With the Democratic and Republican primary contests all but settled, any day now we expect some sort of dramatic and Hillarious farce-off between Trump and the Evita du jour. As entertaining as this might be, we’d much prefer a sincere campaign dialogue. But really, isn’t this the way it has always been, in American national politics? This year’s theatrics may be nothing more or less than the usual ballet around distractionary wedge issues and other trumpery, all veiling the usual hidden agendas of the elite. Or perhaps this represents another stage in the ongoing globalist degradation of the US government? But, rather than turning to despair, we intend to use the Trump vs. Hillary reality show as an entrée ‘door of perception’ to examine the dark Romantic underbelly of racism in Western and American culture. It’s all part of the larger tableau of Western society, with its central false dialectic cynically built upon the trope of anti-Judaism.
Origins of Multiculturalism and Feminism
In view of the current state of affairs, we feel we must begin with a history and defense of the standard that we use to judge current events. Our yardstick was defined during the Enlightenment, and codified in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution. That is:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As further explained in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789):
Article IV – Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.
Article V – The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.
Article VI – The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation. It must be the same for all, either that it protects, or that it punishes. All the citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents.
As former Libertarians, and now reformed libertarians, your authors still generally hold to these ideals. But of course, when these words “all men are created equal” were first written, the phrase “all men” meant, literally, only white males with sufficient property. This came about because the American Founding Fathers held a great admiration for the Roman Republic — whose senators, at least, were from great families whose agrarian estates could be traced back to colonial conquest. It was thought that only such solid and dignified men, with assets at stake, could be trusted to act responsibly on behalf of the greater good (and, incidentally, to maintain their own great fortunes as well.) This, because their culture told them so.
It was not long before this conditional aspect was ironically pointed out. In 1791, a French women’s rights activist by the name of Olympe de Gouges wrote the Declaration of Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen, and was sent straight to the guillotine for it. But ever since then, those words all the citizens have been sanctified by our culture. White women and people of all other races and of every economic station, heard and still hear these words and interpret them in their own hopeful light. Obviously, the guillotine was a bloody cold-shoulder reaction to such a cheeky cultural assertion. But this type of harsh pushback is exactly the meaning of the term ‘reactionary’. In a perceived zero-sum game, the chosen ones must somehow conserve their elevated status.
The American Constitution also provided some means for the underlings to seek to improve their lot. Conditional and tentative, to be sure. Constitutional freedom of speech has its limits if you need to keep your job. At election time, blacks and women couldn’t vote, even though blacks were at least considered as three fifths of a person. But this was not for slaves’ benefit, but rather to benefit the Southern slave states in terms of holding political parity with the Northern … uhm slave states. (In the North, slavery was being gradually phased out. In many states, the children of slaves were free, but adult slaves were slaves for life. New York didn’t begin this process until 1799, and the last slave in Pennsylvania was freed in 1847.) At any rate, one could always hope that the ‘liberal’ white male voters would at least occasionally vote against their own perceived self-interest.
The complexity of the federal/state system provided some avenues for activism, as the states supposedly held back the powers not enumerated for the central government, as discussed in Michael Maharrey’s Our Last Hope. This came into play when at least some of those ‘liberal’ white citizens were outraged by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which compelled Northerners to act as unpaid slave catchers for Southern estates; and by the infamous Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court of 1858, which stated that blacks were “a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race”. Perhaps, viewing the matter cynically, the Northern ‘liberals’ could afford their generous attitude because the Northern economy didn’t really need slaves nearly as much. But for whatever reason, it was the Northern white citizens who first rebelled against the Fugitive Slave Act, creating the Underground Railroad to take fugitive slaves away to Canada. In 1854, for example, Sherman Booth of the Milwaukee Free Democrat newspaper organized a crowd of 3,000 to 5,000 citizens for the purpose of freeing a runaway named Joshua Glover from prison. Booth wrote: “Citizens of Milwaukee! Shall we have Star Chamber proceedings here? And shall a man be dragged back to Slavery from our Free Soil, without an open trial of his right to Liberty?” As a result, Glover escaped to freedom in Canada, but Booth was in and out of Federal prison until 1861.
The women’s rights and women’s suffrage movement was a kindred spirit to the abolitionist movement in the 1850’s, and they contributed support to each other. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment of 1868 granted citizenship to blacks, but in 1875 the Supreme Court decided that “all persons” still did not include women, at least not when it came to the “equal protection” that would be provided by the right to vote. Women turned to a campaign in the states and territories, winning the vote in Wyoming in 1869, Utah in 1870, Colorado in 1893, and Idaho in 1896. After a backlash and a process of regrouping, Washington and California granted women’s suffrage in 1910 and 1911 respectively. After that, more states gradually granted the vote for women, and in 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified.
Objections to Race Nationalism
Our motive for reviewing this history, is to point out that these great ideals are irreconcilably opposed to both the rhetorical Race Nationalist politics of Donald Trump, and the long-running ‘neocon’ interventionist politics of Hillary Clinton. We consider both of these as two sides of the same ‘corporatist’ coin, with the difference that Trump focuses primarily on internal ‘enemies’ of white America, while Hillary and the Neocons direct their hatred (as well as bombing raids) towards external nonwhite enemies.
Although Trump and Hillary have wrapped up their nominations, their poll numbers across a broad spectrum of Americans are pretty poor. Most of those who will vote for either one, will be doing so in capitulative desperation about the other. The situation is resulting in some ironic crossings of traditional party lines, such as the recent (sincere?) announcement by the Koch brothers that they may have to go with Hillary. The Koch brothers have a long history of supporting the Libertarian Party, with David having even bought himself a VP position on the 1980 Presidential ticket behind Ed Clark. But more recently they have become major funders for the (Loose) Tea Party. While the Libertarians are very tolerant with respect to social issues such as drug legalization, abortion, and gay marriage, the early Tea Party organizers refused to take any position on such social issues, “for the sake of unity.” As a result, polls indicate that the Tea Party electorate are very conservative in regards to such cultural norms, although Libertarians and Tea Party activists still share fiscal goals. Thus, the Kochs have made a hash of the Libertarian’s social paradigm of “Do What thou Wilt, as long as you cause no harm”. Trump, meanwhile, has made a hash of the fiscal map in his campaign, with some of his positions quite liberal. And now the Kochs are stating that they will not eat The Donald’s brand of hash. Is this because Trump’s racist posturing is a bridge too far, or is it because they don’t trust him to reduce taxes on the wealthy? Whichever hash you choose, it came from the glue factory.
‘Cucktea party’, say what? Read on.
Sadly, we must admit that the ideal of multiculturalism flies in the face of perhaps a hundred thousand or more years of human evolution. Until relatively recently, most people lived in small villages made up of fairly close cousins. And as the “Human Biological Diversity” blogosphere insists, there are very real differences among the different races, along many dimensions. Men and women are also highly evolved for the gender-specific roles that they took on in primitive societies. For all these reasons, living up to multicultural and feminist ideals is not easy. Pushing too hard and too fast can and does lead to disaster, and this is an important factor for Trump’s grassroots support. Cities such as Los Angeles seem to be well on the way to being overwhelmed by the immigration of massive numbers of impoverished, mostly poorly educated foreigners who might harbor murderous intentions for jihad and/or the reconquest of Aztlan.
Like the Constitution, multiculturalism is not a suicide pact. There are limits to the degree to which any society can accommodate immigration flows, and integrate the newcomers into the existing political, social and economic system. Because of these difficulties, some intellectuals have taken to criticizing multicultural and feminist ideals as if they were invented in the mid-twentieth century by Postmodernists and/or the Frankfurt school, which is far from the truth of the matter. We will return to this issue later in this essay.
However, as is so often the case, reasonable solutions to these concerns are drowned in extremist dialectic. Trump’s apparent rhetoric appeals especially to fears of Islamic terrorists, and Obama only fans the flame with his plan to import 10,000 refugees from the Syrian civil war, at tremendous public expense. In this way, Trump’s popularity feeds on the fiasco created overseas by the Neocons, which increases the pressure to accommodate the flood of displaced refugees. The policies of Latin America’s neo-colonialist elite are another contributing factor. The problems with Mexico are the pretext for the most dramatic aspect of Trump’s immigration policy, which is his call for mass deportation of an estimated 11 million undocumented residents. In fact, many of these ‘illegal aliens’ have been here for many years or even decades, and some play an important role in the American economy. These are not mostly Islamic, but rather they are predominantly Chicanos from Central and South America. That is to say, their genetic makeup is anywhere from 30% to 60% Native American. By any rational standard, they have as much right to be here as anyone of European descent. (That is, unless you consider exclusion by cultural or biblical Providence to be a rational standard.) And even among the refugee immigrant groups with perceived highest levels of risk, actual incidents of terrorism or jihad are practically unheard of.
Here we also note that even before the Revolutionary War, America was multiculturally seeded from the start with a broad assortment of sectarian theocratic cults of various nationalities, the introduction of race based slaves, and …. women, aka WITCHES. Aaargh!! It was a witch’s brew and not merely a ‘melting pot’ as we were always led to believe by our cultural framers. Who let these people in, we ask? All humor aside, this question is critically important. For whatever reason, this has been our American fate to deal with this type of situation, right from the beginning. As difficult as the challenge may be, we feel strongly that we must continue to advocate democratic rights for all people, including those of all races, creeds and genders — otherwise we might as well just give up and accept the arrival of technocratic feudalism.
This conclusion also inevitably follows from a careful consideration of the practical implications of the alternative posed by Trump, or at least from that of his more extreme acolytes; that is, striving for the goal of achieving separate and pure race based nations. Admittedly, a few such nations claim to exist already, such as Israel– if it weren’t for the problem of those pesky Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. Like Trump recommends for America, they are building walls to keep the racially pure Ashkenazi (that is, biblically Gomeric Caucasians) inside, and the Palestinians (that is, Semites) out. This would logically be considered anti-Semitic, but who needs logic. And from a practical standpoint, recent history seems to show, as well, that the Palestinians have been learning how to build tunnels, like the Mexicans have.
But the real problems start when people use airplanes, ships, or motorcars to move from one race nation to another. Once people are in, even legally, some might opt to stay beyond their visas, as has been pointed out to Mr. Trump. How shall this be prevented? Papers, please, at every checkpoint? Or better still, everyone could just be chipped. If we go with this techno-fix, maybe we won’t even need walls. But what shall we do about the younger generation? Kids being as they are, cross-racial hookups of various fashions will happen, as they have for thousands of years. Each time another “cross-breed” is born, do we need a new nation to accommodate that person’s mixed heritage, as unique as it is? This would bring new meaning to the term ‘subdivision’.
And as everyone knows, pure nation-states must be pure not only racially, but also culturally and spiritually. So what are we to do with white rappers (aka wiggers), or Native Americans who study Japanese martial arts, or Muslims who join either the Rastafarian or Pastafarian Churches? Do we need still more Pure Nations, or shall we just throw the miscreants in jail, or the .. ‘poor prison’ (poor as in: ‘not Pure’), to protect the purity of their respective homelands? Maybe guillotines or a gift of typhoid infected blankets would be a better form of tough love? More cost effective in any case.
Our inside sources inform us that allocation of these race nation boundaries will be determined by the combined outcomes of three-legged sack races and wife tossing contests. The definition of “three-legged” is purposely ambiguous, so as to give the noblest and ‘fairest’ race (wink, wink) a leg up, so to speak. It’s only ‘fair’. And we hear that Antarctica is warming up these days, if any race is interested in opting out of the contests in favor of a providential land grab.
Hmmm, but if we have such race nations, where then will get our next literal or virtual slaves from? That is, in order to keep our economies perking along as we have come to expect. Even Trump himself is known to find those of other races and creeds useful as low-cost hired help, but what will he and other business moguls do when that option is foreclosed? It seems to us that each of these race nations will either have to dedicate some of their own race to slavery, or make old school incursions into the other race nations, thus providing a new contextual and providential meaning for ‘off-shoring’. After all, God helps those who help themselves.
And, recognizing the many substantive differences between men and women, isn’t it obvious that the two genders are going to need separate nations? Right-wing “Machos Going Their Own Way” (that is, MGTOW’s) are in the vanguard here: they know that sleeping with the enemy involves loose lips, which leads inevitably to sunken ships.
Letting Koch Cuck Your Nestegg?
Emboldened by Trump’s success, some of his supporters have become increasingly strident in their denunciation of multicultural and related ‘establishment’ political values. Their political language is often vulgarly provocative, denouncing their opponents as “libtards” or “cuckservatives”. The latter meme, being applied to ‘politically correct’ moderate Republicans these days, is derived from the notorious practice of the cuckoo bird. This bird is famous for placing its eggs in the nests of other bird species, so as to let them be the unpaid nannies for the new cuckoo chicks. Applied narrowly to humans, the insult darkly hints at an existential threat to our White posterity, as our men are being cheated on and/or our women are being stolen by foreigners and their fellow travelers. The metaphor is more widely applied to any supposed deviation from the White Nationalist political and cultural ideals. But their own meme of “limited government”, which in our view is looking more like a desire to “end all American government”, is (as such) just another cuckoo egg. If the hatchling ever grows up, it will be an uber-Randian dis-Utopia for the oligarchic likes of the uber-Catholic Koch brothers.
‘Cuck’-calling, and similar other practices, have effectively swept moderate Republicans from the political arena. Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich’s documentary, Inequality for All, includes a remarkable lament over this purge by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (WY). The Clintons have similarly cucked the Left spectrum rightward, infusing their historical corporatism into the nests of such as the feminists and old school progressives.
For that matter, Trump’s appeal to Tea Partiers and some Libertarians only serves to underscore the bankruptcy of such core wedge constructs as ‘Right’ vs. ‘Left’, and Liberal vs. Conservative, at least in the American context. There is a collective process of ‘forgetting’, leaving a vacuum which is then filled with clever political divisiveness to further cloud our minds. This has left the American polity in a confused and tangled mess, easily fooled into voting against their best interests. This also applies to both Democrats and Republicans, who have been tricked into nominating the likes of Hillary and Trump, respectively.
The Exceptionally Cultured Pearl of Americana
Aside from the race card, another key element in Trump’s appeal is the promise to “Make America Great Again”, which is starkly juxtaposed to Hillary’s claim that America never stopped being great. This begs the question of what “Greatness” is, and what we mean by America and its ‘culture’, and what is any culture’s value for that matter? It has become apparent at Postflaviana that various discussions about ‘cultural degradation’ have neglected to define the baseline and/or ‘ideal’ that is being degraded away from. It is similar to the Supreme Court decision decades ago that said they could not define what pornography was, but that they knew it when they saw it. Such a legal decision is not useful if one has a quibble between, say, the relative merits of pornography versus erotica. But given their repressed ‘cultural’ upbringing, is it any wonder that these judges were hesitant to wade into such waters? Similarly, considering the relative merits of sexual repression vs. excessively libertine behavior, or drug prohibition vs. legalization, it is difficult to have a conversation about ‘degradation’ without having some definition of either the supposed ideal situation, or as to what ‘culture’ is exactly in the first place.
Most any culture is ever evolving, either glacially or in fits and starts, for various reasons. Using very freighted and now effectively obsolete terms, ‘Liberals’ feel that America has evolved to a state in which equal rights for blacks, hispanics and women are right around the corner, and fear a reversal of the trends. ‘Conservatives’ decry the loss of the laissez-faire Capitalist republic, and fear the arrival of Socialist (if not Communist) Tyranny. Both of these abstractions are over-simplified. The actual social and economic condition of most blacks, hispanics and women has not improved much for a long time, while the condition of working class white males has now deteriorated to be almost on their level. Considering the Postmodern formalisms of Multiculturalism and Feminism, this outcome is not surprising.
As opposed to the comic book Conservative view of the economy, it might be more accurate to observe that colonial America began as multi-theocratic, slave-agrarian, and mostly king-loving, rather than laissez-faire. By the time of the Civil War, we had progressed to a protectionist slave-agrarian, manufacturing and mercantile hybrid economy. The early 20th century saw the era of monopolistic robber barons. This yielded in turn to the socialist-capitalist hybrid economy of the New Deal. Today we are living with a corporate transnational globalist anarchy, where the corporations’ lobbyists have effectively nullified much of the American government’s former regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. For example, such as Bill Clinton’s signing away the Glass-Steagall Act with Republican support. We suspect that our current economic world would seem roughly familiar to Alexander the Great, arguably the first globalist.
At each stage, and depending upon one’s perspective, is found the forces of either cultural degradation or the opposite.
For “liberals”, writ large, Trump represents a fearfully potent force of “cultural degradation” in the form of an attack on hard-won progress. At the same time, for many of Trump’s followers, Hillary (and Obama before her) epitomizes a continuing attack on the old white patriarchal culture. In other words, the two groups have vastly different conceptions of the American cultural ideal, while the same might not be said of their standard-bearers’ real standards.
As such, is it also possible for some aspects of culture to be improving while other aspects are heading in the wrong direction? Again, it depends from whose perspective. If there is some intentional effort to systematically degrade (or merely tune) culture, can it be ascribed to some single unified set of evil-doers, or is evil-doing also in the eye of the beholder? Or, can such offal degradation “just happen”, organically, without any external stimuli? And, finally do we thus need some form of cultural Censor to be re-invoked?
So it is at this point we need to stop and consider just what we all think we know about ‘culture’ and what it means for us. From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary we have two relevant contextual meanings:
culture ⋅ 1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. .. 3 the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or group.
The second definition expands the definition to include practically every aspect that surrounds us daily as individuals. Thus, culture is the metaphorical oyster that we are all born into as irritating little grains of sand. In terms of Jewish and Christian culture (aka Western civilization), the narrative in the OT envelops all of us, and metaphorically transforms us into near identical pearls. At least that is the functional intent of culturing a cult, or cultus. For at the end of the day, that is what we really are, as an ostensibly and generally conforming group of individuals. But apparently not all of us are so perfectly pearled. The combination of ‘degrading’ assaults and ‘reactionary’ responses creates the ‘Culture War’ as witnessed currently. Another example was the German 19th century Kulturkampf between the modernizer Bismarck and the Catholic traditionalists. We can also include the Reformation and Shakespeare as ‘assaults’, and the Counter-Reformation as another backlash reaction.
Another relevant term is:
culture shock ⋅ disorientation experienced when suddenly subjected to an unfamiliar culture or way of life.
Interestingly, such a ‘shock’ is experienced in response to any change in the culture, whether it is judged an improvement or a ‘degradation’ according to some ‘objective’ standard. The definition implies that the negative consequence of disorientation applies in either case. Why is this such an issue to many people? Perhaps because people’s identities, and thus self-worth, are intimately tied to their perceptions of themselves as defined by their culture. Thus, any change can be seen as an existential threat, and thus also a ‘degradation’ from the point of view of anyone who experiences this ‘disorientation’. If the change involves a loss of real or perceived social status, the negative reaction will be especially intense.
This same dictionary has only one ‘degrade’ based word variant whose definition applies directly to humans and that is degrading:
degrading ⋅ causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.
In the United States, many have invoked the ‘patriotic’ notion of Exceptionalism. This is not so much different from the Jewish concept of the Chosen People. These concepts have been, and are still being given as ‘Justification’ for the Conquests of the respective lands. The opposite side of the coin is the necessary cultural humiliation of the Native Americans and Palestinians respectively. This ideology awards the Conquerors with satisfying visceral feelings of superiority, in having done God’s exalted work. Such feelings are especially helpful psychologically for the lower strata of the conquering peoples, who do most of the dirty work.
The scholarly field of ‘higher Biblical criticism’ has long been charged with undermining the culture, by the denial of Jesus Christ. Our Postflavian claim that Christ was Caesar is, surprisingly, sometimes used as an ironic ‘reactionary’ response to the culture shock created by the historical-critical skeptics. That is, one can claim that the Caesars are indeed suitable vicars of the fictional Christ, as are the popes. Kenneth Atchity makes just this proud claim in his Messiah Matrix, in which he envisions a future in which the Catholic Church renounces the Jewish Jesus of Nazareth in order to embrace the wisdom of Caesar Augustus. Many others have drawn comparisons, and found that America is an excellent modern analogue to ancient Rome, as our founders had hoped for. But yet, change is change, and time does not really flow backwards. ‘Biblical criticism’ is change, Postflavian biblical criticism is further change, and both have drawn and will continue to draw reactionary opponents.
And with the perspective of history, we must recognize that the elites of every time and place have an essential and powerful role to play in determining the course of cultural change and the flow of cultural innovation, for either the well being of all or for narrow avarice and greed. This is not to deny that cultural innovations can emerge organically from anywhere in society, nor that some aspects of culture simply represent universal human nature. But our point is that ‘culture‘ is not necessarily the ultimate value that we are trying to defend. For instance, many in the American South long decried, and some still do, the cultural degradation foisted upon them by the loss of their slaves (their Lost Cause). After all, slave ownership was culturally endowed to them in both the Old and New Testaments. Spain’s traditionalist monarcho-Catholics brutally put down the Republicans (a coalition of intellectuals, anarcho-athiests, socialists, and others) along with the assistance of Hitler and the Vatican’s Opus Dei, led by Saint Escriva. But we (Postflavians) do not defend the incumbent culture of the South, or of the Spanish Catholics — while the present-day Catholic Church broke all speed records in canonizing Escriva and John Paul II.
The Submergence of Class Warfare
It is most easy to see what is really going on, if we go back to the original political meanings of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’, and ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’. That is, the original (French Republic) ‘right’ conservatives sought to ‘conserve’ the rights and prerogatives of the divine order of the European monarchies, as well as their beneficiaries such as the gentry and merchants. These latter groups formed a middle class, the so-called bourgeoisie, who well understood which side their bread was buttered on. ‘Conservatively’ supporting the status quo was clearly in their best interest in a perceived zero-sum game with the lower classes.
The term ‘Class Warfare’ comes from the socialist idea that workers must struggle for their rights against the bourgeoise. Starting with Marx, the pretense has been that the truly upper classes have merged with the bourgeoisie (that is, middle class professionals and small business owners). And while your authors do still ascribe to the libertarian ideal that the working class and the bourgeoisie could (and do) work together in harmony, we have to deny wholeheartedly the conservative mantra that there is no such thing as ‘Class Warfare’ in America. This is the big political charade, especially when it comes to the strange omission of ‘Royalty’ and their successors in the analysis. In fact, we have come to almost the exact opposite position, i.e. that there is almost nothing but class warfare in America (disguised as race blame, gender conflict, or similar). While the ranks of the ‘liberal’ parties are drawn mostly from the middle class and racial minorities, the ‘conservatives’ consist of the very wealthiest individuals pretending to make common cause with the poor whites. Also included in this coalition are some bourgeois small business owners who aspire mightily to be moguls themselves, if only in their dreams. This is not limited to the United States of America, but rather to all of the Americas that were established by European colonization under the divine authority of the various crowns and the papacy.
For here we are getting to the nub of the conservative knee-jerk ‘reaction’ to various efforts to actually deliver a more desirable social environment. This has been the same issue since at least the time of the Classical Greek oligarchies, and so on till today. That is: the primary driver of class economic status stems from inherited wealth, especially real estate, and what associated means are attached to it. To offer a more optimal alternative, libertarians and other fiscal conservatives must recognize the important Georgist caveat that our planet, the Earth, is a common heritage which was not created by any human effort (we’re pretty sure), and which should be stewarded for the benefit of all the people. Hopefully we can even find room for a few wolves and sharks, at least. This is the principle that could allow past wrongs to be better redressed. Henry George pointed out that land tax is the one form of tax that does not penalize economic activity, since the amount of land is basically fixed by the finite size of the planet. But one man’s more optimal and balanced society is another Optimate’s worst nightmare. (The Optimates were the Roman oligarchs who struggled against the land reforms of Julius Caesar and the earlier Gracchi brothers.)
Meanwhile, in the current crypto-monarchist environment, it is unthinkable to suggest that the injustices of the current state of affairs, the sequel of centuries of slavery and conquest, should be seriously unwound by policy. ‘Affirmative Action’ programs pit the middle class against minorities, and leave upper class privilege untouched. Tensions frequently break across racial divides, making it easier to distract attention from the core issue. The colored ‘have nots’ can then be marginalized using rubrics akin to the old biblical Ham ruse. Their propagandic debasement serves to functionally elevate the ‘haves’ if only by relative perspective. And thus the upper class depends on their culturally sanctioned superiority, and this causes their fear of cultural degradation.
Sir Thomas More, in his 1516 work Utopia suggests that the practice of enclosure was responsible for some of the social problems affecting England at the time, specifically theft:
“But I do not think that this necessity of stealing arises only from hence; there is another cause of it, more peculiar to England.” “What is that?” said the Cardinal. “The increase of pasture,” said I, “by which your sheep, which are naturally mild, and easily kept in order, may be said now to devour men and unpeople, not only villages, but towns; for wherever it is found that the sheep of any soil yield a softer and richer wool than ordinary, there the nobility and gentry, and even those holy men, the abbots not contented with the old rents which their farms yielded, nor thinking it enough that they, living at their ease, do no good to the public, resolve to do it hurt instead of good. They stop the course of agriculture, destroying houses and towns – reserving only the churches – and enclose grounds that they may lodge their sheep in them.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
With the changes and demands wrought by, first, the Mercantile era and, then Enclosure and the Industrial Revolution necessity eventually forced some ‘enlightened ones’ in power to realize that the conditions of the lower classes needed to be elevated, so as to make their societies function better. This included the creation of opportunities for education, and some political rights. Such activity was seen as a ‘generous’ endeavor, and thus garnered the term ‘liberal’, from the common meaning of the word. Such ‘liberality’ provided the upper classes with a better educated and more productive class of factory workers and soldiers, but could not redress all the underlying problems. As such, one might suspect that some of these ‘liberals’ were nothing more than overt or covert (crypto) monarchists.
I’ve Been Right So Long, It’s All Been Left to Me
In this MSNBC video link , George Wallace’s campaign manager of the 1960’s and ’70’s, Tom Turnipseed, compares the Trump campaign to Wallace’s craven presidential campaign racial politics. Trump, wearing his branded flipflops, is treading a well worn trail of others’ tears. This in responding to widespread fears and concerns on the part of the (no longer) working class Americans, whose living standards and prospects have been deteriorating alarmingly for decades now. Their situation has reached a crisis point, especially given the current high suicide and drug addiction rates amongst those of our Boomer generation, perhaps second only to those of veterans of the ongoing faux Bush and Obama War on Terror.
The dark irony here is that Donald Trump would categorize these poor souls as Losers. To be sure, because of continual appeals to their vanity, these descendants of mostly former European serfs do not understand that they are well on their way to becoming serfs again, or worse. Ironically, the grandparents of today’s American serfs cum self-entitled bourgeoisie forced the New Deal changes upon the political class, more so than the other way around. And now the worm has turned, with the corporate powers having found their way back to the sacred cash cow of virtual slave labor, foreign or domestic. Thus, there is no more need to indulge the serf descendants, aside from today’s cheap equivalent of the Roman “bread and circuses”. That is, on TV, with no bread.
There have been massive changes in Trump’s historical political posture during his presidential runs. His new campaign manager recently admitted that he has only been ‘big stick’ posturing in the early primary campaign, so as to appeal to his mostly uneducated Boomer base. We have to wonder what this obvious pandering is really meant to achieve. Even lusty Ann Coulter is having trouble maintaining lip service for the Donald’s recent limp stance. But, Trump does maintain a consistent emphasis on his numerous means and ends of ‘Winning’. Accordingly, one might be justified in considering his current means as merely demagogic opportunism in service to his massive ego. Perhaps so, but his big stick campaign may also be the cover for some worldly Trojan whore, perhaps the onset of globalist corporate fascism.
That said, and as we finish writing this, Trump has taken to tacking to the left of Hillary for the general election, leaving some to half-joke that he’ll now offer Bernie Sanders the Republican VP slot. Perhaps Trump has noticed that Sanders is significantly outpolling Hillary, and Trump, when the two are placed opposite Trump. But again, all this drama may be purely for entertainment purposes, as Trump has also recently given an interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he backtracked from his left-wing position, emphasizing the virtue of ‘flexibility’.
As detailed by Martin Bernal in his Black Athena, Vol. 1, the Hanoverian sponsorship of the Romantic movement delivered the first cultural expressions of racial superiority in Western history. (That is, aside from the ancient Jewish question.) The purpose of this was to justify global imperial colonization under the rubric of ‘The White Man’s Burden’, including the new notion of race based slavery. In earlier times, slavery had not been determined by racial or ethnic factors. On the contrary, it was primarily associated with defeat in warfare, or hopeless debt. The Romans would enslave anyone but fellow Romans. The Greeks would enslave anyone – including other Greeks. In feudal times, the interrelated nobility held most white people in virtual slavery under the job description of ‘serf’.
The new Romantic narrative provided a basis for the former ‘serfs’ to conquer and dispossess their new enemies. Ironically, this is exactly what had happened to their ancestors centuries earlier, during the Roman conquests of Europe. While the former serfs got a cultural upgrade, the new ‘barbarians’ got an unwelcome cultural downgrade. As with the Holy Bible, all this demonstrates the value of social engineering, race-based or otherwise.
Early in the primary season, Trump brought his two-front populist war to his mostly lower middle class, white base, whom have long been on an addictive binge of anti-intellectualism. This is a dark vestige of the 18th century’s Romantic Movement, fobbed off on the West by George II’s cynical initiation of the modern ‘scientific’ university system at Göttingen University. This perverse and baseless philosophy grants primacy to hysterical, gut ‘feelings’ over rational thinking processes. These feelings are given their highest expression when based in a geographical substrate that darkly translates to hierarchical ethnic and racial terms. The ‘feeling’ here is that generations upon generations of life upon prime geographical real estate is everything, in terms of determining racial merit.
The first prong of Trump’s populist campaign is based in such racist ‘romantic’ notions, as discussed above. The second prong is aimed at the current American economic malaise. He is targeting the same ignorant white audience that rallied to Ronald Reagan – who successfully mocked Jimmy Carter for his use of the term ‘malaise’. Because such citizens are not fact based, but feelings based, they are not capable of discerning that it was really Ronald Reagan’s policies that started the slide to their worst declines. Robert Reich, President Clinton’s first term Secretary of Labor, details in the documentary, Inequality for All, the effects of Reagan’s policies as steering the American economy from a previously upward Virtuous Cycle to a downward Vicious Cycle. From upwards to downwards, that is, for everyone below the upper middle class, while the reverse for everyone else – especially for the very well to do. Unfortunately, and as admitted by Reich, Clinton’s policies were a general continuance of Reagan’s Koch and Mont Pelerin based policies — aimed at bestowing massive largess on the worthies, in hopes that some would trickle down to the neo-serfs. That Reagan’s director of the OMB, David Stockman, declared that Supply Side economics was a massive failure, is merely indicative of our thesis here about the ultimately dystopian consequences of anti-intellectualism.
And perhaps worse, Reagan’s trickle-down policy was framed within the straw man, the faux intellectual foil, of Libertarianism’s extreme anarcho-capitalism. This advanced the destructive hidden agenda of traditionalist Catholics like the Kochs, to demonstrate that egalitarian democratic principles can’t work — if only because they are busy 24/7 to undermine them. Just as these elites conveniently hid behind Marx’s atheistic skirt on the one side (to mitigate against socialism), they also hid behind Ayn Rand’s atheism on the Libertarian side.
Reich’s Virtuous Cycle worked mainly because its engine was driven by the fact that the middle class demographic must, by default, spend a much higher proportion of its income than does the wealthier strata of society. This increases the ‘velocity’ of money, making the same amount in circulation work more for the benefit of the general economy. Here, the documentary enlisted billionaire businessman Nick Hanauer to confirm this point. He added that, despite his continual investments in new business ventures, the vast bulk of his annual profit income goes to such as hedge funds. This capital is deployed in non-productive investments and/or overseas, thus providing rather little boost to an economy that can produce and sustain jobs for the domestic society. And he asserts that this is typical for people in his strata.
Ronald Reagan, elected on a platform of limited government, turned out to be the opposite, funding massive increases in military programs and in financial market and government credit expansion. Thus, he got the political credit for collapsing the Soviet Union, which many had predicted must happen in any course, and for the significant economic gains made by the upper middle class and above. This political credit was ironic given that Reagan’s base was his so-called Blue Collar Democrats. It just goes to show that no bad political deed goes unrewarded. This has been known since before the populist times of Julius Caesar, the father of Christ Augustus.
The Clintons were involved in similar duplicity in Arkansas, favoring corporations over citizens, despite their populist-left rhetoric. For example, they colluded with southern elite whites in seeking to influence public utility commissions to jack up rates, to the detriment of poor ratepayers, both black and white. This was detailed in Roger Morris’s Partners in Power. As for credibility bona fides here, Morris was a member of the Johnson and Nixon era National Security Councils before he and two others resigned in protest over the illegal Cambodian bombing campaign. The above revelation should be indicative as to why Robert Reich, in his video linked above, could not get the Clinton Administration to follow through on his economic recommendations, leading Reich to leave at the end of the first term.
Thus, the Virtuous Cycle is transitioned to the Vicious Cycle, by various means of siphoning income streams from the lower strata of the middle class. The loss of disposable income, and worse – sustenance income, leads to the gleeful opportunity for demagogues such as Trump to pander to the hysterical fears of the ignorantly emasculated blue collar worker. Historically, such prolonged periods of economic malaise lead, one way or another, to the various stressed groups hysterically blaming one another for being the cause of the problems.
The ever-popular Jewish Question
This pitting of group against group, a long known practice of the elites, termed “divide and conquer”, brings us back to another fascinating aspect of Trump’s race-based politics. Historically, when we arrive at such a juncture, the political class opts to distract the hoi polloi with human scapegoats to take the blame for the problems caused by the elites. Here the mother of all scapegoats, at the cynical core of the Western Judeo-Christian construct, is the ever popular Jewish Question.
While Trump’s campaign against multiculturalism is centered on Islamic and Mexican immigrants, we’ve noticed that some of Trump’s staunchest supporters are far more concerned about Jews. By this we mean notable figures such as David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, as well as many others like the ones identified by this ‘helpful’ list from anti-semitism.net. And although Trump’s overtly stated message treats Jews with tremendous respect, his anti-Jewish followers detect more than a few hints that Trump might turn out to be in their camp. This may be a sort of psychological projection, rather than being based in anything tangible in Trump’s political platform or his history; but nevertheless, we maintain that their perception is very significant, as a manifestation of the archetypal significance of the conflict of Jews vs. Christians.
Distilled to its purist form, these self-styled “White Nationalists” are telling us that the deeply anti-Judaic central paradigm of Christianity is indeed true. That is, they would have us believe: the supposedly ‘genetically’ wicked Jewish race, the same ones who supposedly are responsible for having the Romans crucify (the ironically Jewish) Jesus Christ, are yet still the prime carriers of original sin in the world. This whether Rome’s Christianity was a pious fraud or not. These ‘carriers’ include members within the central and international bankers, the mass-media propagandists, the organizers of false-flag terrorist attacks, and the schemers of trans-humanism and technocracy. Depending on the individual’s perspective, the culprits can include the entire global Jewish demographic. A number of other usual suspects, such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, Jesuits, Bilderbergers, Bohemians and so forth, are seen as little more than Jews with a cover story, and their ranks complemented with goyim useful idiots.
Baldly asserting a particularly extreme version of this perspective (while denying that any conspiracy is even necessary for the Jews to implement their plot), Andrew Anglin (now webmaster of “The Daily Stormer” with its slogan “Total Fascism”) wrote:
The genetic nature of the Jew is that of a predatory parasite, and it is hardwired into the psychology of each and every one of them to find weaknesses in their host societies and exploit them, both for personal gain and the gain of their race. … It is impossible to know what goes through the mind of a Jew, as they are so entirely alien to us in every conceivable way. Asking what a Jew is thinking when he robs and abuses us is like asking what a mosquito is thinking when he drinks our blood. We must cease in our attempts to find a recognizable human pattern to their behavior, for none exists. They do not need to meet secretly in order to attack us, any more than a swarm of termites must meet secretly before destroying the frame of a house.
The unstated implication is that if we could just find some sort of Final Solution for this problem (neglecting, for a moment, the Muslims and Mexicans and so forth), the rest of us could then soon achieve a state of virtual Utopia. With those of stout White blood restored to power at the helm of perhaps a Democratic Christian Republic, we could look forward to honest government, universal prosperity, and a high-minded, clear-thinking culture, based on stable families. Or perhaps the people might prefer something like secular Anarcho-Capitalism and a noble Non-Aggression Principle. In either case, the people would abide in a state of freedom from any assault, whether from drugs, the media, politicians, or anything else. Right?
Perhaps the biggest clue that the Judaic narrative is spurious, is that the founder of the Jews, namely Judah and his descendants, are depicted uniformly in a negative light in the Old Testament. Yet this is the foundational narrative of Western Civilization, which has traditionally been considered the Word of God, and the touchstone of its ‘Cult-ure’. Such narratives, such as Rome’s Aeneid, are more typically cast as panegyrics, glorifying the moral superiority of their founders. This dark depiction of Judah in the Bible is sometimes taken by modern scholars as an indication of veracity: because it’s so unexpected, it ‘must be’ honest. As discussed in Isaac and the Fortunate Scions, we think it’s more evidence that the Torah was designed from the beginning to place the Jews in the role of scapegoats, and servants to others.
Along these lines, we feel it’s significant that ever since the inception of our discussion forum here at this website, we have been repeatedly approached (or accosted) by numerous posters carrying this same anti-Jewish agenda, framed variously. These apparently well-meaning posters have advanced this agenda ostensibly in the name of seeking Truth and correcting the vector for achieving a better world, or at least preventing a worse one.
There are some obvious reasons why our forum is a lightning rod for this sort of activity. First of all, we are highly critical of most all religious formulations and especially the Abrahamic ones, which are all built upon the cultural foundation of one lineage of oxymoronically depicted noble shepherds. For that reason alone, critics who focus their attacks on Jewish targets might expect that they would find a companionable welcome among us. However, the difference is that while we are critical of all these religions, we are careful to place the primary blame on those elite elements that perpetuate the fraud, even though they should know better.
Another factor is the company we keep. Joseph Atwill has been a regular guest on Red Ice Radio, and Jerry has also appeared there once. Red Ice, in turn, features guests like David Duke and Benton Bradberry, who are well known for their White Nationalist leanings. In turn, Red Ice’s host Henrik Palmgren is a regular at Freeman TV, where Joseph is another regular guest. So again, it stands to reason that the followers of these Internet personalities would come here expecting to find themselves at home. Perhaps when we venture into these forums, we need to be more careful to delineate our position.
It’s interesting to note that the anti-Jewish agenda can be ironically further justified using one of the central organizing motifs here, namely Atwill’s discovery that Jesus of Nazareth is a cynically fictional construct of elite Imperial Romans collaborating with elite Herodian and Hellenized factions of ‘Jews’, including Philo of Alexandria. This can be interpreted as a necessary reaction to Jewish extremism of the time — with the Imperial Romans perhaps even in the role of heroes of the civilized White Race against the obtuse and hopeless resistance of the Jews. At any rate, this was essentially the justification given by Josephus for his role in the Jewish War.
Followed to its logical conclusion, this could lead to the view that it was unfortunate that the Romans failed to completely wipe out and/or culturally destroy the Jews at the time, because now we’re faced with finishing the job they started. Especially, because we are told that the once passivated Jews retained knowledge of what was done to them over the years, including the faux Jesus business, and have now seized the moment to launch a silent and grand global coup, all while distracting us with Zion, Ersatz Israel.
The Fertile Cuckoo Eggs of Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism
Another sophisticated anti-Judaic argument, is the view that intellectual movements such as Postmodernism and the Frankfort School have invented and/or exploited (M)ulticulturalism and (F)eminism, re-casting these as weapons to use against the Gentiles. It is rightly observed that many Jews do not take their own medicine, remaining insular and tribal while expecting everyone else (especially white American and European males) to adopt an extremely self-effacing posture with respect to those who have been wronged in the past. And while we cannot deny the reality of this sub-plot, we feel it’s important to point out some mitigating factors. Firstly, as we have discussed extensively above, the goals of (m)ulticulturalism and (f)eminism have a fundamental (p)rogressive appeal, the service of which may have been a primary motivation for many fellow travelers of (P)ostmodernism. Secondly, as with many good ideas that have been corrupted by too much elite-driven scholarly attention, it should be possible to recover the core values from the baroque superstructure. Thirdly, the correct response if this is a Jewish plot would be to demand that the Jews (and all other races for that matter) start to live up to multicultural ideals, not to abandon them and attempt to re-create the German Third Reich on American soil, or in Israel for that matter.
But what is this business about fertile (prickled) ideological cuckoo eggs? It sounds pretty ‘kooky’ you say? We are suggesting that the basically positive principles of multiculturalism and feminism, are now being ideologically cuckholded by the politicized, extremist formalization of such principles. Such organized formalization necessarily produces a defensive cultural backlash, or reaction. This also touches on the issue of elite and reactionary ‘co-optation’ of reform movements in general. Organic efforts towards social improvement can be met with cynical reactionary efforts to neutralize the movement by the process of ‘Entryism‘. One tactic of Entryism is to subvert a cause by introducing militant Formalism via either agents provocateur or by encouraging pre-existent members to radicalize themselves. Another tactic is to create or commandeer a hierarchical control mechanism (such as, for example, the board of directors of a nonprofit) to turn a grass-roots movement into a formal and rigidly doctrinaire ‘ism’ that loses touch with a balanced view. Such radicalization, via Entryism, is usually meant to create a Machiavellian backlash against the original movement by the unwitting wider public. As such, your authors (as can be seen with others’ similar approach) make use of small and capital letters (sometimes inside parentheses) to distinguish between a general movement and some co-opted and radicalized (F)ormalism of that movement. That is, we distinguish ‘feminism’ vs. radical Feminism, or ‘libertarianism’ vs. Libertarianism.
In light of all this, it should be clear where we stand with respect to the anti-Jewish theorizing of David Duke, Kevin MacDonald, and the like, and why we ultimately feel it’s all terribly misguided. As discussed above, we take our stand with the ideals of the democratic rights of all mankind, including equality of all peoples under the law. Thus, to the extent that any individual Jews are seeking to carry out elitist conspiracies against the common people, of course, we are in opposition. But guilt needs to be assigned on the basis of actions, not because of race; and we believe there is plenty of guilt to go around for all races.
A thorough web search will reveal an abundance of anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-Black, anti-Chinese, or even anti-American racist literature, in addition to the anti-Jewish genre. It may be true that the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ surpass everything else in the height of evil depicted. However, the fraudulent nature of that document should cause suspicions to rebound against the perpetrators of the forgery. An objective reader should eventually come to the realization that elite criminality is an equal-opportunity sport for all races, or at least for all White races and fellow travelers. The ‘Protocols’, as well as the entire genre of “fear porn” that it inspired, seek to promote a sort of a misplaced paranoia. The reader is led to fear that soon the wicked ones (Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Americans, whoever) will succeed in carrying out their plot, at which point they will utterly destroy and/or enslave their victims, and the rest of the world. In hopes of avoiding this demise, the reader is encouraged to support an elite savior of their own tribe, who is most likely (in reality) just as evil. All of this is just another variant of the much earlier apocalyptic Christian fear porn, rooted in the book of Revelation — although the White Nationalist version of this apocalypse is lacking in any salvation for the faithful. Or perhaps we should say that the White Nationalists do entertain the hope that salvation will come — currently, in the name of Donald Trump, their champion.
Conversely, we find that an understanding that the global elites are of diverse racial and ethnic makeup, leads to a certain amount of relaxation. One recognizes that matters have been bad for thousands of years, but are unlikely to take a sudden turn for the worse — at least, not as a result of the sudden triumphant rise of (for example) the Jews. The cultural role of the Jews in particular, as scapegoats for the elite, is certainly nothing new. We know that the Roman empire of the first century CE, with the assistance of the elite Jews of the day, co-opted the remaining passivated Jews, rather than completely eliminating them all from the empire. They even gave the Rabbinical Jews a city, Yavneh (Jamnia), to reformulate their texts and outlook, and an ethnarch that answered to Rome. This system, minus the ‘nasr’ ethnarch, was passed onto the papal system and was thus folded into feudal Europe with the Jews becoming the institutionalized buffer class of the day, essentially the Middle Class. Hence Rome did not fail at its job, it did exactly what it intended.
From then until now, the Western system has maintained the same general cultural posture of cynical antagonism. (That is, with the fasce-inating exception of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (In Our Time), where the Jews are now absolved by papal fiat, and John XXIII declaring significantly that he is the Jew’s Joseph. The two sticks of Catholicism and Judaism are being combined into a single fasces? That is, a single bundle of sticks, perhaps holding an axe blade? We await anxiously to see how this will unfold. We may find that Islamics and Blacks take on the scapegoat role formerly shouldered by the Jews. Barack Hussein Obama, known to be half Black and suspected of being Islamic as well, may be the harbinger of this trend.)
Our model agrees with David Duke and the Stormers at least to this extent: we concur that the Jews of today (of various types and persuasions) hold dominant positions in the media and banking industries, and this is a fact that needs an explanation. Even in going this far, we have distanced ourselves from mainstream discourse, which exists in a state of cold silence and denial about the issue of Jewish power. Is this state of affairs perhaps a purposeful ‘elephant in the room’? Unlike mainstream media sources, and even many ‘alt media’ ones, at this website we will never be afraid to address these questions frankly, no matter how “politically incorrect” the results might be. For example, just what did happen in the Jewish “Shoah” of World War II, and how does it compare to the genocide of Germans and Russians in that same conflict? Can Americans take such a self-righteous attitude about this, considering what happened to Native Americans? And, how can we moderate the toxic effects of all forms of tribalism and religious fundamentalism, including (even) if the tribe happens to be Jewish? At this website, we want to use bright day-glo colors to illuminate all these hidden elephants.
However, the primary fundamental flaw of logic in the White Nationalist argument against the Jews is described by the old saw “correlation is not causation”. Indeed, the presence of so many Jews in such prominent positions of influence is being interpreted wrongly, via a cognitive reversal of the directionality of cause and effect. As mentioned earlier, the true cause of presence of the Jews where they are today is a cultural residue of institutional decisions made long ago, by the elites of Imperial and Catholic Rome. The logical error (the reversal of cause and effect) is culturally primed for easier acceptance amongst the populace via the official and underground propaganda institutions and rumor mills of Western society for the last two thousand years, and especially coming from the Church. The reality is that the media and banking industries are only two components of a greater elite power structure that also includes governments, the military-industrial complex and their intelligence agencies, organized religions, and ecumenical/international secret societies such as the Freemasons and many others.
And we hold that the Jews are still playing the same cultural role today as they have for at least two thousand years (if not more), as typologically and psychologically necessary implementers of various roles on behalf of the wider elite. Certainly, the vast majority of Jews are unwittingly passive in this role: their ‘crime’ is just in their existence. Even the acceptance of Christ is dubious redemption, as ethnic and cultural factors stay in play, especially with suspicions of crypto-Judaism. And the ‘hofjuden’ are always in their assigned roles, dragging the rest along. Thus eternally condemned, the Jews serve as lightning rods for popular outrage, and as scapegoats for the problems created by the system as a whole. Even among elite participants in the system, it’s difficult to say who might be aware of this archetype, which seems to have a life of its own. We suspect that many or even most elite Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Islamics and humanist technocrats are ignorantly playing out their cultural role within the grand scheme, pursuing their own narrow interests within the narrative of their particular faith or nationality. And some of these individuals may be just as stereotypically evil as their detractors imagine.
However, we also believe that at least a few individuals have the benefit of conscious insight into the manner in which the various cogs interact to create spectacular outcomes such as the events of 9/11/2001, which act so often for the benefit of the elites of all the various religions and races. We believe that such very sophisticated elite individuals are found as top members of international and ecumenical secret societies.
When all is said and done, it is really a question of what model is most accurate, if not absolutely correct. Your authors say, as we have before, that all the evidence points to the idea that all the elites are effectively working together against everyone else, including against non-elite Jews. Thus, our position is ultimately opposed factually as well as ideologically, from those who blame a Jewish conspiracy for all the problems. Unfortunately for the goal of settling this controversy one way or the other, one cannot clearly isolate Jews and so-called Gentiles into those categorical camps. Historically, ethnic Judaism has been defined in terms of matrilineal descent, but the starting point is imagined to be the twelve sons of Jacob from four different wives, creating a lot of genetic diversity right from the beginning. These twelve sons may very well have been avatars (or perhaps externally-imposed rulers) for twelve diverse tribes assembled into a political unity by conquest. The ultimate fate of at least some of these twelve tribes remains mysterious, but surely the concept of ‘Jewish’ cannot be restricted to sons of Judah. The initial narrative diversity is not an auspicious starting point for the concept that “the Jews” are a discrete race that can be defined in terms of DNA. But over the thousands of years since, the situation has gotten far worse, as whatever pure Jewish DNA ever existed, has been admixed with the blood of neighbors and converts all over the globe. This theme is explored in more depth in the essay Genetics of the Oligarchs: Eloi, or Upstarts.
While it is all very interesting to present evidence that Shakespeare or Ignatius of Loyola or even Roosevelt must have been a Crypto-Jew, it begs credulity to extend that argument to the many elite Catholics and Protestants in extreme positions of power, such as in the CIA, Congress or the Supreme Court. It is, in fact, the Judaic presence in both the models that allows for the critical and profitable obfuscation, the veiling of the true wizards (who may, for all we know, include certain Jews in positions as powerful as anyone.)
Along these lines, Joseph Atwill still thinks that a more parsimonious explanation of the phenomena we address here, is that one or more elite groups are acting out of tribal and ethnic motivations. Other readers might also feel that the cultural control mechanism proposed by your authors (Richard and Jerry) is simply too complex and fantastical for anyone to take seriously, except for maybe Machiavelli. The correct analytic path might indeed turn out to be that these various secret societies, governments and corporations are exactly what they appear to be: completely independent power centers. Or, worse, that some singular racist entity is really emerging out of the chaos into total control. Accordingly, we all agree here on the importance of continuing to gather data, including DNA information if possible.
Contrary to Atwill’s view, your authors argue that any failure (on the part of the dominant elite) to provide a front group to take the cultural blame, would be the height of Machiavellian malpractice. To then argue that this is only evidence of just how devious the Jews are, would then exhibit an apex of absurdo infinito. Not that anyone has yet made that argument against us. For that matter: to our knowledge, no one has ever asserted our central argument before. Meaning that no has seen fit to see the Jews (loosely defined) as an integral and somewhat expendable ‘limited hangout’ front for the greater control system. Only Israel Shahak has come close in his Jewish History, Jewish Religion, but was not depicting the larger picture to the level we are. As a logical complete system, our model may actually be more parsimonious than any other model. In other words, the model should be as simple as it needs to be to fit the data, but not simpler.
That some cohort of these Jews may indeed be part of a ‘Hidden Hand’ control construct is really beside the point we are making. In fact, that such individuals may indeed be acting so, is consistent with the evidence for exactly such Romano-Judaic collaboration, at elite levels, during the time of the formation of Christianity, and even before that. This master and servant collaboration is narratively confirmed by the birth order and mothers of Judah and Joseph, as discussed in Richard’s last post Isaac and the Fortunate Scions. The next post in the OT series will flesh this relationship out even further, showing Judah’s subservience to Joseph, who was “as if the pharaoh”.
Of course, the very easy response to this is to claim that since Joseph was a Hebrew, then your authors here are making an inane argument by showing this distinction. But, are we really? In The Genesis of Western False Dialectic in the Old Testament, we claimed that the word ‘gentile’ should not be understood as a general term for Christians. In its original sense, it specifically referred to ‘gentlemen’ — that is, the nobility. Here, we will argue that a similar obfuscation has occurred with the ‘identity’ of the lineage of Joseph. That is, the descendants of Abraham and Joseph may encompass a far broader spectrum of peoples than is commonly acknowledged today. At a deep level, the sons of Abraham could include the Romans, Celts, Phoenicians and Greeks (Danaans) as well. As argued in Steven Collins’ The ‘Lost’ Ten Tribes of Israel… Found!, the correct collective name of the twelve tribes who followed the law of Moses as worshippers of Yahweh and heirs of the Blessing was the “Berith” or “Covenant” people (in Hebrew consonant spelling, B-R-T), whose name may be reflected in such places as Brittania, Iberia and Hibernia; as well as the name the Phoenicians called themselves, also the B-R-T. Collins claims that the Celtic people, in general, are descendant from the Phoenician lost tribes. He suggests that the Trojans might also have had some relation to these B-R-T, which would make their seeming arch-enemies the Romans distant relatives as well. (Perhaps that explains the strange collaboration between the Romans, Herodians and Alexanders? More likely, a matter of convenience at the time.) Elsewhere, we have argued that some of the current political elites may be remotely descended from a small founder tribe of Indo-Europeans that capitalized on their mastery of the horse and the wheel to conquer the southern agricultural world of their time. If any of this is the case, then the White Nationalists may be correct that the elite conspiracy is in some sense a united racist tribal endeavour — though the connections between the various components are far more remote in history, and the racial and genetic diversity is far broader than they imagine. This argument does not depend upon Joseph being factual or fictional in representing either an individual or an eponymous tribe.
Ancient Roman Roots of Anti-Judaism
As if we should really have to remind anybody: the two-thousand year old system enshrined by Roman Catholic theology is indeed centered around the alleged Jewish perfidy towards Jesus. The lasting effects of this ideology seem to extend to all who have been culturally baptized into the waters of Fear Porn. But this manipulation is even older than Christianity. The genre had many manifestations in ancient Rome, as the final paragraph of Beard and North’s Pagan Priests states:
from pg. 255:
The political order of the Empire chose its moral enemies well. Being merely structural products, they functioned not as threats to the dominant order, but rather as its allies in its constant task of naturalization, of being taken for granted. One might even say that the moral enemies of the Roman order, from perverts to cannibals [such as Lucan’s fictive parody, the night-witch Erichtho – rs], from Christians to witches, were among its most effective friends, making their own contribution to weaving the veil of imperial enchantment. The Roman order attempted to dehistoricize sacrifice. Part of its strategy was to invent ‘natural’ social diseases which lurked, like germs, in dark cracks, waiting to pounce. In alliance with the civic gods, the emperors, like Vim, kept the sink sparkling.
Needless to say, the above could just as easily be said about the Roman’s superficial cultural relationship of tension with the Jews. Today, this ideology persists in spite of the official modern day Catholic and ecumenical zeitgeist that the Judeo-Christian ‘God’ has evolved from His jealous and vengeful nature into that of an All Loving Cheshire Pussy Cat. However, the substantive operative relationship between the Roman and Jewish elites may have been more cooperative. Today, this cooperation has come into the open, and we are told that God wants to bring the Jews back into the flock, if indeed they ever left. We don’t see how this latter scheme can work in the long run to preserve the power of the elites, unless the hate can be redirected against Blacks, Hispanics and/or Muslims.
James Carroll, a former Catholic priest, went to extensive lengths to detail the anti-Judaic message found within the works of every major Catholic theologian from St. Augustine till recent times. In his book Constantine’s Sword, Mr. Carroll argued that this virulent anti-Judaism was the result of a logical desire of proto-Christians to distance themselves safely from the Zealot Jews of the day. However, this implausible attribution of motivation does not undermine, one whit, from his careful quoting from Catholic theology.
Whatever the initial motivation, the medieval popes and their staff theologians saw profit in having the Jews physically present in their prescribed ghettos in cities across Europe. The Jews were maintained in such squalor so that they could take their culturally necessary role as demonic whipping boys and girls, for the express purpose of maintaining a reactionary state of mind in the Christians. The presence of such living demons proved very effective in maintaining adherence to the religious paradigm, including the extraction of the ten percent tithing skim. If all the Jewish demons were to be literally eliminated, as was the operative ‘pogromatic’ mindset from time to time, then the perverse hold of the fake religion on the masses might evaporate.
Since the 19th century emancipations of the remaining Jews from the ghettos of the ancien regime, this slow evaporation to secularism is indeed what has happened generally, but not universally across Christendom. Perhaps the European backlash of revulsion for the collusion of some Christians with the Nazis, may have been a factor in driving many Europeans to abandon their religion during the postwar period. This backlash never appeared in the United States, perhaps because this knowledge was not delivered here by the organs of media. The American Catholic Church, with some pre-war exceptions such as the infamous Father Coughlan, openly supported the Allied Cause once the war broke out. Prior to this time, all Catholics globally were called to support Hitler’s cause against the Bolsheviks via the Second Prophecy of Fatima. This prophecy, by the way, was later used to undergird the incitement of American involvement in Cardinal Spellman’s War, aka Vietnam.
As a highlight of Constantine’s Sword, Carroll detailed that as a young boy he attended, in 1959, the second unveiling of Christ’s ephod, the seamless robe of Jesus stored at the Trier Cathedral. The Church maintains that this robe was the regalia of the Jewish high priest, worn in order to fulfill Jesus’ dual nature as a spiritual and secular Messiah. Trier was the preferred seat of Constantine’s governance, inspiring the title of the book. Carroll attended this ceremony along with his father, a general of the U.S. Army Air Force who was engaged in rebuilding Europe as part of the Marshall Plan.
The first unveiling of Jesus’s ephod in the twentieth century was in 1933, to celebrate the ascension of Adolf Hitler to power, with the essential help of the Catholic Zentrum Party. The common denominator for the two unveilings was the presence of Fritz von Papen, the man who negotiated the Vatican Concordat for the Nazis, and who later became a Papal Chamberlain. At the first ceremony, Hitler was invited to attend but ‘minister’ von Papen came in his stead, to cheerfully witness all the Swastika emblazoned flags hanging in the cathedral. Here is the insane irony of the Mother Christian Church claiming, via this faux relic, that Jesus was indeed the high priest of Judaism, even as Hitler was preparing his attempt to eradicate the Jews from Europe. One is reminded of the imperial Roman mockery that Jesus was the king of the Jews, signified by the inscription INRI on the cross.
Meet the New Age: the same as the Old Age…
So, one might ask us, what is the ‘cui bono’ purpose of the Church in apparently shooting itself in the foot? ‘Aha’, our detractors say, the ‘goy’ Church has obviously been infiltrated by the demonic Jews, via the Illuminati, the Jesuits, and the Freemasons. Prior to this happening, the Church was allegedly doing an admirable job of evolving into an institution that epitomized the values of Christ Jesus, that high priest of the demonic Jews. This would include values like getting mad at barren fig trees and such. Richard has explained this gospel reference here, as a humorous pagan cryptic allusion to the ongoing change of Ages. And just who was really driving the donkey of change? In this case, the change was that first textually espoused by Virgil in honor of Octavian Augustus Caesar, the first Prince of Peace and divine author of the glorious Pax Romana. Virgil, for his 4th Eclogue effort, was honored posthumously as a Christian in the breech, and still is to this day.
Some people suggest that we are in the proximity of another ‘new age’ (zodiacal or otherwise), or perhaps a New World Order. If this is the case, might we expect that the veiled sponsors of the Church might be inclined to submerge the image of Jesus of Nazareth, in order to ‘prepare the way’ for the next salvic paradigm to be shoved down our throats? Here, we say: yes indeed. It is not the Jews who are causing the Christians to abandon Jesus. And similarly, we see that there is a distractionary basis for another Fear Porn Industry that has raised up around the New Age movement of recent decades. This includes claims, not entirely without factual basis, that the apex of Western Cultural achievement of American (zombie konformist) Freedom is about to be destroyed, in the wake of an economic and/or ecological collapse — by rampaging zombies.
Getting back to our anti-Jewish critics: they say that the dastardly Jewish infiltrators have even gone so far as to convert the ‘goy’ Catholic Church into a ‘gay’ pedophile Church. Curiously, many of the pious goy faithful are willing to deny that the pedophile Church is really a long running institutional problem. This shows just how strong such ‘cultural’ programming can be. In fact, the pedophilia of the Church may extend back to the 4th century and Cyril of Jerusalem, as hinted (but not definitively demonstrated) by David C.A. Hillman in his Original Sin: Ritual Child Rape and the Church. It’s also possible that such ‘Perverse’ behavior has its roots in priest and nun celibacy, and the resultant dearth of approved sexual opportunities. And let us not forget the dog-matic refusal to admit that homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom, which includes humanity. Ignoring all of this history and biology, the pedophile priest problem is characterized, at least by those willing to admit that there is any such problem, as a matter of the misbehavior of certain individuals. Even the coverup is justified on the basis of claims that the Church ecclesia has been guided by good intentions to protect the Church instead of rooting it out. No kidding.
Perhaps the most fundamental driver of the false dialectic, is the true meaning of Isaiah 45:7 (as correctly translated in the KJV) that the Judeo-Christian God asserts logically, proudly, and unequivocally that he is indeed the author of all things. He is the author of all that is Good, and … explicitly all that is Evil. Here we see the true basis for the Church’s need for the Romanized Jews to play the role of the eternal evil foil to Christ and the poor goyim. Under monotheism — if Satan exists, he must be in the role of God’s agent. And we are told in the New Testament that Satan does exist, just as Evil certainly does. And then it follows, as night follows day, that Satan too must have his earthly agents. Who else, if not the Jews.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)
We assert that most Jews have long been subverted unwittingly into this cultural role by the religious appeal to their Identity vanity, just the same as the goyim have been pandered to. That observers can look all around them and see evildoers constantly attacking them is all part of the big stage magic distraction. It all acts as if it were designed as a single construct, in which the globalist Men Behind the Curtain are brilliantly distracting the observers from themselves, thus making the observers continually take the wrong bait, based upon cynically emotional appeals to ‘saving the children’ and such. Who knows, perhaps this construct has indeed been designed and maintained by the Lords themselves.
Any such concerned observers, today, and especially in America, would do much better in protecting their children by teaching them to reject all such culturally motivated Fear Porn, and build bridges to other marginalized flocks of sheep. In the absence of such foresight, the dynamics are today being sardonically reversed, and the American Nationalist and other White Power advocates are being culturally transmuted into the dialectic equivalent of the Judaic xenophobic Zealots of Christ Titus’s time. And they will likely gain the same ‘reward’, in the Evangelical’s Futurist version of the End Times, fobbed off on them by the casuistic Jesuits. The precise timing of this is known only to the Lord — but we doubt that these Patriots will be among the 144,000 of the globally Predestined Elect who will get to bypass the Tribulation.
To finish, we suggest that Anglin is mistaken with his thesis that the perceived negative Jewish behaviors at issue are driven by genetics. Instead, to the extent that they have any basis in reality at all, they must be meme-driven by the millennial weight of their synthetic cultural imperatives. And furthermore, what is bad for the gander is bad for the goy-oose. As such, what if we could hit the reset button on Western Culture, reboot to the desired optimal culture parameters, and then the problem disappears from the Matrix? Could a universally delightful and secular (a)pocalypse be as simple and peaceful as that, as juxtaposed to the prior Final Solution?
Here at Postflaviana, we are humbly trying to find that reset button via our (r)evelations.Discuss in Forum!