it as the Gentiles. This is because Jews see these sporting activities as ridiculous. All activity for a Jew should be directed to religious study and reflection on God. Jews will fight in a war, but only if they have to, and then they want to finish the business as quickly as possible. A Jew, according to Samuel, will never revel in the sporting “rush” from an event as much as a Gentile will. Samuel does make an interesting observation when he examines Plato’s idea of utopia that is found in The Republic. Samuel is amazed that in this ideal society, war still exists. This is because of the sporting mentality. Even in our ideals, we have to have competition through sport.

Well, there you have it: Western Civilization, from Homer to Hemingway, from Alcibiades to Lee to Patton, just a bunch of dumb as rocks jocks. Think Winkelvoss twins, rowing away like it was Brideshead Revisited, thinking Larry Summers will make Zuckerberg “play fair.”

It’s not surprising that Veblen and Samuel, each undoubtedly unaware of the other, started to sound the same as they gazed at and puzzled over the Establishment that had rejected them both. They’ve both unconsciously stumbled on the same truth, which we’ve been trying to hammer into the hard heads of the Hard Right for years: Western or Aryan Civilization has its origins not in hard work, strict morality, and family values, but in the primitive Männerbund; art, religion, the military, all arise out of the barbaric play of the Wild Boys. If the Right wants to “conserve” the institutions of the Gentleman, he needs to cultivate Jack’s Barbarian, not, as the neo-cons would advise them, the Mormon Family Man. And of course, if you wanted to destroy our culture, you couldn’t do better than to take Veblen or Samuel to heart and subject it to a “scientific” or “rational” or “moral” regime — and who could object to that? — reducing culture to “sensible” things like reproducing or money-making.

Although after the upheavals of the ’60s we’ve come to think of the Protestant Establishment as, well, The Establishment (The Man, if you will), it must be remembered that they are, after all, Protest-ants. From Luther himself through the Puritans to the New England busy-bodies to the Progressives, there has been a outsider strain in Nordic Protestants, derived from the Judaic elements in Christianity, representing what MacDonald has called an ethical in-group mentality. This is the “I’m an outsider because I’m morally superior” attitude taken up by Veblen which takes him almost entirely onto the side of the Judaic. The Northern WASPs only became “the” Establishment after righteously exterminating the Southern Cavalier class.

Thus Banta is correct in distinguishing Veblen’s Nordicism from that of the National Socialists, who themselves comprised a fairly broad spectrum from almost New Age pagans like Hess, through Aryan mystics like Himmler, to accomodationists like Hitler. Rosenberg most closely resembles Veblen; one of the most prominent exponents of the so-called German Church (i.e., Christianity without Judaism), he none the less was sufficiently Lutheran to indulge in what Evola found to be the most primitive kind of anti-Catholic, Germans versus Romans rhetoric. As Evola insisted, and we agree, the German nation, like all nations, was a mixture of various racial strains; the task of the racial hygienist is to select the one that is to become dominant; ideally, the least Judaic.

The Veblen Question

If Veblen’s complaints about “barbarians” sound like Samuel’s jaundiced Judaic eye on Gentiles, the question arises, was Veblen a Jew?

Although easily proven not to be, he is, as one of Hermann Hesse’s characters calls Harry “The Steppenwolf” Haller, a “rotten patriot” for a supposed Aryan. Even Banta notices something a little off:

But although Veblen’s family was of Nordic descent, the emphasis he places upon the ruthless nature of the “dolicho-blond” shares none of the pride later expressed by members of the Nazi Party. Instead, Veblen’s negative remarks anticipate the attacks launched in 1918 by Cyril Briggs, editor of the radical black journal The Crusades, against “the blond beast” — the bloodthirsty, ape-like predator of the “mongrel” European race. (Kindle Loc 222)

Yes, these ape-like mongrels are truly not “God-people.”

Even the Jews have asked the question, and quite recently. According to no less a source than “Tzvee’s Talmudic Blog” (aka הבלוג התלמודי של צבי) the question remains:

Was Thorstein Veblen Jewish [3]?

No the famous social critic and economist, Thorstein Veblen was not a Jew. He was a Lutheran from Minnesota.

Why even raise the issue?

The reason that we ask is that Wired magazine in an article this month “Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up,” by Jonah Lehrer, [4] discusses Veblen’s analysis of Zionism and Jewish intellectualism.

The results of his thinking 92 years ago, summarized by the magazine, are provocative.

Indeed. As Wired tells the tale:

In 1918, sociologist Thorstein Veblen was commissioned by a popular magazine devoted to American Jewry to write an essay on how Jewish “intellectual productivity” would be changed if Jews were given a homeland. At the time, Zionism was becoming a potent political movement, and the magazine editor assumed that Veblen would make the obvious argument: A Jewish state would lead to an intellectual boom, as Jews would no longer be held back by institutional anti-Semitism. But Veblen, always the provocateur, turned the premise on its head. He argued instead that the scientific achievements of Jews — at the time, Albert Einstein was about to win the Nobel Prize and Sigmund Freud was a best-selling author — were due largely to their marginal status. In other words, persecution wasn’t holding the Jewish community back — it was pushing it forward.

The reason, according to Veblen, was that Jews were perpetual outsiders, which filled them with a “skeptical animus.” Because they had no vested interest in “the alien lines of gentile inquiry,” they were able to question everything, even the most cherished of assumptions. Just look at Einstein, who did much of his most radical work as a lowly patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland. According to Veblen’s logic, if Einstein had gotten tenure at an elite German university, he would have become just another physics professor with a vested interest in the space-time status quo. He would never have noticed the anomalies that led him to develop the theory of relativity.

Indeed, a provocative thesis.[7] It explains why Veblen is suspected of being a Jew: Veblen too was an alienated outsider cynically critiquing White civilization. Furthermore, although Veblen’s thesis is enough to earn the “suspicion” of anti-Semitism through its anti-Zionism, it’s really just another version of the same old vaudeville routine: “without us Jews you goyim are nothing!”

One wonders how Babylon, Athens, Rome, the Christian Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, the Elizabethans, managed to do anything at all. Not a good deli in sight. You might as well kill yourself!

Moreover, a glance at the great cultural centers of today’s Jewry, New York and Tel Aviv, would easily belie any such notion. Tel Aviv, well, meh. As for New York, its reputation as a world capital of culture and everything else is a function of well-known Jewish logrolling or ethnic networking: J-artists “discovered” by J-gallery owners, pumped by J-critics in J-periodicals, sold for big bucks to J-“patrons” (the ones still whining, after nearly a century, for the “return” of “their” artworks that were liberated by the forces of the European Revolution) and ultimately for bigger bucks to bemused goyishe patrons (blue bloods or Junkers as the case may be); substitute any other area of society ad lib.

The truth, as always, is exactly the opposite: rather than bringing the light to the benighted Aryan, it is the Aryan who has, always and everywhere, created culture, and the Judaic who, unable to do so, exists only as a parasitical hanger-on, at best; a destroyer, at worst. Any “contributions” have indeed been just that, something added onto a pre-existing Aryan structure, which had been totally absent from native Hebrew society from Genesis to the granting of civil liberties by Napoleon.

The Judaic is not an “outsider” just coming in to lend a hand or a new pair of eyes; he is an underminer, and so is Veblen, for that matter.[8]

Of course at this point someone will bring up “the Moslem contribution to Western Civilization,” which is fine with me, since Moslems are effectively a Semitic people who, like the Romans and Germans, recognized the value of what Athens had created and chose to emulate it, thus earning the eternal enmity of their “brothers” the Judeans. But then, the Judeans hate everybody, always and everywhere; the Romans coined the word “misanthrope” to describe this turbulent race; and the Judean, as always, projects this onto US, making him the innocent victim of an unmotivated, irrational hatred – what Kevin MacDonald has called the “lachrymose” version of Judaic history.[9]

At this point someone will also mention Israel. Always the go-to counter-example for stereotypes of Jewish helplessness or ineffectuality – first, after the 1948 land grab (the very first episode of Mad Men shows the Men, all WASPS –“Have we ever hired a Jew? Not on my watch” – shouting and jumping around like school kids over the battle scenes in the movie Exodus – “First they’re in camps, then they’re on the beach with machine guns!”); then, after the “six day war” becoming incongruous models of dark, hairy manhood – Woody Allen on the Times Op-Ed page no less, exclaimed, “Jews with machine guns? Come on!”[10]

Anyway, the much vaunted, much promoted — by the Judaic-minded media, of course — “Jewish State” is largely a vanity project (more Judaic preening), a paper tiger or Potemkin village:

No matter what the “Clean Break [5]” document aspires to, Israel’s whole survival strategy has always been to rely on aid from the outside: without the billions that flow from the US Treasury into Israeli coffers, the entire Zionist project would have failed long ago. It has been kept on life support all these years by money from abroad, and by the hopes of the Israeli leadership that more Jews will emigrate to the Promised Land. The main problem, however, is that American Jews are so thoroughly assimilated that the idea of taking up residence in Israel never occurs to them: for American Jews, America [6] is the Promised Land. Aside from that, the appeal of moving to a country that sees itself as besieged – and whose leaders every day assert that they are sitting on the edge of a second Holocaust [7] – is necessarily quite limited.[11]

Alas for the Zionists, things have turned out pretty much as Veblen suggested they would.

The Outsider as Insider

But the important work MacDonald and others have done to document the extent of ethnic networking leads to another problem with the Outside Contributor thesis. Even if we granted Veblen the “contributions” of the Jews, due to their outsider status, that would hardly be relevant today, when Judaics dominate all the relevant fields (especially if we consider, and I do, those goyim in name only that Evola would say had a “Jewish soul”).

How much “outsider” perspective can the Judaic provide, once they dominate a given field?

Thus we see the “outsider” meme as an excuse, a ruse, in fact, to provide cover for the reality of domination through ethnic networking.

Anyway, anyone who’s had to work around God’s Chosen knows this much vaunted “objective” or “critical” perspective is really just a matter of taking a snide and supercilious attitude of sneers and jeers to everything anyone else believes, and the holier the better.

M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn’t.

M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that’s not just saying “No it isn’t.”

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn’t! [12]

To see the sneering smugness that constitutes the “outsider perspective” in reality, consider the case of Paul Krugman, Princeton professor (hired by Ben Bernanke), New York Times columnist, and, oh yes, “Nobel” Laureate. [13] How’s that for being connected? But look what happens when someone dares to question this inside-outsider:

But if you just can’t get enough of the pugilistic Krugman fighting, you may want to check out the video of him at an economic debate in Spain over the weekend [8], at which he accused Pedro Schwartz [9], a Spanish [sic] economics professor, of “pulling credentials” in their debate about Keynesian economics, then fully gave him the “talk to the hand” gesture when Schwartz denied it. That happens around 49 minutes into the video [10].[14]

So much for “openness to dissent” etc. As always, it’s free trade (the libertarian-capitalist) and free speech (the ACLU Liberal) for us, until we take over, then not so much (bank bailouts and speech codes). As we would expect, the demands for “free speech” last only long enough to oust the WASPs and establish a Jewish elite, then a Talmudic orthodoxy reigns.

The aforementioned Huysmans, though, or because, of his “decadent” mindset, had their number already in the 1880s:

At the same time, he noticed that the free thinkers, the doctrinaires of the bourgeoisie, people who claimed every liberty that they might stifle the opinions of others, were greedy and shameless puritans whom, in education, he esteemed inferior to the corner shoemaker.[15]

The Ferment of Nuclear Fission

Since Wired thinks that Jewish “outsiders” are so valuable to scientific progress, let’s take a look at a well-known case with important, nay tragic, consequences: the Bomb.

There’s a persistent myth among “educated” Westerners, like the notion of human-skin lampshades, that German science suffered from a lack of Judaics, which supposed lack then supposedly led to their defeat. Oh, the irony! Or as Bela Lugosi would say, “How iron-ick!”

As Savitri Devi pointed out, this idea completely misunderstands how science works. It matters not whether Einstein publishes in Berlin, New York, or Buenos Aires; published work is, well, public, and available to all.[16]

And since, as Eliot observed, “reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable,”[17] why should a society not remove the plague from its bosom, while still reaping the rewards, if any, of their tiny little researches? A point to which we shall return at the end.

But in any event, the real story is that German scientists actually foot-dragged on the project, to prevent the development of such a terrible weapon. Aryan scientists, left to their own devices, reached an ethical conclusion: Aryan morality would not allow the use of such a weapon.

Heisenberg himself . . . had realized by now, just like a handful of scientists the world over, how unbelievably hideous and horrible the new invention might turn out on the practical level. . . .

When Professor Hahn, who looked and behaved like a quintessential patrician out of a Thomas Mann novel, met Heisenberg shortly after the latter’s installment, he declared unequivocally: “I’d rather die than build the bomb!

And that was that.

And would have been, if not for those much-lauded “outsiders” and “victims”

. . . Heisenberg and the small inner circle of his staff, all men with a strong Christian foundation, knew what would happen eventually. Namely that other countries might feel less encumbered by moral restraints and indeed build the terrible weapon. Particularly the USA, where so many Jewish scientists had found refuge after their enforced German exodus. And who all nourished a massive grudge against their former country of birth.[18]

Yes indeed, the so-called “eternal victims of history” once more prove to be its consummate predators. Judaic scientists in the US, led of course by the little prince, Albert, were nagging and cajoling Roosevelt to “hurry up” and develop a bomb for America to use in exterminating the Nordic Amalekites. Well, they didn’t quite get their wish, but needless to say, they couldn’t wait to steal the atomic secrets and hand them over to Stalin.

The next step was to hand it all over to their proposed new Golem, the UN, but there Stalin threw in a monkey wrench, refusing to surrender Russian sovereignty. The resulting shift of alliances resulted in the US retaining its role as Golem, protector of Israel, while the Soviets took up the White Man’s Burden (hence the Israeli and neo-con obsession with “freeing” Judaics from Russia and overthrowing the Soviets), a change that seems to have escaped the occluded minds of the American Right, other than, of course, Francis Parker Yockey.[19] And we know what happened to him . . .

Eventually, of course, the Israelis, who never signed onto the Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Iran), developed their own nukes (again, unlike Iran) which everyone knows but no one mentions, even to rib Bibi a bit about the hypocrisy of waving around cartoon bombs at the UN (whose job, of course, as just pointed out above, is to ensure that other nations don’t get The Bomb, but not Israel).

Once again and as always: the news of the day is the opposite of what you‘ve been told — oh, what to do about the Iranian threat to poor Israel; and our “principles” apply only to thee, never to me.

The Judaic obsession with nukes, then and now, is really quite striking and creepy, and suggests a close, perhaps essential connection of the two, in line with Guénon’s comments about the “sinister” nature of so-called “sub-atomic” physics, the ultimate expression of the Reign of Quantity, and thus the prelude to the true and final dissolution: “Solvet sæclum in favilla.”

Indeed, one has to wonder, how much of Israel’s public nagging about Iran and nukes is something of a double fake-out, designed to push and prod until Iran (which as an Aryan nation would naturally eschew, as did the National Socialist, the barbarity of nukes — the Chief Ayatollah has, in fact, already ruled out developing or using such weapons as explicitly “un-Islamic” — one can only imagine the Chief Rabbi — who has declared that providing medical assistance to victims of the IDF is an abomination — issuing a similar pronouncement only if adding the proviso “unless used to defend the Jews”) — is forced into getting some, if only to “grab these insolent Jews by their throats and shut their lying mouths!” as an exasperated Dr. Goebbels said of the Weimar media.

Paradigm Enforcers vs. Free Inquirers

Finally, and once again taking the big picture view, Wired’s invoking Thomas Kuhn to laud Judaics as “paradigm breakers” is ludicrous. As Paul Feyerabend has lamented, the lessons drawn from Kuhn have been the exact opposite: that the way to transform a chaotic pseudo-science like sociology or economics into a “real” science is to just decide on a “paradigm,” condemn everything else as “junk science,” and go on your merry tenured, grant-grubbing way. Ever and always, free speech until our ethnic networking is complete, then just shut up.

This applies a fortiori to “scientific” issues that also have political or religious penumbrae. There’s no judicially enforced “law” of gravity, and flat-earthers are harmless eccentrics, but just try questioning “The Six Million” (unless, of course, you’re a Landsman, like Raul Hilberg, and perhaps not even then — ask Norman Finkelstein) or the teaching of “natural selection” in your children’s school.

In fact, one might think that there is a direct, inverse relation here: the more actual evidence you have, the less you need to shame, fire, or imprison the doubters. And one can’t help but notice again, which ethnic group receives the benefit.[20]

Feyerabend, a true Aryan philosopher — and an ex-Luftwaffe pilot! — called for a separation of Science and State for these very reasons, and noted that his anti-method of “Anything Goes” would hardly spell the end of science.[21] While Greece rose to greatness on the backs of unwilling slaves, we can rise to greater heights on the back of willing slaves, foolish blinkered nerds and geeks who, like Huxley’s gammas, or the denizens of TV’s The Big Bang Theory (produced by Charlie Sheen’s Judaic nemesis, Chuck Lorre) delight in having a chance to wear mental chains while we, mentally free, are also free to make use of the mechanical toys they produce.[22]

Instead our world is increasingly under the control of these very Judaics and Judaic-souled ones, who have moved far beyond — if ever they were at all — the role of “critical outsiders” and now constitute instead the New Inquisition of Zionce.

I wonder what Veben would say today? Feyerabend, it seems, would side with Jack Donovan against Veblen’s Judaic smarties:

. . . when sophistication loses content then the only way of keeping in touch with reality is to be crude and superficial. This is what I intend to be.[23]

A barbarian, if you will.


[1] See “The Eldritch Evola” here [11] as well as in my next book, The Eldritch Evola . . . and Others (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2013).

[2] Joris-Karl Huysmans’ À Rebours is in some ways an account of dozens of ways of attempting to trap the “essence” of one experience, sensual delight or art after another; at least that is how Wilde’s Dorian Gray read it, while “Lord Henry’s corrupting ‘influence’ is described as a series of distilled ‘poisons’, ‘poisons’ that a receptive Dorian imbibes until he begins to receive their ‘great reward’.” See M. M. Kaylor’s Secreted Desires: The Major Uranians: Hopkins, Pater and Wilde at p. 317; first published in 2006 by Masaryk University and now available free online at http://mmkaylor.com/ [12].

[3] The edition here [13].

[4] A meme recently re-activated by no less than Warren Buffett’s buddy Charles Munger; see “Charlie Munger: Gold Is For Holocaust-Era Jewish Families To Sew Into Their Garments; Civilized People Don’t Buy Gold” here [14].

[5] The Theory of the Leisure Class / Thorstein Veblen; edited with an introduction and notes by Martha Banta (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

[6] The Gentleman and the Jew: Twenty-Five Centuries of Conflict in Manners and Morals (New York: Knopf, 1950); republished by Behrman House as “A Jewish Legacy” book in 1978; You Gentiles, from 1924, is available free at archive.org; or you can get his Selected Writings for $0.01 at Amazon.

[7] And bearing as well some resemblance to Daniel Harris’ The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture (New York: Hyperion, 1997), which provoked many reviewers, such as Alisa Solomon in the Village Voice, to tantrums of outrage over its apparent thesis that gays were much more high-brow and, well, interesting, before they were co-opted by the mainstream, and, well, should just get back in the closet and write more wonderful musicals! Or in this case, back to the Patent Office, or the unheated tenement, or even the shtetl, and scribble some more! There’s more to Harris’ thesis than Thorstein’s, as I shall argue, and it also is kind of a twisted version of my own thesis, derived from Alisdair Clarke and spelled out most clearly in the first chapter of my new book, The Homo and the Negro: Masculinist Meditations on Politics and Popular Culture (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012), that pre-Stonewall gays were hardly cowering in closets (as illustrated by my essays here at Counter-Currents on Noël Coward [15] and most recently Ralph Adams Cram [16]) and that when given the opportunity to leave the supposed closet should have re-assumed their role as creators of Western Culture rather than joining the Left’s “rainbow coalition” of culture-destroyers.

[8] “The rats are underneath the piles. The jew is underneath the lot.” — “Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar,” T. S. Eliot, 1920.

[9] For example, here [17].

[10] I’ll soon have a piece on another Preminger film, Advise and Consent, and its influence or not on Mad Men.

[11] “The Israel Lobby and the Road to War; Part III of ‘Roots of the Iranian ‘Crisis’,” by Justin Raimondo, October 12, 2012 here [18].

[12] Monty Python, “The Argument Skit,” The Money Programme (episode 29; aired 2 November 1972; recorded 4 December 1971).

[13] The fake “Nobel” Prize in Economics is itself a wonderful example of their impudent fakery, solemnly announced every year and never exposed by the compliant media.

[14] À Rebours, translated by John Howard as Against the Grain, chapter 1.

[15] Adam Martin, here [19].

[16] Unless the Judaic lawyers start whining about licenses and trademarks; oh, the irony. Again, the “free speech” that America uses to climb to the top becomes “intellectual property” and “trade secrets” when the Chinese want to avail themselves of it.

[17] The Page-Barbour Lectures delivered at the University of Virginia in April-May 1933 and published in 1934 under the title After Strange Gods; too dangerous to be allowed in print today, of course — free speech, indeed!but available online at archive.org. Also see Kerry Bolton, “T. S. Eliot,” Part One, here [20].

[18] See “Werner Karl Heisenberg: Absolution vs. Damnation, Part 2” by Michael Colhaze [21], here [22].

[19] See his “What is Behind the Hanging of the Eleven Jews in Prague? [23]” from December 1952.

[20] Ordinarily I’d chalk up the Creationists to the Judaic side, if it were a war between knowledge and faith, but in this context the evolvers are the equally Judaic atheists; remember, the Judaic controls both sides, and can take whatever position needed. As Evola noted, the same principle applied in different contexts may produce quite different effects, and so each case must be judged on its own merits; very similar and valuable advice advise was given by A. E. Housman to aspiring textual critics; see for example “The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism” in Proceedings of the Classical Association, August 1921.

[21] See his Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge (London: Verso, 1975; 4th ed., 2010) and Science in a Free Society (London: Verso, 1978).

[22] Or not, if we choose. Ultimately, the whole science and tech thing may need some re-thinking. As Guénon observed, traditional societies “failed” to develop science and technology in our sense, due to their having little or no interest in studying the ever-fading away material universe, or improving their creature comforts, preferring to focus their attention, and their society, on “the one thing needful.” There is indeed something Judaic about science itself, deriving perhaps from the arrogant notion the world as an artifact, and a faulty one at that, needing tikkun olam. This is perhaps the point at which White culture reveals its fatal susceptibility to the Judaic infection, its Death Star thermal exhaust portal: our Faustian need to “control and manipulate [the] environment” (See Collin Cleary, “Asatru and the Political,” here [24]).

[23] Paul Feyerabend, “How to defend society against science” (1975). Available from: http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43842 [25] [Accessed 5th January 2012].