Print this post Print this post

A Giraffe Dies in Denmark

Marius the giraffe

Marius the giraffe

3,054 words

In February of 2014 a two-year old giraffe was euthanized at the Copenhagen Zoo. Worldwide media attention and an online petition signed by twenty-seven thousand friends of animals had failed to save him.

Since the Copenhagen Zoo had raised Marius, the petition argued, it had a moral responsibility to find him a home. The zoo ignored the plea and Marius was killed. His corpse was fed to the zoo’s lions.

Marius was not a defective giraffe. He was healthy, but sadly for him his genes were, in the eyes of Copenhagen’s zookeepers, too much like the genes of other giraffes. He was therefore not genetically useful for a breeding program designed, as the zoo put it, “to safeguard for future generations a genetically diverse, healthy population of animals against their extinction.” The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, reflecting the opinion of a number of authoritative voices, supported the Copenhagen Zoo in its decision to euthanize Marius, which was effected by a bolt-gun. “If an animal’s genes are well represented in a population,” the zoo’s scientific director explained, “further breeding with that particular animal is unwanted.”

The campaign to save Marius and the outcry over the zoo’s decision to kill him are both signs of the times. Concern for the welfare of animals has long been a feature of Western societies. Modern landmarks in the anglosphere include the founding of Britain’s RSPCA in 1824, the passage of Britain’s Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876, and the founding in the United States seven years later of the American Anti-Vivisection Society. Other important moments in the history of Western empathy for animals occurred much earlier, some taking us far back into antiquity.

In the twentieth century the movement included intellectuals on both Left and Right, ranging from the Jewish philosopher Peter Singer to the Far Right’s own Savitri Devi, whose Impeachment of Man argued for positive kindness to animals as part of the life-centered religion she advocated. Hitler himself could be considered an animal-rights supporter, as Leon Degrelle recounted: “He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food.” In his concern for the welfare of animals Hitler shared the opinions of many Westerners, from Pythagoras through Rousseau and Schopenhauer down to Brigitte Bardot and Pamela Anderson. The list is long and it is growing. Whether we should be happy about that or not is a separate issue.

A hundred years ago few in the West would have been troubled by a zoo’s decision to kill a giraffe in the cause of giraffe preservation. Today many of us are. The slogan “meat is murder” may sound foolish to some, a sign of growing enlightenment to others; but it is unmistakably the result, for good or ill, of a socio-political evolution of some duration, as was the outcry over the death of Marius the giraffe.

So, too, was the decision of the Danish government, also in 2014, to prohibit kosher and halal slaughter. Denmark’s agriculture minister made it clear that, despite protests of religious Jews and Muslims in Denmark, “animal rights come before religion.” In non-Semitic slaughterhouses livestock are stunned before they are killed, while in kosher and halal slaughterhouses animals must bleed to death after their throats have been cut. Since kosher and halal slaughter are so obviously less humane than European methods of slaughter, both will predictably be banned in a nation that has been significantly influenced by the growing empathy for animals.

It is even more predictable if the culture of the nation in question is, like Denmark’s, secular in character. Defense of Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughtering livestock by reference to old religious traditions from the Middle East will have little effect on a secular population and a secular government that believe in the moral need to spare animals unnecessary pain. If kosher slaughter causes more pain to animals than normal Western methods of slaughter, then kosher slaughter must go, regardless of how passionately Jews and Muslims believe they possess an inalienable religious right to ensure that slaughtered livestock bleed to death.

I have not mentioned either anti-Semitism or the Holocaust in discussing the banning of kosher slaughter and the death of Marius the giraffe. The principle of parsimony suggests that no extraneous motives need to be adduced to explain the banning of kosher slaughter in Denmark and elsewhere, and it would be difficult to glimpse any possible relevance of the Jewish Holocaust to the death of a giraffe in Copenhagen. Jews, however, have their own distinctive and curious perspective on these sorts of issues.

In the ban an Israeli cabinet minister saw sinister forces at work: “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colors across Europe, and is even intensifying in the government institutions.” A neoconservative academic went much further. In presenting his opposition to Denmark’s “racist law banning kosher butchers,” Michael Widlanski, writing in the respectable Jerusalem Post, claimed to see baleful shades of nazi Germany in the death of Marius:

Sounding a bit like Nazis, Danish Zoo authorities said they had to kill the giraffe for the sake of racial purity — to protect the genetic lines of their giraffes. They added that the zoo needed Lebensraum — living room — space for other, purer giraffes.

Widlanski’s fanciful summary of what he calls “the Danish Giraffe Murder” is based on the same facts I presented earlier, but he, as a passionate Jew, draws a much different conclusion. His is a vision of Danish nazis at the Copenhagen Zoo executing, in the name of giraffe racial purity, a genetically impure giraffe, just as seventy years ago Germans executed Jews allegedly for the purpose of ridding Europe of their non-Aryan impurities.

There is a large factual problem in Widlanski’s vision, even if we ignore its obvious absurdity. Marius was killed because he was too much like other giraffes, not because he was an endangered minority among his fellow giraffes in European zoos. For Widlanski’s nazi-era reference to function coherently, you would have to calculate the likelihood that a European anti-Semite — say, Hitler — would execute a healthy giraffe in a local zoo, because he felt the giraffe was too Aryan, and then graciously move a living Jewish giraffe into the dead Aryan giraffe’s Lebensraum. It is unlikely that Hitler would have done that, leaving aside his animal-rights sympathies; but objecting to the incoherence and striking stupidity of Widlanski’s account would mean taking Widlanski seriously, as though he actually has an opinion on this subject worth considering.

Like the Israeli cabinet minister, Widlanski believes that Denmark’s ban on kosher slaughter is a sure sign of racial hatred and an act of anti-Semitic persecution, not a predictable result of the West’s growing empathy for animals. He believes that non-Jews in their own countries have no moral right to prohibit a specific method of killing animals, because some Jews happen to practice that method of killing animals. The prohibition of kosher slaughter is therefore unmistakably “racist,” with all the semantic weight of opprobrium that adjective carries.

In the real world opposition to kosher slaughter says little or nothing in itself about a person’s political orientation or his attitude toward Jews. Brigitte Bardot and Pamela Anderson, we can reliably guess, oppose kosher slaughter because they believe in animal rights, not because they dislike Jews. NS Germany banned kosher slaughter in 1933, but Norway had banned it three years earlier.

As a rule, however, Jews have great difficulty recognizing that Gentiles can have any legitimate convictions at all if they conflict with some cause close to their hearts, in this case kosher slaughter. We don’t reason. We just ventilate our hatreds, and we are at our most dangerous when we can layer over our raw hatreds with some semblance of rational argument, which leaves Jews with the task of digging up the hatreds beneath.

“Persecuting Jews is always kosher,” Widlanski writes, “and the Jews will sooner or later leave Europe rather suffer the fate of that Danish giraffe who was found to be genetically inferior.” A nation that could allow Marius to be euthanized, instead of discovering “a less-than-final solution for the problem of a genetically inferior giraffe,” cannot simultaneously profess belief in animal rights. Danes must therefore be anti-Semites, using animal-rights and bogus moral objections to kosher slaughter as excuses to get at Jews. A perceptive Jew, who knows race hatred and persecution when he sees them, will remember “just how many non-Jewish Europeans came to the rescue of defenseless Jews during the past century, especially during the Holocaust.” Not many, is the expected answer.

Widlanski’s argument, to use the term loosely, runs as follows: Germans killed Jews seventy years ago and many Europeans were insufficiently dedicated to rescuing Jews from their German enemies; therefore when Danes prohibit a Jewish cultural practice like kosher slaughter, it must mean that they hate Jews, not that they hope to reduce the suffering of animals. Thus the death of Marius the giraffe becomes important proof. Most Jews, especially those with a strong Holocaust consciousness, will regard this as an impressive chain of evidence assembled by a keen Sherlockian intellect. We can, charitably, call it moron-level logic.

Again, however, Widlanski’s fantasy and his moron-level logic meet factual difficulties.

The Holocaust’s Judeocentric reinterpretation of the Second World War privileges Jewish lives over other lives. The Axis campaign to defend Europe from Marxism and the Allied campaign to defend and promote democracy — causes that, rightly or not, many of the men who fought the war believed in — have gradually over the decades been displaced in favor of the Jewish Holocaust and its special concerns. In looking at this old war that claimed as many as sixty million lives, you judge your country not by how heroically her soldiers fought the war or how stoically her civilian population endured privation and sometimes bombing or occupation, but by how well your country treated Jews and how energetically it rescued them.

If we envision this Judeocentric reinterpretation of the war as an athletic competition, a track event at the Olympics, Germans came in dead last in this race to rescue Jews, with Poles and Hungarians a few yards ahead. The French and the Lithuanians were feeble competitors; Americans also had a slow day on the track. But fatally for Widlanski’s fantasy the Danes performed well in the race and may have placed first. They have earned their medal and should be entitled to boast, if we accept the premise of this strange competition. Leni Yahil, the most openly Zionist of the major Holocaust historians, speaks very highly of Danes: “the humane character of this small Scandinavian nation, many of whose citizens took their lives into their own hands to save Jews, shone over the inhumanity of mass extermination . . .”

Widlanski knows that Hungary and Denmark are different countries, and he may be able to locate them on a map. Yet their differing wartime histories are irrelevant in his eyes. He was angry to learn that Denmark had prohibited kosher slaughter, a prohibition that he considers “racist” because as a Jew it offends him, and he looked about to find some reason to condemn the Danes. He found Marius. The optics of the giraffe’s death were unflattering, regardless of whether we accept the zoo’s explanation or not, so Widlanski had a weapon, something with which he could attack his enemy.

Virginia Morell, writing on the National Geographic website, expressed well the feelings of those who signed the petition: “And so our hearts were broken when we saw the keepers at the Copenhagen Zoo break their trust with Marius. He should never have died so young and at the hands of his caretakers, the very ones who should have done all they could to protect him.” I agree, though not with the same emotion; I might have signed the petition if I had known about it. If we take Widlanski’s words as indicators of his beliefs, he would agree too. His words, however, tell us nothing. His professed concerns for animal welfare are instrumental. He wants to use the giraffe Marius as a weapon against an enemy, a European population that has offended him. He deploys his Holocaust weapon for the same reason, indifferent to the fact that Danes are morally among the least eligible targets of the weapon. We know that Virginia Morell is telling us what she believes, whether we agree with her or not. We cannot say the same about an activist Jew who asserts similar sentiments. There is, of course, an obvious lesson here.

Michael Widlanski is not, outwardly at least, an irrational Kahanist. He is not stupid either, though his stated opinions about giraffes and kosher slaughter might suggest otherwise. He is a New York Jew, a university professor with multiple post-graduate degrees, who has taken up residence in his homeland, Israel. He served in the IDF and wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject of Palestinian broadcast media. He teaches at Bar-Ilan University and formerly taught Middle Eastern politics at Hebrew University. He is a regular contributor to David Horowitz’ FrontPage website and has spoken at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, where he explained “why America and the Jewish people remain prime targets of terrorists.”

He sometimes returns to the land of his birth, where he laments Jewish intermarriage with non-Jews, the scarcity of good kosher food in American supermarkets, and the failure of too many Jewish parents to segregate their children in Jewish day schools, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to learn Hebrew. An ungenerous observer could also accuse him of harboring some small sense of racial superiority. “Israel is,” he writes, “a nature preserve for Earth’s most persecuted and perhaps most productive minority,” an exclusivist view of the Jewish state that fails to include the non-Jewish fauna who also reside there and who once called this Jewish nature preserve their home. At The New York Times, where he was employed during the era of Abe Rosenthal and Arthur Gelb, Widlanski was notably Jewish among an already notably Jewish group of journalists, which was in itself a substantial accomplishment: “I’m a religious Jew — I try to be a religious Jew — and everybody in The New York Times who would see me from a distance knew that this was the only guy walking around the newspaper with a yarmulke on his head.”

All of this suggests a strong Jewish ethnocentrism, so strong an ethnocentrism that Professor Widlanski could seriously argue that because Danes prohibited kosher slaughter on humanitarian grounds, they are likely to exterminate Jews in the future and that Jews should, therefore, flee Europe before they suffer the fate of Marius the giraffe, murdered out of Europe’s congenital hatred for the genetically impure. He did not and probably could not see how foolish he would appear to anyone who does not share his remarkable ethnocentric fixations.

Another improbable element in Widlanski’s case against nazi Denmark is the Scandinavian tradition of gun ownership. He largely manufactures this tradition, and then contrasts it to the Jewish tradition of preferring books and tablet computers over guns and hunting. He means to suggest that gun-toting Danes cannot convincingly claim empathy for animals, since they spend so much of their leisure time shooting wildlife and admiring the animal heads they mount on their walls as trophies.

It is not the sort of argument Widlanski would make when promoting, as he often does, support for Israel among American conservatives, most of whom correctly regard second-amendment rights as evidence of rugged independence, not as signs of cruelty and bookless backwoods ignorance. Gun-crazed Scandinavian hunters and nazi zookeepers in Copenhagen may appear to us as merely ad hoc fantasies constructed for the purpose of attacking enemies, but there is at least some chance that the inventor of these fantasies actually believes in his inventions. Such is the strength of an activist Jew’s ethnocentrism, especially when some apparent misbehavior on our part has aroused his anger.

Widlanski is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat. It is, judging by online reviews, the sort of book that neoconservatives and certain kind of gullible Republican find powerfully impressive. The book even has its own website, which boasts that “Dr. Widlanski was known as the ‘hit man’ for Israeli negotiators at the 1991-92 talks in Madrid and Washington,” suggesting that he worked hard to ensure that no peace broke out as a result of the Madrid Peace Conference. Conservative commentator Cal Thomas reports that “Widlanski’s main point is that political correctness has stifled the West’s ability to understand and fight terror,” which is true yet close to self-evident.

In his book and in many of his online articles Widlanski is offering advice to the West. He even speaks of “we in the West,” although he has in fact removed himself from the West in order to live among other Semites in the Middle East. Yet the “West” on whose behalf Widlanski is framing his arguments and collecting his evidence is not really the place you read about in history books. Cal Thomas is, we can be sure, concerned about the threat of Muslim terror to the West in general and to the United States in particular. Conservatives like Thomas, being owners of maps, would include Denmark, we can also be sure, in their West, along with even the least fleet-footed competitors in the race to rescue Jews seventy years ago.

It is normally assumed that a defender of Western civilization has at least some affection for the various nations that comprise it geographically. The Slovenians may not be your favorite European nationality, but you know that Slovenia is part of our West and you wish her well. The “West” of neoconservatives like Widlanski is a different and a much smaller location. It consists essentially of Israel, Diaspora Jews, and those American conservatives amenable to sending soldiers off to fight and die in destructive Mideast wars. The enemies of this West are the enemies of Jews and of Israel. Anti-Western enemies can also include, given Widlanski’s highly ethnocentric world-view, one of the most philo-Semitic nations on the planet, if for some reason he sees or claims to see some improbable harbinger of genocide within its domestic politics.



  1. Hrafn
    Posted April 17, 2015 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    The Jew, the eternal slave, is deeply infected with ressentiment. This spiteful little creature requires kosher slaughter as a means to gain a feeling of power over others, by afflicting another being with the same cruelty he himself has had to endure, or at least perceives to have endured. He forgets of course that historical instances of anti-semitism have themselves generally been responses to Jewish mischief, and he has no one to blame but himself.

    And to think of the future we could have if Europeans paid half as much attention to their own breeding as that of their giraffes!

    • James O'Meara
      Posted April 17, 2015 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      In terms of “feeling of power,” kosher anything, not just meat (and apparently, everything has some kinda kosher status; there’s a radio phone-in show in NYC where a rabbi sedulously answers questions about brands of toothpaste and boot polish) also demonstrates power, since obtaining the K seal drives up the cost to others. Moreover, little noticed — why? — is that some people are religiously forbidden to consume kosher products (Sikhs, for example) so obviously they have no power (or ‘hand’, as George Costanza would say).

    • Walter
      Posted April 19, 2015 at 12:01 am | Permalink

      In addition to this feeling of resentment-laden inferiority, I also perceive the Jewish need to be always in the center of attention. Hence, the unlikely connection between the giraffe’s death and the Jewish construction of a story which is broadcast as history. There is always an insane connection to be made between the idea of things and any occurrence and it will never be missed in order to keep the Jewish theme going. It indicates an unwholesome dependency on others for self-validation. The Jew seems to only exist through others. Is it the fear of nothingness, of death, the ultimate emptiness that causes this neurotic (or psychopathic) need to be always in the limelight in whatever circumstance?

      • Proofreader
        Posted April 20, 2015 at 3:19 am | Permalink

        “The Jew seems to only exist through others. Is it the fear of nothingness, of death, the ultimate emptiness that causes this neurotic (or psychopathic) need to be always in the limelight in whatever circumstance?”

        Dietrich Eckart’s incomplete and posthumously published work, Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialogue between Adolf Hitler and Me, raises this question in its very last paragraph, in which Hitler remarks:

        “He [i.e., the Jew] must wear down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task, and, considering his ideas of paradise, that is certainly so. But one sees, if only in the means which he employs, that he is secretly driven to something else. While he pretends to himself to be elevating mankind, he torments men to despair, to madness, to ruin. If a halt is not ordered, he will destroy all men. His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself. There is no other way for him; he must act thus. This realization of the unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims appears to me to be the main cause for his hatred. To be obliged to try and annihilate us with all his might, but at the same time to suspect that that must lead inevitably to his own ruin, therein it lies. If you will: the tragedy of Lucifer.”

  2. GenYES
    Posted April 17, 2015 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this post – the way this circling, fluid narrative turned in upon itself and became a story about much more than animal rights. Thanks for this delectable morsel and the penetrating analysis you put into it.

  3. Irmin
    Posted April 17, 2015 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    My interest in these sorts of subjects is likely much greater than most CC readers. But here’s more of the same.

    The Jewish Task Force (JTF) is an advocate organization for settler movements in the occupied West Bank. It also poses as a defender of traditional America and of Western civilization. It is JDL splinter group inspired by the life and work of the late Meir Kahane; his assassination in 1990 has been plausibly interpreted as the first al-Qaeda attack on American soil.

    This account below, which originally appeared on the main JTF website, bears some relation to Israel’s War of Independence, which is its purported subject. Some of the facts are wrong, and all of the interpretations are strange:

    After tiny Israel miraculously defeated the Arab world in the 1948 War of Independence – despite being outnumbered by the Arabs 100 to 1 – the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and the United Nations pressured the Jewish State to accept the anti-Israel 1949 armistice agreements.

    The Egyptian Muslim Nazis who marched to annihilate Israel in 1948 prematurely issued a stamp depicting their victory over Israel.

    Israel had beaten back the huge invading Egyptian army, not only throwing the Egyptian Muslim Nazis out of the Negev Desert but pursuing the Egyptian aggressors deep into the Sinai Peninsula.

    In fact, after Israel liberated Sinai territory up to El Arish, the Egyptians suddenly expressed interest in an armistice agreement that would prevent the tiny but fierce Jewish army from advancing even further.

    Egypt’s British Nazi allies threatened to militarily intervene in the war on behalf of the Egyptians unless Israel agreed to retreat from the liberated Sinai. These are the same British Nazis who murdered over 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children during the German Holocaust by forcibly preventing European Jews from entering the British-occupied Land of Israel to escape Hitler’s inferno during World War II. The British Nazi army and navy deliberately sent thousands of desperate European Jewish men, women and children who tried to enter the Holy Land in the 1940s back to Hitler’s gas chambers and ovens.

    Not satisfied with being responsible for the murder of over 6 million Jews, the British Nazis then armed Israel’s Arab Muslim enemies to the teeth during the 1948 War of Independence in order to help the Arabs finish Hitler’s job.

    When G-d gave the hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned Jews a miraculous victory in the 1948 war, the British Nazis then threatened to go to war against Israel to help the Arab Muslims.

    Israel’s first Bolshevik dictator, David Ben Gurion, gave in to British Nazi threats after the 1948 War of Liberation and withdrew the victorious Israeli army from the Sinai

    Unfortunately, Israel’s first Bolshevik dictator, David Ben Gurion, gave in to this British Nazi threat and agreed to a unilateral Israeli retreat from the liberated Sinai in 1949.

    It goes on from there with similar inventiveness.

    What does the word “nazi” mean in the preceding paragraphs? The simplest explanation would be non-Jew. Certainly the British in the 1940s were not “nazis” in any political sense of the term. Most of us would think of them as anti-nazis. They had just fought a terrible war against NS Germany, at great cost. Nor were the Egyptians nazis in any rational understanding of the word and its history. But to Jews afflicted with high levels of Jewish ethnocentrism, any non-Jew who impedes Jewish ambitions is a nazi.

    Widlanski’s account of Danish nazis and their final solution to the problem of a racially impure giraffe is consistent with this strange way of thinking.

    If you irritate an ethnocentic Jew, he will call you a “nazi” and start talking hinting darkly about the Holocaust, or even start talking about it openly, as in the excerpt from above.

    — Irmin

  4. Verlis
    Posted April 18, 2015 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    If you irritate an ethnocentic Jew, he will call you a “nazi”

    Certainly if you irritate him enough he will. However I’ve found a kind of reluctance among even ethnocentric Jews to launch into full “that’s antisemitic” mode in online discussions that touch on Jewish power in which the participants are generally wise to the ways of Jewish shaming tactics. Instead of “antisemite” they often resort to “anti-Jewish” in a bid to avoid the dilution of antisemite’s brand power.

    “Anti-Jewish” doesn’t have the same sting as “antisemite” and it therefore tends to invite rational scrutiny rather than causing reflexive retraction. That’s a plus for the racial right but if you ever encounter it it’s a mistake to leave things there. It’s a better idea to have fun with it to illustrate to unconvinced onlookers just how bogus the charge of “antisemitism” always was and the ways it used to promote Jewish interests. For example, “Hate-Crime Alert: Pro-Jewish ethnic activist too intimidated to try getting his way by applying the time-honored accusation of antisemitism; settles for milquetoast characterization of ‘anti-Jewish.'”

    One more thing, many readers will be aware but others may not that the Israeli and Arab armies were numerically evenly matched in 1948. In terms of equipment, training and leadership, of course, Israel far surpassed anything the Arabs could put together at the time. So, far from being a ‘miraculous’ victory, the outcome was never in doubt. One can’t expect to hear the truth from anything calling itself the “Jewish Task Force” but it irks me hear these myths repeated all the same.

  5. Andrew
    Posted April 18, 2015 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Great essay. I particularly appreciate the pithy and actually profound observation that the Jewish view of Europeans is, “We don’t reason. We just ventilate our hatreds”. I thought the aforementioned Widlanski must be employing humor when he talked about the zoo and “lebensraum”, but apparently not. It is morbidly fascinating to read about a professor with multiple post-graduate degrees and a highly accomplished resume revealing his belief that Europeans are essentially mad dogs, frothing at the mouth with hate, on the verge of assailing the Jews (if only that were the case). I’m not sure if the product of Widlanski’s mental processing is moronic, or just filled with emotion: an intelligent mind wired very differently than the European mind, with a wire-trigger threat-system that alerts powerfully to non-ethnics. The response to a human threat-alert system involves the gray matter shutting off to a large extent, with the processing output consisting primarily of subconscious emotion along the lines of “emergency!”, “alert!” “enemies!” or for Tolkien’s hobbits, “Fire, fear, foes! Awake!” For the Jew among Europeans, there is little logic, long-term planning or rational cost vs risk calculations. The Jewish mind will always sense mortal danger and the processing output will be related to neutralizing the perceived threat. Therefore, rational discussion, gestures of friendship, gifts of resources, inclusion, appeasement, genuflection, etc. are all futile strategies in dealings between Europeans and Jews. The Jewish/European relationship truly is about “chasing the last European down”.

    • Proofreader
      Posted April 20, 2015 at 3:10 am | Permalink

      “It is morbidly fascinating to read about a professor with multiple post-graduate degrees and a highly accomplished resume revealing his belief that Europeans are essentially mad dogs, frothing at the mouth with hate, on the verge of assailing the Jews . . .”

      The Jews evidently regard the goyim as so many dumb brutes and feral animals. In the introduction to his book Gentile New York: The Images of Non-Jews among Jewish Immigrants (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012), the Jew Gil Ribak casually relates this outrageous story he heard from “a fellow graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison”:

      “In the late 1990s that student worked as a book clerk at a major midwestern trading institute. A managing director of a big financial firm, an American Jew, told the student that he was the smartest Gentile he had ever met, because he ‘did not drool on his shoes.’ Amused by the story, I at first thought that in a nutshell, it was the tale of successful Jewish integration into American society — only in blissful America at the turn of the twenty-first century could the Jewish minority attain such a level of acceptance and self-confidence in relation to the non-Jewish majority that Jews could make such an irreverent remark about Gentiles to their faces. In different countries and times there might have been harsh and even violent consequences had any Jew dared to make such comments in the presence of Gentiles.”

      Today, the abject behavior of Americans recalls Nikita Khrushchev’s remark: “The Americans? Why, you spit in their faces, and they think it’s dew.”

  6. Jaego
    Posted April 18, 2015 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    I too see the death of Marius as a tragedy – particularly at the hands of people who should be animal lovers and who cared for him. In broader terms, Whites are the most endangered Human race and our bureaucrats and elites have a similar mindset to those who served Marius. Eugenics is fine – but only in the context of compassion and human regard. Marius deserved to live even if they didn’t want to breed him. Marius was not just a tool or a thing, but a living being and thus an End in Himself.

  7. Hildesvin
    Posted April 18, 2015 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Oh, my friends, keep your gun powder dry.
    Nothing evil has happend.
    (Tel Aviv – such is life – this is a french-german pun, or a silly play on words…)

  8. Agenor
    Posted April 19, 2015 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    “Whether we should be happy about that or not is a separate issue.”

    How in the world could it be something not to be happy about? Lately I’ve noticed more and more vegans and vegetarians among nationalists in my country. It’s very encouraging and I hope it’s the same elsewhere.

    I understand where people are coming from who say “If only people cared as much about…” but it doesn’t make sense. 1. Unfortunately the people who care about issues like this are still not that many. 2. Why should they be held to a different standard? If they cared about nothing at all, like most people, then it would be better? No one ever says “If only people who don’t care about animals cared more about…”. 3. A good development is a good development. Bad or catastrophic developments that happen at the same time may overshadow everything else but that doesn’t make good things bad.

    Don’t attack people for doing something good in area X just because people – people in general – don’t do enough in area Y. By the way, most leftists don’t care at all about animals. All the time they whine about some Whites allegedly treating animals better than jews, immigrants, blacks, gypsies, criminals etc. Just a few days ago it was about Peta and Pamela Anderson serving food without meat (!!!) to prisoners with “anti-immigrant” (!!!) sheriff Arpaio. The sometimes heard idea that leftists are for animals rights is absurd, the only difference between them and conservatives is that the latter glorify animal killing a bit more and are more explicit because of judeo-christian “values”.

  9. New Right Thinker
    Posted May 25, 2015 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    They could of moved him to another zoo, shame.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace