We all know the theory, that Jews are parasites on other nations, has some corollaries such as their tendency to lack a Yeoman class (and therefore hype the mythology of the Jewish peasantry right when they are participating in the destruction of a nation’s family farms, and grabbing the farmers’ daughters, as they were during the entry of the baby boomers to female fertility).  It is therefore gratifying to see that Zionism as the cure for Jewish virulence seems to be paying off for the Jews:

Rise of Israel’s Orthodox Schools Sparks Fear of Army, Work Force Shortage
Study: One-Third of Jewish Students Will Receive Haredi Education in 2012

Daphna Berman | Fri. Aug 03, 2007
Jerusalem - Two recently released government reports have reignited scrutiny of ultra-Orthodox participation in general Israeli society.

A study released last month by the Central Bureau of Statistics predicts that one-third of all Jewish elementary-school students in Israel will be enrolled in the ultra-Orthodox education system by 2012. A week after the education study was released, the Israeli military reported that the number of eligible 18-year-old men not enlisting in the army had sharply risen to one-quarter, nearly half of them ultra-Orthodox.

The findings have alarmed many secular Israelis, who warn that the government-subsidized education system for ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, is creating a generation of students unequipped to enter the job market and unwilling to serve in the army.

It’s a different game entirely when you have responsibility for the country you occupy isn’t it?  What a relief it would be for Jews to face these realities, cast off the parasitic ways of the diaspora and become a true nation again!

PS: I did not see the entry on The Fjordman Project before setting forth to post this blog entry.  I make no bones about being hostile to the Jewish diaspora that sees itself as “the light unto the nations” while exhibiting virulence virtually unmatched by any other people and I call “coward” all those, such as “Fjordman”, supporting Israel who are not, thus, “anti-semitic”.

Many internet sites that focus on the problems and dangers caused by the massive immigration into Europe of nonWestern and mainly Moslem peoples reject contributions by people who do not support Israel.

“Fjordman” is a well-known contributor to several of these sites and he has written an article that sums up the arguments why Europeans should support Israel. (Why Europeans Should Support Israel, Created 2007-03-12 07:49 Published on Brussels Journal.

I find “Fjordman’s” arguments in favor of making support for Israel a priority unpersuasive.

“Fjordman” asserts there is a powerful “anti-Israeli and sometimes outright anti-Semitic current that is prevalent in too much of Europe’s media”. “Fjordman” does not define what he means by “anti-Israeli” or “anti-Semitic” nor does he provide any examples of what he obviously wants his readers to believe are twinned thought-crimes.

Since expressing hostility against Jews, Moslems, or nonWesterners in general is subject to legal penalties in many European countries, I am not surprised that “Fjordman” evades his duty to provide examples of the alleged current.

READ MORE...

Heritage and Destiny is a quarterly magazine printed in England and promulgated by the rockface scalers of the England First Party and the British People’s Party.  It produces some good work, and an example was sent me today by Tom Sunic: a review of his Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age by Peter Rushmore.

In the course of the review Rushmore observes Sunic’s treatment of Christian Zionism:-

Dr Sunic does not present Christian Zionism as some crude conspiracy of venal pastors and crypto-Jews. Nor does he view the U.S.-Zionist embrace (as more shallow analyses by more orthodox political commentators have tended to) as merely contingent on the ‘neoconservative’ reaction (developing out of early American Trotskyism) against Stalinist anti-Semitism.

His approach is to set Christian Zionism in the context of America’s broader political culture. Dr Sunic maintains that a fundamental deceit is at the core of the American system, just as it was behind the Iron Curtain. But most victims of Soviet tyranny had seen through the official lies decades before the system’s final collapse and had been only maintaining a polite fiction of believing in communist ideology.

... the Holocaust:-

Dr Sunic quotes Jean Baudrillard, the postmodernist critic of America, who has died since this book went to press, to support his argument that the “constant verbal and visual featuring of Jewish Holocaust symbolism” creates a “saturation process among the audience as was once the case with former Holocaust symbolism”. Relentless exterminationist propaganda, not to mention the vicious persecution of those who dissent from the dominant ideology, becomes self defeating.

In Baudrillard’s words even the image of Auschwitz itself - the holy of holies - becomes hyperreality: “not a site of annihilation but a medium of dissuasion”. In other words the exterminationists themselves eventually transform Auschwitz in the public mind from a “historical fact” to a propaganda or marketing tool.

... and, quoting from the text of Homo americanus itself, American anti-semitism:-

Yet Dr Sunic goes on, in a section which should be compulsory reading for many in the movement, especially the many varieties of Christian “anti-Semite”, to reject the most obvious forms of Jewish conspiracy theory.

“Blaming American Jews for extraterrestrial powers and their purported conspiracy to subvert Gentile culture borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of dialogue. American anti-Semitic delusions only provide legitimacy to American Jews in their constant search for a real or surreal anti-Semitic boogieman around the corner. Without the spectre of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear. Thus, anti-Semitism provides Jews with alibis to project themselves as victims of Gentile prejudice. Consequently, it assigns them a cherished role of posing as the sole educational super-ego for Americans and by proxy the entire world.”

But many who read Sunic’s quite compact book will find not his stance on Jewry in America to be the most interesting thing about it but the deconstructionism that he commends for the postmodern American personality itself.  Rushmore merely notes:-

READ MORE...

Part Two: The Second Front

Prindle believes that all religions are projections of the mind or minds that imagine them. “As projections they comment on the cleanliness or foulness of the projectors.”

The notion of God to the western mind means the Yahweh of the Old Testament. The Jews fantasy is that God chose a particular people to be the bearers and disseminators of his word to all the peoples of the world. The English came to believe the scepter had been passed to them while the East Anglians who eventually formed the Liberal religion believe the scepter has passed to them.

The history of the Jews since their defeat and scattering by the Romans has been a succession of failed messiahs - more than sixty since they rejected Jesus. Failure has modified, but not eliminated this messianic obsession.

Prindle believes that stirrings of European Enlightenment in the seventeenth century were a significant factor in persuading the rabbis to stop recognizing Messianic claimants. “Science points out the absurdity of religious projections.  Thus all religions were shown to be based on false premises.”

Prindle points out that Christianity, Islam and Judaism were all faced with the challenge of scientific thinking. They all have a vested interest in the old way of perceiving the world.

The Jews had always been able to hold their own theologically vis-a-vis the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, but they had no chance against Science which granted none of their claims. Their only alternative was to corrupt Science and destroy it from within.

READ MORE...

This is the second of my essays on the little known but altogether exceptional work of R. E. Prindle, following my appreciation of his insights into Freud and the death of the West.  This essay will focus on Prindle’s The Deconstruction of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America.

I hope these essays will encourage others to read deeply in the Corpus Prindeliana.

Part One: The First Front

“The key problem for American history is why the Civil War was fought.

Propaganda teaches American schoolchildren the war was about Black slavery. But Prindle points out that none of the cultures involved had ever been opposed to slavery historically.

Prindle asserts the cultural roots of the conflict began with the conquest of Anglo-Saxon England by William the Conqueror in 1066.

The conflict began when the conquering Normans enslaved the Anglo-Saxons, especially those of East Anglia.  The issue then is that like the biblical Hebrews the Anglo-Saxons objected to their own ill-treatment only.  Neither culture objected to slavery in itself.

The East Anglian Puritans who seized power in England under Cromwell expatriated tens of thousands of Irish to the Caribbean islands as slaves to work cheek by jowl with the Negro slaves - no distinctions between the two.”  In addition, the importation of African slaves was largely run by the Puritan merchants from New England; the South played almost no role in the procurement of slaves from overseas. “Thus both the Puritans of New England and the Cavaliers of Virginia had no particular aversion to slavery.  The true issue was not whether but who.”

READ MORE...

What more shall I say about them ?  I cannot and need not say much more. In externals, they were two unobtrusive women; a perfectly secluded life gave them retiring manners and habits.  In Emily’s nature the extremes of vigour and simplicity seemed to meet.  Under an unsophisticated culture, inartificial tastes, and an unpretending outside, lay a secret power and fire that might have informed the brain and kindled the veins of a hero: but she had no worldly wisdom; her powers unadapted to the practical business of life; she would fail to defend her most manifest rights, to consult her most legitimate advantage.  An interpreter ought always to have stood between her and the world.  Her will was not very flexible, and it generally opposed her interest.  Her temper was magnanimous, but warm and sudden; her spirit altogether unbending.

Anne’s character was milder and more subdued; she wanted the power, the fire, the originality of her sister, but was well endowed with quiet virtues of her own.  Long-suffering, self-denying, reflective, and intelligent, a constitutional reserve and taciturnity placed and kept her in the shade, and covered her mind, and especially her feelings, with a sort of nun-like veil, which was rarely lifted.  Neither Emily nor Anne was learned; they had no thought of filling their pitchers at the well-spring of other minds; they always wrote from the impulse of nature, the dictates of intuition, and from such stores of observation as their limited experience had enabled them to amass.  I may sum up all by saying, that for strangers they were nothing; but for those who had known them all their lives in the intimacy of close relationship, they were genuinely good and truly great.

Charlotte Brontë, writing of her sisters Emily and Anne in the preface to the combined edition of Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey which was published in 1850, just over a year after their deaths.

The amazing, sad story of the Brontë sisters needs no retelling from me, and it is not my purpose to dwell on it here.  But these three remarkable women were a testament to native intelligence, as well as that creative font which intelligence may bestow: an interior life.

Native intelligence is much in vogue in British political circles.  As The Times’ Eleanor Mills wrote last week:-

READ MORE...

My question is:  Did Ian Flemming write this article?

The head of the Papua chapter of the National AIDS Commission, Constant Karma, reportedly slammed the proposal as a violation of human rights.

“People with HIV/AIDS are not like sharks under observation so that they have to be implanted with microchips to monitor their movements,” he told the Jakarta Post on Tuesday.

“Any form of identification of people with HIV/AIDS violates human rights.”

According to data from Papua’s health office cited by the Post, the province has just over 3,000 people living with HIV/AIDS. Some 356 deaths have been reported. Papua has a population of about 2.5 million.

This is a continuation and conclusion of my essay begun yesterday on the illuminating thought of R. E. Prindle.  And the question was: What were Freud’s reasons for wanting to destroy the concept of morality?

“Freud was severely emasculated in both his individual ego and in his group ego. He was in fact a practicing homosexual…. His group, the Jews, was and is a severely emasculated people. They have been since they walked away from Ur.” SOV1

Freud was fond of telling the story of his father and his hat. It seems that Mr. Freud related a story to Sigmund, or Sigismund as he was known then (his Hebrew name significantly was Solomon) of how when he was a young man walking down the street proudly wearing his new hat, a gentile knocked the hat from his head into the gutter, snarling, “Go get your hat, Jew.”

When Sigmund asked breathlessly what his father did, expecting a heroic response, the old gentleman laconically replied: “I stepped into the gutter and picked up my hat,” severely disappointing the young boy.

“Since Freud told and retold this story we may be forgiven for believing it had a profound effect on his young conscious and subconscious minds and possibly his “unconscious” too. On the one hand he may have been so ashamed of his father’s reaction that he shared his emasculation encapsulating it in his subconscious as a fixation. It is possible that this story either made or contributed to his homosexuality. On the other hand we know for a fact that it inflamed his group ego with an ardent desire for revenge against the gentiles.” SOV1

Freud’s father came from an area of the Pale known as Galicia. This area is very close to the homeland of the ecstatic variant of Judaism known as Hasidism, and in fact his father was a Hasid. The Hasid sect arose out of the period of the last great Jewish “Messiah”, Sabbatai Zevi. [or Shabbatai Zvi, etc.] SOV1

The Jews realized the true danger to their religious mental projection was Science. There was no religious argument effective against Science.  They would have to take a different approach. “That approach was to appropriate a science with mumbo jumbo then slowly eviscerate the science of its content while supposedly making it moral or in other words subservient to Jewish religious beliefs.  This required both bold assertions while suppressing discussion or channeling it so that it could be controlled.” DOERBA

“The date selected for the revolution was the period 1913-1928.” Born in 1856, in 1913 Sigmund Freud was fifty-seven years old. Freud was militantly Jewish. “He hated Europeans and the European culture.  There is no question but that he intended to replace it with the Jewish culture.  At what point he decided to manipulate the emerging science isn’t clear but probably by the time he began attending B’nai B’rith meetings in 1895.” DOERBA

”Freud defamed predecessors, mentors, and rivals while organizing psychoanalysis to exclude any opinion but his own….  He organized and controlled the magazines and publishing houses, while he controlled and convened the international congresses.  Following the Jewish Cultural model, no dissent was allowed - there is no freedom of expression in the Jewish Culture - if you refused discipline you were merely expelled.  Once expelled you were defamed and rendered inconsequential.  Marginalized in today’s terms.  The only analyst to survive this treatment was C. J. Jung who had an awful lot going for him.  I can’t think of another dissident who has survived to the present.” DOERBA

Prindle believes that Freud coordinated his research with the needs of the scheduled Jewish revolution. “By 1910 he had his theories in close to final form.  From 1915 on, especially after 1917 he was no longer developing his ideas but organizing them for use by the Revolution…. Thus his concepts of the unconscious and sex were tailored to upset the morality of European civilization.  His promulgated notions were meant to confuse and obfuscate.  When one combines Freud’s interpretation of the unconscious, sex and emasculation, all of which were worked out by 1915, one has in fact a potent weapon of psychological warfare ...

By the advent of the Russian Revolution then, through his association with B’nai B’rith Freud had prepared the Jewish cadres for some particularly dirty work….As the Russian Revolution marked the first great success of the Jewish Revolution, Freud now began to manipulate his scientific knowledge of hypnotism and psychology to confuse and obfuscate the minds of the EuroAmerican cultures while keeping his Culture’s mind focused on the work ahead.” DOERBA

Prindle believes the study of the French Revolution was the role of the men of B’nai “B’rith to which Freud was privy. “Little details pop up in his writing. In his 1914 On The History Of The Psychoanalytic Movement , he lets drop a line that the progress of the French Revolution had been charted and understood ... His role as the psychoanalyst would be to prepare the minds of the revolutionaries for the slaughtering to come while he probably also assisted in the damage control applications for the inevitable reaction when the Europeans had realized what the Jews had done”. DOERBA

“Sometime after I wrote the first part of Something Of Value (see erbzine.com) I read David Bakan’s Freud And The Jewish Mystical Tradition: By David Bakan. (London: Bailey Bros. & Swinfen; New York: Schocken Books. 1965. Pp. 326. xxi.)]

“While Freud rejected Rabbinical religious Judaism he was deeply immersed in the Jewish mystical tradition of the Zohar and Kabbalah. Thus one can discount his claim to be an ‘atheistic’ Jew.  Or atheism has a more specific meaning for him.”  FAHU

[ Kabbalah (or cabala) is a medieval and modern system of Jewish theosophy, mysticism and thaumaturgy marked by belief in creation through emanation and a cipher method of interpreting Scripture.]

Prindle explains that the Zohar, or primary mystical book, which is attributed to the first and second century Rabbi, Simeon Ben Yohai, was reworked in twelfth century Spain by Moses de Leon and reached the Middle East after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in the sixteenth century.  Its influence then was transmitted to the seventeenth century messiah, Sabbatai Zevi. “While Freud claimed to be scientific; Mr. Bakan relates almost all of Freud’s psychology to the Kabbalah showing Freud’s dependence on Sabbatianism and Frankism as I indicated in Something Of Value Part I.”  FAHU

Prindle contends that Freud pretended to work as a scientist while he actually was blending in a bit of science with his Jewish religious material in order to subvert the European moral order. FAHU

READ MORE...