Translated by Greg Johnson

The Jewish people have a plan for humanity; a grandiose plan that they have pursued on all fronts for centuries: universal peace on earth. The concept of “peace” is, indeed, at the heart of Judaism, and it is not just chance that this word (shalom, in Hebrew), is frequently used by Jews the world over.

In this perfect world that they would build, all conflicts will have disappeared from the face of the earth, especially conflicts between nations. This is why the Jews militate incessantly for the removal of borders and the dissolution of national identities. Nations being the causes of wars and disorder, it is thus necessary to weaken them and, in the long term, to abolish them in favor of a world government that can only make happiness and prosperity reign on earth.

Whether they are leftists or rightists, Marxists or liberals, believers or atheists, Zionists or “perfectly assimilated,” the Jews are always the most fervent supporters of the multicultural society, planetary miscegenation, and global Empire. When all other identities disappear, only the Jewish people will remain, recognized by all as the “chosen people” of God.

Jewish Fanaticism, first off, is the thirty million deaths, Russians and Ukrainians liquidated in the Communist adventure of 1917 to 1947. One can never say enough about the appalling role of Jewish ideologues, Jewish bureaucrats, and Jewish torturers in this story.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is this systematic eagerness to make Europeans feel guilty, to make them hang their heads and fall to their knees for crimes they did not commit, or for crimes for which Jews themselves might feel a little guilty but prefer “to transfer” to others. One thinks here of the leaders of the black slave trade, for example, or the shameless exploitation of the wealth and raw materials of the Third World.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is this unrestrained propaganda, conveyed through all the media, in favor of immigration and the multicultural society. Jewish intellectuals, Jewish politicians, and Jewish financiers bear most of the responsibility for the immigration invasion that has disfigured France in only 30 years. It is necessary to say it again and again: immigration is not a natural phenomenon but the result of a tireless campaign of cosmopolitan propaganda which is part of the politico-religious plan of the Jewish people.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is also warmongering politics that ultimately amounts to whipping up the hatred of the Western masses against any nation that still refuses democratic domination and the hegemony of Israel. Today they are preparing us for a war against Iran, as they once stirred up wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, and Germany.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is also this “great intolerance of frustration,” to give it a medical diagnosis. Anyone who has the audacity to say one word against the “Jewish lobby,” Israeli policy, or Jewish “over-representation” in the media immediately finds himself dragged through the mud by the whole media system, covered in spit, calumniated, vilified, delivered to the feet and fists of a hysterical mob hypnotized by the buzzwords of Big Brother.

In this new book of 400 pages, I base my case once again primarily on the writings of Jewish intellectuals, ancient and modern. Thus my conclusions are incontestable. If I speak about “Israeli hegemony,” it is because explicit documents allow us to say that the Jews seek to establish world domination. And if I write “the Jews” and not “certain Jews,” it is because my sources are now sufficiently many and varied to support such generality.

September 2007

Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/29/53/516490/47626715.pdf

Judaism is not merely a “religion,” as many Jews are overt atheists or agnostics, and they do not consider themselves less Jewish for all that. Jewry is also not a race even if it is true that a “trained eye,” most of the time, can recognize a Jewish appearance, that is to say, a characteristic pattern which is the result of their strict observance of endogamy for centuries. Jews see themselves as the “chosen ones” of God, and marriage outside the community is strictly frowned upon. However, mixed marriages do exist and have also helped to renew the blood of Israel during all the centuries spent in the various ghettos where the Jews preferred to live, separately and apart from the rest of the population. The essential condition for such mixed marriages is that the mother be Jewish, since Orthodox Rabbis recognize as Jewish only the child born of a Jewish mother. However, having just a Jewish father or grandparent can suffice for a person to identify completely with Judaism. Jewishness is therefore a “mental race” that has been shaped over the centuries by the Hebrew religion and the universalist project of Judaism.

Judaism is a Political Project

Judaism is essentially a political project. It is important for Jews to work toward the emergence of a world at “peace,” a peace meant to be universal and permanent. It is therefore not a coincidence that this word “peace” (shalom in Hebrew) is found frequently in Jewish discourse worldwide. In the perfect world that they are building, all conflicts will disappear between the nations. This is why Jews have been militating tirelessly for many years for the abolition of all borders, the dissolution of national identities and the establishment of a global empire of “peace.” The very existence of separate nations is considered to be responsible for the triggering of wars and turmoil. so they must be weakened and eventually replaced by a world government, a “one world government,” a “New World Order,” one single world-ruling authority that will permit happiness and prosperity to reign, Jewish-style, on earth.

We find this idea more or less developed both in the writings of certain intellectual Marxists such as Karl Marx himself and the Jewish-French philosopher Jacques Derrida and also in the discourse of liberal thinkers such as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman and France’s Alain Minc. The idea is to unify the world by all means necessary and to generate cultural conflicts that will weaken nation-states. It is for this One World that intellectuals Jews labor tirelessly all over the world. Whether they call themselves left- or right-wing, liberal or Marxist, believers or atheists, they are the most ardent propagandists of the pluralistic society and of universal miscegenation, that is of racial mixture.

Thus, all their strength the Jews – basically, ALL the vocal Jews in the world – encourage non-white immigration into every country in which they are located, not only because the multicultural society is their fundamental political aim, but also because the disintegration of national identity in each nation and the massive presence of anti-white immigrants is designed to prevent the original white population from succeeding in any nationalistic outbursts against the Jewish sway over finance, politics, and the media. All Jewish intellectuals, without any exception, are focused on this question of building the “pluralistic society” and for this they practice constant “vigilance against racism.” In France, influential writers and journalists such as Bernard-Henri Levy, Jacques Attali, Jean Daniel, Guy Sorman, and Guy Konopniki agree on pluralism and anti-racism despite their political divergences in other areas. This obsession, which is very characteristic of Judaism, is also manifested in movies, where many producers and directors are influential Jews. As soon as a film starts defending and promoting interbreeding, “tolerance” and pluralism, we can be sure that the producer of it is Jewish.

Now we can understand better why the former communists and leftists of the 1970s did not have to make such a big leap to become today’s “neoconservatives.” They have merely switched to a different strategy to achieve the same goal: the rule by racially pure Jews over a racially mixed society.

The fact is that after the Palestinian intifada began in October 2000, the Jews in France and the rest of the Western world have realized that nowadays the danger to their interests and their project comes primarily from Islam and from young African immigrants, both Arabic and black. Their aim is to strengthen the modern race-mixing and race-blending society, which they have contributed so much to establish in our country of France. But this mosaic now threatens to break up into separate communities, and this the Jews do not want. They want no separate identities or separateness at all, except a separate Jewish identity and Jewish separateness. Former Marxists in France such as Alexandre Adler, André Glucksmann, and Pascal Bruckner thus support nowadays, along with Alain Finkielkraut, the right-wing, pro-Washington, pro-Zionist party of Nicolas Sarkozy. And yet they have not become French patriots. They react only for the exclusive benefit of Jewry, asking, as American Jews proverbially do on every issue: “Is it good for the Jews ?”

“Tolerance” as a Weapon

The members of the Jewish sect are the most proselytizing people on earth, but unlike Christians or Muslims, who dream of converting all peoples of all races to their faith, the Jews have no plan to convert the world to their own faith, Judaism, but simply to encourage other nationalities to give up their national and religious identities – and live only for the goal of “tolerance.” The unceasing campaigns to blame all Whites for slavery, colonialism, the plundering of the Third World or for Auschwitz have no other purpose than putting the opponent on the defensive, and getting him on his knees not by violence but via guilt. When the Jews are the only people left on earth who are keeping their faith and their traditions, they will finally be recognized by everyone as God’s “chosen people.”

Their “mission” (and Jews frequently use this term “mission”) is to disarm the other peoples, to dissolve anything which is not Jewish or Jewish-controlled, to grind the people down to a powder for making a new identity-free work force, and thus to favor a universal “peace” among the peoples who have no more “divisive” identities.

As their prophet Isaiah said: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the tiger will rest with the kid, the lion and the ram shall live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah 11: 6-9). The Messiah, coming from Israel, and awaited for three thousands years, will establish anew the kingdom of David and will give the Jews an empire over all the earth. And certain Jewish texts explicitly call for this.

Jews are therefore continuously encouraged to campaign, in whatever society they inhabit, in order to promote the unification of the world – and thus to also hasten the arrival of their promised and cherished Messiah. Propaganda is a Jewish specialty, and it is no coincidence that Jews become so influential in all the media. In their hands, the concepts of “tolerance” and “human rights” have become incredibly efficient weapons of white guilt and accusation against the majority culture. In fact, it is not through Jewish-sounding names or a Jewish physical appearance that we can best recognize Jews, but rather from what they write and say wherever they are on earth.

Selective Amnesia and Fabulation

Many Jews, as we know, played an absolutely huge role in the Soviet tragedy 1917-1991 and the thirty million deaths that marked this era. Let us remember that Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family and that Lenin himself had a Jewish maternal grandfather, that Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik founder and head of the Red Army, was born a Bronstein, while Kamenev (real name: Rosenfeld) and Zinoviev (real name: Apfelbaum) were running the two Bolshevik-conquered capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg. But the list of Jews who stood out in the mega-crimes of Communism is endless. It must be said and it must be repeated: Jewish officials and Jewish torturers bore a very heavy responsibility in this tragedy. The “perfect” world they concocted and which was supposedly “historically inevitable” turned out from the very beginning to be a nightmare for the Russian population. It was not until 1948 when the Jewish intellectual elite Jewish began distancing itself from the Stalinist government, and this was only because Stalin had launched his “anti-Zionist” campaign, meant to purge pro-Israel Jews from senior leadership positions.

This indisputable Jewish guilt for the gigantic crimes of Bolshevism is now systematically being shoved down the Memory Hole (the phrase from George Orwell’s 1984). In Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 2002 book Two Centuries Together, the Nobel Laureate and 11-year veteran of the Bolshevik gulag expresses outrage that Jewish intellectuals were still refusing to recognize their ethnic responsibility in the slaughter of millions of Christians. Solzhenitsyn also denounces modern Jews who pose as victims of an “antisemitic” Bolshevik government when that government was in fact heavily Jewish and Jews were among the worst perpetrators.

This selective amnesia is necessary for a people who ceaselessly proclaim their “innocence” of any provocative acts, as we regularly note in their writings, for example in an editorial in Israel magazine of April 2003, “the first Israeli monthly magazine in the French language” written under the name of a certain André Darmon.

He wrote: “To kill a Jew or a child makes God cry, for we are exterminating [in the Jew] the bearer of universal ethics and innocence.”

No less!

With this mindset of absolute innocence Jews cannot conceive bearing any responsibility for their atrocities. Jews are only victims, only “scapegoats” in an evil and hostile world. But very soon the Messiah will punish the “wicked” and will restore the victimized sons of Israel to their full rights.

Nevertheless, in this same Israel magazine editorial, a certain Frederick Stroussi asserted that the Nazi government was worse than the Stalin regime. He quoted the cruelties he claimed were perpetrated by certain SS men. For example, we learn from Stroussi that the Latvian SS man Cukur’s hobby was to toss Jewish babies in the air to shoot them in their head as in skeet shooting. He also writes of other episodes, such as the rape of children by the SS before they killed them. The Second World War has certainly stimulated the fertile imagination of the children of Israel.

Or perhaps this imagination is once again a case of the Jews’ own “projection” syndrome, that is, accusing others systematically of one’s very own crimes as a matter of consistent PR policy: always attack. We know in fact – even if the media never speak about it – that many Jews and their rabbis are involved in the felony crime of pedophilia (see Psychanalyse du Judaisme, 2007).

And murdering a child would seem to be more a Jewish specialty than a characteristic of the SS mind. The revelations of tenured professor Ariel Toaff of Bar Eilan University in Israel – the son of the former Grand Rabbi of Rome – and buttressed in February 2007 by his 147-page, heavily footnoted, scholarly work Pasqua di Sangue [ Blood Passover] – reveals proof of ritual murder among some Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of Eastern European origin).

Emotional Fragility

We outsiders are thus supposed to understand that the sufferings of Jews cannot be compared to those of any others. As a consequence, we are supposed to get as indignant as they do when a serious historian such as Stephane Courtois states (in the preface of his famous Black Book of Communism): “The death of a Ukrainian child of Kulak origin [ from the independent farmer class] who is deliberately forced to starve to death by the Stalinist government is as significant as the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto.” These simple words were enough to provoke the ire of Frederic Stroussi who declares he was “stunned” by such an affront. Such a remark, according to him, was “despicable” and represented a vulgar attack against Israel: “What does this comparison have to do here?” he writes. “Why do we have to use the slaughter of a Jewish child to transmit this underlying, false and hateful rumor that the Jews overshadow all other victims of totalitarianism and monopolize all the attention on themselves?”

The author of the article, as we can notice, reacts in a outraged and totally disproportionate way to the modest and certainly justified intentions of the level-headed historian Stephane Courtois. Stroussi demonstrates here the “great intolerance to the frustration” which are so characteristic of the Jewish intellectual. Such reactions are clearly not “normal.”

We note that Israel magazine is a monthly magazine designed for the Jewish community and that, consequently, one can hardly accuse Frederick Sroussi of lying to goyish readers, or hiding from the goyim the true nature of Bolshevism and the supposedly malefic cruelty of the SS. His discourse here does not correspond to any false dialectic, as anti-Semites claim, but here, in this magazine by and for Jews, he is reflecting, as a Jew among Jews, writing to Jews, the very essence of their soul: 1) We are always innocent – and 2) Jewish lives are more valuable than those of others.

There is an “attack anti-Semitism” that stems from a failure to understand the Jewish identity and only sees deliberate perfidy where there is in reality a genuine existential anxiety, one generated by a deep psychological dysfunction.

Hysterical People

The Jews have never dared to collectively approach the mirror on their inner lives represented by Freudian psychoanalysis, a prism through which the Jews claim to see all humanity, but which, on closer analysis, sheds far more light on the specific neuroses of Judaism. Psychoanalysis, like Marxism, is a “Jewish science” and a product of the Jewish mind. It was therefore logical to wonder how this Freudian “discovery” corresponds to Jewish specificities.

The answer was not initially obvious to the author, and it took the reading and analysis of hundreds of books of all kinds, mostly written by Jews themselves, for him to realize that the searing question of incest stands at the throbbing heart of the Jewish question, and not theoretically either.

Jewish mothers do love their sons, as is well known, but outright incest is at the origin of a well-known mental illness – one that especially afflicts Jews – called “hysteria.” Incest attracted early the attentions of Freud while he was developing his theories. The parallels between Judaism and hysterical pathology are quite natural.

Jewry is well-known for these syndromes: Hysteria, depression, introspection, amnesia, manipulation, pathological lying, ambivalent identity, prophetic deception, sexual ambiguity, and so on. Every Jewish symptom is found in hysteria.

Freud, as a loyal Jew, merely projected the traits of a specific community onto the rest of humanity. In reality, there is no “Oedipus complex” but rather an Israel complex (all Jews together technically being Israel, not just the Near Eastern state). In fact, Jews do not seem to really wish to discuss the topic of incest within their families. On the other hand, all the psychiatrists mention: “The hysterical woman so much wants a child from her father or her doctor that she can persuade herself that she is pregnant by one of them and thus develops a ‘nervous pregnancy.’”

It is interesting that all Jewish writers use the same term to refer to the coming of their Messiah, namely, the “delivery” of the Messiah. The whole Jewish community, we must understand, is “the wife of God” (the Shekhinah of the Kabbalist) who is some day supposed to give birth to the Messiah, and thus the whole of Jewry is indeed suffering from a “nervous pregnancy” not unlike that found in nervous, hysterical women.

Karl Kraus, the Austrian Jewish journalist who did not agree with Freud, wrote sarcastically: “Psychoanalysis is the mental illness of which it claims to be the cure.” But the right and the best formula can be stated in ten words: “Judaism is the disease that psychoanalysis is meant to cure.”

The Sexual Revolution

After Freud, other Jewish thinkers came along who produced a symbiosis between Freudian doctrine and Marxism. Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse preached sexual revolution in order to break down the patriarchal family and unleash “free sex.” Their theories largely inspired the student riots of May ’68. The 1970s saw a new wave of Freudo-Marxism and Jewish women were in the forefront (such as Gisele Halimi and Elisabeth Badinter in France and Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem in the USA). As time passed, a series of Jewish-inspired laws appeared, one after the other, designed to dissolve the family. In France, a Neuwirth-promoted law legalized the contraceptive pill (1967), then came the challenge to the authority of the father as head of the household (1970), then divorce by mutual consent (1974) and the “right” to abortion promoted by “Holocaust survivor” Simone Veil (1975). A great wave of movie porn accompanied this “liberation” from traditional family values. Here we are compelled to note that Jewish producers and film directors play a very important role in the sex film industry. (See my La Mafia Juive [The Jewish Mafia], 400 pages, 2008). Parallel to this, the Freudian concept of bisexuality favored the acceptance of overt “gay pride” and homosexuality.

A War Machine against Humanity

In fact, the only tangible results of this moral “liberation” was the systematic demoralization and criminalization of the white man, who is denounced tirelessly in movies, literature and history as the cause of all the planet’s ills and of the collapse of the West. The appeal of egalitarianism – as intended by Jewry – tends to level all ethnic differences and identities and brings about their slow destruction.

Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

You read it right : Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity – except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.

The Neutralization of the Devil

The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the antisemitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.

Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.

Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity.

Only then we will become free from this grip, and at the same time, they will free themselves from the evil inside them that threatens all mankind.

Autumn 2007
Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/88/46/516490/47626479.pdf

William Holman Hunt's "The Scapegoat" (1854 - 1856) (detail)

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.
Read Part 3 here.
Read Part 4 here.

Mechanopolis: Isn’t the desire to found a world government one of the delusions of the “enlightened,” as Taguieff would say?

Hervé Ryssen: It is quite clear that all this is being done to make us disavow our roots, our traditions, our history, our families, and our fatherlands, in order to make us more receptive to the “open” society dear to cosmopolitan hearts and to the idea of a world government. Alain Finkielkraut insists on this point: “Evil,” he writes, “enters the world with fatherlands and patronyms [par les patries et par les patronymes]”(Alain Finkielkraut, L’Humanité perdue [Lost Humanity], p.154.). The post-modern man must cease “pursuing traces of the past in himself as in others.” His claim to fame “is to be cosmopolitan, and to make war on parochialism” (Alain Finkielkraut, Le Mécontemporain [Paris: Gallimard, 1991], pp. 174-77).  From there, one can finally admit the idea of a “planetary confederation,” as advocated by the sociologist Edgar “Morin” in all his books, or better yet, to work for the introduction of world government, as Jacques Attali expresses it: “After the installation of European continental institutions, the urgent need for a world government will appear” (Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle [Dictionary of the Twenty-First Century]). All that, obviously, will still not prevent the famous anti-fascist trapper Pierre-André Taguieff from being indignant at the wild imaginings of anti-Semites and to claim that the idea of world domination is an aberration or a “deception.”

Mechanopolis: One cannot deny however that the Jews experienced atrocious persecutions down through the centuries. How do they themselves explain their misfortunes?

Hervé Ryssen: It is probably the most stunning question of all. On this point as well, the explanations are all concordant and are usually based on the theory of the “scapegoat”: in difficult times the government or the people turn against a specially designated victim who is charged with “all” faults “past, present, or future.”

Those who should be most concerned to understand anti-Semitism often express a total incomprehension of the phenomenon. Thus for Clara Malraux (the wife of the writer) anti-Semitic hatred “is less hard to bear when one knows that it is totally and absolutely unjustified and that, by this fact, the enemy is transformed into the enemy of humanity” (Clara Malraux, Rahel, Ma grande sœur . . . [Rahel, My big sister . . .] [Paris: Editions Ramsay, 1980], p. 15.). The enemy of the Jews is the enemy of all humanity. This is also what Elie Wiesel means when he writes in volume 2 of his Memories: “Thus it is and cannot be otherwise: the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity. . . . By killing the Jews, the killers undertook to assassinate all of humanity” (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires, vol. 2, [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1996], pp. 72, 319). Indeed, to kill a Jew who is, so to speak, innocent by nature, is inevitably to attack every innocent person and every other community. Thus one is correctly defined as the enemy of humanity. But there is also another interpretation, more classical, which is based on the idea that the Jews alone are defined as humanity, the other nations deriving, according to a so-called formula of the Talmud, from “the seed of cattle.”

In his  2004 book Le Discours de la haine [Hate Speech], the philosopher André Glucksmann maintains that “hatred of the Jews is the enigma among all enigmas. . . . Jews are not at all the source of anti-Semitism; it is necessary to consider this passion in itself and by itself, as if the Jews which it hounds . . . did not exist.” (André Glucksmann, Le Discours de la haine [Paris: Plon, 2004], pp. 73, 86, 88.).  You have to understand:  “the Jew” is always innocent. These too are not isolated testimonies, and this attitude seems to be that of a majority of the Jewish intellectuals. Emmanuel Lévinas also expressed this opinion, just like another Jewish philosopher, Shmuel Trigano for whom the phenomenon of anti-Semitism “remained unexplained in spite of an immense library on the subject” (Shmuel Trigano, L’Idéal démocratique… à l’épreuve de la shoah [The Democratic Ideal . . . the Test of the Shoah] [Paris: Editions Odile Jacob, 1999], p. 17).

Mechanopolis: One also often hears that anti-Semitism is a mental illness.

Hervé Ryssen: Since anti-Semitism is unexplained, and the Jews are innocent, logically the problem can come only from the goys. Consider the testimony of Yeshayahu Leibowitz, philosopher of religions, found in the book entitled Portraits juifs: “It is a phenomenon which is historically incomprehensible. Anti-Semitism for me is not a problem of the Jews but of the goyim” (Herlinde Loelbl, Portraits juifs, 2003). In the first volume of his Mémoires, Elie Wiesel writes: “It is their problem, not ours” (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires, vol. I [Paris: Le Seuil, 1994], pp. 30, 31).

The explanation of anti-Semitism as mental derangement is very frequently found in the writings of Jewish intellectuals. Le livre de Raphaël Draï, Identité juive, identité humaine, publié en 1995, reprend cette idée : The 1995 book of Raphaël Draï, Identité juive, identité humaine [Jewish Identity, Human Identity], takes up this idea: “The anti-Semite attributes to the Jew the intentions that he himself nourishes. . . . The psychopathological dimension of such a construction cannot be ignored. . . . The presented Jews are really projected Jews; the “Judaized” image belongs to the delusions of anti-Semites” (Raphaël Draï, Identité juive, identité humaine [Paris: Armand Colin, 1995], pp. 390-92).

The Russian writer Vassili Grossman expresses the same idea: “Anti-Semitism,” he says, “is the mirror of the defects of a man taken individually, of civil society, of official systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I will tell you what you yourself are guilty of. National Socialism, when it attributed to the Jewish people traits that it itelf had invented, like racism, the will to dominate the world, or the cosmopolitan indifference to the German fatherland, had in fact given the Jews its own characteristics” (Vassili Grossman, Vie et destin [Paris: Ed. Julliard, 1960], pp. 456-58). In sum, the anti-semite rejects in the Jews his own tares. On this level, it does indeed fall into the realm of psychotherapy. But it remains to be seen whether it is really the goyim who need it most!

The End

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Ryssen’s Les Espérances planétariennes.

Emilio Sala Frances, "The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain" (1889, Museo de Bellas Artes de Granada) The figure in the foreground is either Don Isaac Abravanel or Don Abraham Senior.

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.
Read Part 3 here.

Mechanopolis: How do you explain this obvious lust for vengeance in [Jewish] religious texts that profess universal peace? What is the source of this vengefulness?

Hervé Ryssen: The spirit of revenge is found in quite a few texts. It appears in novels like Albert Cohen’s Frères humains or Patrick Modiano’s La Place de l’Etoile. The current American guru of Afrocentrism, Martin Bernal, who is “white,” also evokes this sentiment: “My goal is to reduce the intellectual arrogance of Europeans.” Now, if one plunges into the remote past, one realizes that these attitudes have traversed the centuries without so much as a wrinkle.

At the beginning of the 16th century, for example, Rabbi Shlomo Molkho, who was regarded by many Jews as a Messianic figure, wrote his very revealing prophetic visions in which one finds the idea of a “revenge against the gentiles” which will be achieved. He also assures us that “the foreigners will be broken” and that “the nations will tremble” (Moshe Idel, Messianisme et mystique, 1994, pp. 65-66). Moshe Idel comments: “the poem of Molkho clearly refers to the advent of a double revenge: against Edom and Ishmael,” i.e., against Christendom and Islam, then he adds furthermore: “God reveals not only how to fight against Christianity . . . but still how to break the force of Christianity so that the Redemption occurs” (p. 48). Isn’t it clear?

One can find this type of delirious prophecy in many other Jewish historical characters, such as Isaac Abravanel, who was the chief of the Jewish community of Spain before the expulsion of 1492, and who became one of the mythical heroes of the Jews of Iberian origin. He also quite explicitly calls for the revenge of the people of Israel against Christendom and invited “all the nations to go to war against the land of Edom” (the vision of Obadia, in Genesis 20:13, quoted in John-Christoph Attias, Isaac Abravanel: La mémoire et l’espérance [Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1992], p. 256).

For those who still wonder about the reasons for this secular hatred, here is a small explanation: “It is close the day when the eternal will take revenge on all the nations that destroyed the First Temple and which controlled Israel in the exile. And with you also, Edom, as you made at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, you will know the sword and revenge (Obadia). . . . Any deliverance promised to Israel is associated with the fall of Edom” (Lamentations 4:22; p. 276).

This vengeful hatred, nursed for twenty centuries, was also expressed by the philosopher Jacob Talmon, who wrote in 1965: “The Jews have very old blood feuds to settle with the Christian West” (J.-L. Talmon, Destin d’Israël, [Paris: Calmann-Lévy 1965, 1967], p. 18). Pierre Paraf, the former President of the LICA (League against Anti-Semitism), writes, in the voice of a character of his novel republished in 2000: “So many of our brothers marked by circumcision groan under the whip of the Christians. Glory to God! Jerusalem will gather them together one day; they will have their revenge!” (Quand Israël aima [Paris: Les belles letters, 1929, 2000, p. 19). These people are tenacious in their resentment.

Mechanopolis: We really are far from the cinematic stereotype of the “poor little persecuted Jew.” In the end, can one take seriously the widespread idea, or “prejudice,” that “the Jews want to dominate the world”?

Hervé Ryssen: I do not have any personal ideas on this subject, and I am content to analyze what is written. Consequently, I cannot say that it is a general disposition of all Jewish intellectuals. But this idea was expressed by some of them. The book on Abravanel confirms this interpretation, on the basis of biblical texts: “At the time of the Messiah,” he writes, “Samuel thought that all the nations would be subjects of Israel, in accordance with what is written: ‘His empire will extend from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth’” (Zechariah 9: 10, p. 181). “During the deliverance to come, a king of the house of David will reign” (Attias, Isaac Abravanel, p. 228). In fact “the great peace would reign on earth at the time of the King-Messiah” (Attias, Isaac Abravanel, p. 198). Here we have confirmation that Israel militates for “peace”!

Camille Marbo, in her novel Flammes juives (Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1936, 1999) tells the story of young Moroccan Jews who leave their mellah and settle in France in the 1920s. One explicitly speaks about the “conquest of the world by Israel” (p. 10). One also finds such passages: “‘Israel must control the world,’ said Daniel. . . . ‘They fear us,’ repeated the old man Benatar, ‘because we are the race of the Prophets’” (p. 18); “Our generation which can conquer Christendom has not yet come. You yourselves will lay the foundations, and your children will carry out the task. They will confound the Christians. Israel will lead the world as it must” (p. 126). There are many other texts on this subject.

Read Part 5 here.

Bernd Rabehl is an academic sociologist and a veteran of the German student movement of the 1960s led by Rudy Dutschke. Pace our conservatives, the oppositional movements of the period were not monolithic in their subversion. Not a few of its participants were like myself (I was a 68er at Berkeley) in seeking not the further actualization of the nihilism inherent in the post-1945 System, but rather an active resistance to the toll it had already taken on American life in the decade leading up to the Sixties.

Here, in this slightly abridged translation, an ex-oppositionist reflects on the complete loss of German values since the break-up of the Soviet Empire and the East German Democratic Republic (the Deutsche Demokratische Republik or DDR). –Michael O’Meara

Question (Bernhard Tomaschitz): Professor Rabehl, twenty years ago the Berlin Wall fell. In what ways has Germany changed since then?

Rabehl: It has been completely transformed. First, the DDR was totally dismantled. Its industry was deliberately destroyed, creating vast swaths of de-industrialization in the East. Then, a third of the DDR’s population, above all those with college degrees and skills, were resettled in West Germany, and in some cases in the US and Australia. The little industry remaining in the East was in no way comparable to that of West Germany, so it’s impossible to speak of any parity now between the new Länder (provinces) of the East and those of the West.

Question: Was any aspect of the DDR heritage carried over into the newly reunified Federal Republic?

Rabehl: This is an interesting question because the politics of the SED [the ruling East German Communist party] always took its references from the German, especially the Prussian, political tradition. In this optic, the DDR’s politics remained German, while West Germany [under the heal of the Judeo-American powers] was founded on a rejection of that tradition.

Question: Given that West Germany had severed its links with the German past, ought German Reunification [after 1989] be considered “a historical accident”?

Rabehl: The West German political Establishment had no interest in reunification. Helmut Kohl’s Christian Democrats [then the ruling party] was committed to the postwar division of Germany. No one in the West imagined that East Germany might possibly collapse (it was simply accepted that there should be two states) and no one wanted anything to do with a state still rooted in the German political tradition. It was the Soviet Union that initiated the reunification process because it feared the complete collapse of Eastern Europe. The KGB elites around Gorbachev knew that such a collapse would bring war and revolution, threatening thus the very existence of the Red Army and the Russian state. This is why two or three years before 1989, the Russians began developing plans to ensure a peaceful reunification. The American president at the time, Bush Senior, and Gorbachev then negotiated the reunification and presented it to Kohl. Following the massive demonstrations in Leipzig, East Berlin, and Rostock [which undermined the DDR's legitimacy in 1989], it was clear that the German Communist state could no longer be preserved, since the Russians were no longer prepared or able to support such a state.

Question: To what degree did “the Basic Antifascist Consensus (Antifaschistische Grundkonsensens), which was the founding ideology of the West German Federal Republic, become the prevailing dogma of reunified Germany?

Rabehl: Antifascism in the former DDR was use to designate “the enemy,” all enemies. A “fascist,” accordingly, was anyone who didn’t support the [East German Communist] system. Included in this category were Social Democrats, liberals, leftists, and, of course, conservatives and reactionaries. “Fascism,” as such, was a concept of struggle, extendable to virtually anyone or anything.

Once the Federal Republic lost its enemy in the East, there was a certain [ideological] shift. Previously, it wasn’t fascism that was the enemy, but rather Communism, whose subversions were resisted. Then, as the German Communist state disappeared in the East, the reunified German state embrace the antifascist cause for its own uses, this time against the German state tradition — and against all who sought to change the new Germany, especially its relationship to the European Union. In this context, it’s pertinent to note that well before 1989 West German parties had privileged the American ideology of “human rights” and “individual liberties” and assigned no value to maintaining the German heritage, the German language, German values — having abandoned every specifically German political and social tradition.

Question: If German values are no longer of any importance, what was it that was celebrated during the anniversary of German Reunification?

Rabehl: Essentially, what was celebrated was the fact that there had been no revolution in either the East or the West. In the East, in 1989, those who had descended into the street, chanting “We are one people,” were bought off with a monetary reform and a gift of several hundred marks to welcome them to the West. They were then shorn of their political identity. This was easily accomplished, given the weak organization and lack of continuity of the East German protest movement.

That which is celebrated now, twenty years later, is the fact that the constitution, “the Basic Law,” and the former political structures of the West have been imposed on the Länder of the East — that there is nothing left of the DDR. In effect, what is celebrated is the total Americanization of all Germans.

Question: Isn’t it remarkable that twenty years after the Wall’s collapse the [recently passed] Treaty of Lisbon calls for the “de-state-ification” of Germany and other EU member states?

Rabehl: All of Europe’s states have been effectively “de-state-ified.” In the process, the EU has acquired a supra-state sovereignty and become a super-state. But for all that Europe in no sense is a great power. It can’t be because it remains tied to the United States — by treaties regulating NATO and by other accords related to matters of security. There were certain timid measures taken to give Europe the stature of a great power, but since 2003, the US has intervened to prevent it, informing Europeans that only the United States can decide matters of war and peace for them. So much for the European super-state — for the question of war and peace is what makes a state sovereign.

Question: What forces have profited from the “de-state-ification” of the European states?

Rabehl: Obviously, it’s the United States, which, since 1945, has systematically endeavored to impose its own political model on Europe . . . This political system, which I call “liberal materialism,” has completely taken over Germany.

In the past, the state was always primary: This was the case with the monarchical state and the administrative state and the independent political forces which once opposed the “party-cratic” state perverted by machine politicians and partisan interests.

It’s often said today that the state has degenerated into a sort of country inn, without any real structure, where partisan interests maneuver for maximum advantage and for state hand-outs. Isn’t this typically American?

Question: What do you think Germany will look like twenty years from now, when we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Wall’s fall?

Rabehl: That depends on how the political life of the nation is affected by our pseudoelites, who favor the existing parties and recruit an increasingly ever more mediocre personnel.

If corruption becomes everywhere prevalent, if private interests and lobbies end up dominating the parties themselves and the state machinery, then we are likely to sink deeper into political paralysis. States and governments will then no longer be able to act — which was already evident under Kohl is even more so under Angela Merkel.

Every government affected by such paralysis, in avoiding problems and reacting only on the spur of the moment, will find itself incapable of resolving the crises besetting it.

They will consequentially fail to resolve social conflicts or navigate the turbulent storms affecting the larger social order.

In such a case, it’s possible to imagine that Europe’s peoples and nations will begin at last to resist, even to rise in insurrection, as they confront the state’s inaction, feeling that “it can no longer go on like this.”

If Merkel, for example, doesn’t find a solution for [the financially-troubled car manufacturer] Opel, its workers are likely to take to the streets, banging the table and demanding that a solution be found.

When other European nations discover that they too have been swindled, they, in turn, will also begin to resist.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.

Mechanopolis: Is there unanimity among Jewish intellectuals on the question of immigration?

Hervé Ryssen: Jewish intellectuals can be liberals, Marxists, Zionists, religious, or atheists. But all these divergences do not at all invalidate the messianic foundation of their aspirations. And on immigration, I can assure you that they are unanimous. Here for example is what Daniel Cohn-Bendit, former leader of May ’68 and assistant mayor of Frankfurt says: “In Frankfurt on the Mainz, the population is more than 25% foreign, but one can say that Frankfurt would not crumble if the percentage from abroad one day reached one third of the whole” (Xénophobies, 1998, p. 14).

This is perfectly in sync with the socialist Jacques Attali writing about Germany’s aging population: “It is indeed necessary that the naturalized foreign population reaches a third of the entire population, and half of that of the cities” (Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle, 1998). One could, of course, encourage the German birthrate. But Jacques Attali does not consider it, because only a multiracial society guarantees the realization of the planetarian project. For France, Attali suggests the same solution: “It will also have to pursue the means to rejuvenate its population, to accept the entrance of a great number from abroad” (L’Homme nomade, 2003, p. 436).

A November 2005 report of the World Bank also encourages Russia to open its borders and to undertake a large-scale immigration policy, which would be “one of the main conditions of a stable economic growth” and would make it possible to face the ageing of the population. Let us note all the same that Paul Wolfowitz, the President of the World Bank, has never encouraged Arab immigration to Israel to support the wavering population of this country.

Jacques Attali

Remarks of this sort are found systematically in almost all Jewish intellectuals, be they Marxists like Jacques Derrida, socialists like Guy Konopnicki, or liberals like Guy Sorman or Alain Minc. Moreover, they all show an annoying tendency to treat us like morons, by telling us, for example, that immigration has not increased for twenty years or that insecurity would not in any case be related to this phenomenon. Cohn-Bendit ensures us straightforwardly that “to stop racism, it  would be best to further increase the number from abroad”! Their remarks on this subject are staggeringly brazen. For instance, Guy Sorman flatly states that the France of yesteryear, with its dialects and patois, was altogether “more multicultural than it is it today” (En attendant les barbares, pp. 174-79). It is one example among many of this invincible brazenness, of which they are very proud, and which they call “chutzpah.”

The objective is to destroy the white world, and, in a more general way, all rooted societies. All these intellectuals assure us that this development is inescapable, and that consequently, there is no use opposing it. Note that in the Marxist schema, it was the classless society which was to be “inescapable.” According to Jean “Daniel”: “Nothing will stop the movement of impoverished populations towards an old and rich Occident. . . . This is why wisdom, reason, consists in from now on preparing to receive more and more immigrants” (Le Nouvel Observateur, October 13, 2005). You must understand that they seek to prohibit the very idea of defending oneself. The unanimity of cosmopolitan discourse on this subject is really astonishing.

Mechanopolis: One often hears that the Jews were regarded by the Nazis as an “inferior race.” Your research, I believe, tends to show that they regard themselves as “the superior race.” Please explain.

Bernard-Henri Lévy

Hervé Ryssen: I can assure you that there is an immense pride in belonging to the “chosen people.” And among intellectuals this pride combines with a no less great contempt for the sedentary nations, considered to be very definitely inferior. Remarks on this subject are innumerable. For example Bernard-Henri Levy wrote, in the first number of the journal Globe in 1985: “Of course we are resolutely cosmopolitan. Of course all that is earthy, bourrées, bagpipes, in short typically French or chauvinist, is foreign, even odious to us.” “Fatherlands of any kind and their processions of old-fashioned things” disgust him utterly: all that is nothing but a “timid and exasperated retreat to the most impoverished identities.” “To speak patois, to dance bourrées, to march to the sound of bagpipes . . . such stupidity is nauseating” (L’Idéologie française, 1981, pp. 212-16).

The philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas has also expressed his faith in the virtues of rootlessness and nomadism. For him, the greatest backwardness, undoubtedly, was represented by the pagan civilizations of antiquity: “Paganism,” he writes, “is the local spirit: a cruel and pitiless nationalism. A forest humanity, a pre-human humanity.” Certainly all that is unworthy of the genius of the Bedouins of the desert: “It is on the arid ground of the desert where nothing is fixed, where the true spirit descended in a text to achieve itself universally. . . . The faith in the liberation of man can only be a shock to sedentary civilizations, crumbling away the heavy layers of the past. . . . It is necessary to be underdeveloped to take up their cause and fight on their behalf for a place in the modern world” (Difficile liberté, p. 299).

Emanuel Lévinas

It is not enough for these intellectuals to talk nonsense, to lull us with “human rights,” to bind us with repressive laws, and to inject us with alien cultural poisons. They also have to pour into our ears their contempt for our old cultures. But this contempt does not seem to fully satisfy their thirst for revenge. They must also insult us and spit in our faces: “ignoramuses, xenophobes, paranoiacs, morons, lunatics, etc.” That is what we are. In La Vengeance des Nations (1990), Alain Minc, who explains to us the benefits of immigration, ensures us that it is “ignorance which feeds xenophobia” (p. 154), that it is thus necessary “to fight against the crazy xenophobes, and be done with this “French paranoia” (pp. 208). Toward this end, Alain Minc proposes systematically to favor immigrants over the native French, on the American model. As media sensation Michael Moore proclaims in his 2002 book Stupid White Men, in the United States it is no longer really necessary to treat stupid white men with kid gloves, since they do not understand anything that is happening to them.

And I will not recount the innumerable films in which the cosmopolitan scriptwriters take their revenge against Christian civilization and the white man in general. It seems obvious to me, regarding all this logorrhea, that these people hate us. It could not be any more obvious if they wore flashing neon signs on their heads.

Read Part 4 here.

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Ryssen’s Les Espérances planétariennes.

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part I here.

Mechanopolis: Judging by the policy of US President George W. Bush, it does not appear that his numerous Zionist advisers are promoting the world of “peace” about which you speak. How do you explain this?

Hervé Ryssen: It is undeniable that the leaders of the American Jewish community bear a good part of the blame for the war in Iraq. One would have to be blind not to see it; one would have to be insincere to deny it. Their political weight has been important in each successive US government since the beginning of the 20th century. American nationalists like the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh denounced the pressures of the “Jewish lobby” (in the United States, it is a lobby among others) to push his strongly isolationist people into the war against Nazi Germany. Already in the 1920s, the manufacturer Henry Ford had grasped the magnitude of the problem and widely publicized it in a newspaper created for this purpose. One should also note that Madeleine “Albright” and the hawks of the American State Department threw their whole weight behind the war against Serbia in 1999. You are thus perfectly right to stress this contradiction between Messianic faith and “terrestrial operations,” so to speak.

But people will state in all sincerity that these wars are works of “peace”! Just listen to  Elie Wiesel, winner of the Nobel Prize for “Peace,” who was naturally an ultra-warmonger in 1991, when he agitated for war against Iraq: “It is not only a question of helping Kuwait,” he said then, “but of protecting the entire Arab world.” Thus all Westerners were to be mobilized against the “butcher of Baghdad,” guilty because he threatened the state of Israel: “Against war,” Elie Wiesel writes, “it is imperative to make war. Against destructive force employed against humanity, it is necessary to oppose a greater force, so that humanity can survive. For the sake of the safety of the civilized world, its right to peace, and not only for the future of Israel. . . . A thirst for vengeance? No: a thirst for justice. And for peace” (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires 2, [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1996], pp. 144, 146, 152).

Note that he does not hesitate to drape himself in the grand ideals of peace and love when it is a question of destroying his enemy. But it is of course out of the question that the Jewish state itself should deal with this military grunt work. It is the task of the West, which must be convinced by “sensitivity” campaigns, to go to oust the dictator. Once your enemy is vanquished, your tireless combat for democracy and “peace” can be resuscitated whenever politically convenient. Indeed, after having crushed one’s enemies, one is always for “peace.”

Mechanopolis: You speak about “democracy.” What kind of relationship can there be between a political system and Messianic faith? Is democracy necessary for the arrival of the Messiah?

Hervé Ryssen: Democracy was not always the sole vehicle of planetarian hopes. For a long time, the Marxist ideal also played this role. It is well-known that Marx himself, and the great majority of the main Marxist ideologues and leaders, were Jewish: Lenin had Jewish origins, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Georg Lukacs, Ernest Mandel, etc., just as were almost all of the leaders of May ’68. It is not an accident, and every Communist militant knows it. Marxism aspires to the establishment of a perfect world, where religions, like nations, will have disappeared along with social conflicts. This schema, we note, fits perfectly within the messianic framework. The thought of Marx is ultimately only the secularization of traditional Jewish eschatology.

George Steiner has presented Marxism from the point of view of biblical prophecies: “Marxism,” he says, “is at bottom merely Judaism in a hurry. The Messiah was too long in coming or, more precisely, in not coming. It is man himself who will found the kingdom of justice, on this earth, here and now . . . preached Karl Marx in his manuscripts of 1844, where one recognizes the transparent echo of the phraseology of the Psalms and the prophets” (George Steiner, De la Bible à Kafka [Bayard, 2002]).

Neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor Trotsky believed in a God, and yet their Jewish origins appear in full light within the framework of Jewish messianism. Political Marxism was nevertheless marginalized in Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The fact is that, in the projects of planetary unification, democracy triumphed everywhere that Communism failed. It is obvious, however, that the groups of the extreme left continue to profit from all the media attention in Western society: it is because they represent the spearhead of the project of a leveling and multiracial society and channel in a globalist direction the radical oppositions aroused by the liberal system. This mobilizing Utopia is always necessary for a despairing democratic system, which offers nothing to its youth but trips to the mall. Thus Marxism ultimately renders its best services when it is nested inside democracy. Marxism and democracy are two absolutely complementary and mutually indispensable forces in the project of constructing  a global Empire. Without Communism, the opposition would inevitably move towards nationalist currents, and the system would not survive it.

Mechanopolis: After the failure of state Communism, are multiracial democracy and “human rights” now the absolute weapon of the “planetarian”  forces?

Hervé Ryssen: The objective of the globalists is to destroy rooted, traditional cultures to create a uniform world. This aspiration to unity was expressed by the Hasidic philosopher Martin Buber, who does not appear to realize that he is giving us an exact definition of totalitarianism: “Everywhere,” he writes, “one will find [in Judaism] the aspiration towards unity. Towards unity within the individual. Towards unity between the divided members of the people, and between the nations. Towards the unity of man and all living things, towards the unity of God and of the world” (Judaïsme, 1982, p. 35). To arrive to this perfect world, it is thus necessary to mix, crush, dissolve all national resistances and ethnic or religious identities. “Unity” can be created only from human powder and the residues of great civilizations, and in this enterprise of destroying traditional civilizations, immigration plays a crucial role. The doctrines of “human rights” are here a weapon of war of a terrible effectiveness.

Here is what grand rabbi Kaplan says: “The advent of an era without menaces to  mankind will depend largely upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. . . . Respect for the Universal declaration of human rights is an obligation so pressing that it is the duty of everyone to contribute to all the projects tending toward its universal and complete application. ” The whole of humanity must submit to it. This amounts to saying that “human rights” are the tool privileged for carrying out the promises of Yahweh. Thus it is no accident that René Cassin, the inspirer of the 1948 declaration, was also the general secretary of the Alliance israélite universelle. In 1945, General de Gaulle appointed him the head of the Council of State. His body rests in the Pantheon, in the temple of the great men of the republic.

Read Part 3 here.

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Ryssen’s Les Espérances planétariennes.

Translated by Greg Johnson

Mechanopolis: Hervé Ryssen, you have just published a book, Les Espérances planétariennes [Planetarian Hopes] (Levallois-Perret: Éditions Baskerville, 2005) which finally exposes the logic of globalism and its religious foundations. For far too long, intellectuals of the nationalist movement have shied away from such controversial topics and avoided denouncing cosmopolitan propaganda. Could you first of all clarify the title of your book for our readers?

Hervé Ryssen: I considered the writings of Jewish intellectuals to attempt to understand their vision of the world. After having read dozens of political essays, novels, and narratives of all sorts, I noticed that the word “hope” appeared regularly in these texts. Of course for them it stands for expectations of a better world, the Messiah, and the “promised land.” Let us recall that although the Christians have accepted their Messiah, the Jews still await theirs. This Messianic expectation is the heart of the Hebraic religion and the Jewish mentality in general, including that of atheistic Jews. This is the fundamental point. As for the term “planetarian,” it is a neologism which simply means the desire for a world without borders.

My work is exclusively focused on Jewish intellectuals. Contrary to what most people think, the use of the word “Jew” is not yet against the law. I know that many in the nationalist milieu begin sweating at the simple mention of the word, probably because they fear hearing anti-Semitic remarks which are indeed strongly punished today. Personally, I am not afraid of this, since my work is exclusively based on researching Jewish sources. Let us say that I have a rational and I daresay completely dispassionate approach to the subject.

Mechanopolis: One often hears Jews speak of the “promised land” and the “messiah,” but we have always misunderstood what these concepts mean. Isn’t the “promised land” the state of Israel?

Hervé Ryssen: Historically, it is the land of Canaan, which Yahweh gave to Abraham, as one reads Genesis, the first book of the Torah. But even before the destruction of the second Temple by the Roman legions of Titus and the dispersion of the Jews, many Jews already lived in the diaspora. There they remained until 1917, when the Balfour declaration created a “Jewish homeland in Palestine,” and certain Jews thought that by recovering the “promised land,” Messianic times were finally at hand. But it should not be forgotten that other Jews, far more numerous, thought at the same time that the promised land was located more to the North, in the immense Soviet Union where, after the revolution of October 1917, so many Jews appeared at the highest levels of power. However, if one reads slightly older texts, in the 19th century, it was France—the land of human rights—that raised Jewish hopes and constituted, in the eyes of Jews around the world, the “promised land.” Vienna at the beginning of the 20th century, or Weimar Germany between the wars, also could be regarded as “promised lands,” since culture and finance, in particular, were very largely influenced by bankers, intellectuals, and artists of Jewish origin.

This hope always ends in cruel disillusion. The state of Israel is no “haven of peace,” to say the least. As for Judeo-Bolshevik Russia, it turned against the Jews who were evicted from power after the Second World War. The France of “human rights” is today in the process of Third-Worldization, and since 2001 some Jews have decided to flee this “anti-Semitic” country where Jews increasingly suffer the anger of young Arabs. In short, for the Jews, it always seems to end badly, no matter where they go, no matter what they do.

For a long time, the “promised land” was incarnated in the American dream. In the 1880s, millions of Jews left Central Europe for the United States where they hoped for a better life, far from the Cossacks, the pogroms, and the hated Tsar. But the most recent “promised land” was obviously Russia after the collapse of the USSR. In a few years, a handful of “oligarchs” had their hooks in most of the privatized Russian wealth. Best known among them, the billionaire Khodorkovski, sleeps today in the prisons of the new Russia of Vladimir Putin. Obviously, this new “promised land” did not work out either! In short, one must understand that since their departure from the ghetto, the Jews have never ceased changing “promised lands,” and their wandering ends systematically in disappointment. Only the United States still represents in their eyes this Eldorado and still nourishes their hopes. But for how long?

Mechanopolis: You speak of history and geography, but aren’t messianism and the idea of the promised land religious concepts instead?

Hervé Ryssen: Here we come back to the heart of the matter. If you talk with a rabbi in the rue des Rosiers, he will immediately tell you that the Jews aspire above all to the creation of a world of peace, a world in which all conflicts will have disappeared, whether they are social conflicts or conflicts between races or nations. It is necessary to arrive at this world of universal peace, since they identify the world of peace with Messianic times. The authors are rather clear here. Here is what the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas writes on this subject: “One can group the promises of the prophets in two categories: political and social. The alienation which introduces arbitrary political power into the whole human enterprise will disappear; but social injustice, the hold of the rich person on the poor, will disappear at the same time as political violence. . . .” As for the future world, our text goes on to define it as “humanity linked in a collective destiny” (Difficile liberté [Difficult Freedom] [Paris: Albin Michel, 1963], pp. 85-86.).

In Le vrai Visage du judaïsme [The True Face of Judaism] (Paris: Stock, 1987), Jacob Kaplan, the Chief rabbi of the central Consistory, points out the famous passage which is one of the sources of the Jewish messianism: “the wolf will live with the ewe; the tiger will rest with the kid; calf, lion cub, ram will live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah, xi, 6-9). Kaplan adds: “It is obviously an image of the relations which will be established between the nations, happy to maintain unity and concord between them.”

In his book on messianism, David Banon confirms this vision of the world: “The Messianic era such as it was described by the whole of the prophets consists of the suppression of political violence and social injustice” (David Banon, Le Messianisme [Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998], pp. 15-16.).

Hebraic prophecies thus promise the progression of humanity towards a unified world, and parallel to that, the suppression of social inequalities. Here one can see the primitive sources of Marxism as well as the inspiration of our planetarian ideology at the beginning of third millennium, which, propagated by the media, is the dream of so many of our fellow citizens. Here is the heart of the Jewish vision of the world. One must start here if one wants to understand the mental universe of the Jews. This is what explains why the Jews always mouth the word “peace.” Their “combat for peace” is ceaseless.

For example, in March 2000, Chirac inaugurated a “Wall for Peace” on the Champ de Mars, conceived by Clara Halter, the wife of the writer Marek Halter. It is a kind of hall of glass, where little Clara wrote the word “Peace” in thirty-two languages, to deride, one imagines, the cadets of the military academy just opposite. These works have a religious significance that very few goyim can detect.

One can thus argue that the concept of “promised land” means nothing less than a hope of planetary dimensions, where all the nations will have disappeared. It is just what the philosopher Edgar Morin tells us, when he writes: “We do not have the Promised land, but we have an aspiration, a wish, a myth, a dream: to realize a global fatherland” (Edgar Morin, Un nouveau commencement [Paris: Seuil, 1991], p. 9). And it is also what Jacques Attali speaks about in L’Homme nomade: “to make world a promised land” (Paris: Fayard, 2003, p. 34).  It is thus this unified, pacified world that will be the “promised land.” Sometimes these texts lend the impression that in the minds of certain intellectuals, the idea is taken in the literal sense: that is would be good if the whole Earth were promised to them! Which sometimes leads to behaviors that are a bit invasive . . .

Read Part 2 here.

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Les Espérances planétariennes.

– Montesquieu

Hervé Ryssen
Les espérances planétariennes
Levallois: Éds. Baskerville, 2005

Hervé Ryssen has written five books on the Jews in the past five years.

“Planetary Expectations” — what he calls the Jews’ messianic faith in a coming world order subordinated to their will and their interest — is the first of the five and the first that I read.

It’s not a completely “successful” book.  Its 430 pages present an immense documentation illustrating Ryssen’s argument, but the argument itself is made mostly in passing, as if the depressing, mind-numbing, and undeniable evidence of the Jews’ planetary expectations suffices in explaining everything else.

Les espérances planétariennes is nevertheless an important work and its reliance on exclusively French sources makes it an interesting counterpoint to English-language works on the subject.

Ryssen’s approach proceeds, of course, from his specific understanding of the Jews.  This is owed, at least in part, to Hitler’s notion (Table Talk, 2-23-45) that the Jews are not like other races (if they are a race at all), but rather a people defined by their mentality.

Judaism, as such, is an ideology as much as a religion — especially for its secular intellectuals, who are its most devout militants.

Given this, Ryssen sees Jews in terms of their ideology — the Jewish ideology — whose messianic mission is to bring about a reign of “world peace,” in which all peoples, except themselves, abandon all that is theirs in order to realize the Biblical notion of a unified humanity.

1. A Planetary, Not a Globalist or Liberal Project

The idea of a unified humanity, undivided by frontiers, national antagonisms, or racial ascriptions, is not new.  What’s new Ryssen claims is the belief among Western peoples that “humanity” today aspires to a world in which commerce and consumerism supplant imperialism and nationalism, as different historically-separated peoples fuse into a single undifferentiated human mass under the auspices of a borderless world empire, whose governing ethos is to be the pure humanity of the Jews’ messianic faith in themselves as a chosen people.

If messianism, generally, is the expectation of the Messiah who will establish the kingdom of God on earth, Jewish messianism anticipates the Savior who will come once the Tower of Babel collapses (the Twin Towers?), once the earth is unified, and once the Jews are universally recognized as God’s people.

Basic to Ryssen’s argument is the contention that “globalism” is not an ideological extension of economic globalization, but a secularization of the Jews’s messianic belief that humanity is realizable only at the planetary level.

Globalization, he contends, refers to that economic process by which the multiplication of international exchanges, the development of world capitalism, the outsourcing of local enterprises, and the availability of new communication technologies foster the economic interdependence of the world’s peoples.  In this sense, globalization extends those developments that began in the late 15th century, when the intrepid Portuguese, in their tiny caravels, set out to conquer the world’s oceans.

Globalist ideology for Ryssen is not the organic offshoot of a continuous, inescapable process of economic development.  Indeed, in terms of trade, the world today is not more open than it was in 1914 — a fact he considers as important as the fact that most multinationals remain nationally based and that the overwhelming majority of the world’s nonwhite peoples still live in ways distinct to who they are.

The edification and establishment of the racially pluralist societies that globalization brings has been limited to Western peoples, who, for the past two decades, have been subject to a system whose heights are commanded by the Jews’ planetary expectations.

Japan, in this view, is as economically globalized as Europe, but it gives no truck to globalist ideologies favoring the breakdown of its national identity.  Planetary expectations are specific to Western thought.

These expectations, he adds, are independent not just of globalist economic imperatives, but of the universalism implicit in Western liberal thought.

Liberalism’s universalist impetus was, historically, an offshoot of Enlightenment rationalism (which itself was an offshoot of an earlier European history), as it sought to universalize English principles of parliamentary government and market society.

This made it anti-traditional.  But however critical Enlightenment thinkers may have been of existing states and societies (supposedly steeped in feudalism), these thinkers shared the racial, nationalist sentiments common to all healthy peoples uncontaminated by the ideological expectations of the planetary cultists.

The classic example is Voltaire, who — despite his merciless attack on everything associated with the ancien régime — abhored the Jews, whom he saw as an affront to the world he hoped to enlighten.

Indeed, “humanity” in the 18th century was not quite what it is today.  Then it referred to les gens (i.e., to “people” in the English sense or “Leute” in the German sense, as a collection of multiple individuals, not an abstract noun referring to human beings as a whole).  Whenever Enlightenment thinkers invoked humanity, they spoke to different Europeans, not the métissage universal of our global villagers.  Their principal motivation (at least on the surface) was to overthrow “irrational,” hence unjust tyrants, not to fuse nations or races.

The European Enlightenment, in a word, assumed a world of white people.  To the degree non-Europeans were considered at all, they were thought of in anthropological rather than philosophical terms.

Ryssen also refers to certain contemporary liberals, like the former State Department employee, Francis Fukuyama, whose The End of History and the Last Man celebrated the triumph of democratic market societies.

Fukuyama may have trumpeted the emergence of a single integrated world market based on democratic governance that would come with the end of bipolarity, but he did not advocate — or anticipate — that such a history-ending world order entailed the destruction of states and nations.  Only “aggressive nationalism” was explicitly excluded from his vision.

This is not to say that liberalism hasn’t since succumbed to planetary expectations, but only that they weren’t native to it — that an ideological need for them had first to be created.

The ideological need to turn world commerce into a campaign to create a world state in which all frontiers are eliminated comes, unsurprisingly, from the Jewish ideology.  It was not a “natural” outgrowth of historical developments, but one of Spengler’s “pseudomorphoses.”

This idea — that neither liberal ideology nor liberal economics is the primary source of planetary expectations — is, I think, central not just to Ryssen’s argument, but to the entire tradition of modern anti-Jewish thought.

Whatever criticism is to be made of his argument would consequently begin here, for the idea is asserted and illustrated rather than demonstrated.

For 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 — whether or not the reign of planetary expectations would even be conceivable without all that came with the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the French Revolution, not to speak of industrial and then post-industrial capitalism — this supposition — needs to be proved, not simply postulated.

2. Marxism as the Secularization of Jewish Messianism

According to Ryssen, the planetary expectations of our age started with Marx.

Before him, the most immediate concern of left-wing radicals was to oppose capitalism’s economization of European life, especially its assault on the traditional “moral community.”  A great many 19th-century socialists were consequently ardent critics not just of capitalist oligarchy and exploitation, but of cosmopolitanism and especially Judaism (which they saw as the quintessence of capitalism’s blood-betraying spirit).

By contrast, Marxian socialism was self-consciously universalist, being in some ways a secular repackaging of the Jews’ messianic faith in a world founded on “the dissolution of borders, the unification of the earth’s people, and the instauration of a world of ‘peace’.”

In this context, Ryssen suggests that Marx’s proletarian was not actually the French or English worker ground down by French or English capitalism, but rather an “abstract individual,” without roots or national distinction — the abstract subject of the abstract forces of capitalism’s faceless, capricious marketplace, which Marx conceived of in terms he took from Classical English economics, German, specifically Hegelian, idealism, and the socialist distillation of French positivism.

In calling the “workers of the world [to] unite!,” Marx imbued socialism with an international (hence anti-national) orientation, premised on the notion that the state and the nation were historically contingent phenomena fated to disappear once the proletariat overthrew class society.

Without roots in modern nationality, the proletariat for him was a sort of universal “nation,” rising from the yoke of past particularisms to privilege fraternity and equality.

Marxism and liberalism may have shared the same Enlightenment heritage, but, as Ryssen stresses, it was Marxism, not liberalism, that was the original progenitor of the planetary expectations.

As such, numerous secular Jewish intellectuals floaked to its cause in the 19th century, as God’s Chosen morphed into socialism’s vanguard.

It was the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, however, that gave world form to Judaism’s planetary expectations.  For it was not just Jewish led, it was internationalist in its commitment to a world revolution favoring the Biblical prophecy of a unified humanity.

Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) then replaced Marx’s Manifesto of 1848 as the principal Marxist text.

At the same time, the planetary struggle became less a class struggle than an anti-imperialist struggle against the West — and, implicitly, against the white men of the West.

Ryssen devotes nearly a hundred pages to the Jewish character of Bolshevik Russia and to international Jewry’s relationship to the new Communist regime.

In outline, he examines the Jewish role in Lenin’s party and the role Jews assumed in the new Soviet state.  He then looks at the struggle between proponents of Trotsky’s World Revolution and Stalin’s Socialism in One Country, a struggle which eliminated many prominent Jewish Communists, but which was not specifically anti-Jewish.  He makes a similar argument about the purges of the Thirties.  Even the relocation of Jews behind the Urals during the Great Patriotic War was not intended to marginalize Jews, though it had something of that effect.  The real downfall of Soviet Jewry in his account begins with the creation of the Zionist state in 1948.

Though the Soviet Union promptly recognized Israel and sought its alliance, world Jewry at this point had begun to see Stalinist Russia as a hinderance to its expectations, for its “closed” society was thought to be increasingly hostile to “Jews and other minorities.”  The “open society” of liberal democracy, by contrast, was henceforth taken as the more effective way of dissolving national identities and constructing the global empire dear to Israel.

Stalin’s postwar resistance to American hegemony and his ensuing “anti-cosmopolitan” campaign against Russian Jews (1949-53) simply exacerbated the rift opened by the Jews’ new found anti-Communism and the Soviet’s ensuing anti-Zionism.

In such a situation, the red-diaper babies of former Communist zealots would discover the virtues of liberal democracy, becoming ardent champions of the “American Creed.”

3. America as the Foremost Jewish Power

In reference to Solzhenitsyn, Ryssen claims that neither the murderous famine in the Ukraine nor the Siberian Gulag alienated “progressive” Western intellectuals from the Soviet Union.  It was only after the defeat of National Socialist Germany and the subsequent Russian alliance with the Arabs that they started turning against it.  As they switched camps, Russian-Jewish “refusniks” then emerged as a planetary cause and the United States, land of uprooted immigrants and multiple races, replaced the Soviet Union as the exemplar of their planetary expectations.

Ryssen contends that the US, not Israel, is now the real homeland of world Jewry.

Marxism nevertheless continued as an ideological force in the West (though in its New Left distillation, or what Perry Anderson called “Western Marxism”).  This was especially evident in the Cultural Revolution of 1968, as Trotskyists, Maoists, anarchists, and Third Worldists rallied to the cause of planetary revolution.

Post-industrial society also affected the character of Jewish expectations, as “oppressed” minorities replaced the “proletariat” (i.e., white,  “embourgeoised” workers) as the chief vehicle of the planetary cause.  Homosexual and feminist struggles, along with immigrationist ones, were then associated with the anti-colonial struggle against the old European empires, just as the vices of capitalism were identified with arrogant, imperialist whites, responsible for the world’s ills.  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.

Then, following the Soviet collapse, planetary expectations shed their lingering Marxist trappings and became forthrightly liberal.

The struggle for a unified world now centers on the United States, which has come to embody the cosmopolitan ideal of a deracinated and multiracial society.  The US crusade for democracy and open markets in the last two decades is thus seen as preparing the foundations of a global empire, which will at last realize the Jews’ planetary expectations.

As American liberal democracy becomes the planetary vanguard and imposes it hegemony wherever it goes, traditional European culture and values are denigrated; the white man is portrayed as an affront to humanity; white homelands are deemed the patrimony of all humankind, as they are inundated with alien peoples, whose corrosive effect on European life is already beginning to prefigure the planetary quest for world peace.

4. Planetary Discourse

The cosmopolitanism of the planetary cultists has come to dominate the West.  It presently frames the way the world is seen and understood, doing so in terms alien to European peoples — in terms propounding the Biblical doctrine of human unity, which neglects the significance of family, language, religion, nation, or race.

It assumes, as such, that all peoples have a common origin and that man’s vocation is to embody the planetary expectations of humanity as a whole — the expectations of the Jews, whose spirit is the imputed apotheosis of human being.

Non-Jewish origins and identities, on the other hand, are rendered arbitrary, just as existing linguistic, religious, racial, and historical differences become obstacles to the formation of a peaceful world order based on multicultural practices and egalitarian principles.

Whoever opposes this campaign for a unified humanity, as the Nobel-prize humanitarian Elie Wiesel says, opposes humanity.

Most of Ryssen’s book examines the nature of planetary thought, as it appears in the work of France’s foremost Jewish thinkers.  These figures — Jacques Attali, Edgar Morin, Alain Finkielkraut, Guy Sorman, Marek Halter, Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Glucksmann, Jacques Derrida, et al. — may or may not be known to American readers, but they mirror the same planetary expectations of their American-Jewish counterparts

Given their devaluation of human differences, the cosmopolitan ideology these thinkers propound insists on viewing humanity, quite literally, from the planetary perspective of outer space, emphasizing the things that bind rather than separate the earth’s different peoples.

With its sci-fi films of intergalaxic encounters, Hollywood is especially active in working this theme.  For example, think of Robert Emmerich’s Independence Day, in which alien invaders threaten the earth, only to be saved by a concerted, multicultural effort led by a Negro and a Jew (Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum).

The insinuation here is that only by overcoming human differences, breaking nations, and shedding divisive particularisms will the world be spared the wars, injustices, and rivalries that presently obstruct the harmony, equality, and prosperity that are possible once these differences are eradicated and man’s common humanity is privileged.

To this end, a grand métissage universal to eliminate the biological basis of what makes these differences so meaningful is publicly proclaimed. Nations, as such, will have to be dissolved, historic traditions destroyed, churches razed, families and communities split apart, the old books re-written.

Once everyone is a métis, the divisiveness will end.  People will then be able to divorce at will, have sex with the exotic Other, no matter their gender, migrate wherever they wish, change jobs or locales if they choose, as the universal quest for human development supersedes the search for a misguided non-planetary identity.

Such a unified world intends to turn everyone into an atomized nomad, without attachments, without roots, without particularisms, as the abstract welfare of humanity prevails over all.  At that point, the world itself will become a promised land.

The sense of election that comes with their planetary expectations, the Jews like to think, has nothing to do with their overweening self-pride, but rather comes from the duties bequeathed by their messianic faith. (Ryssen suggests that Jewish identity is actually more a matter of memory and messianic aspiration than of racial or religious ascription).

The Jews’ planetary ideology is obviously loaded with numerous contradictions, for it’s their identification with their remembered past, their deep roots in their tradition and religion, and their affiliation to an Israel that exists beyond time and being — that instills in them the faith to strive for their particular vision of world “peace.”  The roots, memories, and bonds that make them special may be key to their planetary expectations, but the roots, memories, and bonds of others, especially whites, are considered harmful to the planetary cause — harmful because no other people possesses the high humanity of the Jews.

Untroubled by their inconsistencies, Jews think nothing of denigrating or ridiculing European tradition and revering their own, of criticizing Christianity but continuing to await their own Messiah, of supporting immigration everywhere but not for Israel, of exulting the métissage of the gentiles but considering it a horror for their own community.

The double-standards at the heart of the Jewish ideology reflect, relatedly, characteristics that have long been associated with the Jews — these people who never tire of glorifying who they are, of giving others moral lessons, of militating against ascribed identities, of expressing their select indignation with existing injustices, and of believing that they can do no wrong.  It goes without saying that they think anti-Semitism is the greatest of pathologies and that the final exaltation of the Jews is the most natural and ultimate goal of humanity.

Because gentiles persist in their identitarian attachments, the realization of the Jews’ planetary expectations demands eternal vigilance and on-going education.  Different peoples, whites preeminently, must therefore be constantly taught the virtues of human equality and planetary solidarity.  Whenever resistance surfaces, it is to be condemned as a retrograde tribalism, for world unity (the condition necessary for Jewish world domination) is possible only once the old “prejudices” are dethroned.  Whites, therefore, are to have it constantly drilled into them that they are responsible for humanity’s misfortunes — from the Inquisition to Auschwitz’s alleged homicidal gas chambers.  Those who reject their guilt or oppose the miscegenating policies inherent in the expectations are singled out for the most crushing forms of chastisement.

***

However the advent of our emerging planetarized world is understood, the struggle to preserve white life cannot, it would seem, but culminate in a clash with its anti-white expectations — whether these stem from Jewish messianism, as Ryssen holds, or from those larger historical developments which have empowered them.

Dominique Venner
Le Siècle de 1914: Utopies, guerres et révolutions en Europe au XXe siècle
Paris: Pygmalion, 2006

“To recreate a new aristocracy is the eternal task of every revolutionary project.” –Guillaume Faye

At the beginning of twentieth century, peoples of European descent ruled the world. They made up a third of its population, occupied half its landmass, controlled Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and parts of coastal China; their industry and technology, along with their philosophy, science, and art, had no rival; the world was theirs and theirs alone.

A century later, all was changed: Peoples of European descent had fallen to less than 9 percent of the world’s population; their lands were everywhere inundated by non-Whites; their industry and technology outsourced to potential enemies; their state, social system, and media taken over by parasitic aliens; and, in the deepest demographic sense, they faced the not-too-distant prospect of biological extinction.

To understand this catastrophic inversion requires some understanding of the period responsible for it. We’re fortunate that after a lifetime studying its key movements, Dominique Venner, our greatest identitarian historian, has set out to chart its biopolitical contours.

Before the Deluge

As a historical (rather than a chronological) period, the twentieth century begins in 1914, with the onset of the First World War, whose devastating assault on European existence shook the continent in every one of its foundations, destroying not just its ancien régime, but ushering in what Ernst Nolte calls the “European Civil War” of 1917-45 or what some call the “Thirty Years War” of 1914-45. For amidst its storms of fire and steel, there emerged four rival ideologies — American liberalism, Russian Communism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism — each of whose ambition was to reshape the postwar order according to its own scheme for collective salvation. Our world, Venner argues, is a product of these contentious ambitions and of the ideological system — liberalism — that prevailed over its rivals.

Before the war of 1914 political ideologies lacked the “religious” fervor of their twentieth-century counterparts. Europe then was more than a geographic assortment of different peoples and states identified with different political creeds. It constituted a single biocivilization (a Race-Nation), whose ethnonational variants embodied alternative facets of the genetic-spiritual legacy bequeathed by the Greeks, the Aryans, and the Cro Magnons. Not a single great phenomenon experienced by any one European people, it followed, was not also experienced by the others: From the megalithic culture of the stone age, to medieval chivalry, to the rise of nationalism. In the modern period, the ties of blood and spirit linking the different European nations took institutional form in the Westphalian state system of 1648, which, with the exception of the revolutionary period (1789-1815), limited their numerous wars and conflicts to family disputes.

The greatest casualty of what contemporaries called the Great War would be the destruction of this system — and of the aristocratic elites who were its incarnation.

On the war’s eve, the aristocracy still represented that historic body whose function was to command, to fight, and to defend. In fact, in one form or another, it had always dominated European life — at least since the Aryans, that offshoot of the White race whose existence was premised on the rule of the “noble.” Though property-based and attached to the permanances of family, tradition, and rank, the pre-war aristocracy bore little resemblance to the decadent hereditary ruling class of liberal historiography. For Venner, it was, as an ideal type, an ever-renewing estate infused with the spirit of honor, duty, and loyalty to what was highest in White existence. As such, it typified its people’s essence, associating nobility with those who put their people’s interests before their own.

Except for republican France and Switzerland, all of Europe’s pre-war monarchical and imperial states were governed by aristocrats, whose Prussian spirit exalted simplicity, austerity, duty, and political incorruptibility. Against the leveling aspersions cast by liberals and democrats, Venner emphasizes the aristocracy’s dynamic, modernist, and genial character — opposed in essence to bourgeois democratic societies, which subordinate everyone to money (the realm of the Jews).

Cataclysm

No one in 1914 quite understood the type of the war they had gotten into. All the general staffs anticipated a short, decisive engagement like the “cabinet wars” of the eighteenth and ninteenth centuries — not realizing it might resemble the American War of Succession, whose closing stages anticipated the “Second-Generation War” of 1914 (a generation of war based on massed firepower, where “artillery conquers, infantry occupies”).

Though a traditional conflict between rival states at the start, by 1917, once the United States entered it, the war had been transformed not just into an industrial and social mobilization of unprecedented scope, but into an ideological crusade between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Worse, the democratic crusaders wouldn’t let the war end the way previous European wars had ended, when the jus publicum europaeum of the Westphalian system mitigated White strife and ensured the integrity of rival states. In the absence of this noble restraint, Europe was mutilated at its core: Nine million combatants were killed, the Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Romanov empires shattered, and an even greater hecatomb prepared for the next generation.

In the glow of this holocaust, Woodrow Wilson, the American champion of an anti-aristocratic, anti-European “democratism,” stepped upon the Old World’s stage to proclaim a new order based on liberal governance, free markets, and the egalitarian principle that the sovereign individual takes precedence over community, culture, history, and (in time) race — an order whose underlying principle rested on the rule of money — and, though Venner doesn’t say it, on money’s Chosen Ones.

The untenable Wilsonian settlement of 1918-19 collapsed soon enough, but it was hastened, in some cases provoked, by its ideological rivals. For Wilson’s plutocratic democracy did not go unopposed. In Russia, Communists proposed a more radically egalitarian version of his liberal utopia, a version whose methods differed from America’s market principles, but nevertheless upheld the same raceless materialist commitments born of Enlightenment liberalism. In Germany and Italy, a defensive Europeanism gave rise to more forthrightly anti-liberal ideologies to challenge the anti-Aryan or Jewish ethic of American capitalism and Russian Communism.

In this spirit, Mussolini’s Fascists called for a strong state exalting “authority, order, and justice” to unite Italian producers and soldiers in a national destiny free of the community-killing forces of liberal individualism and Communist collectivism. In a different way, Hitler’s National Socialists fought for a racial order, a Volksgemeinschaft, to overturn the Diktat of the Wilsonian peace, beat back the liberals’ assault on the body and spirit of the nation, and return Germany to its rightful place on the world stage. Both these movements opposing the anti-White subversions of the Wilsonians and Leninists did so, despite their plebeian-Caesarian politics, in a spirit akin to Europe’s ancient warrior aristocracies, whose tradition exalted personal power and regalian purpose.

Wilson’s Democratism

The focus of Venner’s history is the interwar struggle between liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism. The focus in this reading is Wilson’s liberal democratism, whose “mission” it was to champion the plutocratic democracy of American capitalist enterprise, as it endeavored to wipe the historical slate clean of its European (especially its German and Catholic) accouterments.

Wilson’s crusading democratism stemmed from the dominant Puritan strain of America’s national tradition. Having settled their New Israel far from the morally compromised Europe they had fled and having identified their election with economic success, the Puritans defined themselves not in terms of their ancestor’s blood and heritage, but (once the spirit of capitalism overwhelmed their Protestant ethic) in terms of the Lockean “pursuit of happiness” — the very notion of which was alien to any sense of history and destiny. Such a Hebraic form of Christianity imbued the Wilsonians with the belief that their system was not only more virtuous than that of other peoples, but that it made them immune to their failings. (Though formally a Southerner, Wilson’s approach to Europe followed in the steps of earlier Northeastern Yankee elites, whose secularized Puritanism, in the form of Unitarian/Social Gospel humanism, motivated their century long assault on the religious and racial practices of the American South.)

The clash between aristocratic and democratic values — between Europe and America — reflected, of course, a more profound clash. Venner explains it in terms of Oswald Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism (1919), which argues that the sixteenth-century Reformation produced two opposed visions of Protestant Christianity — the Calvinism of the English and the Lutheran Pietism of the Germans. The German vision rejected the primacy of wealth, comfort, and happiness, exalting the soldier’s aristocratic spirit and the probity this spirit nurtured in Prussian officialdom. English Protestants, by contrast, privileged wealth (a sign of election) and the external freedoms necessary to its pursuit. This made it a secularizing, individualistic, and above all economic “religion,” with each individual having the right to interpret the Book in his own light and thus to justify whatever it took to succeed.

Given England’s influence on America’s formation, Venner sees an analogous process at work in the United States. In the twentieth century, this process took the form of a money-driven variant of Calvinism, whose impetus has been to enfranchise those Puritan/Jewish/liberal/New Class projects that have been such a bane to white existence in the twentieth century: Those projects proposing a rupture with the past, the destruction of historic identities, and the creation of a new world where everything was possible — a new world where Jerusalem takes precedent over Athens, where the Brotherhood of Man is proclaimed with ethnocidal conviction, and America is celebrated as an anti-Europe.

So armed, the Wilsonians set out to destroy Europe’s ancient empires and aristocracies.

The New World

The war’s Wilsonian settlement (premised on the lie of German war guilt) left the traditional order in ruins, but, of even greater consequence, it prepared Europeans for future catastrophes, preeminently the Second World War (1939-45) — which would subject them to Soviet and American occupation and to a Judeo-corporate system intent on de-Europeanizing them by re-programming their morals and mentalities, deconstructing their thought and art, decolonizing their Asian and African empires, and eventually opening their gates to the Third World. The destruction of Europe’s aristocratic heritage had, in effect, been prelude to the ensuing assault on its blood and spirit.

Before the US entered the new world war set off by the failures of the Wilsonian peace, the promulgation of the Atlantic Charter (August 1941) called for another liberal crusade. In this spirit, the Charter’s democratic principles envisioned a postwar order based on monied interests, Anglo-American commerce, and liberal democracy — the foundations of which have become the present anti-White system. As an alliance combining the democratists’ most starry-eyed ideals and hard-headed interests, the US led coalition (the “United Nations”) aimed at destroying not just German Nazism, but the German nation, whose Prussian spirit rebuked everything the Wilsonians represented.

Eisenhower’s “Crusade in Europe” was accordingly waged with a ferocity unknown in European history. The two extra-European powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were thus each ideologically committed to uprooting whatever remained of Europe’s living heritage. Their “anti-fascist” crusade was especially intent on criminalizing the Entente powers and the European values they embodied. The Nuremberg trials following the war would be the most conspicuous example of this crusading anti-Europeanism, but so too was the Allies’ effort to hunt down, silence, or kill their wartime opponents and to level Europe’s inherently anti-egalitarian order. (In France alone, 600,000 people were imprisoned following the “Liberation” and more than 40,000 summarily executed.)

Broken, demoralized, occupied, Europe in 1945 was ripe for re-education. The occupying powers’ culpablizing crusade would be especially effective in overcoming resistance to the new liberal utopia, even after the former allies embarked on their so-called Cold War (1947-89). Revealingly, American democratists were qualitatively more subversive than their more racially-conscious Russian counterparts. In the western half of the postwar’s US-SU Condominium, the culpabilitization of defeated Germany was extended to all of Western and Central Europe. (In the language of our little black brothers and sisters, original sin now became “a white thing.”) Europeans were henceforth expected to do penance for having once been powerful and creative, for having founded empires, for privileging rank, nobility, and valor, but above all for having been White and favored their own interests at the expense of Jews and other non-Europeans. The very idea of a White or European identity would, in fact, be treated hereafter as a pathology.

Japan, by contrast, suffered no such culpabilitization — not only because it experienced less of it, but also because Japanese culture refused to accept the victors’ image of itself. The culpabilitization of Europeans was so effective not simply because of the occupiers’ unchallenged power, but because it converged with a secularizing Christianity (a Judeo-Christianity?), whose Concordant with Caesar’s realm now sought to turn Europe’s former self-confidence into a form of self-loathing. The “irony” of this culpability (if irony is the word) was that the Europeans’ alleged guilt was a fraud: They had had no monopoly on so-called “crimes against humanity.” (The Anglo-American carpet bombing of civilians and the indiscriminate destruction of Europe’s great cities, the mass population transfers, the organized starvation campaigns, the unprecedented horrors associated with Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki — nothing of this affected the anti-European balance of Allied justice or brought Russian, English, or American war criminals into the dockets).

The Iron Cage

Following the Cold War, in which Europeans were mere spectators, a new view of history was programmed for popular consumption: The view that saw the history of twentieth-century Europe in terms of its struggle for the cause of Holy Democracy, with its market utopia of general prosperity, the limitless liberties of its private life, the glories of its occupiers’ Semitically fabricated mass culture, and its rainbow mixture of diverse races and cultures.

Accordingly, the Soviets’ command economy and totalitarian controlled society gave way after 1989 not to utopia, but to a system animated by the forces of consumption, bureaucracy, spectacle, and sex. For though the democratists’ methods differed from those of the Communists, they too aspired to a raceless economic paradise and, to that end, now resort to totalitarian measures to criminalize, demonize, or pathologize whoever opposes their subversions.

In 1920, in his most famous book, Max Weber pointed out that a modernity subject solely to the market’s economic criteria engenders a ruthless rationalization of human life — what he called “the iron cage.” Venner argues that since 1945 Washington has imposed its version of the iron cage on Europe.

This has especially been the case in the European Union (EU). Though the idea of unification was an old one, Wilson’s heirs favored a model geared not just to Europe’s democratic re-education, but to its transformation into a US economic protectorate, closely integrated into the transnational super-structures which Washington and New York set in place during the course of the Cold War. The Marshall Plan, for example, dictated greater economic cooperation and integration centered on US regulated international trade, while Jean Monnet, the principal architect of the “common market,” was a Wall Street insider, friend to New York Jewish banking interests. Then, after America’s cat paw, Britain, entered the EU in 1972, Europe’s homegrown democratists (”the American Party” which has governed Europe since 1945) gave themselves over entirely to the liberal project, turning Europe into a free-trade zone subject to purely economic consideration. In this spirit, they now define Europe in anti-political (i.e., liberal) terms indifferent to all those historic, traditionalist, and national barriers obstructing the race-mixing imperatives of their monetary reign.

Venner calls the global order born of post-1945 Wilsonianism a “cosmocracy.” The cosmopolitan plutocracy of this cosmocracy, which became globally hegemonic after Communism’s collapse, makes the nation state obsolete, denationalizes its elites, and racially mixes incompatible peoples and cultures in the name of an abstract, quantitatively-defined Humanity indifferent to the survival of European peoples. Heir to liberalism’s inherent cosmopolitanism, as well as to Communist internationalism and the Judeo-Christian distortion of White identity, the collective culpabilitization that has been used since 1945 to manipulate the European conscience remains one of the cosmocracy’s most important supports. For to deflect criticism and squelch resistance, liberals and ex-Communists (whose chief distinction is their indifference to race, breeding, and every qualitative ascriptions resistant to the Judeo-liberal conception of democracy) need only appeal to their “anti-hate” laws and “human rights” to silence whoever challenges their inquisitional reign.

Having been guilty of the Holocaust, colonialism, and other so-called forms of racism, Europeans are now expected to open their arms to the refuse of the overpopulated Third World. The colored invasion now transforming Europe is gradually compelling Europeans to awake to what is happening to them and to take steps, however tentative at this point, toward the Reconquest of their imperiled homeland. But no one in their “democratic” ruling elites — these bloodless executors of that transnational super structure whose Hebraic spirit champions the interests of the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals, the established parties, the MSM, the NGOs, and the universities, whose guiding arm is the Jewish dominated banking system headquartered in New York, and whose principal geopolitical orientation is the Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis — no one in these elites has the slightest understanding of what is happening under their very noses, seemingly oblivious or indifferent to what the importation of millions of Africans and Asians means to Europe.

Fortunately for Europe’s scattered remnant (and it was a remnant that reconquered Spain), the cosmocracy is creating a crisis of such massive proportion that it is likely to provoke a catastrophic collapse that will give Whites one last chance to regain control of their destiny.

The Beginning that Stands Before Us

Europeans after 1945 fell into dormition, losing all consciousness of who they were as a people. Like Germans after the original Thirty Years Wars (1618-48), their thirty-year blood expenditure left them totally depleted, forcing them off the historical stage and into the arms of everything that today threatens their existence.

Dormition, though, is not death. This seems especially the case in that the democratists’ utopia has come to rest on increasingly uncertain foundations. Its objective failures, I think it is fair to argue, are more and more imposing themselves on the collective consciousness, while, subjectively, Europe’s once cowed and beaten nations are gradually beginning to reject the democratists’ cosmopolitan agenda, as national-populist parties snip away at the authority of the established regime. The rebellion of May 2005, in which the French, then the Dutch electorates, rejected the proposed EU constitution — and did so against all the concerted forces of the existing system — was a revenge of sorts on May 1945 and on the Judeo-liberal vision of a Europe indifferent to its own genetic-cultural heritage. Other, more meaningful rebellions have also begun to stir.

Bad as things have become, there is thus still reason for hope. Venner stresses that history never ends — wars are never decisively won. Fukuyama had no sooner proclaimed “the end of history” — the undisputed triumph of Wilson’s market model of world order — than Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations predicted that the end of the Cold War’s ideological strife would lead to even more apocalyptic conflicts.

Few defeats, then, are irredeemable, but only as long as the defeated remain heroic: For our vision of the past (our vision of who we were) inevitably shapes what we are to become. Venner’s study is cause, though, not for optimism, but for caution and circumspection. Every European of good stock, he claims, cannot but admire the reckless heroism of Homer’s Achilles, but the greatest Homeric hero is Ulysses — Ulysses of the thousand guises, who used all his patience and cunning to regain his home.

Historically, resistance, reconquest, and renaissance are the Ulyssean work of small groups bound by the asceticism of ancient military orders and inspired by a will for action, thought, and decision. Not coincidentally, the struggles such groups wage create new aristocracies, for war is the most merciless of the selective forces. Only this, Venner believes, will enable us to regain our lands and all that we once were.

As Europeans enter the twenty-first century, one thing alone seems clear: The future will not resemble the present. The unimaginable is already waiting in the wings. But though history is full of the unforeseeable, the forces of culture, race, and history never cease to weight on a people’s destiny, as they intersect with present circumstance to affect the future’s course. In this Venner finds hope. For his Europe (which has existed for 30,000 years) is the Europe whose spirit struggles for all that is noble.

From VNN, February 21, 2007

John Robb

In 1946, George Kennan keyed the famous “Long Telegram,” which identified the Soviet Union as an enemy of the United States. In 1947, the original telegram was reworked and published in Foreign Policy magazine as “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” Together, these documents formed the codex for the U.S. Cold War strategy of containment, and thereby the basis of the eventual U.S. victory in that conflict. Here’s what a “Kennan” might have written for the 21st century.

The Nature of the Threat Posed by Globalization

We are now engaged in a conflict that will dictate whether we succeed or fail in the 21st century. Our adversary in this conflict is, in short, the threat posed by globalization.

This threat is completely alien to our mode of thought. It is unlike previous threats we have faced since there isn’t a single source of ideological opposition: no collective mind or body of thought to contest with, no single enemy that can be named with clarity across all venues. It is, instead, a systemic threat, one posed by the very function of a system we have created for our mutual benefit: a morally neutral, global supernetwork that spans all salient features of modern life, from communications to economics.

The threat posed by the emergence of this global supernetwork comes in three forms. Let’s examine them in detail.

Extreme and Chaotic Behavior

News in the age of the global supernetwork is often startling. It features an endless procession of crushing financial panics, unexpected food shortages, sharp commodity price spikes, brazen terrorist attacks that have shut down major cities from New York to Sao Paulo to Mumbai, and much more. These extreme events form a pattern of behavior that should serve as an alarm. They are an indication that the system we have come to rely upon, the global supernetwork that connects us to each other and all manner of goods and services is entering a period of extreme turbulence, where we careen from crisis to crisis at an increasing rate and incremental severity. At worst, it may even be an indication of a looming catastrophic failure of indeterminable duration.

From the standpoint of systemic analysis, our global supernetwork is what is called a dynamically unstable system, or one so responsive and interconnected (i.e., tightly coupled), that it is prone to operating in an uncontrolled manner. That, unfortunately, is the way we made it. Through an organic growth process that emphasized business needs and economic efficiency, we have built a complex web of instantaneous communications, just-in-time computer systems, daily multi-trillion-dollar financial flows, and much more. Even more, we have geared up the system with extreme levels of debt and energy-use to reach the limits of potential performance.

All of this amped-up connectivity provides our global system with an ability to rapidly shift from task to task as the conditions warrant. However, it also makes the system prone to over-reaction and self-reinforcing feedback loops, such that even small changes in the right conditions can cause the system to careen to extreme behavior. Typically, we build systems like this only when we are sure we can control them. For example, high-performance aircraft are dynamically unstable systems. They are designed to want to maneuver, rather than fly straight and level. However, if they aren’t precisely managed — down to the millisecond — by computerized control systems, they will quickly careen into uncontrolled maneuvers that generate forces exceeding the structural capacity of their airframe. In short, one of these planes will wind up a smoking crater if the computer system fails to control its operation for even a couple of seconds. . . . Read the whole article.

The Dark Side of the Sun

Since World War II, the West has forgotten the Shadow soul of Japan, as Jung would have termed it, the collective impulses that have been repressed by ‘Occupation Law’ and the imposition of democracy. The Japanese are seen stereotypically as being overly polite and smiling business executives and camera snapping tourists. The emphasis has been on the soft counterpart of the Japanese psyche, on the “chrysanthemum” (the arts) as Mishima puts it, and the repression of the “sword” (the martial tradition). The American anthropologist Ruth Benedict wrote of the duality of the Japanese using this symbolism in her The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, to which Mishima referred approvingly. He insisted that Japan return to a balance of the arts and the martial spirit, to what, again referring to Jung, would be called individuation, in allowing the repressed Shadow archetype to reassert itself. Mishima was himself that synthesis of the scholar and the warrior, who rejected pure intellectualism and theory in favor of action.

The Way of the Samurai

Mishima’s aesthetic was the beauty of the violent death, the death of one in his prime, an ideal common in classical Japanese literature. As a sickly youngster, Mishima’s ideal of the heroic death had already taken hold: “A sensuous craving for such things as the destiny of soldiers, the tragic nature of their calling . . .  the ways they would die.”

He was determined to overcome his physical weaknesses. There is much of the Nietzschean ‘Overman’ about him, of self-overcoming personal and social restraints to express his own heroic individuality. His motto was: “Be Strong.” (He had read Nietzsche during the war.)

World War II had a lasting impact on Mishima. Along with his fellow students, he felt that conscription and certain death waited. He became chairman of the college literary club, and his patriotic poems were published in the student magazine. He also co-founded his own journal and began to read the Japanese classics. He associated with a literary group, Bungei Bunka that believed war to be holy. The Japanese Romanticists were another literary group avowing the same principles with which Mishima was in contact. Mishima barely passed the medical examination for military training. He was drafted into an aircraft factory and several other such jobs.

In 1944, he had already had his first book, Hanazakan no Mori (The Forest in Full Bloom) published, a considerable feat in the final year of the war, which brought him instant recognition.

The Will to Health

In 1952, Mishima, established as a literary figure, traveled to the USA. Sitting in the sun in transit aboard ship, something he had been unable to do in his youth because of his weak lungs, Mishima resolved to match the development of his physique with his intellect.

His interest in the Hellenic classics took him to Greece. He wrote that, “In Greece there had been however an equilibrium between the physical body and intelligence, soma and sophia . . . ” He discovered a “Will towards Health,” an adaptation of Nietzsche’s “Will to Power,” and he was to become almost as noted as a body builder as he was a writer. In 1966 Mishima wrote; “The goal of my life was to acquire all the various attributes of the warrior.”

His ethos was that of the Samurai Bunburyodo-ihe: the way of literature (Bun) and the Sword (Bu), which he sought to cultivate in equal measure, a blend of “art and action.” “But my heart’s yearning towards Death and Night and Blood would not be denied.”

He expressed the Samurai ethos: “To keep death in mind from day to day, to focus each moment upon, inevitable death, . . . the beautiful death that had earlier eluded me [World War II] had also become possible. I was beginning to dream of my capabilities as a fighting man.” In 1966, he applied for permission to train at the army camps.

In the spirit of Bunburyodo, Mishima’s novels plotted the course of his life. In 1967, Runaway Horses had as its hero a right-wing terrorist who commits hara-kiri after stabbing to death a businessman.

Already in 1960 Mishima had written his short story Patriotism, in honour of the 1936 Ni ni Roku rebellion of army officers of the Kodo-ha faction who wished to strike at the Soviet Union in opposition to the rival Tosei-ha, who aimed to strike at Britain and other colonial powers. The Kodo-ha officers had mobilized 1,400 men and taken Tokyo. However, Emperor Hirohito ordered them to surrender.

The incident impressed itself on Mishima. In Patriotism the hero, a young officer, commits Hara-kiri, of which Mishima states: “It would he difficult to imagine a more heroic sight than that of the lieutenant at this moment.”

Mishima was again to write of the incident in his play Toka no Kiku and in his 1966 novel The Voices of the Heroic Dead. Here he criticizes the Emperor for betraying the Kodo-ha officers and for renouncing his divinity after the war as a betrayal of the war dead. Mishima combined these three works on the rebellion into a single volume called the Ni Ni Roku trilogy.

Mishima comments on the Trilogy and the rebellion:

Surely some God died when the Ni Ni Roku incident failed. I was only eleven at the time and felt little of it. But when the war ended, when I was twenty, a most sensitive age, I felt something of the terrible cruelty of the death of that God . . .  the positive picture was my boyhood impression of the heroism of the rebel officers. Their purity, bravery, youth and death qualified them as mythical heroes; and their failures and deaths made them true heroes in this world . . . .

In early 1966, Mishima systemised his thoughts in an eighty-page essay entitled Eirei no Koe (The Voices of the Heroic Dead), after which he decided to create the Tatenokai (Shield Society). In this work he asks, “why did the Emperor have to become a human being.”

In an interview with a Japanese magazine that year, he upheld the imperial system as the only type suitable for Japan. All the moral confusion of the post-war era, he states, stems from the Emperor’s renunciation of his divine status. The move away from feudalism to capitalism and consequent industrialisation in the modern state causes relationships to be disrupted between individuals. Real love between a couple requires a third focus, the apex of a triangle embodied in the divinity of the Emperor.

The Tatenokai

The following year Mishima created his own militia, writing shortly before this of reviving the “soul of the Samurai within myself .” Permission was granted by the army for Mishima to use their training camps for the mostly student followers he recruited from several right-wing university societies.

At the office of a right-wing student journal, a dozen people gathered. Mishima wrote on a piece of paper: “We hereby swear to be the foundation of Kokoku Nippon [Imperial Japan].” He cut a finger, and everyone else followed, letting the blood fill to the brim of a cup. Each signed the paper with their blood and drank from the cup. The Tatenokai was born.

The aims of the society were:
(i) Communism is incompatible with Japanese tradition, culture, and history and runs counter to the Emperor system;
(ii) the Emperor is the sole symbol of our historical and cultural community and racial identity; and
(iii) the use of violence is justifiable in view of the threat posed by communism.

The emblem that Mishima designed for the society comprised two ancient Japanese helmets in red against a white silk background. The militia was designed to be a “stand by the army,” described by Mishima as “the world’s least armed, most spiritual army.”

By this time, Mishima felt that his calling as a novelist was completed. It must have seemed the right time to die. He had been awarded the Shinchosha Literary Prize in 1954 for The Sound of Waves and the Yomiuri Literary Prize in 1957 for The Temple of the Golden Pavilion. His novels Spring Snow and Runaway Horses had sold well in 1969, but Mishima started to feel the antagonism of the Left-wing dominated literary elite and his Sea of Fertility [a series of four books encompassing Spring Snow, Runaway Horses, Temple of Dawn, and The Decay of the Angel] received the silent treatment. His sole defender at this time was Yasunari Kawabata, who had received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1968, Mishima missing out because the Nobel Prize committee assumed he could wait awhile longer in favor of his mentor. Kawabata considered Mishima’s literary talent as exceptional.

Mishima wrote of the intellectuals as:

The strongest enemy within the nation. It is astonishing how little the character of modern intellectuals in Japan has changed, i.e., their cowardice, sneering, ‘objectivity.’ rootlessness, dishonesty, flunkeyism, mock gestures of resistance, self-importance, inactivity, talkativeness, and readiness to eat their words.

The Hagakure

Mishima’s destiny was shaped by the Samurai code expounded in a book that he had kept with him since the war. This was the Hagakure, the best-known line of which is:

I have discovered that the way of the Samurai is death.

The Hagakure was the work of the seventeenth-century Samurai Jocho Yamamoto, who as a priest was to dictate his teachings to his student Tashiro. The Hagakure became the moral code taught to the Samurai, but did not become available to the general public until the latter half of the nineteenth century. During World War II, it was widely read, and its slogan on the way of death was used to inspire the Kamikaze pilots. Following the occupation it went underground, and many copies were destroyed rather than have them read by the Americans.

Mishima wrote his own encapsulation and commentary on the Hagakure in 1967. He stated in his introductory remarks that this is the one book that he has referred to continually in the twenty years since the war, and that during the war he had always kept it close to him.

Immediately following the war, Mishima relates that he felt isolated from the rest of literary society, which had accepted ideas that were alien to him. He asked himself what his guiding principal would be now that Japan was defeated. The Hagakure was the answer, providing him with “constant spiritual guidance” and “the basis of my morality.” Like all other books of the war period, this had become loathsome, to be wiped from the memory, but in the darkness of the times it would now radiate “its true light.”

The heroic death is the culmination of the life of the man of action. For the man of action death is the single point of the completion of one’s life. It must be taken at the right time. Mishima found the social and moral criticism of Jocho relevant to post-war Japan.

The Feminization of Society

The feminization of the Japanese male (contemporarily as a result of the influence of American democracy) was, Mishima pointed out referring to Hagakure, also noted by Jocho during the peaceful years of the Tokugawa era. The eighteenth-century prints of couples together hardly distinguish between male and female, with similar hairstyles, cut and pattern of clothes, even the same facial expressions, which make it impossible to tell who is the male and who the female. Jocho records in Hagakure that during his time, the pulse rate that differed between the genders had become the same, and this was noted when treating medical ailments. He called this fumigation “the female pulse.”

Celebrities Replace Heroes

Jocho condemns the idolization of certain individuals achieving what we’d today call celebrity status. Mishima comments:

Today, baseball players and television stars are lionized. Those who specialize in skills that will fascinate an audience tend to abandon their existence as total human personalities and be reduced to a kind of skilled puppet. This tendency reflects the ideals of our time. On this point there is no difference between performers and technicians. The present is the age of technocracy . . .  differently expressed, it is the age of performing artists. It means specialization and therefore the confinement of the individual into a single cog.

The Boredom of Pacifism

Under pacifism and democracy, the individual is literally dying of boredom, rather than living and dying heroically.

Ours is an age in which everything is based on the premise that it is best to live as long as possible. The average life span has become the longest in history, and a monotonous plan for humanity unrolls before us.

After finding his place in society and the struggle is over, there is nothing left for youth, apart from retirement, “and the peaceful, boring life of impotent old age.” The comfort of the welfare state ensures against any need to struggle, and one is simply ordered to “rest.” Mishima comments on the extraordinary number of elderly who commit suicide. Now we might add the even more extraordinary number of youth that commit suicide.

Mishima equates socialism and the welfare state, and finds that at the end of the first, there is “the fatigue of boredom”; whilst at the end of the second there is suppression of freedom. People desire something to die for, rather than the endless peace that is upheld as a Utopia. Struggle is the essence of life. To the Samurai death is the focus of his life, even in times of peace. “The premise of the democratic age is that it is best to live as long as possible.”

The Repression of Death

The modern world seeks to avoid the thought of death. Yet the repression of such a vital element in living will become ever more explosive, as do all such inner-directed impulses. Here the psychologist Jung would concur. Mishima states:

We are ignoring the fact that bringing death to the level of consciousness is an important element of mental health . . . Hagakure insists that to ponder death daily is to concentrate daily on life. When we do our work thinking that we may die today, we cannot help feeling that our job suddenly becomes radiant with life and meaning.

Extremism

Mishima states that Hagakure is a “philosophy of extremism.” Hence, it is inherently out of character in a democratic society. Jocho stated that whilst the Golden Mean is greatly valued, for the Samurai one’s daily life must be of a heroic, vigorous nature, to excel and to surpass. Mishima comments that “going to excess is an important spiritual springboard.” There is something in this that is reminiscent of Nietzsche and of the heroic vitalism expounded in the west by D. H. Lawrence and Ernst Junger and others.

Intellectualism

Of intellectuals, Mishima shares the same contempt as the other Thinkers of the Right who are attuned to the life force or elan vital that transcends the intellectualism that arises from the cities of civilizations in decline. Jocho had stated that:

The calculating man is a coward. I say this because calculations have to do with profit and loss, and such a person is therefore preoccupied with profit and loss. To die is a loss, to live is a gain, and so one decides not to die. Therefore one is a coward. Similarly a man of education camouflages with his intellect and eloquence the cowardice or greed that is his true nature. Many people do not realise this.

Mishima comments that in Jocho’s time there was probably nothing corresponding to the modem intelligentsia. However, there were scholars, and even Samurai themselves, who began to form themselves into a similar class “in an age of extended peace.” Mishima identifies this intellectualism with “humanism.” This intellectualism means, contrary to the Samurai ethic, “one does not offer oneself up bravely in the face of danger.”

No Words of Weakness

The Samurai in times of peace still talks in a martial spirit. Jocho taught that “the first thing a Samurai says on any occasion is extremely important. He displays with this one remark all the valor of the Samurai.”

Mishima comments that there is never a word of weakness uttered by a Samurai.
“Even in casual conversation, a Samurai must never complain. He must constantly be on his guard lest he should let slip a word of weakness.” Another principle; “One must not lose heart in misfortune.”

The Flow of Time

Something of the cycles of a civilization from health to degeneracy and death, as Spengler and Julius Evola showed, are also portrayed in Hagakure by Jocho as “the flow of time.” Mishima points out that whilst Jocho laments “the decadence of his era and the degeneration of the young Samurai,” he observes “the flow of time,” realistically stating that it is no use resisting that flow.

As Jocho stated: “The climate of an age is unalterable. That conditions are worsening steadily is proof that we have entered the last stage of the Law.” This refers to the entering of three progressively degenerate stages according to the Buddhist cycles of history.

Jocho employs the analogy of seasons just as Oswald Spengler did in describing the cycles of a civilisation from birth, flowering, withering and death: “However, the season cannot always be spring or summer, nor can we have daylight forever. What is important is to make each era as good as it can be according to its nature.”

Jocho does not recommend either nostalgia for the return of the past, or the ‘superficial’ attitude of those who only value what is modem, or ‘progressive’ as we call it today.

Julius Evola, the Italian ‘Thinker of the Right,” elaborating on the cyclical nature of history similarly recommended to young activists concerned at the demise of Western Civilization that they cannot return to the past nor prevent the present cycle. They must “ride the tiger,” see out the present era, and to lay the foundations for a cultural renewal.

A Samurai’s Destiny

November 25, 1970: Mishima addresses Japanese soldiers before committing ritual suicide

November 25, 1970 was chosen as the day that Mishima would fulfil his destiny as a Samurai. Four others from the Tatenokai joined him. All donned headbands bearing a Hagakure slogan. The aim was to take General Mishita hostage to enable Mishima to address the soldiers stationed at the Ichigaya army base in Tokyo. Mishima and his lieutenant Morita would then commit Hara-kiri. Only daggers and swords would be used in the assault, in accordance with Samurai tradition.

The General was bound and gagged. Close fighting ensued as officers several times entered the general’s office. Mishima and his small band each time forced the officers to retreat. Finally, they were herded out with broad strokes of Mishima’s sword against their buttocks. A thousand soldiers assembled on the parade ground. Two of Mishima’s men dropped leaflets from the balcony above, calling for a rebellion to “restore Nippon.”

At mid-day precisely Mishima appeared on the balcony to address the crowd. Shouting above the noise of helicopters he declared: “Japanese people today think of money, just money: Where is our national spirit today? The Jieitai [army] must be the soul of Japan.”

The soldiers jeered. Mishima continued: “The nation has no spiritual foundation. That is why you don’t agree with me. You will just be American mercenaries. There you are in your tiny world. You do nothing for Japan.” His last words were: “I salute the Emperor. Long live the emperor!”

Morita joined him on the balcony in salute. Both returned to Mishita’s office. Mishima knelt shouting a final salute, and plunged a dagger into his stomach, forcing it clockwise. Monta bungled the decapitation leaving it for another to finish it. Morita was then handed Mishima’s dagger but called upon the swordsman who had finished off Mishima to do the job, and Morita’s head was knocked off in one swoop. The remaining followers stood the heads of Mishima and Morita together and prayed over them.

Ten thousand mourners attended Mishima’s funeral, the largest of its kind ever held in Japan. “I want to make a poem of my life” Mishima had written at 24 years of age. He had fulfilled his destiny according to the Samurai way:

To choose the place where one dies is also the greatest joy in life.

After his death, his commentary on the Hagakure became a best seller.

Chapter 12 of K. R. Bolton, Thinkers of the Right: Challenging Materialism (Luton, England: Luton Publications, 2003).

Milford H. Wolpoff, Professor of Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Research Scientist, Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan.

In 2008, 60 Minutes ran a story on Spenser Wells, Explorer in Residence for the National Geographic Society, who is mapping the genetic linkages of the world population. The media are naturally eager to plug Wells’ genetic mapping because it supports the “Out of Africa” or “African Eve” hypothesis put forward in recent times by some geneticists. The Liberal Establishment is eager to proclaim that we are all part of a nebulous mass of humanity without any differences other than what can be learned. The interviewer, a blond woman, was pleased to state that she was “once an African” (sic).

While this is the current theory in vogue, the new orthodoxy—to bolster the very old orthodoxy of the “Noble Savage” which has provided an ideological basis for subversive doctrines since the French Revolution—contrary evidence is suppressed. Those geneticists advocating the “African Eve” hypothesis are not in agreement with another branch of science—paleoanthropology, the examination of fossil remains. On the basis of the fossil remains paleoanthropologists maintain that there is a wide divergence of humanity going well back prior to the mere 200,000 years ascribed to different populations by the “African Eve” protagonists. On the basis of the fossil evidence human divergence occurred one to two million years ago, where the features that today mark Europeans, Australian Aborigines, Chinese et al. were already present.

The “out of Africa” hypothesis of human migrations 200,000 years ago was proposed by Wilson and Cann in 1992 (Allan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann, “The Recent African Genesis of Humans,” Scientific American 1992, no. 266: 68-73.).

Multi-Regional Evolution
What paleoanthropologists now call “multiregional evolution” on the other hand postulates racial divergence far beyond that time, on the basis of the fossil evidence. Alan G. Thorne and Milford H. Wolpoff state the polygenic or multiregional basis of modern human origins. They maintain that there is no single recent dispersal for modern humans, that humans originated in Africa and then slowly developed their modern forms in every area of the Old World.

According to the multiregional view, mtDNA is not our only source of evidence. Fossil remains and artefacts represent more reliable evidence. Multiregional evolution traces all populations to humans first leaving Africa 1.8 million years ago. Distinctive populations have maintained physical differences. The features that distinguish Asians, Australian Aborigines and Europeans are said to have evolved over a long period where these peoples are found today.

The hominid fossils from Australasia show a continuous anatomic sequence, with the earliest Australians displaying features seen in Indonesia 100,000 years ago. Similar evidence is seen in northern Asia where one million years old Chinese fossils differ from Javan fossils in ways that parallel the differences between north Asians and Australians today (Alan G. Thorne and Milford H. Wolpoff, “The Multiregional Evolution of Humans,” Scientific American 1992, no. 266: 76-83).

In a typically biased account by P. Shipman in the January 16, 1993 issue of The New Scientist the hypothesis of Thorne and Wolpoff was nonetheless succinctly described among misleading comments about how genetic differences among races play no role in their relationship to society. Some of the relevant descriptions of the Thorne, Wolpoff hypothesis follow:

. . . At what stage in human evolution did the modern races evolve? And can ethnic behaviours and customs act as a selective force in human evolution, helping to shape the physical characteristics of the five or so genetic subgroups of humanity that we call races? Recent attempts to find clues in fossil and skeletal remains have triggered some fierce academic skirmishes.

The main battle centres on the attempts of a small band of researchers to prove that human races are hundreds of thousands of years older than conventional theories would have us believe. Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and his colleagues maintain that the principal human races-Negroids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australian aboriginal peoples and southern African Bushmen-began to evolve well before the appearance of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens. Contrary to mainstream thinking, races did not evolve as a result of modern humans leaving Africa to colonise the rest of the world some 100 000 to 200 000 years ago. Or so Wolpoff argues.

. . . Ironically, in everyday life most of the divisions we recognise are ethnic-that is, concern learned behaviour and cultural traditions rather than biological factors. Yet in science it is race that is often the flashpoint . . . .

To anthropologists and palaeontologists, the question of when in prehistory races began to evolve is no less controversial. Wolpoff, Alan Thorne of the Australian National University and their colleagues would trace racial characteristics as far back as 2 million years ago, to the extinct human species Homo erectus. According to their so-called multiregional hypothesis (see “The case against Eve,” New Scientist, 22 June 1991), anatomically modern humans evolved from this more ancient form simultaneously in different parts of the world, and it was during this period of simultaneous evolution that the racial characteristics of Homo sapiens first emerged . . .

Parallel Evolution
Thorne and Wolpoff are not the first to state the antiquity of human divergence. Carlton S. Coon, head of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, one of the most eminent of physical anthropologists, was one of the more well-known proponents of what is today called “multiregional evolution”, and what was then called “parallel evolution”. Like Thorne, Wolpoff and other sceptics of the “African Eve” hypothesis, Coon stated that today’s races evolved separately, in different continents, over different time periods.
Coon writing in 1962 stated of the origin and early divergence of humankind into races:

Where homo sapiens arose, and Africa is at present the likeliest continent, he soon dispersed, in a very primitive form, throughout the warm regions of the Old World. Three of the five human subspecies crossed the sapiens line elsewhere. If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten. Europe and Asia were our principal schools.

As far as we know, the Congoid line started on the same evolutionary level as the Eurasiatic ones in the Middle Pleistocene and then stood still for a half a million years, after which Negroes and Pygmies appeared as if out of nowhere. . . .

R. Ruggles Gates, at the time the most experienced anthropologist human geneticist, had much earlier said: “Isolation has been the great factor, or at any rate, an essential factor, in the differentiation of races” (R. R. Gates, Heredity in Man [London: Constable, 1929], 295. Gates was the founder of chromosome genetics.).

The multi-regional evolution of separate races almost two million years ago, was the commonly held theory among both geneticists and anthropologists until recent times. The fossil evidence accords with the very early divergence and separate evolution of the primary races.

All Chimps Now?
A major tactic of the One World One Race scientists and their street and media level shock troops is to pompously declare that there is only “one race—the human race” on the basis that all subspecies of man share 99.9 percent of their genes.

This argument purports to establish moral and political equality on the basis of genetic similarity. But similarity is not equality. If our rights and obligations to one another are based on genetic similarity, and genetic similarity is a matter of degree, then so too must be rights and obligations. We would have greater obligations to closer kin than to distant ones. But this is not the sort of egalitarianism desired by the One World, One Race crowd.

Furthermore, the genetic similarity = moral equality position begins to look absurd when applied to non-humans as well. After all, the genetic relationship between chimpanzees and humans is 98.5 percent. Some scientists are now contending on that basis that chimps and humans should now be classified as of the same genus. Pickrell writing in National Geographic News, states:

A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species.

Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. “We humans appear as only slightly remodelled chimpanzee-like apes,” says the study . . .

The term genus describes a very closely related group of similar species, thought to have diverged from one another relatively recently, and is the first grouping above the species level. Common chimpanzees and bonobos have until now been classified into their own genus, Pan.

Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical. . . .

Derek E. Wildman, Goodman, and other co-authors at Wayne State argue in their new study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that given the evidence, it’s somewhat surprising that humans and chimps are still classified into different genera. Other mammalian genera often contain groups of species that diverged much earlier than chimps and humans did, said Goodman. “To be consistent, we need to revise our definition of the human branch of the tree of life,” he said. (J. Pickrell, “Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says,” National Geographic News, May 20, 2003.)

But if chimps belong to the human genus, doesn’t that mean that it is “racism” to buy and sell them? Is it racism to keep them in cages? Does it mean that it is racism not to give them the right to vote, the right to drive, the right to mate with one’s daughter? Is it racism if we do not allow chimps to go to school? Will white people be blamed when chimps cannot pass the first grade? Will the President of the United States demand that “no chimp be left behind”? I am all for humane treatment of chimps, but that does not require that we treat them as human beings.

Behind the “One World, One Race” Propaganda
What has brought about the widespread belief in the African Eve” hypothesis? Clearly it suits the political agenda of today, and has become a new article of faith among orthodox academe.

Just as the myth of the “Noble Savage,” the notion of an Edenic idyll existing among the primitive races untouched by the corrupting influences of European civilization, became the vogue among the so-called educated and cultivated classes of the eighteenth century and provided the ideological impetus for the French Revolution, so the new myth of the “African Eve” is now serving similar interests.

The “African Eve,” “All Africans” dogma provides pseudo-scholarly impetus for the leveling of humankind into a nebulous mass, without identity, easily malleable in the hands of those who seek to establish a “new world order.”

The New Scientist article quoted above started with the obligatory references to “neo-Nazism” and “racism.” Yet what we have arising from the dogma of “One World, One Race” implied in the “African Eve” hypothesis is something vastly more totalitarian. The egalitarian fallacy has wrought more evil—from the guillotine to the Gulag, from the “killing fields” of Pol Pot, to the mass suicides of Jonestown—than the worst excesses of Hitlerism.

If Hitlerism aimed at the creation of a “Master Race,” the One World, One Race ideology aspires to its mirror image: the extermination of all distinct peoples through miscegenation and their replacement with a homogeneous, dumbed-down slave race.

In looking for distant, primitive origins, we might just as well go back beyond the “African Eve” to the primal slime of undifferentiated existence from which all life ultimately emerged, for it is just such a characterless, indistinct blob of humankind that our new slave masters seek to impose through the dysgenic reversal of evolution.

Freedom and justice are best served not through the dead weight of an enforced “equality”, but through the recognition of differentiation, for it is in the differences that humanity can best be appreciated and valued.