Race and Ethnicity

Betrayal of the Discipline

by R.J. Jacob

Friedrich Nietzsche described the “free spirit” as one who takes his acquired positions, his instincts, his experiences, and holds them as foreground—stressing them, straining them, and discovering what they are made of. The free spirit requires a discipline of not “staking his heart” on ideas and concepts, for ideas and concepts merely assist us as “hostels for a night, which a wanderer needs and accepts,” and though one may be tempted to move into the most comfortable hostel, one must be wary of settling down.1

Nietzsche sought to see western man move away from the passive recede of concepts to become active in the creation of new concepts. This rejection of purifying and polishing concepts was not a call to ignore the western cannon, but a desire to see the individual cast off his snake skins, at which point, the individual creates new work without irony or moral condemnation—“the work of the pure free willed spirit.”2

In the late 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche spotted in Richard Wagner a hindrance in the upward development of the German spirit. For years, connected closely by shared desires and appreciations, Nietzsche considered Wagner as the consummate proto-Master, until the disappointing year of 1876, when all that Nietzsche had admired in Wagner had spoiled before his eyes.

Nietzsche believed that Wagner had transformed the spontaneity of music-creation into a studious duty of designing compositions to arouse, enrage, and teach Germans how to attain virtue. Adding to this, Nietzsche despised Wagner’s obsessive anti-Semitism, writing in his essay “Nietzsche contra Wagner,” “[Wagner] had condescended step by step to everything that I despise—even to anti-Semitism.”3 Nietzsche saw anti-Semitism as a weakness in man, a problem of honor and discipline in character. In terms of principle, the anti-Semites lacked cleanliness as a consequence of their excessive oppositions, which hampered the spiritual development toward a wonderfully artistic fight through modernity. Those who would fall short of relinquishing excessive oppositions and all its indignation—who would allow the dirt to gather on their brow—for Nietzsche, were unworthy of power and benevolence.

Certainly, hate and wrath are natural elements of man—and must not be denied. However, Nietzsche came to see the anti-Semites as the “latest speculators in idealism,” whose hatred had formed in connection to a highest moral imperative, which, as Nietzsche stressed, functioned as a Trojan Horse for herd values manifesting in a type of “Christian-Aryan-bourgeois manner.”4 Although Nietzsche believed the Germans were somewhat strong, he observed that they were narrowly fixated on duty rather than instinct. Nietzsche believed the anti-Semites would self-contaminate with a certain self-confidence in the “right road,” eventually and unknowingly acclimatizing men into even “narrower values.”5 When it becomes about duty, the individual devotes his entire existence to a “highest good” (the “truth” and welfare of the “Aryan race”) and becomes more objective, more referential, more dogmatic, and thus retires from the pursuit of knowledge.

For Nietzsche, nothing could be worse, for this, is a betrayal of the discipline.

Unlike the Romans, the New Right attempts to create virtue out of their own oppressed condition. In the case of German Nationalism, which overlapped considerately with Christianity (as does the New Right), the powerlessness of the Germans grew into herd hatred—similar to the slave hatred of the Jews under the Romans. Likewise, the New Right has developed itself in opposition to “international Jewry” to the highest degree, showing pity to all whites and naming “the Jew” as the primary cause for the decline of the white race. As a result, the New Right has absorbed into its ideology an obsessive anti-Semitism which functions in contradiction with its own aristocratic goals.

Nietzsche in all his work warned of theorems and ideals that speak of duty to justify the “highest feelings,” as an attempt to escape nihilism through the highest ideal, producing the opposite, and making the problem more problematic.6 Nietzsche regarded the anti-Semites as “the foremost moral bigmouth today,” a product of an “attitudinized morality,” which should not be confused with aristocratic virtue.7 For Nietzsche, this attitudinized morality is one that makes “weakness” appear as strength, dressing morality as duty, or as my comrade MRDA describes it, “hiding behind the apron strings of morality.” Such duty is fixed with an inability to forgo one’s own assumptions, whereby instinct and spontaneity is falsified—and newer, future movements still appear strong under false names and valuations.8 Nietzsche argued that this morality was deeply rooted in a psychological conviction of faith, that “convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies,” and “an ‘anti-Semite’ surely does not become more respectable because he lies on principle . . . conviction, which is to say, of a falsehood that becomes a matter of principle because it serves a purpose, have borrowed from the Jews.”9

Instinctive individuals do not make appeals to grand systems in order to logically deduce what is thought by “White Nationalism” of what the individual ought to do. The strong, act out of instinct, not, out of duty. This duty-based discourse is a barefaced break from the aristocratic spirit in which groups of individuals progress through herdification rather than hierarchicalization. People of the New Right, for instance, come together through powerlessness and herd-instinct, united in social solidarity, thereby positing a whimsical whitopia for an entire race—in addition to a few worthy points of honor. For Nietzsche, this is the meal of a flock, preparing to lose its teeth, as there are too many sheep who would lose their joy if such a “duty” were taken from them.10

Nietzsche noted that what distinguished himself “above” the men of fatherlands was his strict possession of disciplina voluntatis: the ability to train one’s self. More, Nietzsche believed that a deep love for an entire nation (or race, or the world) is a “love falsified as surrender (and altruism), while only the most complete persons can love,” whereas mediocre minds (a following, group, nation, or movement) who take their morality too seriously always become the “worst lovers.” This applies not only to love of God, but as Nietzsche stated explicitly, “also to love of ‘fatherland.'”11 

It is important to understand that Nietzsche rejected the glorification of a “nation as a whole,” as a “lie,” and an illusion.12 Nietzsche believed that the unique strength of man is only that of a few. More importantly, Nietzsche argued that strict attachments to the so called nation prevent the individual from being firmly rooted in the ego—eradicating the advancement of the nation’s strongest individuals (egoism as egomorphism, altruism as alter-ation).13 Nietzsche wrote:

I am interested only in the relations of a people to the rearing of the individual man, and among the Greeks the conditions were unusually favourable for the development of the individual; not by any means owing to the goodness of the people, but because of the struggles of their evil instincts.14

For this and other reasons, individuals with the potential for greatness must guard from the collective intoxication, for which disregarding is to deny the will to power and to degenerate into herdification. Also, and essentially, the individual must recognize social solidarity as the strongest herd virtue. Nietzsche actually developed his concept of the Übermensch following his assessment of modern European Nationalism and the ways in which the nation suppressed the potential of the individual to fully develop under a cultural mandate to conform.

Instead of learning to rear the individual, the White Nationalists have inherited all the trappings of previous variations of European Nationalism, and if anything, more closely resemble the Phariseeism of those who best pose as “noble indignation.”15 Pretexts for revenge in men of extreme resentment who attempt to teach truths to a people, in time, eliminate the charm of rareness, originality, specialness and unaverageness from its virtue—“removing its individualistic and aristocratic magic.”16 As Nietzsche best put it, “it’s as if they assume values were inherent in things and all one had to do was grasp them!”17

Already we find that no skeptic, no critic, and no free spirit are permitted to speak without conforming to the sacred duty. In the past, I’ve criticized the noise, labels, tactics, strategies, analytical approach, and ends of the White Nationalists, and in doing so, have been called “ignorant,” “idiot,” “stupid,” “jocksniffer,” “probably a Jew,” and much else. Nietzsche regarded the skeptic as “respectable but rare,” possessing the ability to challenge all inherited concepts whereas groups with the highest feelings merely balk, bark, or bully the exception.18 Nietzsche asked himself, “is it likely that a tool is able to criticize its own fitness?”19

Nietzsche was a man who battled the Jews at the highest level of war, yet he was a man of the highest war-like spirit. Nietzsche was no fan of the Jews but greatly admired their energy, “higher intelligence,” capital, and silence which, according to Nietzsche, was “accumulated from generation to generation in the long school of their suffering.”20 Of course Nietzsche considered the ways in which the Jews had attained power to be the most preposterous, insidious, cowardly, and anti-biological achievement in recorded history (Christianity, liberalism, socialism, etc.) Nonetheless, Nietzsche recognized that the Jews had awakened the “envy and hatred” of inferior and powerless men, placing the blood lust of the herd on the backs of all Jews as scapegoats for every conceivable public and private misfortune.21

Interestingly, Nietzsche contemplated the thought of whether the Jews “wanted” to exercise power, and noted that “if they were forced into it, which seems to be what the anti-Semites want—could even now have preponderance, indeed quite literally mastery over Europe.”22 Now, more than one hundred years later, Nietzsche’s prediction of the Jews as a distinct race capable of taking over Europe in response to the hostility of the anti-Semites has been borne out quite well.

While Nietzsche made numerous attempts to reveal the boyish buffoonery of anti-Semitism to his fellow Europeans, he ultimately failed, describing his writings as “completely buried and unexhumeable in this anti-Semitic dump.”23 Nietzsche even cut ties with his publisher Ernst Schmeitzner to fund and release “Beyond Good and Evil” out of his own pockets, and later moved to issue second editions of his earlier works as an attempt to exonerate his legacy by distancing himself from the anti-Semites. By doing so, Nietzsche hoped that a worthy readership would one day emerge.

At times, I tend to return to Nietzsche’s personal letters—particularly those written during his later years, when he was lonely, short on money, and wounded in friendships. He found himself battling a mountain of melancholy upon discovering that his sister had degenerated into anti-Semitism and broke from his discipline. Nietzsche was surrounded by the Nationalist current, at which point, had become “three-quarters rotten” in his eyes, while the German women—including his sister—had lost their youth and beauty to excessive oppositions.24 In the same vein, I too find myself surrounded by a collection of scapegoat factories run by dandies and little bitches who specialize in supplanting white failure. And though I’ve held my temper to remain in amity and have unleashed the least of my wrath in this essay, it stands to reason that the anti-Semites will resent these observations and brush me out for penning this piece—a testament to their slaphappy behavior.

It must be acknowledged that the longing for self-mastery over one’s instincts and passions can not be achieved through the anti-Semitic picture. Although some individuals of the New Right are decent, the general weight of the movement belongs to the infinite regress backward. As I see it, White Nationalism is a strange occurrence in which the conditions of powerlessness and meaningless dupe its thinkers into assuming that nothing can be more important than race and virtue.

I predict that any original, fresh and dynamic ideas surrounding White Nationalism will originate in the minds of loosely associated thinkers who are not terribly fixated on race, duty and oppositions. The rest will serve as bus boys and bonafide morons of duty-based discourse. There is the possibility that a heretical sect of the alternative right emerges, but as of now, the New Right remains a giant question mark.

These criticisms of White Nationalism and the New Right may be difficult to see at the moment, but can be expected to become more apparent as its irreverent approach becomes more visible and more evident in time. We, freer spirits, must recognize that the creative element of the free spirit to recreate the re-conceptualized thinker is a consequence of the ability to shed one’s inherited ideas. Ultimately, the new thinker must be a destroyer, not a refiner.

We find ourselves at a moment in history when the ability to create new systems of thought has nearly become extinct. Nietzsche’s assessment in everything he has ever written was an attempt to make way for an oppositional force in defense of instinct and Hellenic thought, and more specifically, against all systems of moral valuation and moral judgement. If Nietzsche’s acquisition for power is correct—instinct will triumph. The question arises: what might such an oppositional force look like? Men of instinct, who can see what follows from a distance—what might those individuals look like?



1. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, translated by R.J. Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann [y4 iVew edition], Random House, 1967, [132 (1885)]

2. Will to Power, 80: 132 (1885)

3. Friedrich Nietzsche, Nietzsche contra Wagner, How I Got Rid Of Wagner, translated by Thomas Common and Walter Kaufmann, 1895, pg. 74

4. Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, translated by Walter Kaufmann, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1989, pg. 158

5. Will to Power, 113: (1883-1888) 70

6. Will to Power, 28 {Spring-Fall 1887)

7. Genealogy and Ecce, pg. 124

8. Will to Power, 1007 {Spring-Fall 1887)

9. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, translated by H. L. Mencken, the Vail-Ballou Press, 1923, pg. 157

10. Will to Power, 1009 (Spring-Fall 1887)

11. The Will to Power, Book Two, 167

12. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, translated by Thomas Common, The Pennsylvania State University, 1999, page 7

13. Will to Power, book two, 5., 167

14. Zarathustra, pg. 7

15. Genealogy and Ecce pg. 123

16. Will to Power, 317 (Spring-Fall 1887; rev, Spring-Fall 1888).

17. Will to power: 422 (1885)

18. Will to Power, book two: 223 – 414 (Jan.-Fall 1888) 121

19. Will to Power, 410 (1885-1886) For the Preface 120

20. Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, translated by Helen Zimmern, 1909, pg. 475

21. Human, pg. 475

22. Friedrich Nietzsche, Basic Writings of Nietzsche, Edited and translated by Walter Kaufmann, Random House Digital, Inc, 2000, pg. 378

23. The Nietzsche Channel, Correspondents

24. Friedrich Nietzsche, Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche, Translated by Anthony Mario Ludovici, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1921, pg. 180

22 replies »

  1. Every day I seem to like Nietzsche even more. It seems that what he despised is more and more what is wrong with the world today. That was written as if I have a simple answer, and like Nietzsche I do not. I can only see what I feel is wrong. In this, he is right. By seeing and understanding what is wrong, what is left must be right? What is left is the individual and individual substantiation of right and wrong. I’m still reading but that is how I see it.

  2. A duty based morality isn’t “herd instinct.” I consider this as a Western bias. Some societies simply have a stronger instinct towards a sense of duty, while other societies are more inclined towards individuality.

    India, China, Japan and Islamic civilization held duty as an ideal and these civilizations are no less aristocratic or noble simply because Nietzsche said so.

    As for Nietzsche, let us not jump into the conclusion that he supported “free spirits.” He had a few nasty things to say about the skeptics of 19th century Europe. He also had a lot of nasty things to say about Socrates, who is arguably one of the most popular heroes of people who believe in free speech and critical thinking.

  3. This is a timely comment. I fear that the “new right” is in danger of being co-opted by the same tendencies which doomed the “old right” and perverted the great nationalist impulses prior to the Great War in Europe. For too long the right has been crushed under the dead weight of lazy minded arrogant fools who believed their analysis to be unquestionable even whilst it was questioned by everyone other than themselves.

    The world does not give a fuck what your great grandfather did, or thought. You may be correct in saying this society is rotten to the core, but that does not mean the solutions you picked up from dead German charlatans, which didn’t work even for them, have to be borne; and they won’t be.

    We need a war on the right, The only force which has been proven capable of moving nations can not be tolerated to be left in the hands of the senseless savages which have occupied its ruins for the last seven decades.

  4. there are almost certainly much more racist/homophobic articles than this on this fascist open sore of a webpage, but I have not read them yet

  5. Not being particularly familiar with 19th century Euro/Jewish relations, and never having figured out exactly what Nietzsche was getting at in his commentary on the subject, I trust that the evaluation here is accurate.

    Besides, it is undeniable that Jew-critique today often contains the desire for idealisms often nostalgic/regressive and reeking of innate “duties”

    However, today much of the ideological and idealistic spooks which permeate our culture are linked to the Jewish population, The Jewish narrative is in many ways the religion which so many of us in the Anglosphere, and perhaps the “West” in general, have been brought up under. There are many elements of this which can appear as the most immediate and powerful beliefs to be dismissed, or even destroyed, by the iconoclast or the man of liberated will.

    Rejection of being equally or more concerned about Jewish well-being than the well-being of those closer to yourself often does have tribal loyalties or duties coming along for the ride, but it need not and it in fact does not always get packaged so.

    Opposition to ‘anti-semitism’-sniffing likewise need not and does not always bring an alternate system of heretic-hunting as part of the package.

    In the USSR, anti-communism was an advisable attitude in pursuit of political freedom, at the same time in the US, anti-anti-communism was perhaps more proper.

    Likewise, while skepticism or opposition to ‘anti-semitism’ may have been properly indicated for the willful seeker in times past, it seems that today skepticism, critique, and even opposition to anti-‘anti-semitism’ addresses the more pressing concerns.

    • blackacidlizzard,

      One need not be a professional anti-Semite to attack Jewish power (see Justin Raimondo, Steve Pieczenik, John Mearsheimer, James Petras, Nietzsche, etc.). The hardcore anti-Semites undermine the effort to bring these issues into public view because they feed the stereotype that any and all critics of Israel and Jewish power are Nazi maniacs. I mean we’ve criticized PC and Jewish Zionism to the point of our intestines exploding. So, we get it. But the anti-Semites are no different from the leftists who reduce everything to the “capitalist problem,” or black people who reduce everything to “the White Man,” or anarchists who reduce everything to “the state.”

      • Of course there is rampant over-simplification and puerile polemicism in all ideological circles, and even a cursory glance at Jew-watching circles reveals many facepalm-worthy gems.

        But as you point out, there is truth in all the critiques you mention.

        States have a lesser degree of societal pressure against them when it comes to the use of violence, this makes violence a more readily used tool when there are states.

        The high liquidity of capital in a “capitalist” economic system makes unsustainable ventures, and even loot-and-scoot operations more profitable to those who command the capital.

        The “White Man” dominates the globe militarily. It is indeed not just a matter of White “elites,” the enforcers of the often imperialistic (and always violent) programs are the great unwashed White masses.


        I do not believe most claims of “this makes x group look bad.”

        Does Afrocentric historical revisionism “make Blacks look bad”? Only to those who are already nursing a grudge against Black identity politics. Most will say: “But look at Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell.”

        Does Alan Dershowitz nearly foaming at the mouth and denouncing Noam Chomsky (known for casting doubt upon the numbers claimed for many officially recognized ‘atrocities) as an anti-semite for stating no position on the accuracy of the historical account of the Holocaust “make Jews look bad”? Only to those already Jew-weary. Most will say: But look at Norman Finklestien, or Noam Chomsky himself.”

        Likewise, it is not irrational rhetoric, ridiculous claims, or even violent action by ‘anti-semites’ which “makes critics of Jewish power look bad,” It is simply the fact that people are repeatedly called bad for critiquing Jewish power. This is the reason the above individualist stances get thrown so far they achieve orbit, and a Justin Raimondo is more likely to be compared to the murderers of Allan Berg than a William Pierce is to be downplayed as not representative of anti-zionist thought, because, after all, “What about Gilad Atzmon?”

        Long personal examination of my fellow man has lead me to the conclusion that within the heads of most people, it is the words of cultural dogma (including the dogma of marginalized subcultures, of course) which speak louder than any action, any empirical evidence, any chain of logic. An hour of contemplation upon the fact that the pervasive PC claim echoed from every TV, newspaper, community college, and obnoxious 20-40something regurgitation-pontificator is that all of society has strong bias against everything PC should expose the epistemological foundations of the typical man. (I say “an hour should be enough,” having taken close to two decades to figure it out myself, dumbass that I am)

        • Correct.

          My claim is that this is not because of acts or speech by “fascists” or “anti-semites,” but because calling people “fascist” and “anti-semitic” for merely mentioning Jewish power is common practice.

          Christian heretics do not denounce the established church as false because they have had a revelation of true Christianity which the church is defying, they do so because the claim of “true Christianity” and denunciation of opponents within Christianity as teachers of false doctrine is commonplace.

          The US soldier does not hate “terrorists” because of his evaluation of their tactics, but because he has been told that they are bad (while he, of course is not a terrorist, but a “soldier,” and non-combatants he kills are at best “unfortunate necessities,” but often enough simply “fucking haji pieces of shit,” NEVER “innocent victims murdered by cowardly fanatics”)

          • So it seems the pertinent variable is not the makeup of the demonized group or any part of it, but simply the level of success of the demonizing group.

            And it seems to me that treating the situation as if the former is the case can have some benefits – there is something to be said for raising one’s own standards above those of others – but as a general policy it leads to acquiescence to whatever person or group can spin the paradigms that make the whole world follow.

  6. It’s not really helpful, or accurate, to describe the elite orthodoxy of Western societies as “Jewish”. Sure there is a case that the extensive Christian legacy within Western thought could be described as “Judaic”, but there is an equally good one that says after by the time of the Industrial period’s beginnings Christianity had been “Europeanised”. To describe liberalism or Marxism or socialism or any of the other “isms” of the modern age as Jewish is, at best, misleading. If the most salient criticism a person has of this or that if that is “it’s Jewish” you can be fairly certain that you’re not dealing with someone about to say something interesting.

    Sure, wherever you find people overly concerned with racism and anti Semitism you are almost certain to find a dull minded conformist or an outright idiot. However, equally, anti Semites and racists themselves are not usually exactly overburdened with intelligence.

    The Jewish population of the UK has halved since 1945, the only ethnic minority to have contracted as an element of the population. The simple reason for that is that the same factors which have crippled the indigenous population have decimated the Jewish, to an even greater extent in fact. To therefore blame them for developing these concepts as a weapon against the indigenous population of the West is therefore really fucking stupid.

    • 1. To assume that weapons never have unintended consequences is what is “really fucking stupid.”

      2. To read any illustration of group tendencies as assertions of willful, premeditated conspiracy is not much brighter. Most Jews (and non-Jews) who participate as actors pushing these trends are no more “crafting weapons to destroy western civilization” than birds are “choreographing ‘V’ flight formations”

      We all know “six million” by heart, and for at least the fifth time I just had to go and look up “four-hundred thousand,” because I can never remember it.

      The great iconic irredeemable evil in our culture is: That which killed the most people? That which killed the most of “our” people (however defined)? No, it is that which is the symbolic foe of who? Oh, yeah, those guys, the ones who don’t set the cultural tone, nope, not at all.

      What foreign land is endlessly talked about from every English-language news, punditry, or entertainment source? What a shock.


      The 21st century White, English-speaking world is unquestionably saturated with Judeocentric paradigms and Judeo-obsessive babble. Do note that I did not mention “Christianity,” “Liberalism,” or “Marxism” in either of these posts.

  7. I don’t see these concepts as “weapons” to be used with the deliberate aim of destroying cultures and races; I used that term because that is how they are conceived by the kind of people who want to move responsibility for the situation of Western cultures to someone else, preferably Jews.

    The fact is that even if these concepts are based in Judaic culture, and I think that is debatable at least, then Western cultures must have had a predisposition towards them for them to be so successful. My view is that ideas and value sets like liberalism, Marxism, fascism, capitalism (in their modern form)and all the rest of the political ideologies of the Industrial age are emergent within the environment created by the process of industrialisation. No Jew required.

    This theory would explain why Jewish culture, the only other to have been exposed to the same environment for the same length of time, exhibits the same symptoms as those we observe in Western cultures. Indeed it would explain, since Jewish culture is more bourgeoisie and more urbanised, why Jewish population have suffered even more from the effects than indigenous Western populations. Creating, for some, the illusion that it is the Jews themselves which are the source of these phenomenon rather than victims of them.

    The idea that the current intellectual and physical condition of Western culture is entirely the product of Jewish thought or action is about the most insulting and depressing argument that could be advanced with regard to the merits of Westerners. After all, how dumb would they have to be to have a tiny and not particularly popular group foist an entire paradigm on them? If that was indeed what happened how could anyone arrive at any other conclusion than that such a population, capable of being so weak, neither deserved or had any realistic prospect of survival?

    How many people have been killed in the name of this or that ideology is totally irrelevant to its merits as an intellectual proposition. However your implication is that the extent of the body count of the Holocaust is the primary motive for the rise of PC and the mindset it represents. I would suggest this is a fallacious argument. Examples of “PC” thinking are abundant prior to WW2 and its proposals are not based any particular historical event, even if some like to use certain historical events to promote them.

    One of the reasons that the radical right, and even the right generally, has failed so completely in the post war West is that it has utterly failed to identify or challenge the intellectual basis of elite orthodoxy. Focusing on the narrative you imply here instead, that the development of the intellectual landscape of the contemporary West in entirely driven as a reaction to historical events which have either been exaggerated or entirely fabricated. That’s eight different types of wrong right there.

    • You seem to be arguing with some position which may or may not be mine, and your characterization of this position, whatever it may be, is not an accurate characterization of mine. One quick illustration:

      “much of the ideological and idealistic spooks which permeate our culture are linked to the Jewish population”

      -Translation: many of the popular ideas and which are bad because they are are inaccurate perceptions of reality with the potential to lead to unwise action have a link to Jews

      “the most salient criticism a person has of this or that if that is ‘it’s Jewish'”

      -Translation: I am going to act as if you said that these unnamed “spooks” are bad BECAUSE they are linked to Jews, in the finest internet false-accusation-of-formal-fallacy tradition.

      And most of this post I am replying to is more of the same, so I’ll end it here rather than being even more redundant than I have been.

  8. BAL, In my experience, which is fairly extensive in this area, a discussion about Jewish influence in Western societies is rarely particularly illuminating. It’s a little like remarking on the paint job of the tank running you over.

    • “In my experience … a discussion about Jewish influence in Western societies is rarely particularly illuminating”

      Naturally. I had no illuminating discussions about socialism until I stopped endlessly repeating that a lack of material incentive harms productivity.

  9. If the most salient criticism a person has of this or that if that is “it’s Jewish” you can be fairly certain that you’re not dealing with someone about to say something interesting.

    Until it is a Jew extolled by Jewish media for “writing a book” (for every Jew a book. Oi vey! I had a feeling! I’m writing a book!) about how something is actually rooted in Judaism, or the Torah, or some “novel” interpretation of the Holocaust.

    But when I tell someone (that has never heard it before) that the media, the cosmetics industry, the fashion industry, the NAACP, rap music, international finance, the publishing industry, Hollywood, etc., etc. etc. is all controlled and/or dominated by Jews it isn’t interesting? What fucking planet are you from? Planet Ohjews*yawn*that’snotinteresting?

    Yes. “The” Jews didn’t get us here. We got ourselves here for being weak. But, as the author seems to indicate, we cannot be condemned for doing whatever is required to break our shackles. There might have been many more causes than just the Jew but there is only one way out and that is thru the Jew and if we have to use resentment, ideology, and herd mentality so be it. If we have to use new and interesting forms of terrorism so be it.

  10. Good article, but please don’t use the term “New Right” to describe these people. The actual New Right, which started in France and still flourishes in Europe, has never had anything to do with racial anti-Semitism. It’s only those who have unfortunately misappropriated the same name, using it as a cover for the same outmoded ideas, in the English speaking-world.

Leave a Reply to blackacidlizzard Cancel reply