HEBREW

NAZIS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE
TheDeathofMulticulturalism?
JewishMassMurderers
Pro-LifeJew The
Believer Judaismis
Nihilistic
JewishNihilisminNineteenthCenturyRussia
ObviousPresence
EnlightenmentLedtoNihilism
DavidCooper
SurvivaloftheFittest
GeorgRatzinger
ProudofHisGreatUncle
TheEmancipationoftheJews
EspeciallyProphetic
NotImpressed
BiographicalNote
Footnotes
 PREFAC
E

Seven years after Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians in the cave of the
patriarch in Hebron, and less than 5 years after Shahak and Mezvinsky explained how
Goldstein was a Jewish Nazi, The Believer, a film written and directed by Henry Bean about
an orthodox Jew who becomes a neo-Nazi won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2001 Sundance film
festival. The film is based loosely on the life of Daniel Burros, a neo-Nazi who committed
suicide in the mid-‘60s after a New York Times reporter wrote an article exposing him as a
Jew. According to Bean:
Burros was staying at a camp in the Poconos with the neo-Nazis when the
story in the New York Times claiming that he was Jewish came out. The Nazis
weren’t upset. They were saying just sit down; we can talk about this. But
Burros went up to his room, put on a Wagner record and shot himself. He killed
himself within an hour of the story coming out.
Bean began discussing the Danny Burros story in the ‘70s when he was a writer living on
the West Coast. He began to see Burros as typifying a particular kind of Jew. “He was a rabbi
manque. Antisemitism is a form of practicing Judaism. He’s sort of a rabbi after all. A Jew by
day, a Nazi by night… . He was desperately hiding something and compulsively trying to
bring it out at the same time. People are drawn to contradiction. He undergoes a conversion,
but not back to the Torah.” By telling the story of the Jewish Nazi, Bean concluded, “I began to
understand what Judaism was.”
When Danny Balint, the character Bean created out of the story of Danny Burros, gets a
call from a New York Times reporter, he gives an eloquent articulation of anti-Semitism.
Judaism “is a sickness… . The real Jew is a nomad and a wanderer. He has no roots and
no attachments. He universalizes everything. All he can do is buy and sell and manipulate
markets. It’s all mental. Marx, Freud, Einstein: what have they given us? Communism,
infantile sexuality and the atom bomb. They want nothing but nothingness, nothing without
end.”
The main issue in The Believer is theological. Danny has penetrated to the heart of the
Jewish religion by understanding that the Jew worships Nothingness. If Hitler is the biggest
Nihilist of the 20th century, he is the chief rabbi in the religion that worships “nothing but
nothingness, nothing without end.” He attained that position by default when the Church
stopped working for the conversion of the Jews.
 Dorothy Rabinowitz recently announced the death of multiculturalism in the Wall
Street Journal . Citing the pronouncements of the prime ministers of England, France, and
Germany, she crowed:
Who would have believed that in the space of a few weeks the leaders of the
three major European powers would publicly denounce multiculturalism and
declare in so many words that it was a proven disaster and a threat to
society?
Rabinowitz claimed that multiculturalism had “led to segregated communities”; it had
also “helped nurture radical Islam’s terrorist cells.” Rabinowitz goes on to claim that
multiculturalism, which she describes as “the unofficial established religion of the
universities,” is, in fact, “a faith whose requirements have shaped every aspect of cultural,
economic and political life in Western democracies for the last 50 years.”[1]
Twenty years ago Rabinowitz was worried about Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran. Twenty
years ago she was writing to the
editors of papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer demanding that that paper drop Joe Sobran
as one of its columnists. Now she’s worried about Major Hasan. For those of you who have
trouble keeping mass murderers straight in your mind, in November 2009 Major Nidal Malik
Hasan opened fire in Fort Hood killing 12 fellow soldiers and wounding 32 others.
Rabinowitz attributes this attack to a combination of “Hasan’s well-documented jihadist
sympathies” and multiculturalism. She ends her piece by claiming that when Major Hasan goes
on trial, “The forces of multiculturalist piety, which played so central a role in advancing this
Army major and concealing the menace he posed, will be the invisible presence on trial with
him.”
Associating multiculturalism with Islam is a daring rhetorical move, especially when that
rhetorical move is made by a Jew, because Dorothy Rabinowitz must know, even if the dumb
goyim who read her columns in the Wall Street Journal do not, that multiculturalism has been
a completely Jewish creation from start to finish. For over 100 years now, Jews in America
have been promoting multiculturalism as a strategy for weakening the dominant culture and
thereby enhancing Jewish power.
In his essay “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration policy, 1881-
1965: A Historical Review” [2] University of California at Long Beach Professor Kevin
MacDonald shows in exhaustive detail how Jewish organizations supported multiculturalism
almost from the moment when eastern European Jews arrived in significant numbers on these
shores. According to MacDonald, the “historical record supports the proposition that making
the US into a multicultural society has been a major goal of organized Jewry beginning in the
19th century.” The main way in which Jews promoted multiculturalism is by changing this
nation’s immigration laws. “Jews,” according to MacDonald, “have been ‘the single most
persistent pressure group favoring a liberal immigration policy’ in the US in the entire
immigration debate beginning in 1881.” MacDonald goes on to cite one Jewish authority after
another to back up his case. According to Neuringer:
Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every
 major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years
their spokesmen had assiduously attended congressional hearings and the
Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing
such nonsectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the
Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.
According to Nathan C. Belth:
In Congress, through all the years when the immigration battles were being
fought, the names of Jewish legislators were in the forefront of the liberal
forces: from Adolph Sabath to Samuel Dickstein and Emanuel Celler in the
House and from Herbert H. Lehman to Jacob Javits in the Senate. Each in this
time was leader of the ADL and of major organizations concerned with
democratic development.
Indeed, writing in 1914, the sociologist Edward A. Ross had a clear sense that
liberal immigration policy was exclusively a Jewish issue.
The Jewish promotion of multiculturalism in America had two main goals: 1)
“maximizing the number of Jewish immigrants” and 2) “opening up the US to immigration
from all of the peoples of the world.” Both goals paradoxically used “diversity” as a stalking
horse to advance Jewish ethnocentrism. This is so because the whole point of multiculturalism
is not so much the promotion of diversity as it is the demographic dilution of homogeneity.
Jews wanted to weaken the majority culture because they always felt uncomfortable in
unified coherent cultures. The defenders of immigration restriction during this period made it
clear that America was a country which had been settled and was then inhabited by
Christians from northwestern Europe. This implied racial superiority in the minds of the
Jewish proponents of restrictionism but not the legislators, who claimed that
the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons, made this country… . It
is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to
surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their
merits, to make it something different.” Representative Leavitt saw through the
diversity
 ploy when he complained that the Jews were “the one great historic people who
have maintained the identity of their race throughout centuries because they
believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain,
and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals.
The restrictionists complained that the Jews were attempting to shape U.S. immigration
policy according to Jewish interests and not in the interests of the country which welcomed
them as immigrants:
Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the
United States… . The systematic campaign in newspapers to break down all
arguments for restriction and to claim nativist fears is waged by and for one
race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its
numerous publications… . literature that proves the blessings of immigration to
all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains.
The reference to “subtle Hebrew brains” probably excludes Dorothy Rabinowitz from our
discussion, but the purpose of multiculturalism has remained constant, as has the Jewish
support for it. The purpose of multiculturalism has always been to subvert coherent cultures,
weaken the majority, and thereby enhance the Jews’ power. Or, as MacDonald puts it,
ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interest because Jews
become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political
and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it
becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles
united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements
have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews,
religiously and/or ethnically homogeneous.
The restrictionists included organized labor, who feared competition from the new
immigrants who were a perennial source of cheap labor.
“During this period, the immigration issue was also economic. Native businesses feared
cutthroat Jewish business practices.” Jewish factory owners, the group most likely to be the
backers of Jewish organizations favored immigration as a source of cheap labor. During this
period [1914] Edward A. Ross described gentile resentment for “being obliged to engage in a
humiliating and undignified scramble to keep his trade or his clients against the Jewish
invader—suggesting a rather broad- based concern with Jewish economic competition.”
The early opponents of multiculturalism also feared Jews as agents
of cultural subversion:
Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came
here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce
our horrible film stories; they compose and dish out to us our jazz music, they
write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers.
Jewish immigrants were also “widely perceived to be … disproportionately involved in
radical political movements,” a fact often acknowledged by the Jewish press. In one of its
editorials, The American Hebrew pointed out that “we must not forget the immigrants form
Russia and Austria will becoming from countries infested with Bolshevism, and it will
require more than a superficial effort to make good citizens out of them.”
The fact that Jewish immigrants form Eastern Europe were viewed as “infected with
Bolshevism … unpatriotic, alien, unassimilable” resulted in a wave of anti-Semitism in the
1920s and contributed to the restrictive immigration legislation of the period. Almost a decade
after the immigration debate ended with the triumph of the restrictionists in 1924, Jewish
immigration was still having consequences for American identity. As MacDonald points out,
“In Philadelphia in the 1930s, fully 72.2 percent of the Communist Party members were the
children of Jewish immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th and early
20th century.”
During the 1920s, Franz Boas, the Prussian Jewish anthropology professor from
Columbia University, turned the social sciences into a form of ethnic warfare. Arguments
from anthropology, no matter how absurd, could then be marshaled as “scientific” refutation
of restrictionist immigration policies:
Carl Degler notes that Boas’s professional correspondence “reveals that an
important motive behind his famous head-measuring project in 1910 was his
strong personal interest in keeping America diverse in population.” The study,
whose conclusions were placed into the Congressional Record by Representative
Emanuel Celler during the debate on immigration restriction … concluded that
the environmental difference consequent to immigration caused differences in
head shape.
The Battle over multiculturalism continued unabated after World War II. Senator Pat
McCarran, a Catholic from Arizona, was subjected to psychoanalysis on the pages of
Commentary magazine, published by the American Jewish Committee, as a way of
explaining his opposition to the progressive Jewish view on immigration. As before the war,
the opposition to McCarran’s bill—which became the McCarran-Walter act—“was led
by Jewish members of Congress, including Celler, Javits and Lehman, all of whom … were
prominent members of the ADL.”
 There is a direct link between Jewish anthropology as practiced by Franz Boas during the
1920s and Jewish immigration policy as implemented by Senator Jacob Javits in 1965. In
other words, if New York City resembles Mogadishu these days, we have Dorothy
Rabinowitz and her co-religionists to thank for this. The main reason people like Major Hasan
are American citizens and serving in the United States Army is the immigration bill of 1965,
which was a Jewish operation from start to finish. It turns out that the Jewish organizations
that promoted multiculturalism all shared the view of America proposed by Philip Roth in his
recent paranoid fantasy novel The Plot against America. America, in spite of waging war on
Hitler ’s Third Reich, was always in Jewish eyes a country waiting to be taken over by Nazi
extremists. Multiculturalism was the Jewish way of ensuring that that would not happen. As
MacDonald points out:
Earl Raab … remarks very positively on the success of revised American
foreign policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.
Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing
the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy, and he has
also maintained that one fact inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary US is
“an increasing ethnic heterogeneity as a result of immigration, has made it even
more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop.” Or
more colorfully: “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the
American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all
be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party
will be able to prevail in this country.” … Indeed the “primary objective” of
Jewish political activity after 1945 “was … to prevent the emergence of an anti-
Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States.”
Charles Silberman notes that
American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief that
Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and
behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief,
for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority
of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stand on most
other so-called ‘social’ issues.
Silberman’s testimony leads MacDonald to conclude that:
The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems reasonable to suppose had
been intended by its Jewish advocates all along: the Census Bureau projects
that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples with no longer be a majority
of the population of America. Moreover, multiculturalism has already become
a powerful ideological and political reality.
In promoting their multicultural agenda, the Jews claimed that it would lead to
collaboration and brotherhood. Writers like Boas protégé Israel Ehrenberg, who wrote under
the name of Ashley Montagu, claimed that human beings were “innately cooperative.” Any
evidence that increasing ethnic diversity led to ethnic conflict, i.e., violence, was ignored by
the Boasian social science establishment, which had an a priori and overriding commitment to
Jewish universalism. Conflict and violence, however, were inevitable, especially since the
dominant philosophy of post-Christian America was then and is now Capitalism, which
is the economic version of the war of all against all:
If one adopts a cultural pluralism model in which there is free
 competition for resources and reproductive success, difference between ethnic
groups are inevitable, and history suggests that such differences would result in
animosity from the groups that are losing out… . Under present policies, each
racial/ethnic group in the world is encouraged to press its interest in
expanding its demographic and political presence in America and can be
expected to do so if given the opportunity.
According to MacDonald, the American Jewish Committee, the main proponent of both
multiculturalism and unrestricted immigration, succeeded in changing the ethnic make up
of the United States by a combination of “strong leadership [particularly Louis
Marshall], internal cohesion, well-funded programs, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well-
chosen non- Jewish allies and good timing.”
If timing is everything the timing was all wrong in Rabinowitz’s attack on the connection
between Major Hasan, Islam and multiculturalism. One the one hand, Islam was changing the
political face of the Middle East through non-violent, pro- democracy rallies. Egypt had just
toppled its dictator in a bloodless revolution. (Paradoxically, the same pro-democracy
forces that neocons like Rabinowitz had promoted as agents of change in the Middle East were
finally having their day, and the neocons were upset being pro-democracy in the Middle East
means invariably being anti-Israel.) On the other hand, at the very moment when the Islamic
world was becoming a paradigm of non-violent democratic revolution of the sort that the
neocons all claimed they desired in the mid-East, Americans were treated to a spate of mass
murders perpetrated by Jews.
That you may not have noticed this is not surprising. Ever since the Leo Frank trial in
America, the Dreyfus case in France, and the Mendil Beilis case in Russia, the Jewish-
dominated press has adopted a policy of 1) suppressing the evidence whenever a suspect in a
crime turns out to be a Jew and 2) accusing anyone who brings up this fact of anti-
Semitism. In
addition to that, the Jewish dominated media work for the exoneration of any Jew brought to
trial. The pattern had already been established in the 19th century. Once Jews gained
significant control over the press, they instituted a policy which suppressed the identification
of Jews as criminals, or as a fallback position, once the Jewishness of the perpetrator was
inescapable, of proclaiming the suspect as an innocent victim of anti-Semitism. The trial of Leo
Frank is a good case in point, and it has served as a template for the Jewish press ever since.
As one writer put it in 1892:
It is a strange phenomenon which otherwise is evident in no other religious
group that the Jewish public opinion in the Austrian press always shows
solidarity with Jewish criminals. Every time a Jew is convicted of a crime, it is
take as new proof for pervasive anti-Semitism. Every conviction is
evidence of anti- Semitism.[3]
 Dorothy Rabinowitz could have bolstered her case against multiculturalism if she had
cited the story of Maksim Gellman. One week before her article appeared in the Wall Street
Journal , Maksim Gelman, a recent Ukrainian immigrant, who became an American citizen in
2005, went on a two-day killing spree from February 11 to February 12, 2011, which
resulted in the stabbing deaths of four people, including his girlfriend’s mother, and the
wounding of five others. The only problem in this scenario, at least from Rabinowitz’s point
of view, is that Gelman is a Jew. He was certainly a product of Jewish-inspired
multiculturalism which opened this country’s borders in 1965, but it is unlikely that he was
inspired by jihadism, especially since his father drove an ambulance for a Jewish
organization. If Rabinowitz were interested in understanding the psychology of mass
murderers, she should have focused on the Jews because it was they who were making the
news as mass murderers in early 2011, not the Muslims.
The story of Jared Loughner is another case in point. Roughly one month before Maksim
Gelman’s homocidal rampage in New York, on January 8, 2011, Loughner went on a shooting
spree that resulted in the death of six people and left 14 wounded. One of the people whom
Loughner shot but did not kill was United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who is
Jewish. The response to the killings was both predictable and immediate. Loughner was
accused of being a right-wing anti-Semite whose actions had been set in motion by right-wing
talk radio and politicians like Sara Palin, whose website featured a picture of Giffords in the
cross hairs of a gun sight. The hate crime story circulated widely until the facts started to
emerge. Loughner, it turns out, was a Jew himself. In fact, according to some reports, he was a
member of the same synagogue that Giffords attended. To make matters more complicated,
his favorite book was Mein Kampf. Loughner was, in other words, a Jewish Nazi.
According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency:
Bryce Tierney, a friend of Loughner from high school, told Mother Jones
magazine that the alleged gunman posted “Mein Kampf” as a “favorite book” on
a social media site in part to provoke his mother, who Tierney says is Jewish.
Once it became apparent that Loughner was Jewish, and once it had become clear that it
was going to be impossible to maintain the right-wing, anti-Semite story line, the story began
to change. The ADL then released an “analysis of the messages written by Arizona shooting
suspect Jared Lee Loughner” which “revealed Wednesday that the he may not have been
motivated by anti-Semitism when shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but rather by a
profound mistrust of government.”
“While there is still much we don’t know about Loughner, his online footprint offers one
window into his mindset in the months leading up to the killings,” said Abraham H. Foxman,
ADL National Director. “The writings that have come to light so far suggest someone who
probably was not associated with any extremist group or movement, but who has a generic
distrust of government and a vague interest in conspiracy theories.”
In other words, the ADL was telling us that the fact that Mein Kampf was Loughner ’s
favorite book had nothing to do with his attempted assassination of a Jewish member of
Congress. The only way this makes sense is if we look at the already mentioned pattern of
Jewish organizations and newspapers, who exonerate automatically any suspect who happens
to be Jewish. But even granting that, it’s probably just as accurate to say that the concept of a
Jewish Nazi is simply too difficult for the media to process.
The historic precedent of Jewish Nazis assassinating Jewish politicians, however, has
already been established, no matter how alien it seems to 21st American media categories.
Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley was a Jewish Nazi in the most literal sense of the term. In
February 1919, he assassinated Kurt Eisner, the Jewish premier of the Bavarian soviet
republic. Arco Valley had served in the German army during World War I and upon his return
to civilian life in Munich he was appalled at what he saw as the Jewish influence which took
over German culture in the wake of their defeat. Some speculate that he decided to kill Eisner
to prove himself to his nationalist friends in the Thule Society, but the mystery remains. Why
would a Jew other than Groucho Marx want to be part of an organization that would not accept
him as a member? Politics may have had something to do with it. Arco Valley is reported to
have said that “Eisner is a Bolshevist, a Jew; he isn’t German; he doesn’t feel German; he
subverts all patriotic thoughts and feelings. He is a traitor to this land.”[4] Once Arco Valley
killed Eisner, the students at the university which he was attending proclaimed him a hero.
Hitler was grateful to his Jewish supporter because Eisner ’s death led to the creation of the
Bavarian Soviet Republic, under another Jew, Eugen Levine, and this convinced groups like
the Bavarian Freikorps that things had gone too far and caused them to intervene and put an
end to the Communist, i.e, Jewish takeover of Bavaria. Arco Valley was sentenced to death
for his crime, but a sympathetic judge overturned the ruling and commuted it to a five-year
prison sentence. Four years into his sentence, he was evicted from his cell to make room for
Adolf Hitler, who wrote Mein Kampf during his stay there.
Jewish mass murderers remain invisible in America in the 21st century because the
concept of the hate crime was created with a political purpose in mind. Murder as already a
crime in every state in the union; hate crimes were created to demonize a certain group of
people. As a result, the hate crime went on to become a self-fulfilling prophecy because it is
only applied when the perpetrator fits a certain profile. As the late Tom Herron pointed out in
these pages, the Jew who deliberately set fire
to the church of the little flower in Royal Oak, Michigan as retaliation against Father
Coughlin, could not be construed as the perpetrator of a hate crime because he was Jewish.
Needless to say, the Rabinowitz theory that mass murders came about when jihadism
mixed with multiculturalism was looking less plausible by the minute. On February 10, 2010,
which is to say one year before Rabinowitz discovered the key to mass murder in a
combination of jihadism and multiculturalism, a white professor walked into a faculty meeting
of the biology department at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and murdered the
African-American department chairman and other persons of color in the department. This
would seem to constitute the quintessential hate crime. That’s how the media would have
played the story had they not discovered that the mass murderer in this instance turned out to
be a woman and Jewish. Once those facts were established, the story, deprived of its political
usefulness, disappeared from the headlines.
Amy Bishop, the Jewish lady who gunned down her black department chairman, had
murdered her brother a few years earlier but had never been prosecuted because her parents
were both wealthy and members of powerful Jewish organizations. Once it becomes apparent
that a mass murderer is Jewish the story changes dramatically. Suddenly, we are out of the
realm of hate crime and into the realm of dynamic silence, or back to the ’60s therapy
explanation of why basically good people do bad things when under stress because they have
not been granted tenure, etc.
 Just as the recently deceased Bernard Nathanson found that he ceased to exist as a person
in the public record when the became a Jew who opposed abortion (there is not such thing as
a pro-life Jew according to the categories of the New York Times) so there is no such thing as
a Jewish Nazi or a Jewish mass murderer. The category simply doesn’t exist.
Unless, of course, you read Israel Shahak’s account of Baruch Goldstein, yet another
Jewish mass murderer, and how he murdered 29 men, including children, at the Patriarch’s
cave in Hebron on February 25, 1994. Goldstein was born into an Orthodox Jewish family
from Brooklyn, where he attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush, Yeshiva University and Albert
Einstein College of Medicine. One of Goldstein’s boyhood friends was Rabbi Meir Kahane,
founder of the Jewish Defense League, and so it came as no surprise when Goldstein joined
that organization.
Goldstein emigrated to Israel in 1983 and served as a physician in the Israeli Defense
Force, where he refused to treat Arabs, even if they were members of the IDF. The IDF
ignored his disobedience of a direct order and sheltered him instead of punishing him until the
day he died at the hands of the Palestinians he had failed to kill in his attack.
According to the Wikipedia entry under his name, “Goldstein was immediately
denounced with shocked horror even by the mainstream Orthodox,’ and most in Israel
classified Goldstein as insane.” Israel Shakak tells a different story in his book Jewish
Fundamentalism in Israel, which documents Goldstein’s apotheosis as a Jewish saint,
complete with monument and pilgrimages to his gravesite. The canonization procedures started
at Goldstein’s funeral when Rabbi Yaacov Perrin announced that the lives of one million
Arabs were “not worth a single Jewish fingernail.” Goldstein had become a Jewish saint
because he was a Jewish mass murderer:
While the government seemed determined to play down the magnitude of
the massacre, the Jewish masses had turned Goldstein into a saint… . In 2010,
Jewish settlers were criticized that during celebrations of Purim they sang
songs praising Baruch Goldstein’s massacre demonstratively in front of their
Arab neighbours. A phrase from the song reads “Dr. Goldstein, there is none
other like you in the world. Dr. Goldstein, we all love you … he aimed at
terrorists’ heads, squeezed the trigger hard, and shot bullets, and shot, and
shot.”
According to Shahak, “Goldstein’s behavior had deep roots in the Jewish religion, and
that religion had a profound influence on political culture in Israel.” The main connection
between Goldstein’s act of mass murder and the Jewish religion lay in the halachic teaching
that “the killing by a Jew of a non-Jew under any circumstances is not regarded as murder.”
Hence, in the ensuing discussion, “the terms ‘murder,” “massacre” or “killing” were avoided;
instead the terms used were “deed,” “event” or “occurrence.’”
The fact that “at least 50 percent of Israeli Jews” approved of the massacre led Katz to
claim that “the most obvious conclusion” is that “we, the Jews … have been programmed by
the same racist computer program that is shaping the majority of the world’s nations.”
Katz’s mention of Jewish racism then led to a discussion of Jewish Nazism. Goldstein
was a Jewish Nazi because, unlike Christians who believed in conversion of the Jews, he,
like Hitler and Goebbels, believed in exterminating his enemies because of ineradicable racial
characteristics. The esteemed Israeli journalist Teddy Preus made Jewish-Nazi connection in
article which appeared in Davar on March 4, 1994:
Compared to the giant-scale mass murderers of Auschwitz, Goldstein was
certainly a petty murderer. His recorded statements and those of his comrades,
however, prove that they were perfectly willing to exterminate at least two
million Palestinians at an opportune moment. This makes Dr. Goldstein
comparable to Dr. Mengele; the same holds true for anyone saying that he [or
she] would welcome more of such Purim holiday celebrations. [The massacre
occurred on that holiday.] Let us not devalue Goldstein by comparing him with
an inquisitor or a Muslim Jihad fighter. Whenever an infidel was ready to convert
to either Christianity or Islam, an inquisitor or Muslim Jihad fighter would, as a
rule, spare his life. Goldstein and his admirers are not interested in converting
Arabs to Judaism. As their statements abundantly testify, they see the Arabs as
nothing more than disease-spreading rats, lice or other loathsome creatures; this
is exactly how the Nazis believed that the Aryan race alone had laudable
qualities that were inheritable but that could become polluted by sheer contact
with dirty and morbid Jews. [JDL founder Meir] Kahane, who learned nothing
from the Nuremberg Laws, had exactly the same notions about the Arabs.
Shahak and Mershinzky conclude their book with a condemnation of “those who are
silent and do not condemn Jewish Nazism, as exemplified by the ideologies of Goldstein and
Ginsburgh, especially if they are Jews, [because they] are guilty of the terrible consequences
that may yet develop as a result of their silence.”
 Seven years after Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians in the cave of the
patriarch in Hebron, and less than 5 years after Shahak and Merzinsky explained how
Goldstein was a Jewish Nazi, The Believer, a film written and directed by Henry Bean about
an orthodox Jew who becomes a neo-Nazi won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2001 Sundance film
festival. The film is based loosely on the life of Daniel Burros, a neo-Nazi who committed
suicide in the mid-’60s after a New York Times reporter wrote an article exposing him as a
Jew. According to Bean:
Burros was staying at a camp in the Poconos with the neo-Nazis when the
story in the New York Times claiming that he was Jewish came out. The Nazis
weren’t upset. They were saying just sit down; we can talk about this. But
Burros went up to his room, put on a Wagner record and shot himself. He killed
himself within an hour of the story coming out.
Bean began discussing the Danny Burros story in the ’70s when he was a writer living
on the West Coast. He began to see Burros as typifying a particular kind of Jew. “He was a
rabbi manque. Antisemitism is a form of practicing Judaism. He’s sort of a rabbi after all. A
Jew by day, a Nazi by night… . He was desperately hiding something and compulsively
trying to bring it out at the same time.
People are drawn to contradiction. He undergoes a conversion, but not back to the
Torah.” By telling the story of the
Jewish Nazi, Bean concluded, “I began to understand what Judaism was.”
Bean’s explanation of how a Jew can become a Nazi is at root theological. Through a
series of flashbacks, the viewer sees Danny Balint, as he is called in the movie, arguing with
his Yeshiva teacher about whether Abraham spared Isaac’s life, as recounted in the Genesis
account, or whether, as Danny maintains, he died on Mt. Moriah. Danny’s problems with
religion stem from the fact that he takes the Torah much more seriously and literally than his
fellow Yeshiva bokkers. When one of them tells Danny that “Fear of the Lord is the
beginning of wisdom,” he becomes rhapsodic: “Fear of the Lord,” he responds, “makes you
afraid of everything. Do you even believe in God? I’m the only one who does believe. I see
Him for the power- drunk madman that he is. And we’re supposed to worship such a deity? I
say never.”
At this point the teacher tells one of the students “to ask Rabbi Singer remove Danny
from my class,” something which prompts Danny to turn his eyes upward and say to God,
“Then let Him destroy me now. Let Him destroy me like the conceited bully that He is. Go
ahead.”
Like Jared Loughner, Danny Balint is a Jew who has read Mein Kampf and thinks it’s a
great book. “Did you ever read Mein Kampf?” Danny asks his fellow skinheads when they end
up in jail after a fight with two blacks. “Hitler had some of his best ideas in prison.” Danny
admires Hitler, especially his views on race. In the middle of a meeting of more moderate
right- wingers at an upscale Manhattan apartment, Danny, who is wearing a red T-shirt
emblazoned with a black swastika, interrupts the speaker to opine that “race is central to
everything we’re talking about tonight. Race is the source of religion.” When the speaker
objects that this would mean “Germany all over again.” Danny responds by saying, “Isn’t that
what we want? Germany all over again but done right this time?”
When Danny gets a call from a New York Times reporter, he gives an eloquent articulation
of anti-Semitism. Judaism “is a sickness… . The real Jew is a nomad and a wanderer. He has
no roots and no attachments. He universalizes everything. All he can do is buy and sell and
manipulate markets. It’s all mental. Marx, Freud, Einstein: what have they given us?
Communism, infantile sexuality and the atom bomb. They want nothing but nothingness,
nothing without end.”
The main issue in The Believer is theological. Danny has penetrated to the heart of the
Jewish religion by understanding that the Jew worships Nothingness. As he says to the Times
reporter, the Jews “want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.”
The Times reporter is impressed, but as we have come to expect from reporters, at the
moment when the real issue is framed, the reporter changes the subject. “Wow,” he tells
Danny, “You’re incredibly articulate, but how can you believe all this when you’re a Jew
yourself?”
When confronted by the contradiction at the heart of his identity, Danny becomes violent.
At first he denies he’s Jewish, then he threatens to sue the Times if the reporter publishes the
article: “It’s reckless disregard. I’m going to sue your fucking Jew paper.” Finally, he takes
out a gun and puts it into the mouth of the reporter and announces, as if unaware of the
contradiction: “If you publish that article, I will kill myself.”
All of the themes we have been discussing—Jews, racism, Nazism, nihilism, and
violence—are all present in this powerful scene. At this point, they begin to coalesce into a
coherent picture. The Jewish Nazi is a political terrorist, but he is, first of all, a Nazi, which is
to say a particular kind of socialist. Jews were drawn to socialism and communism throughout
the
19th century. In fact Jews made up the backbone of those movements. Jews were drawn to
those movements because they provided both an antidote and a way to give political
expression to the Jewish nihilism which came into being when the Enlightenment arrived in
the shtetl and destroyed rabbinic Judaism. Deprived of a coherent worldview, the Jew still
had a sense of himself as a member of the chosen race which could now only find expression
in revolutionary violence. The best way
for the shtetl Jew to bring about tikkun olan was via dynamite and the Colt revolver.
Because Danny lives in an age in which socialism has failed, he is unsure of how to focus
the revolutionary violence that is going to deliver him from the strong pull toward non-being
which Jewish nihilism creates. Should he kill the reporter from the Jew newspaper or should
he kill himself? Actually, the question needs to be reframed in light of what Danny actually
said, namely, “If you publish that article, I will kill myself.” Should Danny the Nazi kill
Danny the Jew? In a fantasy he picked up after hearing a holocaust survivor describe how a
Nazi soldier killed his son, Danny plays the role of both Jew and Nazi soldier.
 Judaism, according to the theology proposed by The Believer, is essentially nihilistic.
The Jews “want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.” This theme gets developed
throughout the film. When Danny’s girlfriend asks him to explain the difference between God’s
apophatic character and “Him not existing at all,” Danny replies, “there is no difference.”
When she tells him that “Christianity’s silly but at least there’s something to believe in,”
Danny responds by saying, “Judaism is nothing. Nothing but nothingness.” Then as if
reconsidering the issue, Danny says, “Judaism isn’t really about belief. It’s about doing
things.”
“And belief follows?” his
girlfriend asks. “Nothing
follows.”
Eventually his girlfriend catches on. After setting out a seder meal for Danny, she says he
should sit down and take part in the meal because God “commands it whether he exists or
not.”
Like Jacob, Danny’s girlfriend concludes that there is no point in fighting God. “We can
fight Him and be crushed. Or we can submit.”
“And be crushed,” says Danny.
After their rejection of Christ, the Jews confected a religion which is based on the absence
of Logos, which is to say, the absence of Being, which is to say, nothing. If the Eucharist in the
tabernacle in the Catholic Church can be termed “the real presence,” then what the Jew who
rejected Christ worships in his synagogue can be termed “the real absence,” which is
another word for nothing. The Jew worships nothing; or better, the Jew worships nothingness.
The Jew, as Jacques Derrida has pointed out malgre lui but amply in his deconstructive
literary criticism, is obsessed with the absence of presence or the presence of absence.
Nihilism leads inevitably to violence because violence, which is a manifestation of the
arbitrary and autonomous will, is the only way that the acting person can assert his existence
in a world without Logos. Violence is an extreme form of self- assertion, and only extreme
forms of assertion are powerful enough to prevent the slide into non-being to which the
Jewish nihilist is exposed by the very fact that he is Jewish. That is so because Jews worship
the absence of being and as a result “want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.”
Judaism is about doing things because nihilism is ultimately about doing things, because
action is the only thing that prevents dissolution into non-being in a universe based on
nothingness.
Nihilism, in other words, leads inevitably to violence. So to get back to the plot of The
Believer, when Danny goes to a Jewish bookstore, he meets one of his former Yeshiva
classmates, who invites him to the synagogue for services—the same synagogue, it turns out,
where Danny planted a bomb, which failed to go off. This time he plants another bomb, timed
to go off during Sabbath services, at which he decides to read the Torah. When Danny goes to
the synagogue, he meets one of his former Yeshiva classmates, who calls him a “Jewish Nazi.”
By showing up to davin at the synagogue where he has planted a bomb, Danny the Nazi
finally succeeds in killing Danny the Jew. But since he dies reciting the Torah, it is equally
accurate to say the Danny the Jew ends up killing Danny the Nazi.
At the end of the film, after Danny blows up the synagogue in which he is praying, we
next see him running up a flight of stairs at the Yeshiva. At the top of one flight, Danny sees
his former teacher, who now agrees with Danny, claiming now that “Isaac died on Mt.
Moriah and was reborn in the world to come,” but Danny runs past him up yet another
flight of steps, causing the teacher to ask, “Danny, where are you going. Don’t you know?
There’s nothing up there.”
Jewish nihilism, in other words, leads to Jewish violence.
 Russia was plagued by nihilism and the violence which it inevitably spawned throughout
the course of the 19th century. This was nowhere more evident than in the Jewish shtetls
which dotted the Pale of the Settlement which made up Russia’s predominantly Jewish
border with the West during the 19 th and early 20th centuries. After centuries of rabbinic
despotism, Jewish nihilism became too obvious to ignore about when the German
Enlightenment came in contact with the Talmudic culture of the shtetl and destroyed it by
showing its futility and intellectual obsolescence. The shtetl Jew was released from his
bondage to the rabbis and the kahal, the Jewish courts which enforced Talmudic nihilist
culture, but without being granted access to the Logos which made Christian Europe and hence
the Enlightenment (by way of reaction, of course) possible. Using the Enlightenment to split
the Talmudic atom released enormous amounts of destructive energy, energy which eventually
destroyed Russia itself in 1917.
In his magisterial treatment of Jews and revolution in 19th century Russia, Erich Haberer
claims that “Nihilism was the most spontaneous and radical expression of the Russian
renascence of the 1860s. Essentially, it was a ‘cultural revolution’ of the young generation
against the existing order”:[5]
Convinced that their native culture was an anachronism that was kept alive by
an equally anarchistic surrounding society, these men were rebels without firm
social and/or national moorings in either the Jewish or Russian world. They
were strangers who, like all men cast adrift on a turbulent sea, sought security
by boarding and helping to navigate any ship which would sail into the
sunrise. The only vessel that came into sight and took them aboard as full
members of the crew, sailed under the flag of revolution. Here they found
brotherhood, recognition, and a place they could call their own; here they
regained a sense of identity, of belonging and fulfillment, that they had sought
desperately in so far as they ceased to identify with their Jewishness. Cut off
from their original sources of Jewish existence, they planted - or rather
replanted - themselves firmly on the deck of this life-saving vessel which
promised a safe, albeit stormy, journey to the promised land. Succinctly put,
their cosmopolitanism was really the obverse side of Jewishness - a search for
identity that was predicated on their estrangement from the community in which
they were raised and which had shaped their spiritual being. Hence the
religious-existential nature of their identification with socialism and its Russian
‘church’ - the revolutionary movement.
If the Enlightenment could overturn a Logos-based culture like Catholic France in a
matter of decades, it is not difficult to imagine the devastating effect that it would have on a
fragile anti-Logos culture like the Talmudic shtetl. We are still experiencing the fall out from
the explosion that destroyed the shtetl. The Believer, as well as the phenomenon of the
Jewish Nazi which it describes, is part of that ongoing cultural fall out.
Nihilism in Russia, including the writings of Nikolai Chernyshevksy, “the Russian
‘philosophe’ par excellence,” was based on the French Enlightenment. As in France, the
Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment called for “the destruction of all authority” and “the
ridiculing of all res sacrae.”[6] If the 1860s in Russia were a preview of what the 1960s were
going to be in the West, it was largely because of Chernyshevsky’s novel What is to Be Done?
The Tales of the New People (Lenin later appropriated the title Shto Delat? for his famous
revolutionary pamphlet.) The main characters of the novel, Vera Pavlovna and Pavel
Rahkmetov became role models for the youth of the 1860s by espousing free love and a
primitive vaguely religious sounding communism.
If the past century and a half has shown anything, it has shown how vulnerable the
Logos-based west has been to the
weaponizing of sexuality and the secularization of the Gospel that people like Chernyshevsky
were proposing. If Catholicism in the West, strengthened by Scholasticism’s appropriation of
Greek philosophy in the Middle Ages proved to be no match for the Enlightenment, then it’s
not difficult to see that an essentially xenophobic anti-intellectual Russian orthodoxy was
going to fail even more spectaculary. Similarly, if the weaponizing of sexuality and the
secularization of the Gospel that people like Chernyshevsky were proposing devastated the
West for the next century and a half, they were going to have an even more devastating
effect on the culture of the shtetl, which had no Logos to defend itself. The result of this
obliteration of shtetl culture was nihilism, or as Haberer puts it, “As a Philosophy of
emancipation Russian nihilism can be viewed as an extension of the Jewish Enlightement: it
reinforced and radicalized its ideals of secular learning, self-improvement, and
social responsibility.”[7]
Nihilism took over the ’60s generation in the shtetl even more rapidly and completely
than it took over the mind of the Jews’ Russian counterparts because the Logos of an anti-
intellectual Christianity provided more resistance that anti-Logos of the Talmud.
Nihilism had served them well in their maskilic, individualistic desire to emancipate
themselves from their religious- traditionalist bound Jewish society. But it had left them
frustrated, isolated, and marginal in trying to transform themselves and the Jewish people into
universal citizens in the image of modern European culture. In socialism, regardless of its
Populist
form, they discovered a philosophy of social action which was concerned with, the
collective rather than the individual, the
‘emotional’ rather than the ‘rational’, and ‘the people’ rather than the ‘critically thinking’
intelligentsia. While Aptekman’s
‘Christian socialism’ captures very well the underlying religious-existential motif of this shift
to socialism, it is Akselrod who best exemplifies the Jewish radical’s infatuation with the
new grandiose perspectives of building “churches of the future” which would “conquer the
whole world” and establish “universal brotherhood.”
As a result Jewish nihilism became a cultural movement that swept through the Pale
of the Settlement spawning revolutionary violence in its wake:
Spear-heading this crusade were Jewish gymnasium students and rabbinical
seminarians. In places like Vilna, Mogilev, Zhitomir, and Kiev, they formed
‘circles of self-education’ which, in turn, proliferated by attracting talmudists,
pupils of Jewish crown schools, and privately educated children of wealthy
Jewish merchants. Meeting more or less regularly, members would read and
discuss Russian literature, articles from the Russian-Jewish periodical press,
and works of the German-Jewish Haskalah. Some ventured to write their own
Russian, Hebrew, and Yiddish compositions criticizing and satirizing Jewish life
and its Orthodox leadership.[8]
The anti-Logos of the Talmud found its natural fulfillment in the anti-Logos of revolution.
And nihilism, which was the new term for anti-Logos, found expression in revolutionary
violence. This trajectory is best explicated from the lives of the revolutionaries themselves.
Before long the philosophy of nihilism gave birth to revolutionary organizations. The first
“genuine revolutionary organization, theSociety of Land and Freedom (Zemlia i Volia) came
into existence in 1861. In 1864 Nikolai Ishutin and Dmitrii Karakazov created another
revolutionary society known as “Organization.” The terrorist arm of Organization was a
“highly secretive inner group called ‘Hell,’” which “stripped nihilism of its humanistic
content by advocating unrestrained revolutionary violence.”[9] From the mid-’60s onward,
“ultra-extreme nihilists” like Karakazov, who “attempted to assassinate Alexander II on 4
April 1866” dominated radicalism in Russia. The fact that Karakazov was executed only
“vindicated the terrorist legacy of the Ishutintsy and made Karakazov, who was promptly
executed, a hero in the eyes of future generations of revolutionaries.”[10]
Haberer claims that “only a small number of Jews were attracted to the revolutionary
experiments of nihilist radicalism
between 1856 and 1868” because nihilism—for the time being, at least—was “a cultural
experience which, while contributing to their radicalization within a traditional Jewish setting,
was devoid of direct or immediate revolutionary implications.” But that would change soon
enough.
Before long the Russian revolutionary movement split into above ground essentially
educational organizations like Chernyi Peredel, and under ground terrorist organizations
like Narodnaia Volia, which were dominated by Jews. The connection between Jews and
revolutionary violence is not coincidental. In its initial phase, the Russian revolutionary
movement pursued what would be viewed in retrospect as an essentially Romantic attempt on
the part of Russian intellectuals to move to the countryside and live among the peasants,
enlightening them about the true extent of their oppression at the hands of the Russian ruling
class. In practical terms, this often took the form of revolutionary Jews preaching to orthodox
Russian peasants. The peasants invariably perceived the Jews as foreigners espousing some
alien, godless ideology, and more often than not the revolutionary proselytizing backfired
when the peasants reported their would-be liberators to the local police. The failure of the
Jewish participation in the back to the land movement led to a change in strategy. Jewish
revolutionaries decided to concentrate on what they could do best as praktiky, i.e., organizers
but especially, as techniky, which brought to bear their skills as printers, forgers, smugglers,
counterfeiters, and technicians, particularly in their expertise in handling explosives.
 Despite the obvious presence of Jews in Chernyi Peredel, it has been argued that Jews
qua Jews were more attracted to Narodnaia Volia because political terrorism was more
congenial to Jewish panicipation than the theory and practice of traditional Populism. In this
view - most forcefully put forth by Elias Tscherikower - the new political orientation and
its urban-centred terrorist activity significantly ‘broadened the range of possibilities for
Jewish revolutionaries - both psychologically and factually’. Factually, it provided Jews with
the unprecedented opportunity to be active in an urban environment that was much more
conducive to their natural abilities and national characteristics: instead of acting as
propagandists in the name of an alien ideology in an alien peasant environment, they now
were able to partake in activities where their Jewishness was less of a liability than
previously. Without feeling a sense of inferiority, without necessarily divesting themselves of
their Jewish traits, as Narodovoltsy they could participate fully and effectively in the sort of
work for which they were ideally suited as Jews. In short, their characteristically Jewish
abilities of ‘underground organization’ and
‘technical know-how’ were a real asset readily appreciated and sought after by their Russian
comrades. Psychologically, Narodnaia Volia provided Jews with a political rationale for
revolutionary action that was much more in tune with their experience of Jewish rightlessness
than Populist abstractions of social revolution.
Haberer ’s explanation of Jews’ attraction to revolutionary violence is good as it goes
but it ignores the ontological connection between nihilism and violence. Jews were more
attracted to violence because they came from a more nihilistic background. The Talmud had
trained them to treat both the moral order and the goyim with contempt, and this
dehumanization made it easier to kill people for a sacred cause. As Salo Baron has pointed
out, Russians who ended up being interrogated by the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, after the
revolution were more likely to be tortured by Jews because Jews did not view the goyim as
fellow citizens. The Jews who had been taught as children to hold the goyim and their
Christian moral law in contempt were going to be less inhibited in engaging in violence and
mayhem than their Christian counterparts. If the entire Jewish people could be sacrificed to
the abstractions of the Talmud, it was only a short step to claim that goyim should be
sacrificed to the revolutionary cause.
If we combine both internal and external reasons, it is easy to see why the revolutionary
movement in Russia would become both more Jewish and more violent as the 19th century
progressed. That progression is mirrored in the lives of the revolutionaries themselves. For
Mark Natanson,
nihilism proved to be an ideology of salvation. Having been sensitized from
early on to the discrepancy between the reality and ideals of traditional Jewish
society and beginning to lose, if not having already lost, faith in Judaism, he
readily identified himself with the sort of ‘nihilist personality’ that emerged from
Chernyshevsky’s What Is to Be Done? and Pisarev’s characterization of Bazarov -
a person that would ‘help cure society of its moral and physical ills by his
 exemplary life and useful work’ and whose ‘rational egoism was really a form of
puritanism based upon the discipline of scientific work and a “scientific” ethic… .
The influence of nihilism and Jewishness in shaping Natanson’s personality was
also recognized by his contemporaries. Lev Deich and Osip Aptekman imply that,
as in their own case, maskilic ideals and nihilist prescriptions contributed to
Natanson’s radicalization. Others have noted that while Natanson’s practical
and businesslike approach to revolutionary affairs was due to his
upbringing in a Jewish merchant household, his intellectual perseverance
bordering on dogmatism derived from his talmudic studies.[11]
Natanson’s Jewishness made it more likely that his nihilism would find expression in
violence rather than attempts to educate the benighted peasantry.
The degree to which nihilism retained its hold on Natanson was, as will be
shown later, quite commonly replicated among Jewish intelligenty of the 1870s.
In the person of Natanson, however, this translated itself politically into a
concrete Jewish revolutionary contribution in the form of a programme that
introduced a party-political dimension into an ostensibly apolitical Populist
movement. Therefore, to put it succinctly, it was his Jewish background and
Jewish-tinted nihilism which, in formulating the original programme of the future
Chaikovtsy, made Natanson emphasize ‘scientific rationalism’ rather than
romantic peasantism, political rather than social revolution, the intelligentsia
rather than ‘the people’. [12]
In 1875, Mark Natanson returned to St. Petersburg after four years of exile. In response to
the disillusionment which police repression, peasant inertia and the xenophobic hostility of
the masses had created in the revolutionary movement,[13] Natanson answered
Chernyshevsky’s question, “Chto delat?” by building “a party of struggle.” Because of the fear
of being labeled anti-Semitic, scholars cannot address the issue of “‘how and why’ a Jew
created Russia’s first truly revolutionary party.”[14]
One of the Jews attracted to Natanson’s revolutionary party of struggle was Aron
Zundelevich. In his novel The Career
of a Nihilist, Sergei Kravchinskii has Zundelevich say that he loves the Nihilist more
than he loves his fellow Jews:
 We Jews, we love our race, which is all we have on the earth. I love it deeply
and warmly. Why should I love your peasants, who hate and illtreat my people
with, blind barbarity, who to-morrow will perhaps loot the house of my father,
an honorable working-man, and brutally assault him, as they have done to
thousands of other poor hard-working Jews? I can pity your peasants for what
but contempt can one feel for such wholesale cowards? No, there is nothing in
your Russia worth caring for. But I knew the Nihilists, and I loved them even
more than my own race. I joined and fraternized with them, and that is the only
tie which binds me to your country. As soon as we have done with Your Tsar’s
despotism, I shall expatriate myself forever, and settle somewhere in Germany
… Germany is the only land where we are not total strangers.[15]
The nihilist was in some sense the ultimate Jew, the apotheosis of the Jew, and the if
activity is the expression of essence, then the essence of nihilism was violent revolutionary
action. Without action of this sort nihilism becomes nothing more than non-being. The nihilist
needs violent action to prevent the slide into nonexistence which his philosophy brings about
as its ultimate telos. The more violent the action the better it acts as the antidote to non-being.
This probably explains Zundelevich’s attraction to dynamite, a new form of explosive that
became increasingly important in revolutionary circles during the latter part of the 19th
century. Kravchinskii, who before becoming a novelist was a fellow nihilist and terrorist,
“conducted experiments in the Swiss mountains to test the efflcacy of dynamite and other
explosives” at Zundelevich’s behest.[16] Zundelevich told Kravchinskii that dynamite, out of
which the nihilists fashioned “elegant and slender bombs,” was the “most modern means
available” to kill the Tsar and that it “corresponds best with the targets singled out for
terrorist acts.”[17]
Natanson attracted more and more Jews to the revolutionary movement, and Jews like
Ginzburg, Epshtein, Finkelshtein
and Zundelevich created an organization that mirrored their need for revolutionary violence
rather than educating the peasantry:
With Zundelevich’s extensive underground organization at their disposal, the
Natansonvtsy controlled a network of illegal border crossings which connected
them via Berlin, Koenigsberg and Vilna with the two most important centres of
Russian revolutionary printing activity abroad, London and Geneva. This line of
communication and its central transfer points for goods and people was
manned almost exclusively by Jews. In the border region between Koenigsberg
and Vilna, Jewish smugglers - chief among them Zalman and his family - took
care of the revolutionary ware, conveying it across the frontier by all sorts of
ingenious enterprise.” Particularly sensitive and valuable items such as printing
press accessories and, later on, dynamite were taken directly to St Petersburg by
Zalman himself and sometimes by Zundelevich. But generally the ‘port of entry’
was Vilna, which since the days of the first Vilna circle served as the main post
 once for ‘red mail’ to and from Russia.[18]
When Natanson visited Zundelevich in the fall of 1875 most of this underground
infrastructure was already well in place. On June 11, 1876 Zundelevich and Natanson’s
organization attempted to murder the suspected agent-provocateur Nikolai E. Gorinovich by
pouring sulphuric acid on his face. Gorinovich survived and provided the police with
evidence about Zundelevich and Natanson’s terrorist cell. In 1877 nihilism led to terrorism
in the most literal sense of the term when Zundelevich and Natanson’s organization murdered
“the railroad worker N. F. Sharashkin for betraying Mark Natanson and a large number of
workers associated with his so-called ‘Society of Friends.’” As a result of the Gorinovich
affair, “assassinations were increasingly viewed as an acceptable, even legitimate, weapon of
revolutionary revenge and defense.”
Soon the south of Russia was awash in terrorist attacks. The reason that “the virus of
terror spread first in the south” of
Russia is because of the overwhelmingly Jewish participation in the revolutionary movement
there:
The statistical findings of Kappeler (as they relate to Jews) show up in the
presence of Jewish radicals in almost all “southern circles” which were directly or
indirectly involved in acts of terrorism or physical resistance against the
authorities. For instance, the Elizavetgrad circle of Lev I. Rozenfeld, which
was closely linked with the Kiev Buntarists and helped them in organizing
the Gorinovich assassination, consisted almost exclusively of Jews. The same
was the case in Nikolaev where the “rebels” were in contact with, Solomon
Vinenberg, Aron Cornbet, Lev and Savelii Zlaropolskii, all of whom were leading
activists among the local, Predominantly Jewish, radical youth. Indeed, Jews
were a major and very active component in virtually all radical circles which in
the south of Russia acted as catalysts of political terrorism.[19]
In the spring of 1878, Solomon Vittenberg returned to Nikolaev after a trip to Odessa in
the south of Russia where terrorism was is full swing and announced that he was going to
introduce a “new style” of terrorism by blowing up Tsar Alexander II’s train with pyroxylin
when it passed through Nidolaev on its way to St. Petersburg in August. Vittenberg was
arrested on August 16, 1878, when police discovered his address on someone sent from
Odessa to assist in the assassination
attempt, and hanged one year later. All of the conspirators in the Nikolaev plot to assassinate
the Czar but one were Jewish. [20]
According to Haberer,
Scholars have justly cautioned against perceiving Judaism as a motivating
force of Jewish radicalization. But to ignore or deny the workings of this religious
dimension in the psychology of revolutionary Jews would be short-sighted. It
prevents us from comprehending the mental processes which drove alienated
men and existentially troubled individuals like Vittenberg to sanctify socialism
and to commit themselves to terrorism.[21]
 The revolutionary career of Grigorii Davidovich Goldenberg (1855-80) is another
example of how the Enlightenment led to Nihilism and Nihilism to revolutionary violence. In
1865, Grigorii’s parents moved out of the shtetl town of Berdichev to Kiev, where his father
opened a successful hardware business. With success came assimilation, and with
assimilation an end to the practice of Jewish culture and religion. All of the Goldenberg
children were given a secular eduction, and all of them were as a result “caught up in the
revolutionary movement.”[22] Grigorii, the oldest and most talented, was the “first to fall
victim to the siren call of revolution.” On February 9, 1879, Grigorii entered the inner circle
of the terrorist elite when he assassinated Prince Dimitri Kropotkin, Govemor of Kharkov.
One month later he was plotting the assassination Tsar Alexander II with the Zemlevoltsy
of St. Petersburg:
Goldenberg himself was a perfect, and timely, example for demonstrating
the supposed truth that behind every terrorist plot there was a Jew. Here was a
Jewish terrorist par excellence who had not only assassinated the Governor
General of Kharkov, but who had advised others to kill the Tsar - a task,
moreover, which he desired to execute himself. In addition, his written testimony
was full of Jewish names implicating Jews like Aronchik and Zundelevich in
terrorist activities. In the light of the previous arrest of Vittenberg and Jewish
associates of his circle, including Gobet, all this merely confirmed the
government’s suspicion that Jews were principal agents of terrorism.
Eventually, on March 1, 1881, Narodnaia Volia succeeded in assassinating Tsar
Alexander II and the government began to see Jewish nihilism as the source of revolutionary
activity in Russia.
The ever growing Jewish participation in the revolutionary movement, and
its increasing visibility as Jews became more frequently linked to highly
publicized acts of terrorism, was duly registered by those who had least to gain
from it - the government officials. Although some noticed that there was a nexus
between the radicalization of Jews and yiddishe rektlozikeyt, the general
feeling was that from time immemorial the ‘Hebrew race’ had been an alien
and subversive element in society and that its decomposing powers had reached
epidemic proportions due to the influx of Jews into Russian society via
educational, professional, and commercial channels. This feeling gained in force
as more and more Jewish names appeared conspicuously on the pages of
government reports and newspaper articles dealing with political subversion in
general and terrorist plots in particular.
A consensus was forming among the Russian elites. As a result of the Enlightenment,
Jews had been “set free but not satisfied.” The name for that unhappy state of affairs was
Jewish Nihilism. Jewish nihilism was the source of revolutionary violence in Russia. “To all
the other good qualities which you Jews possess,” the governor of Vilna told a group of
Jewish leaders sarcastically in 1872, “about the only thing you need is to become nihilists
too.” Commenting on Mlodetskii’s execution, Novoe vremia opined that “these Jews, being
from time immemorial the representatives of the revolutionary spirit, stand now at the head of
Russian Nihilists.”
Though highly prejudiced in its assertion that Jews, along with Poles, were the
mainspring of the revolution, the tsarist government obviously had a case in blaming ‘Jewish
nihilists’ for the wave of terrorism that had rocked the ship of state since
1878-79 and even claimed its captain in 1881. In some ways, and in spite of their
exaggerations, its officials had a more accurate appreciation of the role of Jews in the
terrorist movement than the revolutionaries themselves or historians who joined them in
downplaying die Jewish contribution.[23]
In spite of the crackdown following the assassination of the tsar in 1881, Jewish
commitment to revolutionary violence
only intensified. In 1884 Shternberg wrote an influential pamphlet entitled Political Terror in
Russia, in which he advocated “systematic terrorism” including the “systematic killing of the
tsar and the most important, the most outspoken enemies of the people and the intelligentsia.”
Terror, Shternberg concluded was “the only form of struggle possible against autocracy.”
Arguments like this caused a split between Jews and Gentiles in the movement. During
debates at the socialism congress, Jews argued for “‘the systematic and uninterrupted
repetition of terrorist acts’ as the only means to destroy tsarism.” Haberer concludes that, all
anti-Semitism notwithstanding, there was a “factual basis underlying the phobia in official
and reactionary circles that the Jew was poised to destroy Holy Tsarist Russia.” Starting of
with Shebeko’s claim that 80 per cent of socialists in southern Russia were Jews, Haberer
makes it plain that statistical evidence alone “makes it hard to ignore that throughout the
1870s and 1880s Jews were a substantial element in Russian revolutionary activity.”
What they sought can best be described as an abstract and futuristic idealism of
assimilation qua emancipation in a denationalized and secularized democratic society, ideally
of universal scope. Leaving the world of their childhood did not necessarily imply its total
abandonment in one act of irreversible forgetfulness. For many this departure under the sacred
halo of socialism was the next best solution to their own existential problems
Father Seraphim Rose, an American convert to Russian orthodoxy, dealt with these
“existential problems” which led to
and flowed from nihilism from an orthodox perspective. Rose claimed that “Violence is no
merely incidental aspect of the Nihilist Revolution, but a part of its essence.” According to
Marxist “dogma,” “force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one”;[41]
appeals to violence, and even a kind of ecstasy at the prospect of its use, abound in
revolutionary literature. Bakunin invoked the “evil passions” and called for the unchaining of
“popular anarchy” in the cause of “universal destruction,” and his “Revolutionary Catechism”
is the primer of ruthless violence; Marx was fervent in his advocacy of “revolutionary terror”
as the one means of hastening the advent of Communism; Lenin defined the “dictatorship of the
proletariat” (the stage in which the Soviet Union still finds itself) as “a domination that is
untrammeled by law and based on violence.” Demagogic incitement of the masses and the
arousing of the basest passions for revolutionary purposes have long been standard Nihilist
practice.
If metaphysics, which is the science of being qua being, can also be called “theology,”
then the root of nihilism, which was an attack on God qua being, had to be theological.
Hence, Rose claims that nihilism is ultimately a “war against God.” Nihilism prosecutes this
war against being by a violent attack on Old Order. Political categories like right and left are
irrelevant; both Bolshevism and Nazism grow out of nihilism and find their expression in
violence:
The most violent revolutionaries—a Nechayev or Bakunin, a Lenin or Hitler,
and even the demented practitioners of the “propaganda of the deed”—dreamed
of the “new order” their violent destructions of the Old Order would make
possible; Dada and “anti-literature” seek not the total destruction of art, but
the path to a “new” art; the passive Nihilist, in his “existential” apathy and
despair, sustains life only by the vague hope that he may yet find some kind of
ultimate satisfaction in a world that seems to deny it.[24]
Violence is inseparable from nihilism. Nihilism finds its fulfillment in violence.
Both Bolshevism and National
Socialism are equally violent forms of Nihilism. Both find their
fulfillment in violence:
Hitler’s role in the Nihilist program was more specialized and provincial, but
nonetheless essential. Even in failure — in fact, precisely in the failure of its
ostensible aims — Nazism served the cause of this program. Quite apart from
the political and ideological benefits which the Nazi interlude in European history
gave to the Communist powers (Communism, it is now widely and erroneously
believed, if evil in itself, still cannot be as evil as Nazism), Nazism had another,
more obvious and direct, function. Goebbels explained this function in his radio
broadcasts in the last days of the War.
The bomb-terror spares the dwellings of neither rich nor poor; before the
labor offices of total war the last class barriers have had to go down. …
Together with the monuments of culture there crumble also the last obstacles to
the fulfillment of our revolutionary task. Now that everything is in ruins, we are
forced to rebuild Europe. In the past, private possessions tied us to a bourgeois
restraint. Now the bombs, instead of killing all Europeans, have only smashed
the prison walls which kept them captive. … In trying to destroy Europe’s future,
 the enemy has only succeeded in smashing its past; and with that, everything
old and outworn has gone.
Nazism thus, and its war, have done for Central Europe (and less thoroughly,
for Western Europe) what Bolshevism did in its Revolution for Russia: destroyed
the Old Order, and thus cleared the way for the building of the “new.”
Bolshevism then had no difficulty in taking over where Nazism had left off,
within a few years the whole of Central Europe had passed under the
“dictatorship of the proletariat” — i.e., Bolshevist tyranny — for which Nazism
had effectively prepared the way.
The Nihilism of Hitler was too pure, too unbalanced, to have more than a
negative, preliminary role to play in the whole Nihilist program. Its role, like the
role of the purely negative first phase of Bolshevism, is now finished, and the
next stage belongs to a power possessing a more complete view of the whole
Revolution, the Soviet power upon which Hitler bestowed, in effect, his
inheritance in the words, “the future belongs solely to the stronger Eastern
nation.”
The thirty years of Nihilist war and revolution between 1914 and 1945 have been an ideal
breeding-ground for the “new human type.” The new man was “deracinated” by the nihilist
revolution. The old Christian civilization was destroyed by this
30 years
war.
What, more realistically, is this “mutation,” the “new man”? He is the rootless
man) discontinuous with a past that Nihilism has destroyed, the raw material of
every demagogue’s dream; the “free-thinker” and skeptic, closed only to the
truth but “open” to each new intellectual fashion because he himself has no
intellectual foundation; the “seeker” after some “new revelation,” ready to
believe anything new because true faith has been annihilated in him; the
planner and experimenter, worshipping “fact” because he has
 abandoned truth, seeing the world as a vast laboratory in which he is free to
determine what is “possible”; the autonomous man, pretending to the humility
of only asking his “rights,” yet full of the pride that expects everything to be
given him in a world where nothing is authoritatively forbidden; the man of the
moment, without conscience or values and thus at the mercy of the
strongest “stimulus”; the “rebel,” hating all restraint and authority because he
himself is his own and only god; the “mass man,” this new barbarian, thoroughly
“reduced and “simplified” and capable of only the most elementary ideas, yet
scornful of anyone who presumes to point out the higher things or the real
complexity of life.
As the foregoing passage makes clear, the new civilization which emerged from the ashes
of World War II was Jewish. The new man was a Jew because only the deracinated could
flourish in a world where the old order had been destroyed. Rose describes the post-World
War II era and its culture as “the most concentrated era of Nihilism in human history.” The
war turned everyone into Jews by making Nihilism the world’s regnant ideology. Yuri
Slezkine, another Russian, noticed something similar in his book The Jewish Century:
It is easy to dismiss as fantasy the “new humanity” foreseen by a Hitler or a
Lenin; and even the plans of those quite respectable Nihilists among us
today who calmly discuss the scientific breeding of a “biological superman,”
or project a utopia for “new men” to be developed by the narrowest “modern
education” and a strict control of the mind, seem remote and only faintly
ominous. But confronted with the actual image of a “new man,” an image brutal
and loathsome beyond imagination, and at the same time so unpremeditated,
consistent, and widespread in contemporary art, one is caught up short, and the
full horror of the contemporary state of man strikes one a blow one is not likely
soon to forget.
Superman was created by two Jews in the ’30s. So it should come as no surprise that the
“Biological superman” is also a Jew. He has super DNA. Obsession with DNA among the
deracinated was another sign that we had all become Jews in the wake of Nihilism’s
destruction of the old order.
 In The Believer, the Jewish Nazi gets a call from a New York Times reporter. In real life,
the editor of Culture Wars gets a call from one of his subscribers, who praises The Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit and then announces, “I’m a Jew, and I agree with everything you have
written about the Jews.” It turns out that my Jewish admirer is not just a Jew but an anti-
Semite as well, because, as he puts it at another point in our conversation, “Jews make the best
anti-Semites.”
In the winter of 1992 David Cooper was working as a painter in New York, when one
of his colleagues asked if he would mind if he turned on the radio. What began as an interest
in the Clarence Thomas hearings ended up as a long-term commitment to listening to the
local NPR station, whose orientation he described as totally Jewish. One afternoon he
remembers hearing a report on a drive-by shooting which took place in Israel. The fact that
they were in Brooklyn at the time and that drive-by shooting were commonplace there but
never reported on led him to conclude that Jews control the media, and that controlling the flow
of information allows them to control the world. Exposing that control then became his mission
in life.
David was born in 1966 in Manhattan, which he describes as “an expensive Jewish
ghetto.” David was born into an intact family, but he soon became a casualty of the sexual
revolution. He blames his mother for the destruction of their family.
“My dad was a doctor (GP) and my mom was the daughter of a wealthy judge. She was
a virgin when she married my dad, but the ’60s definitely impacted her. When I was three
years old, she threw my dad out of the house. Dad then used that divorce to check out from
normalcy. She became what some people would call a whore. She had three small children
in the house and a new boyfriend every six months. I don’t accept that kind of behavior. It’s
dissolute and amoral and typically Jewish.
“My created a new future for himself which involved sleeping around. My mom got into
‘law’ after she threw my dad out. She started as a court reporter and retired as a lobbyist for
SUNY Binghamton. In the meantime she ran a couple of bar associations; one was in New
York, where she slept with half the lawyers (I jest). She [eventually] got out of running the
bar because ‘that was too many ‘nasty Jewish kunts even for her.’”
David claims that his childhood became a function of his mother’s career as a lawyer and
sexual libertine.
We weren’t raised religious. We were barely ‘raised’ at all. We were left to our
own devices and demise. The baby sitters were around just long enough ‘til my
older brother could ‘manage’ us on his own, probably when I was like eight years
old. I’m sure there was no babysitter after that.
“Our dad got us on Thursday nights and every other weekend. He did what
he could, I guess. He tried to be a good dad, but he didn’t really provide any
moral compass. He just told us that if we ever rode a motorcycle we’d need to
wear a helmet, and that if we wanted to be a doctor we couldn’t marry. And he
told me that if I ever got caught dealing drugs that he’d execute me, with a
needle, on a table—a medical table of some sort, I imagine, a gurney, I guess.
David now claims that his parents’ divorce had a devastating effect on everyone involved.
 It ruined my childhood and much of my adulthood. I’ll probably never get over
it. She sure didn’t provide any moral compass. I couldn’t keep track of all her
boyfriends. They were around from my earliest memories. It was like a revolving
door.
“When I was growing up, my best friends were typically Jewish, but I never
viewed her as a Jew until I came to understand Jewish values. I can’t really
explain this. (I could try.) I didn’t identify as such. Like attracts like I suppose.
That may explain why probably half my best friends throughout my life have
been Jews, and why I’ve dated countless Jewish women, at least a dozen that
I’ve identified so far.
In 1978, when David was 11 years old, his mother moved him and his siblings to the
Catskills. The move effectively changed nothing. David’s mother brought the hippie
commune mentality she adopted when she divorced his father with her when she moved.
Finding no guidance at home, David took a job at a restaurant shortly after arriving in the
Catskills. By this point his siblings were starting to imitate his mother, which is to say, they
were in his mind becoming “moral degenerates.” Soon he found himself working for his
brothers who were now in the restaurant business. He worked as a sales manager for his older
brother ’s import business in New York but lost that job when the company when bankrupt
because of embezzlement. His brother then built a restaurant which was a tremendous success
until “he cheated someone else into buying it based on his famous bookkeeping. He is able to
cook books so that anyone, including bank auditors, believe whatever he wants them to
believe about the success of his business.”
My older brother is the least guilty of them all, but he has no moral standing
in the world. His life is a lie. They all lie, to themselves and most everyone else
about themselves. They all live lies. Their lives are lies. They are all morally
repugnant. They are all so typically Jewish. There’s not a moral bone between
them all combined.
 His experiences as a child left him full of anger and may have contributed to the
alcoholism and substance abuse with which he has battled for most of his adult life. Although
David doesn’t make the connection himself, it’s difficult not to see his alcoholism as one of the
sequelae of his parents’ divorce.
My life was totally dissolute, but I didn’t live lies—not like they do. I lied to
myself, but I didn’t lie to others, besides the women when they asked me if I
had a girlfriend or if I drank too much. I lied to women, about alcohol and other
women, where I’d been and the like. I typically had a couple girlfriends at any
given time, but these women really wanted to hear the lies.
David’s mother threw him out of the house when he was 15. The issue was attendance at
school. David claimed that he didn’t have time for school since he was now working full-time
in the restaurant business. Finding himself homeless on the streets, he met “some old queen
who took me in. He could hardly keep his hands off me, but I managed. I was his houseboy. I
was his chauffeur. I was his handyman and his friend.”
David became involved in music, but, given the circumstances in his life, that led to
trouble too. In 1993 he got into a fight with a Negro who used a baseball bat to rearrange
David’s facial features. $75,000 later his face is “still kind of lopsided,” but not noticeably
so. He has subsequently been assaulted by “a dozen African-Americans for being too white,
I guess.” Or maybe the brawls came about as a result of “being careless, like about were I was
and stuff.”
Through it all, David’s family life has been a constant source of anger, which he projected
onto the Jewish race. “Jews,” he opined, “are the worst thing that happened to mankind, and
the ’60s revolution was a Jewish revolution.” When I mention that he sounds a lot like
Samuel Roth in Jews Must Live. David admits to having read the book and agreeing with
Roth’s negative take on the Jews. Roth earned a place in the Valhalla of Supreme Court
decisions when he lost a landmark obscenity case. He earned literary immortality when he
ended up being excoriated in James Joyce’s unreadable novel Finnegans Wake for having
pirated an edition of Ulysses. Roth claims that he ended up serving time for an obscenity rap
because a Jew lured him into sending obscene material through the mail. Roth then
extrapolated from his unhappy experience to the Jewish race. “It dawned on me suddenly,
blindingly,” Roth wrote in a book which set out to prove “what a hideous swamp the Jews
have made of Western Civilization,” “that all the evils of my life had been perpetrated by
Jews… . On every side I was being eaten alive by Jews.”[25]
Some might call Roth a Jewish Nazi. “Do you believe a whole civilized nation would
stand aside, witness what Hitler is doing to the Jews without a protest, unless there were
real abuses on the part of the Jews which justified what is
happening?”[26] Roth is aware of the contradiction but insists on the truth of the claim when
he writes “I am myself a Jew, I know it. But I am a Jew who has been brought to the point
where he so loathes his people that he thinks in terms of their destruction.”[27]
The explanation of Roth’s feeling is fairly straightforward. The main cause of anti-
Semitism is Jewish behavior. “Anti-
Semitism is the natural effect of such a social cause. I cannot understand why such a deep
mystery is made of this simple cause.” Since their behavior renders Jews, as St. Paul put it,
“enemies of the whole human race,”[28] and since Jews have more contact with Jews than the
goyim, and since they often bear the brunt of Jewish behavior, it is only natural that a Jew
would become an anti-Semite. It would be a bit of a stretch to call St. Paul a Jewish Nazi, but
there are some Jews who might see him as the archetypal self-hating Jew. Whatever the case,
his views are not that dissimilar from fellow Jew Roth, who writes, “We are a people of
vultures living on the labor and the good nature of the rest of the world.”[29] Roth cites
Edward I, king of England, who expelled the Jews from that land in 1290 and in doing so set
a precedent for other Christian lands. Roth puts the blame for these expulsions squarely on the
shoulders of the Jews:
Wherever they come that are welcomed, permitted to settle down, and join in
the general business of the community. But one by one the industries of the
country close to them because of unfair practices— until it being impossible to
longer hold in check the wrath of a betrayed people, there is violence and,
inevitably, an ignominious ejection of the whole race from the land. There is not
a single instance when the Jews have not fully deserved the bitter fruit of the
fury of their persecutors.[30]
David claims:
Israel gets his shabbas goy to do his dirty work. Judah doesn’t get his
hands dirty unless he has to. Judah gets the shabbas goy to fight his wars for
him. Israel called for Hitler’s head on March 24, 1933. Twelve years and 48
days later, they got it. At what cost? Upwards of 70 million dead gentiles and
well over 4 trillion american dollars. At what cost to Judah? How much did
Judah’s war on Hitler cost Judah? And what did Judah get from this war? He got
Israel and much, much more.
Back to the present. Why are we the sole superpower? How did it get to be
this way? Of course we had no stake in either of those world wars. Nothing, but
Israel dragged us into them, and she built a military
 empire using American tax dollars and men as their shabbas goyim. What is
this vast military empire protecting? Not America. Judah has ruined us.
When he’s not sounding like Samuel Roth, David sounds a lot like Danny Balint:
Israel gave us communism, Lenin, and Stalin, and this all led from Israel’s war
on Germany to the cold war and Korea and Vietnam. This is all Israel’s doing
with her Judeo-communism. Multiculturalism is part of Judah’s strategy to
destroy us and to destroy western civilization. The Jews were behind the sexual
revolution. Everything they did related to culture was a form of revolution.
In the year 2000, David discovered the writings of Professor Kevin MacDonald. As a
result, David, like Danny Balint in The Believer, became convinced that race was central to
understanding the human condition. In 2008 he was celebrating Thanksgiving with relatives
when the topic of race came up. “Wouldn’t it be great if we were Jewish?” he asked one of
his cousins, who answered, “Well, as a matter of fact, we have many Jewish relatives.”
David then went and had his DNA tested and discovered that he was a Jew. Which
means, of course, that up until that time he wasn’t a Jew. What was he then? It turns out that
David was baptized as a Catholic; as was his mother, as was his mother ’s mother. At this
point the geneology gets a bit misty, and it is at this point that the Jewish ancestors begin to
appear on his family tree.
Before going any further, it should be noted that the phenomenon of suddenly discovering
Jewish DNA in the family tree is not uncommon these days. The most famous example of this,
of course, is Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens sees Judaism is as something racial. After
discovering that one of his grandmothers was Jewish, he claimed that this helped him to
understand why he had been a revolutionary for his entire life. The idea that Jewish
revolutionary behavior is a function of Jewish DNA and is, therefore, ineradicable is an idea
that Hitchens shares with Adolf Hitler, which brings us back once again to the Jewish Nazi
theme.
Hitchens’ brother Peter, who shares ipso facto the same genetic make-up, remains an
Anglican, which is how both brothers were raised, and has apparently experienced a
conversion away from revolutionary behavior, which he now associates with the Zeitgeist
of the ’60s and not his own DNA. As to Christopher ’s conversion and his subsequent
atheism, Peter feels that it has more to do with his brother ’s sexual behavior, specifically his
abandoning of his pregnant wife and taking up with a Jewish woman, rather than some
irresistible urge emanating from his chromosomes, or the 12.5 percent of which he inherited
from one of his grandmothers.
In the end, Christopher Hitchens’ Judaism comes down to hatred of Christ and the Logos
he embodies, a point which he made clear when he delivered the Daniel Pearl Memorial
Lecture a UCLA on March 3, 2010:
Any real Christian, any serious believing Christian, would give everything he
owned to have a personal meeting with Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing more could
be desired than that. they yearn for it, they thirst for it, they hunger for it. No
serious Moslem could want anything more than to have met himself with the
messenger of God, with the prophet Mohammed.
But there were no Ukranians around at that time. There were no Poles at the
crucifiction. There were no Irish people in Mecca and Medina. There’s only one
 people that’s still around that both of these imposters and said ‘No’, ‘No sale’,
‘Don’t believe it’. Do you think that’s ever going to be forgiven? Of course it’s not.
Of course it will never be forgiven. They say Jesus and they spat in his face.
They saw the prophet Mohammed and they said, ‘this guy’s just a warlord’. And
of Jesus they said ‘he’s a just a crackpot rabbi’ and also a great blasphemer -
Maimonides, in one of his sharper passages ‘our sages never did a better thing
than when they got rid of that rabble-rousing imposter.’
“Well, [it] makes you proud, I hope. You shouldn’t want to be forgiven for
getting a thing like that right. But don’t go to any mushy ecumenical outreach
meeting with these people - it’s a waste of time.
Another even more unlikely example of someone discovering via DNA that he was
Jewish is Minister Louis Farrakhan, who announced his Jewishness at a synagogue prayer
service in Jamaica. Not surprisingly, this ongoing narrative of surprising conversions reached
the level of paroday in a recent issue of Forward that announced that Glenn Beck was really a
Jew.
Following the recent revelations that Glenn Beck, born Bekershteyn) shares
the Jewish genetic marker, the Cohen Modal aplotype, he has been brushing up
on his Yiddish and planning his holidays … Beck fiddled nervously with a red
kabbalah thread around his wrist. “I guess I’d always had doubts,” he mumbled.
The irony in David’s conversion is almosgt as overpowering as the moral pleas
bargaining and opportunism in the case of Christopher Hitchens’ conversion. David became a
Jew largely because of reading Kevin MacDonald. When he got his DNA test back and
found at the he was (probably) [31] a Sephardic Jew, David welcomed the results because
“it gives me credibility. That’s why I joined the synagogue. I needed the credibility. If you’re
not a Jew, you can’t talk about the Jews. If
you’re not a Jew, you’re going to be marginalized. Only Jews are authorized to discuss these
subjects in public.” As if to give the indisputable proof of what he just said, David cited the
case of E. Michael Jones. “The greatest gift I have ever gotten is to learn that we were
Jewish.” And then to make matters even more confusing, David confides to me that “there are
lots of Jews on our team.”
Upon reflection, this is less surprising that it might seem at first. In fact, David’s
transformation from a baptized Catholic to a practicing Jew flows fairly logically from his
engagement in MacDonald’s writing. In an essay on anti-Semitism, MacDonald admits
candidly at one point:
But the reality is that I greatly admire Jews as a group that has pursued its
interests over thousands of years, while retaining its ethnic coherence and
intensity of group commitment. There have been ups and downs in Jewish
fortunes, to be sure; but their persistence, at times in the face of long odds, and
their spectacular success at the present time are surely worthy of
emulation.[32]
At another point in the same essay, MacDonald claims: “The point is that Jewish elites
have been hugely influential in advancing the interests of their people. This is surely a goal to
emulate.”[33]
MacDonald’s involvement with the Jews dates back to his days at the University of
Wisconsin when he was involved
with radical politics. In his memoir Commies, Ron Radosh has documented how the largely
Jewish Communist Party targeted the University of Wisconsin at Madison for takeover in the
’60s. When MacDonald got swept up into New Left politics, he became involved in the
sexual revolution, and because of his involvement in that, he ceased practicing the Catholic
faith. Sociobiology then filled the vacuum which the abandoned Catholic faith left behind.[34]
As a result there are at least three competing Kevin MacDonalds out there, and the
permutations involved in the differing
positions which each MacDonald persona represents can lead to strange results, as they did
when David decided to become a
Je
w.
There is, first of all, Kevin MacDonald the scholar. This man does admirable research
into Jewish influence on our culture. Then there is Kevin MacDonald the sociobiologist, who
has to claim that Jews are racially superior because they, as a small minority constituting only
around two percent of the population in the United States, have triumphed in the struggle for
existence that is the crucible of all value. The Jews have taken control of all of this country’s
cultural choke points and now control American culture, and they have accomplished this feat
in the face of overwhelming demographic odds.
 Survival of the fittest is a preposterous tautology, but it is, nonetheless, the cornerstone of
sociobiology. If it is true that only the fittest prevail in the struggle for existence, then the
inescapable conclusion which we must draw is that the Jews are the master race, and that they
deserve their position of pre-eminence because they earned it on the battleground of
evolutionary conflict, which is the only arena of significance. The sociobiology crowd must
conclude that Jews are racially and biologically superior because they have triumphed against
all other ethnic groups, including ethnic groups much larger than their own, in the struggle for
existence. End of story. Non datur tertius. It was this aspect of sociobiology that led David
paradoxically to admire the Jews and to want to become one, even if deploring all the while
their pernicious effect on society. After all, Kevin MacDonald, the sociobiologist, has written
in response to John Derbyshire:
Derbyshire complains about my statement that, “the human mind was not
designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals.” I was merely
expressing a principle of evolutionary biology that has been of fundamental
importance since the revolution inaugurated by G. C. Williams and culminating in
E. O. Wilson’s synthesis: Organisms are not designed to communicate truthfully
with the others but to persuade them — to manipulate them to serve their
interests.
And this leads us to the third Kevin MacDonald, the lapsed Catholic who still retains the
moral indignation which he learned from his religious training as a child. This persona leads
MacDonald to impose moral judgements on the conclusions he has derived from
sociobiology, even if they completely contradict his sociobiological premises. So the final
conclusion— Jews have triumphed in the ethnic struggle for existence, but this is a bad thing—
is an oxymoron based on a combination of two completely incompatible world-views,
MacDonald’s sociobiology and the residual moral consciousness which he retains as a lapsed
Catholic.
 Catholicism as practiced in the wake of Vatican II was hardly an unclouded mirror of
Catholic tradition or without its own inconsistencies and self-contradictions, but for those who
dug hard enough, a coherent position on the Jews could still be mined from the deposit of
faith and the writing of the evangelists and the Church fathers. In fact, as late as 1892, Georg
Ratzinger, great uncle of the present pope, had not only carried the teaching of the Church on
the Jews known as Sicut Iudeis non into the present, he had applied it to the economic crisis
that was gripping Europe at the time:
The great medieval popes Innocent III and Gregory IX as well as the ecclesial
synods and councils felt themselves called to take legal measures against the
excesses of the Jews. They protected the life and existence of the Jews, but
only under certain specific conditions. The Jews had to recognize the Christian
social order and had to submit themselves to it. Whatever they had appropriated
through usury and exploitation, they had to pay back to their victims. They were
not allowed to occupy the choke points in the culture; they were not allowed to
employ Christian servants in their houses, and when it came to their clothing
they had to wear the so-called Jew hat in order to be immediately
recognizable as Jews. Jews were in no way allowed to undermine the Christian
social order. Jews who defamed Christ or Christians were punished. They were
not allowed to do business on Christian holidays … and were not allowed to
make usurious loans. During Holy Week they had to remain in their homes.
Jews couldn’t live wherever they pleased, but were confined to specific districts.
It was also forbidden to sell house or real estate to Jews, or to rent to them,
was also forbidden, as was living under the same roof with Jews. Similarly, Jews
were forbidden to hire Christian nursemaids, servants, or day laborers.
Traditional Catholicism, in fact, provides the only coherent explanation of what came to
be known in Georg Ratzinger ’s day as the Jewish question. As some indication of its
coherence, the explanation is fairly simple. Following Napoleon’s emancipation of the Jews,
they took over the economies of one nation after another in Europe because their sharp
business practices. What Ratzinger calls “Juedisches Erwerbsleben” allowed them to cheat
the Christian natives, who had been taught to work hard, be trusting, and love their
neighbor. [35] Jewish immorality, in other words, gave the Jews an unfair economic advantage
in Catholic countries:
The emancipation of the Jews, whose views and concepts contradicted the
laws and customs of the Christian nations, could not help but have a
destructive and corrupting effect on the entire Christian society… . This fact
alone explains why Jews are able to accumulate riches so quickly… .The
example of moral corruption has a contagious effect, and that explains the
corrupting effect of Jewish influence on commerce.
It was an act of supreme foolishness when in the years following 1789 the
necessary protections for the social order were lifted immediately and
universally. Once this happened it was only a matter of time before the Jews
with their attitude toward business and commerce would gain the upper hand.
This was particularly the case among the benevolent peoples who made up the
population of Catholic nations, who had all grown up and been raised… . Others
 fell into the hands of the usurers and in spite of their frugality could not
extricate themselves from its tentacles. Just about everyone was
impoverished; and only the Jews got rich. [36]
Ratzinger ’s book appeared in 1892, at around the same time as Rerum Novarum, Pope
Leo XIII’s encyclical on the condition of the working classes, and the three-part series in
Civilta Cattolica which warned Catholics about “the voracious octopus of Judaism.”[37] The
anger at Jewish business practices had reached the boiling point:
The situation of the lucrative professions is totally different. In a few years,
riches are amassed but at the cost of others. This form of profit is obscene, and
the hatred and revulsion which the working classes feel toward these practices is
fully justified. Envy isn’t the cause of this hatred, but rather indignation at the
unjust appropriation of value, that and the perception that this unjust
appropriation constitutes an assault on the foundations of social life, evokes in
the breast of the honest working man, bitter feelings. When the industrious and
skilled worker, the honest civil servant, and the circumspect merchant in spite of
all out exertion can’t earn a living, when on the other hand this or that
speculator, without any effort, can earn thousands or hundreds of thousands
through IPOs or the issuing of T-bills, then this is a sign that the economic
organism is so diseased that society is in urgent need of medicine and
reform.[38]
Georg Ratzinger ’s GermanWikipedia page accuses him of “publishing antisemitic hate
literature,” but in making the charge they ignore the fact that Ratzinger goes out of his way
in the same book to attack anti-Semitism as an un-Christian
ideology. The anti-Semites of Ratzinger ’s day were capitalizing on the hatred which Jewish
business practices had created in the working classes. The source of that hatred is Jewish
behavior, not Jewish DNA. And Jewish behavior has gotten out of control because the
Christian majority was no longer willing to enforce the laws which had been enacted to
defend the Christian social order. And the Christians lack the will to enforce the laws which
protect the social order because they have become, by and large, Jews. Christian idealism has
been disappearing all the while being replaced by the Jewish Weltanshauung in Christian
circles. In the circles which feel and think like Christians, however, the revulsion at Jewish
dealings and those of the baptized conversos is becoming more and more apparent. The
reason that Christians now look on Jews with intense anger in their eyes is not to be found in
race, and not in national origin, and not in anti-Semitism. The real path of resistance lies not
anti-Semitism and its excesses. The real basis of the contemporary Jewish question lies in the
moral inferiority of the Jewish view of commerce in comparison with the demands of
Christianity.
“The solution to the Jewish question” lies in the application of the traditional Catholic
teachings like Sicut Iudeis non. That means “not in allowing Christians in general to sink to
the level of the lucrative occupations, but rather in raising the Jews to a higher sense of
productive work, in higher numbers than is the present case, to the level of Christian mores as
propounded by Christian teaching on commerce and property.”
And that means rejecting anti-Semitism:
We totally reject the anti-Semitism that is now being proposed … in Austria
and by a number of the exalted German nationalists. Anti-Semitism understood
as a matter of race stands in total contradiction to the Commandment of love of
neighbor, without regard to race or national origin. On the other hand, it is the
duty of every true Christian and patriot to take a stand against the dangerous
errors of numerous Jews in the business world and to warn their fellow
Christians about the dangerous illusions of the philosemites who predominate
among the ruling elites.[39]
Georg Ratzinger ’s accusers also ignore the fact that Jews from Heinrich Graetz to
Samuel Roth have said far worse things about the Jewish business ethics which the
Ashkenazi have learned from the Talmud. According to Roth, the Jews are taught that they are
“the salt of the earth” and that everything they
see before them… is only to be won away with the superior brain with which
God has endowed his chosen ones? Each of them, when he grows up, becomes
an agency of cunning to defeat the civil law. The Polish Jew does not remain in
Poland. He migrates. Eventually he finds himself a rich nest in England, in
France, in Germany, in America, in one of the South American countries. To each
of the counties of his invasion the Jew brings the whole bag of commercial tricks
and statutory maneuvers with which he poisons the arteries of the civilized
world.[40]
 The short hand term for “Jewish business practices” is capitalism. Given the pernicious
effects which capitalism has on every traditional culture, especially traditional Catholic
cultures, the nations of Europe at the end of the 19th century were faced with a choice:
either enforce the laws (e.g. the prohibition against usury, child labor, etc.) which were
erected by the state to protect Christian culture against the Jews who were the cutting edge of
capitalist subversion or become Jews.
By now, it should be obvious which course Europe and America chose. It comes out in
The Believer when Danny, the
Jewish Nazi, attempts to solicit a $5,000 contribution from a wealthy Wall Street banker. The
banker tells Danny, “Forget the
Jewish stuff; it doesn’t play anymore. There’s only the market now and it
doesn’t care who you are.” Danny: “You’re a Jew. You may not
realize it but you are.”
Banker: “Maybe I am. Maybe we’re all Jews now. What’s the difference?”
The current pope mentions his Georg Ratzinger in an interview conducted by Peter
Seewald:
He was my great uncle, my father’s uncle. He was a clergyman who had a
doctorate in theology. In his capacity as a representative in the Bavarian state
legislature and in the Reichstag, he was an early advocate for the rights of
farmers and of the average man in general. I read the passages in the
congressional record in which he attacked child labor, something which was
unheard of at the time and considered by many an affront. He was obviously a
tough guy, and because of his achievements and his political stature we were all
proud of him.[41]
Proud or not, there is a significant gulf which separates the present pope from his great
uncle. The most significant area of disagreement is their disparate views on the Jews. On the
last day of February 2011, Joseph Ratzinger released volume II of his book Jesus of Nazareth.
The big news surrounding the release of the book had to do with the Jews. As the AP headline
put it, “Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus’ death in new book.” According to the same report,
“Benedict concludes, it was the
‘Temple aristocracy’ and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were
responsible,” not the Jewish people.
 The current pope should be proud of his great uncle. The real issue is whether the feeling
would be reciprocal. Would a man who wrote that “There is nothing more repugnant than
having to listen to educated Christians slandering their own people while at the same time
glorifying the Jews” be proud of a great nephew who exonerated the Jews’ of responsibility for
Christ’s death? Or a prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who presided
over the publication of an apology to the Jews issued by his predecessor? Probably not,
because Onkel Georg had written even more pointedly:
There would be no Jewish Question if the educated elites among the Christian
peoples hadn’t betrayed their own principles. At a time when Jews stand by
even their own criminal element, we see Christian politicians and legislators
betraying their own Christian faith on a daily basis and vying with each other to
see who has the privilege of harnessing himself to the triumphal car of the Jews.
In Parliament no Jew need defend another Jew, when their Christian lackeys do
that for them.[42]
No matter how the traditional Catholic critique of the Jews has been effaced by recent
Church pronouncements it remains both extant and coherent; it remains more coherent than the
sociobiological position, because it is based on moral principles, which are then integrated
into a coherent political and theological structure. The Catholic position is the opposite of the
Darwinian position. According to Darwin and his epigoni, the superior race of necessity ends
up victorious in any economic struggle for existence. According to the Catholic position, the
exact opposite is true. Or as Georg Ratzinger puts it:
In a contest between two rival world views the worse element often wins the
upper hand and becomes the cause for the moral corruption of the people and
the collapse of the state.[43] … Under the mild and benign character of the
Catholic nations there was no resistance to the exploitation practiced by the
Jews and the devastation it was to cause.[44]
According to Georg Ratzinger, the Jews succeeded in getting the economy of states like
Austria and Hungary under their control, not because they were more intelligent (or had
“higher IQs than Caucasians,” as Professor MacDonald claims) but because their
internalization of Talmudic culture had allowed them to become “skilled in the deceptions of
economic warfare”:
It was to be expected that the Jews, who with centuries of practice became
skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare and acquired the arts of
exploitation to perfection, it was to be expected that they would take center
stage under the regime of free competition. The Christian, among whom the
overwhelming majority were accustomed to performing productive work, and
who had been taught to avoid as immoral the type of deception that was
typical of the arts of economic warfare, became the first victims of this
 exploitation, which made the Jews rich. Not talent, but rather sharp business
practices; not knowledge and ability, not productive capabilities and production,
but rather deception and exploitation of others is what makes the Jew rich and
admired in society. The stock exchange, lending money, usury, paying in truck,
in short all of the business practices which lead to easy and quick profits
without productive work are the preferred trades of the Jew. If they devote
themselves to study at the university, they turn more often than not to
journalism, medicine and the law, because these occupations lead most
easily and quickly to riches.[45]
The same can not be said for sociobiology, which presents a radically incoherent picture
of the Jewish question, by simultaneously praising the Jews for their intelligence and
excoriating them for its application. In the article we have already cited on Jewish
involvement in multiculturalism MacDonald wrote, “There is indeed evidence that Jews, like
East Asians, have higher IQs than Caucasians.”
Ratzinger, however, dismisses the idea of superior intelligence as an explanation for
the Jews’ dominant role in quondam Christian societies:
It isn’t talent but rather sharp business practices; it isn’t productivity but
rather deception and the art of exploitation which earns the Jew his money
and ensures his position of dominance among the big capitalists… . There is
a curse upon all this egotistical business activity which leads to the wreck of
society and the destruction of the social order. Everywhere where we find
destruction and corruption, we find the Jew hard at work. The worst attack
against the Christian religion and against the Church are all mounted by
Jews.[46]
Unlike Professor MacDonald, Georg Ratzinger considers the Jew clever and conniving
but morally defective. That means that his economic system is intellectually inferior to
Christian economics. Ratzinger comes to the anti-Darwinian conclusion that Jewish
economics succeeds because it is inferior, both morally and economically. If economics is
defined properly, as the science of how to achieve the common good through economic
exchange, it is ultimately inferior to the
Christian economic system:
We discover the quintessential nature of the present day Jewish question in
the moral inferiority of the Jewish worldview in relation to the limitation of
competition. To be precise, the overwhelming majority of Jews have no sense
whatsoever of the role which morality plays in economic life. The only form
of limitation which they recognize in business is the penal statute. If an
opportunity to make money appears whose profit seems greater than the
penalty imposed by the law, the Jew doesn’t hesitate to treat the law with
contempt.[47]
Jewish commerce can be characterized by two manifestations: 1) it is based on the
exploitation of the work of others without any productive activity of its own and 2) it is
characterized by gambling and speculation on the differentials in exchange as the way to
achieve riches. The Christian view is the exact opposite. Christianity ensures decency in
commerce by promoting honest toil or by promoting honest inheritance. Christianity
forbids the exploitation of his neighbor through excessive economic power, and insists on
the subordination of the good of the individual to the common good, as well as concern for the
economically vulnerable. There is a direct contradiction between Christianity and Judaism,
and any Christian community which allows the unrestrained exercise of Jewish business
practices is committing suicide.[48]
As a result of succumbing to Jewish influence:
The banks in Austria have become dens of usury and casinos, and the
businessman in the Austrian sense of the word is nothing more than a stock
market speculator or a small time chiseler. The Austrian press is nothing more
than an extortion racket. Political life is calculated according to financial profit. In
short, commercial life in Austria is permeated not by a Christian spirit but by a
Jewish one. Economic life is dominated not by the Christian dedication of the
individual to the common good, but is dominated instead by Jewish Egotism.
The state has become nothing more than an agent of the powerful, oblivious to
the fact that the Christian ideal demands the dedication of the individual to the
common good and especially for the protection of the weak.[49]
The problem is not bad DNA; the problem is the Talmud, which is the ultimate source
of all sharp Jewish business practices:
The Jew displays in this regard an unbelievable ruthlessness so that in little
transactions they begin to accumulate the capital that allows them to exploit
others. It is in this ruthlessness and in their tireless pursuit of almost
imperceptible profits wherein lies the secret of Jewish success in business, but it
is also therein where the danger to which the Christian population is exposed
when they sink to the same level. As soon as the Polish Jew gets his foot in the
door, wages are driven down and working hours are extended. Once this
happens the Christian masses find themselves as if by a force of nature driven
from a state of modest prosperity into the deepest misery. The Polish Jew is so
 deeply enmired in the teaching of the Talmud that any notion of a Christian
society or a state based on the common good becomes impossible once the Jew
gains the upper hand. The Polish Jew, precisely because of the influence of the
Talmud, is universally a force for corruption and destruction. Wherever one finds
elements of dissatisfaction which threaten to overturn the Christian social order,
Jews jump to the forefront of the movement and adopt the role of agitator.
Jewish agitators can be found in leadership roles throughout the socialist
movement. In Vienna and Pest, the leadership of the socialist movement is
entirely in Jewish hands.
Implicit in Ratzinger ’s thinking is a chain of propositions which begins with a survey
of the economic situation in Germany and Austria at the end of 19 th century and ends with a
radical redefinition of the problem. There are no technical, Enlightenment solutions to this
problem. The technical thinking of the Enlightenment brought the problem about in the first
place by striking down the laws which had been erected under the guidance of the Church for
the protection of Christians and their culture.
 The emancipation of the Jews dealt a fatal blow to the Christian social order. That is
another way of saying that the social question (the exploitation of the worker, usury’s
appropriation of land, etc.) can only be solved by dealing with the Jewish question, which can
only be solved by bringing about the conversion of the Jews, either completely through
baptism, or formally by forcing their behavior to conform to Christian custom, as specified
by Sicut Iudeis non. There is no point in dealing with an economic factor like state credit in
isolation, especially
when private persons determine the terms of credit. Jewish banks are now in
the process of using state credit as a way of taking control of all industrial
production. Herein lies the secret of the omnipotence of modern capitalist
hegemony with all of its cancerous growth. Any social reform has to begin with
the state establishing its independence from private equity firms as its source of
credit. Only then will the source of all of capitalism’s debilitating excesses be
contained. To call anything else social reform is a waste of time.
It is pointless to talk about economics as if it were a science like physics when it is so
closely bound up with the moral law. In order to deal with the crisis effectively, state
authorities need to admit that:
Seduction and crime are the main components of Jewish commerce. When the
scions of wealthy families go astray, the easiest way to find the culprit
responsible is to seek him among the Jews. The Jew supplies riding and wagon
horses, equipage and dogs; he encourages the acting out of all base desires and
the adoption of degenerate lifestyles; he is the fence and the pimp. Once he has
established his influence over his rich young protégé, he encourages him to
speculate on the stock market in order to win back the money he squandered on
his vices. In this way the Jew brings about his complete ruin in a few years,
which is when his fortune ends up in hands of his Jewish seducer. Anyone who is
familiar with the realities of social life in Paris, Vienna, and Pest sees this sort of
thing all the time. These seductive arts are closely allied with prostitution. Every
aspect of trafficking in young females is firmly in Jewish hands and organized on
an international basis. It’s only a short step from this immoral trafficking to
criminal activity. When it comes to embezzlement, misappropriation, fraud,
usury, blackmail, etc., the Jew is involved to a much greater percentage than the
Christian.
Capitalism, which is another term for “Juedisches Erwerbsleben,” or Jewish business
practice has its roots in looting:
In this way, Jewish business practices are similar to those of desert nomads
who make use of their fleet horses of the steppes to conduct looting
expeditions on settlements which pursue settled economic pursuits. In doing
this they appropriate what they can drag off on their raids. They then live like
kings off of “what they have earned” in the desert until the loot is all gone and
another looting expedition is necessary. Jewish “commerce” has never been able
to grow beyond its roots in looting. The majority of Jews has no idea of how to
make a living from honest toil, nor do they want to learn how to do such a
thing.[50]
 There are many forms of slavery that need to be abolished. What the Arab is
to Africa, the usury Jew is to Europe. Both Semitic races live only off the
exploitation of others, by looting. That is the revenant of the nomadic life of
these tribes. Thousand years of living in the desert accustomed them to sudden
attacks, and they learned through this booty off of the work of others. The
entire Jewish-oriental way of doing business is deeply suffused with the
characteristics of looting. One industry after another is singled out for looting,
until finally whole nations have been plundered.[51]
Because of this, Jewish business practices are totally antithetical to the economy of a
Christian culture, which is based on an understanding and appreciation of the value of work:
In the instruction manuals from the Middle Ages, the people were taught that
“Man is born to work, as the bird is created to fly.” The Catholic Church raised
the nations under her care to be workers and made earning by work the
foundation of our civilization. There is only one way of earning a living which is
worthy of respect and esteem, and that is earning a living by toil, whether that
entails labor of a physical or an intellectual sort. It makes no difference whether
this labor takes place on the lowest rung of the economic ladder among day-
laborers or among the professions of the elite. In doing this the Church
erected civilization upon an entirely new foundation. The pagan world proposed
a life lived at the expense of others (slavery); Judaism preached preferential
treatment for its own people, but permitted the exploitation and practicing usury
on alien nations. And until this day Jewish business practices exhibit this dual
nature. On the one hand, we see concern for the family and for his fellow Jew,
but on the other a totally heartless exploitation via usury of the goyim, which
becomes the source of the wealth accumulated by Jewish
 billionaires… . The ancient principle of the Catholic Church, which only honors
commerce when it is based on honest work, is drowned out by the Jewish
screeching which encourages speculation and gambling on the stock
market.[52]
By the last decade of the 19th century, it had become clear to thinkers like Georg
Ratzinger that the laws enacted in the wake of the Enlightenment and its concomitant
revolutions spelled economic disaster for Europe. The only solutions to the economic crisis
was a return to Christian-inspired state regulation of the economy. “The Jews,” Ratzinger
opined,
must once again learn to subordinate themselves to Christian social
reform and to conform their business practices to Christian norms. All of the
money which they have earned through state-sanctioned usury and the
exploitation of the worker must be returned to the people. The legislatures must
now criminalize all of the fraud and exploitation which now has established itself
under the rubric of free enterprise. The state needs to prosecute in a public
manner all forms of usury and fraudulent exploitation. The current laws against
usury and fraud are much too one-sided, and they do not correspond either to
the experience or the plain sense of Christian jurisprudence.
There is no middle ground here; there are no neutral scientific laws. Either the Christian
State must force Jews to acknowledge the superiority of their laws and conform to them, or,
under the guise of tolerance and enlightenment, Christians will end up by becoming Jews via
an unregulated, capitalist, Jewish economy:
Just think how contagious usury was then [during the middle ages] and how
quickly public morality declined as a result. What germs are to epidemics, so is
bad example on the moral level. It is irresponsible to give a free pass to
contagious toxins by promoting a false view of life, unless you want the entire
social organism to get sick. The disease of our culture consists in the cancerous
spread of the Jewish-heathen worldview over the moral norms of Christendom.
The inferiority of the Jewish-heathen worldview to Christianity must be made
apparent, by the actions of the Christian state.
The solution to the social question can only come about when the Christian idea of
commerce has vanquished the Jewish- heathen idea. True protection of the social order is only
possible in the confessional state. “Business practice must be made to conform once again to
Christian morals”:
Intoxicated by revolution, Christian nations have pawned their most precious
jewel — the teaching and the grace of their savior—and have rejected their most
precious asset, their character as redeemed children of the Lord, by abandoning
the Christian basis for their culture. The Lord as a result has let the Christian
nations go their own way, which has led to the debt bondage which flows from
the obdurate hegemony of capital, which will end up concentrated in the hands
of a small minority of Jews and their lackeys.
The Jews will also benefit from
these reforms:
Clear limits on Judaism in not only necessary for the interests of the Christian
nations; it is also in the interest of the Jews themselves. Only when the sane
 principles of Christian reform have been put in place, can we hope to disarm the
specter of anti-Semitic racial hatred. It is only then that we can hope to avoid
the path of the violent taking the law into their own hands. Those who think
that a small minority of Jews with the help of the power of the state can solve
this problem, are deceiving themselves.
To put the case another way, if reform is not forthcoming, the Jews will be
the first to suffer because:
The hegemony of social corruption has ended in every age in terror. This solution is no
longer plausible. Either we are going to have Christian reform in our future or we are going
to have the reign of racial hatred. The Jews should be under no illusions about what they can
expect from the racial hatred that is waiting for them in the near future. Their arrogance is
going to turn quickly into bitter disappointment in the future.
 Ratzinger was especially prophetic when he wrote in 1892:
A reaction against the jewification of our culture is now building momentum
among the common man. That movement is hardly perceptible today, but it is
going to grow like an avalanche. That movement would be irresistible at this
very moment if it weren’t lacking a leader. (Ratzinger’s word was, of course the
German word “Fuehrer,” which took on a whole new dimension some 40 years
later.)
What he said of working class Christians in the 1890s is now true of Muslims in 2011:
What the Christian earns by the sweat of his brow, the Jew lays hold of via
usury, fraud, and cheating the worker out of a decent wage, and he squanders
the money he appropriates in luxury and wretched excess. Confronted with
these excesses, the moral consciousness of the working class finds itself
consumed with rage, and since the government and the legislature provide no
protection against the usurious and exploitative Jews and their lackeys, the
people take to the streets. That is the meaning of anti-Semitism and the
uproar it is now causing. We see in this a kind of economic self-defense and the
moral defense mechanism of the exploited. It’s a sign to the government and
the legislature that the necessary legal protection isn’t there, and a sign that the
administration and the legal system aren’t offering the assistance that they need
to offer. Anti-Semitism is a serious and ultimate warning to the ruling class. If
this warning is ignored, if the ruling class thinks that they deal with the people
with bayonettes, then we are heading toward a revolution that is going to make
the Reformation and the French revolution look like child’s play by comparison.
Ratzinger is aware of the Darwinian notion that life involves struggle among individuals
and ethnic groups as well. He simply takes that notion of struggle out of the biological realm
and re-situations it n the moral cultural arena, as when he writes: “Any ethnic group which is
totally lacking in moral restraint when it comes to economic life will end up the winner in any
struggle for existence. This is the secret of Jewish success in Austria-Hungary.” [53]
Similarly, Ratzinger isn’t denying that life is a struggle; he is simply unwilling to say, as the
sociobiologists must, that the cause of the victors in cultural warfare is ipso facto just:
The life of nations is like the life of individuals. He who fails to engage in
battle daily to secure his position in society will soon disappear. The Catholics in
Austro-Hungary have failed to engage in the daily battle for their possessions,
and as a result they lose year after year one institution after another. They
have been dispossessed from top to bottom, from their universities as well as
their kindergartens. The Jews, who make up less than 10 percent of the
population, have as a result of their energetic and unified and self-confident
activity won a victory over the 90 percent of the population which is Catholic
and have everywhere occupied the positions which the Catholics have
abandoned.[54]
If survival of the fittest is the fundamental law of sociobiology, then Jews must be in fact
the master race. Hitler got it almost right. Conversely, when it comes to the struggle for
existence, white guys are losers; from the sociobiological perspective, the highest thing
anyone can aspire to be is a Jew. Hence, David’s delight when he found that he had Jewish
DNA in his cells. He was now a member of the master race, which of course, was at the same
time, the enemy of the entire human race. This leads him to the contradictory assertion “I’m a
product of my times. I am my genes.” What he means to say is that the upheaval in his life
caused by the sexual revolution left him totally uprooted and without any sense of identity.
Since he lives is a materialist scientistic culture, finding his roots took a biological turn,
helped of course by the sociobiology he imbibed from the writings of Professor MacDonald.
Talk about race is the ultimate sign of deracination.
If Georg Ratzinger ’s explanation of the rise of Jewish power is superior to Kevin
MacDonald’s, a different picture begins to emerge. David became a Jew not because he
discovered superior DNA in his cells, but because the Catholic Church failed to preach the
gospel. We are talking about failure on a massive scale here. In Georg Ratzinger ’s day when
the Catholic confessional state was in power in places like Bavaria and the double monarchy
of Austro-Hungary, Catholic elites refused to enforce the (largely economic) laws on the books
which protected the weak in a Christian culture
Then came the Thirty Years War (1915-1945) which put the revolutionary elites in
power after World War II By nineteen sixty farseeing church men like Alfredo Cardinal
Ottaviani saw that European Christian culture needed to strengthened against assaults from the
Jewish elites in both the East and the West, as represented by Freudianism and
Communism, Hollywood movies, fast food, rock n roll—in short, everything that Federico
Fellini discussed in La Dolce Vita, the seminal
1960 document.
Instead of regaining the initiative, the Catholic Church used the council which Ottaviani
persuaded Pope John XXIII to convoke as a way of internalizing the commands of her
oppressors. The Church which used Dignitatis Humanae as a pretext to
abandon the confessional state (even though the document affirms the opposite) and Nostra
Aetate as a pretext to abandon its efforts to preach the Gospel to the Jews and work for their
conversion, created a world in which Jews who recognized the synagogue’s attack on logos
and recoiled from it in disgust had no alternative but to become Jewish Nazis, because Hitler
had succeeded Christ as the antithesis of what it meant to be a Jew. David Cooper and Danny
Balint are infallible signs that the Church is not doing its job. Whenever a Jew recoils in
disgust from the Nihilism which is the essence of the Jewish religion, his first thought should
be, “This is what St. Paul meant when he said the Jews are ‘the enemy of the entire human
race.’ This is what the Church has been saying all along.”
The fact that this thought did not pop into David’s mind is a sign that the Church has
abandoned its mission of evangelization to the people who need it the most, the people to
whom Christ preached exclusively when he walked this earth.
When pushed on the matter, David will admit, “In theory I was a Catholic. But they
didn’t tell me anything. My dad left Church” as a result of the divorce, and after that
David’s exposure to Catholicism was attending “the hippie Mass at St. John’s” in the
company of his sexually liberated mother. As part of his Catholic upbringing, David’s mom
told him that “the priest at St. John’s is gay.” The net result of this failure on the Church’s
part was deracination. David felt totally rootless, totally cut off from any familial or cultural
or religious tradition. As a result, he began to see those roots in his DNA. Race would
provide what David’s church and family failed to give him.
“I wanted to know who I am. Race is not a social construct. Race and ethnicity is about
biology.” Then after discovering his Jewish DNA, David joined the synagogue, where he
learned that “Judaism doesn’t involve a relationship with God.” Now after learning that the
rabbi and most of his congregation are atheists, David is feeling spiritually restless again.
“Technically I’m a Jew,” he says, “but my
heart’s not in it.
The logic here is not as convoluted as one might think. After being exposed to the full
nihilism of the Jewish “faith,” the Jew recoils in horror and disgust. At that point, he either
devotes himself to some lesser god such as money or sex, or he recoils completely and looks
for the opposite of what he learned in the synagogue. The Catholic Church is the true opposite
of what gets taught in the synagogue, but the Church simply has not been proclaiming Church
teaching on the Jews for decades. As a result, in his search for the antithesis of everything
Judaism stands for the Jew discovers the Nazis, whose racial beliefs are simply the mirror
image of Judaism anyway, and the Jew becomes a Nazi.
By virtue of his baptism, David is a Catholic, something he admits in more candid
moments, “I’ve been to Mass more times than I’ve been to the synagogue.” Why then does he
think he’s a Jew? The initial answer to that question is Kevin MacDonald and DNA testing.
The real answer to that question, however, lies in the massive failure of the contemporary
Catholic Church either to live or proclaim the gospel. To begin with the living part, the priest
he got to know best as a child was a regular guest at their house because he was having an
affair with his mother.
When I was 11 years old, my mom met and seduced a monsignor. The
 relationship lasted for as long as
20 years. Maybe more. I don’t know when it ended. He died a few years ago. I
don’t know how much more I’ll say about it, but I’d like for you to let it lie.
Please don’t poke around about it. Thank you. Of course, it takes two to tango. I
couldn’t exactly say who seduced whom. She wanted to marry him, and she
says he talked about that as a possibility for many years. The whole thing
disgusts me. Talk about sacrosanct and profane. I’ll probably never forgive her
for this, or some other transgressions.
The failure of the church to proclaim the gospel is not unrelated to moral failure. The
contemporary Church’s intellectual cowardice in proclaiming the Gospel teaching on the Jews
simply puts its moral turpitude in sexual matters in the shade by comparison. Everything the
contemporary Catholic Church has to say about the Jews is either insipid or flat out wrong
and a contradiction of everything the gospels and the Church fathers had to say on the matter.
The Church has all but officially proclaimed that it is not interested in converting the
Jews. The American bishops had proclaimed in their own catechism that the Mosaic covenant
was eternally valid and that Jews could be saved by following it. That this was a heretical,
flat out contradiction of the gospel finally dawned on the bishops and they deleted the
offending statement.
Those organizations which do claim to be interested in the conversion of the Jews, turn
out to be, upon closer inspection, the opposite of what they claim to be. The Association of
Hebrew Catholics is a good case in point. Instead of working for the conversion of the Jews,
the AHC works instead for the preservation of pockets of Jewish DNA within the Church.
Instead of working to integrate Jewish converts into Church life, the AHC attempts to create
Jewish ghettos based on what can only be construed as racial and therefore heretical
principles.
In the February 2006 issue of CultureWars , Theologian Raymond Kevane, theological
advisor to the AHC pointed out these heretical principles publically to David Moss, the
organization’s president, after years of trying to get an answer from him privately:
Not too long ago (March 2005) in a public statement on EWTN, Dave Moss
rejected the idea that the Church replaced the people of Israel. He clearly
identified the latter idea as an “erroneous theology” that was taught for 2000
years by the Catholic Church. He further stated that the Church no longer
teaches that
 he people of Israel are superseded. They are an eternal people with an
irrevocable calling. How can any individual declare that the Catholic Church … .
has taught erroneous theology for 2000 years.[55]
Both statements are heretical. The most important “irrevocable calling” for
the Jews is the same as for the rest of us—to save their immortal souls. In one
stroke Dave Moss denied the Scripture as inspired by God, the infallibility of the
Pope and Ecumenical councils and the fact of Tradition (the office of the
Magisterium of the Catholic Church). No Catholic can say that the Church has
held and erroneous theology for 2000 years and still remain a Catholic. [56]
In almost every century there has been an effort to bring the rites of the
Jewish religion into the Catholic Church. Every time it has arisen it has caused
great harm to the Catholic Church before finally being discredited.
So when Dave Moss said that the Church was in theological error for 2000 years, he
denies the infallibility of the pope and the councils of the Church
The Council of Florence… firmly believes and profess, and teaches … that
whoever, even after the passion , placed hope in these mattes of the law and
submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could
not save without them, sinned mortally… .
To reinstate, in the Catholic Church, any of the Judaic rituals of the Old Testament would
be to suggest that the Sacrifice by Christ is not perfect.
It turns out that the AHC isn’t interested in Jewish conversion at all:
David Moss told me … that he doesn’t believe that the AHC should be involved
in “targeting” other Jews
, but rather to simply “converse” or “dialogue” with them. But if that’s true,
then the converted Jew is not obeying the command of Christ “Go forth and
preach the Gospel to all nations.”
On August 5, 2010, David Moss, president of the Association of Hebrew Catholics,
interviewed Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, who was then head of the Apostolic Signatura in
Rome. Moss’s tendentious questions were largely formulated in response to the objections
which Raymond Kevane raised in his Culture Wars article but remained unanswered. In
response to a question about the special role the “Hebrew” Catholic might play in the Church,
Burke ignored the issue and thinking that he was agreeing with Moss claimed that “We [ i.e.,
Catholics] are the sons and daughters of Abraham, and we feel the closest bond to the
Jewish people.” Burke, of course, implies here that we feel this bond because the Jews
can also construe themselves as children of Abraham, even though this assertion is
contradicted by the Gospel of St. John, which states quite clearly that followers of Christ
can call themselves children of Moses, but those who reject Christ, i.e., the Jews, cannot.
Burke then goes on to add:
A Hebrew Catholic has a distinctive witness to give in the church. They
are particularly cherished because of the rich heritage they bring to the church.
Is his excellency referring to the Talmud here? If not, it’s difficult to see what
other heritage the Jew can bring to the church, since that rejection of logos is
the heart of the Jewish religion.
 David wasn’t impressed by this sort of outreach. In fact, he’s hoping that the Church
maintains its position as “a last bastion of anti-Semitism” because American Protestants in his
view have been Judaized. The Catholic Church is a repudiation of Judaism, in David’s view
because Jesus Christ’s teaching was a repudiation of the religion of that time and place. The
Talmud is not based on the Hebrew Bible. They start with the Mishna, spoken word brought
down from Mt. Sinai. From there it is only a short step to concluding as the rabbi did at Baruch
Goldstein’s funeral, that 10,000 Palestinian children aren’t worth one Jewish fingernail.
David’s experiences in the synagogue confirmed the nihilism which Danny Balint
discovered at the heart of Judaism as a
Yeshiva student:
“I’ve never met a Jew who believes in God,” David opined. “My rabbi does not believe
in God. None of the Jews in my congregation believes in God. I have yet to find a Jew who
believes in a divine God.”
It was this discovery of nihilism at the heart of Judaism which led David to conclude
that “Jews make the best anti- Semites.” It also led him to conclude that the greatest anti-
Semite of all time, as well as one of the modern era’s greatest nihilists, was Jewish.
“Hitler ’s dad’s dad was Jewish,” David said. “His dad’s mom worked in a Jewish
household and the man of the house impregnated her when she was around 40.” It led
Danny Balint to the same conclusion in The Believer, when he asks rhetorically, “So
Hitler’s the chief rabbi now?”
Danny is right. Hitler is the chief rabbi now. He attained that position by default when
the Church stopped working for the conversion of the Jews.

**
*
Footnotes

[1] Dorothy Rabinowitz, “Major Hasan, ‘Star Officer’” WSJ, 2/18/11

[2] http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf. All subsequent quotes on immigration have been taken from this article.
[3] Georg Ratzinger, Juedisches Erwerbsleben: Skizzen aus dem sozialen Leben der Gegenwart (Passau: Verlag von Rudolf Abt, 1892). p. 30. All
translations from the German are mine.
[4] Wikipedia, Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley
[5] Erich Haberer, Jews and revolution in Nineteenth-century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 14. T he subsequent
discussion of Jewish nihilism in 19th century Russia is taken from Haberer.
[6] Haberer, p. 15.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Haberer, p. 16.
[9] Haberer, p. 18.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Haberer, p. 24.
[12] Haberer, p. 43.
[13] Haberer, p. 117.
[14] Haberer, p. 120.
[15] Haberer, p. 175.
[16] Haberer, p. 189.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Haberer, p. 124.
[19] Haberer, p. 151.
[20] Haberer, p. 154.
[21] Haberer, pp. 155-6.
[22] Haberer, p. 159.
[23] Haberer, p. 201.
[24] Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose, Nihilism: T he Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age
[25] Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on all the Frontiers of Civilization (No place of publication,
1934), pp. 12-3.
[26] Roth, p.11.
[27] Roth, p. 17.
[28] I T hessalonians 2:15.
[29] Roth, p. 18.
[30] Roth, p. 20.
[31] David thinks the DNA testing business is rife with fraud, especially when it comes to Jewish ancestry.
[32] “Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?” Chapter 14 Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilisation, Jewish Influence and Anti-
Semitism (Atlanta: Occidental Press 2007), pp. 355-6.
[33] Op. cit., p. 363.
[34] MacDonald gave this account of his life in a video documentary filmed by Byron Jost. Jost died before the video could be formally released.
Segments are now on the internet.
[35] Robert Waldhausen (Georg Ratzinger) op. cit. T he German Wikipedia page on Robert Waldhausen identifies him as Georg Ratzinger. T heir
explanation follows:
Georg Ratzinger werden aber auch die beiden nachfolgend genannten pseudonym veröffentlichten antisemitischen Hetzschriften zugeschrieben. Zwar
kann Ratzingers Identität mit deren beiden Verfasserpseudonymen nicht anhand schriftlicher Zeugnisse belegt werden, jedoch gilt sie in der Forschung auf
Grund von Indizien als gesichert und wird nicht in Frage gestellt. Unter dem Pseudonym “Dr. Robert Waldhausen” erschien 1892 das Buch Jüdisches
Erwerbsleben. Skizzen aus dem sozialen Leben der Gegenwart, in dessen Einleitung es z. B. heißt: Die Emanzipation der Juden […] konnte nicht anders,
als zerstörend und zersetzend auf die ganze christliche Gesellschaft wirken. Und 1897 wurde unter dem Pseudonym “Dr. Gottfried Wolf ” ein
antisemitisches Pamphlet mit dem T itel Das Judentum in Bayern. Skizzen aus der Vergangenheit und Vorschläge für die Zukunft publiziert. Auch in
anderen, nicht pseudonym veröffentlichten Schriften Ratzingers, z. B. in Die Volkswirthschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen, und in seinen Parlamentsreden
lassen sich antisemitische Äußerungen und T endenzen finden.
[36] Georg Ratzinger, op cit, pp. 1-2.
[37] Cf. E. Michael Jones, T he Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2009), pp. 676ff.
[38] Ratzinger, op. cit, p. 3.
[39] Georg Ratzinger, op cit., p. 5.
 [40] Roth, op cit, p. 34.
[41] Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger, Salz der Erde: Christentum and katholische Kirch an der Jahrtausendwende (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt,
1996), p. 47, my translation.
[42] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 84.
[43] Georg Ratzinger, op cit, p. 32.
[44] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 3.
[45] Georg Ratzinger, op cit, p. 4. My translation.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 18.
[48] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 11.
[49] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 12.
[50] Georg Ratzinger, op.cit, p. 29
[51] Georg Ratzinger, op.cit.,p. 58
[52] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 38.
[53] Georg Ratzinger, op. cit, p. 53.
[54] Georg Ratzinger, op, cit., p. 49.
[55] Raymond Kevane, “An Open Letter to the Hebrew Catholic Conference,” Culture Wars, February 2006, p. 9.
[56] Ibid.