“There are many different kinds of tunnels in historiography. Among the narrowest and darkest are the ethnic tunnels. And of all the ethnic tunnels, none is quite so dark and narrow as that which is called ‘Jewish history.’ There are many important and even urgent things to be written about the history of the Jewish people, but the present mode of writing and research is a scandal and an abomination in its profound provinciality. . . . The American Jewish Historical Society, for instance, dutifully subscribed for many years to a large number of historical journals, some of which are rare today. But the librarians of that institutions believed it their duty to snip out everything in the journals which explicitly referred to Jews and to throw away the rest. One might doubt that any chosen people are quite as chosen as all that.”

Jewish ethnocentrism goes beyond the ethnocentrism common to peoples who are not suicidal. Jews effectively view Jewish history as sacred history and Gentile history as profane history. (The works of Jean Soler on the origins of monotheism among the Jews, Aux origines du Dieu unique, 3 vols.) and the relationship of monotheism to intolerance, dogmatism, and violence (La violence monothéiste) may be interesting in this context.) And Jews have worked to make White people view their own history as evil and shameful, and to view Jewish ideals as righteous and normative. As Maurice Bardèche wrote in Nuremberg ou la terre promise (Paris: Les Sept Couleurs, 1948):

“One is proposing a future to us, one does so by condemning the past. It is into this future also that we want to see clearly. It is these principles that we would like to look at directly. For we already foresee that these new ethics refer to a strange universe, a universe with something sick about it, an elastic universe where our eyes no longer recognize things: but a universe which is that of others, precisely that of which Bernanos had a presentiment when he feared that one day the dreams, locked up in the sly brain of a small Negro shoeshiner in a New York ghetto, would come true. We are there. Our minds are doped. We have been struck by Circe. We have all become Jewish.”

The final sentence should be corrected: White people have not become Jewish, but they have become fellaheen.

1. O’Meara refers to “Hitler’s notion . . . that the Jews are not like other races (if they are a race at all), but rather a people defined by their mentality.” According to David Irving, the source of the statement to which O’Meara refers to was forged by the Swiss banker François Genoud.

Of course, the idea that the Jews are a people defined more by their mentality than their biology is one that should be assessed on its merits, regardless of what Hitler did or did not say about it. This idea has been addressed by the French anthroposociologist Georges Vacher de Lapouge, the French author Georges Batault, and the British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith.

Vacher de Lapouge appears to have described the Jews in the above terms in L’Aryen, son rôle social (1899). (I rely upon what I have read of this book in other books.)

In his excellent book, Le problème juif (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1921), Batault applied Gustave Le Bon’s ideas on “historical races” to the Jews. He wrote:

“Qu’il existe ‘quelque chose’ qu’on puisse appeler le type juif, au physique comme au mental, cela est si peu niable que chacun le considère comme un fait d’expérience courante. Mais le pourquoi ? ‘zoologique,’ anthropologique, ethnique de ce fait, il me paraît qu’on peut sans inconvénient renoncer, au moins à titre provisoire, à le connaître.

“Il existe et il a existé nombre d’autres peuples sémitiques que les Juifs qui ne sont aucunement et n’ont jamais été des Juifs ni au physique ni au spirituel. Il faut donc admettre que les Juifs constituent une race historique qui a été formée et créée par une longue tradition, par des usages et des pensers communs, tout comme les Français, les Anglais ou les Allemands sont devenus, pour les mêmes causes, des races historiques, avec cette différence que la tradition juive est plus ancienne, plus immuable, plus étroite et plus strictement respectée que n’importe laquelle des autres.

“Il me paraît vraisemblable de considérer le judaïsme, non point comme une expression caractéristique du génie sémitique, mais comme une idéologie originale qui est devenue la source d’une tradition puissante, laquelle a façonné un peuple à son image. C’est moins la race qui a créé la religion que la religion qui a créé la race historique que nous connaissons, par la force de l’hérédité des caractères acquis, tant au physique qu’au moral.

“La puissance de l’idée juive est antérieure aux formes physiques et psychologiques qui servirent ultérieurement à distinguer le Juif du non-Juif. Chacun sait l’influence décisive des milieux sur la formation des êtres ; le judaïsme, dans son développement historique, s’est efforcé de constituer et de maintenir un milieu interne et un milieu externe immuables et originaux. Le premier étant représenté par l’idéal juif dans toutes ses modalités, tel qu’il se manifeste dans l’Ancien Testament et dans les Talmuds, le second par les rites et les observances légales qui tendirent toujours à établir un mur de séparation entre le monde juif et le reste du monde.

“L’histoire démontre, en de multiples occasions, qu’il n’est point besoin de deux mille années mais d’infiniment moins de temps, pour créer une race historique facile à distinguer de toute autre.

“Ainsi conçue la race apparaît moins comme une cause que comme un effet : elle est avant tout une résultante ; dans ce cas, et pour ce qui nous concerne, seule une étude approfondie du judaïsme et de son action séculaire pourrait permettre d’établir les caractères originaux et distinctifs de la race juive et leur lente modification au cours des ans.

“Le judaïsme me semble fournir un des plus beaux exemples de la puissance des minorités et de la force invincible des traditions maintenues : c’est en effet à l’action des minorités qu’est dû l’établissement du judaïsme, qui a été finalement imposé au peuple hébreu après maints essais malheureux et maintes tentatives avortées. C’est le judaïsme, enfin triomphant, après des luttes incessantes, qui a substitué le peuple juif, sa création, au peuple hébreu qui préexistait.”

Sir Arthur Keith, in his great work, A New Theory of Human Evolution (London: Watts and Co., 1948), wrote:

“The evolutionary process to which the Jews have been subjected has been centred, not on their bodily features, but on their mental equipment. The one essential mental attribute which the Jew must possess is a living sense of being linked to his own community and of being separated from those of the Gentiles; without this sense he would drown in the Gentile sea. Consider for a moment the temptations to which the Jews have been exposed and the winnowing or selective ordeal they have undergone in the twenty-five centuries which now separate them from their ancestors of the captivity. The Jew has his social qualities quite as well developed as those of the Gentile; he is daily tempted by the social attractions of his host people, and if he is weak, may fall victim to them. The one sin his community will not pardon is apostasy to his creed and race. In spite of the execrations of his community he may fall in love with, and marry, a woman of the Gentiles, and so bring Gentile blood into his race. The mixed progeny of such unions is, in due course, subjected to assimilative seduction of the host people; if the hard racial mentality of the Jew has not been inherited, then such progeny will be reabsorbed by the Gentiles, and thus eliminated from the race. For eighty generations the Jews have been subjected to this merciless process of psychological selection; unless their racial sense remains firm they go down in the Gentile sea. Instead of weakening, the Jewish feeling of separateness seems to grow stronger as time goes on.”

I would emphasise the first sentence: “The evolutionary process to which the Jews have been subjected has been centred, not on their bodily features, but on their mental equipment.”

2. O’Meara is correct in describing the documentation provided by Ryssen as “immense,” “mind-numbing,” and “undeniable.” The volume, detail, and quality of Ryssen’s documentation is extremely impressive. Ryssen has thoroughly studied the sources he cites. His books are based solidly on a wide range of contemporary Jewish sources. They are not based upon the Protocols of Zion (a document which explains everything and proves nothing) or collections of quotations (which are often recycled, mangled, doctored, forged, or inadequately referenced) putting Jews in a bad light.

3. I would like to see O’Meara develop his ideas concerning the precise role of the Jews in “the reigning subversion” or “established disorder” that he has touched upon this review, his review of Guillaume Faye’s La nouvelle question juive, and his article on Julius Evola’s anti-Semitism. O’Meara writes that “the Jews may be the principal instrument of the reigning subversion, but whether or not they alone are responsible for the conditions presently destroying the European race . . . needs to be proved, not simply postulated.”

As I see it, the Jews play an important role in “the reigning subversion”–authors such as Ryssen and Kevin MacDonald have proven this–but “the reigning subversion” is larger than the Jewish problem. I believe that the Jewish problem needs to be addressed within this larger context. This is not a matter of discounting or denying the Jewish problem. It is a matter of putting the Jewish problem into perspective. (I should presently read David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought in order to better address questions of historical analysis.)

We should reject the nothing-but-the-Jews viewpoint held by vulgar anti-Semites and the anything-but-the-Jews viewpoint held by philo-Semites. The former effectively leaves out the Gentiles and the latter effectively leaves out the Jews.

… In 1932 Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi composed a preface for a new edition of his father’s condemnation of antisemitism, reissued by his own publishing house. In 1933 he responded to the ascendance of National Socialism by collaborating with Heinrich Mann, Arthur Holitscher, Lion Feuchtwanger, and Max Brod in writing and publishing the pamphlet Gegen die Phrase vom jüdischen Schädling (Against the Phrase ‘Jewish Parasite’).

Coudenhove-Kalergi complemented his liberal views of the political role of the Jews with distinctive advocacy of race mixing. In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism, Wien/Leipzig 1925, pages 20, 23, 50) he wrote:

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

“Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.”

Tanstaafl, whether “white” (as in white people) is a common or proper noun is subject to debate. Over the years I’ve simply bowed to the dictates of my various editors. Don’t make too much out of it. A rose by any other name, as they say, is . . .

http://eurosiberia.wetpaint.com/page/SUBJECT+WITHOUT+CONFINES

read: in his The Philosophy of History.

Exactly! This is what I refer to as “Transcending Violation”, which I see as what Hegel refered to, in so many words, in his as the gradual march toward freedom.
Something to be found only in the West, which is as synonymous racially with Whites as Chinese culture is with the Chinese.
It is what has led to what Nietzsche said was the West’s crowning acheivement,
The Sovereign Individual.

One key to moving into a larger freedom is to increase the realm of moral choice, not impose moral absolutes disguised as ultimate truths and then demand blind obedience to them. That’s what Jewish culture does. It is also the reason why conservativism is not, all its talk to the contrary, a great lover of freedom, which it facially equates with egotism.

In any event, it’s the reason behind Jewish hatred of Whites (c. Raymond V. Raehn’s excellent new article at VDARE). We might not experience freedom as much as we should, but we are never the less the seed carriers of freedom, unlike any other race.

And just as an abusive parent wants to break the will of their child before the child can learn that the parent is simply a human being, so too does Jewish supremacism depend upon its ability to crush the will of White people everywhere, before we have the notion of freedom firmly in our minds, not just through talk, but through the power of example. Powers of example who can inspire us to break free from the tyranny of Jewish supremacism.
That’s why the only good Whites are obedient, submissive Whites willing to sacrifice their lives and even the lives of their children to satisfy what are essentially Jewish interests. This is a violation of our humanity, of our 5,000 year long march toward freedom. And that is why, now more than ever, we need to do what we do best and transcend violation.

After reading this well-written essay, and recognizing the breadth, depth, and value of both yours and Mr. Ryssen’s insights, with which I’m mostly in agreement, I have only a single, elementary criticism.

You write, for example:

So armed, planetary intellectuals launched a campaign of blame against European-descended peoples, who were chastised for crimes they had allegedly committed against the Jews (during the war and historically) and for their on-going resistance to the anti-white requirements of world peace.

In effect, planetary intellectuals embraced positions that either implicitly or explicitly prescribed the extinction of the white race.

and conclude with:

the struggle to preserve white life cannot, it would seem, but culminate in a clash with its anti-white expectations

I agree with these ideas, but find the form in which they are expressed flawed.

One of the most pervasive and yet easiest anti-White expectations to reject is the convention of writing “white”. The word White, as used in this essay, is a proper noun, being essentially shorthand for Europeans and European-descended peoples, and as such it is as worthy of capitalization as Jew or West are. Likewise, Gentile should be capitalized.

In my own writing I have for some time preferred to capitalize White and not jew, calling attention to the anti-White norm by inverting it. It is a simple enough principle to argue. See We’re White, We’re Indigenous, Get Used to It for the kind of clash this produces.

Whether or not other Whites agree with such an inversion, surely in essays advocating the struggle to preserve White life we can and should expect to find White capitalized.